17 thoughts on “About”

1. Greetings. You might be interested in some of my articles on our socio-political issues at http://theaveragedollar.wordpress.com. Let’s work together towards a more-close knit society for every Singaporean.

   Reply

2. Please never stop writing.

   Reply

3. Hey Roy, I just came across the article http://thehearttruths.com/2012/09/25/singapore-in-2083-kow-tow-to-malaysia/ on FB since some of my friends are sharing it on their wall.

   Kudos to you, it certainly is thought provoking!

   Just wondering if it’s possible to establish contact with you via email? Mine is as recorded in the form.

   Cheers!

   Reply

   • Hey, JD,

     Thanks for your message!

     I have dropped you an email. Do let me know if you were able to receive it!

     Roy

     Reply

4. Very insightful articles on the politics of singapore exploring the PAP’s motives for their actions. I will be following your blog closely.

   I have grown up in Singapore but spending the past 6 years in the UK has allowed me to see Singapore’s changes from an outsider’s point of view. It frustrates me that the ruling party is able to get away with alot of legally aboveboard but ethically ambiguous actions without getting called out.

   Would you then be able to comment on the motives of singaporeans, why do you think that Singaporean people do not speak out more and call the government out on their actions? I know the usual arguments are that people are afraid of punitive actions against them like the defamation suits against Alex Au, however this has not stopped people from speaking out and creating change in other countries, both western and non-western.

   It is my personal belief that more people like you and alex au should speak out and create a culture where it is acceptable to speak out and create change.

   BW,
   Ming

   Reply

   • Hey hi Ming,

     Thank you for your message. Actually, I’ve noticed a lot of blogs have sprung up over the past 6 months. Many people have taken online to express their ideas and analysis. We need a way to consolidate all these blogs

     Thank you for your question! The reason is this – it’s subconscious. The policies that have been put in place – the prevention of freedom of speech and expression, peaceful demonstrations, the legal actions – suing or threatening others of defamation, and the shaping of the media discourse – all of these has systematically created a people who have learnt to suppress their thinking and learnt not to develop critical thinking abilities, because of their initial conscious, and then subconscious fear of being marginalized by the government. At the same time, our education system has been geared so much towards towards educating on mathematics and science that it has created a people whose critical thinking skills for other areas were not developed as they learnt to see these thinking areas as not useful for a money-focused life. Because we learn to align ourselves to the economic principles of the PAP, and because we want to become rich, and for the some of Singaporeans who are the newly-rich or getting there, there is a strong want to align yourself to the values of PAP so that you can get ahead with their support – this means you prevent yourself from being critical of them, and you learn to think and act as they do, whether this is conscious or subconscious. This is why if people support PAP, they adopt every viewpoint that PAP puts out. When they disagree with PAP’s policies, it’s a flippant thinking but they continue to say they believe PAP will change, even if they know PAP wont. This duality in their thinking arises from the fact that deep within, they want change, but yet, they want the wealth that aligning with PAP can coffer, so they’ve resisted one impulse over the other. And this is also why for the many of them, when they argue for PAP’s policies and protect PAP’s rationale, they do so not because they believe in PAP. They don’t realise this but they are fighting and protecting their right to make money and their right to wealth. You have to understand that their primary motivations towards aligning themselves with PAP is to make money, so that need to support PAP at all costs – because of their money at stake. They do not need to have a mind of their own but they need to throw their support behind PAP as a brand – and not as a party – so that this brand, they think, will ensure their wealth generation. And this what PAP has done skillfully – to use wealth to tie people to them, which is short-term thinking and myopic, because once these people no longer just pander to money and their minds are awaken, this is when PAP’s power will crumble. These are the people who currently comprise the majority of the 60% of the people who voted for PAP at the last general elections and those who had voted for Tony Tan as president. But you can see that some of them are starting to cross over. There is enough research which shows that when people do not feel that they have enough autonomy, no matter how much money you throw at them, they will feel a sense of emptiness and they won’t be happy – some of them have reached this stage. So, the question now is this – will there be enough people who have awakened who will swing the votes away from PAP and prevent them from forming the next government, and putting in place their designated president, or will there be enough people on the other side who will then push PAP out of power?

     Also, generally, you can see that a lot of people have resorted to complaining. I’ve written about this people, and the question is to ask why – Singaporeans have learnt to complain because you can consider this as a least threatening form of speaking out, without having to feel the consequences. When people realised that they couldn’t speak out, for fear of threats or punishment, they’ve learnt to suppress their urge to speak up. But people being people, we want to speak up – yet the question is, how can we speak up without having to face the consequences? So, we’ve dumbed ourselves down. We speak up without making it sound like the government is wrong or needs to change. We learn to ‘complain’ and point to the mess everywhere, except towards the government. And even when we complain about the government, it’s not about advocating for change, it’s a comment without teeth or grit, but one of dejection and the inability to act on it. And the government is fine with it – complain all you want, and they’ve called it the Singapore culture. As long as people complain, they will continue to mop and stay stagnant in their situation. This will prevent them from realizing their rights and asking for change. You see, to take action, this means we stop just complaining, but turn these complaints into useful action, by rallying ourselves to advocate change. First, institutionally, we feel our hands are tired because of the laws and threat of legal action. Second, we feel that we are not able to change things anyway. In recent times, our complaining behaviour has degenerated further to be one that we’ve learnt to complain about other people. Because we cannot complain about the government, we’ve learnt to direct our attention and anger towards others which are the byproduct of the government’s policies or who we feel are the link between the government’s policies and us. And that’s why people have learnt to get angry and have directed their energies towards the foreigners, for one. Consciously, they feel that the foreigners are stealing our jobs away and they have caused our wages to be depressed – it’s all the foreigners’ fault. But what they do realise is this – the reason why our wages are being depressed is bad government planning and policy making. The government could have created policies which prevented our wages from dropping. But they didn’t want to. It’s not in their interests to – where do their profits come from then? Which is why the government is happy that we are angry with the foreigners. It takes the attention away from our anger with them and it takes away attention from the real problem – that they have created bad policies – that they had not been doing their job. So, the government doesn’t actively try to bridge differences. They want the difference to flourish. And Singaporeans do not break this chain of thinking because subconsciously, they are directing their energies towards what seems most obvious, and second, because consciously, they know they cannot act against the government, or they feel they cannot. This same reasoning applies for when Singaporeans had resisted the building of the nursing homes and dormitories for the foreign labour – we’ve learnt to discriminate against others because it is our coping mechanism towards our inability to act against the government.

     And this is the primary reason why there continues to be discrimination in Singapore. The government allows it to happen, as what is explained before. Also, because of what was explained much earlier on – there are a group of people who would align themselves to PAP because they fervently want to protect their wealth or their new wealth, they will protect PAP at all costs, but only in name, and in that process, they will discriminate others who do not agree with them. And on both counts, it is very, very sad and deeply unethical that PAP has allowed this to happen, and does not stop it. They do this because it keeps them in power, and it prevents people from finding fault with them. A responsible government should be one which ensure stability in society, among the diversity of its people. Yet, one which allows discrimination to be perpetuated is a vastly irresponsible and selfish government – they’ve tied themselves and their egos to their power for so long, and they are so scared to lose this power, that they’ve allowed the people’s interests to be sacrificed and they’ve allowed the social fabric of Singapore to be torn apart, precisely because of their basic fundamentals of economic growth, and this want to them prevent people from taking it away. They are stuck in their perpetual fears and principles, which has now become a contradiction against the people.

     Then the reason is – can we do anything? It means that we need to start being aware and being critical in our thinking. We have to train ourselves. We have to learn not to take things at face value, and always probe deeper and further – this means that when we read The Straits Times, or the other mainstream media, that we ask – why is the government positioning the information in this way? What are they trying to hide? What is their strategy for using the information in this way? What will be the long term effects that they hoping to have? What will their next step be? How does this information lead on from a previous news? We need to think critically, so that we can formulate a discourse that is not defined by the government, but one that we can see with clarity, which is what the government is really doing.

     Only when we can see clearly, can we learn to appreciate what the government is trying to do, and when we can plan to then challenge the government on equal grounds. What about speaking up? You need to understand how the government uses the fear to prevent people from speaking up. At some point, we need to be prepared that they will use threats against us. Then the question is this – will you speak up for what is right and what is rightfully yours? Will you take a stand because it is about you? The reason why many people do not take a stand is this – we’ve learnt to value stability and we’ve learnt to want to protect the wealth that we have earned. If I speak up, will I still have all this money and wealth? Will I be safe? It’s a decision you have to make. For me, I need to speak up because there are so many people who are disadvantaged and devalued because of the policies that the government has made. Is it right? It’s not and I’m not going to sit there and wait. It’s simply not right. And we need to take a stand.

     The reason why those who are aligned to PAP don’t speak up is because of this – they do not have strong views anyway. They want to protect PAP, but it isn’t ideological. Their strong views are this – I want money. I want to be rich. If they want to speak up and fight, they do not have strong ideological grounds to fight on. Sure, what they would do is when they debate with you, they will get very angry and emotionally charged, then what they do is they push out the arguments that PAP has made and the watch them crumble, as you bring out facts, statistics and clear information and they have nothing to back themselves on, or to stand on. You see, whatever arguments they form, whatever PAP says, they buy unquestioningly. And they aren’t used to people challenging them, because in the past, no one would. But this is no longer ‘in the past’. Because they do not have strong ideological beliefs or their beliefs are formed by arguments formulated by PAP, they’ve learnt to formulate further ‘logical’ reasoning from them. They’ve conjured a whole story around this illusion.

     And this is actually what a lot of Singaporeans have used to do – conjure and live within and illusion that PAP has created. And it’s no longer working. But of course, you might ask – but what if I am the one living in an illusion that I’ve conjured? I don’t know, I could be – but if more and more people are awakening and seeing the truth, I cannot hardly be the one unless our minds are being influenced by some consolidated entity which is changing it – but there’s none. Other than PAP, no one else controls the mind in Singapore. Then where are all these shifts in mind coming from? Well, we are all starting to awake, in our own time and processes. We are beginning to access more information and we are starting to develop our critical thinking abilities. This has helped us make more informed and ‘objective’ decisions which are logical deductions. And we are beginning to see the truth.

     For the next step, how do we gather our thoughts and formulate a systematic manner with which to advocate to the government with. This will be the next phase of the development. We need people to come together to decide to want to change things, and able people who are able to intelligently create systems and discourses which will put us in good stead.

     I would be interested to know what an observer from outside look at the ongoings that are occurring within Singapore!

     Thanks for your message!

     Roy

     Reply

     • Sorry folks, due to time constraint that I am in now, just an interim comment to share, if you permit me for the time being, without the benefit of reading lines and lines of comments (I ll return), I some days back re-read an article by Ngiam TD some while ago – he said that the Gov must come out with ‘stategic’ policies to move the country and the country’s economy forward. not ‘tactical’ policies which he cited the Jobs for Credit scheme for example,, in which the PAP gov foots part of the wage bill of employers recently to save jobs and help the companies avoid mass retrenchments.
       The other point, GCT introduced an idea previously while he was PM, he coined the term, insurgents. In fact if I am not wrong, he said, we must act like insurgents, be our ‘own’, which I meant to interpret that we citizens in doing whatever we are doing in our various spheres of livelihood here, do it with the insurgents mindlike – aggressive, purposeful, thorough to achieve qualitative outcomes.

5. Hi Roy,

   It is evident you have a brilliant mind.

   Can you please give me your thoughts on how best to arrest the aged population problem in 2030 with the background now awash by the ill effects of capitalism that have crept insidiously into our life situations? If we make a move, there is strong opposition; but if we stayed put, we will diminish and perish as a nation.

   In my opinion, the adverse ground feel against the government took root from the fact that they feel oppressed by the 1% rich and powerful – it is Singapore’s ‘Arab Spring’ or ‘Occupy Wall Street”. If we look around, it is the same everywhere – UK, EU. It is the business owners, the cruel business managers who are the cause of all this suffering. Often, governments are victims themselves – see how the US Congress deals with the Fed?

   I cannot imagine Singaporeans oppose to the white paper to deal with the impending aged population, which is a certain problem in a few decades from now, just of their opposition to PAP. The aged problem has to be dealt with now and there is no time for delay. So, what can we do?

   Regards,
   Jacob

   Reply

   • Dear Jacob,

     Thank you for your message.

     I think if you look at the foundations of Singapore, they are very strong. We have a strong legal system and framework. And fortunately for now, we continue to have strong business interests and a well-educated group of Singaporeans. If not for these, Singapore would have started going off the radar 5 years ago. We have to thank our founding leaders for this.

     The problem that we have with Singapore now is that we have new leaders who have taken over the system who do not understand the system. They continue to promote the ideals that the initial leaders had put down – such as meritocracy – when their planning fundamentals have already shifted. It began in 2001 when this current group of leaders started shifting their goal posts to grow their wealth. They did this by earning off not only from businesses, but from the people as well. And that’s why rents increased, CPF withdrawals decreased, real wages fell and so on. Thus they developed new principles of the growth of wealth, yet propagating old principles which no longer represent what they truly believe is, which is why you can see a disjoint when they speak of these olden values and you can see that they no longer understand what it means.

     To be fair, across the world, there was a dynamic shift into focusing on growing world economies through a strong focus on capitalism, after the 2001. World economies were shake end by America and governments started becoming capitalists, and also took on the role of earning from their people. This was what happened in Singapore and what shifted.

     Does PAP care about the people? I believe there are PAP politicians who do believe and care for the people, but on the overall, the core management of PAP wants to Singapore’s wealth, so it compromises on their ability to care for Singaporeans, precisely because even if they want to care for Singaporeans, it is in these very areas that they need to take advantage of Singaporeans. Which is why PAP continues to say that it has the backs of Singaporeans or that we are in this together. You see, on one hand, the PAP politicians sincerely believe that they enter politics to help Singaporeans, but on the other, their fundamental ideal to generate wealth prevent them from doing so. They need to overcome this hurdle.

     But the question is, can this hurdle be overcome? There are two fundamental problems with our current batch of leaders. They are people schooled in the new education of Singapore, where they’ve been trained with a one-route mind. Second, they’ve been severely sheltered from the rest of Singaporeans, having grown up in their protracted environment from the rest of Singaporeans. They cannot have a complete grasp of the realities of Singapore and their education doesn’t allow them to see expansively. This is why in the current debate over the population white paper, the current leaders could only focus on the problem at hand – we need more people, instead of realise that they need to look at the evolution of the problem, to understand the state the economy is, how it interacts with the population and their needs, and how we need to reenvision the problem. They are unable to do that, precisely because they are a by-product of the Singapore’s education and its singular focus towards producing workers and managers for the economy.

     Essentially, the real and much deeper problem is that we need to reform our economy and education system, but more importantly, the inability of our leaders do see this, and yet continue to believe in their decision-making also means that there is an urgent need to reform out political system. But this is something that PAP will not acknowledge, and so Singaporeans need to take the responsibility of reforming our political system, by voting in diverse minds into the government, to overhaul the thinking patterns within governance. This does not suggest PAP isn’t the right government. The government is not about PAP. The government is about putting people in who can represent us and who can think expansively, when needed, to resolve Singapore’s problems, and we owe it to ourselves to do what is right to protect ourselves, our future and our children’s future.

     On how we can resolve our ageing problem, I will suggest this. Currently, we look at our elderly as wealth generating beings. We do not look at them as people. In fact, this is something we do to everyone in Singapore – everyone is a statistic. When we do that, when the government manages Singapore, instead of thinking about their needs as well, the government has a very silo mindset of simply increasing the statistics who work, and thus any statistic which is capable of labour should work. And that’s how the government looks at Singaporeans. This is especially dire for the elderly, because at their old age, they shouldn’t be having to work day in, day out because in your golden years, you should be allowed to finally rest having been made to pander to the capitalistic tendencies of your country for the past 50 or 60 years of your life. They should finally be some respect accorded to you as a person, and not just as an economic node. But yet, the government continues to work them.

     Realistically, for Singapore, the truth is we need more and more workers, but this is if we go down the current path. If indeed we need our older workers to work, the question is how can we ensure that they have a respectable work life? As I’ve discussed in a previous article, more than 90% of the older workers work full time and they work the longest hours of 49 hours. Also, a majority of them work in blue collar occupations. We need to allow them to work respectably. This means that if they have to work, we have to let them work shorter hours and for fewer days. Also, they are currently doing menial jobs. We need to allow them to use technology to make their work easier, or we have to allow them to move into occupations which do not repurpose them into unskilled jobs – because this frame of mind shows precisely that we do not value them, and that’s why we want them to take on the lowest skilled jobs in Singapore.

     And most importantly, because they are in the blue-collar occupations, our older workers are paid the lowest wages. It becomes a chronic issue because they do not have enough savings to retire. They do not have enough in their CPF, Medisave and Medishield, and so forth, which means they are trapped in chronic poverty which our older Singaporeans are stuck in. But did they choose it? The problem is with the system which marginalises them. And this is then, a broader issue which involves thinking about our treatment towards supposed low-skilled workers. Do we think that they are so unimportant that we pay them such a low wage? Do we think that they are so unimportant that we import foreigner workers and pay them to do low wages to do this jobs? So again, the fundamental problem is that this government is capitalistic and our decisions as to how much we should pay low-skilled workers impinges on how little economic value capitalism has accorded their skills, and thus their pay.

     We could go into a further elaboration on this. But put simply, we need to pay the supposed low-skilled workers fairer and more equitable pay, which also respects their role as a person, and not just as a worker. Once we are able to do this, we will be able to protect our older workers, because the very problem that has caused them to have to continue to work will be resolved upstream.

     Which brings us to another issue – how can we simply increase the wages of the supposed low-skilled workers? We can because if you look at the Nordic countries, and even Australia and Canada, people are paid relatively high wages even if they are in supposed low-skilled jobs. Why? First, as described, it’s because we do not treat these workers as just economic nodes without capitalistic purpose, but we treat them as people who need to be respected and protected.

     Second, and this is the inherent problem of Singapore, is that we need to restructure these occupations. Currently, the government talks about raising the productivity of the low-wage earners so that once we do so, we can increase their wages. As I’ve discussed before, this will never happen (not with current mindsets) because our productivity will not improve, because businesses have no impetus to invest in improving productivity, and why – because their profit margin is already so tight, also driven by the high rental that the government has put in place. So again, the government has a role to play in why downstream, productivity won’t improve, and why our low wage earners will continue to earn low wages and why our older workers will continue to work past 65, 67 or 70.

     The government cannot peg wage growth to productive growth. The solution, and this applies to the whole of the Singapore economy, is to restructure and reform our economy and labour market. So, if you look at the previous example again, instead of ‘increasing productivity’ we need to reform the industry. We need to first, accord proper hours and fair wages across the board to any workers, regardless of their age, gender, national identity etc. Then, we need to introduce new ways of working, such as by using technology.

     But it comes to mind – isn’t this what we’ve been talking about? Yes and no. First, the current solutions are framed in terms of increasing productivity. This is a wrong framing. It’s the wrong perspective. We need to look at it as restructuring the job and labour market. Then, what this means is that companies need to have the impetus to do so. And this is where from here, the problems are not currently resolved. This means that the government needs to be targeted in their approach, by working with specific industries to brainstorm how they can restructure these economies, and by investing financially to assist them on making the translation. But more so, and this I would argue is the key fundamental problem in this situation – the government needs to lower rental to reduce costs, so that this frees up the company with some spare cash and breathing space, to kick-start innovation and build momentum.

     Which brings me to this final point – will the government reduce rent? Will the government start treating people not just as workers but as people with rights, dignity and who should be respected in all senses, including their wage remuneration? This government will not because their organizing principles are structured along the lines of wealth generation, one which they undertook more aggressively since 2001, and the limited education that they’ve undergone has prevented them from developing more dynamic solutions to resolve the current deeper impediments that surround our economy. If we want to reform our economy and our labour market, we need to reform the political system in Singapore.

     In order to reform the political system in Singapore, the current government needs to have a change in their mindsets. The question on everyone’s mind is – can they? If we do not think they can, then we need to do what’s right by putting ourselves up, and then by voting ourselves in, so that we can reinvigorate our government with new thinking and new solutions. Thereafter, we need to ensure that all the other estates of governance – President, economy, judiciary, military, media – become independent so that they can become a credible check on the government, keep the government on its toes and allow the government to be kept nimble so that the government will be ensured to always think in dynamic ways to resolve issues in our country.

     This is what I think and believe in. It would also be good to also understand how you might think about this.

     Thanks much!

     Roy

     Reply

6. Pingback: The Problem with Singapore: Relooking our Governing and Economic Fundamentals | The Heart Truths

7. Hi! Your blog is insightful and backed with statistical analyses. Keep up the good work. I’ll do my part in sharing it with others as well.

   However, as your blog grows, and I know it will, I hope it will not degenerate into one filled with anti-pap rhetoric, because that is just unproductive. I hope that you will take this to the next level where, we can propose alternative constructive solutions.

   Lets us not blame the incumbents, but move along to bettering our society and lifting all participants in the Singapore Story towards the next millennium!

   Many people speak about voting out the incumbents. But many are also concerned about the calibre of the opposition parties. I do not doubt their loyalties to Singaporeans, but they seem to be unable to attract the qualified professionals and entice them into taking the alternative voice… As you put it, people are unwilling to speak up, lest their current, or anticipated future wealth be jeopardized. In this case, what do you suggest?

   Thanks! And again, great job.

   Reply

   • Pardon my long-windedness: I’ve been catching up on your past posts n found a partial answer to my question (http://thehearttruths.com/2013/02/05/discussion-on-singapore-population-white-paper-2013-part-7/ )…

     I’m only about 70% convinced. since Singaporeans, being of the cautious nature, mAy not stand up to their new opposition bosses (in the event that a wrong decision is made) and drive the right actions through – its probably how we got to the current situation in the first place!. Perhaps I am being kiasee… Let me continue reading and perhaps I may answer my own question yet again…

     Sorry for taking up comment space… Haha. I realize I can start a conversation with myself.

     Reply

8. This is just one of those atypical ‘anti-PAP’ is degenerative. Why is this so? Can’t you annotate that ‘anti PAP’ itself can be positive and a good thing which perhaps only you aren’t able to see and just degrade it as degenerative. People are free to air their views. Everyone has a say and is entitled to, just like you, no difference, am I wrong on this? Why the need to label ‘anti-PAP’ as degenerative rhetoric – which only indicate to me that it is from someone living in glass houses, or ivory towers, engaging in talking talks.

   Next. Why ‘let’s us not blame the incumbents? If one is not to scrutinise and blame them for the mass of wrong doings, then how to call a spade a spade and truly move forward from there?

   One more, “but they seem to be unable to attract the qualified professionals …” – qualified professionals meaning professional politicians, or professionals in their own fields in the private sector but not qualified enough to be opposition politicians as ‘an’ alternative voice”??

   How about giving due credit to the likes of those who won AGRC against ‘all odds’, and a heart-lander, gutsy, hardworking tuition teacher winning PE by-election and also against hugh odds, viz a highly qualified doctor, a professional too.

   Reply

   • On your first point: every one has a say -yes that’s very true and I agree with you whole heatedly. But let me ask u this – short of risking arrest, what else can we do? The chance to do something legally abt them being in power is already over… The next chance is in 2016, so the way I see it, my proposition is to generate enough interest in Credible solutions that out-trumps those proposed by them. This will show that there are many sources of untapped potential in the citizen core -and I am dammed sure that there are (could come from yourself, the author of the blog, the hawker auntie!). Because if we could identify clear, more effective solutions, and the govt chooses not to listen, then it only bolsters the case for a removal. On the other hand, if they heed our suggestions, then who better, than the ones most familiar with the system, to efficiently implement it?(sadly I say this with the risk of sounding pro-pap, but I am a “means-justifies-the-ends” kinda person.)

     Your second point – indulge me here and allow me to reference the words “anti-pap rhetoric. Is that not what’s been traded on the internet, and on many other blogs? You can say that there are many hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet, but calling names and not identifying the issues, not targeting them and not focusing on resolution, just simply does not help the situation. They may be a spade, but calling a spade a spade, doesn’t exactly generate ideas about new ways to use it. Do note that in my sentence, my main focus is on it being an encouragement to all alternative voices to help in bettering the Singaporean society.

     Your third point – I believe in luck and being in the right place at the right time, largely influences a persons success. and being a professional, hence doesn’t indicate that he/she is the right person for a political position. But, my point of view, in being a qualified doctor, the pap candidate would clearly have been in more stressful situations as compared to a tuition teacher. Now don’t get me wrong here, I never said a tuition teacher is any less hard working than a doctor or would put less effort, or is a less fulfilling or less important role. But in a stressful situation, based on not knowing a person’s character, based on accreditations and work experience, would you trust a tuition teacher or a doctor in making crisis critical decisions? Sadly, as another has commented – this is a chicken and egg problem… Are we Singaporeans willing to risk a 5 year term to try out new opposition candidates in ministerial positions? (Note, this means the opposition parties have to win enough to completely unseat the pap,based on current electoral boundaries) if this is a resounding yes, then lets brace ourselves… But unfortunately I think this is a high personal hurdle for many….

     On your last para, I never said anything abt not giving credit due. I am extremely happy that our opposition party took strides in being the alternative voice. But clearly, Mr Yaw’s handling of his situation was less than satisfactory, at least for me. While I am not a hougang resident, abandoning his constituency and not going public is clearly irresponsible. And don’t get me wrong, I would like to believe that my MPs are beyond reproach, given they have chosen a public career, be it from the pap or opposition. But my point of view is, it is good that we Singaporeans are taking steps to ensure an alternative voice is heard. However, come 2016 and the opposition wins the current 60% majority, Will you trust our current opposition leaders to be ministry heads and PM? Even if you do, will our opposition be able to attract an additional 71 ministers in the span of 4 years, and groom them to be effective leaders of their respective ministries? My concern is that, in 4 years time just to prove a point, i may have contributed in voting in too many opposition leaders without the right credibility. And that is a danger that we may have to fight hard to reverse…

     Perhaps my analyses are myopic and narrow, but as you say, and I fully agree, I am entitled my own view. But I do appreciate your clarification and contribution to helping me improve and for my opinion to evolve.

     Citizen : Thank you for your reply – I am assuming that you are replying to my comment. I apologize if I may have misread your intentions and will appreciate if my can point me to other credible sources like this blog.

     Reply

9. Roy , been following your blog closely ..great writing !

   Reply

10. Roy, very insightful and honest comments on our society – the symbiotic nature of Singaporeans’ pursuit of wealth generation and the PAP’s ability to ensure that in the meantime.

    When I asked my colleague what to do with rising HDB prices, he grumbled (the subconscious response to complain that you mentioned). YET, he didn’t want his parent’s HDB flat value to go down at all.

    I think any political change / party will not lead to genuine change if the fundamental ideology of most (not all of course) Singaporeans remain as wealth generation and looking beyond the individual’s needs.

    Leo Tolstoy said that everyone wants to change the world, but no one wants to change themselves.

    I hope the gradual awakening includes a change in the heart towards one that cares about everyone in our community.

    Reply

11. I m new here, came across your blog via the link provided in Jeraldine Phneah’s article in TOC. Your post on economy growth and wage growth is very good analysis and broken down to help layman understand and decipher the codes behind all these govt talk. Thanks.

    Reply