You may be thinking why I decide to only talk about it now, after the GE and not before. Reasons simple, I do not want to affect people's choice whatsoever, I don't belong to any party and therefore I do not have a responsibility to alter anybody's decision, neither do I want to. I'm not saying as if I'm a very persuasive person, neither do I have very strong points.
I live in Tampines, so the parties in my GRC would be PAP's Mah Bow Tan and NSP's Goh Meng Seng. Almost everyone in Singapore hates Mah Bow Tan, however that "everyone" did not really include me. In a sense, Mah Bow Tan's fail policy didn't affect me, it affected my brother, affected my friends, but not me. I didn't intend to buy houses then, I don't intend to buy houses now. However, how Mah Bow Tan has managed Tampines is not fail. From a Tampinesian point of view, MBT (Mah Bow Tan) didn't do a bad job of handling Tampines. For Tampines having 3 shopping centres, having excellent infrastructure etc, Tampines was not badly handled, in fact it was well handled. Whether it was handled well by MBT or PAP or not handled by any of them is one thing, but one thing is for sure in that, I have nothing against PAP in my GRC.
2 points that got me to vote against PAP (Ok I said it), is firstly how notorious MBT is. My family and friends, either living in or out of Tampines were deftly against MBT. So in a sense, it got me quite pumped up to vote him out of Tampines.
Another point is that simply, I felt that we needed more oppositions in parliament. That's all. I have always felt that we need oppositions in parliament but not majority to overtake PAP because given PAP's achievements be it in the past or current such as the economic crisis, they have been good. I don't expect the opposition to win much in the first place, neither do I think their results will be worse than before, it's just a matter of lose how much. Therefore I voted for opposition.
However, do not get me wrong, I didn't think the opposition is good. In fact I think NSP failed in this election, especially for GMS (Goh Meng Seng). NSP didn't do much to Tampines. NSP's main news was in Marine Parade where Nicole Seah was fighting Goh Chok Tong. Please do not think Nicole Seah is fighting Tin Pei Lin and give that Kate Spade a break yeah?
Hello, NSP (National Solidarity Party, not Nicole Seah Party), this is a Tampinesian speaking and you may wanna listen up. I'm sure people have already criticized you for this and I'm gonna criticize your ass too. If you GMS came over to Tampines and did like 1 or 2 rallies, do a bit more walkabout in the heartlands or central area, promote a bit more about your party and yourself, maybe we Tampinesians will know who the hell are you and why you wanna kick MBT's ass. And then maybe, you can easily win over Tampines from PAP, who is handled by MBT, WHO by the way is a greatly hated personality in Singapore.
Why PAP won in Tampines, and not NSP is your mistake GMS, for not focusing on Tampines and insist on helping your Nicole. Tampines people DON'T FEEL YOU. And similarly, not everyone in Tampines reads facebook, so you better don't expect a "confirm win" situation in Tampines, the older people, the uninformed people and the PAP supporters will vote for PAP, because you didn't inform them of what and who you are. Imagine Tampines people hearing Raymond Lim say "Tampines is already very developed, let us look at the big picture for Singapore." Congratulations, Mr Lim you just threw away 5% of your votes. For people who didn't understand your point, they would have thought you're just gonna heck care Tampines and think you're a little biatch.
Ah-hem, ok I have enough of scolding. Anyways MBT has retired, so GMS and guys you all can work much harder now to get Tampines if PAP appoints a better leader with better caliber for Tampines. So you better pray the new Tampines GRC leader, Heng Swee Keat is lousy... :/
Ok, so during the elections, you can kinda see my dilemma, to vote for PAP or NSP because PAP had the infamous MBT and NSP did NOTHING.
Well... NSP didn't exactly do NOTHING, before the rallies IN OTHER REGIONS OF SINGAPORE started, they already sent brochures around to every house. PAP on the otherhand had someone walked over and house visit, but too bad for them I'm not home. Choose a weekend to do it when people would actually BE AT HOME and not working. You expect us to take leave and wait for you to come ah?
Inside the NSP brochure with the logo "Your Voice, Your Choice", it was filled with the introduction of NSP and the candidates bio. I read through them, felt it was normal... everything was quite normal until I got to the Manifesto Page.
Because during the GE, I was having exams... in particular Economics exams. So I was super intrigued when I see the various things they said or claim to do. Therefore Takahina, will infer and explain on what each things the NSP said to do would effect to, imagine this whole thing to be a 100% economics essay question. This is not from a professional point of view, just a economic student who is in no ways an expert in the topic, just that I like econs. Huat my life. (Yes this is one of the "revision" I did for my Macroeconomics exam)
...........................................................................
1st point under Economic Growth Model:
PAP:
- Large influx of foreigners leads to higher GDP growth, higher demand for housing, servicing and goods
NSP:
- Grow the foreign labour force at a reasonable pace
- Continue to allow work permits for industries unpopular with Singaporeans
- Reduce mid-skilled foreign workforce
- Priority to Singaporeans in employment
PAP's move is very straightforward under the GDP growth, increase population which will lead to an increase in consumption, investment, which will then aggregate demand and thus GDP. In a sense it also increases our overall workforce and thus increase aggregate supply in theory sense.
NSP's however, is to cut down the pace that foreign labour is being brought in, so in other words slowing down the whole increase of GDP. Allow work permits for unpopular industries so they can still operate, reduce mid-skilled foreign workforce, priority to Singaporeans in employment so that Singapore graduates and citizens would have more available jobs instead of competition from foreign workers.
I did stated before in a post long ago, that I found PAP's pace of GDP being too fast, and the after-effect came true. PAP's direct way of increasing demand is faster than the increase in supply. Increase in workforce is meant to increase productivity, however under diminishing marginal returns, that may not always be the case. Companies may not increase productivity, companies may eat in the profit due to the increase in demand rather than "distributing" it to the people. Price rigidity takes place and price may not go down even though supply has increase. Therefore now we face the problem of inflation.
Further on, with the effect of supply shock like lack of oil and increasing food cost overseas, the effect of increase in workforce may be overshadowed by this.
Also, needless to say foreign workers take over our jobs as they are willing to accept lower wages, which overall pushes down the whole wage rate. With inflation and decreasing wage rate, its obvious to see why everyone is angry.
NSP's approach is the more practical one, grow it at a reasonable pace so GDP doesn't over-inflate. Allow work permits for industries unpopular is reasonable as well as industries, if without workers can't exist, without these industries Singapore won't be able to exist as well. (So, everyone when you see Bangla or Ah Tiongs or Malaysians or anyone doing work that you won't do, please thank them.)
Reducing mid-skilled foreign workforce and giving priority to Singaporeans, these however seems to slide more into the line for gaining popularity votes. Reducing mid-skilled foreign workforce doesn't mean you will help increase wage rates. Giving Singaporeans priority doesn't mean they can get employed, it depends more on the company on whether they still want to get foreign workers or not. Unless NSP is able to give in some policies that forces companies to choose Singaporeans and ensures the companies won't leave Singapore, the situation will not change.
I rather, the government gives subsidies to students for maybe universities or school fees so everyone can get relatively good education. These makes them more able to compete in the job market, forcing companies to choose either better quality productivity, or lower wage rate.
Outcome: NSP win marginally, cause they saw the need to regulate foreign labour, unlike that of PAP's.
2nd point under Economic Growth Model:
PAP:
- Built 2 casinos to spur economic growth and set up National Council on Problem Gambling to deal with the damage to families caused by Gambling.
NSP:
- Pursue economic growth with due regards to social impact
- Focus on wage growth rather than GDP growth
- Grow the income of the lower and middle income
- Support growth of local SMEs
Right from the start when PAP agree to build the Casinos, I felt it's a good idea. Give and take, the advantages of having the Casinos far far outweighs the disadvantages of having a Casino. Gambling is and has already been a problem in Singapore, without a Casino, people can still go on Cruises and Genting to gamble, if they want to gamble, they will gamble and no one can stop them.
Building 2 casinos, firstly prevents local money from flowing overseas and enables Singapore currency to remain fairly strong, secondly able to tax the gamblers openly, thirdly you build up so much more jobs and income for people to work. Socially you make Singapore more "entertaining", so tourism will go up and in a warped sense, culture goes up. What is wrong about it?
Pursuing economic growth with due regards to social impact is in all sense, correct. But in regards to Casino, it doesn't prove it's effectiveness. Go ahead and close down the 2 casinos, riots in Singapore will start, with the people who lose their jobs in the service sector for the casinos, followed by the people who invested in Marina Bay Sands and Sentosa Resort. The gamblers would be off elsewhere gambling and couldn't careless. Put up a survey, and see how many local hardcore gamblers actually frequent MBS and RWS, my bet is majority still prefers to go Genting.
Focusing on wage growth, grow the income of lower and middle income, say is easy, how would you do it? Set a minimal wage? Subsidy companies for increasing employee's pay? Setting a minimal wage will deter companies to come to Singapore to invest, subsidizing companies for wages will bankrupt the national reserves and increase our taxes.
Supporting the growth of local SMEs however is notably good. It increases overall market and supply and will lead to a drop in inflation. People will also be more encourage to start out business and employ more people. Unemployment rate drops, wage rates will go up due to lack of labour, supply increase and real GDP will increase.
Outcome: PAP win marginally, because the effect of having a casino imo has been one of their "good" decisions for the past few years. NSP trying to argue on this point does not impress me.
Lao Lee is not impressed either.
Overall outcome: NSP wins, cause simply PAP failed in their foreign labour policy and neglected in regulating it. It's always fine to get more foreign labours in and Singaporeans welcome them. But, PAP didn't regulate at all and allowed all types of cats and dogs in, anything can be done, but at a sustainable and manageable rate. Fully opening the floodgates and letting them swarm in, is an epic fail policy for me.
Under Government Expenditure:
PAP:
- FY11 health care budget unchanged at $4b as compared to FY10
- FY11 transport budget decreases by $0.6b to $4b as compared to FY10
NSP:
- Increase funding for healthcare to reduce the burden and waiting time on Singaporeans
- Increase number of hospital beds to cater to a growing and greying population
- More investments in public transport.
This is a difficult one to judge on. In one hand, PAP didn't change much of their budget regarding this 2 issues, NSP wants to increase both of it. So in this case I'm gonna tackle on NSP first.
NSP wants to increase funding here there and everywhere. Simple question, where do you get the $$? I don't agree to casually withdrawing money from the national reserves and I don't agree on occuring huge amount on unneeded debts. Deficit in Government Budget means they need to get more money from the money sector. Increase in money demand, interest rates will increase and GDP will fall. SMEs won't be able to grow properly, net exports, investments and consumption will fall on all accounts, so you may be screwing up your own plans on other areas.
So now the question is this, is there a real need to increase these funding? We have to look into the question of how PAP funds their healthcare and transport. If you ask me I don't really see a need to increase funds for transport, because our transport is already one of the best in the world, the current funding of $4b imo is fine. For health care though it shouldn't drop in any sense, so PAP may wanna look into it figures again.
On the otherhand, certain issues for healthcare like waiting time can be solved from within, such as management and handling of the various wards etc, there isn't really that much a need for an increment in funding to such issues.
Outcome: Neither wins, draw. Cause both sides didn't really show their point for their actions at all.
1st point under Housing Policy
PAP:
- Market-driven pricing for new HDB flats
NSP:
- Government to sell new HDC flats at cost-plus for first time buyers
This is almost a given for NSP. Market-driven for HDB flats will screw up people who want to buy houses and this is the system that led Uncle Mah to be one of the most hated people in Singapore. Demand for housing will only increase and naturally that will push up housing prices. Supply for houses can never increase faster than demand for houses.
Outcome: NSP wins hands down
2nd point under Housing Policy
PAP:
- BTO system
NSP:
- Build more HDB flats to support growing population
- Shorter waiting time
Personally, I don't know much about the BTO system, people told me a lot but somehow I can't seem to really install it in my mind. Building more HDB has already been done by PAP, so it's kinda a similar point on both sides. Whether the waiting time would be shorter or not remains to be seen. It's a matter of whether is it the BTO system that is increasing waiting time, or simply just the management of HDB themselves.
Outcome: Draw, due to me not knowing BTO well enough. :/
3rd point under Housing Policy
PAP:
- HDB upgrading linked to votes
NSP:
- Upgrading delinked from votes
- National interests must outrank party interest
Once again, PAP has cut themselves with their own shit. By openly setting that upgrading is linked to votes, it kinds of enrages the equality people... well it will kind of anger most people and the only saving grace is the sentiment, "WE HAVE TO VOTE FOR PAP IF NOT NO UPGRADING!" With the nature of Singaporeans now, that sentimental is uncommon.
National interests on all accounts should definitely outrank party interest, but then how easily can that be done? On many accounts national interest WILL conflict with party interest, even if NSP is in power in the future, can they ensure that?
Outcome: NSP, because PAP did the dumb thing of OPENLY saying that upgrading is link to votes. I know it's linked to votes, but don't admit it la...
4th point under Housing Policy
PAP:
- Allow PRs to buy HDB
NSP:
- Impose restriction of PRs selling their HDB flats to curb speculation.
NSP wins, unlike some opinion I hear on the net, I think it's unfair if you totally restrict PRs from buying HDB and just limiting it to Singaporeans. However if you restrict them buying for the purpose of selling, then it makes all sense. However, how about Singaporeans who themselves buy HDB for the purpose of reselling and profiting? Restrict them as well?
Outcome: NSP wins. For having a feasible and logical social policy.
Overall outcome: NSP wins. Because MBT did a lousy job on housing policies, NSP totally took advantage of it.
Under GST
PAP:
- Raised GST from 5% to 7% to help the poor
NSP:
- Reduce GST from 7% to 5% to help all citizens, especially the poor
- Exempt basic necessities from GST
You will realize 2 very conflicting policies. 1 increase GST to help poor. 1 decreases GST to help poor. Why both are claimed to be helping the poor but done in an opposite manner?
First if I may, I try to explain PAP's position. GST affects people who buy stuff and the more expensive you buy, the more you get taxed. The poor people obviously cannot buy much, so the GST taxed on them is minimal. On the otherhand the rich people who buy stuff, like a big party on weekend will get charged gao gao like $20-$30 for a standard $200-$300 expenditure. The money taxed will then form up the budget for the government to give out rebates, money, pension etc to the poor and needy. So it's a Robin Hood action, steal from rich, give to poor.
On the manifesto they stated on how much PAP has given to the poor, which is around 1/3 of the total GST collected.
NSP on the other hand is trying to reduce GST for a very simple purpose, you make things cheap so everyone benefits including the poor but not the government.
Both are reasonable arguments. So for this case I won't be standing on the sides of the poor or rich, but for the middle sandwiched class in which I feel is getting the pain of it all.
PAP's resolve of stealing the rich and helping the poor is a very standard approach. For the middle class however, they would be crying out loud (COL). Because we bear the grunt of the GST as we do spend. However, we are not very rich as well so we would appreciate some rebates etc but we get SHIT. Middle class would love the drop in GST.
NSP thought of reducing GST, that will greatly help the middle class and the rich. However for the poor, the effects are very much limited. In the first place, the poor don't pay much for GST, how do you charge 7% from a plate of chicken rice? 7% of $2.50 is... $0.17?? Chicken rice seller also mafan finding so much change for you. The poor also won't go out party or buy really expensive stuff. However getting extra $ from government would certainly help them. So NSP's claim of reducing GST to help citizens, ESPECIALLY the poor is flawed. You don't help the poor significantly.
Exempting GST from necessities is naturally good. Decreasing GST is naturally good. However if you remove GST, where would you find money for your budget. As I've stated before you need $ for the Government Budget and you don't expect the reserves to be like an eternal ATM because it isn't. Until NSP can actually solve a way to get more budget to replace the budget loss from all these decrease in tax, it will not be practical.
Outcome: I can't believe I'm saying this, but PAP wins. Because NSP's resolution is not precise and it's flawed. I being in the middle class will get sandwiched. Regardless, 7% is enough so PAP please don't increase any further... even though I reasoned out for you guys to up it. ><
1st point under Political Leadership
PAP:
- Large salaries and bonuses for politicians to compensate for their sacrifices and to prevent corruption
NSP:
- Groom political leaders who are motivated by passion to serve the public
- Cut ministerial salaries from current levels and then peg their growth to national wage growth
Seriously, I have no idea where PAP came with the idea of "hey lets' up our own pay so we don't get corrupted and can attract people into this politics thing." Obviously they haven't been in the local heartlands enough to know that it's not all about the money. True, having a good pay is good. But they is no need for such a HIGH pay that wins Obama. What you wanna show? Obama one day quit his USA presidency and join PAP?? Obama for PAP!!!
Outcome: NSP. Obviously omg.
2nd point under Political Leadership.
PAP:
- Insufficient talents in politics
NSP:
- Widen the definition of talents beyond high income earners or graduates from elite universities.
NSP has struck a very major point with this point. If you notice, the opposition does have people from ITE, can't speak well etc and well Singaporeans seem to be quite unapproving of them. Let's just take Tin Pei Ling for example, TPL may not know how to speak well, may not know how to react correctly and think about Kate Spade whole day, but maybe she does really love Singapore and really wants to do her part for Singapore?
PAP's politicians has all been glorified with either this Masters, or that PHD or whatever certificate that they have. Once again I'll say again, Paper Education doesn't prove anything and that means for politics as well. Having a PHD in political studies doesn't automatically makes you an excellent politician.
That is the sad truth about politics, in that it's POLITICS. Politicians HAVE to know how to speak, when to speak and what to speak, something like what Nicole Seah has. Politicians will need certain skills that can accelerate their political route such as etiquette and literacy prowess.
Having the heart to serve the country is needed for a politician, having both the heart and skills of being a politician is even much more rarer. So we'll have to wait and see for the future years to come on whether any politician with such attributes will appear.
Outcome: NSP marginally, because they look beyond Paper Education, however they disregarded the "skills" needed in being a politician.
3rd point under Political Leadership
PAP:
- Bloated number of political appointment
NSP:
- Downsize the number of political appointments
1st question to PAP, why do you need so much political appointments? 2nd question to NSP, what is wrong with having a large amount of political appointments?
I play Romance of the 3 Kingdom, and 1 priority action that I always do is to recruit, recruit and more recruit. Maybe PM Lee needs more opinions? Maybe he needs more segregation to handle Singapore's political situation or the whole development of Singapore overall? IMO, it is never wrong to have more people assisting you, as long as you always hold a certain trusted and capable group in grasp, the few number of people under you would not be a problem.
So to me, my main problem is with NSP on why do they want to downsize the political appointment?
Outcome: PAP win. Because NSP once again proposed something without any explanation whatsoever.
Overall outcome: NSP, mainly due to PAP's fail policy of increasing their own pay. INCREASING THEIR OWN PAY. I would do that too if I can decide my own pay. :/
Under Defence
PAP:
- Built a large citizen Army to defend Singapore
NSP:
- Downsize the Army and build up Navy and Air Force to defend Singapore
- Reduce National Service to 15months.
NSP is totally hilarious on this one. Firstly, I think NSP need to rethink through it's whole defense scheme again. The Singapore's defense is built up of Army, Navy, Air Force and Police. Because when we go to NS for 2 years this are the 4 possible places we will land in.
Most people go through Army, mainly because it's cheapest to develop among the 4. For Navy and Air Force crews, you will require higher positions and higher education because the things they learn is of another level and the responsibility they hold is higher. I'm sure you have heard how much is cost to develop a pilot in Singapore, so you sure it's so easy to just UPSIZE the navy and air force? You think PAP don't wanna do it too? lolll... If countries can easily UPSIZE defence force, Germany would have won WW2 and we'll all be speaking in Japanese now.
Reducing national service to 15 months is preposterous. Who's votes you wanna win, the young twerps that haven't went through NS and can't vote? Or the older generation who already finished a much harder NS. Reducing NS to 15month is obviously trying to win votes of the younger generation, but it will bring you NOTHING because most of them are too young to vote, you will instead gain the wrath of the Lao Jiao Peng and they won't vote for you cause you fail.
Seriously, 2 years is just nice. Don't increase or decrease it already please.
LJP (Lao Jiao Peng) 3SG Desmond Chan Wai Lun is gonna bring the thunder to you.
Outcome: PAP wins hands down. For some reasons, PAP has never really fail at defense.
So in total, who would have won under Takahina's amateur economical elaborate and analysis?
Economic Growth Model: N
Government Expenditure: D
Housing Policy: N
GST: P
Political Leadership: N
Defence: P
NSP wins in the end. Marginally though as it's a draw under Government Expenditure.
PAP's lost, mainly comes from big fail policies, namely the foreign labour influx and MBT's housing policy (Say thank you to MBT), and increasing their own minister's pay. And not surprisingly, it's these 3 points that Singaporeans have been angry about. Other than solving this 3 problems, NSP other policies kinda didn't make it. So rather than say NSP can do a better show, I would rather say PAP gave it away to the opposition. Kinda like how Arsenal always led the match during the first half and gave it away due to a shitty defence.
Dude, you wanna do something about it?
So, NSP wins. Regardless, for Tampinesians like me, it's still fucked up.
Yup you said it right Lao Peng...
