50 reasons not to vote PAP
-
http://politics.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/381633
http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/showthread.php?t=2604930
"i am waiting for a sunny day" 蔡淳佳-ç‰ä¸€å€‹æ™´å¤©
-
I have photocopied all the reasons and verbally convinced my old uncles and aunts.
-
Dr Poh Soo Kai: I don’t want my children to live in a police state
December 27, 2009
In an extensive interview with the Sunday Times today, former political detainee and Barisan Sosialist leader Dr Poh Soo Kai spoke candidly about his tumultuous political career and detention.
Dr Poh was born in Singapore, the fourth child of six in a privileged Straits-born Chinese family. His maternal grandfather was prominent millionaire businessman and philanthropist Tan Kah Kee, and his uncle was Mr Lee Kong Chian, another famous philanthropist and founder of OCBC Bank.
During his university days, he was active in the University Socialist Club, a debating forum for students who were against colonialism and sought independence for Malaya and Singapore. They believed in freedoms of speech and assembly, and opposed detention without trial.
One of the first members of the People’s Action Party (PAP), Dr Poh was roped in as an assistent Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialist after it was formed from a breakaway faction of the PAP in 1961.
Dr Poh insists that contrary to the official view, the leftists within the PAP did not force the split. There was a difference in opinion on issues such as detention without trial, freedom of speech, press and assembly. It was then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who saw it as a challenge to the PAP leadership and forced the split.
Dr Poh was arrested and detained without trial under Operation Cold Store in 1963. He was released in 1972 only to be re-arrested again in 1976 before he was freed in 1982. Altogether, he was detained for a total of 17 years without being ever tried in court.
He was the third longest held political detainee in the history of Singapore after Mr Chia Thye Poh (32 ye ars) and Dr Lim Hock Siew (19 years).
According to declassified documents from the British National Archives, the “communist” threat was “played up” by Lee Kuan Yew who allegedly tried to persuade Lord Selkrik and then Malayan Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman to arrest several of his former political comrades including Ong Eng Guan who never belonged to the “leftist” camp under a joint operation by the Internal Security Council to give the impression that it was the federal government in Kuala Lumpur who ordered the arrests and not the PAP.
Lord Selkrik wrote to his superiors in London imploring them not to listen to Lee:
“Lee is probably very much attracted to the idea of destroying his political opponents. It should be remembered that there is behind all this a very personal aspect…he claims he wishes to put back in detention the very people who were released at his insistence – people who are intimate acquaintances, who have served in his government, and with whom there is a strong sense of political rivalry which transcends ideological differences.”
[Source: British National Archives]
Recalling his long period of incarceration, sometimes under solitary confinement, Dr Poh said:
“No regrets, but you are unhappy, you know. It’s very obvious. I mean, you can’t keep a person in prison and lock him up, you know, without a valid reason. You ask him (Lee) to bring you to court, he doesn’t bring you to court. I mean, you feel they have to change the system. You can’t have a system like this continue. You don’t want your children, your grandchildren to live in a police state.”
He would not shake Mr Lee’s hand if he met him. ‘There’s nothing more to say,’ he says.
Though Singapore has a first world economy, its repressive political system resembles more than a modern police state. All state institutions such as the police, grassroots organizations and trade unions are controlled firmly by the ruling party.
There is no free or independent press in Singapore. All the major papers are owned by a single news agency Singapore Press Holdings whose Chairman is a former PAP minister Dr Tony Tan.
The economy is dominated by state-linked companies such as SingTel, Starhub, SIA and Capitaland which are owned directly or indirectly by the government via its two gigantic sovereign wealth funds – Temasek Holdings and GIC.
Lee Kuan Yew is the Chairman of GIC while his daughter-in-law Ho Ching leads Temasek Holdings. Both funds reportedly lost billions of dollars during the global financial crisis last year.
Draconian laws are put in place to curtail the civil and political rights of ordinary Singaporeans. A new law was introduced this year making even a solo protest illegal. Protests are legally allowed only at Speaker’s Corner, but the installation of CCTVs at its premises have deterred Singaporeans from going there.
When asked about his assessment of Singapore’s future, Dr Poh argues that Singapore is too dependent on an export-oriented economy.
In his view, if there was no Operation Cold Store, Barisan would have won the 1963 election ‘hands down’. Then, he says, Singapore might have been less dependent on foreign direct investment, and there might have been more freedom and discussion about the country’s development.
Nothing much has changed then. In fact, the situation has deteriorated. After 44 years of continuous “brain-washing” by the state media, most Singaporeans grow up becoming politically ignorant, apathetic and inactive.
An ignorant, disinterested and naive citizenry is the key to the PAP maintaining its political hegemony in Singapore without which its glaring mistakes will be put under intense public scrutiny and questions raised about its legitimacy to govern.
-
What do HDB numbers say?
December 22, 2009
Dear Jessica,
I refer to your report “What do HDB numbers say” dated 26 Oct 2009. I agree that the HDB’s definition of success rate can lead to pretty counter intuitive conclusions. High success rate is a reflection of flats being less than desirable while low success rate is a reflection of flats being highly desirable.
Therefore, the 89% take up rate for BTO projects last year shows that there are a lot of people in need of flats never mind their desirability.
A world where those who are offered a flat will go on to select it is not a perfect world but a communist world. For it is the communist dream that everyone’s needs can be allocated in accordance to plans. But the communist dream fell apart, revealing the capitalist reality of human nature where the average consumer makes a choice not because he is choosy, but because it is his basic right to choose.
The argument that land is limited and so flats have to be built at less than desirable locations ignores the issue of pricing. In the real world, less than desirable items of sale will have their prices slashed until they become attractive to consumers. But when it comes to HDB flats, their prices are fixed at “market values” even as the market shuns flats at undesirable locations or those on the second floor or facing the rubbish dump.
The argument that flats at prime locations are cheap compared to condominiums simply shows that condominiums are even more expensive and unaffordable.
The bottomline is this: the PAP government bought nearly all the land in Singapore sometimes as cheaply as $1 in the name of nation building. What right does it have to even charge market prices for flats built on land acquired on the cheap from the people?
Thank you
Ng Kok LimHDB has buffer of unsold flats
December 27, 2009
Dear Mr Mah,
I refer to your comments in the parliament as reported by Straits Times on 24 Nov 2009.
You said that ready flats are hugely popular, yet you choose not to build them. Aren’t you letting the people down by not providing for their needs when they need them?
You said that the cost of land, construction and ancillary services ranged from $230,000 to $530,000 per flat. Assuming that the cost of construction and ancillary services is about $100,000, it means that the cost of land ranged from $130,000 to $430,000. But did the govt pay $130,000 to $430,000 for the land? Traditionally, land has been acquired on the cheap from the people for as little as $1. Even if that land appreciated in value subsequently, it doesn’t change the fact that its cost to the govt is $1.
While land cost is a major contributor to HDB’s ‘deficit’, it is a major revenue generator for the SLA. So the so-called ‘large deficit’ that HDB incurs is nothing more than govt money going from left pocket to right pocket.
Thank you
Ng Kok Lim -
who is this lau ka poh??
-
angel 7030,
mr poh has generations of millionaire family and great contributors of wealth to help the poor n unfortunate.
his grandfather ate rice with soy sauce only even though he was a millionaire in his time....and gave money to poor students wearing white t-shirts.
unfortunately he was detained by PAP and whole story reveals itself now.
angel.....if u go against lky...u will be jailed.so what if yu have millions of dollars and yer ancestors are of royal bloodlines!!u still end up in jail under pap if u t
alk bad bout them in public!!
i wont end up in jail!!!!if we gotta go...lets goto hell together!!i have nothing else to do!
-
Go to hell??? u go first, later tell me how is it.
As I said many times, who dares win, politic is the dirtiest of all job, u got to be cruel, cunning, shrew with a thick skin like elephant, then you are the winner, otherwise, you dun deserve to be a politician, and i will certain won't vote you.
Whatever Lau ka Poh did, let keep it in our heart, as he himself had said, "it over now", so why go back and mingle on our builing of a nation old grandfather story again, let move on.
-
Chorus of Change for Singaporeans: Dawning of Truth, Destiny of Nation At Stake
December 28, 2009
Dear Citizens,
There are many outstanding articles and comments made in TR and other notable sites like TOC.
Much has been said that trenchantly and incisively debunk fallacies of askew policies, truculent, emotively powerful in conviction.
Some expressing dejection and despair; craving and wishing for redemption from their state of helplessness and hopelessness.
We must now NOT be swayed anymore by the PAP “rationale” of policy sensibility or their “carrots” to buy votes.
Our voices need to unite on one powerful Vote in the coming Election.
Defining MomentWhatever sense and sensibility that can be made out of all these net forums, whatever the rhetoric and irrationalism charged by PAP and YPAP, one THING is definite: The growing uproar of vitriolic sentiments, deep-seated angst and bitter distrust against the PAP is real.
We must NOW do serious soul searching and ask ourselves:Do we want as stake in our Nation Destiny for our next generation sake?
Do we want back our Citizen Dignity and Right back?
Do we want ourselves to be subjugated by PAP?
Do we want a sustainable lower cost of living commensurate with our salary?
Sense & SensibilityThe web of issues on nationalism, equality, justice, livelihood sustainability, cost of living, citizen privilege and right, governance policies and political voice suppression and etc are wrapping around, putting stranglehold on lives of many citizens.
Many issues are multifarious, interrelated, and conflated with fabric of Nation-hood, encapsulating emotive essence and sacrosanct being of Citizen, which cannot be resolved by economic rationale alone. The fabric of the nation is not just woven purely through economic growth. It is interwoven with collective heart and soul of the citizens-the Nation-hood.
We, the citizens, are the “hearts and souls” of Nation. We are not mere automatons to subject to relentless slavery to economic growth and to PAP.
Economic Rationale of Nation-hood itself will fail without symbiotic or mutualism of Hearts and Souls of Citizens.
Our collective sense is seeking an expression of an identity for Nation-hood “lost” , citizen rights displaced, in the relentless midst of GDP pursuit as reflected in many core issues vehemently voiced in many forums.
We are confronting and questioning the sensibilities of government policies which critically affect our current lives and future generation in many ways.
Just to list a few of critical issues that impact citizen lives largely:Affordable HDB housing
· What is the ultimate price to pay in debt for all citizens to have stake in the Nation?
· What is the limit and validity of HDB “affordability argument?
· By limiting supply of land and HDB apartment, isn’t PAP playing dice with citizen debt, and lives, by forcing upon citizens who have no other avenues but to buy HDB at the artificial inflated sky-rocketing prices?
PR and New Citizens
· Why is PAP going to such extent of ingratiating with new citizens and PRs using public funds at the expense of true-bred citizens and Nation-hood?
· Why is the HDB allowing excessively liberal policy for PRs to own HDB flats that rightfully are meant for the citizens?
· Why has the Government not anticipate the adverse impact of the huge limited supply of HDBs?· Why is there absurdly minimal distinction between citizen and PR benefits?
· Why is marginalization of wages and employment due to manpower policy allowed without little regard to citizen concerns?
· Why is the lax immigration policy allowed to the extent of flooding with the Nation with low quality PR and Citizen?
High Cost of Living
· Why the incessant coordinated government efforts resulting in ever-increasing escalating costs of services, living and housing in times of worst recession?
We are hungry for answers to our endless list of queries of government policies and motives. None of the answers provided by PAP satisfies collective sense, collective consciousness and logic of reasoning. Many queries were snubbed, stonewalled and unanswered. Some were answered with cloak of obfuscation.
Our collective sense of the Nation-hood is in stark conflict with “sensibility” of present government policies regardless the PAP’s explanation and underlying rationale or the absence of it.
Dawning of TruthThe current sentiments reflect the collective want of the Nation, the collective sense of inadequacies and deficiencies present policies of governance.
There is growing nationalistic conviction that the “Nation lost” is covertly being supplanted by a “New Order”, amorphous in identity, socially and politically engineered and creatively crafted into guise of “sensible policies” for perpetuity of PAP and its kind.The “seeking hearts and souls” of the citizens, are finally awakened with realization of the urgent need to change the institutions and policies of governance. True-bred citizen interests should not be subjugated to any policy, any elitism, any government and party
The “sensibility” of policies cloaked with half-truths and hidden motives are drawing upon many citizens, distilled from the existential experience with the government over the years.
The subtle motives of the elite in power are now confronting of us with the realization that the national interests and citizen rights are subjugated to money politics and elitist interest and power.
We are confronting our nation which is fast losing its identity. Our Nation is becoming nothing more than “a place”-a place only to earn money, not to live as true-bred citizens.
PAP claims with parvenu it is THE ONLY PARTY capable to deliver. PAP proclaims arrogantly that our Nation will degrade or fall without it.
Unless PAP is Omnipotent, Saint of Our Nation, such self-canonization of ABSOLUTE RULE is an serious affront to sense and sensibility of citizens. We must not be it allowed to happen.
In the latest interview with National Geography, MM said it is good thing to welcome China immigrant as Singaporeans are “less hard-striving and less hard-driving”, in essence “less hardworking”, and Singaporeans need “spur in into their hides’’ to work harder.
MM perverse logic of observation is unfounded. It is an effrontery to the many citizens who strive hard constantly to upgrade skills and productivity for better earning commensurate with higher living standards. Many citizens work dual jobs to survive, while keeping up with demands of family needs.
Many foreign workers have made a lot of monies through appreciation of properties bought by earning made working Singapore as PRs. Their income relative to their home base is high. Their drive to work harder will naturally be greater than many true-bred citizens who merely eke out a living.
Moreover, “Hardworking” does NOT equate to productivity and quality. They are many China workers and other foreign workers who are hard-working, work more hours for some productive output of Singaporeans. Naturally, they can do so without many other financial and family commitment which an average citizen faces.
MM declared to the world the unwarranted damnation of citizens for being “less hard driving” and “less hard striving’ than the China workers but does question their own policies that degenerate the Nation to this state.
This damnation with provides more justification for employers not to employ citizens or employ with lesser salary.
The industry clusters keep changing, shifting faster that the hardworking citizens can upgrade skills. With vast cheap manpower resources and FT overseas, it is always cheaper and swifter to employ foreign workers to fill up any gaps. While the cost of living goes up, citizens are made to work faster, cheaper and better.
We, citizens, understand the changes happening around the world that will impact us. But blaming squarely on citizens, stymieing citizens as “quitters”, now calling citizens as “less hardworking” to the world is serious flaw of judgment.
There is fundamentally serious flaw in the government policies in creating sustainable productive employment market.
MM is playing “dice of debt” with citizen lives. PAP “perverse logic” of HDB affordability is another telling evidence there is far-reaching implications in government policies that will affect many lives.
Is the “spur in the hide” push to make Singaporeans work harder, the ulterior motive behind the sky-rocketing HDB prices to make Singaporeans in bigger debt to have higher stake in the Nation?
This includes the revised CPF policy and many recent policies which are counter-intuitive to our collective sense.
Or there is something more ominous, a financial “black-hole” in making, sucking the monies from the system, from the citizens, to fuel its ever-glowing denseness?-until one day it becomes so dense that the financial system will implode. But the MIW and its kind are unscathed, while our breed will vanish in oblivion.
The government has not been candid with the citizens. The cases of Goodyear and HDB 2 billion deficit divulge the stark reality there is something lurking behind the “reality” or policy “sensibility” as propounded by PAP.
We confront now with stark reality of inner motive of MM, his party and its kind:
Is there an eventual displacement of majority of true-bred citizens with “new citizens” mainly from China to sustain perpetuity of their rule and humongous wealth?
As one Minister said recently, the local citizen stock needs to be improved with infusion with more foreign stock. Its seems there is a subtle “eugenic” in process applies only to certain groups of true-bred citizens, NOT with PAP stock and its kind.
They have created a system in place that “whips and milks” the money, life and soul of the citizens and, money out of the Nation at the expense of next and future generation.
Even in the twilight years, citizens will have to work without social welfare and care in contrast with the twilight years of the PAP Ministers and its kind. We are becoming a state of Serfdom.
If PAP is truly for the citizen they should work harder with much lesser pay. The nobility and virtues of leadership for selfless interest of citizens is absent. The policies are elitist-centric and PAP-centric.
PAP is disconnected with citizens. They fail to empathize with the bleeding Heart and Soul of the Nation.
They have alienated the trust of the citizens through their dereliction of social pact implicit in the Cachet of PAP: People Action Party, that citizen interests must come FIRST
In times to come, the New Citizens will be subject to the same brutal grinding mill. Majority of citizens and their generations will not see their fruits of toils.
Yes, the dawning of the truth of the motives of PAP has confronted us. It is NOW an imperative duty of true-bred citizens to take ownership of our Nation. The Nation future destiny is in our hands.
We need surgical and clinical cleansing of governance and polices for future well-being and survivability of next and future generation.
Peril of DenialThe rebuttal to PAP and YPAP, many in anonymity in TR and other sites, is counter-productive.
We need to express cogently and vehemently when it warrants but ignores those YPAP provocateurs whose purpose is to mislead, distract, obfuscate and stultify.
The PAP can ignore our true-bred citizen issues and growing bitter sentiments, dismissing our collective conviction of Voice of Citizens for change at their own peril.
They will reason against the growing undercurrent of sentiments with their “rationale”.
Let them be.
We have not much time left:
We have long hurdle to cross, we need to UNITE, all opposition parties alike, to empathize, garner and reinforce the collective sentiments, collective voice of all true-bed citizens. This is the only leverage for change to happen.
Ownership of Nation at stakeWith our conviction for better “Singapore for Singaporeans”, let us ALL UNITE, opposition parries alike, for common cause to correct the flawed polices and redeem our privileges ,liberties of political space and stake in deciding the course and destiny of our future:
Let be collected in thoughts, conserve energy and work collectively for common goal.
Let enjoin everyone member of your families, relatives, friends, colleagues and contacts to vote for Change for Better Singapore for Singaporeans.
Let each of us own the responsibility to reach as many as possible to join in the trumpet of change, to thaw the apathy of many who are not aware of the potential danger lurking ahead.
This may perhaps be OUR LAST CHANGE, last hope of deliverance, of redemption from our present state, to have more opposition in the Parliament, to ensure our present Government change or we VOTE PAP out.Voice of Citizen
-
I thought the 50 reasons will be debated with sufficient research to prove that it can be managed better by someone else.
This is like a call to deface all votes.
-
We trusted the PAP -and look at the problems we are faced with now.
To innumerate is just too many here and other forummers have in many ways articulated the common man's grievance.
Simply put vote in more opposition - better a two-party or multi-party system than a one-party dictatorship.
Vote and vote for changes - BIG changes
PS: As for MM's criticism of Singaporeans - beware - it is indirectly telling Prs & foreigners that the present government is going to take care of them. In other votes - canvassing for foreigners' votes! Why? cos the game of manipulation and bluff is no longer working. They are aware that they are losing support from Singaporeans.
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
We trusted the PAP -and look at the problems we are faced with now.
Oops,! sorry hor, not we hor, you only trust them, me also dun trust PAP, and you must be damn stupid to trust them in the first place, be smart, trust them half half can liao...trust is like investment, you need to diversify your trust, and as i said many time, politics is dirty, why you go and trust them in the first place. No body put a damn M16 or AK47 gun on your head and ask you to trust them ya. So now you blame who??? the one you trusted or you yourself. Think first before talk hor.
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
I thought the 50 reasons will be debated with sufficient research to prove that it can be managed better by someone else.
This is like a call to deface all votes.
anything can be reason out, there must be a cause/reason in everything, be it politics, science or technologies or even your daily life. And there millions of reasons why we are here too...so what is 50 reasons?? -
Since a decade ago
I been thinking what are the reasons
not for me to vote for PAP also
-
Originally posted by noahnoah:
Since a decade ago
I been thinking what are the reasons
not for me to vote for PAP also
a decade ago, when i was 10 years old, i thot PAP is the one and only govt, like emperor and queen living in palace with magistrates and judeges as impartial as Justice Bao, never thot that govt can be change too. That show how powerful our PAP had educated the young mind. -
Since the day i started my
kindergarden classes/.
I already saw the thunder party logo
hanging on the wall..
no wonder tio brainwashed liao
forever PAP in my mind now
-
when i was born, the nurse and doctor was so delighted to see a beautiful baby gal, I was trained to speak PAPA for calling my Dad, but the nurses and doctor taught me PAP, PAP, PAP first, a single vowel for baby. Now i am quite fully grown up, I also go for my smear PAP test at KK, same doctor, same nurse, but different building.
PAP forever!!
-
Human Organ Transplant Act – optimism despite concerns
Tuesday, 31 March 2009,
Anthony Yeo / Consultant Therapist, Counselling and Care Centre.
The amendment to the Human Organ Transplant Act (HOTA) allowing for reimbursement of living kidney donors was passed in Parliament with heated debate recently.It generated such heat that MPs from the ruling party were given authorisation to vote in accordance to their religious or moral convictions.
The obvious objection seems to centre on the possible abuse from those donors who may do so for profit as well as how ethics committees can discharge duties responsibly.
Whatever the objections or concerns may be, it does seem that the primary focus is on the donor rather than the recipient. In this sense, would it not be expedient to discuss this issue from a systemic perspective, taking into consideration the needs of recipients, consequences for donors as well as the larger health system.
It is certainly beyond the health system to meet demands for kidney transplants. The fact that there is such a long waiting list for kidneys, must definitely spur us to think of the burden of our health system to ensure that kidney patients do not need to experience undue suffering.
There is also the need to consider ways to ease the burden of having to deny those in grave danger not only from further incapacitation or death. If laws are too stringent and kidney donation becomes restrictive, one wonders if our health system would have the reputation in being an illness system.
If our health system is to provide healing and enhancement of health, then the onus is on the administrators of the system to explore every avenue to ensure that this is made available to all in need.
It is always tragic to learn of those who have to endure extended suffering from kidney failure, far worse to witness those who die prematurely due to lack of access to kidney donors.
We only need to recall the very heart-rending experience some years ago of the family of the Indian woman who experienced severe pain and suffering till her death because her life could not be saved due to restrictions prevailing at that time.
Her family was traumatised and the health of her mother and sister were so badly affected that within a year or two, they too met their death. The surviving sister needed help with her trauma that took a while to heal.
Such an experience should not be repeated if we could consider the needs of kidney patients. If we value life, then surely saving lives must take precedence over laws and procedures. And if easing the restrictions and making donation more readily available can be a way to promote living, then laws would need to be amended to make this possible.
If we were to have this expanded perspective, then it is a little easier to uphold the need to consider how best to make donation more accessible. This is where the amendment to provide for reimbursement can make sense.
There must be a place for care of the donor as well. For one, we are aware of the risks involved. Donors have encountered complications to their physical well-being including deaths, although the latter has been infrequent.
As the Health Minister asserted in Parliament, suffering from financial consequences is a major risk involved. Furthermore, during the recovery from the procedure, disruption to work and life, as well as the need to live with the loss of an internal organ are other risks that have often been overlooked.
To this extent, the amendment to allow for reimbursement can pave the way for reluctant donors to offer their kidneys.
Of course there will be possible risk of abuse of the system but that should not deter us from a very humanitarian approach to this matter. Likewise, those who are concerned about the administration of reimbursement and procedures to be put in place to prevent abuse can be assured that these are operational matters that can be dealt with responsibly.
This confidence comes from the way our government has been functioning, ever cautious and prudent. Sometimes they tended to be unduly vigilant to the point of stifling possibilities for change. If they continue to function as they probably would, then we can be hopeful that measures would be put in place to prevent abuse.
There are already ethics committees in place for approving organ transplants and we can rest assure that fine-tuning will be executed accordingly.
Hence, there should be optimism despite concerns expressed; support for greater flexibility in the midst of existing laws and public support for making kidney donation more readily available.
Hopefully our health system will be life-enhancing, life-preserving and life-extending with this amendment passed in Parliament.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
when i was born, the nurse and doctor was so delighted to see a beautiful baby gal, I was trained to speak PAPA for calling my Dad, but the nurses and doctor taught me PAP, PAP, PAP first, a single vowel for baby. Now i am quite fully grown up, I also go for my smear PAP test at KK, same doctor, same nurse, but different building.
PAP forever!!
I was trained to speak PAPA for calling my Dadhuh, did i hear someone calling me?
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
We trusted the PAP -and look at the problems we are faced with now.
To innumerate is just too many here and other forummers have in many ways articulated the common man's grievance.
Simply put vote in more opposition - better a two-party or multi-party system than a one-party dictatorship.
Vote and vote for changes - BIG changes
PS: As for MM's criticism of Singaporeans - beware - it is indirectly telling Prs & foreigners that the present government is going to take care of them. In other votes - canvassing for foreigners' votes! Why? cos the game of manipulation and bluff is no longer working. They are aware that they are losing support from Singaporeans.
Can we just put 1 party from the opposition into power?
-
Pple still vote for pap and pap will stay in power for a long long long time.