Howard Lee /

Elderly folk sitting and chatting on field mats and foldable stools, and children with scooters and neon-lighted clappers. The rally for Marine Parade GRC on 30 April had a festive atmosphere to it, with or without the toad that made its way from the back to the front of the rally site (I kid you not), to the giggles of attendees. But, I will not write further about frogs in the well.

The rally started with two grassroots leaders delivering their support for the People’s Action Party, before the candidates arrived at about 8pm. Mr Ong Ah Heng opened the session in Hockkien, before the candidates did their speeches in turn – Ms Tin Pei Ling, Dr Fatimah Lateef, Mr Goh Chok Tong, Mr Seah Kian Peng and finally BG Tan Chuan Jin.

The speeches of the candidates all followed a certain pattern – demonstrate that they have been walking the ground, list the good work that the PAP has done for the constituency, sketch out both party and personal plans for their wards and the constituency, before chastising the opposition for their empty promises. They all ended with a warning about the pitfalls of voting on emotions, for popular and easy choices, and for incompetence, and categorically reaffirmed the PAP as the only party worth the vote of Marine Parade GRC residents. All par for the course.

Depending on their personality, seniority and personal experiences, each told the same story in different ways. Tin, for instance, quote a personal experience with a resident in detail, Goh harked back to the days of old, and Tan related to the people through his leadership experience in the army.

While all the other candidates were content to lambast the commitment, credibility and the lack of concrete plans by the National Solidarity Party, Goh was the only one with experience, and perhaps clout, to take swipes at a number of opposition parties in a speech that lasted almost 40 minutes.

Among all the candidates, Tin had the most comprehensive and specific list of to-dos for her constituency. It included increasing access to healthcare for elderly, coffee sessions with youths to find out their ideas and find out what they would like to see in their community, install energy saving light bulbs to help residents cope with utility bills, a mentor reading programme which is apparently already in the works, and bursaries and study awards.

Fatimah made a couple of rather awkward statements. The first was to claim that the support the PAP received from the team’s walkabouts was not just warm, but HOT. Giggles broke from the crowd, probably due to the rather warm night. The second was, “Look at what we have achieved here in the past 40 years – do you call this slow?” Interesting that progress over 40 years can be considered fast. The rest of her four-minute speech in English was dedicated to saying the opposition has not been walking the ground.

Goh made many points that amount to cautionary notes on voting in the wrong party – plummeting stock prices, the dangers of voting out Mr George Yeo, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua and Mr Zainul Abidin in Aljunied GRC. What stood out most was his view on Singapore Democratic Party candidate and his former PPS, Mr Tan See Jay. He indicated that back then, he “did not think (Tan) could make it as a Permanent Secretary”, whereupon Tan decided to move to the private sector for career advancement. Is Goh insinuating that Tan is now seeking vengeance by going against the party of his former employer?

Goh also warned that if the opposition manages to have significant representation in parliament, say 20 seats, the PAP would have difficulties forming a first rate government since there will be fewer elected PAP candidates to choose from for office. He used the examples of the United Kingdom and Malaysia, where people who have not won elections were appointed into parliament, and indicated his reluctance to do so as it would be “bua cao” (playing cheat). It eluded me why he did not mention the possibility of making office appointments of elected members of the opposition with suitable qualifications. He then reiterated his doubts about the originality of Workers’ Party’s First World Parliament, and compared it to “selling koyok”. He ended his speech with the analogy of Singapore being “a little boat sailing in a storm… and we want the best captain and crew”, and a plea for voters to “vote for yourself”.

Seah indicated that “the NSP has no local agenda, they are only using (the elections) as a vehicle for their party agenda”. He also indicated that the NSP’s webpage for the Marine Parade constituency plan was still “under construction”. He must have been referring to this page. Strangely, he is right, but only because all the opposition candidates have made it a point to focus on macro issues rather than take on constituency matters.

Tan Chuan Jin came across as the most forceful speaker, with a loud commanding voice that never broke pitch. Bet his arguments are not without portholes. He quoted Mr Goh Meng Seng who mentioned that NSP “has always been interested in Marine Parade for strategic reasons”. By this, Tan alluded that NSP does not have the interest of the Marine Parade people, and are only seeking to advance the NSP’s agenda.

Tan must be referring to this article. If so, he should know that Goh was responding to the question on whether Nicole Seah was fielded in Marine Parade in direct competition to Tin. In addition, Goh also added that the NSP “wants to take on the Senior Minister in Marine Parade because… many national policies and their accompanying problems were formed when Mr Goh Chok Tong was Prime Minister. These include policies on housing and transportation”. Is this what Tan meant when he said the NSP did not think of the people? If so, why did he not include them in his speech?

All in, it was a rally that aimed to discredit opposition’s positions as empty rhetoric, and refocus the attendee’s interest in the concrete plans offered by the PAP. I will leave it to you to decide if that is really what voters should be interested in, but the level of interest at this rally might give an indication. Apart from a group of 20-odd clapper and pom-pom wielding supporters at the front, there was very little response from the rest of the attendees, who seem content to watch from afar and fiddle with their tech gadgets.

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

Health Minister says DORSCON level may be lowered if the spread of COVID-19 happens worldwide and travel restrictions deemed useless

Health Minister Gan Kim Yong said on Tuesday (25 February) that Singapore…

食物卫生意识再亮红灯 店外新鲜食材引鸟觅食

民以食为天,食物的干净更是人们关注的部分。上周才传出生鸡供应商将食物送到后,没有采取任何措施,导致老鼠窜进生鸡中大快朵颐,令人们呼吁提高卫生意识。岂知,昨天就爆出牛车水珍珠坊一间小食馆,出现鸟群啄食供应商送来的新鲜食材一事。 有关的小食店店主表示承认疏忽导致事件发生,并表示会和供应商沟通,避免事件重演。 有关事件是由一名公众吴小姐向《联合晚报》分享,她日前早上,经过牛车水珍珠坊一间小食馆时,见鸟群在小吃店外的桌上,啄着由供应商所送来一包包的新鲜食材。 她指出,当时看到一群鸽子正在啄着装有塑料袋,袋内装有白菜和豆芽等。有的鸽子更把菜叼出来后,甩来甩去。 她觉得一包包的新鲜食材置放在还未开店的小食馆外面,有员工在现场却没人看管,导致鸟群飞来啄食,非常不卫生。“不明白为什么他么将食物放在外不理,任鸟儿‘享用’?” 根据照片,只见一排桌上置放了一包包的食材,还有一箱黄瓜。四只鸽子在食材塑料袋上“觅食”,有一只甚至把头伸到塑料袋内了,另一只则嘴上已经叼着豆芽了。 沟通不良和人手不足 《晚报》记者接获有关消息后,于傍晚走访了有关的小食馆。小食馆主管受访时证实了有关的事件的确发生在他们的商店,并表示塑料袋内并没有装肉类,都是豆芽和白菜。 他指出,是因为和供应商沟通不良,以及人手不足,才导致事件的发生。“供应商大概早上8点送菜来,放了就走,我们在厨房忙着,一时未察觉食材送来了,才耽误了。” 主管表示,通常他们在8点半之前就会把食材送进厨房,但是为了避免事件重演,会和供应商沟通,请他们送货来时通知一声,或直接将食材送进厨房内。 业者:食物卫生安全摆首位 牛车水珍珠坊一些餐饮业者强调,他们将食物的卫生和安全放在第一位。…

Police report had almost been filed against Sportshub CEO for abuse of staff

by Kannan Raj Less than two years in the job, and it…