Archive for April, 2011

Wise words from a former Civil servant

April 30, 2011 Leave a comment

This post is on facebook, and it really brought out the main issues with PAP’s policies. My comments are in red :


On Social Fabric and Economic growth:

“When Mr Lim Siong Guan was Permanent Secretary for Defense, he came to see me one day to discuss the concept of total defense. We both agreed that total defense would be to embrace economic defense, social defense, psychological defense, and from MINDEF’s point of view, the bedrock of military defense. Having spent most of my career in the economic ministries, I thought that a strong economy is the bedrock of everything else, including miltary defense. We agreed to disagree.

I would just end by paraphrasing Lord Keynes, who said that even the wisest statesmen is often the slave of some defunct philosopher. In plain English, the politician is often misled by the economist. So, for those of us who profess to be professional economists, heavy is our responsibility. In the spirit, I urge my fellow economists in government to accept that sometimes we can grievously wrong.”

In all, it’s simply what I had mentioned in my previous post. Managing a nation does not solely means growing the economy.

On Public Housing:

“MR Howe Yoon Chong, the first CEO of HDB, once said to ministerial colleagues by proposing we close down the HDB as it had then housed some 80 per cent of the people. He thought that we should leave it to the private sector to build for the other 20 per cent.

But old habits, particularly success, die hard, and the HDB was not shut down.

So from providing a first home for a family, we went on to give them a second bite of the cherry by giving a second loan to upgrade from a 3- to a 4- or 5-room flat.

As property prices were rising in the 1980s, there was a good cheer all round. The HDB thought that had an endless queue for new flats and went into overdrive. But the party had to end.

The Asian financial crisis in the mid-1990s led to a sharp and sudden fall in demand, particularly those who were hoping to make money by upgrading. The queue disappeared, and the HDB was left with unsold flats, some 17,000 units. HDB would have gone bankrupt years ago if it had been a private company. But as a statutory board, it was kept afloat by MOF, which paid up the tab.”

MOF helped HDB survived using taxpayers’ money. A senior civil servant also agreed with me that our public housing policy had lost it’s initial mission and became overly complicated. After the Asian Financial Crisis, we noted that Mah Bow Tan stopped building too many flats for fear of oversupply. Then the floodgate for foreigners opened and the suddenly the million dollar paid and self-praised-highly-capable government surprised itself by the spike in housing demand pushing up house prices. To be on the safe side, Mah Bow Tan introduced the BTO system where only committed buyers can justify a building of a new flat. But because the highly intelligent Mah Bow Tan did not understand that there are so many foreigners flooding into the country and he does not understand the simple logic that build-to-order building system takes 4-5 years to build, supply and demand is always off by 4-5 years, creating constant pressure on high prices.  

On Land prices:

“Relying on the concept of opportunity cost, the Chief Valuer, at the behest of either the Ministry of National Development or Ministry of Trade and Industry (I am not sure which), has valued land in Singapore using Raffles Place land as the benchmark. The assumption was that every square meter of land in any part of Singapore has the potential of Raffles Place.

I was in the Ministry of Finance and had no inkling of what was happening when the Ministry of Community Development and Sports (MCDS) came running to us to give them a supplementary budget to help voluntary bodies and charity bodies to pay their substantially increased rentals on premises going to the Land Office. Similarly, EDB asked for more funds to help cope the higher cost of MNCs setting up water fabrication plants in Singapore. We kidded ourselves into thinking that we are the only intelligent people in the world and ignored the fact that other countries would offer their land to such companies.

As a result, PSA priced itself out of the market for transhipment. Unwittingly, we gave its Malaysian rival, Tanjong Pelepas, the window of opportunity.

One of the main causes of Singapore’s loss of competitiveness in recent years is our perverse land pricing policy. What did it achieve to send prices of land valuations so high? It was no more than a muddle headed book keeping practice. MOF paid out subsidies to MCDS and EDB, which were returned to MOF as land revenue. In one mistaken manoeuvre, overall land prices shot up and Singapore lost part of its competitiveness.”

Again, this statement agrees with my previous statement that land prices for public good should not be allowed to priced itself upwards due to market forces. And again, this proves that this land pricing policy had contribute to our high rising HDB flat prices.

On GST and handouts:

“We should concentrate on helping the poorest 5 to 10 per cent of the population, instead of handing out a general largesse. Forget about asset enhancement, Singapore shares and utility rebates. You’re dancing to the tune of the gorrilla.

I don’t understand the urgency of raising the GST which increases the tax on the lower income people. Why tax the lowly paid then return to them in an aid package? It demeans him and creates a growing supplicant class who habitually hold out palms. This is not the way to treat people. Despite the fact that we are not a welfare state, we act like one of the most welfarish in the world. You should instead appeal to their sense of pride on reliance.

I think political courage is needed here. And my instinct is the Singaporeans will respect you for that. Even if the PAP’s percentage win dropped from 75 per cent to 55 per cent, it is still worth it for the sake of Singaporeans.”

Let’s face it. The introduction of GST is to create additional tax revenue so that the government can be allowed to keep income and corporate tax low so as to attract foreign investments and ‘foreign talents’. Hong Kong, the closest comparison to Singapore offers a lower tax system and has no GST (as a true democracy, the citizens refusal to endorse HK’s GST plan is heard). Yet, we don’t see the HK administration suffering from fiscal deficit. Where does all that tax revenue goes to anyway? Who really profits from this GST? It’s the government, the rich and (mostly foreign) MNC.

On different voices and education:

“Singapore is like Sparta, where the top students are taken away from their parents as children and educated. Then, from each cohort, they each select their own leadership, ultimately electing their Philosopher King. When I first read Plato’s Republic, I was totally dazzled by the great logic of this organizational model where the best selects the best.

But when I reached the end of the book, it dawned on me that while the starting point was meritocracy, the end result was dictatorship and elitism. Once selected, only God can remove the Philosopher King. If he is a good dictator, then all is fine and good. But if he’s bad, the whole state collapsed. In the end, Sparta, a martial state known for being disciplined and elitism, crumbled.

On the other hand, there was Athens, a city of philosophers known for diversity and different school of thoughts. Most people consider philosophers bloody useless fellows but at least they dare to argue and think. At the end of the day, Athens survived. Sparta is long forgotten. What does this tell us about OB markers?

So SM Lee has to think very hard what legacy he wants to leave for Singapore and the type of society he wants to leave behind. It is to be a Sparta, a martial, well-organized, efficient society but in the end, very brittle; or an Athens, untidy, chaotic and argumentative, but which survived because of its diversity of thinking?

Personally, I believe that Singaporeans are not so “kuai” (Hokkien for docile) to become a Sparta: This is our saving grace. As a young senior citizen, I very much hope that Singapore will survive for a long time, but as an Athens. It is more interesting and worth living and dying for.”

Highlights how dangerous it is for us to have only one ruling party with group think and refusal to listen to the people as elitism crept in. Singaporeans reading this blog, are you sure you want your future descendants to suffer due to narrow-mindedness and conservative thinking? 


Excerpts from the book Mandarin And The Making Of Public Policy, A: Reflections By Ngiam Tong Dow

by Tay, S. C. Simon

About This Book

Ngiam Tong Dow served in the elite Singapore Administrative Service for more than 40 years. His vision, foresight and leadership in economics and finance have helped transform Singapore into a text-book case in development economics. As a senior civil servant and “mandarin”, he has worked closely with the founding political leaders of Singapore including Goh Keng Swee, the late Hon Sui Sen, and served under two Prime Ministers, Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong. In this book, he reflects on his experiences and shares personal anecdotes and perceptive insights of the early decades of Singapore. He also boldly questions some of the policies of government and emerging trends in the country to suggest how Singapore must change to survive and thrive in the future.


My takeaway from this book:

If a book on a senior civil servant SEVEN YEARS ago still resonates and remains relevant today, has Singapore made any real progress (other than economic and population growth)?

I urge you readers to read up this book, be it buy it or borrow from the local library. 


Haven’t felt so nationalistic in a long while

April 30, 2011 1 comment

Imagine a time where every where you turn is a Singaporean and speaks with a local accent. Imagine the nationalistic fervor that you once felt when you stood in the national stadium for National Day. I managed to reminisce that feeling when I attended the Workers’ Party rally at Serangoon stadium. For once in a long time, I felt like home.

Nationalism is a dirty word in an open society like Singapore. Somehow, it is linked with the word Protectionism. It insinuate unwillingness to be open to foreign elements. Yet, we see how important cohesiveness is in countries like Japan when the tsunami struck and Korea when it jumped back to an economic power a few years ahead of schedule after the Asian Financial Crisis. Do Singaporeaneans felt less nationalistic nowadays? I must say I do. There is so much resonance when a student in NUS told Goh Chok Tong that he doesn’t know what he is protecting nowadays as an NSmen.

I certainly agree with WP East Coast GRC candidate Eric Tan when he said we, as Singaporeans, are not anti-foreigners by nature. It’s the influx of foreigners that made us anti-foreigners. When I looked around in my office and see that less than 40% are Singaporeans, I felt like a minority back in the United States. Then we see news of how new citizens supported the PAP (reported in chinese newspaper zaobao: showing how much love the ruling oparty has for foreginers. The question we now wish to ask is: Why is the ruling party so much more welcoming of the foreigners, giving them more opportunities than their own citizens? Why is the ruling party making so much efforts to attract and kowtow to foreigners pushing away their own talents?

I looked around my office and think about the foreign classmates and colleagues I had. Are they really considered talents? In my opinion, I don’t think so. Then why are all of them allowed into Singapore? Aren’t we being too open? The PAP has lost it. After going to the rally and experiencing so much resonance with what the WP candidates had said, I conclude that the PAP had lost it.

The the drum rolls–Hougang Rally 2011!

April 28, 2011 Leave a comment

The picture says it all:

WP Hougang Rally 28th April 2011

For more pictures, refer to this link, which shows the pictures of the rally of WP, and some other party (including the MIW of course):

Such is the massive turnout at the rally of the most successful opposition party in Singapore to date. Turnout was also impressive at other opposition parties’ rally. On the other hand, attendance is pathetic at the rally of the ruling party. What is more important, however, is whether the mass turnout will translate into votes. Support for the opposition is ‘cool’. It’s more interesting to hear what the opposition has to say than listen to the boring incumbents. Everyone loves a dark horse. But ultimately, what matters more is who you would cast your vote to.

There is still a very large part of Singaporeans who are either politically apathetic, or are happy with the way the policies have turn out. Increasing housing prices might be a major issue for this election, but professions such as property agents and well-heeled citizens who are profiting and benefiting from the economy’s rise will no doubt continue their support for the ruling party. The burgeoning Gini coefficient suggest the polarizing of the country as a group of the nation could ride on the economic growth while a rather significant group is being left out in the cold. While there is much hype about this years GE, I am skeptical on whether Singaporeans will push for a change in our political history.

What is clear though, is the ruling party is incapable of rousing feverish support from the people, unlike what it used to be back in the 70s and 80s. Supporters for the opposition camp are generally more outspoken, more passionate and more gunho than the conventionalist and traditionalist. This might be due to the long oppression of an alternative voice yearning to be heard.

The advancement of technology, the explosive growth of the internet, and the birth of new social media is leveling the ground for an equal playing field. The PAP’s control of the old media would only irk the increasingly educated and IT savvy population. Why else would there be so many alternative voices shouting and blasting in the online world? To date, the PAP has prove to be a poor user of social media while the opposition camps have been using social media to their favor. The ruling party should realize that attempts to monopolize information in this era of technology and internet is fruitless and will only render them distrust and distancing from the citizens.

Tomorrow’s Workers’ Party rally at Serangoon will be the one to attend. I will, won’t you?

Categories: Signs

General Election: Officially kicked off

April 27, 2011 Leave a comment

Today is a very exciting day as news and twitter/ facebook updates on the elections took the country by storm. My office was not spared the excitement as the Singaporeans (well…less than 50% are Singaporeans….) geared for one of the fiercest competed competition in political history.

It is actually quite an interesting video. For a while, I actually felt that the PAP candidates were kind of pathetic. There is no charisma, no anchor message, no sense of sincerity. Then there is the unforgiving boos and jeers from the opposition camp supporters. Goh Chok Tong and Tin Pei Ling must have wished that given a choice, they would leave the stage as soon as possible.

I think the Worker’s Party made a very wise decision to concentrate firepower on the weakest GRC. It is strategic to leave Hougang due to the long support of the citizens staying there and it’s best to take on the ruling party heads on given the unfair gerrymandering PAP did in slicing up the Hougang constituency into smaller pieces, effectively weakening the WP’s core supporters. Such dirty tricks are not welcome, and the ruling party risk their many scheming tricks being used on them in the future.

We have already seen SDP trying to find fault with one PAP nominee for stating in the nomination form as ‘unemployed’ when in actual fact she is still serving her resignation notice period. Of course, given that the government, the civil service, and the nominees for election are the same body, it is of no wonder the PAP gets to craft and control the rules. Should an opposition end in the other side of the coin, I do not hesitate to believe that the PAP would take this opportunity to prevent an opposition to seek nomination for election successfully.

Is this the kind of leadership you want?

Categories: DESPICABLE MEANS!, Signs

The many hats HDB flats need to wear

April 26, 2011 Leave a comment

Our public housing, one of the most unique programs in the world, is being utilized in so many ways, it’s becoming contradictory to it’s many purposes. How does the government explains how a single policy seek to fulfill so many aims? I have been thinking through this messy policy that admittedly is not an easy issue. While I am no housing expert, I would like to offer some (naive it may be) views.

Question 1: The aim of public housing is affordable housing for the mass public. As such, should it be looked upon as an asset?

The problem with treating public housing as an asset is the public part becomes privatized. When the government offers public housing, they are essentially subsidizing apartments for people who can’t afford. In many countries, only the poor lives in public housing that looks like slums. But when you subject public housing to market forces (such as in the resale market), the ‘subsidized’ price will rise to the highest point bearable in the market (if you believe the market is efficient, which seems like it). What you end up with is no longer ‘subsidized pricing’. The public housing essentially behaves like the private housing market. Volatility went up and speculative activities becomes encouraged. Many studies have been done to prove the high correlation between public housing market and private housing market in Singapore. How then does the HDB continues to fulfill it’s aim of offering ‘affordable’ public housing?

Affordable is a relative term. Flats cost more than double what it used to be 20 years ago. With property prices (both resale and new launches) rising much higher than the country’s medium income (of around S$2500), has the term ‘affordable’ deteriorate? Increasing inflation, increasing cost of living and a low medium income exacerbated by a high Gini deficient can only mean one thing: Singaporean’s disposable income is getting lesser, at least according to the medium salary. With lower purchasing power, how can there be an increase in the quality of life?

If the government truly and sincerely wish to offer affordable flats, shouldn’t the more rational approach be selling at cost price without all that speculative market forces so as to keep prices stable? The youtube interview above is misleading in suggesting those people with flats are happy with rising value HDB flats and only those seeking to buy one would be unhappy. It is not between the haves and have-nots. The entire issue is between the speculators — people who seek to profit from housing as an asset class, and those who really need a roof over their head.

Question 2: Should HDB flats be viewed as a retirement tool that can be monetized for retirement?

Singapore has the unique feature of having more than 85% of the population living in public housing because of historical reasons. When the country first gain independence, there is an urgent need to house an otherwise unhygienic and crowded population. The policy then is to create ownership of houses, with the aim of instilling a sense of belonging and feeling invested in the country’s growth. Before you know it, the majority of the population is already living in public housing.

However nice the word ‘ownership’ sounds, we need to bear in mind that we are merely leasing HDB flats from the government, subject to a 99 year lease and HDB regulations. Breaking those HDB laws such as renting out to undesirable people could mean a purchase you spent half your life savings on to be force taken back by the government. Where then is this ‘ownership’?

Most of us, minus speculators does not shift houses frequently, at least within the public housing spectrum (upgraders is another issue altogether). We stay in our flats for a very long time, often building up emotion links and retiring in them. It is more than just a house. It is home. Why then would we want to sell our flats when we got old? I don’t agree that HDB flats can be used as a monetizing tool. There are 2 main reasons:

“Selling a larger flat for a smaller one when one gets old because the children should have grown up and either have the financial ability to sustain the flat and your retirement, or you no longer need that much space” may sounds totally rational. But with the ever smaller family size in Singapore’s demographics, we see a huge financial burden on caretakers. Retiring into a smaller house would also mean a downgrade in life quality.

Secondly, if HDB flats are to be used as a retirement tool, that would mean for every batch of retirees, there would be an exodus of 3-5 room flats for sale, creating downward pressures on bigger flat prices. And since these retirees need somewhere to live, they would need to purchase smaller 1-2 room flats. This in turn creates upward pressures on smaller flat prices. With an aging population, if HDB flats are really monetized for retirement, we end up with a scenario whereby the retirees are selling at a lower price for their bigger flats and buying at a higher price for their smaller flats. The benefit for moving into a smaller flat, while still positive, would be smaller. Moreover, it is a fact that there are not that many 1-2 room flats available at the moment, and we are already starting to see the babyboomers generation retiring. It is also an obvious fact that people are not selling their houses for retirement if they could.

Question 3: Lee Kwan Yew commented that houses are expensive because they are nicer and elegantly built. Are houses actually getting better?

I disagree with this statement. Everyone knows that in the attempt to house more people, flats nowadays are shrinking at an impossible rate. A 3 room flat in the 80s can have the same space area as a 4 room flat today. I see how a typically long and wide kitchen of older flats got sliced into half in flats built in the 90s and then got sliced again into half in new flats in the Sengkang and Ponggol area. Bed rooms are now so small a King size bed can hardly go through the door of the master bedroom. In fact, for my brother’s bedroom, there isn’t even enough space to put in a proper bed. We ended up with a sofa bed instead. How then are these much more expensive new flats ‘nicer and more elegant’? Flats are now so dense and compact there isn’t much greenery and breathing space to speak of. I see that we are marching towards the path of Hong Kong and Tokyo, and I can’t bear to imagine how flats would look like in the future should the population be allowed to increase exponentially further (at last count, Lee Kwan Yew said we need more than 900,000 foreigners not counting S and E pass foreigners. That means adding more than 1 million or 20% of the current population; and already 1/3 of the current population are foreigners.)

Question 4: This is a more draconian statement that not many people, especially non-citizen might like – HDB flats should only be sold to Singaporeans, period.

When you introduce more than 1.5 million foreigners into the country with an increasing number of PRs given out, you are obviously increasing demand for public housing in the resale (and rental) market. Being foreigners, and some rich ones such as expatriates, demand for housing is extremely inelastic as unlike young Singaporeans who can continue to stay with their parents, PRs need a house more urgently and is willing to pay more to secure one.

If HDB flats are subsidized to begin with, why should non-citizens be allowed to benefit from this ‘low-cost’ housing? Higher demand for rental increases rental rate which in turn increases attractiveness in investing in public housing that can be used to generate rental income. Demand for public housing would then rise expectantly, asserting upward pressure on prices from direct demand (need for a house) and indirect demand (want a house as an investment tool).

Mah Bow Tan recently rebutted WP’s Low Thia Kiang’s proposal to sell new flat launches at near cost price, giving the reason that the ‘large supply’ of new flats will cause general housing prices to fall, thereby hurting current flat owners. Going by the same logic, an increasing large group of new citizens and PRs would generate a significant pressure on general housing prices to rise. We have already seen the effects taking place with resale flat prices going into the range of $1 million. All the news published on such high COV only creates higher price expectation, distorting the market equilibrium prices further.

What Singapore lacks, is a private housing market. A market that serves housing priced between a public housing and a private housing such as condominiums. Public housing should only be offered to Singaporeans and the private housing market can be catered to non-Singaporeans. We see an obvious market given the large disparity in price between a HDB flat (~S$3-400,ooo) and a condominium (S$700k-S$2 million) in the heartlands. The recent DBSS scheme seems to act as a component to fill in this gap but is yet to be seen if the resale market for DBSS (since it’s only launched a year ago) would lie towards HDB flat pricing or condominium pricing.

The reason for having this thought is because I think public housing prices should be kept as stable as possible keeping external market forces out of the picture (internal market forces is entirely fine). Foreigners should not be allowed to influence and distort a public housing scheme. This is dangerous because should Singapore’s economy weaken and foreigners start to leave the island for greener pastures, we will experience the entire opposite of today’s increasing housing prices. With such a large foreigner population, the movement of this particular group should not be ignored.

And we all know a deflationary economy is an even nastier evil than an inflationary one.


I will continue to add on to this rather long post.

Smear Tactics: What’s new?

April 26, 2011 Leave a comment

Vivian Balakrishnan had started a very dirty and despicable smear tactic against SDP’s Vincent Wijeysingha, insinuating his ‘hidden agenda’ as a gay-oriented Singaporean. Since when does sexual orientation has to do with one’s capability and loyalty to the country? Does the PAP wants to imply that all gays and lesbians are non-righteous, only having the ultimate agenda in repelling the age-old Penal Code 377A?

The local media again gives such loop-sided logic articles that any educated personnel would be incensed. However, the sad true is many conservative and older people will be persuaded in PAP’s attempt to demonized their opponents. So much for Goh Chok Tong’s claim to have a ‘clean fight’. The Minister for MCYS, a ministry created to help forward youth’s advancement, only ended up in unnecessary accusations against a group of marginalized individuals.

Sexual orientation has no correlation with capability and heart to serve the public. The most violent and evil characters in history happens to be mostly heterosexual. On the other hand, there are exemplary examples of highly intelligent and capable gays such as the famous John Maynard Keynes, who crafted an entirely new school of thought in Economics. Closer to home, Lee Kwan Yew’s very own grandson Lee Hxxxxxx (I decided it’s best to leave the name censored) happens to be openly gay as a student back in the United States. Does that make him any less capable? As one of the top students, he clutched much sought after jobs with investment banks such as Goldman Sachs. While there are people who might think that his pedigree would have given him some unfair advantage, I do concur about his high intelligence, his eloquence and charismatic personality. Does being gay makes him any less human? What would Vivian Balakrishnan  say if ever Lee Kwan Yew’s grandson decided to run for political office?

It is extremely disappointing that the local media and a minister, who was once thought to be a new hero who would stand up to what he believes rather than kow-towing to the old brains, would stoop to such low levels in engaging smearing tactics against their much less resourceful and less powerful opponents. Such campaign are not only downright despicable, it contributes no value to the nation.

This episode shows us the worrying signs of how ingrained it is in the ruling party, total blind compliance and losing touch with the ground. What we see is an ungraceful, ungentlemanly scheming and narrow minded leadership that could very much threaten the nation’s advancement and survival in the future.


Freak result? What freak result?

April 23, 2011 Leave a comment


SINGAPORE : Education Minister Ng Eng Hen has warned of a possible freak result if Singaporeans vote the opposition into power in the coming polls.

He said that the opposition must look to form an alternate government, and not just offer alternative voices in Parliament.

Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng took issue with the opposition sharing candidates.

They were speaking at the launch of Heights Park in Bishan-Toa Payoh Group Representation Constituency (GRC) on Saturday.

After meeting with residents at the opening of Heights Park, Education Minister Ng told reporters that voters need to ask themselves who will best serve their needs.

He said Singaporeans should only vote for the opposition if they believe the opposition can run the country better than the People’s Action Party (PAP).

Dr Ng said: “Every election, it is never about just alternative voices in Parliament, because your vote is very powerful and for every General Election you are deciding on who runs the country. If it is just for alternative voices, the NCMP scheme allows for that, you can raise anything you want in Parliament.

“But as the opposition parties have clarified, that is not their intent. In fact, they want to – Workers’ Party have said they want to block constitutional amendments, they want enough seats in the house not just to provide alternative voices, but really their goal is to form an alternative government – to become the government.”

One of the points in the Singapore People’s Party manifesto is that the government must be held accountable for any security lapses. To this, Mr Wong said he had already dealt with this issue in Parliament.

He said: “I spent one hour detailing what the Committee of Inquiry found, and spent the next two hours answering questions from all the MPs – those who were interested in asking questions. Mr Chiam (See Tong) stood up and asked me a question, and he asked whether the police considered using tracker dogs to track down Mas Selamat.

“That is his only question for me in Parliament, where I spent two hours answering questions. So I made a full public account of it. So if he now says that is not enough, why didn’t he stand up then and ask more questions.”

Asked to respond on Mr Chiam’s comment that sharing of candidates shows opposition unity, Mr Wong disagreed.

He said: “So it means that all the opposition parties have the same philosophy, same principle, same values? By his comments, from what you just read to me, that must be the meaning of it. Well, if that is the case, why so many different parties, why not have one?”

– CNA/ms


The PAP has started their ‘threatening campaign’ as part of every general election. Here, we see another report, that had demonized what would happened should the PAP lose to the opposition. Why would a lost for PAP be a ‘freak result’? Should the PAP always win? What is freaky is if a government is always in power. No government ever rule forever. The election results is a mandate, the will of the Singapore citizens. It is not an election which the ruling party can manipulate and dictate that what the results of the election should be. Is this not yet another sign of low confidence within the party and the loss of touch with the ground?

Categories: PAP candidates, Signs