The following is a letter from a member of the audience at the Face to Face forum

by Lee Wai Leong

The forum was packed, apparently there were over 350 people. There were registration counters and even sign language translators were present to help the hearing-impaired. Very well organised!

The huge turnout shows a real interest in real politics (as opposed to scripted ministers’ “dialogues”). But what did it achieve?

I think it was a waste of time for the audience, although many of them may not realise it.

It was a waste of time because of the themes chosen and the questions that were asked.

So what did we learn?

Economic policy

  • Huge income disparity in Singapore in the last 10 years. Rich grew richer, poor had hardly any income growth.
  • Productivity in Singapore sucks. GDP growrh all fuelled by workforce expansion.
  • Policymakers out of touch with population. Gerald went further– they’re not out of touch, they know but they don’t care!
  • The Govt is in a position of conflict of interest as the owner of 80% of the land, builder of flats and lender of mortgage financing.
  • HDB flats are priced too high. We are now slaves to HDB. High flat prices suck up our CPF money, leaving us nothing for retirement. HDB subsidies are paper subsidies only. HDB makes obscene profits.

Civil Liberties

  • All parties present oppose the ISA, and want to replace it with some form of anti-terrorism legislation.
  • All want greater freedom of speech and assembly.
  • Civil liberties are important for creativity and innovation.
  • The media is an important institution, it must be independent and it must serve Singapore.
  • Defamation laws must be changed.
  • Wikileaks is funny.

Some surprises here though: All parties support conscription as a bedrock of a strong national defence, much to the consternation of the guy who posed the question. Another surprise– GMS still supports a racial quota for HDB flats, although he would increase it to 50%.

Political Issues

  • Opp parties want to avoid three-cornered fights.
  • People should vote opposition so that PAP will wake up.
  • Politicians should be in public service to serve the public, not earn top $$$.
  • People should come forward to join the opposition.

==========

So did the audience learn anything new to make it worth their while?

For anyone who has followed TOC or “opposition” politics actively, there’s certainly nothing new in the above. It’s a litany of what they think PAP has done wrong.

Without PAP’s presence, there was no engagement with the party in power, thus the “forum” amounted to no more than a bunch of anti-PAP people gathering to denounce PAP policies, patting each others’ back and cheering whenever some witty or sarcastic anti-PAP remarks were made.

In other words, it was really an “Opposition Supporters Anonymous” session.

Did we really need to spend four hours on that?

What it should have been

The moderator should have asked the tough questions:

  1. How many candidates will you be putting up for the next GE?
  2. Who are they? What are their names? Where will they be standing?
  3. Why can’t you name them now? What’s holding you back?
  4. How do you think you can win the election?
  5. Why should voters vote for your candidates (other than because of their dissatisfaction with PAP policies)?
  6. How will you guys make Singaporeans’ lives better if you only want to go in as opposition?
  7. Why can’t you guys cooperate? Why can’t you guys work together to defeat the PAP? By cooperate, we mean more than just avoiding three-cornered fights.
  8. Why is WP so aloof?
  9. Why is SDP so confrontational? We know you believe civil liberties are important, but this is not India in the 1950’s or America in the 1960’s, the public has no interest in joining your protest marches or holding candlelight vigils for the SDP martyrs who have been fined or jailed.
  10. Why is SF trying to revive Socialism? What does “putting control of essential means of production into the hands of the people” really mean? Nationalisation?

I think the above would have been far more absorbing than hearing what the parties have to say about hdb flat prices or civil liberties.

Don’t you?

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Letters from Vui Kong – The First Letter: Prison Life

Yong Vui Kong is a death row inmate in Singapore. He was…

TWC2 goes public with story about migrant workers being locked inside room after MWC failed to show any signs of action

In a Facebook post published on Tuesday (21 April), migrant labour’s rights…

【舆论】杨莉明续任人力部长 其治下客工宿舍疫情、PMET议题惹诟病

我国7月25日宣布新届内阁名单,杨莉明续任人力部长一职,引起各界关注,因为她在处理客工宿舍疫情爆发一事,无法有效遏制疫情而遭诟病。 早在2月份时,就有客工确诊,包括实里达航空岭感染群;然而,如今新加坡的确诊人数持续攀升,杨莉明仍没有选择向公众道歉,并承认政府的疏失,而是拒绝道歉,因为她声称,要求当局道歉的客工,她一个也没遇上。 显然任何成年人给出这样的理由就已经令人震惊,更何况是身为部长,竟然给出这样的借口,简直让人难以相信。如今新加坡确诊人数持续攀升,但杨莉明仍然保住官位,请问公共责任在哪里? 撇开客工的问题不谈,人力部长杨莉明再次因专业人士、经理、执行员和技师(PMET)课题被抨击,即没有将外国PMET聘雇人数减少而引起争议。公平考量框架(Fair Consideration Framework)于2014年生效,以此增加新加坡人的劳动力,但外国PMET人数仍然未有锐减的现象。 人力部日前宣布47名雇主由于涉嫌出现歧视性聘雇的现象,已被列入公平考量框架的观察名单。 “我们会对招聘标准进行更严格的审查,以确保本地雇主不会出现国籍偏见,这是无法接受的,同时也符合公平、基于业绩的招聘。” 人力部还宣布将会针对240家涉嫌不遵守条规或可能预先聘雇外国人的公司进行调查。 这一切看似很好,但它显然已是存在许久的课题。事实上,已有在野党和其他媒体不断强调,而公平考量框架建立迄今已有六年之久,为何聘雇人数仍未锐减,是否缺乏其政治意愿? 虽然人力部如今不断强调会严格审查他们(外国人)的就业准证申请,让不合作或执意不改变的雇主削减他们的工作准证特权,但人力部正以何种评估标准对他们?难道就不应该设立一个客观和透明的标准,确保公平和问责性吗? 承上所述,无论是客工确诊病例持续递增或是外国PMET数量未有减少,均在杨莉明的监督下,但她的存在也似有若无,所以为何她仍然能够持续领导这部门?…

PV chief Lim Tean denies modifying video recording of Catholic archbishop’s homily with political label

People’s Voice Party chief Lim Tean on Tuesday (1 June) clarified that…