Singapore has changed, will the PAP change too?

When Lawrence Wong said that an emerging thread in the public dialogues that he has been part of has been one of “wanting a kinder society, a more gracious society,” his is a rather late observation. I wonder too if the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth has merely scratched the surface, because, if the Sunday Times story of his epiphany is anything to go by, he transplants  these outward demonstrations of simple decency into the term “values”. “Values” mean far more than that, they go deeper than that, as I will discuss further down.

His realisation is late. Many academics and observers I have spoken to have been saying something similar for years now: that increasingly, Singaporeans consider the questions of identity and values to be high priority.

It’s been the People’s Action Party government that has been blind to it. They still see things in econometric terms. Their own feedback loop has been so broken, they didn’t even realise that every time they boasted about GDP growing by such-and-such a percent, people were switching off. Some saw it cynically as another excuse to reward ministers and top civil servants handsomely.

Nor did the government see, until recently, that no one was convinced with the argument that having an open door immigration policy was crucial to a high growth rate. For quite a while, the government was bewildered: Can’t people see the logic of manpower needs if we are to have a sizzling hot economy? What they didn’t realise was that people could indeed see the logic; it was the desirability of a sizzling hot economy (at that price) that met with demurral.

For decades, governing, in the PAP’s handbook, was about delivering economic growth. Everything else — infrastructure development, school curricula, population policy, investment incentives — had to be aligned as efficiently as possible. Now they may be realising that people don’t want the guiding star to be economic growth.

It’s going to be very hard to change, for there is a reason why economic growth became the guiding star — survivalist paranoia. The notion that Singapore is perpetually under siege by numerous strategic disadvantages is going to be hard to shake off. And yet, they could also have seen how turned off Singaporeans have been by siege language — except they didn’t.

What have been the signs over the years that identity and values have begun to trump economics?

Singaporeans love Singlish. The coldly rational economic planner thinks this is stupid. No one else in the world speaks it; if Singaporeans use it, we can’t communicate with or trade with the rest of the world. We must speak proper English! What the planner doesn’t understand is that it is precisely because no one else in the world speaks it that Singaporeans love it. We love it not for rational or economic reasons, but because it is a badge of identity.

For years too, there have been grumblings about stress in the education system. The government has never understood this either. To them, tests, exams and cramming are all virtues. How else are young Singaporeans to excel and be competitive against the world? How else do we measure pupils’ achievements? Only deadbeats don’t want them. But Singaporeans didn’t think that excelling and being competitive should be the sole purpose of education. There were serious misgivings about what all this was doing to the psyche of the next generation.

Then there are the iconic images of elderly men and women collecting cardboard boxes to sell, eking out a living. For five years or more, such images have resonated with Singaporeans, symbolising the many failings of the social safety net. From time to time, reports of men and women working as coffee shop cleaners into their seventies have also surfaced, causing considerable unease. In rebuttal, the government has tried to say that help is offered to them — only to have people ridicule the paltry monthly allowance that passes for Public Assistance. Then they try to dismiss such talk as “emotive” politicisation. But they’ve never succeeded in winning people over to their point of view because they are blind to a crucial fact: the emotion is the point. Singaporeans don’t want cold calculation to rule.

* * * * *

Identity and values are two sides of the same coin. Singaporeans are beginning to see themselves as one people. Horizontal connections between individuals are growing, and with them, a rise in mutual empathy. This brings in train a renewed focus on social equity.

At the same time, people are weary of the constant exhortation to study harder, work harder and sacrifice more. The siege rhetoric gives us migraine. Increasingly, people are tired of the rat race. We’re beginning to find no satisfaction in climbing over each other to get ahead. And yet, that’s what the PAP model expects us to be — economically-driven automatons that think nothing of exploiting our neighbours to enrich ourselves.

By this analysis then, Lawrence Wong may be misreading — underestimating — the mood if he thinks that kindness and graciousness is all there is to our longings. He may think that all it takes is for some way to be found to graft these two attributes onto the already-successful PAP model for Singapore. He cannot be more wrong. It goes much deeper. People want a dismantling of the siege mentality, and the subjugation of economics. The desired measure is not “progress” or GDP growth, but quality of life.

* * * * *

The $64,000 question is whether the PAP can suppress its own DNA and embrace these new aspirations. How many existing ministers and members of parliament must the party jettison to enable it to change course? For surely, there are many in the party whose thinking is too arrogantly rigid to ever adapt.

As many readers will no doubt have sensed, this “national conversation” that the government has launched is in many ways the first phase of the 2016 election campaign. It is an exercise for the PAP to find out what voters want, so that they have plenty of time to craft a new campaign message. What the party may find is that Singaporeans want something so profoundly different from what they have always thought people wanted (and what the party has long stood for), the outcome may well be very interesting. Instead of “re-inventing Singapore”, for once we may make real progress when it is the PAP that is re-invented instead.

A change of leader would be welcome too.

42 Responses to “Singapore has changed, will the PAP change too?”

  1. 1 animal farm 22 October 2012 at 00:28

    PAP has to be removed. All their MPs have their businesses to look after. Economic growth is used as a guise to get more handouts in the form of grants for their businesses and also to keep cost low by importing more cheap labour.

    It is never about helping the people. They are just helping themselves. Truth is they are not interested in helping the people. That is why there is a lack of quorum in parliament. I am totally disgusted by these greedy pigs.

  2. 2 Eric 22 October 2012 at 00:29

    Spot on, Alex! Have you considered running in 2016? You will bring a ton of value into parliament. Sg need folks like you to ask the probing questions and raise the level of debate in parliament.

    • 3 j 23 October 2012 at 15:43

      Alex may run in 2016 but Alex is also a gay man with the law 377A hanging over his head and the many various discriminatory policies that affects his life.

  3. 4 DanielKok 22 October 2012 at 01:25

    I don’t want Lee Hsien Loong as prime minister anymore.

  4. 5 Tan Ah Kow 22 October 2012 at 02:24

    Expecting the PAP to see beyond economics? Don’t make me laugh.

    Even in that aspects alone, they can only see one dimension; all they can think of is work harder and longer. The notion of working smart and in a sustainable way don’t and can’t seemed to enter into their minds.

  5. 6 Sasitharan 22 October 2012 at 05:51

    Yes Alex! Yes! Yes! Yes! Your untrammeled expression in the public sphere of some of these basic, commonly held, yet oft repressed views results in something akin to an orgasmic experience.

    T. Sasitharan

  6. 7 yuen 22 October 2012 at 06:17

    > A change of leader would be welcome too.

    though LHL has not revealed his plans, I believe he intends to be PM and PAP secretary-general until at least 2020, identifying a probable successor some time after the 2016 election – officially, the choice is up to the party so he would only be making “suggestions”; an interesting side issue is whether any of his children stands for parliament in 2016; however it seems from their current CV that none would cabinet ready at that time

  7. 8 ricardo 22 October 2012 at 06:46

    Waddya mean $64,000 question? Don’t short change our ministers! If I may quote glorious leader, PM Lee

    “No wonder our ministers feel poor. Compared to the other rich people our island attract, a million dollar salary is peanuts”

    The Australian 29sep12

  8. 9 Unconvinced 22 October 2012 at 07:41

    The National Conversation ” is an exercise for the PAP to find out what voters want, so that they have plenty of time to craft a new campaign message. ” I am more sceptical than that. The nat con is the excuse to say that they, the PAP, has consulted the people. They would then spin what the PAP wants into what the people wants. They can do this because there are still a significant number of voters who are remained brainwashed by the PAP propaganda machinery – the state media.

  9. 10 CYNIC 22 October 2012 at 07:46

    Economic growth will not save the PAP.
    If you want to change something,Vote for Broke.
    There is no two way about it.

  10. 11 Regime Change 22 October 2012 at 07:47

    You are quite right that the national conversation is the first phase of their re-election campaign. I fail to see how the PAP government is ever going to discover what the people really think and want if the conversation is limited to their own invited guests consisting of PAP lackeys and sycophants who will only tell them what they want to hear. I have yet to hear of opposition parties and other civic societies being invited.

    You talk of an epiphany. They are nowhere near that. It’s more of the same, packaged differently.

  11. 12 Nick Lim 22 October 2012 at 08:01

    A very highly intelligent essay. Alex, among the many failings of the PAP, you have precisely captured the very foundation of them all. By so doing, you had done a service for most Singaporeans who are not as analytical and sharp-minded as you are and, perhaps, for the PAP as well if only they are humble and open-minded enough to listen. On the latter, I am not optimistic.

  12. 13 All wishful thinking 22 October 2012 at 08:09

    “Instead of “re-inventing Singapore”, for once we may make real progress when it is the PAP that is re-invented instead.”
    Yawning bread

    Hahaha. You are really barking up the wrong tree. I would think real progress is made when the opposition is re-invented instead.

    Re-invented as a strong, united opposition under one party, one leader to contest 100% of seats at the next election. Just like the PAP.

    But I would think all these are wishful thinking. Even for the next 2 elections. What do you think?

  13. 15 Chanel 22 October 2012 at 09:47

    When our ministers demand top private pay to “serve”, the population learns that everything is about dollars and cents. It is everyone for himself because one cannot depend on this government for much help should one falls.

    When our ministers pay a “consultant” $800,000 to legitimize their astronomical salaries….by re-pegging to another set of criteria (i.e. pegging to top 1,000 earners), the population learns again materialism is the only “value” the government promotes.

    PAP is not about to change its course. The new ministers will not rock the luxurious boat that pays for their high-flying lifestyle. Just read what the former foreign minister George Yeo told South China Morning Post recently. He said he has been just “going with the flow” during his 25 years in government. The new ministers are just more suave, exhibiting a glib tongue (eg. Tan Chuan-Jin). Look beneath all these facade and one will notice that nothing is going to change.

    Build a couple of old folks homes and foreign workers dormitories very near ministers’ and MPs’ homes. Build HDB flats near ministers’ and MPs’ homes and house PRs and new citizens there. Let our ministers/MPs have a taste of what their policies have created. Let our ministers lead by example in integrating the foreigners they brought in my the hundreds of thousands.

  14. 16 oute 22 October 2012 at 10:08

    The new PAP leadership has changed from the type of compassionate of the old PAP leadership.

    The people of Singapore has not changed and if change it is due to the policies implemented by the Civil Servants.

  15. 17 Stupid Old Dog 22 October 2012 at 10:15

    A change of government is a prerequisite for change.

  16. 18 for our futrure's sake 22 October 2012 at 10:15

    A mindset change would need a change of leaders and a few other sycophants to make this place an Utopia for living and retiring.

  17. 19 goop 22 October 2012 at 13:17

    Regimes rise and fall and amongst the biggest reasons are attribution of economic performance to the rulers. As you wrote, the PAP has always prided itself on its stellar record to this regard and I’m hoping for an economic disaster to happen before the 60% wake up from their naïveté.

  18. 20 The 22 October 2012 at 16:29

    /// Instead of “re-inventing Singapore”, for once we may make real progress when it is the PAP that is re-invented instead. ///

    I rather prefer that the PAP had not re-invented itself in 1994 by paying itself stratospheric salaries.

    Prior to the 1990s, the old PAP had delivered year after year of superior economic growth while the old PAP ministers were paid reasonable salaries. The re-invented PAP post 1994 had made the Singapore economy arguably the most volatile in the world – with 4/5 recessions in the past dozen years. This must be a world record for a “developed” economy. All in the pursuit of growth at all cost to justify their obscene salaries.

    Before the 1990s, foreign talents were real talents where they are needed most – CEOs, COOs, etc. Then came the re-invented PAP and the population exploded — 3 million in 1990, 4 million in 2000 and 5 million in 2010.

    This is not the kind of “progress” that I want. Please, PAP — un-invent yourself and go back to the pre-1990s of good growth for Singapore citizens, with affordable and adequate housing, transport and medical services.

  19. 21 Johnny 22 October 2012 at 16:35

    I have zero respect for the PAP govt. Beyond all their rhetorics and motherhood statements, you can only see greed for money and lust for power. Leaders like that do not deserve any respect.

  20. 22 Changing for a better future 22 October 2012 at 17:09

    The national conversation is a wayang, a facade, meant to deceive the population into thinking they are “listening”. Nothing is further from the truth.

    Singapore will only be transformed if there is a change when all the self-interested sycophants are removed.

  21. 23 Vernon Voon 22 October 2012 at 17:37

    Love your last sentence.

  22. 24 abao 22 October 2012 at 21:04

    The history and politics of Shu in the 3 Kingdoms will do well to remind us of what comes ahead…

  23. 26 georgia tong 22 October 2012 at 21:18

    All the institutions link or related to govt run by PAP are all extractive in nature. They will happily extract till we bleed dry. For example the lift upgrading program used as a carrot during election time. Hello – we have to pay for their short sighted mistake of not catering to aging population. I know of an 82 year old woman who is at her wits end due to the lift upgrading. Her CPF is almost depleted and she depends on her daughter for her monthly expenses. She has to pay more than $1300 for the lift as she lives alone in an unit of low rise block. She told me she wanted to get a cleaner job at a hawker center due to the sudden heavy expenses. She had tears in her eyes when she told me she was worry about her living expenses. Her daughter has married oversea and not well off either. Why should our elderly be working in this type of physically demanding job in their twilight years ? Those Ministers/MP said they like to occupy their time and work. Really ? Our senior citizens have pride, they don’t go for handouts which PAP S’poreans do. They rather say they work to occupy time just to make things simple – they do not need pity – all they want is some dignity. This PAP can’t even give to our seniors by creating suitable jobs. If our PMET are losing their rice bowls, we can’t expect our seniors citizens to enjoy their twilight years.

  24. 28 Norm 22 October 2012 at 21:59

    I will be out of sync with many here but I have little issue with high Ministerial salaries. Immigration I think could have been handled better, but generally I believe in free labour (and other) markets across borders. Most of the PAP economic policies make sense to me, albeit they could be tempered with more compassion.

    But I don’t like the PAP. The primary reasons are that it is authoritarian and illiberal. Other than that, it is not so different from any centre-right party in any democracy.

    For me at least, this leads to a strange conclusion. The authoritarianism and illiberality are show stoppers. Hence I will not vote for the PAP even though I prefer their economic policies to those of the centre-left SDP and WP.

  25. 29 jeslyn 22 October 2012 at 22:22

    a change of leader? so who do you think can do a better job? you?

    talk is cheap. why dont YOU give some suggestions? do you think YOU can do a better job than LHL? actions speak louder than words. i dont see u out there enacting change. opposition parties come up with plans and suggestions. what do YOU have?

    instead of hiding behind ur monitor and dissing the govt, why dont you do something more constructive? otherwise you’re no different from the hundred and one netizens out there who only know how to complain.

    • 30 goop 22 October 2012 at 23:58

      Yawn. You obviously don’t know all the good work Alex has done. I dare say he has done more work on the ground, on his own accord on human rights, migrant workers and LGBT issues than any opposition politician. He has awards to prove it. You come here with guns ablaze giving the same tired statements the PAP has. How about this: Before you assault everyone’s eyes with your baseless and ill-informed aspersions, why don’t YOU google Alex Au before ranting?

    • 31 22 October 2012 at 23:59

      Wow! Here’s Jeslyn to lead by example! Vote for Jeslyn!

    • 32 jeslyn the complain queen 23 October 2012 at 00:40

      If talk is cheap, what are you doing here? What makes you so different from us? Aren’t you hiding behind the keyboard doing the same thing?

    • 33 yawningbread 23 October 2012 at 10:36

      Jeslyn, your argument is basically that unless I do a better job than LHL as prime minister, I have no right to criticise him and I should shut up.

      By your line of reasoning, unless you can do a better job at what I am doing, you have no right to criticise me and you should shut up. My job is to provide critical commentary on politics and society. While I don’t claim to be the perfect commentator, please prove that you can do a better job at it. If not, by your reasoning . . . .

      But obviously, you don’t subscribe to your same stated reasoning when it comes to me since you have felt it unnecessary to hold yourself back in making the comment of 22:22 on 22 Oct 2012. It strongly suggests that you are in practice applying a different principle from the one you have declared. It seems to me that the principle you actually operate by is simply this: Do not criticise rank.

      The PM has rank. Therefore do not criticise him. Lowly commentators don’t, therefore no need to restrain yourself.

      Please read up what happens to organisations and countries when not criticising rank is carved into stone.

      • 34 Chanel 23 October 2012 at 11:14


        Your comments remind me of what former foreign minister, George Yeo, once told a local newspaper. He said one must know one’s position in society before debating with a minister!!!

        What you are implying is that we shouldn’t bother with having General Elections every 5 years. Just install a dictator like in North Korea and their him and his cronies run the country. Anyone who criticises should be shot dead!!

  26. 35 xariaaaa 22 October 2012 at 23:42

    the truth is that it is easy to sit in one corner and complain/critic when the responsibility for action is not ours. what if these criticisms and well, suggestions if we truly have any, be brought out into the public to be discussed and then possibly, implemented in public policy? what if these suggestions are utilised by our own people/organisations?

    i don’t think it’s fair to assume/demand that the govt can cover EVERYTHING. it takes the society and the community to lend in a helping hand to the people in need (be it the old uncles/aunties clearing the tables or collecting cardboard boxes). It takes Singaporeans to show daily concern and compassion. I’ll think it is more important, actually, for people who have many ideas and suggestions to really put them into real action, instead of waiting for others (ie welfare organisations, charity, govt…) to administer them.

    while there are presumptions that this national conversation thingy is “an exercise for the PAP to find out what voters want, so that they have plenty of time to craft a new campaign message”, why not think of it from another perspective? They are trying their best to know what we want/need/desire/hope/aspire to achieve and will try to see how best to make our dreams come through and make Singapore a better home/future for all.

    what about us trying and giving our best first, before casting a wet blanket and claim it to be a hoax even before it truly begins? just an opinion.

  27. 36 bee 23 October 2012 at 01:39

    jesyln, what alex has written over the years arguably beat any pap politician and our nation-building press hands down, in term of depth and scope. go through his archive if you havent read his plans and suggestions. face it, lee hsien loong is the worst prime minister in singapore history. he was groomed for years and has been holding the top post for 8 years (flanked by ex-pms, 2 deputies and mind you, a record high occupants in our pmo). now look at our housing, transportation, population and health issues, and see how basic needs are deteriorating with each passing year. alex is not a politician. you should go ask pap to do something constructive. dont bark at the wrong tree, please.

  28. 37 William 23 October 2012 at 11:09

    I think we cannot fundamentally separate the need for economic growth as a distinctly bad thing? Should there be a change away from this? The focus on economic growth. Shoudl there be an evolution? or a greater change Like how Alex puts it. I think its spurious to jettison the idea for the need for economic growth. The fact that we are chatting so conveniently over the net like this using our PCs, ipads etc etc is an out come of economic growth. There has to be a reality and a balance. I think its wrong to supplant the economic growth need with higher ideals. I think both things should exist. To knock down the need for growth thats just pure polemic and rhetoric, frankly I do not want a situation where most of us have to live from hand to mouth. To say that we have reached this stage would be wrong as well, get go to a town centre or coffeeshop and ask who does not own a handphone. Wouldn’t it be better that we have enough growth and thus funds to help the NEEDY? I rather have a leader that helps ensure basic needs like jobs and growth, and evolve us to higher ideals with a strong foundation. Maybe Alex should step up and try running a town council/ constituency based on your writings, that is truly a measure of what people want.

    • 38 octopi 23 October 2012 at 14:40

      Whether or not there is economic growth is not the main issue. The other more important issue is: who is enjoying the economic growth? Go and find out the answer to that question. The answer will probably shock you.

  29. 39 georgia tong 23 October 2012 at 11:42

    Alex has a solid sense of what is happening at ground level and the impact of govt policies on S’poreans than our PM. Our PM is clueless and depends on inaccurate feedback from his gangs. He may say he understand, but he can’t. He is from a different ‘dimension’. He grew up with silver spoon in his mouth, protected by body guards, got what he wants as people will give in to him due to his daddy. Yes, we need a change of leader. This PM will not even be there if not because of his daddy.

  30. 40 Rabbit 23 October 2012 at 14:38

    Gerald Ee was recently quoted by Chinese Tabloid that he was disgusted by “growth at all cost” policies which has already undermined human value and without any contingency plan on its side effect.

    Like many of our highly paid ministers, their diehard followers and PM who probably didn’t look into the mirror before they speak, he pointed his finger at Singaporean for losing our compassion, our value, and our relentless pursuit of material gain and sidelined the less fortunate in our society. Sound noble? Read on…than he praised PAP for high GDP, growth rate & sound policies (sound contradicting?) so as not to appear he was criticizing PAP for the root of these problems. The same guy who talks a lot about value but was swift to toss it away to justify our minister’s salaries & “sacrifices” – now resulted in Singaporeans or Singapore being the greatest victim of PAP’s non-value and materialistic pursuit.

    It is precisely such non-value, the rich has benefited. The same lopsided arguments, poorly implemented policies, unfounded threats, rhetoric’s by these elites that have turned Singapore into an ideal breading ground for many SMEs to exploit every loophole available in the systems, at the expenses of the less fortunate. Value became non-existence as a result. This blog has sufficiently painted enough such scenarios in the past and the many shames found in Singapore. It is not too far fetch to mention a few more shames.

    The increasing number of private charity organizations in Singapore is a slap at Singapore’s image for being ranked one of the wealthiest countries in the world. These are sign that our govt and “welfare” ministry are not doing enough for the people thus we have regular hosting of private charity shows to entertain the passive & expensive president whose salary is equivalent to a huge percentage of the total donations. I am not sure how proud or insulting Singaporeans would feel when the poor and sick were made to put on their solemn face to “beg” for donations in public view. If this has become a regular event, it says a lot about the poverty faced in this country and I am not proud of what I saw because it was too genuine to swallow. While many of our countrymen are going to face such unfortunate situation under PAP regime, the Looney was at OZ badmouthing our struggling citizens, something the father and son were tempted to do when they did not get along with people’s view and ended up marketing our people in bad light to potential foreign investors – a total reverse of the past strategy where we were branded as the most productive and hardworking citizens to the world to lure investors.

    The most shameful of all shames is the initiative to have “national conversation”. I see it as malfunction of our expensive RCs, CCC located in every corner of Singapore. GCT started the grassroots concept of wanting to get connected with residents and hear their voice at the root level up. It failed miserably and our problems get bigger and people became sick of PAP fake ideas, the rest became history.

    Who are these grassroots people who are supposed to connect citizens with their ministers? Obviously it was not a place just for uncles or aunties to croak or scream over Karaoke almost every night and turned the place into night lounge or closeted personal party club? I cringed to think there could be another “mini-pap” gang with self-interest at heart too. Are they made up of some tom; dick or Harry SME bosses who might get priority for contract with the govt or for any of their family members who benefited from being part of RC’s connection? If so, will they stand by Singaporeans to tell the ministers our wages are depressed, our space are overcrowded, the workers are exploited and housing too expensive? Or are they more interested in bringing in more foreign cheap labours for the family businesses?

    LHL uttered an apology during election that he did not get enough feedback thru such channel and decided to set up a “national conversation” with the ‘people’ who turned up to be mostly the same RC people who failed to deliver all these years. I heard CNA even turned away some not so PAP “friendly” invitees? Can we than fault netizens for doing a witch-hunt at the participants to see which fat cats belong to PAP CAMP? As such, I can only speculate PAP is trying to buy time, thru staged conversation, with their unpopular policies leading to the next election and than asked to be given another chance (with convincing empty promises) to implement it after the next election so that they can hold on to power for the next 10 to 20 years and beyond…..

    Another big shame came months ago (or was it months after the watershed election?) from Straits Times claiming itself as the best platform for ‘debate’ for Singaporeans to bring forward views. If Straits Times has been the people’s voice instead of PAP mouthpiece for decades, this “national conversation” shouldn’t even exist at all, except probably only during judgment day at the election rally.

    Briefly, our “national conversation” is a national shame for PAP. There was no connectivity; no true conversation via all PAP fell channels. Come on! Singapore has the highest number of ministers in parliament who are supposed to take care of the people. We are a tiny island with the most compact populations and everyone, in every corner of Singapore was screaming with discomfort. If the deaf can see and the blind can hear the problems, why are our 84 PAP ministers (each with hundred of grassroots at beck and call) can be both deaf and blind that they need to stage a “national conversation” in order to feel the pulse and pain felt by our people? When PAP overlook the escape of single Mas Selamat we will probably understand, but to completely lost sight of Singaporeans is completely beyond me. May be foreigners have grown too large that our own sons got drown out and forgotten?

    I also don’t see how our msm can suddenly become so different and less partisan from the past Look at Aljunied GRCs, some residents were given wheelchairs and walking aids, by their newly elected MP, which are positive value WP tried to inculcate to our society but our msm chose to remain silent and threw in PAP non-event to cover the news time.

    Indeed, the above few pointers are sufficient to justify an overhaul of the whole systems from root up and bring back Singaporean true value our Gerald Ee has dearly missed. A change of leader is inevitable along the process.

  31. 41 Teck Soon 26 October 2012 at 19:37

    Wow, authorities just fined SMRT $100 for overcrowding on buses according to Today. That heavy fine sure will teach SMRT a lesson! Government is already responding to voter concerns about bus overcrowding evidently. I’m sure SMRT is scared of another $100 fine, service is sure to improve!$100-for-overloading-bus

  32. 42 PG 7 December 2014 at 22:05

    Its not just Singapore politicians that need to change , it is many countries politicians and political parties and ideas that need to change , the political systems are out of date and ideas need to change or there will be unrest in many places

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: