Workers' Party - Forever the Bridesmaids to a Tyrant

After observing this BE over the past few days, and reading all the various commentaries, I am starting to question if the WP has enough ambition to live up to their grand following.

While there are many who praise the WP and their role as underdogs in keeping the PAP in check, I wonder whether they have curbed their own potential by constantly using this underdog approach. Ito  am perplexed why they constantly say that their role in Government is to keep the PAP in check. Their mere presence being the justification for a MIW panic.

Is that really enough? Can we realistically, hand on heart, attribute all the positive (incremental) changes we have witnesses solely to a party that sits quietly in Parliament?

Shouldn't they aspire higher and really contest to take over control of the Parliament, to really make a change as a WP Government? At this stage it seems that their reach barely reaches their grasp. A First World Parliament was promised in GE2011, and what we got an opposition that strives to irritate, rather then replace the PAP. They should be aiming to form their own Parliament, a WP Parliament. 
 
You don t need to win Punggol East SMC simply to get control of another town council to check for shady transactions. To make the PAP work harder. What they should say is that they want to win Punggol East and thereafter garner enough seats to form the next Government! 

This is where I feel the SDP would have fared better. Dr Chee would not be content to play ombudsman to the PAP.  He wants to really transform Singapore for the better.  He and the SDP have a very clear vision for a totally different Government.

In this respect, the WP has been disappointing in this BE, wasting the graciousness of the SDP pull-out from the race.  How many elections can WP run on the same platform to be bridesmaids to the tyrant?  Without ambition in Parliament, WP have only themselves to blame for all the lame duck criticisms leveled against them by the PAP.  The WP should take a leaf from their greatest leader, JBJ who had single-handedly stood up without fail against the PAP in Parliament. I really do hope that for Punggol East, his son can beat the bridesmaids to the alter, and show Singaporeans how it should be done.

Punggol East SMC - Is the Workers' Party the Only Choice?

Following the sudden resignation of PAP MP Michael Palmer for having an affair with a PA staff working in Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC, a by-election has to be called for the vacated single seat at Punggol East SMC.

Shortly after the announcement, two parties have been quick to announce their positions. The Workers’ Party (WP) has affirmed their desire to contest the seat, and Singapore People’s Party (SPP) Chairperson Lina Chiam, has opined that “the Workers’ Party should have the priority to contest in the by-election, due to their earlier involvement in the constituency during the 2011 General Election.”

With the controversy surrounding WP’s Yaw Shin Leong’s resignation from his Hougang SMC seat under similar circumstances, it would seem like poetic justice for the WP to claim another election scalp. While the need for a by-election is certain, I would hope that the bout line-up is not prematurely fixed.

In the last General Election in 2011, Desmond Lim Bak Chuan of the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA), received a lot of criticism for initiating a three-cornered fight and not graciously stepping out of WP’s Lee Li Lian’s way. Back then I felt that this criticism was harsh, and I fear the same will be repeated for any party ‘full-hardy’ enough to get in WP’s way. While Lina Chiam might think that the WP has some pre-ordained right to contest Punggol East SMC, let us not forget that not one, but three other opposition parties have similarly contested this electoral real estate in the past. 

Back in 1988, Abdul Rasheed of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) stood in what was then, Punggol SMC. He attained a respectable 40.1% of the votes.

Subsequently in the 1991 elections, Punggol SMC was absorbed into Cheng San GRC. This GRC was contested by National Solidarity Party (NSP), which garnered 35.9% of the votes .

 In the 2001 elections Cheng San GRC controversially split into Aljunied GRC, Ang Mo Kio GRC and Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC. Pasir Ris-Punggol saw a walkover that year, but was challenged by the SDA in the next elections in 2006. And of course we all remember the 2011 elections, where Punggol East SMC was carved out of Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC.

Therefore, contrary to popular belief and short-termed memories, the WP is not the only natural choice. I do hope that more qualified candidates from other parties give serious consideration to contesting Punggol East SMC. And if such a candidate should emerge, I wonder if the WP supporters are matured enough to recognize this.

Vote-Buying Rears Its Ugly Head

The decision by WP MP Pritam Singh to selective wave ‘carrots’ at supporters of his upgrading initiative for Aljunied GRC, truly puzzles me.

At best you could say his stumbling into the realm of unethical vote-buying was a result of his naivety. Perhaps they might argue that they followed the advice of a well-intending grassroot advisor, and failed to realise that they have inadvertently alienated residents for whom upgrading was possibly an economic or general inconvenience.

If the move was intended to reward WP supporters, the WP also probably failed to realise that perhaps some of the constituents might just not want the upgrading? Did you some how adopt the hubris attitude that you are either with us or against us? That if your voted no, you must be a die-hard PAP supporter?

I am particularly irked by this news as many an opposition rally message have focused on the abusive nature of associating votes with upgrading. The WP has often said that the PAP insults the sensibilities of Hougang residents by thinking that they can be bought over.

Stepping away from the political realm, this lucky draw reminds me of the unethical practices that plagued private property owners going through an Enbloc exercise. Before amendments to Enbloc Sale rules, sales committees would ‘threaten’ hesitant sellers that if they did not vote for the sale, and if the sale subsequently went through, they would not get their share of the remaining building/sinking fund.

Now I am not the type to clamour over freebies and lucky draws, but i do feel for any resident that feels discriminated and isolated. I didn’t like it when the PAP did it, and i still don’t like it when the WP does it.

ps. Goh Meng Seng, a former member of the WP, shares his view on this issue, and i append his posting below

Singapolitics > News > Story

http://www.singapolitics.sg/news/netizens-question-upgrading-lucky-draw

Netizens question upgrading lucky draw

Posted on Oct 3, 2012 7:17 PM Updated: Oct 3, 2012 8:09 PM

By Tessa Wong

More Sharing ServicesShare on printShare on emailShare on twitterShare on facebook

A lucky draw organised by the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council to thank
residents who voted for upgrading has attracted flak online.

On Tuesday, the Facebook group Fabrications About The PAP
posted a scanned image of a letter which Aljunied MP Pritam Singh sent last month.

Dated Sept 21, the letter is addressed to residents of Eunos
Spring which is in Mr Singh’s ward. It states that 79 per cent of the residents had said yes to the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP).

It also invites residents to a “modest thank-you reception” organised by the town council held on Sept 29, featuring a dialogue with residents and a lucky draw. Prizes included a Samsung 40-inch television, an iPad, and close to 100 household appliances.

One line of the letter states: “All residents who voted YES in the NRP polling exercise are automatically included in the draw.”

Netizens latched on this line, with some questioning why the ballot was not secret, while others asked why residents who turned down NRP were being left out.

Singapolitics asked Mr Singh for his reasons for the lucky dra
w, and if residents who turned down upgrading would be allowed to take part.
We also asked if he would respond to netizens’ accusations that he is discriminating against residents who voted no.

In response, he referred Singapolitics to the Housing Board saying they were the “best authority to check with” and added that the town council will be issuing a statement on Thursday.

The Housing Board said it would reply on Thursday.
Singapolitics understands that it is usually the town council, not
the Housing Board, that conducts such upgrading polling exercises.

The NRP is a government-sponsored programme which sees neighbourhoods fitted with improvements such as drop-off por
ches, covered linkways and resident’s corners.

Residents can propose improvements, and at least 75 per cent of eligible flat owners must support it before it can be carried out.

In April last year, one month before the general elections which saw the Workers’ Party win Aljunied GRC, it was announced that Eunos Spring was eligible for upgrading.

However, the previous working committee secured less than 50 per cent approval, according to another letter by Mr Singh in August this year. The area was under PAP MP Zainul Abidin Rasheed at that time.

Mr Singh said then that in the first quarter of 2012, he went d
oor to door to secure resident approval, along with town council officers as “we did not want to lose the opportunity for upgrading for Eunos Spring”.

Teo Ho Pin: Still proud to vote for him?

I wonder if Yaw Shin Leong will retract his endorsement of Teo Ho Pin after the revelations of town council fund mismanagement.

====================================================
Be thankful to Dr Teo Ho Pin for illustrating the PAP’s hubris and arrogance

by Ng E-Jay
20 November 2008

According to an article entitled “Dr Teo says ‘be thankful’” which was published in the TODAY newspaper on 19 Nov, Dr Teo Ho Pin, MP for Holland-Bukit Panjang, says residents should be thankful that their Constituency’s funds have grown under the Town Council’s watch.

He was referring to earlier revelations in Parliament that eight PAP Town Councils have about $16 million invested in troubled structured products, of which the lion’s share of $8 million is from Holland-Bukit Panjang.

Dr Teo was quoted by TODAY newspaper as saying that the potential $8 million loss suffered by Holland-Bukit Panjang Town Council “should be viewed in the context of the $24 million in investments generated over the past six years“, and that “if the Town Council had invested all its funds in low-risk investments, it would have earned only $5 million.”

My opinion is that rather than giving our thanks to Dr Teo Ho Pin, who is incidentally Coordinating Chairman for all the 14 PAP Town Councils, for generating positive returns for Town Council funds over the past six years, we should instead be grateful that he has beautifully illustrated the sheer level of hubris and arrogance of the PAP.

Read rest of article here

====================================================

SM Goh should send Teo Ho Pin to learn from Hougang Town Council to keep PAP MPs on their toes

By Eugene Yeo
19 Nov 2008

On 26 July this year, SM Goh urge PAP members to play the role of an “effective opposition” in his speech at the Hougang National Day Dinner at Hougang Community Club:

“In Hougang, let us keep Mr Low Thia Khiang on his toes. He is responsible for running the Hougang Town council. But unlike Parliament, town councils do not have open meetings where members from other political parties can question their performance.

So, in Hougang, you have to be creative to be an effective opposition. Amongst the things you can do, I suggest you study the annual accounts of the town council to ensure that the funds are properly used. Check whether the arrears for S & C charges are piling up, and eating into their reserves. Make sure that enough money is put aside for cyclical maintenance.”

Now who has been playing the role of a watchdog on PAP - managed Town Councils ?

Read the rest of the article here.