Even long before the Hougang by-election was called, it was a foregone conclusion that the PAP would be defeated and could be by a bigger margin than in the General Election (GE) in May 2011. And so the PAP candidate Desmond Choo went into the fray as something of an underdog. He had some of the PAP big guns, prominant among whom was DPM Teo Chee Hean, giving him sterling support in his campaign in the vain hope of turning the tables on the Workers' Party (WP) candidate. Even PM Lee Hsien Loong came out to canvass votes for Desmond Choo.
Despite all their eloquence in appealing to the Hougang voters to vote for the PAP candidate for an improvement in their livelihood, it became obvious that their blandishments had had little or no effect on majority of the voters.Even the strenous efforts by DPM Teo Chee Hean to discredit the character of WP candidate Png Eng Huat failed to strike home the effect.When the by-election results were announced officially , Desmond Choo only managed to gather 37.9 per cent of the votes. This is slightly better than the 35.9 per cent he obtained at the GE in May 2011 if it could be of any credit or encouragement to him. Of course the PAP leaders could not show disappointment to the detriment of their standing and they had willy-nilly to put up a bold front that it was an improvement of Hougang voters' support.
The WP candidate Png Eng Huat was obviously riding on the strong personal loyalty of Hougang voters to their former MP Low Thia Khiang and emerged as the winning candidate with a convincing 62.1 per cent of the votes. It was a slight dip from the 64.8 per cent obtained by former MP Yaw Shin Leong in the GE in May 2011 and this was played up by WP detractors. In fact, a bigger margin of victory was expected but that it did not materialise could be a credit to the vigorous campaign put up by the PAP whiich is their only consolation in defeat.
PAP big guns took pain to emphasise when the by-election was called that this was a local election strictly about choosing the MP who can best help its residents solve their problems and not a national referendum. Knowing that the final result will be against them, they had followed strictly in their campaign as a local election and avoided falling into the trap of being pursued as a national issue. On the other hand, WP leaders drummed on the emphasis that Hougang by-election was a national issue.
The PAP may find to its discomfort that this is not the end of the matter.Right-thinking Singaporeans, especially Hougang voters who voted for the WP candidate, will regard the result of the Hougang by-election as a referendum on the performance of the PAP since the GE in May 2011.PAP leaders can pooh-pooh this phenomenon at their peril because they will regret it when the next general election comes along in 2016 and Singapore voters show their wrath. The PAP Government may not face the danger of falling, but opposition, not necessarily WP alone, making inroads into a few more GRCs may be the order of the day. Hougang voters may be local in character but their indomitable spirits are alive and will spread to other constituencies.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Friday, May 11, 2012
A much- diffident PAP in Hougang by-election
The general public perception was that it was going to be a prolonged wait for the Hougang by-election to take place given the enigmatic attitude of PM Lee Hsien Loong on the subject. It could have been a divine awakening on his part that prompted him to make the much-awaited announcement of a by-election in Hougang SMC. President Tony Tan Keng Yam issued a writ of election on 9 May setting Nomination Day for 16 May and Polling Day on 26 May. That PM Lee's sudden change of heart caught the public by surprise is not an exaggeration. There could be considerable speculations on his change of heart but foremost is probably a sense of realisation that putting off the by-election sine die is not in the long term interest of the PAP politically.The possibility of the court action brought by Madam Vellama Marie Muthu, a Hougang voter, challenging his "unfettered" discretion being ended up in his disfavour could not be ruled out.
This by-election announcement is indeed a welcoming piece of news to Singaporeans, especially Hougang voters. The PAP and Workers' Party (WP) lost no time in introducing their respective candidates for the by-election. Three opposition parties have declared that they will stay away from the hustings, virtually making it a straight fight between the PAP and WP. PAP's candidate is 34 year-old Desmond Choo, a deputy director at NTUC Industrial Relations Unit. WP's candidate is 50 year-old Png Eng Huat, a businessman.
Mr Low Thia Khiang, WP secretary-general, as a former MP of Hougang SMC had been nurturing the Hougang constituency for the past twenty years to make it into a WP stronghold. Therefore Desmond Choo faces an uphill, if not impossible, task in trying to wrest the Hougang SMC from WP. As if to pre-empt any attempt by the opposition or other interested parties to equate this by-election as a referendum on the performance of the PAP since the General Election in May 2011, DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam stressed at his press conference on 10 May to introduce Desmond Choo that this by-election is a local election strictly about choosing the MP who can help its residents solve their problems. As if by collusion a PAP spin doctor in the Straits Times wrote a commentary under the title: Poll is not a referendum on either PAP or WP. She asked the question whether Hougang is just a local election and answered by saying it is certainly not a national referendum on the performance on either PAP or WP. Earlier she had said it is not a referendum on the performance of the PAP since May 2011.
It is not difficult to understand why DPM Tharman and the Straits Times Review Editor went to some length to emphasise that the Hougang by-election as a local election and not a national referendum. The former WP MP Yaw Shin Leong won the Hougang seat by a wide margin of 64.8 per cent of the votes in the GE in May2011 and the general feeling among Singaporeans is that the PAP may lose by a bigger margin. Hougang voters' anger over PM Lee's procrastination in holding the by-election may be a relevant factor. Whatever DPM Tharman and the Straits Times may assert to the contrary there is nothing to prevent Hougang voters who vote for the WP candidate and other right-thinking Singaporeans to regard the by-election result as a national referendum on the performance of the PAP since May 2011.This should not distress the PAP unduly because in the unlikly event that the PAP candidate secures victory against the general trend of opinion, this will in turn become a referendum on their good performance.
This by-election announcement is indeed a welcoming piece of news to Singaporeans, especially Hougang voters. The PAP and Workers' Party (WP) lost no time in introducing their respective candidates for the by-election. Three opposition parties have declared that they will stay away from the hustings, virtually making it a straight fight between the PAP and WP. PAP's candidate is 34 year-old Desmond Choo, a deputy director at NTUC Industrial Relations Unit. WP's candidate is 50 year-old Png Eng Huat, a businessman.
Mr Low Thia Khiang, WP secretary-general, as a former MP of Hougang SMC had been nurturing the Hougang constituency for the past twenty years to make it into a WP stronghold. Therefore Desmond Choo faces an uphill, if not impossible, task in trying to wrest the Hougang SMC from WP. As if to pre-empt any attempt by the opposition or other interested parties to equate this by-election as a referendum on the performance of the PAP since the General Election in May 2011, DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam stressed at his press conference on 10 May to introduce Desmond Choo that this by-election is a local election strictly about choosing the MP who can help its residents solve their problems. As if by collusion a PAP spin doctor in the Straits Times wrote a commentary under the title: Poll is not a referendum on either PAP or WP. She asked the question whether Hougang is just a local election and answered by saying it is certainly not a national referendum on the performance on either PAP or WP. Earlier she had said it is not a referendum on the performance of the PAP since May 2011.
It is not difficult to understand why DPM Tharman and the Straits Times Review Editor went to some length to emphasise that the Hougang by-election as a local election and not a national referendum. The former WP MP Yaw Shin Leong won the Hougang seat by a wide margin of 64.8 per cent of the votes in the GE in May2011 and the general feeling among Singaporeans is that the PAP may lose by a bigger margin. Hougang voters' anger over PM Lee's procrastination in holding the by-election may be a relevant factor. Whatever DPM Tharman and the Straits Times may assert to the contrary there is nothing to prevent Hougang voters who vote for the WP candidate and other right-thinking Singaporeans to regard the by-election result as a national referendum on the performance of the PAP since May 2011.This should not distress the PAP unduly because in the unlikly event that the PAP candidate secures victory against the general trend of opinion, this will in turn become a referendum on their good performance.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
An Ominous Internet Omen
Since the advent of the internet, it can be said that it has been a bane to the PAP Government. The mainstream media (MSM) has been monopolised by the PAP as its propaganda organ and the social media becomes a valuable alternative source of information to the public to counter the inimical effect of one-sided MSM news dissemination.It is quite natural for the PAP wallahs to view this phenomenon as alarming and to rack their brains to try to find an acceptable excuse to regulate the intractable netizens. They have not forgotten their ignoble defeat in Aljunied GRC in the last general election in which the netizens played no small part.
It falls on Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, the unenviable task of finding a solution to this hot potato. This is tricky problem involving the freedom of speech and the minister dealing with it must be one with exceptional ingenuity. So far Dr Yaacob has been sounding out through the MSM his idea of a code of conduct to be administered by the internet community itself. The public reaction was not very encouraging as the internet community is very much against any form of governmental control, much less a code of conduct for the internet.
Not to be discouraged by this minor setback, obviously at the direction of the minister, the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) held a closed door conference on Thursday on the proposed code of conduct for the internet.The event was attended by officers from various ministries, MDA, academics, bloggers and observers from the media. As expected the bloggers were quite adamant in their stand and told the Government that they should grow a thick skin and leave the internet alone.Dr Yaacob was advised to give the suggestion for a code of conduct a rest.
Does that put paid to Dr Yaacob's persistent effort in proposing a code of conduct for the internet? Only time will tell but it is not likely that the PAP Government will allow him to beat a retreat if not for anything maybe because of a possible loss of face.The occasional aberrations of some exuberant netizens in making racist comments, young women prostituting themselves online, cyber bullying and the spreading of falsehoods are considered a minuscule problem in the internet world not beyond the ability of the competent authority to handle.
Quite rightly the internet community is hardly convinced that this minority of misdemeanants could constitute such a major security problem as to require the introduction of a code of conduct for the internet.The Government may not agree with this assessment but where do we go from here? Would it not be prudent for the Government to allow the status quo to continue until such time when the situation warrants it to be reviewed?
It falls on Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, the unenviable task of finding a solution to this hot potato. This is tricky problem involving the freedom of speech and the minister dealing with it must be one with exceptional ingenuity. So far Dr Yaacob has been sounding out through the MSM his idea of a code of conduct to be administered by the internet community itself. The public reaction was not very encouraging as the internet community is very much against any form of governmental control, much less a code of conduct for the internet.
Not to be discouraged by this minor setback, obviously at the direction of the minister, the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) held a closed door conference on Thursday on the proposed code of conduct for the internet.The event was attended by officers from various ministries, MDA, academics, bloggers and observers from the media. As expected the bloggers were quite adamant in their stand and told the Government that they should grow a thick skin and leave the internet alone.Dr Yaacob was advised to give the suggestion for a code of conduct a rest.
Does that put paid to Dr Yaacob's persistent effort in proposing a code of conduct for the internet? Only time will tell but it is not likely that the PAP Government will allow him to beat a retreat if not for anything maybe because of a possible loss of face.The occasional aberrations of some exuberant netizens in making racist comments, young women prostituting themselves online, cyber bullying and the spreading of falsehoods are considered a minuscule problem in the internet world not beyond the ability of the competent authority to handle.
Quite rightly the internet community is hardly convinced that this minority of misdemeanants could constitute such a major security problem as to require the introduction of a code of conduct for the internet.The Government may not agree with this assessment but where do we go from here? Would it not be prudent for the Government to allow the status quo to continue until such time when the situation warrants it to be reviewed?
Friday, April 27, 2012
Is the underage prostitute saga a magnificient diversion?
The unprecedented unwholesome publicity given by the press on the number of individuals, some of notable social standing, involved in the sexual liaison with an underage prostitute is mind-boggling. This is just a simple case of sex with an underage girl and the way the press, especially the Straits Times, went to town to humiliate the unfortunate perpetrators of the sexual indiscretions is beyond any realm of decency or a person's propriety. To treat this as if it is an important murder case is beyond the comprehension of the ordinary citizen.
This development gives rise to the speculation whether all this unwholesome publicity on the underage prostitute saga is not a ruse by the PAP Government to divert attention from Professor Lim Chong Yah's shock therapy controversy, the SMRT debacle on which a Committee of Inquiry is ongoing and the unresolved corruption case against the former Commissioner of the Singapore Civil Defence Force and the former Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau which has remained dormant after intensive publicity. It would be extremely unfair to these two senior officers if in the end nothing more serious than a departmental disciplinary action is taken for some kind of misconduct after the massive adverse publicity against them.
The normally equable Professor Lim Chong Yah is best known as a former chairman of the National Wages Council. So he came out suddenly with a proposal which, among other things, seeks to increase the wages of workers drawing $l500 or less a month by 50 per cent over three years and a freezing of wages of those earning $l5,000 a month. It was a radical proposal readily welcomed by the lower-wage workers but that it took the Government completely by surprise is putting it mildly.The scramble for a suitable answer by Government ministers and members to Professor Lim Chong Yah's awkward proposal shows the degree of dismay it has caused.
The SMRT debacle is another topic which is causing extreme distress to the Government if you do not disregard the massive public anger that this has caused. The Committee of Inquiry that is going on has shown how incredibly inadequate the SMRT staff were in dealing with emergency situations caused by service disruptions resulting in massive commuter chaos.As long as it sits, the COI will continue to throw up the incredible inadequacies of the SMRT staff which in turn is a reflection of the complacency of the SMRT management.
Could there be any truth in the speculation that the underage prostitute saga is played up excessively to divert attention from Professor Lim Chong Yah's controversy, the alleged corruption case against the two senior government officers and the COI on the SMRT debacle? It may seem far-fetched but it boils down to whether or not one believes in it or if there is a need for it.Anyway, it will be an exercise in futility.
This development gives rise to the speculation whether all this unwholesome publicity on the underage prostitute saga is not a ruse by the PAP Government to divert attention from Professor Lim Chong Yah's shock therapy controversy, the SMRT debacle on which a Committee of Inquiry is ongoing and the unresolved corruption case against the former Commissioner of the Singapore Civil Defence Force and the former Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau which has remained dormant after intensive publicity. It would be extremely unfair to these two senior officers if in the end nothing more serious than a departmental disciplinary action is taken for some kind of misconduct after the massive adverse publicity against them.
The normally equable Professor Lim Chong Yah is best known as a former chairman of the National Wages Council. So he came out suddenly with a proposal which, among other things, seeks to increase the wages of workers drawing $l500 or less a month by 50 per cent over three years and a freezing of wages of those earning $l5,000 a month. It was a radical proposal readily welcomed by the lower-wage workers but that it took the Government completely by surprise is putting it mildly.The scramble for a suitable answer by Government ministers and members to Professor Lim Chong Yah's awkward proposal shows the degree of dismay it has caused.
The SMRT debacle is another topic which is causing extreme distress to the Government if you do not disregard the massive public anger that this has caused. The Committee of Inquiry that is going on has shown how incredibly inadequate the SMRT staff were in dealing with emergency situations caused by service disruptions resulting in massive commuter chaos.As long as it sits, the COI will continue to throw up the incredible inadequacies of the SMRT staff which in turn is a reflection of the complacency of the SMRT management.
Could there be any truth in the speculation that the underage prostitute saga is played up excessively to divert attention from Professor Lim Chong Yah's controversy, the alleged corruption case against the two senior government officers and the COI on the SMRT debacle? It may seem far-fetched but it boils down to whether or not one believes in it or if there is a need for it.Anyway, it will be an exercise in futility.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
The Judiciary Conundrum
`The judiciary has always given the noble impression that it has acted with impartiality. But there were times when the public could not be blamed when it doubted its independence when PAP leaders, especially the former MM Lee Kuan Yew, were involved in defamatory litigations. But it could be said that it was a matter of perception by some members of the public and may not really reflect the intrinsic quality of the judiciary.
Be that as it may, the recent judicial decision of an appeal court presided by Justice Choo Han Teck has caused considerable apprehension to the public. Justice Choo was hearing the appeal of the hit and run killer driver Ms Lim Hong Eng who is the Executive Editor of the Shin Ming Daily News. Ms Lim had been sentenced to a jail term of 1 1/2 years by a lower court for negligently driving while using her hand phone and subsequently running a red light and striking a motorcyclist and his passenger. The passenger died while the motorcyclist suffered serious injuries.
Justice Choo decided to uphold the lower court's conviction but reduce the sentence. Ms Lim's lawyer Mr Subhas Anandan suggested a "high fine" instead of jail term. Justice Choo apparently agreed and changed the sentence to one day's jail and a fine totalling $12,000 over the two charges. It was only discovered later by Mr Anandan and the prosecutor that on the second charge of which a $10,000 fine had been levied, the statute in the particular law had no provision for a fine but only provision for a jail term.
Justice Choo had no choice but to remove the $10,000 fine. However, he did not substitute that with any added jail time claiming that "in the circumstances it will not be right to increase the custodial sentence to the detriment of the accused". And he added that this was a one-off case not to be used as a sentencing precedent. The end result is that Ms Lim was jailed for one day and fined $2000, an absurdly light sentence for taking the life of someone through negligent driving.
Is this what one would call a fair administration of justice? A one day jail and $2000 fine for causing the death of a person through using a hand phone and running a red light. To put it mildly, the public would be abhorred by the light sentence for such a serious offence. What was most puzzling was that the prosecution appeared not to have put up any opposition to the light sentence. Why did he not point out to the judge that a fine was inappropriate for this statute?
How could this be a one-off case is hard to comprehend. There is nothing to prevent aspiring lawyers to quote this as a precendent in the defence of their clients in similiar cases. This has unwittingly opened a Pandora's box and has not convinced the public of the imprtiality of the judiciary.
Be that as it may, the recent judicial decision of an appeal court presided by Justice Choo Han Teck has caused considerable apprehension to the public. Justice Choo was hearing the appeal of the hit and run killer driver Ms Lim Hong Eng who is the Executive Editor of the Shin Ming Daily News. Ms Lim had been sentenced to a jail term of 1 1/2 years by a lower court for negligently driving while using her hand phone and subsequently running a red light and striking a motorcyclist and his passenger. The passenger died while the motorcyclist suffered serious injuries.
Justice Choo decided to uphold the lower court's conviction but reduce the sentence. Ms Lim's lawyer Mr Subhas Anandan suggested a "high fine" instead of jail term. Justice Choo apparently agreed and changed the sentence to one day's jail and a fine totalling $12,000 over the two charges. It was only discovered later by Mr Anandan and the prosecutor that on the second charge of which a $10,000 fine had been levied, the statute in the particular law had no provision for a fine but only provision for a jail term.
Justice Choo had no choice but to remove the $10,000 fine. However, he did not substitute that with any added jail time claiming that "in the circumstances it will not be right to increase the custodial sentence to the detriment of the accused". And he added that this was a one-off case not to be used as a sentencing precedent. The end result is that Ms Lim was jailed for one day and fined $2000, an absurdly light sentence for taking the life of someone through negligent driving.
Is this what one would call a fair administration of justice? A one day jail and $2000 fine for causing the death of a person through using a hand phone and running a red light. To put it mildly, the public would be abhorred by the light sentence for such a serious offence. What was most puzzling was that the prosecution appeared not to have put up any opposition to the light sentence. Why did he not point out to the judge that a fine was inappropriate for this statute?
How could this be a one-off case is hard to comprehend. There is nothing to prevent aspiring lawyers to quote this as a precendent in the defence of their clients in similiar cases. This has unwittingly opened a Pandora's box and has not convinced the public of the imprtiality of the judiciary.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
The Hand of Justice must be seen to prevail wisely
The PAP Government is not unknown to be wont to ride roughshod over opposition's entreties on matters of public interest and in this case the opposition's (and the public especially Hougang voters') request for a reasonably early date for the Hougang by-election occasioned by the vacation of the Parliamentary seat by its erstwhile MP Yaw Shin Leong. The apparent prevarication of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in stating that he intends to call a by-election but has not yet decided on the timing of the by-election on which he claims he has constitutionally the discretion to decide is not conveying the right kind of confidence to Singaporeans. This is probably furthest from his mind and it looks like he will procrastinate holding the by-election as long as he possibly can notwithstanding any outcry or clamour from the public.
As fate would have it, along came a political nonentity in the person of Hougang resident Madam Vellama Marie Muthu to get the courts to order the Prime Minister to hold a by-election in Hougang SMC within three months or a "reasonable time". Overnight she became a sensation and a cynosure of all eyes for her gallantry in challenging the august Prime Minister in a court of law to restore the political rights of Singapore electors where other more reputable Singaporeans fear to tread. As if by divine arrangement, a pugnacious lawyer in the person of Mr M. Ravi volunteered to take up Madam Vallama's lawsuit, most likely on a pro=bono basis. Mr Ravi is well-known for his pro-bono work, especially his famous case of trying to save a convicted drug offender from the gallows. He is well-known for his fearless advocacy before formidable judges.
Madam Vellama's application was argued in the High Court on 30-3-12 before Justice Philip Pillai between Mr M. Ravi and Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC). AGC lawyers argued that Madam Vellama's bid to get the courts to order the Prime Minister to hold a by-election in her ward within three months is "fatally flawed". The application is "wholly misconceived" and "legally unsustainable and unarguable in law and fact". AGC sought to strike out the the application. Among the arguments by the AGC lawyers is that the request for a mandatory order is "misconceived" and is inconsistent with the principle of the separation of the judiciary and the executive arm of the government. They asserted that the plaintiff would have the court usurp the power of the Prime Minister to decide when to call a by-election and usurp the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. Mr Ravi had based his argument on Section 52 of the Interpretation Act, which states that if no time limit is prescribed for an act, it should be done "with all convenient speed".
Despite the apparent forceful arguments of AGC lawyers to strike out Madam Vellama's application, the presiding judge very judiciously reserved judgement but no date was given for the next hearing. The court has to decide on whether to grant leave for Madam Vellama's application for the mandatory order before it can be heard in open court.
Whatever the judge decides will have far-reaching implications. Heavy is the head that now has to decide on a very delicate question after considering all the pros and cons of the arguments of both sides and the overall picture of Singapore politics. Ideally, if the judge can make a decision which can appease both the Singapore electors and the Government. Some people may say that public interest should take the priority.
As fate would have it, along came a political nonentity in the person of Hougang resident Madam Vellama Marie Muthu to get the courts to order the Prime Minister to hold a by-election in Hougang SMC within three months or a "reasonable time". Overnight she became a sensation and a cynosure of all eyes for her gallantry in challenging the august Prime Minister in a court of law to restore the political rights of Singapore electors where other more reputable Singaporeans fear to tread. As if by divine arrangement, a pugnacious lawyer in the person of Mr M. Ravi volunteered to take up Madam Vallama's lawsuit, most likely on a pro=bono basis. Mr Ravi is well-known for his pro-bono work, especially his famous case of trying to save a convicted drug offender from the gallows. He is well-known for his fearless advocacy before formidable judges.
Madam Vellama's application was argued in the High Court on 30-3-12 before Justice Philip Pillai between Mr M. Ravi and Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC). AGC lawyers argued that Madam Vellama's bid to get the courts to order the Prime Minister to hold a by-election in her ward within three months is "fatally flawed". The application is "wholly misconceived" and "legally unsustainable and unarguable in law and fact". AGC sought to strike out the the application. Among the arguments by the AGC lawyers is that the request for a mandatory order is "misconceived" and is inconsistent with the principle of the separation of the judiciary and the executive arm of the government. They asserted that the plaintiff would have the court usurp the power of the Prime Minister to decide when to call a by-election and usurp the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. Mr Ravi had based his argument on Section 52 of the Interpretation Act, which states that if no time limit is prescribed for an act, it should be done "with all convenient speed".
Despite the apparent forceful arguments of AGC lawyers to strike out Madam Vellama's application, the presiding judge very judiciously reserved judgement but no date was given for the next hearing. The court has to decide on whether to grant leave for Madam Vellama's application for the mandatory order before it can be heard in open court.
Whatever the judge decides will have far-reaching implications. Heavy is the head that now has to decide on a very delicate question after considering all the pros and cons of the arguments of both sides and the overall picture of Singapore politics. Ideally, if the judge can make a decision which can appease both the Singapore electors and the Government. Some people may say that public interest should take the priority.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
The Hougang By-election Conundrum
The Hougang by-election conundrum has been capturing the attention of perceptive Singaporeans for some time, if not for anything, at least for the antics of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to see how long he is going to hold out in calling for a by-election in Hougang SMC which has become vacant as a result of the expulsion of the Workers' Party MP Yaw Shin Leong by the WP for extra-marital affairs. By right the by-election should be called as soon as possible within a three-month period, but it is not surprising to discerning Singaporeans that PM Lee saw it fit to put it on hold sine die. He said he would take into account all relevant factors and these include Hougang residents' well-being, issues on the national agenda and the international backdrop that "affects our prosperity and security".
Let's examine to see if PM Lee is not saying all these things with a tongue-in-cheek to try to justify his untenable arguments to put off sine die the holding of the Hougang by-election which he fears would be a Waterloo to the PAP. It is axiomatic that Hougang residents' well-being will be served if an MP is elected in the by-election to represent them. At present they are under-represented in Parliament. What kind of issues can there be on the national agenda that could not comfortably accommodate the holding of an important by-election? By no stretch of imagination can the international backdrop that "affects our prosperity and security" have the significance of dissuading us to hold a by-election, except to use it by the powers that be as a plausible pretence.
The consensus among discerning Singaporeans is that PM Lee and his ministers lack credible confidence in winning the Hougang SMC in a by-election under the present circumstances against a WP candidate. The former Hougang MP Low Thia Khiang has made sure, through his years of nurturing the constituency, that it will be a safe seat for a WP candidate. The adoption of a "New Normal" in Singapore politics by the PAP following their poor showing in the last General Election in 2011 has not enhanced the reputation of the PAP in the eyes of discerning Singaporeans, So the PAP leaders, especially PM Lee, are worried sick that a Hougang by-election will not only be a reprise of the PAP debacle in the Hougang SMC in the last GE but worse still if the margin of defeat is increased which is not impossible considering the unhappiness of the Hougang electors who are obviously pissed off with the antics of PM Lee in delaying the by-election. PM Lee may be under the illusion that he is adored by all Singaporeans, especially the Hougang residents. This inglorious defeat, if it happens, may possibly be regarded as a referendum of disapprobation of the PAP by discerning Singaporeans. PM Lee will ignore this development at his peril.
The lesson to be learnt in all this is that the more PM Lee procrastinates in calling for a Hougang by-election the greater will be the repercussion.
Let's examine to see if PM Lee is not saying all these things with a tongue-in-cheek to try to justify his untenable arguments to put off sine die the holding of the Hougang by-election which he fears would be a Waterloo to the PAP. It is axiomatic that Hougang residents' well-being will be served if an MP is elected in the by-election to represent them. At present they are under-represented in Parliament. What kind of issues can there be on the national agenda that could not comfortably accommodate the holding of an important by-election? By no stretch of imagination can the international backdrop that "affects our prosperity and security" have the significance of dissuading us to hold a by-election, except to use it by the powers that be as a plausible pretence.
The consensus among discerning Singaporeans is that PM Lee and his ministers lack credible confidence in winning the Hougang SMC in a by-election under the present circumstances against a WP candidate. The former Hougang MP Low Thia Khiang has made sure, through his years of nurturing the constituency, that it will be a safe seat for a WP candidate. The adoption of a "New Normal" in Singapore politics by the PAP following their poor showing in the last General Election in 2011 has not enhanced the reputation of the PAP in the eyes of discerning Singaporeans, So the PAP leaders, especially PM Lee, are worried sick that a Hougang by-election will not only be a reprise of the PAP debacle in the Hougang SMC in the last GE but worse still if the margin of defeat is increased which is not impossible considering the unhappiness of the Hougang electors who are obviously pissed off with the antics of PM Lee in delaying the by-election. PM Lee may be under the illusion that he is adored by all Singaporeans, especially the Hougang residents. This inglorious defeat, if it happens, may possibly be regarded as a referendum of disapprobation of the PAP by discerning Singaporeans. PM Lee will ignore this development at his peril.
The lesson to be learnt in all this is that the more PM Lee procrastinates in calling for a Hougang by-election the greater will be the repercussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)