Caught off guard by the intensity of anti-PAP sentiments on the ground, PM Lee was forced to make an unprecedented public apology ahead of the polls
By Wayne Sim
Staff Writer
Following on from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s apology at a PAP lunchtime rally on Tuesday, a host of PAP candidates have come up with their own attempts to project a softer and more humble image.
Foreign Minister George Yeo, who is facing a heated electoral contest in his ward of Aljunied, made an emotional appeal to voters through a YouTube video, acknowledging their problems and concerns, and pledging to be their voice not only in Parliament, but also in Cabinet.
He adopted a contrite and almost pitiful tone throughout the two-minute video, saying that he had learnt alot from speaking to young people over the course of the campaign. In addition, Mr Yeo also said during a rally speech that the PAP has to change its approach if it wants to survive, specifically mentioning that it had to shed its arrogant image.
Other top PAP leaders have followed suit, including Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, who admitted that he “was wrong” for making insensitive comments in Parliament concerning public assistance for the needy. He also made a personal video similar to Mr Yeo’s, and also said that had learnt a lot from his interaction with young voters in his constituency. Apart from Dr Balakrishnan, several other PAP candidates have also echoed the Prime Minister’s call for a more compassionate style of leadership, even as some party hardliners continued making barbed and hard-hitting attacks on the opposition.
The groundswell of frustration and anger seems to have caught the PAP by surprise, with the Prime Minister showing no sign that he expected the contest to be this tough prior to the election. It is an indication that the PAP leadership has allowed itself to grow distant and out of touch, with most of the ground-level engagement left to grassroots leaders who probably did not feedback their true observations to their MPs due to the deep-seated culture of sycophancy that has pervaded the ruling party after 51 years of interrupted rule.
However, does the latest spate of apologies herald a genuine move towards a more consultative style of government, with Mr Lee having taken pains to distance himself from the approach of his father, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew?
It is quite hard to imagine the PAP actually being able to carry out what it has promised to do, even if the Prime Minister is genuinely being sincere. The reason for this is that the cumbersome bureaucracy that exists between the ground and the top levels of government is impossible to navigate, having already been ingrained with a culture of “wayang”, or putting on an act so as to look good in front of their political masters. So much so that in their attempt to impress their PAP MPs and ministers, they are actually denying them the chance to identify and address the problems.
While certain PAP ministers have their own feedback channels – Mr Yeo, for example, has said that he manages his own Facebook account – it would be impossible for them to reply to every query or comment without taking precious time way from other, more important matters. Mr Lee himself got a taste of this when he tried to hold a live Facebook chat with young voters, only to find that he was inundated with thousands of questions. He could only answer about 40 to 50 of them within the one-hour time frame.
What is more likely to be happening is that Mr Lee and the PAP are trying to rebuild the sentimental attachment that Singaporeans used to have with the PAP, back in the heady days of Merdeka. Back then, the PAP worked tirelessly for the people, with many of the Old Guard leaders eschewing lavish lifestyles. While Mr Lee probably thought that he could count on these lingering sentiments to carry his current team through this election, he soon found out that he was woefully out of touch with the sentiments of anger and frustration on the ground.
On the other hand, he has seen that other parties – most notably, the Workers’ Party – has been building up a genuine emotional connection with a growing critical mass of supporters. The support which the WP enjoys is not contrived or staged, with Mr Low Thia Khiang even cheekily highlighting that he did not need to charter buses to ferry his supporters to WP rallies.
If the current generation of young Singaporeans grows up thinking that the WP are the heroes while the PAP are the villains, then even Mr Lee can deduce from behind his ivory tower that his party will not remain in power for long.
Therefore, it is certain that the PAP will have to work much harder at engaging the people of Singapore, especially the younger generation. It will have to do this immediately after this election, regardless of the results. If not, Mr Lee will find that Singaporeans may not be prepared to accept another apology from him in five years’ time.
–
The author is a final year law undergraduate at a reputable university in Australia. He returns to Singapore at least twice a year.
Just received this in my email:
Subject: Fw: Pensions of our ministers
Msg below is being circulated in the internet. Somehow this was not brought up as an issue in the election campaign by any of the opposition parties. If not mistaken, $9.6 billions have been put aside for this purpose and approved by Parliament then. Singaporeans seem to have poor memory and that is why the MIW have cleverly crafted this act to ensure that they and their families are well taken care of even they are being kicked out of Parliament. Hopefully the act will be repealed one day when the fat cats are ousted out.
DO MINISTERS RECEIVE 50% OF THEIR LAST-DRAWN PAY FOR LIFE?
You friend is wrong about 50%. It is actually as high as 2/3rds. The Parliamentary Pensions Act provides that “office holders” (which means “Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Speaker, Senior Minister, Minister, Senior Minister of State, Minister of State, Mayor, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Parliamentary Secretary or Political Secretary”). If you closed your eyes and threw a stone in Parliament House during a Parliamentary sitting – assuming if, and it is a big if, that everyone attends (which is never the case. Parliamentary sittings are lucky if 50% of MPs attend!) you will hit at least 1 or perhaps 2 with the stone ricocheting PAP chaps entitled to pensions.
Anyhow, back to your question. The Act has a formula for payment of the amount of pension. You start with a numerator of 8 (meaning 8 years of service as office holder) and add 1 for every year of service after that. You divide this number by a fixed denominator of 27, and you stop when the number hits 2/3rds, which means that anyone who has 18 years service will hi! t maximum pension. The amount that is due to him FOR LIFE is found at section 4:
4(2) The annual amount of pension payable to an office-holding Member shall be —
(a) in respect of every completed year of reckonable service in any office, or where he has served in
more than one office in each office, at the rate of one-twenty-seventh (1/27) of his annual salary in that
office; and
(b) in respect of any remaining uncompleted year of reckonable service in any office, or where he has
served in more than one office in each office, at the rate of one-three-hundred and twenty-fourth (1/324)
part of his annual salary for each completed month of reckonable service in that office.
(2A) The annual pension payable to any office-holding Member under subsection (2) shall not exceed two-thirds
of the highest annual salary of any office held by him.
(3) Subject to sections 13 and 15, a pension granted under this section shall continue for the life of the person to
whom it is payable but shall not be payable in respect of any period during which he is again an office-holding
Member; at the end of that period the pension shall again be payable and shall be re-computed with the addition
of that period to the period of his former reckonable service as an office-holding Member.
(4) Fo! r the purposes of subsections (2) and (2A), “annual salary”, in relation to any office, means the annual
equivalent of the highest monthly rate of salary (excluding any non-pensionable allowances) received by an
office-holding Member during any period of reckonable service as a holder of that office.
Astonishing, isn’t it that the pension is payable based on the “Highest annual salary of any office held by him” and “highest monthly rate of salary”. So, it doesn’t matter that the MP was a low ranking parliamentary secretary for 17 years, and then became a multi-million $ minister for 1 year. His pension will be based on 2/3rds of his salary as a minister, as that is his highest annual salary of any office held by him. So, it also doesn’t matter that there are occasional reductions in salary during recessions, since their pension is based on their highest annual salary.
On this basis, SM / PM / MM will get 2/3rd x $3 million for the rest of their lives. I understand that if they are eligible for pension and they are still serving, they get both salary plus pension concurrently. (see section 5).
Or did I forget to tell you that pensions are exempt from income tax? This is stated in the Income Tax Act!
It gets better. The Act says that the pension can be commutated. This means that it is paid in 1 lump sum instead of monthly payments for life. The lump sum is equivalent to 175.14 months of pension, i.e. 14.6 years of pension. It doesn’t matter that the minister asks for it because he has terminal cancer and has 3 months to live. He will get 14.6 years of pension paid to him in 1 go, and it will be tax free. If MM’s pension is base! d on 2.5 million (conservative estimate), his commutated pension is $36.5 million. Can buy a GCB with it, without any bank loan!
This is a real scandal. I was horrified when Goh Chok Tong proposed recently that ministers serve 8 years only, and new ones come in. It means that the pool of multi-million dollar pension earners will get bigger and bigger! It will add to the financial burden of future generations of Singaporeans having to pay for the pensions of people who have already been paid too much during their terms of office.
Who in the private sector is entitled to pension? And yet the ministers, etc are collecting tax free pensions on top of their world’s highest salaries. Now you know why George Yeo is fighting so hard to keep his job as minister.
Incidentally, all Admin Service officers, Sr Police & Military Officers and High Court Judges are still entitled to pensions in the same manner. No one else in the Civil Service gets pensions.
A gentle reminder for 2day:
VOTE OPPOSITION PARTIES!!! KICK THE PAPAYAS OUT!!!
THROW PAPAYA SUCKERS OUT WITH THE DISHWATER!!!
Ever heard of the phrase… wolves in sheep’s clothing??
As an analyst, have to say that PAP is in serious decline. In fact, it started even in those few years before LKY left PM post. He is still holding the reins though, otherwise the party will decline even faster.
They have no ideas at all, all they know is bring in foreigners to grow the economy – that is not even an idea, its economic suicide.
It is in fact the oppostion who have come up with the ideas this time and all the paps do is just criticise.
Comments made by ministers confirms that there are mulitiple splinter factions within pap. Tharman says good to have oppoosition, then PM comes up with an opposing view. Notice there is no communication between the ministers. Look at their body language when they are together. Even when they attacked WP’s Low, they looked like individual snipers taking potshots rather than a cohesive team at work. GCT once was very close to LHL, now they seem like strangers. Perhaps PAP ministers are now shooting at each other’s backs.
Very serious problems with the PAP candidate selection process. Out of the 24 candidates, 1 dropped out for mysterious reasons, the rest are C to D grade material, on a scale of A to F. Imagine these becoming ministers. This selection process was something they boasted of in the past, but now they don’t even dare talk about it. Now they can’t even attract talents into the PAP.
These are just a few issues, you may have more to share to share with fellow Singaporeans.
PM Lee deserves credit for his visionary leadership in creating a totally different style and leadership for the PAP. He is helping the party re-invent itself under his leadership.
Hey PAPaya sucker what visionary leadership are you spouting about? People with visionary leadership do not need to apologize, understand? And when they apologize they don’t do it a few days before polling day, ok?
Don’t give up. This morning, talked to an old uncle. He still remembers the last time how PAP won Aljunied and he fears the same. I told him not to give up or lose hope. People, please keep on engaging your fellow citizens to vote for the opposition. All of us can make a difference. Its not yet voting day, we are not candidates, we can still do our part by engaging our fellow Singaporeans.
Pingback: Daily SG: 6 May 2011 « The Singapore Daily
So now we know why 1 day cool-off day. Nothing is as powerful as the PM himself acknowledged the mistake and apologized.
But if you listen to what he said after the rally during his walk-about, he explained why he apologise, he mentioned 2 key issues, one of which is the policy, the other the politics of it. He said the emotional connection is important between the government and the ppl.
So when the politics of this election is over finally and all ppl’s emotion dies off … what will then happen. If PAP wins again with majority, would it be business as usual again? Will all his Ministers be bothered about what he said during the election, since they always placed themselves so highly?
Voters please exercise your votes carefully, most of us have enough experience to know what would happen after election, if PAP lost more seats then they are concern (GE 1991), but if not … Remember the 2 Lions and 1 wolf story.