gomez guilty

The Gomez issue has taken centre stage in this election. He is now faced with an accusation that he intentionally tried to cast doubts on the integrity of the elections department and the election system. This is a serious charge and the PAP expects the WP to take action against him, even to withdraw him from the election. Far from being a 'distracted' candidate who made an 'unintentional omission' and then apologised for it, Mr James Gomez set out to deliberately set up the Elections Dept with the eventual aim of showing that the Govt had no integrity, said Deputy PM Wong Kan Seng.... The acts show beyond any doubt that Mr Gomez lied.' said Mr Wong. 'This was no small lie.' quote Today. According to George Yeo the WP could still contest theelection without Gomez, with only 4 candidates. Should WP continue to field Gomez, then it stands to be seen as either an accomplice or supporting his wrong doing. Does WP has a choice of not doing anything now on the ground that Gomez has not been proven or found guilty by a court of law? Or is Kan Seng's investigation enough to hang him? And if WP take this stand, can the police arrest him and put him in custody pending trial? Is this a seizable offence? At the moment the WP's position is that it is an honest mistake. While the PAP said it is not an honest mistake but with intent to cause mischief. Can the WP continue to contest the election and wait for a charge to be filed against Gomez?

means testing is now not a PAP promise

Boon Wan has said that he is putting the means testing on hold. There are many practical reasons that have yet to be sorted out and if it is too cumbersome, he might not implement it. I hope he remembers that he has cautioned people from spending lavishly on healthcare, that prudence with their money is very important. People should be very careful to have enough for that rainy day, or days. Nobody knows how much is enough when such things are concerned. The other issue that Boon Wan might want to look into is the concept and policies on how to charge for medicare. Can medicare be priced the way a tv or a car be priced? Is the value of life of a young man different from an old man, a worker different from a millionaire? Should they be charged differently in a government/public hospital when everyone is assumed to be the same? Should people be given more choices on how to spread their little savings in their CPF to pay for medicare? Should the govt insist on how much people should pay and dictate the choices for them?

where is the beef?

After four days of rallies, all the people heard were promises of more good things for the people and one upmanship, or trying to run down the opponent. Is this the quality of debate in a general election of a first world country? For having a first world govt and being paid out of this world salary, the people can expect and must demand more quality and substance. It is time for the govt to go down to brass tacks and tell the people what they are going to do to give the people a better life. Yes Hsien Loong said that the govt is going to tackle rising cost of living issues which they have forgotten in the last few years. Ok it is alright to have amnesia and forget that they have to look after the people's interest all the time and not during a general election. Now the people must want to hear what are the steps the govt is going to take to solve the people's problems. How are transport fares and all other fees going to come down? Or they cannot come down, out of the govt's control as they are determined by external factors? What about high cost of medical fees and school fees? What about quality jobs, unemployement and senior workers? Tell the people what will be done and how and when it will be done. These are not new problems and many thinking heads must have been looking at them and would have worked out something by now. They can't be thinking about them now because there is a general election. And for being paid out of this world salary, the people would expect out of this world solutions. So far nothing out of this world have been said. The solution to pay ever higher medical fees by different schemes through insurance and medisave are nothing enlightening. The fees still go up and the people still pay. Show the people some brilliant solutions to justify the high salary so that the people will all shut up and even respect the govt more. But if the solutions are the standard regular increases in fees and fares to maintain good profits, then there is nothing unusual. Four more days to roll out what the govt is going to do, in details. Staying together, moving ahead must now be translated into follow up actions.

Promises PAP should not keep

The PAP boasts about its record of keeping to its promises. What ever they say or toss out to sound the public, it will become a reality. Good or bad, popular or unpopular, righ or wrong, it has been decided and they will go ahead with it. Transport fare increases, school fees, medical fees etc these are as sure as the sun will rise. Now there are two things which they are saying and I wish that they don't keep to their promises. The first is means testing for hospitalisation. This is an outrageous intrusion into people's private life, their finances and difficulties, all to be exposed to some strangers in the name of means testing. Means testing is simply MEAN. Means testing, with an objective to make sure that people cannot stay in C wards if they have some money, is in conflict with the principles of prudence and thrift. People must not be forced by means testing to spend more than they want. And not to forget the fact that the govt is not going to reduce medical fees but to restructure in the payment only, either from insurance or medisave in the cpf, or by instalments. So no one will know when his savings will be depleted either by one or two or triple hospitalisations. How could forcing people to spend more be in line with Boon Wan's call for the people to be prudent in their spending, in protecting their CPF to last their life time? The next promise that came over the air last night is the intent to merge Hougang to Aljunied GRC. And maybe all single wards that were won by the PAP will also go that way. This will ultimately destroy all single wards and turn the whole islands into big GRCs. This is no good as it deprives independent candidates or small political parties to stand. What ever the propositions or promises, what is lacking is choice, freedom of choice. Once decided, all must follow, and only one choice. And do policy makers really believe that a one rule or one option can fit all, meet the needs of a diverse population? Singaporeans need more choices, more freedom of choice. Private hospital can offer the world best medical care by the world best professionals and charge a couple of million bucks to the willing customer. Let market forces determine how willing the customer is prepared to pay. There is no issue about that. If someone like Wee Cho Yaw wants to pay half a million for an appendicitis ops, if he is happy and the private hospital happy, let it be. But govt hospitals cannot operate on market principles. Exceptions may be allowed say for the A wards to compete aggressively and charge exhorbitantly. That is also fine. But the people must have a choice for managed medical fee based on reasonable cost of medicine, equipment and a salary that is not running away with the market. Produce all the doctors that the market needs and let them go to private practice and make their millions. But their earlier years, maybe 5 to 10 years be in public service and be paid a reasonable and not out of this world salary. Many people's lives depend on them, and many people cannot afford crazy medical fees. The govt must not allow govt hospitals to operate freely like commercial hospitals and allow them to hold at ransom the lives of ordinary people. This is irresponsible. Please don't keep to your promises on these.

pap candidates are sincere in wanting to serve

With the hustings heating up, both sides are trying to tell the voters how good and deserving they are. Everyone is there telling the voters that they are there to serve them, the voters are the boss. Some of the PAP candidates are taking the line that the opposition candidates are like terrorists, appear once in 5 years and disappear after that. That oppposition candidates lack sincerity to want to serve the people, are opportunists. The PAP candidates also present themselves as sincere politicians who have been there in the last 5 years serving the people. That it is in their blood to want to serve the people. Presumably even those who have retired from politics would still be there to serve the people after their terms end and would not disappear like opposition candidates. And PAP candidates will also come out voluntarily to stand for election even if they have not been invited for tea. They are always there with the people's welfare at heart. Tea or no tea, they will come forward unlike opposition candidates who invited themselves into the fray and scurrily run away if not elected. So we have sincere PAP candidates versus not so sincere opposition candidates. Candidates who came out to serve after being invited for tea and candidates voluntarily stepping forward wanting to serve without being invited for tea. Another issue that's quite puzzling to me is that Sitoh was very confident that if elected he will upgrade the lifts in Potong Pasir. According to him the estate is too old and he will apply to HDB for lift upgrading fund. Chiam must be sleeping and did not know that his estate is very old and that he could apply to the HDB for lift upgrading fund. And worst, according to Chok Tong, Chiam has no fund to do upgrading for his estate. I would believe that HDB will allocate upgrading fund to whoever is the MP of the estate and running the town council. I may be wrong.