The WP are pulling figures out of their ARSE.

Why I say the WP are pulling figures out of their ARSE.

Almost as a reflex (almost, because I suspect they checked what the people's reaction were first before) they said a populist-advised "NO!" to 6.9m, and then they went on to counter propose a 5.9m projection. Based on what?

Based on giving Singaporeans what they want!

And what do Singaporeans want?

NO MORE FOREIGN LABOUR!

And the WP said, "No Problem! No further increase in Foreign Labour. We don't need them. If we FREEZE foreign workers, we can use local labour to make up the difference. We just need to INCREASE the labour force participation rate!

"The Labour Force Survey 2012 found that there are 418,000 economically inactive residents of working age, of which 90,000 are willing to work. This is a valuable pool of labour that can be tapped." 

(From WP website).

Really? Just like that and they can keep the population down to 5.9m?

What check? What Voters want, and what they actually get...

WP wants to check the PAP. They want voters to vote for them, to send WP MPs to parliament to check the PAP.

The Voters want their lives to be better (as defined by voters, not PAP). They want government policies to better reflect their concerns, and their needs. They vote WP, hoping that it will mean changes for the better.

Low Thia Khiang realised that there is disjoint between what the WP can do, and what the voters expect them to do.

Extract from Gerald Giam's parliament speech - WP alternative population projection

[Taken from WP website.]

6 Feb 2013
"We will target to increase our local labour force growth by up to 1% per year from now until 2030. We should strive to keep our foreign labour force constant between now and 2020, depending on our success in growing the local labour force. It does not mean that we shut the doors to foreign workers. Instead, new work passes will be issued only to replace expiring work passes or to supplement shortfalls in the local labour force. Companies will have to find ways to hire more Singaporeans.

["Companies will have to find ways to hire more Singaporeans." Wow. Good thing WP tell those companies to hire more Singaporeans. The PAP tell them, they won't listen one!]

What WP must do next

The win by WP's Lee Li Lian in Punggol East by-election was the second best results the WP could have hoped for.

The Best result for the WP would have been a credible loss - taking over 40% of the votes, but losing marginally to PAP.

This win was bitter-sweet.

While it is always good to win, there are consequences for the win. It is another Town Council to run, and the WP may be resource-challenged to run yet another Town Council.

At least that's the theory my colleague has.

On a wider issue, WP is concerned that perhaps the voters are expecting too much and had to dampen or manage their expectations. WP chief is worried that voters may expect the WP to turn things around now that they have 8 MPs in Parliament. And if WP don't deliver, those voters will turn around and "bite" them.

WP (and most if not all opposition parties) simply take the position of "opposing" the PAP. But the WP can no longer do this. In the early stages, an opposition party can simply oppose for the sake of opposing, to simply ask the ruling party, "is there another way?"

PAP strategy for the next election

The PAP is not particularly innovative, experimental, or able to think out of the box.

When Catherine Lim wrote her critique of the PAP - the Great Affective Divide - instead of recognising the truth in her words, they chose to shoot the messenger.

When they lost Anson, Potong Pasir, and Hougang, their basic strategy was to just flail away at their opponents until one was disqualified, one moved on, and... oh they still haven't won back Hougang.

Ok, I'm exaggerating. They did win back Bt Gombak, and Nee Soon Central... though that might be because the opposition candidates self-destructed.

The point is, their "strategy" was not a strategy. It was at best a theme of their campaign, a tactic of implementation or messaging.

There was no strategic thinking in terms of long-term maneouvers. No broader strategic messaging.

I hope when the PM said that their candidate for Punggol East, Dr Koh had potential to be more than just an MP that that was not their "long term strategic messaging". If it was, it failed.

Different under God

Jan 14, 2013

THE religious landscape in Singapore is a dynamic one. Buddhists, the country's largest religious group, have become proportionately smaller when we compare data between the 2000 and 2010 censuses.

Meanwhile, those who profess Christianity, Taoism, Hinduism and no religion experienced proportionate growth during the same period. This dynamism is evident not only between faith communities, but also within each faith community. The changes within the local Protestant Christian community are a case in point.

Two years ago, we embarked on a major survey of Protestant churchgoers in Singapore. Our sample consisted of approximately 2,800 Christians from some of the mainline churches, such as the Anglican, Methodist and Bible Presbyterian denominations, as well as non-denominational independent churches and megachurches.

The objectives of this study were to capture the socioeconomic profiles of Protestants and to understand their attitudes towards money and finance, politics, sex and sexuality, and perceptions of compatibility with other faith and ethnic communities.

While it is widely recognised that a large proportion of the Protestant Christian community in Singapore is middle-class, the study revealed that its middle- class character is neither unitary nor static.

Our study shows that although the level of education among those attending mainline churches and megachurches is comparable, they do have different socioeconomic backgrounds.

Broadly speaking, those who attend mainline churches have largely inherited their middle-class status, while those who attend megachurches tend to be part of the "new" or aspiring middle-class.

Our data shows that those who go to mainline churches are more likely to have lived in private property and have better-educated, English-proficient parents who are themselves Christians. In contrast, those who go to megachurches are more likely to have lived in public housing and have less-educated, non-English- speaking parents who are non-Christians.

The dirty truth about Singapore

Dec 30, 2012

Singaporeans' poor social graces a result of a weak sense of community

By Han Fook Kwang


I couldn't find any public dustbins in Taipei where I was visiting about a week ago.

The city was clean and as well kept as any I have seen elsewhere.

But nobody throws rubbish here? What happens if you've a piece of tissue paper you want to get rid of?

Leave it in the pocket?

That's what the Taiwanese do, said my guide. They dispose of it when they get home so they can separate what can be recycled from the rest.

That's really impressive, I thought, especially considering how difficult it is to get Singaporeans to recycle their waste, let alone carry it home with them.

I had to remind myself I was in Taipei, not Tokyo where you expect the Japanese to be ultra civic-minded.

It was one of several surprises about Taipei and its people, which overturned my previous preconceptions about the place.

Truth is I didn't know very much about Taiwan, not having visited for more than 20 years - I was last there on a brief news assignment.

Much of what I knew came from reading the papers and watching the news on television, and it was mostly negative - the unruly politics, fist fights in Parliament, and headline-grabbing melodramatic elections (remember the mysterious shooting of then President Chen Shui-bian a day before the 2004 presidential election?).