Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
Why I swear never to join Young PAP
One cannot claim that he is a taxpayer and should benefit from the likes of those in a PAP constituency when he voted for the opposition.
Joel Leong, Young PAP Member
By Joel Leong’s argument, a taxpayer who did not vote PAP gets no benefits from the government. He clearly does not understand the difference between a political party and the government. He should either go pick up an elementary political science textbook or read an entry I wrote a few months back called “Politics 101: Political Parties and Government“.
And, why should people who vote opposition in PAP constiuencies be given the same benefits as others who voted PAP? Why discriminate between PAP and non-PAP constituency? Zyberzitizen has written on this, so I’m not going to talk too much about that.
To sum up, if this is the kind of people that are going to become future MPs and ministers, I am packing my bags and leaving Singapore. Thankfully, I don’t think I need to. Most MPs and Ministers are handpicked from intelligent people in the private and public sector, and not YPAP. Thank god.
This is why I swear never to join YPAP. I might just lose some of the precious little intellect I have. Hmm.. it might not be a bad thing after all. In return, I might gain some strength by carrying lots of balls.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 27/03/2007 at 9:48 pm, and is filed under Ramblings. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 3 years ago
Woah. We do need more people like Joel in Young PAP. I believe once a critical number is reached, the whole organization will implode from the deadly mix of ignorance and irrationality. Heh.
about 3 years ago
If you refuse to ever become a posthumous organ donor, should you receive priority if you subsequently need a transplant?
If you oppose testing of pharmaceuticals on animals, is it hypocrisy to say these medications are an entitlement when you are ill?
about 3 years ago
and you wonder if Singapore has a future, with people like that around?
Will any of our MPs think this way as well, or even worse, will our political leaders think this way?
I really hope not.
about 3 years ago
Woah! That is one ridiculously mindless quote from that guy. Not only is he putting his party above the country, which is staggeringly despotic, he is rationalizing that tax monies from all citizenries are for the benefit of only select group which is repulsively unethical and corrupt.
about 3 years ago
It’s not just that, it’s also very very complacent – so PAP = Singapore now? Since when? Perhaps the winds of change are blowing…
about 3 years ago
“Hmm.. it might not be a bad thing after all. In return, I might gain some strength by carrying lots of balls.”
Please forgive my ignorance. What do you mean?
about 3 years ago
they are government only to people who voted for them
about 3 years ago
Kebab,
I do not refuse to be a posthumous organ donor, nor do I oppose animal testing. And, I don’t think I need any priority from Young PAP. I have my own hands and legs, thank you very much.
I must qualify that I harbour extreme disdain for Young PAP, but I don’t have that big of a problem with the PAP, except for a couple of ideological and policy differences. The PAP leaders are smart; Young PAP leaders remind me of parrots.
about 3 years ago
Kelvin,
Yes men are always necessary. They make great sai kang (shit work) warriors.
about 3 years ago
Neutral bystander,
Don’t worry too much. So far, our MPs are not as bad as the elements in YPAP (at least most of them). I was a little disappointed with the cheerleading of the Budget though. But, there were some good and critical questions raised, so we have hope!
about 3 years ago
???,
Carrying balls is a Singaporean hokkien euphemism for bootlicking. It’s a pretty crude euphemism actually. Think a little harder about what balls could be, and you’ll get what I mean.
about 3 years ago
um, yeah, ‘catch no ball’ means “don’t understand” but… whose balls need carrying? are they so heavy that.. never mind
about 3 years ago
Kebab wrote:
Aaron replied:
Let’s rephrase, since you avoided the questions the first time round.
If somebody refuses to ever become a posthumous organ donor, should that person receive priority if subsequently in need of a transplant?
If somebody opposes testing of pharmaceuticals on animals, is it hypocrisy to say these medications are an entitlement when he/she is ill?
Why are these two questions important? Because any Politics 101 analysis has – as its basis – the idea of social contracts. If somebody opposes a social contract, how much of that social contract remains entitlement?
People can disagree on these issues, but I think it is important – given what you have written – that you say where you stand on these questions.
about 3 years ago
You can don’t join the Young PAP but it doesn’t preclude you from joining PAP.
about 3 years ago
What is the big fuss all about?
This YPAP guy is just repeating what our ministers said since 1997!
Dun vote PAP no upgrade.
MM Lee once threaten the residents of Potong Pasir that their rubbish will pile up skyhigh if they don’t vote for PAP!
Hell, I still remember that SM Goh said Hougang and Potong Pasir will become “slums” if they don’t vote for PAP in 1997
http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/97/0117/cs1.html
And this is repeated for EVERY election including GE2006.
So why blame this guy for for just sticking to the party line.
It is S’poreans who allowed this go on and on and on.
about 3 years ago
Kebab Reloaded:
I equate these organs you talk about to Singapore citizenship. Simply by virtue of being a citizen, people are entitled to equal treatment (refer to our Constitution). Why should a certain group of people be less entitled to upgrading if they are all Singapore citizens?
Do you think that PAP voters in opposition constituencies should be denied upgrading? Did they “opt out”? Why should opposition voters in PAP wards enjoy upgrading? Did they get “opted in” by their fellow constituents?
Fuzzy logic.
about 3 years ago
the worrying thing is NOT that there’s no good and critical questions being raised but rather, how often are they raised? and are they raised at critical periods? the current performance is to say the least disappointing. i thought the only commendable effort which we had seen so far is from Dr Lily Neo, who asked for an increase in assistance to the poor, but even that is met with much resistance. then we juxtapose with the next news that top civil servants pays are going up without really much debate (except in the blogosphere), so where is the source of hope I wonder?
about 3 years ago
Kebab reloaded: Stop bandying about the term ‘social contract’ when you probably have no idea about the right situation to apply it to. I don’t believe not voting for the winning political party constitutes as breaking the social contract (be it between the government and the people, or between the people themselves) as perceived in a democratic society (the argument about whether Singapore really is a democratic state is an argument for another time). As Aaron had said, you seem to be confused about the difference between a political party, and a government.
Furthermore, since you do not believe opposition voters should be treated as citizens of Singapore, then perhaps you would agree that they should not pay tax as well, as citizens do? Hmm?
about 3 years ago
Why are you so sure that Joel wasn’t toeing the party line?
about 3 years ago
Kebab:
You miss the point.
These people still pay tax, they still pay GST, and the men still go for NS, Reservist, etc. They have not “opted out” of contributing to the country’s coffers, nor are they ever going to be able to do so.
about 3 years ago
These are valid points. Which raises the question — which essential services do Opposition-held areas not receive?
about 3 years ago
“I must qualify that I harbour extreme disdain for Young PAP, but I don’t have that big of a problem with the PAP, except for a couple of ideological and policy differences. The PAP leaders are smart; Young PAP leaders remind me of parrots.”
I’m sorry, this statement is contradictory.
The YPAP IS the PAP. Vivian Balakrishnan is the CHAIRMAN of the YPAP, and the P65 MPs are all part of the leadership of the YPAP.
The 2 are inseparable from each other; And if you ever join the PAP, you will eventually be part of the YPAP.
Furthermore, this new media counter-insurgency was no doubt planned by PAP leaders. They bear responsibility for stuff on the YPAP blog
about 3 years ago
Dear Kebab:
The PAP is not Singapore nor will it ever be. I hope this little phrase has a semblance of familiarity to you.
“…Democratic society based on Justice and Equality…”
Denying Equality to citizens who observe Democracy and use their Constitutionally given Right to vote is not Justice.
about 3 years ago
The point is not whether they receive ‘essential services’. The point is whether they are treated as equally as all other citizens of Singapore, as is their right. They pay their taxes. They have a right to the money. You can’t take their money and give the majority of it to someone else. You can’t say they cannot benefit as PAP wards have when it is partly their money that PAP wards are using to benefit from. If PAP is not using their money to upgrade the other wards, then fine. But I highly doubt this is happening.
I think that people sometimes forget that Singapore’s money is the people’s money, not the PAP or the government’s money.
about 3 years ago
My parents live in a very old 3-room flat that has yet to be upgraded, in a PAP-held ward.
Are you telling me that Hougang should take precedence over them? Or is it a case of “everybody should be equal in Amanda’s world, but the people Amanda likes come first”? Your stance sounds a lot like what you are campaigning against, doesn’t it?
about 3 years ago
Kebab:
Those are good conundrums that you bring up, but let’s take it a logical step further. Let’s say I disagreed with the PAP on some key foreign relations issues, and so voted for the opposition, say the SDP. Let’s also take as justified the fact that I am thus not entitled to HDB upgrade subsidies. Say the LTA later improves a highway with a segment in the opposition constituency. Should the improvements stop at the boundary? If not, should there be some sort of a toll system set up to collect payment from opposition voters?
Where are we going to draw the line? PAP was the driving force behind the integrated resorts. Should opposition supporters be barred from entering.
Also, if I am prevented from benefiting from policies that I disagreed with, am I similarly allowed to not be disadvantaged from other policies by the same party? Say the casinos lose a billion dollars. Will a tax refund be awarded to those in opposition wards?
As Amanda rightly pointed out, unless the political party in control can clearly demarcate that they are only spending non-opposition voters’ tax money, it does not follow that expenditures should only be on the its supporters. If such demarcation is claimed to occur, why not refund those in opposition wards an amount equivalent to the upgrade expenditure per person in PAP wards?
I hope you see that the points you brought up, while they sound reasonable, don’t really hold water once you extend them logically.
about 3 years ago
Pay cronies and you get cronies.
The system here pay cronies, and that why our country are full of cronies.
These YoungPAP should be sent to IRAQ for lesson. Just make sure they come back with their head intact.
about 3 years ago
Michael –
If you read Amanda’s point clearly, you will find no reference that Hougang should take precedence over the PAP-held ward.
You are misrepresenting her point of view.
about 3 years ago
The analogy of the organ-donor and the medication -presupposes that the current administration is by the very nature of the analogy – the solution.
By rejecting the development of the solution, should one basically be entitled to it. Obviously, the current administration is held to be the solution and those who impede it are those who do not vote for it.
Unfortunately, the freedom to vote is a right under most constitutional democracies. Whereas taxes are a compulsory part of the political economy. The solution to neglected neighborhood is frankly the funding to upgrade what is needed to be upgraded. And that funding is provided by public taxation – which is a compulsory duty for all citizens. The citizens have donated the organs, they have allowed medical testing to be carried out.
If funding was the only problem, than improvements would have been made long ago. However it also requires governmental consent for such upgrading to commence given that the government holds the collected tax monies in essence in escrow for the people. That is where perhaps the analogy fails. For we lose sight of what really is the problem and what really is the solution.
about 3 years ago
Michael:
Sorry to say this, but yes, if there’s more people in need of upgrading in Hougang, then of course, Hougang should take precedence over the ward in which your parents live in.
Your personal situation could be also faced by residents in Hougang as well, but that doesn’t mean that theirs is not as real as yours. Matters of national importance should be dealt in a way that benefit the most number of citizens, rather than who voted for who, because (of this often used argument which is very valid) every citizen, be it in PAP wards or opposition wards, pays for taxes, goes through NS and is entitled to any form of benefits which the government hands out, regardless of the political party which he/she votes for.
The state and the party should not be conflated. (whether it is in reality is another issue.)
about 3 years ago
I believe that upgrading should be given to the wards that need it the most. Doesn’t matter if it is PAP ward or opposition ward. But because resources are scarce, there might be a time when two wards deserve it equally (although how one actually reaches the point where they can decide two wards deserve it equally is something I won’t know how to measure) then maybe it is understandable you would want to allocate the scarce resource to the PAP ward.
The thing is, sometimes PAP wards that dont need to be upgraded are also upgraded. Sometimes the upgrading doesn’t make sense. Take Ang Mo Kio for example, a group of their blocks are now currently being upgraded. Do you know wat that upgrade is? These blocks are getting lifts that only service two households per floor. I don’t think this is good allocation of resources. Especially if you look at the older blocks in Hougang. The way they are designed, if you do put a new lift to service every floor, the number of households that benefit is actually all the households on that floor cos they all share a common corridor.
about 3 years ago
PAP is not for idealist fools.
Thank you for staying away.
about 3 years ago
Salim,
Your attempt at civil conversation is heartening.
about 3 years ago
silly kebab,
so if I live in an opposition ward, I do not need to pay taxes? hurrah..its time to move
What is the contract between government and people?
you said:
If somebody refuses to ever become a posthumous organ donor, should that person receive priority if subsequently in need of a transplant?
Who dictated this form of the contract?
do you know the reality? I opted out.
a) is the queue process transparent? if mrs lee decided she needed a new liver, tell me whether she will get it before the current batch of people on the queue waiting?
b) will you be given the transplant operation even if you are uninsured and do not have adequate cash/medisave?
c) if everyone does not opt out of HOTA, means everyone is on the queue, WHAT priority? if there are only 100 organs for that year , does it matter if your priority is 101 or 90000 ?
THAT is the question.
HOTA is a tax on the poor on the basis of deception. it is grave robbing on what could be realised assets.. it is unethical if you’re going to steal people’s organs on the basis of “priority queue”. Make cadaveric organs salable. proceeds to go to the estate of the individual.
about 3 years ago
Hi Aaron,
That was quite a strongly worded stand about not joining YPAP
While you could be overgeneralizing and stereotyping, I am not aguing for this point lest I am seen as being a devil’s advocate.
Consider something called right-wing authoritarianism. How high do you think the members are? How high do you think you are? How high do you think the prospective targeted members are?
Don’t think I would qualify too
Goats can never be sheep.
about 3 years ago
salim,
No wonder PAP has problem getting the right people.
about 3 years ago
I presume this is not the same Salim?
about 3 years ago
Hey, since Hougang voted for the Opposition, why doesn’t the PAP just increase the utilities fees, bus fare and charge a toll to use the roads there. After all, they CHOSE not to receive those benefits right??
This is my response to Joel Leong’s post:
“I think you have been suckered into believing your own Party’s propaganda. Why should a taxpayer be penalised for voting for the Opposition? If you don’t already know, HDB funds come from taxpayers, which include Hougang residents. Why should it be allocated to only PAP wards? There is only one phrase which describes this: Third World pork barrel politics. Nothing more, nothing less.”
about 3 years ago
In summary, we see:
- Hougang not getting upgrading ahead of PAP wards.
- Hougang residents do not get an extra toll, or extra utilities fees. (as Gerald has conceded)
- Hougang residents also still are covered by the SAF, have policing, have water supply, have buses and MRT.
- Hougang residents also got the Progress Package, and will get GST rebates in the same way as residents in other areas.
Very inequitable, as some might say. Really?
about 3 years ago
Even in the most liberal democracies, voting is based on a platform of viewpoints.
Let’s say a candidate stands for low taxes, but you voted for him because of his stance on animal rights — or the way he styles his hair. Your vote has the exact same effect as that of somebody who voted in support of his position on low taxes.
Similarly, if he stood for a platform of asset enhancement (say upgrading), but you voted against him for some unrelated reason — in substance it is still a vote against his asset enhancement platform, even if your intention was different.
about 3 years ago
Kebab revolutions: By your reasoning then everyone who votes for the PAP is also against the asset enhancement platform as, if I’m not mistaken, most opposition parties are for asset enhancement as well. Or is it only PAP platforms that count in your platform of viewpoints?
about 3 years ago
Amanda:
Where is the asset enhancement going to come from, with an opposition government in power?
Has the WP submitted an alternative Budget, in the way that many Oppositions in First World nations do?
Has Chee Soon Juan told us his plans for running the economy?
It is easy to promise the sky. Delivery and implementation can only be tested once a party is in power, but it helps if they at least provide a plan on how they’ll do it.
Without a Shadow Budget or a plan, how do we even know if there will be fiscal surpluses for asset enhancement?
about 3 years ago
To add on to the discussion,
HDB is under the Ministry of NATIONAL development is it not?
Then if the Ministry of NATIONAL development doesnt want to release funds to upgrade hougang or potong pasir, is it fair to say that Hougang and Potong Pasir are not part of the NATION of Singapore?
about 3 years ago
Kebab,
I think WP did have a manifesto, but it was ripped to shreds in the MSM.
about 3 years ago
One day, the silent majority will choose to flick that little chip they have in their pocket for a very long time, into the roulette wheel.
It’s getting itchy.
about 3 years ago
ned stark: to be even more critical… is singapore even a nation? or is it just a state? or is it just a corporation?
about 3 years ago
Hougang residents also still are covered by the SAF, have policing, have water supply, have buses and MRT.
- Hougang residents also got the Progress Package, and will get GST rebates in the same way as residents in other areas.
Hougang residents also however pay transport taxes, have to perform thei national duty in the military or the civil services. And as progress packages and GST rebates, one myst recall that these come with the fact that Hougang residents must pay the GST when it is implemented for all of us.
Inequitable to the residents Hougang? They pay the same taxes that they are meant to pay, perform the same duties that every citizen is due to perform.
The only difference is they are not voting in a certain administration. Which I guess is the main crux of KR’s post – that they have not voted for a party which could have performed upgrading. They have prejudiced against and hence are now prejudiced themselves.
In the meantime, taxation continues without prejudice, without inequity, without difference.
about 3 years ago
Neutral bystander,
Indeed. Officialy we are a Sovereign State of the Republic of Singapore
about 3 years ago
Dear Aaron:
Give that Joel more time, and he will grow up and wake up his idea.
P.S. your Jack Russell pic is very cute. Is he your pet Jack Russell?
Yours sincerely,
Dr Dee
about 3 years ago
that doesn’t mean we are a nation. and that’s officially – de jure. what about de facto? *raise eyebrows*