Sylvia Lim and Chen Show Mao: Saved by the GRC System They Want To Get Rid Of

Workers' Party managed to hang on to Aljunied GRC winning it by a whisker.
Of the 5 divisions, Sylvia Lim and Chen Show Mao lost in their divisions.
We recall what Sylvia Lim said during the campaign, that if WP was the government they would do things differently and one of the things they would do differently was to get rid of the GRC system.

Wonder if she realized that having lost in her division, she is being kept in the win by the GRC system?

The People Who Want Change Tend To Be The Ones Who Have Benefited The Most From The System

By John Lui

This is where I have trouble with people who want to change the government of Singapore: They tend to be the ones who have gained the most from it.

Mr S. Ho is a semi-retired commodities trader who has sent two children to Australia to study, which is where they have chosen to settle. 

"They cannot stand it here. Who can?" he says.

I want to say us, for one, and a few million others. But he goes on to other issues.

The dismal results for the opposition last night have the 64-year-old grandfather and two of his friends, both men who look to be in their 60s, shaking their heads and saying "jia lat", that useful Hokkien phrase that expresses that peculiar mix of regret and resignation that overcomes a person when all is lost.

These old friends from various parts of Singapore have come here to Hougang Stadium, the assembly point for Workers' Party supporters.

The new sample count system is wrecking the mood here, at 10pm. Mr Ronald Lee, a 33-year-old engineer, is trying to keep his chin up.

"This is like football. It's not over until the end of the match," he says. There is bravado in his voice, but his face tells me the opposite.

Older Chinese-speaking people are confused by the English news broadcast of the sample counts projected on the big screen. What? they ask. They have the results already? People around them do hasty translations.

The trio of grey-haired men grimace when they hear about independent candidates losing their deposits. "This round, they all thought they had a chance. Tikam-tikam," says one of them, choosing the Malay word for placing a bet.

He crosses his arms and squares his shoulders, as if bracing himself for more bad news.
"Singaporeans are not politically aware," he says several times, like a mantra, as the results come in. Like Mr Ho, he stares at the big screen crossly.

The night goes on, and the results of the opposition retreat roll in like an icy tide. The blare from the speakers in the stadium resonates well outside the carpark. Rarely has so much bad news been broadcast to so many with so many decibels.

Despite the flagging spirits, pockets within the crowd of 5,000 remain upbeat, holding up their blown-up hammers (the symbol of the WP), blowing whistles and yelling cheers well past midnight.

After a long conversation with Mr Ho, in which he details the horrendous state of everything, starting with the education system and ending with me, a drone of the suppressed media, he explains why a man like him, living in a landed home, with two children given an overseas education, wants to swop out the government.

Things are not like they used to be. The system he enjoyed is not what his children and grandchildren will inherit if they had stayed. The dice are loaded against them.

Does he have hope for Singapore after this election, I ask him and his friends. After their long list of ills plaguing the governance of this nation, they sound horribly pessimistic, as if they would wake up tomorrow to see smoking ruins. Do they have any hope?

They think about it.

One of Mr Ho's friends finally says something. "I don't dislike the PAP. I dislike their policies. And tomorrow, when the GST is 10 per cent, don't look at me," he says.

Somehow, I can tell he dislikes the PAP.

Source: ST

Why did the opening balance in AHPETC's financial statements become unverifiable?

And so, responding to ESM Goh's analogy that PAP is a cruise ship with a destination, WP Chief Low Thia Khiang said the name of that ship is Titanic. Great rejoinder, we'd say. 

There are values that float a ship and these values are honesty and integrity. 

Low Thia Khiang blatantly lied to Singaporeans at his rally. They had not done anything wrong because they were not in jail, he said. 

And this is despite what the high court judge Quentin Loh had said concerning AHPETC, that if AHPETC was a managing corporation, he had 'no doubt that AHPETC or its officers would be exposed to the possibility of civil liability or in the extreme scenario, criminal liability'.
These are very strong words from a judge. Yet Low Thia Khiang shrugged them off and dared to claim that they had done nothing wrong. 

Not only that, he sought to use Punggol East as a smokescreen to turn attention away from AHPETC. It is as if a 'deficit' discovered in Punggol East would make all the lapses and systemic weaknesses at AHPETC acceptable. 

Well, Punggol East had their accounts audited and they were given a clean bill of heath.

Dear Singaporeans, here's a point we must all take serious note. 

When WP took over Aljunied TC from PAP, they also took over CLEAN AUDITED ACCOUNTS CLEARED BY AUDITORS. 

When they took over Punggol East, they also took over CLEAN AUDITED ACCOUNTS CLEARED BY AUDITORS.

So we've got to ask this question. 

How on earth did the opening balance in their financial accounts become UNVERIFIABLE since they took over audited accounts?

Do you know that ever since they took over Aljunied GRC, auditors - and we are talking about their own appointed auditors, not the government - have not been able to verify the opening balances? 

Their auditors also noted that they did not make available to auditors. the auditors' notes of previous auditors. Why did they withhold these notes from their auditors? Is WP hiding anything? 

Whatever the design of the PAP ship, the WP's ship is definitely not designed to float Singapore. 

It is a ship that is designed to float WP at the expense of Singapore.

Daniel Goh of WP wants to know why the 6.9 million parameter is still there

Daniel Goh of WP wants to know why the 6.9 million parameter is still there if the government is cutting down on foreign manpower and making economic adjustments.

The government's decision to cut down on manpower was made in 2010 (see here: http://on.fb.me/1FsjzUc) and they have also said that they have no intention to make any u-turn on this. Why? Because this is one of the necessary steps for economic restructuring to be successful. 

Can it be that Daniel Goh is ignorant of this? Does he keep track of changes in policy?

WP's obsession with 6.9 million is nothing more than a political move calculated to make people angry in order to win votes. 

The important question is not the 6.9 million question. 

The more urgent and important question that Daniel Goh and WP should be addressing is the zero growth in the local workforce in 2020. Does Daniel Goh have a solution to this? What is WP's solution to deal with this challenge. 

We ask this question not in triviality. We ask it in earnestness. 

We hope that The Workers' Party will answer this question.

Decision Made To Reduce Foreign Worker Inflow Made In 2010

Do you know that the decision to tighten the inflow of foreign workers was made in 2010 before the general election in 2011? 

It has nothing to do with Workers' Party.

It took a few years before results became more visible. Why? Because policy change is not accomplished in one giant step. They are implemented gradually so as not to cause upheavals to businesses.

Businesses have to be given time to adjust to a reduction in the number of workers and to find new models of doing business. If businesses are hurt, ultimately it is Singaporeans who are hurt. 

Here's an excerpt from Budget Speech 2010: 

C.7. To complement investments in productivity, we must also manage the supply of foreign workers. If we make low cost foreign workers too readily available, employers will not have sufficient incentive to upgrade their operations and upskill their workers.....

C.11. We now need to take calibrated steps to manage our dependence on foreign workers. They already comprise almost a third of the total workforce, and there are social and physical limits to how many more we can absorb....we should moderate the growth of the foreign workforce, and avoid a continuous increase in its proportion to the total workforce.

C.12. The best way to do this is.....by raising foreign worker levies........We will phase in higher levies gradually over the next three years, so that companies know well in advance what will happen and have time to adjust.
 
C.13. The increase in levies will be complemented by the strong financial support from the Government, through tax benefits and grants to help businesses that invest to raise their employees’ skills, to improve efficiency or to create more value. In fact, over the next five years, the government financial support that the business sector will receive for productivity upgrading will be significantly larger than the additional payment they have to make in foreign worker levies.

Ref:  http://www.singaporebudget.gov.sg/budget_2010/speech_toc/pc.html#s6

WP Wants The Office Of Elected President Abolished

Do you know that it is in Workers' Party Manifesto 2011 to abolish the office of the Elected President? They want unfettered power in Parliament. 

"The Office of Elected President should be abolished and the Presidency should be reverted to its former ceremonial position. The power of Parliament as the people's representatives should be unfettered." - Manifesto 2011

What exactly are the duties of the Elected President? 

1. He holds the second key to our past reserves. No government can dip into past reserves without the consent of the President.
2.The President also has the power to overrule any prime minister who stops or holds up an investigation for corruption against any of his ministers, senior officials or himself.
The director of CPIB thus have two masters to back him, the prime minister and the president. If the prime minister refuses to move an investigation, the elected president who acts independently of the prime minister, can order the investigation to proceed. 

3. The president also has the veto on appointments to important positions like the Chief Justice, Chief of Defence Force, Commissioner of Police, the Attorney General, Auditor General and other key positions that uphold the integrity of the institutions of government.
They are key officers, essential for the government to function without being subverted. 

The Auditor General, for example, audit ministries and public agencies. Without the elected president, when a corrupted government takes over, the corrupted prime minister can change all the key people in these positions to suit himself. 

Can you trust dishonest politicians who also want to abolish the office of Elected President, who holds the second key to our reserves, and give themselves unfettered power in parliament? WP may not be the government today but they have every intention to form the government one day. 

Have you seen any one of the leaders in WP taking responsibility for the financial woes in AHPETC? No. Zero. 

What we have seen is the leadership of WP coming together to defend themselves, to declare that they have done well in AHPETC 'against all odds' to put it in Mr Low's words, and to continue to tell blatant lies to Singaporeans. 

Isn't it amazing that when they are being checked and balanced by the government, they cry 'dirty politics'? How is it 'dirty politics' when the facts are all in black and white? It was their own appointed auditors who qualified their accounts, not the government. Were their own appointed auditors playing dirty politics against them then?

The story of Mr Low telling Parliament that he would investigate who asked for extra quotations for cleaning and then making a complete u-turn the next day saying that he was satisfied and no investigation was needed WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION is well known. Why did he change his mind?

In Parliament, when his MP, Pritam Singh was pressed to answer questions on the finances in AHPETC, he rose to defend Pritam Singh by saying that he did not see the need for his individual MPs to answer questions.

WP is not a responsible party. It is a party for themselves. It is a dangerous party. 

Vote wisely. Vote out this dangerous party.

How Workers' Party Floats Their Boat

In 2012, when the government tightened the quotas for foreign workers during the budget, Low Thia Khiang expressed concern. He said that some SMEs are in a vulnerable position and can "only get by with enough profits to cover living expenses".

He was worried that many small businessmen will become unemployed and urged the Government to exercise caution in managing the reduction of foreign worker inflows.
 
Less than a year later in 2013 when the Population White Paper came up for debate, he turned his back on all SMEs and called for zero foreign worker growth. SMEs will just have to make do with what they have according to his party. 

Whatever happened to his 'concern' for SMEs? Was it a genuine concern? Hey, but there is more political capital to gain from misleading people about a 6.9 million population and to call for a freeze in respect to that. 

Well, whatever it takes - as long as it wins votes. 

And so it was that several years ago he argued in parliament (in a debate on employment and CPF) that Singaporeans living longer lives "does not mean that they will continue to have the energy and drive at work."

And then at the Population White Paper debate, Low Thia Khiang did the prata flip and decided that old people should be seen as manpower resources.

Whatever happened to the line about living longer lives doesn't mean they have the energy to work? 

It's not whether SMEs live or die. It's not whether old people are energetic or otherwise. It's not whether the country needs 5.9 m or 6.5m. 

It's what win votes. This is how WP floats their boat. 

Vote wisely. Vote for people who have the conviction to do what they believe is in the best interests of Singaporeans and their children in the long term even if it is unpopular. 

Don't vote for the Wrong Party.

The Standard Of Integrity Is Also Set By Voters By Who The People They Choose To Vote In

In Malaysia, protesters turned up by the hundreds of thousands to protest against the Malaysian government and to demand for clean government.

Dear Singaporeans, vote for men and women of integrity so that we do not one day cry for clean government.

The opposition WP said it is not good that one party should dominate. 

The focus is not whether a party is dominant or not. It is whether the party is made up of people with integrity. For many years the PAP was the dominant party but it has not let Singaporeans down because it has demanded for itself a high standard of integrity. It has valued integrity over talent and was not afraid to remove talented people who compromised on integrity.

Today, the PAP is still a clean government.

Likewise, it is not whether the opposition should be entrenched or not, it is whether the opposition is made up of people who can be trusted. 

We welcome a competitive opposition IF they are made up of people of integrity with no personal agenda but a sincere desire for the good of Singapore. 

We do not wish to entrench dishonesty and lack of integrity. 

The core leadership in Workers' Party has demonstrated more than once that party interest overrides the interest of Singaporeans. From the hawkers' centre cleaning saga to the town council's financial issue, they would rather close ranks and defend each other than be truthful and act for the good of Singapore. 

While the PAP demands of themselves honesty and integrity, we must realize that THE STANDARD OF INTEGRITY IS ALSO SET BY VOTERS LIKE YOU AND ME. 

What we get depends on who we vote. 

Honesty and integrity are foundational. These are non-negotiable. All other qualifications are second to honesty and integrity. 

You will have a voice only if there is honesty and integrity. 

Every vote counts. Vote wisely. Don't vote for the Wrong Party.

WP Has Done It Again! They Have Claimed Credit For The Change In Policy In Transport!

It's a case of the sun rises because the cock crows.

WP has done it again.

Mr Low Thia Khiang has just claimed credit for the new transport model being implemented.

Appareantly it's because WP had called for the building of infrastructure and for the government to pay for initial operating equipment of public transport service - in 2011.

Under the new Bus Contracting Model, the government owns all bus operating assets and infrastructure.

BUT - the world did not begin in 2011 and the policy change in transport did not begin with Workers' Party in 2011. 

It started in 2008.

The idea for the contracting of bus services was first mooted in 2008 in LTA Masterplan.

Why bus contracting?

We first mooted the idea of contracting for bus services in the Land Transport Master Plan in 2008.
Since then, LTA has been studying this carefully, visiting cities with bus contracting models such as London and Australia. I’d also visited London and been briefed by officials at Transport for London and Metroline, one of many bus operators in London. I could see that the commuters there enjoy enhanced bus services over time under this bus contracting model because the operators need to compete for the right to run the bus services. This has kept them on their toes.
When I took over in 2011, my immediate priority was to expand bus capacity as quickly as possible. Hence the BSEP funded by the Government, which was introduced in 2012 and subsequently expanded to 1000 buses operated by the incumbent PTOs.

- Mr Lui Tuck Yew

Report Card On AHPETC's Finances: Financial Statements For FY2014/2015 Still QUALIFIED

Chairman Sylvia Lim of Workers' Party declared that AHPETC's latest financial statements show a 'marked improvement' on the financial health of the town council. 

She went on to talk about government grants and achieving surplus with the grant and so on. 

Marked improvement? Not quite. How can one conclude anything about the financial health of the town council when their auditor expressed 'disclaimer of opinion' on various financial statements? How can one conclude anything on the financial health of the town council when the financial statements they submitted remain QUALIFIED. 

So, it's now 4 years in a row that their own auditors had given them a qualified opinion on their accounts. 

This is Workers' Party's REPORT CARD as they go into this election.

Depleting The Funds At AHPETC

Let's take a look at how WP depletes the funds at AHPETC. 

Note: the graph shows the period when AHPETC RECEIVED FULL GOVERNMENT GRANTS. 

Despite having a healthy surplus and despite receiving full grants, they ran the town council into deficit. 

So don't be deceived by some who argue that the town council is in deficit because of grants withheld from them.

Then of course there is the other explanation that alternative sites have put forth to explain why AHPETC in in deficit: they had to transfer the accumulated surplus from the previous town council into the sinking fund. 

First, WP is made up of many lawyers. Many of their friends are also lawyers. Do you think they know the Town Councils Act less than the alternative sites? Would WP be keeping silent if having to transfer accumulated surplus to sinking fund is unique to them? 

Under the Town Councils Act, if there is no change of electoral boundaries and no change in political party, 80% of accumulated surplus will be transferred to the sinking fund. 

If there is a change in political party and no change in electoral boundaries, 100% of the surplus will be transferred to the sinking fund. 

If there is a change in political party AND a change in electoral boundaries as well, only 80% will be transferred to the sinking fund. 

Aljunied GRC falls into this category in 2011. There was a change in electoral boundaries as well as a change in political party. Hence 80% of the accumulated surplus was transferred to the sinking fund. THIS is the same situation in all the PAP-run town councils. Please note that this money transferred to the sinking fund is not locked away and out of reach. It can be used for long term maintenance such as the painting of blocks. 

And none of the PAP-run town councils run into a deficit.

You can read all about it here: http://bit.ly/1KFISrS

It's The Quality, Not The Quantity

 

FACT: 

7 WP MPs and 2 WP NCMPs failed to table a single motion in parliament to debate on the issues that they raised so fiercely and with so much drama standing all drenched in the rain and with their 90 degree bow to Singaporeans tugging at your heartstrings during their 2011 election rallies. 

Zero motion filed after all the drama!

Now Mr Low Thia Khiang had just told you they would need at least 20 MPs in order to have sufficient resources to scrutinize government policies. Do you believe him? 

FACT: 

ONE NMP - Assoc Prof Walter Woon - introduced a bill in parliament to legislate for the maintenance of parents (23 May 1994) He highlighted that although there were no urgent need at the time, the nation needed to prepare to cope with an increasingly aging population.

9 WP MPs and NCMPs did not make any difference to the well-being of Singaporeans. One NMP did. 

TRUTH:

How many MPs are needed to scrutinize government policy? ONE. 

The drama will soon begin but don't let your emotions be manipulated again. Once bitten twice shy.
.

FMSS: The Rich Winner