I believe 2 main questions are on the minds of Singaporeans awaiting the cabinet reshuffle
1. Who will be the next PM?
2. Who will be the next transport minister?
1. The next PM is widely suspected to be Tharman Shanmugaratnam. I agree that this is likely to be the case, given his popularity with the Singaporean populace. However, it is too sudden for a change in PM. LKY and GCT relinquished their portfolios midterm and I would expect LHL to do the same. Mr Tharman could take over as PM somewhere in 2017 or 2018.
2. I believe the next cup bearer of the poison chalice to be...
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan. Why?
- new faces from GE 2015 are likely to be given the minister of state
position (only Heng Swee Keat was promoted to full minister immediately
upon election), hence the new appointee is likely to already be a current
cabinet minister
- the transport portfolio is considered to be a junior ministerial portfolio,
full ministers taking up more senior portfolios (MHA, MFA, Mindef,
Health, Trade, education) are unlikely to be reshuffled to transport
- ministers who have recently been given new portfolios in 2015 will
probably remain in their current portfolios (Tan Chuan-Jin, Chan Chun
Sing, Lim Swee Say, S. Iswaran, Masagos Zuklifi)
- Ms Grace Fu has been understudying senior portfolios as 2nd minister
(MFA) for some time and may be promoted to full minister
- Dr Yaacob Ibrahim is Malay and PM will probably not appoint him to an
unpopular portfolio as this might irritate the Malay community
- Mr Lawrence Wong is supposed to form the core of the 4G ministers so
PM may not want to give him an unpopular portfolio
This leaves Dr Balakrishnan.
Overall, the cabinet will probably remain more or less unchanged for this first reshuffle. I would expect only 2 changes:
1. Dr Balakrishnan to Transport ministry
2. Ms Grace Fu to take over MEWR
Monday, 14 September 2015
Friday, 11 September 2015
The taste of my own words
The last thing I expected was WP losing Punggol-East SMC.
Evidently, hype from rallies and campaign performances are not complete indicators of the electorate's sentiment. It is possible that the inane fear of a "freak result" caused many people to vote conservatively. The fact that the opposition was able to attract strong candidates probably contributed to this.
However, I do hold to the opinion that the PAP's campaign performance was underwhelming as mentioned in my previous post. I think the achievements of the PAP over the past few years was enough to mitigate their dismal campaign.
I am disappointed that large sections public chose to vote for a party's legacy instead of a party's new ideas for the future. No doubt, the PAP was able to maintain a non-corrupt government that generally did its best for Singaporeans. A one-party system may have worked for our first 50 years, but is such a system sustainable?
The reason for my cynicism is because we are voting for the PAP leaders of tomorrow, not the ones that have ruled us in the past 50 years. They are the ones who will govern us, not the founding fathers of old. And the PAP "4G" (4th Generation) is vastly different from their predecessors in a number of ways.
1. Lack of tenacity
PAP were originally an opposition party. They managed to trump David Marshall and Lim Yew Hock's Labour Front in their 2nd attempt (1959). Their victory was an "uneasy alliance" between the moderate PAP members and communists as Lee Kuan Yew describes it. Lee Kuan Yew then had to weed out the communists who then formed their own party - Barisan Socialis. The PAP of the past had tough opponents in the communists, David Marshall and Ong Eng Guan. The PAP also had to convince the British to grant independence to Singapore. After that had tough political battles in Malaysia. The PAP of that generation fought hard to win their seats, contesting the same electoral divisions multiple times without success.
Today, PAP candidates are snuck into parliament through the GRC system. The GRC system is of course necessary for the minority race quota but the size of the GRCs and the parachuting of candidates are of course questionable. Koh Poh Koon the son of Punggol was adopted by Ang Mo Kio GRC. Desmond Choo (Hougang 2011) and Ong Ye Kung (Aljunied 2011) had backdoors into Tampines and Sembawang GRC. Besides Sitoh Yih Pin who was voted into Potong Pasir on his 3rd attempt, PAP candidates opt for the easy way in and are unwilling to stand against strong opposition candidates.
2. Short-sightedness
The PAP in the past had a clear vision of where they wanted to take Singapore. They wanted Singapore to become a metropolis. They wanted every Singaporean to own a house, have clean water and have different races integrate well.
The PAP of today do not have a clear vision for Singaporeans. They need a new vision to inspire Singaporeans to do their best for the country and a clear overall plan for what they intend to do to help Singaporeans. They rely too much on their track record.
Too often have the PAP and civil service been contented with making minor changes to the system here and there. The PAP does not dare to make big policy changes or restructuring, as exemplified through our education system. Small tweaks to various parts of the curriculum and examination system. Little bits of tinkering here and there with external programmes. This brings me on to the third point.
3. Same-old, Same-old
I think the reasons for the lack of courage to make major policy overhauls are that the system which has worked so far is still working (for now) and that their PAP MPs are largely from the same places - Civil Service and SAF. The tried and tested route. There are few candidates from different backgrounds to offer fresh insights.
The idealist in me would like a new vision for Singaporeans to work towards. Our stagnation and then decline will come not so much because of the challenges we face such as the ageing population and economy stagnation but because we are using an old system to due with new challenges. The PAP government seems to be too content with taking the easy way and are getting too comfortable with their overwhelming majority. A new direction is needed for SG 100.
I concede that I am a WP supporter, wherein my bias lies. WP draws crowds to its rallies because they inspire people with new ideas and most importantly a new direction - building up the Singapore core. A dynamic population for a sustainable economy. The WP today delivers powerful enthusiastic speeches and this is reminiscent of the PAP old guard.
Congratulations to the PAP on their victory. But what will they do with the strong mandate?
Evidently, hype from rallies and campaign performances are not complete indicators of the electorate's sentiment. It is possible that the inane fear of a "freak result" caused many people to vote conservatively. The fact that the opposition was able to attract strong candidates probably contributed to this.
However, I do hold to the opinion that the PAP's campaign performance was underwhelming as mentioned in my previous post. I think the achievements of the PAP over the past few years was enough to mitigate their dismal campaign.
I am disappointed that large sections public chose to vote for a party's legacy instead of a party's new ideas for the future. No doubt, the PAP was able to maintain a non-corrupt government that generally did its best for Singaporeans. A one-party system may have worked for our first 50 years, but is such a system sustainable?
The reason for my cynicism is because we are voting for the PAP leaders of tomorrow, not the ones that have ruled us in the past 50 years. They are the ones who will govern us, not the founding fathers of old. And the PAP "4G" (4th Generation) is vastly different from their predecessors in a number of ways.
1. Lack of tenacity
PAP were originally an opposition party. They managed to trump David Marshall and Lim Yew Hock's Labour Front in their 2nd attempt (1959). Their victory was an "uneasy alliance" between the moderate PAP members and communists as Lee Kuan Yew describes it. Lee Kuan Yew then had to weed out the communists who then formed their own party - Barisan Socialis. The PAP of the past had tough opponents in the communists, David Marshall and Ong Eng Guan. The PAP also had to convince the British to grant independence to Singapore. After that had tough political battles in Malaysia. The PAP of that generation fought hard to win their seats, contesting the same electoral divisions multiple times without success.
Today, PAP candidates are snuck into parliament through the GRC system. The GRC system is of course necessary for the minority race quota but the size of the GRCs and the parachuting of candidates are of course questionable. Koh Poh Koon the son of Punggol was adopted by Ang Mo Kio GRC. Desmond Choo (Hougang 2011) and Ong Ye Kung (Aljunied 2011) had backdoors into Tampines and Sembawang GRC. Besides Sitoh Yih Pin who was voted into Potong Pasir on his 3rd attempt, PAP candidates opt for the easy way in and are unwilling to stand against strong opposition candidates.
2. Short-sightedness
The PAP in the past had a clear vision of where they wanted to take Singapore. They wanted Singapore to become a metropolis. They wanted every Singaporean to own a house, have clean water and have different races integrate well.
The PAP of today do not have a clear vision for Singaporeans. They need a new vision to inspire Singaporeans to do their best for the country and a clear overall plan for what they intend to do to help Singaporeans. They rely too much on their track record.
Too often have the PAP and civil service been contented with making minor changes to the system here and there. The PAP does not dare to make big policy changes or restructuring, as exemplified through our education system. Small tweaks to various parts of the curriculum and examination system. Little bits of tinkering here and there with external programmes. This brings me on to the third point.
3. Same-old, Same-old
I think the reasons for the lack of courage to make major policy overhauls are that the system which has worked so far is still working (for now) and that their PAP MPs are largely from the same places - Civil Service and SAF. The tried and tested route. There are few candidates from different backgrounds to offer fresh insights.
The idealist in me would like a new vision for Singaporeans to work towards. Our stagnation and then decline will come not so much because of the challenges we face such as the ageing population and economy stagnation but because we are using an old system to due with new challenges. The PAP government seems to be too content with taking the easy way and are getting too comfortable with their overwhelming majority. A new direction is needed for SG 100.
I concede that I am a WP supporter, wherein my bias lies. WP draws crowds to its rallies because they inspire people with new ideas and most importantly a new direction - building up the Singapore core. A dynamic population for a sustainable economy. The WP today delivers powerful enthusiastic speeches and this is reminiscent of the PAP old guard.
Congratulations to the PAP on their victory. But what will they do with the strong mandate?
Wednesday, 9 September 2015
How the PAP set themselves up to lose GE 2015
The ruling party's overall campaign for GE 2015 has been rather disappointing. The fact that PAP supporters, in particular "Fabrications about the PAP" seem to be increasingly afraid of a freak election result indicate that the prospect of the opposition gaining another constituency, be it GRC or SMC, is more likely than ever. While credit must be given to strong opposition showings from the SDP and WP, the PAP has been it's own enemy for much of this election.
The PAP had many things going their way this election, some of which are to their own credit. Firstly, the timing of the election coincided with the SG50 celebrations and LKY's passing. These events were thought to have turned the public sentiment in favour of PAP. Secondly, over the past few years, the government released a slew of initiatives aimed to address public concerns from GE 2011, increase social support as well as distribute the usual freebies. These schemes include the BTO flats, the progressive wage scheme, Medishield Life and of course, the Pioneer Generation Package. Thirdly, the AHPETC saga was caused some voters to begin to distrust the strongest opposition party, WP. Lastly, the PAP has always had the upper hand of having an entrenched "PAP machinery" which stems from the grassroots - Residents' Committees, Peoples' Association - to the civil service, statutory boards and even the various government departments.
With the wind blowing Goh Chok Tong's allegorical PAP luxury cruise ship through calm waters, why does it look like the ruling party is headed for an iceberg?
1. No captain at the ship's wheel
The PAP's campaign strategy throughout the election has been to let the various candidates for each constituency settle their own campaign. No one has coordinated the overall campaign. This is evident in the holding rallies in close proximity on the same day, the lack of a coordinated message in candidate speeches and the lack of coordination in the conducting of the rallies themselves.
On Sep 7, PAP held rallies for Yuhua SMC, Holland-Bukit Timah GRC and Sembawang GRC. On Sep 8, PAP held rallies for Tampines GRC and Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC. These rallies were held in close proximity to each other. In fact, they border each other. The proximity of the rallies would have cannibalised each other's attendance and of course reduced the hype generated. In fact, on Sep 8, the PAP held 6 rallies at the same time. In contrast, most opposition groups held at most 1 rally on each day. For the 2 major parties - WP and SDP, attendance was concentrated at a large venue which promoted high levels of attendance. Like this.
Even though the PAP has more constituencies to cover, they could have spread out the rallies over the course of the election and planned for the rallies to be organised in electoral divisions further away from each other.
While the opposition parties mostly had a coordinated message, the speeches given by PAP candidates seemed to sway from bashing opposition candidates, to promising more upgrading and "report card" references. Just a few PAP candidates detailed policies that had been implemented with some mentions of future plans. All of these speeches have their merits and demerits. However, besides the "report card" reference, candidates did not end up with the same overall message in their speeches. On the other hand the other parties seemed to have distinct messages:
WP - we made the government work harder, we have alternative policies, vote us in to empower your future
SDP - we too have good alternative policies and are avoiding character assassination
The rest - return our CPF! oh, and free stuff for all!
Finally, some GRCs chose not to have rallies while some SMCs (Mountbatten, MacPherson, Hong Kah North) just had their single candidates speak with a couple of grassroots volunteers. This deprived some candidates of speaking opportunities while the SMCs had meagre turnouts.
These hint at an overall lack of coordination.
2. Unchartered course for the next 500 miles
WP candidate Leon Perera accused PAP of being a backward looking party. My opinion is that the PAP does have plans for the future. I doubt that the PAP has left the future to chance and let the PAP ship sail wherever the wind blows. However, the PAP has not expressed any of their future plans in their rally speeches. Much of the focus has been on the past 50 years. Trust PAP for the next 50. But where are we going next?
Both the SDP and WP have detailed counter proposals to current PAP schemes. WP has an overall plan which is about developing the Singapore Core. SDP's overall plan is for more efficient spending so that more money can be channelled to fund welfare programmes. While the proposals lack detail and most glaringly leave out foreign policy, at least they have developed their ideas. The PAP manifesto is long enough but focusses on what has already been done. Of course, most other opposition parties do not have detailed plans. NSP has an appalling 6-slide powerpoint presentation and I question the effort they have put in to counter-propose.
But this should not be the case for the ruling party. If the PAP wants voters to trust them for the next 500 miles, it is important to tell voters where the ship is headed.
3. Crew members puncturing the ship's hull
Instead of even focussing on what the PAP has accomplished, PAP candidates have been drawn into local fistfights. Sim Ann and her "chu pattern", the attacking of Chee Soon Juan's character and the AHPETC management have not bode well with the electorate. Attacking the opposition if perfectly fine but this hand has been overplayed. Too much rally time has been used to say the same things. Sim even dedicated 3.5 minutes to her "chu pattern" assualt on Chee. WP and SDP candidates on the contrary briefly alluded to shortfalls of PAP MPs and ministers and then moved on to future plans and policy ideas.
This not only wasted rally time for ideas to be fleshed out, but also painted PAP as the bully as WP gleefully has pointed out throughout the campaign. Chee won the moral high ground by refusing to respond to the attacks on him. The PAP is disadvantaged in that it will always seem like the bully, being the dominant party. However, if they had played this "character and integrity" card judiciously, they would have caused electoral distrust of the opposition candidates without going too far down the bully road. This was seen at the start of the AHPETC saga when the PAP had just begun to mention the accounting problems. Distrust was sown but PAP was not seen as the bad guy.
The overemphasis on personal attacks have backfired and hurt the PAP more than it did the opposition.
4. First Mates wanted
"This election is about leadership renewal" - Lee Hsien Loong
The PAP's campaign says otherwise. Lee Hsien Loong's face has been plastered in every polling district, suggesting that he is still and still going to be PAP's number 1. The next generation of leaders have been fairly silent. Labour Chief, Chan Chun Sing and DPM Tharman have given rousing speeches, or more accurately, a rousing speech each. MSF minister Tan Chuan-Jin has opted to go without a rally. Ministers Lawrence Wong and Sim Ann who have been given the bulk of speaking opportunities (rally speeches + NUS forum, CNA dialogue) have pretty much gutted their entire campaign by attacking the now meek Chee Soon Juan and by going in unprepared for their forums.
Instead of having the new generation of leaders stepping up to speak for PAP and spearhead the campaign, we have our previous prime minister, Goh Chok Tong acting as the spokesperson for PAP with his interesting analogies. Ex-DPM Wong Kan Seng was recalled to deliver his speech and even a SEA games athlete - Dipna Lim spoke at the Sembawang Rally. I've nothing against these speakers but shouldn't the focus of the campaign be on - the next generation of leaders?
The PAP has also demonstrated to have been unable to attract candidates outside the civil service and military who have new ideas to contribute. In contrast, SDP and WP have attracted candidates from various backgrounds and what is impressive is that a lot of these candidates are academics that present new and inspiring ideas both in the policy paper and in speeches. Candidates with academic background such as Prof Tambyah, Leon Perera and Daniel Goh were once thought to have shunned the opposition.
In conclusion, I don't actually think the PAP will lose the election but there is a good chance they will lose seats. East Coast GRC, Fengshan SMC and Holland-Bukit Timah GRC are areas where the opposition has sent their better candidates and sadly where PAP candidates have committed faux pas. I feel the PAP could have played to their advantages and extended their advantage by introducing their plans for the next 50 years. The laissez faire management of their campaign has led to the PAP sending unclear messages to the voters and even painted themselves as bullies, uncaring and out of touch. The PAP has thrown away golden opportunity to hit the opposition back hard and maybe even reclaim Punggol-East SMC. If only they had managed and packaged their campaign better.
The PAP had many things going their way this election, some of which are to their own credit. Firstly, the timing of the election coincided with the SG50 celebrations and LKY's passing. These events were thought to have turned the public sentiment in favour of PAP. Secondly, over the past few years, the government released a slew of initiatives aimed to address public concerns from GE 2011, increase social support as well as distribute the usual freebies. These schemes include the BTO flats, the progressive wage scheme, Medishield Life and of course, the Pioneer Generation Package. Thirdly, the AHPETC saga was caused some voters to begin to distrust the strongest opposition party, WP. Lastly, the PAP has always had the upper hand of having an entrenched "PAP machinery" which stems from the grassroots - Residents' Committees, Peoples' Association - to the civil service, statutory boards and even the various government departments.
With the wind blowing Goh Chok Tong's allegorical PAP luxury cruise ship through calm waters, why does it look like the ruling party is headed for an iceberg?
1. No captain at the ship's wheel
The PAP's campaign strategy throughout the election has been to let the various candidates for each constituency settle their own campaign. No one has coordinated the overall campaign. This is evident in the holding rallies in close proximity on the same day, the lack of a coordinated message in candidate speeches and the lack of coordination in the conducting of the rallies themselves.
On Sep 7, PAP held rallies for Yuhua SMC, Holland-Bukit Timah GRC and Sembawang GRC. On Sep 8, PAP held rallies for Tampines GRC and Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC. These rallies were held in close proximity to each other. In fact, they border each other. The proximity of the rallies would have cannibalised each other's attendance and of course reduced the hype generated. In fact, on Sep 8, the PAP held 6 rallies at the same time. In contrast, most opposition groups held at most 1 rally on each day. For the 2 major parties - WP and SDP, attendance was concentrated at a large venue which promoted high levels of attendance. Like this.
Even though the PAP has more constituencies to cover, they could have spread out the rallies over the course of the election and planned for the rallies to be organised in electoral divisions further away from each other.
While the opposition parties mostly had a coordinated message, the speeches given by PAP candidates seemed to sway from bashing opposition candidates, to promising more upgrading and "report card" references. Just a few PAP candidates detailed policies that had been implemented with some mentions of future plans. All of these speeches have their merits and demerits. However, besides the "report card" reference, candidates did not end up with the same overall message in their speeches. On the other hand the other parties seemed to have distinct messages:
WP - we made the government work harder, we have alternative policies, vote us in to empower your future
SDP - we too have good alternative policies and are avoiding character assassination
The rest - return our CPF! oh, and free stuff for all!
Finally, some GRCs chose not to have rallies while some SMCs (Mountbatten, MacPherson, Hong Kah North) just had their single candidates speak with a couple of grassroots volunteers. This deprived some candidates of speaking opportunities while the SMCs had meagre turnouts.
These hint at an overall lack of coordination.
2. Unchartered course for the next 500 miles
WP candidate Leon Perera accused PAP of being a backward looking party. My opinion is that the PAP does have plans for the future. I doubt that the PAP has left the future to chance and let the PAP ship sail wherever the wind blows. However, the PAP has not expressed any of their future plans in their rally speeches. Much of the focus has been on the past 50 years. Trust PAP for the next 50. But where are we going next?
Both the SDP and WP have detailed counter proposals to current PAP schemes. WP has an overall plan which is about developing the Singapore Core. SDP's overall plan is for more efficient spending so that more money can be channelled to fund welfare programmes. While the proposals lack detail and most glaringly leave out foreign policy, at least they have developed their ideas. The PAP manifesto is long enough but focusses on what has already been done. Of course, most other opposition parties do not have detailed plans. NSP has an appalling 6-slide powerpoint presentation and I question the effort they have put in to counter-propose.
But this should not be the case for the ruling party. If the PAP wants voters to trust them for the next 500 miles, it is important to tell voters where the ship is headed.
3. Crew members puncturing the ship's hull
Instead of even focussing on what the PAP has accomplished, PAP candidates have been drawn into local fistfights. Sim Ann and her "chu pattern", the attacking of Chee Soon Juan's character and the AHPETC management have not bode well with the electorate. Attacking the opposition if perfectly fine but this hand has been overplayed. Too much rally time has been used to say the same things. Sim even dedicated 3.5 minutes to her "chu pattern" assualt on Chee. WP and SDP candidates on the contrary briefly alluded to shortfalls of PAP MPs and ministers and then moved on to future plans and policy ideas.
This not only wasted rally time for ideas to be fleshed out, but also painted PAP as the bully as WP gleefully has pointed out throughout the campaign. Chee won the moral high ground by refusing to respond to the attacks on him. The PAP is disadvantaged in that it will always seem like the bully, being the dominant party. However, if they had played this "character and integrity" card judiciously, they would have caused electoral distrust of the opposition candidates without going too far down the bully road. This was seen at the start of the AHPETC saga when the PAP had just begun to mention the accounting problems. Distrust was sown but PAP was not seen as the bad guy.
The overemphasis on personal attacks have backfired and hurt the PAP more than it did the opposition.
4. First Mates wanted
"This election is about leadership renewal" - Lee Hsien Loong
The PAP's campaign says otherwise. Lee Hsien Loong's face has been plastered in every polling district, suggesting that he is still and still going to be PAP's number 1. The next generation of leaders have been fairly silent. Labour Chief, Chan Chun Sing and DPM Tharman have given rousing speeches, or more accurately, a rousing speech each. MSF minister Tan Chuan-Jin has opted to go without a rally. Ministers Lawrence Wong and Sim Ann who have been given the bulk of speaking opportunities (rally speeches + NUS forum, CNA dialogue) have pretty much gutted their entire campaign by attacking the now meek Chee Soon Juan and by going in unprepared for their forums.
Instead of having the new generation of leaders stepping up to speak for PAP and spearhead the campaign, we have our previous prime minister, Goh Chok Tong acting as the spokesperson for PAP with his interesting analogies. Ex-DPM Wong Kan Seng was recalled to deliver his speech and even a SEA games athlete - Dipna Lim spoke at the Sembawang Rally. I've nothing against these speakers but shouldn't the focus of the campaign be on - the next generation of leaders?
The PAP has also demonstrated to have been unable to attract candidates outside the civil service and military who have new ideas to contribute. In contrast, SDP and WP have attracted candidates from various backgrounds and what is impressive is that a lot of these candidates are academics that present new and inspiring ideas both in the policy paper and in speeches. Candidates with academic background such as Prof Tambyah, Leon Perera and Daniel Goh were once thought to have shunned the opposition.
In conclusion, I don't actually think the PAP will lose the election but there is a good chance they will lose seats. East Coast GRC, Fengshan SMC and Holland-Bukit Timah GRC are areas where the opposition has sent their better candidates and sadly where PAP candidates have committed faux pas. I feel the PAP could have played to their advantages and extended their advantage by introducing their plans for the next 50 years. The laissez faire management of their campaign has led to the PAP sending unclear messages to the voters and even painted themselves as bullies, uncaring and out of touch. The PAP has thrown away golden opportunity to hit the opposition back hard and maybe even reclaim Punggol-East SMC. If only they had managed and packaged their campaign better.
Sunday, 6 September 2015
The real reason why Lui Tuck Yew quit
Transport Minister Lui's decision not to contest the GE 2015 election came as surprise and shock to many. Immediately, the same people who had been calling for his resignation because of the transport issues suddenly started singing a different tune and feeling bad at what pretty much was Lui's resignation from government. "Aiya, it's SMRTs fault not his fault la..."
"Mr Lui was a good minister..."
It's too late for that now.
Was this because of his failure as a minister? Was PAP trying to play the sympathy card?
I think not. To leave the government just 9 years after being voted in as an MP seems premature, especially for a Singaporean minister. Even if the minister does a horrible job, it is atypical for the PAP to sack them (remember Mah Bow Tan and his housing policies?). After all, he could have simply be reassigned a ministry. It also is illogical for PAP to throw away a minister just for a bit of sympathy. With the added negativity of the minister resigning, the transport minister portfolio already plagued by persistent MRT breakdowns and fare hikes will become a poisoned chalice.
The real reason why Lui Tuck Yew quit was because his bosses at PAP humiliated him. His bosses deemed him to be liability (because of the transport issues) and dissolved his ward. Lui Tuck Yew was supposed to be the joint anchor minister of Moulmein-Kallang GRC but the wise elections department decided to dissolve Moulmein-Kallang to form Jalan Besar GRC, which he would not be part of. Worse still. they hived off large sections of his own ward, scattering the Moulmein PAP branch all over Singapore - Bishan-Toa Payoh, Holland Bukit-Timah and Jalan Besar.
This is Moulmein in 2011:
The ward previously extended from Tessensohn Civil Service to MacRitchie Reservoir to Balestier Road. This election, it extends from Tekka Mall to Whitley Road and then to United Square. 2015 Moulmein ward does not even include Moulmein Road!!!
The Moulmein ward now inherited by ex-police deputy commissioner Melvin Yong is a tiny fragment hiding inside Tanjong Pagar GRC.
The decision to redraw Lui's ward was probably also in view that the Worker's Party would be contesting Moulmein-Kallang again. Hiding Moulmein in Tanjong Pagar GRC is an assured way to keep the ward in PAP hands, especially in view that it is being contested by the Walls ice cream party (SingFirst) that no one really takes seriously.
In the larger scheme of things, these measures displayed a lack of trust in Minister Lui to hold his own and of course blatant inconsideration for the scattered residents of Moulmein who are now the real nomads this election. The branch leaders of Moulmein who have worked so hard in this ward now have to see they built over the years snatched away from them. If this isn't humiliation for a minister, I don't know what is. Well, there was Lawrence Wong humiliating himself at the CNA forum but that's another story. This humiliation is the real reason why Lui Tuck Yew quit.
For those who are concerned about our dear minister's well-being, fear not. He is still well alive and kicking. He was last seen setting up posters in the Moulmein area as a regular PAP volunteer. And he looks much happier now.
- Disgruntled Constituent
"Mr Lui was a good minister..."
It's too late for that now.
Was this because of his failure as a minister? Was PAP trying to play the sympathy card?
I think not. To leave the government just 9 years after being voted in as an MP seems premature, especially for a Singaporean minister. Even if the minister does a horrible job, it is atypical for the PAP to sack them (remember Mah Bow Tan and his housing policies?). After all, he could have simply be reassigned a ministry. It also is illogical for PAP to throw away a minister just for a bit of sympathy. With the added negativity of the minister resigning, the transport minister portfolio already plagued by persistent MRT breakdowns and fare hikes will become a poisoned chalice.
The real reason why Lui Tuck Yew quit was because his bosses at PAP humiliated him. His bosses deemed him to be liability (because of the transport issues) and dissolved his ward. Lui Tuck Yew was supposed to be the joint anchor minister of Moulmein-Kallang GRC but the wise elections department decided to dissolve Moulmein-Kallang to form Jalan Besar GRC, which he would not be part of. Worse still. they hived off large sections of his own ward, scattering the Moulmein PAP branch all over Singapore - Bishan-Toa Payoh, Holland Bukit-Timah and Jalan Besar.
This is Moulmein in 2011:
And this is Moulmein in 2015.
The ward previously extended from Tessensohn Civil Service to MacRitchie Reservoir to Balestier Road. This election, it extends from Tekka Mall to Whitley Road and then to United Square. 2015 Moulmein ward does not even include Moulmein Road!!!
The Moulmein ward now inherited by ex-police deputy commissioner Melvin Yong is a tiny fragment hiding inside Tanjong Pagar GRC.
The decision to redraw Lui's ward was probably also in view that the Worker's Party would be contesting Moulmein-Kallang again. Hiding Moulmein in Tanjong Pagar GRC is an assured way to keep the ward in PAP hands, especially in view that it is being contested by the Walls ice cream party (SingFirst) that no one really takes seriously.
In the larger scheme of things, these measures displayed a lack of trust in Minister Lui to hold his own and of course blatant inconsideration for the scattered residents of Moulmein who are now the real nomads this election. The branch leaders of Moulmein who have worked so hard in this ward now have to see they built over the years snatched away from them. If this isn't humiliation for a minister, I don't know what is. Well, there was Lawrence Wong humiliating himself at the CNA forum but that's another story. This humiliation is the real reason why Lui Tuck Yew quit.
For those who are concerned about our dear minister's well-being, fear not. He is still well alive and kicking. He was last seen setting up posters in the Moulmein area as a regular PAP volunteer. And he looks much happier now.
- Disgruntled Constituent
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)