Opposition offers bad ideas and empty rhetoric: Shanmugam

Dear Mr Shanmugam,

I refer to the 5 May 2011 Straits Times report of your election comments.

You said the opposition has offered bad proposals or empty rhetoric and played up emotions for pure political gain. The same can be said of the PAP.

You warned the rally crowd of flat prices coming down if they are pegged to median income. Isn’t that playing up emotions for pure political gain? There is no one who disagrees that flat prices are too high now. What is wrong with lowering flat prices to more decent levels then?

You said Mr Tan Jee Say’s plan to phase out manufacturing will cause 500,000 job losses. But you didn’t mention Mr Tan’s plan to replace those jobs with jobs that are more creative and entrepreneurial in nature. Jobs like those in Google and Apple that Singaporeans want. Furthermore, Mr Tan didn’t say he will phase out manufacturing. He only said he will encourage them to move to cheaper places. Phasing out, like the phasing out of pig farms in Singapore, leaves people with no choice. But Mr Tan is giving people a choice. They can choose to stay instead. So you have misrepresented his proposal. Is this not playing up emotions for pure political gain?

You said Mr Tan’s plan will lead us to rely on the good wishes of our neighbours. But who says we must relocate to our neighbours? The world’s most sought after products are all made in China. We can go there instead.

You said this election is a fight for the soul of our democracy. You are right. Our souls have been eaten up by the PAP Corporation. It is time we reclaim our souls from the PAP.

You said the PAP has delivered decades of good governance. But those decades were delivered by previous generations of government. You must be crazy to think that we can appraise the current government on the basis of the good work of past governments.

You said long term planning has made Singapore exceptionally successful. You mean our recent grow-at-all-costs strategy is long term planning? If PAP long term planning creates so many problems, I can’t imagine what PAP short term planning would lead us to. Hong Kong is just as exceptionally successful as us without the PAP. Hong Kong shows that we can be as exceptionally successful without the PAP.

You said the opposition works up unhappiness even though policies are for long-term benefit. You mean asset appreciation is for long-term benefit? It is a Ponzi scheme that passes on the burden of previous generation gains to future generations.

You asked the opposition how many foreigners is too many? Isn’t this a question the PAP should ask itself? Clearly the PAP has never asked itself this question. No wonder the foreigner population kept ballooning and ballooning without end.

You said the opposition is trying to translate unhappiness into votes. What you want them to do instead? Translate unhappiness into happiness? Pay high price for HDB is happiness? Squeeze in public transportation is happiness? Pay politicians millions of dollars to say stupid things is happiness?

You said voters are deprived of a proper debate. When you misrepresented Mr Tan’s proposals, you have already deprived Singaporeans of the chance to look at an alternative plan as it is.

You said non-constituency MPs have limited voting rights. Their limited voting rights limit their ability to vote for our future. That’s why we need elected MPs to vote on behalf of citizens.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: