( ENGLISH, MALAY, CHINESE SIMPLIFIED, TAMIL, FRENCH)
Politicians only understand one language, your vote ❌.
Ahli politik hanya faham satu bahasa, undi anda ❌.
政客们只懂一种语言，那就是你的选票❌。Zhèngkèmen zhǐ dǒng yī zhǒng yǔyán, nà jiùshì nǐ de xuǎnpiào ❌.
அரசியல்வாதிகளுக்கு ஒரே ஒரு மொழி மட்டுமே தெரியும், அது உங்கள் வாக்கு ❌. Araciyalvātikaḷukku orē oru moḻi maṭṭumē teriyum, atu uṅkaḷ vākku ❌.
Les politiciens ne comprennent qu'une seule langue, votre vote ❌.
Do we want a leadership that wants to be a big fish in a small pond, or do we want a leadership that can actually take on the Donald Trumps and the Xi Jinpings and the Anwar Ibrahims? The key question of this election is what kind of leadership do we want?
If one were the PAP, the rational thing to do actually is to slowly have actually more SMCs. So, if you lose in any constituency, you only lose one seat or you lose two seats, but you don't lose all five.
You have 'first past the post' system, which actually gives them a lot of leverage. With 61% of the votes, they (PAP) can have over 80% of the seats.
When their popular votes, actually drops below 60%. That is where the leverage will work. Reverse against you.
I have pushed this argument. Look here, we have the money for free education, free healthcare, free school, free meals. I know that sounds radical to many Singaporeans who are not used to this notion of having anything free, but I assure you, the money is there before our eyes.
We need to build resilience in our political parties, and one way to build resilience in times of uncertainty is to have a plethora of voices actually.
I read the manifestos before l came and all the direction are focused on the same thing. Helping the less fortunate, the disabled, a better society and that is the right track. Now, I want to share with you an alternative way. Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.
You know, you can talk till the cows come home about diversity. You can have slogans, you can have all those things. But if you don't have basic respect for another person who happens to have a different point of view, it's a lost case.
Ladies and gentlemen, my dear panellists, thank you very much for making time to be here.
This is the finale of the IQ Coverage of GE, which stands for General Election in case you're wondering, 2025. Give ourselves a big hand, guys.
And now, can we give a big hand to the politicians who have made time to be here today?
Just in case you're wondering, I wrote to the People's Action Party, the PAP HQ, and I'm still waiting for a reply. So, I believe they're not coming. Pritam Singh from Workers' Party, was kind enough to reply and apologise for not being able to make it, today. Leong Mun Wai from the Secretary-General of the PSP, Progress Singapore Party also conveys his apologies. He would have liked to be here, but he has pulled away last minute, as well. So my big thanks, especially to the representatives from the SDP, PPP, RDU and PAR. I'II be telling you all what these abbreviations mean in a short while.
So what's the aim today? The aim is to give the political parties represented here an opportunity to say what they want to their constituents, as well as to the people of Singapore, which they have not had the chance to say before this. And this is going to be going out tomorrow. We're going to be posting it tomorrow. It's not live and tomorrow is the eve of Cooling Off day. So, it's a good time for everyone to reflect on it. So, let's say things that gives people an opportunity, the incentive to reflect on. We also have on the panel, the Assistant Professor Elvin Ong from the political science department of National University of Singapore (NUS). Give him a hand, please. 👏
Some general information. As you would be aware. A total of 97 seats. Right. 33 constituencies, as we know. Marine Parade- Braddell Heights GRC has had a walkover, right? Otherwise, all other constituencies are being contested, right. Some even have four-way contest.
This recording is for 1.5 hours. Right. So I hope that we would all keep what we want to say as short and sharp as possible. But please don't also feel that you need to be unduly constrained because of time.
I'd like to start by asking my panellists, the political panellists here, to address this question, one after the other when l introduce you. The question is ¹ What is the burning issue for your party that you feel needs further elaboration that may not have had the chance to be adequately addressed so far. And you'll be given no more than three minutes. Right. And I will stop you using whatever means I have. And there are some heavy stuff here which I could throw. Let's also try and be civilised. Let's be factually accurate.
Otherwise we could get POFMA-ed, but we could get POFMA even otherwise. That statement alone could be POFMA-ed. Okay. You guys are not taking POFMA seriously. This is wrong, you know? Okay. Of course.
Avoid anything that's libellous. Right. Uh, we should also try our best to be respectful, even as we are critical. Even as we criticise, uh, whether in English or Hokkien.
Now, before we go on to our panellists, some background information about the parties that are not represented here.
Number one, the PAP, as I said, contesting. They're contesting all parties, all seats except for Marine Parade-Braddell Heights GRC. The Workers' Party contesting 8 constituencies, 26 seats. Progress Singapore Party, contesting 6 constituencies, 13 seats. Right. Okay, let's now go to our first panellist, Professor Paul Anantharajah Tambyah, chairman of the Singapore Democratic Party or affectionately known as the SDP, which was founded in 1984. Contesting 4 Constituencies, 11 candidates. Your time starts now.
Professor Paul Anantharajah Tambyah: Thank you. I've got the timer up here, and I sense why Viswa is a bit nervous about letting me go first, because the first and only time that the mainstream state-owned Singapore media ever got POFMA-ed was during the last general election, when I made a statement about the migrant worker dormitories, which actually came from the Straits Times. But, poor Viswa was there at National University of Singapore Society (NUSS) and he was hosting a discussion, and I said it, and then he got POFMA-ed, and I didn't because we never published it. That's why he said, POFMA is just so incredibly complicated that it takes someone with a Cambridge law degree to understand.
Um, so ayway, uh, in regards to your question¹, what do I really wish that my voters or our voters would know in the next 48 hours or so? ¹And I think the number one thing is that you can vote without fear. So that I think has been a huge issue. And I don't think we've done a really good job communicating about it. We tried doing it. We try and keep telling them the vote is secret. The Straits Times had an infographic today about telling people the vote was secret, but it begins with the serial number. Why we need to have the serial number? So that we can trace back, if there's any issue and dispute. You know, once you say something like that, people just get really, um, puzzled. But the reality is there's no way they can do that. And they have never done that, to my knowledge, in the last 70 years. Um, we constantly get this refrain, oh, you know, l'd like to vote for the opposition, but, you know, my son is in the police force and he wants to become a commander or deputy commander or division chief or something like that, and I'm afraid that wil affect him. That's ridiculous. Number one, they don't even know he's your son. Number two, you know, who's going to be able to track it down? They say, no, no, no, they know everything. And, you know, the trouble is, um, it's all Google's fault, right? Because you go and search for holidays in China, then next thing you know, all these things start popping up about the tourist things. And for somebody who's of that generation, it's pretty scary. If Google knows this, the Singapore government definitely knows it, too. So, I think this is something that we have to try and communicate. We've been trying to address it through the rallies, through the speeches. Uh, I got my good friend, Braema Mathi to try and reactivate an old video that she did actually in 2011, where they got some celebrities to go around telling people, uh, my vote is secret. Your vote is secret. I told people on stage that I was there when they burned the ballot boxes. You know, we followed them. I think you were there too, right? We followed them from the Supreme Court vault, all the way to the incinerator in Tuas, and we saw them go up in smoke. So, l think that's something that we really need to communicate to the public. We may not have done a great job about it. I'm hoping we can do that in the next 48 hours or so. Thanks.
Is that it?
Yeah. Three minutes following the time.
I like this guy. Okay. Second, we go to the Red Dot United party, RDU. The chairman is here. Dr David Foo and RDU was formed in the last election, 2020, right? Contesting in 4 constituencies, 15 candidates. Your time starts now.
Well thank you, Viswa. I think today Singapore has become a very high cost society. To bear these high costs we need high wages and high productivity. I think we all agree on that. And with high cost of labour, small SMEs are finding it difficult to recruit and retain talent. More importantly, families are feeling the pinch. Our citizens face a higher housing prices, soaring healthcare costs but stagnant wages. Seniors are skipping treatments. Many parents are worried about their children's futures. Work retraining. Again and again and again. With no clear path to a secured job or good paying job. We believe in growth with equity. Our manifesto is not filled with slogans. Our manifesto is a serious proposal to build a new social contract, to restore dignity to our seniors, protection for our workers, and fairness for every Singaporean. We want to create a more inclusive and sustainable growth model towards a more balanced economy, focusing on how much GDP growth doesn't necessarily tell us how good it is or for whom. That means growing for the people and not just for numbers. That means supporting SMEs, valuing all work, and ensuring that productivity gains will lead to higher wages and not just higher profits. So the real question we want is just not how much we grow, but who gets to benefit from that growth? That's why our manifesto is built on heart. HEART housing security through SERS and rent-to-own schemes, equitable healthcare, capping out-of-pocket costs, expanding Medishield Life, a resilient economy, one that plans long term and puts Singaporeans at the centre. A transparent governance with Freedom of Information Act to rebuild trust. Our promise is to build a Singapore that doesn't run only efficiently but also humanely. A Singapore where we our parents, your parents, your children, your children's children are treated not as digits on a data sheet, but as first class citizens in your own country. Because this is the only home that we have. Thank you.
Thank you David. Next we have Goh Meng Seng. One of the most seasoned politicians in Singapore. Now, he's Secretary-General of the People's Power Party, or PPP, which was founded in 2015. Right. Contesting in 2 constituencies, 10 candidates.
Well, thank you for having me Viswa. Okay. our manifesto is basically very simple. I believe politics is about policies. It's not about politicking, right? So our slogan is Make Singapore Home Again. So what does it mean? We have to take care of the old, the middle age, the young and the children. Right. But having that policies is about life, livelihood and good governance. These are the three key points. A lot of people have been talking about livelihood. A lot of people are talking about governance. But for my party, why we actually have 10 candidates for a smal party like us. It's because our priority is actually life. Because without life, livelihood doesn't matter, right? So our key message that didn't get out in the mainstream media is actually the mandatory vaccine order, vaccination order, which was abandoned in 2023. A lot of people do not know about that. But when we go to ground zero, a lot of people do not know that. For the next pandemic to come, if the director general of a medicine or health decided that we need to put a vaccine, whether it's tested, fully tested or not, when you have this law, everyone has to take it regardless of your own body condition. That's number one. Number two, if you do not want to take it, you will be fined for first timer up to $10,000 or jailed for six months, up to six months. The second offence will be double, right, and the best part is in the amendment. Indemnity will be given to the officers that carried out all these orders. That means if anything happened to you, whether you die from a vaccination or have any vaccine-injury, right. You cannot sue them. These are actually made into law, which we in the People's Power Party disagree, but that is against human rights. The body belongs to you, not to the state. So this is something very fundamental to us. But the mainstream media have been sidelining these messages. When we talk about the livelihood issues. Right. Cost of living and MediShield and all that. They will report. But when it comes to this, it is actually missing in the contest campaign narrative. And this is what we hope that this will carry out very effectively, to force people to decide, why we want to support this. No, we do not want. Right. That's our key message. Thank you.
Next we have, Lim Tean, Secretary-General of the People's Alliance for Reform or PAR. Now PAR constitutes three parties. Number one, People's Voice party. That's your party. That's my party. And then Reform Party and Democratic Progressive Party. And the PAR was formed in 2023. And in this election, you are fielding 6 constituencies. You're contesting in 6 constituencies and fielding 13 candidates. 13 seats. That's right. Your time starts now.
Thank you. So. Well, let me just give you a gist of what are the proposals for PAR in this election. We are pushing very hard our proposal for free education, free healthcare, free school meals for every Singaporean child. Because, you know, having talked to a lot of young families, particularly in Potong Pasir where I'm contesting, and in this area known as Bidadari and Alkaff, where you go there, it's amazing. Every family is young with toddler, children of 2 or 3 years old, some newborns. And they tell us that, you know, one of the big difficulties in having children is because of the cost of living. And childcare is very, very expensive. So, and I have pushed this argument, look here we have the money for free education, free healthcare, free school meals. I know that sounds radical to many Singaporeans who are not used to this notion of having anything free, but l assure you, the money is there before our eyes. Where does the money come from? If you take the CPF annualised returns, what the government pays you, your 4% or 2.5%, um, the difference between that and the 6% that they earn. You have $13.4 billion there. All right? Every year they transfer about $24 billion into special, what they call special transfers into endowments and trusts for future expenses. No government in the world does accounting that way. All right. If you take that, you have crossed the line. We only need another $20 billion to have free education and free health care. On top of what Singapore. On top of what the government is already paying. So for me, that is the most important proposal PAR is putting forward in this election. Plus, you know, we have our own proposals for lowering the cost of public housing in which we want first to stop permanent residents, PRs from buying public housing, because we think that is what is causing the surge in resale prices, which then pulls along the BTO price. And secondly, as for the BTO, we differ from PSP who wants land costs taken out totally. We think that's going to crash the market. We would rather gradually reduce land costs, maybe save 5% every six months and we will bring it down eventually. So those are the two big proposals we have for reducing the cost of living. (End)
Professor from NUS Political Science Department. Elvin Ong.
Yeah thank you Viswa for the invitation to join this panel. So I will put on my academics hat for this panel. And I will share some numbers and share some observations about what I think the elections have evolved so far, from the elections I have observed from the past, right. So number one, a couple of numbers. So 97 seats up for grabs. In order to form a government with a simple majority, you need 49 seats. In order to have a government with a two-thirds supermajority, you need 65 seats. Now, let's assume that the PAP is going to be the dominant incumbent, and it is trying to go and achieve that minimum of 65 seats to achieve a supermajority. Now, to deny the PAP a supermajority of 65 seats, that means that opposition parties need 33 seats in total. So the magic number is 33, right? No opposition party on their own is going to get to that 33 magic number because the largest opposition party, Workers' Party, is only contesting in 26 seats. So even if Workers' Party wins all their seats, they're not going to be able to deny the PAP government a two-thirds supermajority, which means, if they want to deny the two-thirds. If the opposition needs to win, to deny the PAP the two-thirds majority, the Workers' Party needs to work with some of the other opposition parties here, right? That's the first thing to note. A couple of things that l've seen evolved from these elections as compared to the past. I think number one, these elections have seen much more debate and engagement in terms of policies, public policies. For example, in terms of GST increase, whether it should be increased, or it should be delayed. It should be reduced, or it should be waived for essential items, so on and so forth. I think there has been much more ideological positioning and debate about public policy issues as compared to the past. I remember, in the past, the manifestos for opposition parties were 6-page PowerPoint slides, 4-page A4 papers. I was very surprised to see the Singapore People's Party actually, were able to print out their manifesto and send it to my mailbox. And I thought that they didn't have the resources to do that, but they did, right.
And so I think, it's a good sign that we are evolving more towards an ideological debate about public policies.
Number two, that I can think of in terms of how the election campaign has evolved, is that one topic has come up, which is the importance or non-importance of PAP potentially losing a cabinet minister if it loses a GRC. Now, of course, the PAP will claim that it is very problematic for the PAP if it loses a GRC and if it loses a cabinet minister, because it will severely weaken the ruling party. There are many Singaporeans who actually believe in that particular argument, right. And so I think if opposition parties want to win more seats, want to win more GRCs, they have to give some assurance to voters that they do not necessarily want to potentially rock the boat too much and not severely weaken, weaken the government too much, even if they manage to defeat a few incumbent cabinet ministers. And finally, I would say something that has evolved over the past few elections is that there is a lot of media saturation out there. There's so many platforms, so many podcasts, so many YouTube videos that you can watch, right? And I think there's a feeling of confusion among voters. How do I vote for? Am I pulled between voting for local issues, the playgrounds, uh, and the rubbish clearing versus national issues? There's a tension between should I reward or punish the incumbent in my constituency? Or should I look forward to the future to vote for a futuristic, better team. So, l think voters are generally confused and will urge everyone to take Cooling Off day to basically just write down on a piece of paper, what do you care about? Who is contesting in your constituency, and how do you think you will vote? You will find how much writing down on a piece of paper actually helps clarify your mind. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you, Elvin. It's very interesting the point you made about perception of opposition, right? Uh, I grew up as a kid in the 1960s. I don't look my age. And I tell you, some of you here would know what I'm talking about. The famous Fullerton Square rally, which then was at Fullerton Square, which is not anymore, right? The Fullerton Square rally is usually on the eve of polling day, right? There was no Cooling Off day then. And the famous Harbans Singh, you know, famous Harbans Singh as opposition candidate, would go out there and tell you it blew my mind, the kind of thing. I was a little boy standing there fascinated and wondering, is this really politics? Even l as a kid knew that he was talking nonsense, right? Because he would say, do you all know that Rajaratnam is a 'mee goreng' ( Malay terms for fried noodles) seller? You know, some of you may remember it. And then people say, yeah you know, and then go and vote for the PAP, you know. And then there was all this talk that came out. Many of us know, right, that the caricature of the opposition - bicycle thief, you know? And I think it was Lee Kuan Yew who described opposition members as they're no better. They all essentially are bicycle thieves and so on. I don't know what else you all stole, but do these guys look like bicycle thieves to y'all? I mean, if they are, they're hiding it really well, you know? POFMA. So, number one, to add on to what Elvin's observation is. We've come a long way. We have come a long way. You know, even today, even though the opposition parties are not as well resourced as they perhaps can be or should be with whatever resources they have, they're coming out here and doing this. And it takes a lot of organisational skills, abilities as well as hard work on the ground, you know. So, we've come a long way. Having said that, I think the PAP also has come a long way. You know, and Elvin was highlighting it just now when we were having a chat. And I agree. And this is something I was reflecting, at least so far. The PAP has not been browbeating as much as in some other previous years. No, I think the PAP has also come to realise that the rules of engagement has to change. They have to change, you know. So, I think this has so far been a reasonably, reasonably reasonable, election so far. So far. Right. Of course, things can change in one day. The only area where there's been some exchange. And let's face it, in politics, you will have some mudslinging. Otherwise, it's not entertaining for us as well. Okay. I mean, so let's also have a threshold, you know, but you must be able to take it as well as you give. I think that should be the sportsmanship that we expect. Give. You know, if you want to give it, hammer the opposition fine. But let the opposition hammer you once in awhile or chok chok you, you know. So I think we should move towards that sort of parity of conduct right now to pick up from what Elvin said just now. This whole issue of what if a cabinet minister or up to three cabinet ministers lose their seats, right? Now, this is what the PAP has said. I think it was Prime Minister Lawrence Wong who highlighted that, you know. What if three, three of them. Hsien Loong, Hsieng Loong said. Lee Hsien Loong said that. No, Lee Hsien Loong came in after that, you know, and then, SM Lee said a couple of days ago, in response to Pritam Singh statement, SM Lee said, it's ridiculous. It's a ridiculous. He used the word ridiculous. It's a ridiculous argument to say that the PAP can lose ministers without weakening the government. Now, Pritam Singh questioned why the PAP needed a two-thirds majority in parliament in order to govern properly. You know, personally, if you ask me, it's not an unfair question. His question is why does one need. Why does the ruling party need a two-thirds majority to be able to function effectively as government? That's number one. He argued that the government could have, and I quote, "enough leeway, enough focus even if all 26 Workers Party candidates were voted into Parliament." You may not get. Still, you may not get the two-thirds majority. The, you know, the one-third, the one-third opposition majority to prevent the PAP from getting a two-thirds majority. But does that mean that you'll be. So this question is, in my view, probably the most important question that has surfaced. We have talked at length about cost of living and so on. But l'd like to hear from the panel. What's your response to both what Pritam Singh as leader of the opposition said, as well as what the PAP leadership have said? Who wants to go first?
Yeah, I started out the last time. So l've actually addressed this in a couple of rallies. And the first way I addressed it turned out to be really popular. And that's when I was reminded that football is the most popular sport in Singapore, because l made the analogy and I said that, you know, you are running a football team, you want to play against teams that are stronger than you in order to get better. Otherwise, you end up with mediocre team, you know? And you don't want to change the goalposts. You don't want to shorten the training time for your opponents to 28 days. You don't want to commit professional fouls, you know? And that resonated. So people started asking me which football team I support, and I don't tell them. I don't want to alienate them. But the other illustration, which I used yesterday was, when I did my, after I graduated, my father encouraged me to do my postgraduate training overseas. And the reason was he's a very well-known. He was a very well known physician. So every time l went around somewhere, they'd say, Tambyah, you're John Tambyah's son. And so that I had to live up to that expectation. But l also had doors open to me that I wouldn't otherwise have. And that's a long story, too long for this discussion. So he said, you go to America where nobody knows who you are, and then you prove yourself. Then you see you're competing against the best in the world. You're not a big fish in a small pond. So, the question is, do we want a leadership that wants to be a big fish in a small pond? Or do we want a leadership that can actually take on the Donald Trumps and the Xi Jinpings and and the Anwar Ibrahims of the world? So, so I think that is kind of , as you said, the key question of this election is what kind of leadership do we want? Thank you.
I think my take on it would be that we haven't quite addressed it yet, but my take on it would be that, if you're a leader of a major political party and you say that, which means to say you are a very fragile party. So what Lee Kuan Yew did say, right, you can't put Humpty Dumpty together. So if you look at the PAP, it's Humpty Dumpty. You can't put them together. If they break, it's a very fragile party. There is no resilience. We need to build resilience in our political parties. And one way to build resilience in times of uncertainty is to have a plethora of voices, actually. So if with 51 seats out of 97, you still have a majority, but if you cannot form a cabinet, then I worry for the future of Singapore. Actually, I really worry for that, right? So, along the way I took a taxi because it's raining. There was another taxi driver, another taxi cab that stopped next to this driver. So I told the taxi driver, do you have a bottle of kerosene? I said, why? I need to burn the taxi next to it. Say why? Because if there's competition, our leaders say cannot work. Can you? We have got more than a thousand taxis around, right? So, if you look at that argument, taken to its logical conclusion, it doesn't make sense. Are we such a fragile country? Do we have a fragile political leadership? I hope not. I certainly hope not, because a plethora of voices only strengthens and sharpens the current political leadership. And they should actually take good advantage of that. So don't worry about it. Think through it yeah. Thank you.
Thank you. Meng Seng?
I would say from a political system perspective, it is their own doing. They wanted a GRC system with first past the post winner, which actually gives them a lot of leverage. And that's why with 61% of the votes, they can have over 80% of the seats. That's the leverage. But when, statistically speaking, when your popular votes actually drops below 60, that is where the leverage works. Reverse against you. It means that basically each GRC you put, you put actually your ministers to lead. Right. So when you start to losing one GRC, you not only losing your backbenchers, but you lose your ministers altogether. It's like, just like show hand. You play poker, you show hand. But nobody gamble like that. So the alternative to this, right, there are two ways of doing it to change the GRC system to a proportional representation system. That means for the first 20% of votes that you get, your ministers will get elected. And whether how many else, how many of the backbenchers that you can keep, right, depends on your popularity. Right. Then we will have people like Paul Tambyah, David Foo to get elected because most probably they will have 20% and the first leader of the team will get in. Then we have a win-win situation for Singapore. Yeah. That is actually the most ideal system for us, right?
Maybe I will ask Elvin to respond to the idea. Should we? Because no system is perfect, right? I'm not saying, I mean the proportionate representation system has its own flaws as well. Before that, let me finish this. So the only way for this, this reform to happen is to make PAP feel the pain first. They must lose enough ministers, enough GRC before they rethink whether this leverage really works for them or against them. Okay. Elvin?
Yeah. This topic of electoral system change is also quite dear to my heart. I remember one of the first letters or commentaries I wrote to The Straits Times was about electoral system change, arguing for electoral system change in Singapore. So just to clarify, a little bit of what Mr Goh Meng Seng has mentioned right. So if you think about the GRC as a system, currently it's supposedly advantageous, advantageous to PAP because if they win 51% of the votes, right, they win, say five seats, six seats, four seats, right? But it could be a reverse effect for the opposition. If the opposition wins 51% of their votes and then they can win all five seats, right. And push a lot of the PAP members of Parliament out of power. So, if one were the PAP, the rational thing to do actually is to slowly have actually more SMCs. Yeah. And to reduce the GRCs right. So if you lose in any constituency, you only lose one seat or you lose two seats, but you don't lose all five, right. If that is something that is to be thought of. So, more SMCs, less GRCS. However, number two way of, potential reform is, as Mr Goh Meng Seng said, to have some form of a proportional representation system. But of course, there's also flaws in proportional representation systems. So what a lot of countries have done around the world, such as New Zealand, such as Germany, such as Thailand, such as Japan is to have a mixed system where you have both SMCs for first past the post winner and you have a proportional representation system. So whenever people go to the ballot box, they actually have two votes. They vote for number one who they want to be in their constituency to represent them. And number two, they vote for a national party who they want to, reward right, at the national level. And so this actually delineates the responsibility quite clearly, because, you vote for someone maybe to emphasise local constituency issues, but you also vote for a party that can actually win more seats to take on national issues. So it ultimately gives voters two bites of the cherry 🍒 , right. If you think about it. So that's a bit of a hybrid system. But historically the first past the post system, operates on the understanding that it's a single member constituency (SMC). Yeah, right. So when you then introduce an aberration such as a GRC, it is an aberration. It's not meant to be part of the first past the post system, right. Then you have a problem, right? So in 1988, when GRCS were introduced, it was highly disadvantageous to opposition parties, you know, because you needed to form groups. You needed enough contestants to form your group of candidates and the cost involved. So it was it was quite cumbersome when you introduce a GRC system in 1988. Now, what is interesting, and what l'd like to put to everyone here is we are seeing now, especially this year, this election compared to 2020, right. We are seeing a surge in the number of SMCs. The question is, are we now going back to what was originally the system? Yes, right? Because maybe it is. It is. We've now come to realise that it's very dangerous because you can actually lose cabinet ministers, right? Therefore, are we seeing, a trend back, the reversal to go back? And will there come a time in the maybe two elections from now? Will there come a time when we drop GRCs and go back to first past the post system, which is all SMCs. But would we then change the rationale for GRCs? The purpose of GRCs is to have minority representation. Remember that? You didn't need that because when we had all SMCs, we had plenty of minority representation. I know, I know that, but this is not my narrative. This was the rationale for GRC.
You are just being naughty. We didn't say that and we didn't say that. It's not I that say that, right? So, so okay, What I don't want is for this to turn into a PAP bashing, but it doesn't need to be. It doesn't need to be because we are talking about possibilities without necessarily pointing a finger to at any particular party and so on, okay? I think we can and generally speaking, I'm averse to the idea of of whacking someone who's not present. No worries, no worries. But I need to also point out the rationale for GRCs, right, is to have minority representation. - Yeah l agree - That's the rationale. Whether we agree or not, whether we say it's true or not true, that's a different story. But that was the rationale put up and that became law. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I want to hear from the audience. You think what? Free lunch. Free dinner. Okay. No. Is there anyone in the audience? There are some. Magad, ex-PAP MP. No l'm not.
I'm not putting you on the spot. Although I may -You just did.
He's the closest to the PAP. No, you are NMP right? NMP, MP okay. PAP MPs. Yes. Magad.
Yeah. Yes, I do agree with the fact that, the GRC was implemented primarily to ensure minority representation those days, but I think, you know, I'm not, close to the party anymore now, but nevertheless, I do think that, because of the loss of several GRCs in recent elections, there is probably a rethink of, probably that we have too many GRCs and therefore, the trend now move towards having more SMCs, but ultimately it's going to depend on the outcome of this election itself, whether there's going to be any further change to the GRC system or not. Right. And thank you.
Anybody wants to respond? Anyone else who wants to?
Well, for me, I hope it will not revert back. That's number one. Why? Because if you have a proportional representation in the GRC, people can vote with their hearts of the core values. People, the parties that is most aligned to their own core values and their beliefs and their vision for Singapore, then we will have a more, more dynamic representation in Parliament in that sense, right? Well, the other argument that has been put up is, in a GRC system, if you're part of a GRC, your relationship with the MP is quite tenuous. You know, because there are so many. There are five MPs, four MPs, you know, you don't have the one-on-one relationship that you actually typically have in an SMC. I mean, that's what l've heard from MPs. Although the PAP tends to break them up into precincts. Yeah. So, it's not the same. And they are. Yeah. I mean it's not the same, but the counter argument is that then they can cross cover for each other. This issue of wanting to have ethnic minority representation in one's parliament is not unique to Singapore, right? There are many other countries, such as New Zealand, such as Taiwan, that want to actually preserve minority representation in their parliament. So, if I am not wrong, New Zealand, actually has some sort of system to have indigenous representation in their parliament, right. So, I don't know actually what's the exact system, but I'm sure someone can do a Google search and someone can do some research paper on it. So, I welcome anyone who wants to provide some grants to run some tests. What kind of systems help preserve ethnic minority representation around the world? l'd like to go on, and I think it is an important topic because we can talk and talk about constituencies and so on. But let's go back to the fundamental principles, right. And a major turning point for me was the result of the last presidential election. The last time l checked. Tharman Shanmugaratnam, as president. Before he became elected president, Tharman Shanmugaratnam is a Ceylonese. Of general South Asian stock. Right? Yup. He got 72% of not in Jurong GRC, 72% across Singapore. Yes that's correct. Why are we still holding on to this view that people will vote along racial lines? I think that has put a big question mark on that, right. Regardless of whether we want, you know, which system. It's the principle of it. When are we going to get away from this crutch, this crutch of race? I think it's a question that all of us needs to ask ourselves. It's not an indictment against the PAP, or because maybe it was like that several years back in 1988. Maybe it was like that when the GRC system was introduced. But this year we are celebrating 60 years since independence, 60, 65, 66 years, 66 years since we had self-rule in 1959. We can't be using the crutch forever and still continue to recite the national pledge that says regardless of race, language or religion. Maybe it should be, regardless of race, language or religion. If you ask me, that may be more accurate, because I don't think we'll ever come to a point where it's regardless of race, language or religion because l've not come across any society. I don't think we need to work towards that, but it's really about. Let's consciously, regard less of race, religion, in all our decisions, major decisions such as this, you know. I think we might be there. A reason why I say we might be there is because there is this mindset shift, right? So it could be a generational mindset shift that's needed. But it's a mindset shift. And I think that if you look at our society, we have temples, mosques, churches on the same stretch of road. I used to tell my students that Middle Road is the best way to go, because there's every kind along that road, every religious faith is well represented. Right? So, so the question. So I think it's a mindset shift. It could be a generational thing. And after 6 years, let's evaluate. Yeah. Let's rethink it. Rethink it in a very fundamental way. And we're very fortunate to have Dr William Wan here. You know, he has been with the Kindness Movement for the longest time. And these issues are close to his heart. And I know you as a good friend. Can we give him the mic, please? This is how I volunteer people. I mean, it's like, to me, one of the most telling thing is for it to be said that we're not ready for an Indian Prime Minister. Then what's all this racial harmony about? I mean, I've been involved in racial harmony in Singapore, my best friends are Indians and Sikhs and, you know, all sorts of races and Muslims and Buddhists. And I'm a Christian and we all eat together. We grew up together, and now we are told that we're not ready. I mean, what have we been doing? So l agree that we shouldn't be thinking about the race and religion divide in a way that is not always necessary. In fact, like you said, it should be regarding less. Rather than thinking so much about it. I remember growing up and I'm probably one of the older ones here. I'm 78, by the way. I remember growing up with Indian friends and Muslim friends and Hindu friends and Sikh friends, and we never felt that we were anything other than friends. Yeah. We were not easily offended. We kid each other. I remember one of my Malayali friends. We still remain friends even though, you know, we've been together since primary school. This guy, my good friend, is like you, not very dark, Viswa. And when I was a young kid, I was very dark skin. And we were studying biology, I believe. And people ask how come your Indian friend is fair and you are dark? And I say, it's osmosis. And we laugh at it. We laugh like we just did and we were enjoying ourselves. But today some of these things become very sensitive, you know? Yes. You cannot talk, cannot, cannot say. Okay, so thank you.
Thank you very much. William.
Yes, Jay. Mic, please.
Hi, everyone.
I think you want to introduce yourself?
Yes sorry. My name is Jay. I come from this group called the Independent Citizens. Okay, so I think the minority issue is not how you look, but what you represent, I think. It's the issues you stand for. If somebody speaks about a certain issue, then they probably are kind of put you with that issue and you can be a person of majority, religion or race. And if you talk about the Palestinian issue, you're associated with that, for example, you know. So that's one. Number two, if they want a minority representation, they could have done a system of two ministers standing at a GRC. Shrink the GRC down and then you have the majority race and one minority. Or if they want to go further, you can have a Chinese, Malay and Indian and three ministers standing in ohv ne GRC, smaller GRC, if that's what they wanted to achieve. But this one, I'm going to get a POFMA for it. Maybe to make things difficult for the opposition to have a team. Back then they made it five. It's difficult to get five. You can get a three. So this is what I think. So right now doesn't matter. When I went on online, my followers are mostly Chinese. It's not. They don't see the skin colour anymore. We are all colour-blind I think. So, like what you said after 60 years, if you are still debating about minority issues, I think something has gone wrong and this has been put forth not by the citizens, by others. Get it. Now in the interest of time, let's move on from this topic. But what is important is we I think there appears to be looking at the nods I'm seeing. There is a call for maybe a review, not just of the GRC system, but some of the basic assumptions that we make in party politics for example, right? Now, l'd like to go back to the issue of the ruling party losing cabinet position potentials. Right now there are obviously two categories. One would be those who are already serving as ministers or senior ministers of state. Right. And the second category is fresh candidates who are likely to be parachuted in and start off as ministers of state or in some cases even as a cabinet minister. We are seeing that trend right which is not a bad thing. So what I'd like to ask is, you know, this is the basis of a commentary that I just put out today, right? What is it that in a general election you're required to do? We all know that in a Westminster system, you don't choose who the ministers are. Unlike the US presidential system where you're voting for the president and the vice president, here, you're not, you're voting for your electing your Member of Parliament. Now, whether the member of Parliament becomes a minister or not, that's the prerogative of the party, the ruling party, right. So if that's the assumption you are, you are actually voting for an Member of Parliament (MP), you're not voting for a political office holder. Why should there be so much of concern at this point in time?
l've been trying to get my head around it. Because you are really voting not for a DPM, not for Prime Ministe. You know what I mean? You're voting for a Member of Parliament. So what are the qualities we are looking for in this person that you're voting to be your Member of Parliament? What are these qualities? I'd like to hear from the audience, as well as the panel. Who would like to go first? Yes. Michael. Yeah. Michael Heng.
Okay. I don't think people go to the ballot box thinking whether they're going to lose a minister or what. They just want to vote for the best person they think to be their MP, right? So even though you have a GRC, but people identify still with their specific constituency. For example, you ask the question what if you lose 2 or 3 ministers? What if you lose Aljunied? You lose the Leader of the Opposition, right? Nobody asks that question. But people will say, yeah, So what's the loss, right? So, the question really is not personal, right? But really a question of leadership. And here in this case, leadership is really would the Prime Minister be affected should he lose his position in a GRC right? So people will be asking which leader l am working for. Not so much hey, this guy is a minister, so I better work for him. I don't thinkl don't think people are thinking that way right. So basically at the root of it, we are talking about what we're talking about changing the rules. Right. Everybody will lose the football game. Like to choose. I'd like to change the rules. But the rules have changed. The rules have changed. GRC the alternative parties have adapted to the GRC and they've grown. I think the quality of the alternative parties has grown because of GRC, right. You look at your candidates this round. Super candidates, right. So l think the issue.
So Michael, in a nutshell, what's the point you're making?
My point is about leadership. When people go to the ballot box, they look at the parties. Frankly speaking, they don't know most of the party leaders, except maybe the prime minister right? But say Marsiling-Yew Tee . Oh if I don't vote for PAP, I might lose the Prime Minister. I don't think they are thinking that way okay? They're still looking at the issues that many of you raise up. Increasing cost of living, HDB flats and so on. But people are not even talking about. So you say that we should vote more opposition MPs and on day one. Okay. Are you let go five goals, you know. And then after that you say, look, you got to vote all of us then what do you give up? Five goals, you know. Okay. So I think we need to focus. The specific ministers are not that important. There are many talents in the pipeline. Just as there are many talents that you have in your own parties. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
Dinesh. Behind.
I think to answer your question, I think the first would be, you know, how would the residents feel at their usual MPS you know, when they see. Can this. MPS meaning Meet-the-People session. So would the particular MP be able to connect and listen to their concerns or voices? And you know, when they feel that they can listen and be able to relate to their voices? And I think when they go to the ballot box, I feel that, you know, this person is likeable. I can relate to them. And so that would help to make or allow them to make a decision on who to vote for in terms of their particular MP.
So l guess it's also in terms of how many visits they have made, have they been in the coffee shops, doing visits, house visits.
So there are many factors as well when you look into the overall perspective of things. So, so you're saying that the how diligent they are.
Yes. If but, what if it's a fresh face? If it's a fresh face, I would say. I would say likeability.
So what is likeability? Singing.
Yeah. No, no, it's a fact. It's a fair question. You know what is likeability? Is it the same as populism? You know what's the difference. Okay, let me ask you that question. What's the difference between likeability and populism?
I think populism is more in terms of, attractiveness. I vote for you because I think this person is attractive. Likeability is in terms of like, potentially. How do I put it? How relatable are you in my day to day life? You know, so ifa young person you look at a young MP-to-be, he says, you know what this MP can, is able to relate to my concerns. Yeah. Right. And I think he knows the kind of pain l am in and therefore I would like to give him a chance. So, so that likeability centres around, centres around things like being authentic. Right? That's right. Which is, which is very different from, from populism.
That's right. And also demonstrating care by listening.
That's right. Shutting up sometimes and listening. That's right. Things like qualities like that right? Now. Thank you. Welcome.
Yulianna. I think what l've observed, I think in this question of the fear of losing a cabinet minister in the past, having an anchor minister in the GRC, people would probably, vote for the ←
Transcript
58:16 in and therefore I would like to give him a chance. So, so that likeability centres around, centres around things like being authentic
Right? That's right. Which is, which is very different from, from populism.
That's right. And also demonstrating care by listening.
That's right. Shutting up sometimes and listening. That's right. Things like qualities like that right? Now. Thank you. Welcome.
Yulianna. I think what l've observed, I think in this question of the fear of losing a cabinet minister in the past, having an anchor minister in the GRC, people would probably, vote for the
No comments:
Post a Comment