Though it is highly unlikely that the ruling PAP will be booted out of office or loses its traditional two-thirds majority, even the loss of one GRC or one SMC more than the two opposition-controlled wards will send a strong signal to the entire nation that the tide has turned against the incumbent and it is only a matter of time before Singapore follows the footsteps of other developed Asian countries like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan and make the transition from an archaic political system dominated by one party to a multi-party democracy.

An increasing number of Singaporeans are becoming fed up and disillusioned with the PAP’s liberal immigration policies which has seen our beloved little island being flooded with hordes of foreigners in the last few years.

While the lower income group is naturally disgruntled at the loss of job opportunities and depression of wages by these foreigners, the middle class is also becoming flustered and anxious about the future of their children.

With more young Singaporeans with no political affiliations joining the electorate for the first time and the new media providing a counter-balance to the propaganda and spins of the mainstream media, the next election will be an interesting one to watch.

Though Singaporeans are largely apathetic in nature and disinterested in politics, what the opposition need is just a small group of dedicated supporters to galvanize votes for them to turn the tide around.

That’s what happened in the Malaysian general election in 2008. Every single opposition supporter went around to canvass for votes and they got not only their families, but their extended families, companies and alumni to vote for the opposition.

The percentage of hardcore PAP supporters are perhaps no more than 30 per cent and is dwindling by each passing day. That’s why it needs to bring new citizens into grassroots organizations to boost the flagging support.

The opposition managed to garner 33 per cent of the votes during the 2006 elections. The figure is probably about 40 per cent now which leaves 30 per cent of swing votes to be won by either side.

Fence-sitters are usually politically not inclined and will vote for any party on persuasion by a family member or a close friend.

The opposition should come together and form a united front against the ruling party in the next election with a single slogan, a common platform and one media center to orchestrate the entire electoral campaign.

Instead of conducting separate campaigns on their own, they should pool their limited resources together such that every opposition supporter will campaign for all parties and not the party to which one belongs to.

During the pivotal 2008 Malaysia’s general elections which send shockwaves across the causeway to Singapore, the Chinese-based DAP supporters could be seen campaigning for the Islamist PAS in the rural kampungs and the Malay-dominant PKR reaching out to the Malay urban dwellers on behalf of the DAP.

The opposition should adopt a catchy slogan which is easily understood by Singaporeans and strike a chord in their hearts and it already has its work cut short – the Singapore People’s Party already has the ideal slogan:

“Singapore for Singaporeans!”

We want a Singapore for Singaporeans where every single person born here are entitled to basic rights as citizens of their country of birth – the right to education, the right to equal job opportunities, the right to free speech, the right to oppose the government, the right to afford a home of their own, the right to public healthcare and lastly, the right to retire comfortably and enjoy life after years of hard work.

This is the Singapore which most citizens aspire to, not the present Singapore where we find ourselves becoming increasingly marginalized by the relentless influx of foreigners who have diluted our collective national identity.

While we should open our doors to foreigners to attract the best talents in the world to come and work in Singapore, we must ensure that our own citizens are taken care of first and to be more selective of the foreigners we admit as PRs and citizens.

The elites will always vote for the incumbent because they are the ones who benefit most from the system, but they belong only to a minority – no more than 5 per cent of the population.

As long the opposition is able to sway the middle class and lower income group to its side, it is half the battle won.

Tell the lower income group: do you want to compete with low-wage foreigners for jobs which pay for pittance and not being able to support oneself and family.

Tell the middle class: do you want a future in which your children will find it increasingly tough to eke out a decent living in Singapore because they have to compete with foreigners for schools, jobs and everything.

Is Singapore really for Singaporeans or for new citizens, PRs and foreigners?

Are native Singaporeans becoming second or even third class citizens in their own countries?

Are Singapore men serving two years of National Service and thirteen years or more of reservist to protect the “free-loafers” from Malaysia, China, India and elsewhere who just come here to enjoy the perks and benefits without paying the price which they have?

Are Singaporeans the real owners of their country or does it belong to a small clique of self-serving elites who is more concerned about perpetuating their political control and hegemony for eternality?

The opposition should not be afraid to appeal to the emotions of Singaporeans because they are getting emotional and the next general election is about nothing but emotions.

Regardless of race, language, or religion, Singapore is for SINGAPOREANS only, now and forever!

Foreigners are most welcome to study, work and live in Singapore, but if they want to take up our citizenship, they must be prepared to sacrifice no more than what native Singaporeans have done so.

The longest-dominant party in power in the world was the Partido Revolucionario Institutional of Mexico which governed Mexico from 1927 to 1997 before being booted out unceremoniously by voters in 1997 when it lost its majorities in both chambers of the Mexican federal congress for the first time in history.

The PAP is the second longest-lived political party in the world having ruled Singapore continuously for 50 years since 1959. The longest-lived is the Chinese Communist Party of China, in power since 1949.

Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party, which used to be in second place, was voted out of office during the recent general election in August this year.

In an interview with the PAP’s bi-monthly magazine Petir, Mr Shanmugam felt that though the PAP has stayed in power because it has delivered “progress” to the people, “younger voters can erode its dominant position should the party fail to convince them that Singapore, more than most countries, needs a strong leadership and a political system that allows for effective and speedy decisions to be made.”

He suggested that students “be taught, among other things, how political systems work in different cultures, the impact of geographical and social factors on societies and why city states rise and fall.”

‘This will make people look carefully at the liberal democratic model and help them decide which aspects best suit Singapore….Not every aspect can be transplanted in toto across cultures, without regard to different economic, social and geostrategic situations,” he added.

Mr Shanmugam’s remarks came at a time when the PAP is facing increasing pressure from both at home and abroad to liberalize Singapore’s archaic political system which is designed and manipulated to entrench the PAP in power forever.

All state institutions, including the media, the police, NGOs, grassroots organizations, civil service, religious organizations and trade unions are tightly controlled by the PAP directly or indirectly in one way or another.

The opposition is deliberately kept weak and divided by bankrupting is leaders with ruinous defamation lawsuits so as to prevent the emergence of a credible alternative to challenge the PAP.

Mr Shanmugam said that Singapore, more than most countries, needs a strong leadership and a political system that allows for effective and speedy decisions to be made and this message PAP’s message had resonated with the older generation who experienced the turmoil of Singapore’s early years.

“But the collective memory of this is not as strong among newer generations, whose viewpoints will increasingly influence the political process,……..Younger Singaporeans may therefore believe that the Western model of liberal democracy can be adopted without trade-offs,” he added.

Mr Shanmugam’s message in a PAP mouthpiece for PAP members are strangely given extensive coverage by the Straits Times, which is owned by SPH, whose Chairman is a former PAP minister, Dr Tony Tan.

The process of “educating” Singapore students in the PAP’s brand of “acceptable politics” may have already kicked off.

It is reported that libraries of some primary schools in Singapore are stocked with copies of the cartoon version of the PAP propaganda masterpiece – “Men in White” and students are “encouraged” to read them.

The projects include two in Queenstown and one in Sembawang and Bukit Panjang, bringing the total supply for such units to 13,500 units this year.

The projects will cover 105 studio apartments, 231 two-roomers, 643 three-roomers, 1,489 four-roomers and 202 five-room flats.

The relative ease and swiftness in which the new BTO projects are launched raised questions on why the housing supply was not increased a few years ago in anticipation of the increase in population contributed by the influx of foreigners which also contributes HDB’s initial assertation that

According to figures from HDB, the number of flats built by HDB for the last three years average about 3,ooo plus a year which is far below the 13,500 units launched by HDB in its latest exercise.

The prices of HDB resale flats hit a record high in June this year with that of new flats following suit. In two recent sale exercises of BTO and balance flats, they were more than 10 times over-subscribed, an indication of the severity of the housing shortage on the ground.

As expected, HDB laid the blame on home-buyers for being too “fussy”. National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan even asked Singaporeans to be “realistic”, saying that he can’t build all the flats in the cities.

The newly launched BTO projects will not come cheap. Prices will range from $373,000 to $549,000 for a four-room flat and $532,000 to $664,000 for a five-room flat for both Dawson projects in Queenstown which is more expensive than some condominiums in the suburbs.

The prices of BTO flats are pegged to recent transaction of resale flats in the vicinity which have reached a record high in June this year, fueled partly by the large number of PRs and new citizens entering the market.

An Indonesian PR paid $653,000 for a 4-room resale flat in Queenstown when he could well afford a private condominium.

PRs are allow to purchase resale flats in Singapore and sold them for a hefty profit years later after they returned back to their countries of origin.

MM Lee Kuan Yew “forecasted” two day ago that HDB flats will remain “affordable” even as prices continue to rise without substantiating his claims.

More than 85 per cent of Singaporeans live in public housing built by the ruling party via HDB which determines both the supply and selling prices.

Demand has been inflated artificially by the ruling party’s liberal immigration policies which has seen large number of foreigners being granted PRs and citizenships in the last few years, among them cleaners, masseues and hawkers.

With no opposition in parliament to check on the ruling party and to engage it in vigorous debates about its policies, Singaporeans will have no choice but to find solace in MM Lee’s “forecast” that HDB flats will (forever) be “affordable” to them.

According to revised figures from the Manpower Ministry, more of them are without jobs and taking longer to land a job. The number of unemployed graduates increase from 1,600 to 4700. Of those who are employed, a significant portion are on contract jobs.

Graduates also form more than one third of workers who are either retrenched or unemployed. The re-empolyment rates for graduates remains the lowest at 44.4 per cent.

PAP MP Josephine Teo seemed to attribute the blame to graduates during an interview with the state media when she said that “part of the reason is that they often tend to seek jobs that pay close to what they used to earn.”

The same report revealed that more residents are taking more six months to get a job. Known technically as the long-term unemployed, their numbers have ballooned from 9,600 last year to 18,400 this year.

For some strange reasons, MOM prefers to lump citizens and PRs together in the same category as “residents”. The exact figures for the unemployment rates among Singapore citizens remain a mystery.

The starting pay for graduates has remained more or less the same for the last few years while cost of living has increased, especially that of public housing.

Burdened with a hefty study loan, graduates are encountering difficulties supporting themselves and families with their meager salaries let alone start a family of their own which may account for the declining birth rates among locals.

Instead of doing more to help them, the ruling party chose to open the flood gates to allow the influx of mid-level and semi-skilled professionals into Singapore to compete with local graduates directly for jobs.

There are no independent trade unions in Singapore to represent the interests of Singapore workers. The largest trade union is NTUC, a quasi-government organization which is headed by a PAP minister.

Neither is there a free media for workers to air their grievance. The Singapore media is tightly controlled by the ruling party via the Singapore Press Holdings, headed by a former PAP minister.

How often do we hear the same sentence uttered to us in one form or another whenever we want to voice out our grievances, frustrations and resentment?

There are two assumptions in the statement which are fundamentally flawed.

1. Criticising the government/ruling party is an act of betrayal to Singapore:

Due to the dominance of the ruling party in Singapore, the boundary between the state and the party has been blurred so much so that an attack on the PAP is often misconstrued as an attack on Singapore. But the PAP is only a political party which has to be voted into office by the people every five years and not Singapore itself which encompasses not only political parties, but civil society, NGOs, religious organizations and much more. So when Singaporeans criticize the ruling party, they are not necessarily disenchanted or unhappy with Singapore itself, but rather at the way Singapore is being governed or mis-governed. On the contrary, it is precisely because they still care about Singapore that they bother to speak up.

2. Critics should stop complaining because they have a choice of leaving Singapore:

Unfortunately, many Singaporeans do not have the option or luxury of emigrating elsewhere due to other considerations and constraints. According to the Home Affairs Ministry, about 1,000 Singaporeans give up their citizenships yearly, some of whom must have done so because of sheer disenchantment with the place. For those of us remaining in Singapore, many have harbored thoughts of emigrating at one time or another, but unable to do so for a variety of reasons. First, it is not easy to uproot oneself completely and start life afresh in another country especially when one is doing well in his career or just started a family. Second, emigrating to another country will necessitate leaving one’s parents and friends in Singapore for good and simply isn’t an option for many Singaporeans who have to take care of their aged parents. And lastly, despite our intense hatred of the ruling party, we still have some feelings for Singapore and are not quite prepared to sever ties with it completely.

The government is nothing more than a servant of the people. Just like diners in a restaurant have the right to complain against lousy food or poor service, citizens have the right to provide feedback to the government, constructive or otherwise.

Imagine complaining about long-waiting hours for buses to SBS and it reply is: “If you are so unhappy with our buses, why not take taxis?” or service staff who cannot understand English in a posh hotel and the manager retorts: “If you cannot communicate with our staff, why not leave our hotel?”

Are commuters supposed to give suggestions to SBS on how to improve their services when lodging their complaints and guests expected to brainstorm of ways to improve the operations of the hotel before they can provide feedback?

The ruling party often makes major decisions concerning the lives of ordinary people with ease and haste in parliament without much of a discussion or debate and it is us who have to bear the brunt of their mistakes, not them.

If we are not even allowed to complain or told to “shut up and sit down” whenever we tried to make ourselves heard, then how is the government able to know if its policies are working well on the ground for the people?

It is the duty of the government with access to state resources to think of ways to improve the lives of Singaporeans and not the other way round.

Citizens do not have the obligation to help the government do its job, at least not when they are the most expensive government in the world.

Our job is merely to provide them with a frank, if not blunt assessment of their performance, point out their flaws and exert pressure on them to tweak and reverse unpopular policies which are hurting us.

Deputy prime minister Wong Kan Seng said recently that a government must have the courage to implement unpopular policies for the benefit of the people, but he forgot the basic fact that the government is merely a representative of the people and therefore must be subjected to the collective will of the citizenry.

A government which thinks it knows best and acts arbitrarily on behalf of the people without consulting them is tantamount to tyranny. Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot all thought they were rendering a great service to their nations, but ended up causing immense suffering to their people instead.

During a speech made in 1962, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew said:

“If I were in authority in Singapore indefinitely without having to ask those who are governed whether they like what is being done, then I would not have the slightest doubt that I could govern much more effectively in their interests.”

How can he be sure that he is governing Singapore in our interests and not in the interests of the ruling party especially when the identities of the state and the party have become almost synonymous with each other?

As a result of this “blind spot”, what is beneficial to the ruling party may be detrimental to Singapore. For example, the relentless influx of foreigners helps to keep Singapore’s GDP figures up which translate into higher pay for the ministers, but end up depressing the wages of ordinary Singaporeans, especially those from the lower income group.

In another instance, Lee was reported by the Straits Times in 1987 to say:

““I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn’t be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn’t be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters – who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use. We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think.”

Lee was proven wrong on many counts and admitted himself lately that he messed up Singapore’s bilingual language policy, but why didn’t any ministers, MPs or civil servants point that out to him earlier? Because there is no space for any views contrarian to the establishment’s to be aired in the public domain and there is no opposition in parliament to debate with the ruling parties on issues and policies affecting the nation.

The era of “government knows best” is gone. Nobody in this world has a monopoly on wisdom, let alone an octogenerian whose world view is still stuck in the 1960s.

If the government continues to talk down on Singaporeans and turns a deaf ear to their complaints, there will really be more and more Singaporeans who leave Singapore because they are so disenchaned with it.