• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Vote for Change -- The Lost Generation

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
http://singaporealternatives.blogspot.com/2009/11/vote-for-change-lost-generation.html

I have been reading the TOC article and comments on the projection that born and bred Singaporeans may become the minority in our own land and this slogan "Vote For Change" keeps repeating on the various comments.

This slogan is repeated because many of the readers of TOC feels that the PAP's FT policy that opens the floodgate indiscriminately for foreigners to come into Singapore to work and suppress our wages are causing harm to the place. We have one of the most liberal emigration policy in the world. No other countries in the world open up their doors as wide open as ours.

One may argue that these are just emotional outbursts that only happen in the cyber world. However my recent experience on the ground indicate otherwise. Singaporeans from all walks of life, regardless of race and religion, have come up to me and complain about "foreigners" taking away their jobs. Even the coffeeshop auntie whisper to me how angry she is that some cheap foreign labor have been taking away jobs from Singaporeans like her. The underlying emotional pressures cannot be underestimated.

However, what is the thing exactly that we want to change? Prior to GE 2006, just before the Workers' Party published their manifesto, some of us were thinking of a catchy slogan for the manifesto which will become the theme of our main campaign during the elections. My wife and I have dealt with the theme of "CHANGE". After much discussion and deliberation, the theme "Change" though looks attractive and sound catchy, we decided that Singaporeans are not ready to stomach such "drastic" movement.

On hindsight, although the Workers' Party manifesto did bring up good policy views, but it just falls short of providing much revolutionary ideas that could be termed as "fundamental change" to the present socio-political-economic system. Most of the ideas were about tweaking the present system, though some of the ideas would mean a total revamp of policy directions. Thus in the end, I would have to agree to the slogan "You have the Choice" instead.

There are many dimensions to the concept of Change. As I have stated in my earlier postings, the fundamental pillars of a nation consist of Social, Economics, Culture and Politics. If anyone wants to call out for fundamental change to Singapore's development path, he will have to provide a central idea or ideology or Core Values as the fundamental guiding principles to deal with all the four pillars of this nation.

My personal political belief is Democratic Socialism and it has been the guiding principle for me in molding my policy views over a wide spectrum of issues. Although some would argue PAP is also founded on the ideology of Democratic Socialism but I would say that they have discarded such idealism long time ago. From my perspective, they are moving towards Ultra-capitalism instead. Thus, if I am going to use the concept of "Change", I would urge voters to Vote for Change, from the ultra-capitalism to the ideology of Democratic Socialism. However, in modern context, I was told that people no longer care about political ideologies any more.

Thus, I was quite puzzled about the "Change" that some Singaporeans are yearning for. Exactly what kind of changes are they talking about? From the TOC article and comments, it seems that the people there are hoping to change the FT policy so to eradicate the social-economic problems that comes with it. Or to change the ways that the whole government works? Changing the power structure within the parliament so that the ruling party would become more responsive, responsible and accountable to the people's wish?

If that is the case, we will be seeking bigger change than just voting more opposition members into parliament. The whole political system has to be revamped. I would champaign for a proportionate representation system for Singapore so that minority voices would not be ignored altogether in the process of policy and legislative parliamentary debates.

Changes that would bring more accountability and transparency within the government is a big theme that needs great courage from the voters to vote towards such transformation. Such changes are indeed necessary but to me, insufficient in terms of a total review of our national policy directions. But maybe our concerns back in 2005 is still valid, Singaporeans may accept certain pace of change but not a drastic one.

Interesting enough, this call for "Vote for Change" is initiated by somebody that would most probably call themselves "The Lost Generation". It is a simple term but invokes great depth of thinking.

Why "Lost"? The fear of being the minority in our own homeland may constitute to such label. We are lost because we have been overwhelmed by foreigners in our land. We are lost because we are helpless when job advertisement in our very own land actually discriminated against us, all of us Singaporeans, when they state categorically that only foreigners need to apply. Best of all, there is no law or rules that our elected government could apply and do something about it. We are lost in bewilderment when the minister in charge of labour would make the wild call for "Cheap, faster, better" workers while the ministers themselves would constantly justify why they need to be paid the MOST EXPENSIVE salaries in the world as ministers.

We are lost when the problems that foreign labour brought upon us as in cheap labour substitution and inflated HDB prices are not dealt with properly but on the other hand the government is more concern about Singaporeans not welcoming and integrating well with these foreigners in our homeland. It is strange when some of these foreign labour could not speak our "common language" Singlish/English while serving us in hawker centres and coffeeshops but instead, the burden of integration actually lies with us. We are lost when the government takes more care to the businesses instead of its people. GST increased just to reduce corporate taxes. Opening the floodgate for foreigners so that businesses could have cheaper labour substitutes.

Personally I am not all that anti-foreigners. But the situation becomes so absurd when the ruling party allows indiscriminately foreigners to flood our land with disregard to the fact that our infrastructure, public transport, healthcare, housing and public space could hardly cope with such influx. The problem does not lie with the foreigners but the government of the day. It is the ruling party who have open the floodgates and they should be made accountable for all the problems that are generated by this policy decision.

I guess the most important factor that created the Lost generation is the feeling of betrayal by the government with the series of policies that do not take care of them.

Vote for Change....and Accountability.


Goh Meng Seng
 

Perspective

Alfrescian
Loyal
Interesting article.

The NSP advocates 3-member GRCs. How would proportional representation work with GRCs. Unless that is the author's own personal views, but I would say he is running as NSP candidate and not independent.
 

TeeKee

Alfrescian
Loyal
I vote for opposition because PAP has become too Yaya Papaya..

Must teach them lessons to humble themselves...by losing more GRCs and Single constiuencies...lagi best, lose 2/3 majority...

But they so cunning, with that Ofart, that will come up with many scheme to cheat in the elections again...like giving citizenships or voting rights to FTs again....

Back to Square one again...SHIT!
 

lockeliberal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear GMS

Accountability and Transparency can be wrapped up in any of a thousand xmas packages, pink ribbons, blue ribbons, orange ribbons, "Vote for change" ribbon, or " You have a choice Ribbon "

I am not disputing the substance but just your particular choice of ribbon.

1. Vote for Change, Vote for Transparency and Accountability " is just to long a series of political ideas to put across. Perfect for a forum LOUSY for a nine day campaign.


2. Secondly the PAP has always said that CHANGE in any form is bad, i.e to many opposition, change in the political economic system, they know best etc etc etc let them plan ya da ya da ya da...............

3. If they were angry enough, really angry enough I would agree with you the PAP scare tactics would fail. However is it at that critical tipping point ? Secondly the change message falls flat because the opposition is IN NO WAY A CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVE AT PRESENT, GMS believing that he can replace MBT not being enough


4. My gut feel is a no and hence the change ribbon should be replace with something more subtle like " You have the power to hold the govt accountable for EVERYTHING> " etc etc






Locke
 

wizard

Alfrescian
Loyal
PAP [ ]

Others [ X ]

Because I dun have the courage and energy to join opposition. So I support them by voting them as long as I get a chance not forgetting my wife and in future my son if he is above 21 but still need me to finance him. So opposition always 3 min vote ....

3 small drops in the ocean. My fren, can you join me and become a bucket. Then 10000 bucket become a swimming pools. 10000 swimming pool and we drive PAP to 55% majority.

If not for your sake then for your children.
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
Interesting article.

The NSP advocates 3-member GRCs. How would proportional representation work with GRCs. Unless that is the author's own personal views, but I would say he is running as NSP candidate and not independent.

Why not?

No matter how big the GRC, proportionate representation could still work.

Anyone pass 33% first will have the first seat. Subsequently, depending on the subsequent votes and so on. There is nothing so difficult.

Goh Meng Seng
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
Although PR has many variations, I don't know what system is that. Nothing I have heard before.

Then I would suggest you read more about Proportionate representation instead of just knowing there are many variations.

Goh Meng Seng
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
Dear Locke,

1. If one just fight an Elections, then of course almost everything can be too long. In Singapore's context, it is never easy to win the elections by the 9 days campaigning with some short and sweet slogan. It is never so easy. Maybe you can be lucky but not definitely not that naive to think that anyone could possibly just win in a 9 days campaign with such short and sweet slogan. Thus the first premise that you base on is already on the wrong footing.

2. Why dance according to what PAP believes? Well, maybe if you live in the 1980s or even 1990s, you may not have the choice because the media is all under their control. But in the new century with alternative media booming?

3. PAP scare tactic is failing, didn't you notice? It is not just about being angry. It is about awakening from the foul tactics. Critical tipping point? Frankly speaking, nobody really knows until election result. Change can come slow, moderate pacing or just immediately. This is what we are witnessing in Malaysia. Do they Malaysian voters really think the opposition can form the government? But it is just happening around us. Whether we like it or not, the yearn for Change is the trend that nobody could ignore.

4. Neither do I really believe that anything else could work. This comes from Singaporeans, not from me. Indeed, many people are adverse to change because change will come with uncertainties. Whether we like it or not, this sound from the ground, bottom up, is something quite unexpected really.

Goh Meng Seng




Dear GMS

Accountability and Transparency can be wrapped up in any of a thousand xmas packages, pink ribbons, blue ribbons, orange ribbons, "Vote for change" ribbon, or " You have a choice Ribbon "

I am not disputing the substance but just your particular choice of ribbon.

1. Vote for Change, Vote for Transparency and Accountability " is just to long a series of political ideas to put across. Perfect for a forum LOUSY for a nine day campaign.


2. Secondly the PAP has always said that CHANGE in any form is bad, i.e to many opposition, change in the political economic system, they know best etc etc etc let them plan ya da ya da ya da...............

3. If they were angry enough, really angry enough I would agree with you the PAP scare tactics would fail. However is it at that critical tipping point ? Secondly the change message falls flat because the opposition is IN NO WAY A CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVE AT PRESENT, GMS believing that he can replace MBT not being enough


4. My gut feel is a no and hence the change ribbon should be replace with something more subtle like " You have the power to hold the govt accountable for EVERYTHING> " etc etc






Locke
 

lockeliberal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear GMS

Then we will disagree about the "ground". whether the tipping ground is there or not or the extent of " change or feel for change" on the ground.

Suffice it to say you would want a more AGGRESSIVE in your face anti PAP campaign and whilst I would not disagree with the need for "aggression" I would not campaign on a THEME of Obama change because that is not political reality in Singapore




LOcke
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
Dear GMS

Then we will disagree about the "ground". whether the tipping ground is there or not or the extent of " change or feel for change" on the ground.

Suffice it to say you would want a more AGGRESSIVE in your face anti PAP campaign and whilst I would not disagree with the need for "aggression" I would not campaign on a THEME of Obama change because that is not political reality in Singapore




LOcke

When I read the comments in TOC, I feel that a Total Change is not what they are looking for but rather, a change from no accountability to more accountability. A change from disregard of Singaporeans' interests to more concerns on policy impact on Singaporeans, particularly the FT policy. At the very most, a Change from the trend of being marginalized to become a minority in our own land to moderate growth in foreigner population. Some would suggest Nationalism is on the rise after reading the comments. To an extend, I believe so.

Thus the Change that we are talking about may not be the Change that they are looking at. Thus my article actually differentiate that distinctively. I am looking at Change at the political ideology that guide policy directions in the four pillars but they are looking at Change at a smaller scale.

Goh Meng Seng
 

ChaoPappyPoodle

Alfrescian
Loyal
When I read the comments in TOC, I feel that a Total Change is not what they are looking for but rather, a change from no accountability to more accountability. A change from disregard of Singaporeans' interests to more concerns on policy impact on Singaporeans, particularly the FT policy. At the very most, a Change from the trend of being marginalized to become a minority in our own land to moderate growth in foreigner population. Some would suggest Nationalism is on the rise after reading the comments. To an extend, I believe so.

Thus the Change that we are talking about may not be the Change that they are looking at. Thus my article actually differentiate that distinctively. I am looking at Change at the political ideology that guide policy directions in the four pillars but they are looking at Change at a smaller scale.

Goh Meng Seng

Accountability is too subjective and you will have a hard time proving to people based on your inexperience. It will lead you nowhere.

Vote for Change. Vote for your future.

These are more powerful and heart-reaching and everything else you stand for can be placed under these two powerful phrases including accountability.
 

lockeliberal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear GMS

Sight all I am saying is yes yes I agree with you but whatever you and I agree as the end points, the goals I am arguing DO NOT USE THE WORD " Change" to describe what you and I agree on. Sure in a forum no problems, I would use the term freely, but as a campaign as a slogan I would be dead set against it always keeping in my mine the .1% margin



Locke
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
Dear GMS

Sight all I am saying is yes yes I agree with you but whatever you and I agree as the end points, the goals I am arguing DO NOT USE THE WORD " Change" to describe what you and I agree on. Sure in a forum no problems, I would use the term freely, but as a campaign as a slogan I would be dead set against it always keeping in my mine the .1% margin



Locke

Dear locke,

I have not made up my mind yet. Maybe you are right but there may also be other considerations.

Goh Meng Seng
 

Ramseth

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
In Malaysian GE 2008, DAP used the slogan "Just Do It" to stunning unprecedented success. There was also a longer version: "Vote SDP - Send In 2 Rockets", referring to their logo and urging voters to vote in both their federal and state candidates (it was past electorate culture that voters split their votes).
 
Top