TR EMERITUS

Lee Hsien Yang says that, "the PAP has lost its way", and that, "today's PAP is no longer the PAP of my father". Indeed, when you look at the PAP candidates today, except for four (Hsien Loong, Shan, Chee Hean and Iswaran), all of the PAP candidates today only entered politics after 2000. In fact, look at the chart below - do you know that out of the PAP candidates this year, 31 of them or a third of them (33.3%) are new and inexperienced? Also, 19 of them (20.4%) entered politics only in 2015 and 17 (18.3%) only entered in 2011. (I;ve grouped those who entered via the by-elections with their respective election prior.) This means that of PAP's candidates this year, 72% of PAP's candidates have less than 10 years of experience in politics. The PAP keeps saying that the opposition is inexperienced and Singapore will collapse if the opposition is in government. But the fact of the matter is that this year, with a third of the candidates having zero experience in politics, Singaporeans are facing an unprecedented event where if Singaporeans vote the PAP into government, then based on the PAP's logic, Singapore will face a failure in government with the PAP in power. It was the PAP in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s that built up Singapore. Even Goh Chok Tong, the prime minister in the 1990s, has retired. The people who were members of parliament and ministers under Goh Chok Tong have almost all disappeared from the PAP's candidates. Yes, we should thank the PAP old guard for building up Singapore, but today's PAP, like Lee Hsien Yang, said, is no longer the PAP of the old guard. Today's PAP did not manage the COVID-19 pandemic well, and put Singaporeans in danger. Lawrence Wong and Gan Kim Yong were the chairs of the Multi-Ministry Taskforce on COVID-19. They have to take responsibility for the wrong advice on face mask use, and they also have to take responsibility for not closing schools early and not getting Singapore under a lockdown (circuit breaker) early. Lawrence Wong entered politics in 2011 and Gan Kim Yong entered in 2001. Heng Swee Keat is the advisor to the taskforce. He entered politics in 2011. By now, we have also seen how Chan Chun Sing, Josephine Teo and Ong Ye Kung have mismanaged COVID-19. Chan Chun Sing could not ensure adequate masks for Singaporeans. Josephine Teo's poor management of manpower issues resulted in the COVID-19 cases exploding in the dormitories. And Ong Ye Kung refused to close schools even as parents have been demanding the government do so since February. Josephine Teo entered politics in 2006, Chan Chun Sing entered politics in 2011 and Ong Ye Kung entered politics in 2015. These are the PAP candidates who have entered government since 2000, and they have been touted as the 4G leaders. And when faced with their first test - COVID-19, they performed poorly. Some might say they have failed. Are you telling me that PAP ministers who entered politics even in 2001 and 2006 still have not developed the capability to lead the country adequately? If even they do not have the capability, then why do we need to vote for the PAP? The PAP has been touting its ability to govern because it says it is the PAP, but the PAP today is no longer the PAP of the 1960s and 1970s, or 1980s. They simply do not have the capability of the PAP old guards. In fact, more than 95% of PAP's candidates this year only entered politics after 2000, and even most of the 2G leaders have left, except for Hsien Loong and Chee Hean. The PAP candidates today are therefore disconnected from the PAP of the past. But can we still trust Hsien Loong's decision-making when the people he has under him mismanaged the COVID-19 crisis? Can we still trust Heng Swee Keat, Chan Chun Sing, Lawrence Wong and Ong Ye Kung - people touted to be future prime ministers, when they mismanaged COVID-19? Also, why are we putting principal private secretaries (PPSs) of the prime ministers in charge of Singapore, when we should be putting experts in charge? Heng, Wong and Ong were all PPSs of the prime ministers. Make no mistake, the Multi-Ministry Taskforce on COVID-19 was meant to be a showcase of the PAP 4G leadership but they have performed terribly. Can we still trust the PAP? Can you still trust Singapore and your lives in their hands? Given that the PAP is fielding so many new candidates, there is really very little difference between them and the opposition candidates. The PAP candidates also can no longer claim that because they are from the PAP, that they should be given a free pass into government. They don't deserve it - we know because we have seen how they have mismanaged COVID-19. If so, there is no real reason why people should vote for the PAP. Voting for PAP out of nostalgia doesn't work anymore too because the PAP today is disconnected from the PAP of the past. If there is really nothing to differentiate the PAP from the opposition, then should you still vote for the PAP candidates, just because they say they are from the PAP? In effect, the candidates from the PAP should be seen just as any other candidates from any other party. Strip away the title of the PAP, these candidates have not proven their worth or mettle. And the PAP candidates who have been asked to step up have failed with how they mismanaged COVID-19. So strip away the title of the PAP. They are no longer the PAP of the past. They are a new party - NPAP. Given a choice between NPAP candidates and candidates from the other major parties, the differentiating factor now is to look at what they can offer to you. Have you seen the PAP's manifesto this election? It rehashes previous policies already enacted. There are no new proposals. Meanwhile, parties like The Worker's Party, Singapore Democratic Party, and Progress Singapore Party have developed manifestos, policy proposals and solutions for Singapore's healthcare, housing, education, work, wages, retirement, and other policy issues they have studied. Now, take a look at their manifestos and solutions, and decide which is the best party to represent you. The Workers' Party: https://www.wp.sg/manifesto/ Singapore Democratic Party (SDP): https://yoursdp.org/policies Progress Singapore Party: https://psp.org.sg/ge2020-manifesto-by-progress-singapore-party-for-country-for-people/   Roy Ngerng      Read More →

Over a period of 35 years, several manpower ministers failed to find a solution to the challenge of getting employers to give preference to locals for jobs. They kept to the same strategy - getting employer to pay a levy to employ foreigners and set limits on the proportion of foreign workforce. The strategy did not work. Foreigners and employers were able to get round the loopholes. Many jobs went to foreigners, leaving many locals unable to find good jobs. How can this problem be solved? I propose a two prong strategy: a) Have an effective way to monitor the employment process b) Give financial incentives to encourage employers to employ locals, compared to foreigners. The ministry of manpower set up two job portals over a period of ten years Both did not seem to work. It is difficult for the portals to monitor the recruitment process - and to remove the latent preference in employer foreigners. I propose a new approach in the design of the portal. It requires all candidates to be screened for suitability for the job - based on training and work experience. The pre-screening will remove the bias that exists under the current recruitment process. For example, if the portal can provide a large number of locals who have the skill and experience and are able to accept the pay structure, there is no reason for the employer to ask to employ a foreigner. The second prong is to provide a wage subsidy to reduce the cost of employing locals. Although the employer has to pay a levy to employ a foreigner, the employer has to pay a similar amount as contribution to the CPF for a local. There is no difference in the cost on the surface. If the foreigner is willing to reimburse the employer for the cost of the levy, the foreigner will be cheaper for the employer. The wage subsidy will make it less costly to employ a local, after all the relevant factors are taken into consideration. My two prong approach is different from the strategy adopted by the manpower ministers over the past few decades. It has a chance of achieving the goal to give preference to locals.   Tan Kin Lian      Read More →

Brad Bowyer (right) with Lee Hsien Yang So, Mr Shanmugam has asked me to be honest with the Nee Soon voters in his FB post which is repeated in this Today article and as I agree with him that honesty is very important, and we shouldn’t play with words, I will put a closing statement on the matter below for the benefit of the Nee Soon voters. The Straits Times article that Mr Shanmugam referenced in his post from June 25th had, in the paragraph directly below the one that mentions Nee Soon the following statement: “Last night, a PSP spokesman confirmed that the party will still be contesting Nee Soon GRC, among nine constituencies announced by the party on Tuesday.” And aside from Dr Tan’s usual caginess about final strategy in the rest of the article I think that is pretty clear. And again as noted in the Today article, but expanded a little upon here, what the resident of Nee Soon wouldn’t have known is ever since the electoral boundary review committee released its report in March Nee Soon was on the party’s radar and by mid-April I had already been assigned into a team which has culminated in the one you see today standing. Although I am not privy to the highest level negotiations I have only ever been working on Nee Soon GRC and over the last 2 plus months we have spent countless hours, resources and not an inconsiderable sum of money from HQ and by the team and a large pool of behind the scenes people and volunteers in preparation for, not only the campaign, but how in the event of the victory we are looking for, we would structure and run the town council amongst others. That amount of work to me represents both a massive commitment and a massive investment in to giving the best we can for the residents of Nee Soon, a commitment we intend to follow through on and in no way is half hearted. I am still saddened that such a conclusion was not only drawn but then given a large public airing when spending a moment to actually ask us what our level of commitment was could have answered it. However, I have since had several local journalists reach out to me and I am heartened from the nature of these engagements that they are showing a higher level of professionalism and I look forward to a more balanced reporting of our activities before any inferences of our motives or commitment are made in the future. Brad Bowyer, your 110% committed candidate for Nee Soon GRC. Because you deserve better.   Brad Bowyer      Read More →