Rebutting PAP supporter

(1) Are you prepared to accept the possibility of a freak election result where the opposition forms a coalition government since many people assume that there will always be enough people to vote PAP into government, thus it will still be safe to vote for opposition? Your vote could be the swing.

Mr Goh Chok Tong said a few days ago “”(But) I’m not concerned with this GE where I think we will do alright. My concern is the one after that and the one after that.”” PAP followers should listen to their leaders and advise the middle ground that a freak election is unlikely this time. If PAP followers themselves don’t listen to their own leaders, how do they expect non-followers to believe in PAP?

Mr Ho Kwong Ping, a respectable figure in our country, also proclaimed in his first IPS lecture in October last year that a freak election is unlikely in the short term. We should trust these public figures instead of an anonymous letter writer.

(2) Will you be comfortable for the current slate of opposition candidates to speak on Singapore’s behalf in international affairs and forums? Can any of the current opposition candidate be able to make us proud like DPM Tharman during his interview at St Gallen?

Our former finance minister Mr Richard Hu was nowhere as charismatic or as globally famous as DPM Tharman. Were we less proud as Singaporeans when Mr Hu was finance minister between 1985 and 2001? At the very least, Singapore families coped better with cost of living under Mr Hu than under DPM Tharman.

(3) Why do the opposition mostly focus on domestic issues and not international matters? Are they only capable of handling domestic issues? What are their views on world affairs as Singapore is very dependent and vulnerable to her external environment? Will they be able to engage and talk in depth with the world leaders and business leaders?

What sophisticated and substantive views have new PAP candidates expressed about international matters? Nothing. All of them, including ex-SAF chief and countless other scholars said next to nothing about international matters. Yet we don’t question if they can deal with international matters. The qualifications and experiences of opposition candidates are now on par or better than those of the PAP. What the PAP can handle internationally, the opposition can too. Dr Chee Soon Juan has been meeting international organisation leaders for the past 15 years. Which new PAP candidate can compare with him on international matters?

(4) Are you confident that the opposition can continue to maintain our good international relationships with other nations, especially given the sensitive relations with our neighbours and the big countries? How will they handle the haze from Indonesia and water issue from Malaysia etc? They cannot conveniently tagged on PAP’s solutions if PAP is voted out of government.

Just days ago, Mr Lim Swee Say insulted both Malaysia and China with “heng ah”. In one fell scoop, cabinet minister Lim damaged international relationships with two countries including the one supplying water to us. In 2013, PM Lee joked about pork soup coming out of taps and free smoke in the air in China right in front of China’s adversary USA. So don’t be mistaken please, it is the PAP ministers and the PM himself who are damaging our good international relationships with other countries. If good international relationship is important to us, then we should not vote for PAP, especially Mr Lim and PM Lee.

(5) Is it so important to have a different voice in Parliament just for the sake of it regardless of the quality and credibility of that voice? Does this voice truly speak for the people or merely to serve their personal agenda or grudge against PAP?

But quality and credibility of opposition candidates are on par or superior to those of the PAP. We have opposition candidates who graduated from Oxford and who are accomplished lawyers, corporate honchos and medical professor. If these people from the top echelon of our society have no quality or credibility, who has?

It is PAP candidates who are more likely to benefit from association with PAP and hence more reason to have personal agenda in this election.

(6) Are you looking at the big picture or do you only care about the details? If Singapore does not have enough water for its people, do you think we will still complain about MRT breakdown? Without the existing framework of stable and strong government, social harmony, economic prosperity, do you think you will still complain about foreign workers? We might have to be foreign workers ourselves.

Malaysia signed the water contract with Singapore, not with PAP. Malaysia will continue to supply water to Singapore, with or without PAP. The governments of Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea are not as strong as that of Singapore’s. But they are no less stable, harmonious or prosperous. Democracy is not antagonistic to stability and prosperity.

(7) What are some of the knee jerk reactions if PAP is voted out of the government? Market will react, foreign funds will flee Singapore immediately, our currency will lose its value and our investments will drop. Do you think investors will risk their money and wait for the new government to prove itself? No investor like a politically unstable country. As soon as a whiff of a political unrest is detected, the ringgit went into a free fall.

All first world nations, including Taiwan, South Korea and Japan, experience political changes regularly without their countries collapsing. Thailand experienced coup after coup, yet investments continue to pour in and Thailand continues to be stable and prosperous. There is no reason why Singapore should be different.

(8) Why do you want to give your vote to a new and unknown candidate who did not even contribute to the community before and penalize the person who has been serving the community through grassroots work? Have he or she earned it? Some candidates only appear every 4-5 years when election comes.

Then we should not vote for the many new PAP candidates who are relatively unknowns until their recent unveiling. On the contrary, many opposition candidates have been serving the community in various ways prior to this contest so they definitely have earned it. PAP candidate Ong Ye Kung for example was last heard of 4-5 years ago in the last election, so this is definitely a problem for the PAP too.

(9) It’s very easy to be popular by saying what people want to hear and promise to give more, but it is even more courageous to implement the right policies for the nation long term and be unpopular short term. Nobody likes to be the one to give hard truths, but someone has to do it.

Isn’t this what the PAP is doing now? Giving handout after handout to increase popularity? By the same definition, the PAP is not courageous because it did not stick to its so called right policies but made many u-turns to unpopular policies after 2011. Hard truth is actually half truth or hardly truth, the PAP doesn’t give the whole truth.

(10) Is there a perfect government in this world? Why are countries sending their diplomats to study from a small little red dot if our government didn’t get most of it right?

PAP government is far from perfect and “no perfect government in this world” is no excuse for not striving to become better. Diplomats coming to study us are mostly from the Third World, First World countries hardly learn from us. It at best shows that we are better than Third World, it doesn’t show we are better than other First World countries.

(11) Do you want a paralyzed parliament which is bogged down with bickering over short term national issues to gain political points from voters? You need a government with foresight and do long term planning. Marina Bay, Changi Airport expansion, PSA ports etc cannot be built in a one election cycle. Do you think a weak government fighting for political survival will have time for these long term projects ?

Many European parliaments are multi-party but they do not get bogged down. Multi-party parliament doesn’t automatically translate to a bogged down parliament.

The PAP government can’t even foresee the immediate problems of sudden, massive population influx which PM Lee apologised for in 2011, what foresight is there to talk of? Marina Bay is just the continuation of land reclamation first done by the British colonial government. Changi Airport extension is a reminder of the stupendous waste of tax payers’ money in renovating the Budget Terminal only to tear it down 10 years later. The civil service is supposed to be non-partisan and the ballast with which to smoothly operate the nation over the long term. If answering opposition questions means not having time for long term projects, it means PAP politicians are not fit to lead the country.

(12) Why do we have to keep striving to be among the best in the world? Would other nations or MNCs or investors bother with a little red dot if we are just mediocre? There are so many big cities around the world with many natural and human resources, so how does Singapore stand out if we are just average? What captures the world’s attention on Singapore? As our PM said, the work is never done, there are still more peaks to scale. Can we afford to remain stagnant and be complacent as a little red dot?

China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia are drawing investors from all over the world even though they are not as renowned as us. There is no need to be the best to draw in investments.

Natural resources accounts for less than 2% of most First World GDPs’ value add. Being small is a blessing in disguise. The percentage of small nations that are prosperous is about twice that of large nations.

The Singapore Grand Prix is supposed to capture the world’s attention. Having captured the world’s attention for so many years, our continuation with the Grand Prix can only mean one of two things – global audiences have pea brain memories and must be constantly reminded of Singapore year after year or the Grand Prix doesn’t quite capture the world’s attention as it supposedly does.

We cannot afford to be stagnant or complacent doesn’t mean we can afford to be reckless.

Thank you

Ng Kok Lim

Singapore General Election 2015 – Your Votes Matters

I refer to the TV programme “Singapore General Election 2015 – Your Votes Matters”.

Lawrence Wong said:

This year we celebrated SG50, we look back and there is much we can give thanks for. A lot of transformation in Singapore … we have transformed from mudflats to metropolis

Lee Kuan Yew boasted to Chicago businessmen in 1967 that we were already a metropolis. We certainly did not transform from mudflat to metropolis in the two short years between 1965 and 1967. We therefore must have been quite well transformed already back in 1965. While we have continued to transform, so has many other East Asian cities.

Lawrence Wong:

Said anyone can strive and excel regardless of race or religion (under PAP)

Those conditions already existed during colonial times:

Racial Harmony In Malaya
To those who know their Malaya from one end to the other, no less than to the casual visitor, it is a constant source of wonder how so many different races and communities live and work together in the utmost harmony … we repeat, that the different communities live and work in harmony because the British system of justice and administration enables them to obtain fair play. There are no discriminatory or repressive laws, there are few, if any race prejudices in the bazaars and counting houses, there is nothing to prevent the humblest coolie from rising to great wealth – many indeed have done so …

[The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (1884-1942), 26 July 1935, Page 8]

Lawrence Wong:

Said it was not easy living for his grandparents to raise seven children but they now see their children and grandchildren lead a better life.

Lawrence wasn’t comparing apple to apple. His grandparents weren’t graduates but he is. If we compare a graduate during his grandparents’ time with graduates today, life has become worse, not better.

While the lowly educated during Lawrence’s grandparents’ time could afford to raise seven children, can the lowly educated today afford to raise seven children?

Lawrence Wong:

Said Singapore is at a higher point than in 1965

So are many other nations, including Malaysia and Indonesia.

Lawrence Wong:

Said we are still a little red dot

This is an advantage to us because the percentage of small nations that are prosperous is about twice that of large nations.

Lawrence Wong:

Said we still have to earn a living through our own efforts

So too must most other First World nations

Lawrence Wong:

Said our real wages have increased

We can never know that because wages of Singaporeans are lumped together with wages of permanent residents. Permanent residents can be Americans, Canadians, Britons, Swiss, Germans, Swedes or any other nationality and when sufficient numbers of highly paid PRs are added to our resident pool, resident wages increase but not necessarily those of Singaporeans.

Lawrence Wong:

Said we are the only city in the world with hawker centres

But we are not the only city with hawkers. Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand etc have hawkers serving cheap, delicious food too. It is not because PAP built hawker centres that we have hawker food. We have been having hawker food since colonial days so no credit to PAP please.

Lawrence Wong:

Said our education is heavily subsidised

But most First World nations have free education. Our tertiary education is expensive despite subsidies. On the other hand, Germany has free education all the way to tertiary level.

Lawrence Wong:

Said electricity price is lower than in 2010

That’s because oil price is lower now than it was in 2010. Question is: is the lowering of electricity prices commensurate with the lowering of oil prices?

Lawrence Wong:

Said government is topping up Medisave accounts of Singaporeans

Only for a very small percentage of Singaporeans

Lawrence Wong:

Said there are also surveys that show Singaporeans are happy.

Only the ones commissioned by the state which are as good as toilet paper surveys

Lawrence Wong:

Said (PAP) does it with the best interest of Singaporeans at heart.

All the policies that came out after the 2011 election setback were previously shunned by the PAP. Seems like PAP’s heart swings with Singaporeans’ votes.

Lawrence Wong:

Said population growth at its lowest in the past decade

Thanks to opposition voice in parliament

Lawrence Wong:

Said skills upgrading, helping professionals to get jobs, skills future

The retrenched general manager can upgrade skill to become what? Taxi driver?

Lawrence Wong:

Said don’t want opposition for opposition’s sake

Don’t want mandate for mandate’s sake

Lawrence Wong:

Said this election is about selecting the best people

Then Lawrence must not be selected because he is clearly not the best

Lawrence Wong:

Said it’s about character, clean and corruption free, integrity and honesty, not gloss over and make politically expedient statements

In that case, Lawrence shouldn’t have made the cut because he is so fond of writing factually incorrect essays that read more like fiction (https://trulysingapore.wordpress.com/2014/07/03/many-wong-claims).

Lawrence Wong:

Said Dr Chee Soon Juan was found to be guilty of contempt of court in 1996 but he has never accounted to the public.

What’s new Lawrence? We all know Dr Chee has been bankrupted and imprisoned a number of times. What more is there to account for? Dr Chee’s family has been forced to live a meagre living, what more you want from him? You on the other hand have never explained the many factual wrongs in your essays.

Lawrence Wong:

Said PAP is proud of track record since 1959

Sorry Lawrence, 1959 is not your record. The PAP today is not the PAP of 1959. The record is by the PAP of 1959, not the PAP of 2015. You weren’t even born yet in 1959 how to claim 1959 record?

Lawrence Wong:

Said we’ve walked this journey with Singapore

Sorry Lawrence, those who walked the journey with Singapore are already six feet underground. You weren’t even born yet when they walked the journey.

Lawrence Wong:

Said policy changes didn’t start in 2011

Even your boss PM Lee admitted he should have had better foresight and apologised to the country in 2011 and made a slew of changes immediately after that including sidelining Mah Bow Tan. Yet you deny it. What sort of integrity do you have?

Lawrence Wong:

Said PAP plans not in the short term but in the long term

The sudden influx of foreigners and sudden policy u-turns suggest otherwise.

Lawrence Wong:

Said PAP gets feedback from residents everyday

Then how come PAP didn’t get the message that Aljunied and Punggol East voters were tulan about PAP in previous elections?

Lawrence Wong:

Said Workfare started after the 97 Asian Financial Crisis, introduced Workfare in 2003 as bonus, then enlarged it and made it permanent.

That contradicts an AsiaOne Business report which states that Workfare started 10 years later in 2007.

Workfare scheme started in 2007 to supplement low-wage workers’ income.

[AsiaOne Business or Straits Times, No payouts for some with tighter Workfare criteria, 2 Jul 2014, http://business.asiaone.com/news/no-payouts-some-tighter-workfare-criteria%5D

Response to PM Lee’s National Day Rally 2015

I refer to PM Lee’s National Day Rally 2015

PM Lee said:

Two weeks ago, on the 9th of August, we celebrated our Golden Jubilee with a parade at the Padang … And here we have a family – grandfather, father and son … their grandfather Mr Selamat, 78 years old. He joined the Singapore Fire Brigade in 1948 before I was born …Three generations saluting the nation and we saluted them back.

Saluting Mr Selamat who joined the fire brigade in 1948 means saluting beyond 1965. We cannot celebrate the past 50 years without also celebrating the 146 years before. In 2019 we should be celebrating SG200, the 200th anniversary of the birth of modern Singapore.

PM Lee said:

We started off with no hinterland and a weak economy … We were a poor third world country …

Our cut off from our hinterland didn’t mean that our economy was weak. According to the University of Pennsylvania (Penn World Tables version 8.0), Singapore’s 1965 output side per capita GDP was third highest in Asia and 29th out of 109 countries, not top notch but not weak either. Our then per capita GDP of US$ 5,317 (Penn World tables, average of output and expenditure GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity) already put us in World Bank’s Upper Middle Income category. We were already at the cusp of becoming First World at independence. We were not a poor, Third World country.

Our per capita GDP in 1960 was already $1,330 which gave us a middle-income status.

[Carl A. Trocki, Singapore: wealth, power and the culture of control, page 166]

PM Lee said:

We depended on our entrepot trade, but our neighbours were building their own ports and sought to bypass us.

The quest by our neighbours to bypass us wasn’t a new quest but a quest Singapore has been facing since colonial times (https://trulysingapore.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/goh-keng-swee-neighbours-has-been-seeking-to-bypass-us-since-colonial-times/).

Dr Goh Keng Swee used this to illustrate how our ability to rise above our neighbours’ competition was forged during colonial times (https://trulysingapore.wordpress.com/2015/08/30/dr-goh-keng-swees-four-reasons-why-singapore-succeeded).

PM Lee said:

Our workers were unskilled and anxious about their future

On the contrary, our economic advisor Dr Albert Winsemius was impressed with the skills of our workers.

Singapore’s leaders were guided by the counsel of the eminent Dutch economist, Dr Albert Winsemius who was struck by the often informally acquired skills of Singapore labourers whom he watched undertaking effective repair jobs with simple tools.

[Diane K. Mauzy / Robert Stephen Milne, Singapore politics under the People’s Action Party, Page 66]

Dr Winsemius recommended the use of Singaporeans’ skills and abilities to industrialise the country.

The Winsemius Report recommended, among other things, that Singapore should make use of the skills and ability of the local labour force to develop certain selected industries including chemicals, building material, steel-rolling, ship-building, and electrical appliances and parts …

[Japanese Firms in Contemporary Singapore, Hiroshi Shimizu, page 31]

PM Lee said:

… we determined to make the world our hinterland

PM Lee’s father, Lee Kuan Yew, knew next to nothing about making the world our hinterland. He declared that Singapore could not survive without the Malaysian hinterland which meant that he knew of no other way of taking Singapore forward.

Everyone knows the reasons why the Federation is important to Singapore. It is the hinterland which produces rubber and tin and that keeps our shop window economy going. It is the base that made Singapore the capital city. Without this economic base, Singapore would not survive. Without merger … and an integration of our two economies, our economic position will slowly and steadily get worse. Your livelihood will get worse …

[The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew Volume 1, Lee Kuan Yew, page 109]
[https://trulysingapore.wordpress.com/2015/08/30/lee-kuan-yew-only-knew-import-substitution-he-did-not-know-export-industrialisation]

In the end, it was Dr Winsemius who gave us the plans to make the world our hinterland (https://trulysingapore.wordpress.com/2015/08/07/dr-albert-winsemius-was-the-true-architect-of-singapores-industrialisation).

PM Lee said:

… we made PSA and Changi, the best in the world.

Singapore was already the estimated 5th most important port in the world as early as the 1930s. We were already 4 positions away from becoming the best, some 30 years before PAP took charge.

By the early 1930s, Singapore was estimated to be the fifth or sixth most important port in the world.

[Goh Kim Chuan, Environment and development in the Straits of Malacca, page 114]

Our ascent to World No. 1 port was due in no small part to Dr Winsemius’ insistence that we containerise our ports (https://trulysingapore.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/credit-to-singapore-ports-ascent-to-world-no-1-position-goes-to-dr-albert-winsemius).

PM Lee said:

… people lived in cramped and squalid slums, no modern sanitation, no utilities, but we built HDB flats to house all of us and made Singapore a first world metropolis and our beautiful home.

Not everyone lived in cramped squalid slums, certainly not PM Lee’s family. Our first flats, including Singapore’s first high rise flats, were built by the British colonial government, not by the PAP (https://trulysingapore.wordpress.com/2015/08/30/singapores-first-flats-were-built-by-the-british-colonial-government). Our journey towards a first world metropolis began whilst we were still a British colony. Incidentally, Lee Kuan Yew boasted to Chicago businessmen in 1967 that we were already a metropolis. How could we have transformed from slum to metropolis in just 2 years?

Singapore already had modern sanitation during colonial times, just that not everyone had it:

Two decades later, in 1910, Singapore’s first sewerage scheme was started. “The system then consisted of only a network of sewers and three pumping stations and a trickling filter plant to serve the central area of Singapore,” informs PUB – Singapore’s national water agency. Although by 1930, an extensive sewerage system was built to serve almost 100,000; over 150,000 people were still using the night-soil bucket system.

[http://newzzit.com/stories/history-from-night-soil-buckets-to-world-toilet-day]

Modern sanitation is part and parcel of life in modern cities. Even Malaysia has 95.7% modern sanitation according to the World Bank. It should be relatively easy for physically small Singapore to develop modern sanitation. Yet, we only achieved 100% modern sanitation just ten years ago in 2005.

PM Lee said:

Nearly all our water came from Johor and every now and again when an issue arose with Malaysia, some crazy politician would threaten to turn off the tap, to get us in line, but we did not die of thirst. We cleaned up our rivers, we dammed them up to become reservoirs, we built Marina Barrage and turned Marina Bay into Marina reservoir. Our whole island became a catchment area. We invented NEWater and on National Day 2002, we toasted our success.

The threats began in 1965, yet NEWater only came in 2002. There was a long gap of 37 years because we had to borrow technology from elsewhere which became feasible only recently (https://trulysingapore.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/adequate-water-supply-is-common-sense-not-foresight/). In other words, we only invented the name of NEWater but not the technology it is based on. How can we toast success when 40% of our water still comes from Johor?

PM Lee said:

Thirdly, we celebrated our journey from third world to first as one united people. When we separated from Malaysia, we were not yet one people. Memories of the race riots were fresh and raw. The minorities were uncertain of their place in the new country.

Our journey wasn’t from Third World to First but from Middle Income to First by virtue of our 1965 per capita GDP (Penn World Tables). The casting of many races into one people had already begun during colonial times (https://trulysingapore.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/singapore-racial-harmony-during-colonial-times/). We would not have had the racial riots if it wasn’t for PM Lee’s father, Lee Kuan Yew (https://trulysingapore.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/lee-kuan-yew-contributed-to-racial-riots/).

PM Lee said:

We separated from Malaysia because we believed in this ideal of a multi-racial society. We believed that before race, language and religion, we should first and foremost be Singaporean.

When Lee Kuan Yew merged Singapore into Malaysia, he did so with the full knowledge that he was subjecting all Singaporeans to Malaysia’s Bumiputra policies which was already enshrined in the Malaysian constitution when Malaysia became independent in 1957. To then say that Lee Kuan Yew was fighting for a multi-racial society is therefore hypocritical at best. Lee Kuan Yew’s foremost belief wasn’t Singaporean but Malaysian because he fought so hard to merge Singapore into Malaysia and cried so hard when we separated from Malaysia.

PM Lee said:

That was the fundamental reason for our foundation as a country.

Singapore’s eviction from Malaysia cannot be considered an act of founding a country as that would insult the very act of founding. Founding fathers like George Washington, Gandhi and Sun Yat Sen put their lives on the line to fight for their respective countries’ independence and rejoiced when independence was achieved. In contrast, Lee Kuan Yew fought to surrender our independence to Malaysia and cried bitterly when independence was thrust upon us. Lee Kuan Yew was the exact opposite of a founding father; he was Singapore’s No. 1 traitor.

PM Lee said:

So we came down hard on chauvinists and racial extremists.

When PAP MP Choo Wee Khiang made racist comments in parliament, PAP didn’t come down on him. Lee Kuan Yew’s so-called coming down hard on chauvinists was just an excuse to serve his political purpose, not a universal precept applied uniformly across the nation.

PM Lee said:

We made English our working language and gradually all our schools shifted to teaching in English.

English as our working language is a heritage carried from British colonial days, just as it is in Hong Kong. In any case, South Korea, Taiwan and China have shown that prosperity doesn’t require English to be the working language.

The teaching of English in vernacular schools was first proposed by Lee Kong Chian, not Lee Kuan Yew (https://trulysingapore.wordpress.com/2014/07/15/pap-government-responsible-for-falling-chinese-standards/).

PM Lee said:

We created Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) so that minorities would always be represented in Parliament …

But minorities have always been represented in parliament long before we had GRCs. David Marshall and JB Jeyaratnam were minority members who triumphed over majority ones. NSP proposed the Constituency Reserved for Minority Scheme last year which served the same purpose without GRCs. The GRC is no more than a political tool to entrench the PAP.

PM Lee said:

… we made the effort to … to ensure that every community could hold his own and not be left behind. So we set up self-help groups … Mendaki … SINDA … CDAC … Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP) and the Eurasian Association …

Long before we had these, we already had very good community support from businessmen and business associations during colonial times. Tan Tock Seng Hospital, The Chinese High School, Anglo Chinese School and others were set up by the community during colonial times.

PM Lee said:

… I have attended … the SG50 Kita National Day Observance Ceremony … led by the Malay/ Muslim organisations but with other groups participating … a joint concert organised by the Taoist Federation; the New Creation Church and others … one of the items – a Chinese Kungfu group performing with the Silat group … At one dinner, I had sitting around my table representatives of all the world’s major religions … It showed the Rabbi of Singapore together with the Mufti of Singapore and Mr Gurmit Singh, a Sikh leader … Each had different dietary rules, each was served food that met his religious requirements, but nothing stopped them from having a meal together and being friends together … Only in Singapore!

Racial harmony is not a post independence phenomenon for the PAP to boast about. Colonial Singapore was already a bastion of racial harmony long before PAP was born (https://trulysingapore.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/singapore-racial-harmony-during-colonial-times/).

PM Lee said:

… we could not afford free-riders and that is why Mr Lee Kuan Yew exhorted us over and over again to become a rugged society.

The obscene amount of money Lee Kuan Yew and his wife made during their lifetimes makes you wonder who the free rider really was.

PM Lee said:

No one owes us a living

Provided no one takes away our living. But PAP took away farm lands and orchards and so took away the source of living for farmers and orchard owners. PAP did away with yellow top taxis and so took away a good source of living for individual taxi owners.

PM Lee said:

Tanjong Katong Primary School (TKPS) had a very successful programme, the Omega Challenge. It has been going on for seven years, the students who have been, have testified to how much they benefitted from it. Tragically on their recent expedition to climb Mount Kinabalu, the Omega Challenge group was caught in an earthquake. Seven students, two teachers and a guide died.

How can a programme be successful if it ends in so many deaths? The fact that the Omega Challenge could go on for seven years was simply down to luck. If tragedy had struck seven years ago, the programme would have been dropped seven years ago just as it is being dropped now. Now that we know that Mount Kinabalu is prone to earthquakes, no one, not even PM Lee can guarantee that tragedy wouldn’t strike again. Is it responsible to put our children in harm’s way, knowing there are other mountains that are not in the earthquake zone?

PM Lee said:

We all mourned them and grieved with their families, we held a National Day of Remembrance. It will take us a long time to get over this tragedy but life goes on and it is important that we move on.

But there were pictures showing PAP ministers smiling and appearing happy during the Southeast Asian Games even during the mourning period itself. It thus didn’t take long for PAP ministers to get over the tragedy which can only mean it was all for show and they were merely shedding crocodile tears.

PM Lee said:

The Government has kept its promises, what we said we would do, we did do.

PAP promised Swiss standard of living but we are still struggling day by day. PAP promised to return CPF at age 55 but that promise kept getting postponed again and again.

PM Lee said:

We have kept our politics honest, we insisted on high standards of integrity in public life, no corruption, no dishonesty.

Only a tiny fraction of the PAP government’s accounting discrepancies had surfaced recently. How many more discrepancies, no one knows yet. We won’t know until PAP loses power and an alternative party unlocks all of PAP’s closets to discover what has been going on in the past 50 years.

PM Lee said:

We are also honest when it comes to policies and when it comes to the choices that we have to make. We do not shy away from hard realities … We do right by Singaporeans.

When property prices shot up rapidly from 2007 to 2011, the PAP wasn’t honest but kept denying they had any power over demand and supply. It was only after the election setback of 2011 that they finally admitted they had control over both supply and demand. Instead of shying away from hard realities, PAP conveniently explained them away. Their so called doing right is simply to claim they are right no matter how much the people beg to differ.

PM Lee said:

… on the issue of Land Acquisition. The Government needed land to build HDB new towns … to house our people. To build industrial estates like Jurong to create jobs for our people. Later on to build the MRT network to move people around. So the Government passed laws to acquire land not at the market price, without paying market prices. It was tough for the land owners who suffered financial losses, sometimes more than once. It was tough for the households who had to be resettled, lives were disrupted, thousands, maybe tens of thousands had to change their livelihoods. But if the Government had not done this, we could not have housed our population and we could not have transformed Singapore, so there were sacrifices but in the end, it was for the common goal and everybody benefitted and I thank all those who sacrificed for this common goal.

Having gotten land on the cheap, on what basis does the PAP charge market prices for HDB flats and rentals? On what basis does the PAP say lowering HDB prices is tantamount to raiding government reserves when the land on which the reserves are based on belonged to Singaporeans in the first place? When the PAP subsidises HDB flats below market prices, should we thank PAP or thank former land owners?

PM Lee said:

But I believe that I am doing what Singapore needs and what best safeguards your interest. If I did not believe that, I would not be doing it. It is my responsibility to make this decision, to make this judgement and then to act on your behalf. And having acted on your behalf, to account to you for the results and for the reasons why I decided the way I did. I think I owe it to you. You have elected me. This is my duty, I cannot shirk it.

Hitler too believed he did what was best for the German people. History is replete with self-delusional leaders who thought they knew best but could not face reality.

There is a way for PM Lee to shirk it – don’t stand for election. In that way, he won’t get elected so he won’t owe anyone and it won’t be his duty any more.

PM Lee said:

These principles have brought us here – multiracialism, self-reliance and mutual support, keeping faith between the government and people. These principles have made us special.

Multiracialism, self-reliance and mutual support were principles already enshrined during colonial times. If these made us special, that means British colonialism made us special.

PM Lee said:

If we are divided, whether along racial lines or class lines, we cannot survive. We have to stand as one united people, we have to progress together.

The German people of the Nazi Third Reich stood as one united people but ended up being misled by their leaders towards utter ruins. War time Japanese also stood united with their leaders but they too ended in defeat and nuclear tragedy. History has shown that unity can be a liability than a strength. A people united under a foolish leader is a people seeking to drown together. Division is an integral part of a society’s renewal process to allow fresh hopes to emerge from a rotting aristocracy.

Dr Albert Winsemius instrumental to Singapore becoming World No. 1 port

“So being in Singapore, I think at that time Dr Goh was once more Minister for Finance or in his capacity of Deputy Prime Minister and indeed I thought I need a pusher; I need really a pusher. So I went to Dr Goh, said ‘Look here, that are my figures on the North Atlantic container-run. And it is going to happen here. I can guarantee you that. I can’t get them moving. And the World Bank is against it. They consider it too early. There is only one way, with the same figures, you and I go to the Harbour Board, to PSA, and in principle you tell them that you would consider it unwise to put it off. Even if there is a chance, let’s say half a year that container port is lying idle, using interest and doing nothing, Singapore has to be the first one as to attract it.

“’And you should tell them, in my opinion, at least give them very clearly the impression if they do not come with a plan to rapidly make a container port that you will continue to have them by the planners. On the other hand, if they do come with it, in as far as co-operation from Finance or even the Cabinet would be needed, that you will give them that protection.’

“So Dr Goh practically dictated them to build that container port regardless of the World Bank.”

[Dr Albert Winsemius’s oral history interview, Accession Number 000246, reel 12]