
Rally Roundup is a new column that brings you daily summaries from election rallies in the leadup to Polling Day
RALLY ROUNDUP (DAY FOUR)
Labour Day saw the fourth day of the general election campaign, with party rallies in full swing. The Workers’ Party and Singapore Democratic Party drawing large crowds at Nee Soon and Holland-Bukit Timah respectively, while the Reform Party held its first rally in the Prime Minister’s ward of Ang Mo Kio.
Once again, the opposition parties touched on the hot-button issues of immigration and inflation. Meanwhile, the ruling PAP focused its efforts on discrediting the opposition’s policy proposals and defending its own track record.
PAP: OPPOSITION PROVIDING FALSE HOPES
Speaking at the PAP’s rally in East Coast, two cabinet ministers accused the opposition of acting in its own selfish interests without regard to the welfare of Singaporeans. Lim Swee Say said that while the opposition’s calls for minimum wage sounded “seductive”, it would not provide for a better future.
Raymond Lim said that with more opposition voices, there would be more division within Parliament, and that would stop the country from moving forward. Referring to the WP’s analogy that a car needs a co-driver to keep the main driver alert, he said: “Passenger in car, co-driver slaps driver, what will happen? This makes for safer way to get to destination? Accident will kill all pax! Surely, better to choose best driver for journey than unlicensed co-driver who specialises in slapping!”
East Coast candidate Lee Yi Shyan also criticised the WP, saying that its calls for a First World Parliament would end up leaving Singapore as a Third World country. Using an aeroplane analogy, Mr Lee said Singapore is an Airbus, and if the co-pilots quarrel, the safety of Singaporeans as its passengers would be at risk. He also said that the WP’s calls for the introduction of minimum wage would lead to complacency and a drop in productivity.
WP: PAP POLICIES “MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE”
The WP rally was headlined once again by Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim, but it was Pritam Singh who delivered the most impressive speech of the night. The candidate for Aljunied lambasted the PAP’s divisive tactic of linking votes to upgrading, calling it “despicable” and “morally reprehensible”.
Mr Singh also drew rapturous laughter from the crowd when he made a tongue-in-cheek remark about George Yeo. He said that the WP had no intention of killing any tigers, but said that “like many other tigers around the world, it seems that George Yeo is being treated like an endangered species”. He also recommended that George Yeo should run for President later this year if he loses in Aljunied, or that laws be introduced to allow the best-performing losing candidates from the PAP to serve as NCMPs.
WP leader Mr Low attacked the PAP’s argument that high salaries were needed in order to attract top talent, pointing out that the ruling party has failed to attract private sector talent at this general election despite the high salaries on offer for ministers, whereas the WP had been able to do so. He said this proved that high salaries were not needed for good governance.
Poh Lee Guan, one of the WP’s candidates for Nee Soon, said that residents should remember that PAP’s track record after the 2006 election. Shortly after the PAP was given a strong mandate, medical fees, bus fares and ERP charges went up, he said.
SDP: FOCUS ON THE COMMUNITY
The SDP rally at Clementi Avenue 4 drew a crowd of at least 10,000. The unifying theme for the rally was the community, with several candidates mentioning that despite the economic progress that Singapore has enjoyed, the sense of community was severely lacking. Ang Yong Guan, a candidate for Holland-Bukit Timah, defended his team mate Tan Jee Say’s proposals to regenerate the economy, saying that they were not aimed at just making money but also to create a more united society, based on love and compassion. Dr Ang also denied that there was a split in the SDP, saying that it was another ploy by the state-controlled media to sow confusion in the minds of voters.
Tan Jee Say (SDP, Holland-Bukit Timah) expressed disappointment in his former boss, SM Goh, for resorting to personal attacks
Mr Tan himself hit out at comments made by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, who said that Mr Tan left the civil service because he could not make it as a Permanent Secretary. Mr Tan said that it was never his mission in life to become a Permanent Secretary, and he left for the private sector because he wanted to be a “more complete person”.
He also expressed disappointment at Mr Goh, because the latter had earlier pledged not to comment on candidates outside his own Marine Parade constituency.
He also said that he had given five years of his life to work for Mr Goh upon the latter’s request, and that he did not ask for the job.
Mr Tan went on to give details of his economic regeneration plan, pointing out that it had received a strong endorsement from a former head of the British civil service, Lord Butler.
Vincent Wijeysingha, the leader of the Holland-Bukit Timah team, said that the PAP had not done enough to help low-wage workers, pointing out the plight of an elderly Bukit Panjang resident who was now working as a part-time cleaner, earning $500 a month. He mocked the NTUC, saying that any trade union that had to station people outside MRT stations to get housewives to join was a failure.
RP: INVESTMENTS, FOREIGN TALENT POLICY SLAMMED
The Reform Party held its first rally in Ang Mo Kio – the Prime Minister’s ward – and managed to attract a good crowd. Alex Tan, a candidate for Ang Mo Kio, said that there should be more transparency with regards to investments made by the sovereign wealth funds GIC and Temasek Holdings. He questioned comments by Vivian Balakrishnan that their portfolios had returned to pre-crisis levels, pointing out that GIC bought Citibank shares at $21 each, but Citibank shares are currently trading at $4.59.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam (RP, West Coast) said that just like in business, competition in politics was benefical
Osman Sulaiman, another Ang Mo Kio candidate, highlighted the flaws of the PAP’s foreign talent policy, with a specific focus on the manufacturing industry. He said: “They have said that this manufacturing industry brings jobs to Singaporeans, but they forgot to say that the bulk of it goes to foreigners. Don’t they have any other plans to create jobs?”
Party leader and West Coast candidate Kenneth Jeyaretnam highlighted that the PAP was being hypocritical by advocating competition for Singaporeans but not for itself. He said: “This government believes that competition is great for you. You have to compete with immigrants from all the low-income countries of Asia, and your wages should fall to that level. But competition in politics, the PAP don’t believe in it. But competition in politics brings about better, more intelligent policies just as competition in business encourages creativity, and innovation and progress.”
NSP: INCOME DISPARITY NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED
Speaking at a rally in Pioneer, the NSP’s candidate for the ward, Steve Chia, highlighted the growing income disparity between the rich and the poor in Singapore. He said that while Singapore’s poorest 20% have seen their incomes fall by 2.7% in the ten years from 1998 to 2008, the richest 20% have seen their incomes rising by more than 50% in the same period.
He pointed out that the government was obsessed with GDP growth because ministers’ salaries were pegged to GDP growth, and the quick-fix solution to ensure growth was to import more foreign workers – which in turn causes the wages of Singaporean workers to be depressed. Mr Chia also said that per capita income was a far more important KPI than GDP growth, and pointed out that the median net worth of Singaporeans was only slightly over $43,000 whereas the mean net worth was over $350,000. This, he said, highlighted the enormous gap between rich and poor in Singapore.
Mr Chia also pointed out that when he was NCMP, he asked so many questions that the Leader of the House, Wong Kan Seng, had to change the rules to limit each MP to only three questions per sitting. He said that he asked enough questions for all of them to be published in a 200 page book.
—
VIDEOS OF RALLY SPEECHES
RAYMOND LIM (PAP, EAST COAST)
MICHELLE LEE (SDP, HOLLAND-BUKIT TIMAH)
TAN JEE SAY (SDP, HOLLAND-BUKIT TIMAH)







After so many days of rallying, still no clear answers on
1) Over budget of YOG
2) Mas Selamat’s escape.
No actions taken on ministers responsible.
Reflects badly on the leadership of PAP.
Pingback: Daily SG: 2 May 2011 « The Singapore Daily
I used to be a PAP voter. But I really can’t stand the way they do things anymore. They are so arrogant and aloof, completely out of touch with the people. It’s time the voters taught them a lesson.
I saw the video of Steve Chia’s speech. He was impressive. I didn’t know that he asked so many questions in Parliament until WKS cannot tahan and had to change the laws. I hope he manages to take Pioneer this time.
Agreed that Steve Chia is impressive. On the other hand Kenneth J is really disappointing as a speaker. He seems to have no charisma whatsoever. Speaking in a monotonous manner, like delivering a lecture. He is simply too academic and can’t rouse the audience. And he isn’t making any real points except harping on and on and on about his father. When you consider the way his father spoke, KJ really can’t hold a candle.
Correct. KJ you either not a good public speaker or may be your talents are better off somewhere else? You can do more strategic and big picture analysis for your team.
His style is like his father but at least JBJ got passion.
Let your other GRC partners talk more. They have more passion and enthusiasm.
I am attending the SDP rallies to get my updates.
Minister Raymond Lim is absolutely right. With a divided Parliament, Singaporeans will suffer. This is something that the opposition parties do not understand. They are trying to divide Singapore in order to serve their own selfish interests.
I can’t believe that PAP can’t bring itself to say that having a check and balance is bad. Using a business analogy which PAP is so happy to refer to, why are their independent directors on any public listed companies. This is to make sure that the chairman, CEO and others have to account to outsiders. Does it mean, if we follow their argument, that a company will go bankrupt if these have people with different views in their board.
Sorry meant to say ” can bring itself”