29
Mar
Estate upgrading linked to elections
Yahoo (via Reuters) - Singapore’s ruling party warns voters against opposition
“I do not want the two constituencies to be left behind, especially Potong Pasir, an old estate. Five years down the road, assuming Chiam do win, there will be no upgrading,” Goh was quoted as saying on state broadcaster Channel NewsAsia’s Web site.
Goh’s comments echo remarks he made before the January 1997 poll, when he told voters that those wards which elected an opposition candidate would be the last in line for upgrading and risked becoming “slums”.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but this looks like a veiled threat to voters in Potong Pasir, that if they were to support Mr Chiam, their estate wouldn’t be upgraded. May I remind the PAP that the money with which they are holding Potong Pasir residents hostage is paid for by the taxpayers, and this includes the residents of Potong Pasir.
Upgrading an estate should be based upon objective criterias made by professional engineers whom are non-politically affiliated parties, who plan the upgrades for the betterment of the people, and not be dangled like a carrot in front of voters during elections by PAP politicians, just because they control the budget with their majority in the parliament. It demeans the voters, treating them like dogs by rewarding ones who obediently follow the commands of the PAP, and depriving voters whom choose the opposition.
In addition, this approach is illegal in many countries, as this is a blatant bribery of the electoral. Naturally, the local media conveniently forgot to highlight this point. It casts undue influence upon the results of the election, so that instead of the election being a choice of doctrine and representative, it is now a simple choice of whether residents want upgrading, or not.
To Mr Goh: If you really have the heart to care for the residents of Potong Pasir, you should immediately push for the estates’ upgrading regardless of their status as an opposition ward.
Read more at Sg_Review, along with some responses.
Update 1:
I find it disturbing that people accept being treated like mindless mules - i.e. bartering for upgrading with their votes, instead of looking at the election as a genuine examination of a representative in parliament. There is a lot of mis-education to undo indeed.
Oh well, at least everyone is starting to write about local politics in their blogs. Hopefully, as time goes by, there will come to rise a generation of Singaporeans whom are not purely regurgitating the puke of the state-controlled media.
Update 2:
Bing De has written verbosely about this issue.
[tags]singapore elections, singapore, gerrymandering[/tags]
on March 29th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
For one, lets not forget that this is Singapore. Prior to the last General Election, these two areas have been largely passed over for upgrading. PAP obtained an increase in percentage of votes resulting in near misses.
Following that, NEL came along and MRT stops were situation at Potong Pasir and Hougang.
This tactic reeks of stick and carrot. The wards were not PAP’s and the new government, with its overwhelming majority decided to pass both for upgrading as a form of ‘punishment’ (for lack of a better word).
After the last GE, the government decided to introduce the carrot, that is the NEL while maintaining the stick which is no significant upgrading.
Now that the next GE coming, this method is reemphasized to ‘remind’ voters.
Now, whether this is ethical or not is something that probably will not be addressed. As usual, the PAP would come up with a very good reason to deflect it off, if this argument ever reaches the ears of the members at all.
What is most crucial is whether the people living in Potong Pasir and Hougang are willing to give up their current MPs in exchange for these upgrading.
What is also interesting is whether the new government (most likely to be dominated by the PAP again) would upgrade the 2 wards, regardless of whether it wins both wards.
However, it would be interesting to point out that quite a number of residents at Potong Pasir are not keen on the idea of upgrading, citing reasons like increased cost of living etc.
on March 29th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
It is not so much about the upgrading per se as it is the mind games that are happening right now.
Even as I write this comment, the television channels are advertising a program created in “tribute” to the Prime Minister.For the record, the current PM has yet to have enough time in service at this capacity, yet the media is already making shows in tribute to him. If the absurdity doesn’t show, they have been extremely successful in their brainwashing.Back to this: no doubt that some might dislike the idea of upgrading, but linking it to elections is not only illegal in most countries (bribery), but also ethically wrong, as it involves manipulating the electorate through materialistic rewards. That the media keeps quiet about this whole debacle doesn’t make it legal.
Update:
My apologies, I got it wrong. Time to dig my ears again
The show is actually a talk show that lets people to post questions to the PM.
However, my question is, why didn’t the media organise this earlier? Why wait until now?
on March 29th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
Tribute? I thought it is just a talk show in which some people get to talk to the PM?
on March 29th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
That was what I heard in the transcript, unless I heard it wrongly. I’ll take a look at the commercial again, when it comes on to confirm.
There is too much smooching up to the PAP in the media, especially in the Straits Times. No wonder we are ranked 140 out of 167 in the Reporters Without Borders report for 2005.
on March 29th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Would you sacrifice some of your civil rights for security? Question of the month of May. Mega Marvel comics event with political allegorary and this very wonderful tagline.
on March 30th, 2006 at 4:29 am
pkchukiss A response to the comment you left at my blog .yeah.There’s nothing wrong with being an employee but as Robert Kiyosaki say , one of the most important thing of financial education is to give people more choices.But in reality,most people are offered only one choice to work , to be an employee.To get 5Cs , (Singapore version of the American Dream) ,to get into debt.That’s the sad fact of life.MLM is one way to be financially free but of course there are other ways ! =)
Pkchukiss: Brother, this is the wrong place to place your reply.
on March 30th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Lets put it into perspective. First, we look at who are voting for the party.
Some are content with the way things are going now, namely a relatively good standard of living. Thus, most would give their votes to the party which had been responsible for bringing Singapore to its current state. Too much change could possibly have an adverse effect, politically, economically or socially which could possibly affect what they are doing. These people are usually the middle-class, businessman and what have you.
There are those who actually does not care much about the political scene. They are more concern with simple bread and butter issues. If a party can assure them what they want with regard to these issues, for example lowering taxes for some things, then they would vote for that party. These are usually the heartlanders, some are so-called aunties and uncles getting by, making a living. These people usually would fall prey to the PAP because as the majority party, it is likely to go through if what they would have proposed before the General Elections.
There are also those who are politically immature or just do not care about the political process. As long as they can continue to do the things they like, then they would be content with the government, hence their votes. These are usually the 21 year olds who have just gotten their voting rights.
Now of course, there are those who never got the chance to vote at all because of the absence of an opposition party in that ward.
Unless the PAP does something drastically wrong, which is rather unlikely for the moment, people will just go on voting it into the parliament with an overwhelming majority.
Then of course, there are simply not enough opposition parties and members to outright challenge the PAP. The fact that these parties have to gather and lay out plans in order to prevent three-way battles shows how embattled these parties are.
Which brings to the point: Why are there so few people who join the opposition cause? If people are truly discontent with the process and want change, then the best way is to join the opposition cause, no matter whether the opposition has been stifled or not. The fact that intellects continue to join the PAP in numbers shows that political discontent may not be as prevalent as thought.
This could very well be due to the groups of people i had described earlier. Status quo is the order of the day.
The reason i still support the PAP is that with the power it undeniably control, it could potentially be doing something worse than stifling the opposition. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. However, despite not having the obligation to do this, the PAP-dominated government still provided 5 seats for NMPs from the opposition party.
If you want examples of how things can be worse, i can gladly provide them. That will be another topic for another time.
on March 30th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
They already are:
There is more, but I would like to save it for another blog post.
Providing 5 NMP seats is like a dictator choosing a puppet parliament to rubber-stamp his whims: the 5 seats are chosen by the PAP: there is nothing different if you have swept all the seats in parliament. The 5 seats are provided for the sake of aiming to appease those who want actual debate in the parliament, and not out of good-will.
The duty of a citizen is to elect his representative responsibly, after careful consideration of the candidate’s suitability and doctrine, rather than be enticed by goodies and upgrading. Not doing so tantamounts to defrauding our next generation if voters elect a representative without clear consideration.
Currently, the situation: PAP sweeps enough seats to remain in power after all these gerrymandering; they dictate the direction, and the majority of Singaporeans just float by like a leaf on the water.
I am not saying that you shouldn’t vote for the PAP, but I ask that your vote takes into consideration the doctrine of your representative, his plans and direction, and not be swayed by promises of freebies, which always come out of your own pocket!
on March 30th, 2006 at 7:28 pm
Learnt a new phrase today: This kind of bribery is called “pork barrel politics”
on March 30th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Your examples are very true and do reflect the unfairness to the opposition parties in this country.
However, the media should take the discredit for how it potrays the political situation. Whether the PAP-dominated government has an influence on the media is somewhat debatable and is another topic all by itself.
If memory does not serve me wrong, the shifting of the electoral boundaries is in the Constitution and is a must for every General Election. This is done to reflect the actual population in the electoral wards, if you get what i mean. Now, surely the COnstitution is larger than even a dominant party.
Actually, opposition party member, Mr. Chee Soon Juan did file defamation cases against the former PM Goh Chok Tong and former SM Lee Kuan Yew but the case was overturned. Suggesting that the Law favours the dominant party’s heads would no doubt be very controversial and is another topic for another day.
As for the worse things that a dominant party can do, it aint as mild as what you have laid out. Examples are plenty in countries around the world.
on March 30th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
The local media is influenced by the PAP, as research into the archives of media history will show. This stems from the 1960s, when Mr Lee Kuan Yew forced the consolidation of newspapers and other publications, and closed down those which printed opinions that he disapproved of. The reason he gave was that it was “for the good of the nation”. I will try to find the archive and post it. The media is not as innocent as it looks, definitely.
While the constitution provides for the adjustment of electoral boundaries, it provided the perfect opportunity and excuse for the smaller wards to be integrated into GRCs, which bounded dissenting wards with more stable PAP wards. That is gerrymandering.
A side note about the constitution. This very constitution may be amended by a 75% majority in Parliament, unlike most countries which require a referendum. Your note about the constitution being above the PAP doesn’t hold, since it holds the 75% majority required to amend the constitution. To be frank, our constitution is also controlled by the PAP.
Changes to the constitution need to be published in the government gazette, but doesn’t need to be reported by the news, though when the constitution was first conceived, it took the media coverage as a foregone solution.
Just because they are the dominant party, doesn’t mean you should vote for them. See previous comment about the duties of a citizen.
Among the things a dominant party could do are:
There was a person who was held in detention without being charged for 20 over years, and had only been released in the recent years. I’ll see if I can dig up the archives for these. Apparently, the media doesn’t even cover this incident (that I even have to dig into less known sources for this news!), which would reasonably interest anybody who is into current affairs.
on March 30th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
Detention without trial, no local news coverage
Unrelated: An article about state control of the media and the rise of the Internet
Aggregator: sg_review
on March 31st, 2006 at 9:35 am
Other things a dominant party can do or have:
Beating up of opposition figures (Nepal, Burma)
Corruption and graft (Prevalent in many parts of Africa)
Actually, i must admit that it was my mistake to say i support the party because it could do worse things but did not. I should say i support the party for being able to bring Singapore to a state where there is high standard of living. It aint easy. Singapore had no resources, a small but not that educated popoulation and was in turmoil, with threat from the comummunists and other neighbouring countries.
Might i add that possibly if things turned out another way, we would not have been having this conversation. For one, we may not have been born. For another, we could instead be holding demonstrations every other day because Singapore is a poor country and we want to drive the government out. You know what i am driving at?
Not to sidetrack from the argument, the examples digged out are there for all to see. Perhaps when Singapore citizens are more politically mature in the future, they would look at these cases and make something out of it to the government.
For now, perhaps we can watch the talk with the PM and see just what kind of issues would be raised. No doubt, it would be bread and butter ones.
Point taken for the Constitution and the media. It would seems that my knowledge of Singapore is paltry at best.