That sort of premium is not high. At least they are learning the ropes in looking after the residents as well as presenting the cases in Parliament. Granted that their presentation is lack luster in the past, focusing on the trees mostly. But comparing them to Chiam See Tong gives a certain perspective.
Learning how to manage TCs; a job that is almost done for a MP (with water, electricity, utilities, telecoms, TV, etc all there); the MP only need to worry about the general upkeep of the estate and improving his/her oratory skills?
A high premium for the little the voter gets in exchange.
Will SDP be better?
Truly do not know the answer. But first SDP must capture the trust of the electorate. That they have not done. They have plenty of excuses for their failure but for the unsuccessful, failures and excuses come hand-in-hand. They remain unsuccessful, by virtue of their justifications.
If SDP really wants to present their views, then they must win the trust of their constituency. Without this trust factor they cannot win. One suggestion on the manifesto - leave the minimum wage issue aside. Best leave it for the UK former hedge fund manager who thinks highly of his brilliant economics training, ass though an undergraduate degree is equivalent to a dragon-mandate.
The SDP has chosen the path of alienation from the mainstream or perhaps the PAP help them to move along that path. But the SDP can always return and woo the mainstream voters.
Do you want the SDP to do that?
As for alienation, you got it backwards. It is the mainstream media that is isolating SDP and potraying them in bad light. This propaganda is certainly having the fear factor effect (of SDP) in the eyes of the electorate. If CSJ, is this and CSJ is that as the PAP claims... why the fear of debating him on TV?
WP and SPP are acceptable opposition to the PAP, are of no threat except having the advantage of showcasing democracy. SL and LTK have already "dog-whistled" the PAP they are not ready to form the govt.
PAP on the other hand, views SDP as a threat. Why?
-