今年三月八日，马国执政党国阵一下子失去了五个州的州政权，十五个正副部长在安全区落选。这无疑是马国政局的大海啸，也是足以影响东南亚政治的一次大地震。这是个振奋人心的结果，它赤裸裸地打破了部长出马包赢的神话！
以马国的反对党来说，也几乎没料到会有这样好的成绩。对于在2004年几乎全军覆没的公正党来说，真的可以说「山穷水尽疑无路，柳暗花明又一村」。这也说明了一个颠扑不破的真理：这世界上没什么是不可能的。所谓「沉舟侧旁千帆过，病树前头万木春」。这世界上绝不会少了某个人或某些人，地球就不再自转了。
自1967年以来，国阵连续执政了四十多年，一直以来一党独大，一向来只有巫统老大说了算。这回反对党能一举攻下五个州，除了安华效应和国阵执政“成效”的后果，首相阿都拉也承认忽略了互联网的重要性。不过最终还得归功于选民民心思变而把选票投给反对党，加上反对党策略上应用得宜，以一对一竞选，避免三角战，尽量不让执政党有机会不劳而获。
先谈民心思变，由于物价高涨，民不聊生，贪污弊案连连，司法制度也备受质疑。大选时，执政党仍然以旧瓶装新酒的排阵，以为有部长出马的都是安全区，没把人民的诉求当一回事，结果人民用选票狠狠地教训了国阵！
接着，反对党以一对一，不让执政党有不战而胜的机会。使那些在冷气房里享受惯的高官必须在日晒雨淋下露了底。即使是安全区，他们也得努力争取更高的支持率来证明他们的政绩，这可有得他们忙的了。这时候也更可以让人民以雪亮的眼睛看清候选人的真面目。
随着民怨民反一下子有如排山倒海g而来，反对党于是轻易地夺取了五个州政权。这说明了人民对民主诉求的成功，也发挥了民主制度制衡政府，并使选民能做出有效的选择以促成政权转移的功能，也提早催生了马国民主政治的两线制。
在分析马国大选结果后，回头来看我国的政治局面。所谓「他山之石，可以攻玉」，我们尽可借镜邻国的经验加以改进，以便在我国展开新的政治局面。
四十多年来，行动党一党独大。反对党能否在来届大选有所作为，攻下集选区，正是所有关心民主政治的国人所密切关心和期盼的。
然而，要能寻求突破，谈何容易，笔者认为反对党要打破行动党一党独大的局面，必须步步为营：
1.假设美国次信贷危机持续发酵，我国粮食物价持续高涨，到达人民忍无可忍的程度时就会产生民怨，到时选民就有可能会使用手上的一票给当权者一个教训。
2.反对党必须要有鸿图大计，早日定下促成政治两线制的计划和政策，如成立影子内阁之类，也必须积极吸收更多人才入党，必须逆流而上。笔者不相信有志之士会投身于一个被边缘化的反对党。
3.对执政党所提出的政策，成立资料库，尽量多思考多分析，寻找它的错误所在，並谨慎提防对方的奥步。表面看来，政府的家长式政策似乎无瑕可击；但是一个铜钱都有两面，没有任何事是十全十美的，最近公积金的改革就是把双刃剑。
虽然这些年来，反对党在吸取精英分子上並没取得多大的突破，进行招募有一定的困难，但笔者认为反对党应该把目标放得更远大些，相信要成大业者，必先有大志。要敢敢以捍卫民主为大目标，舍弃不是原则性的成见，团结所有志同道合的反对力量，众志成城，早日实现有政党交替功能的民主制！
上午。。。
老板：为什么这段日子你总是迟到？
洪先生：没办法，因为汽油和ERP都涨价了，所以我听从部长的话，避开繁忙时间进入ERP所以就迟到了。
老板：那么你也应该听部长的话出售你的汽车而改用公共交通！
洪先生：可是公共交通费也涨价了，而且很不方便。
中午。。。
洪太太：现在东西样样都涨价！听从政府的话改买冰冻肉，可是米和糖也涨价了。真是头疼！
林太太：你为什么不使用本地的品牌？
洪太太：有啊！。可是这些品牌也涨价了几分钱。米和糖总不会有冰冻的吧？
午饭时间…
小贩：先生，$2.50！
洪先生：消费税上调，你的食物没涨价啊？
小贩：没有，不过份量减少了！
下午…
护士：老先生，您下周二上午九时回来复诊。
洪祖父：我不能在上午时段复诊。可以帮我换到下午的时段吗？
护士：对不起，我们下午的时段已经排满了。为什么您不能在上午时段复诊呢？
洪祖父：因为我通常是乘搭德士来的。可是现在早上繁忙时段德士收费很昂贵。
傍晚…
洪太太：儿子，你怎么自己洗了衣服后还是这么肮脏？
儿子：因为您没有多给我额外的零用钱。妈妈您可以多给我二元吗？
洪太太：你为什么需要额外的零用钱呢？
儿子：妈妈，您误解了我的意思。部长说，薪金按业绩来计算。您给我较多的零用钱，我的衣服就会洗得清洁。楼下洗衣店的阿姨收费是三元。我只不过要求市价的三分之二罢了！
晚间…
儿子：爸爸，我要求增加零用钱！
洪先生：为什么呢？
儿子：因为您的工资增加了！
洪先生：没有啊！你听谁说的？
儿子：新闻报道，部长们的薪酬都增加了。所以你的薪金也应该有增加吧！
爸爸：部长加薪，但我的薪水没有增加。部长说，如果工人增加工资，会导致成本增加，物价上涨。
儿子：你们成年人真搞笑。增加工人的薪酬会导致物价上涨，可是为什么部长的薪酬增加就不会导致物价上涨呢？
Semenjak kebelakangan ini, kita mendapati bahawa kos kehidupan seharian rakyat semakin hari semakin meningkat dengan pesatnya. Kita melihat bagaimana harga-harga barangan asas seperti minyak, tepung, beras dan sebagainya melambung tinggi. Mengambil contoh, harga beras yang melambung diantara 15 dengan 25 peratus! Keperitan kenaikan harga baranganbarangan asas ini dapat dirasai di semua peringkat masyarakat, daripada si miskin sehinggalah si kaya.
Menyedari akan hal ini, mengenai keperitan dan beban yang terpaksa diharungi dan ditanggungi oleh rakyat, pemerintah dengan segera telah mengambil beberapa langkah/inisiatif untuk meringankan beban rakyat. Contohnya, para penerima bantuan awam menerima rawatan kesihatan secara percuma, sewa rumah bersubsidi dan rebat bayaran perkhidmatan dan penyenggaraan.
Seorang penerima bantuan awam yang tinggal sendirian kini akan mendapati $330 sebulan berbanding $290 sebelumnya. Malahan, pada belanjawan yang lalu, rakyat Singapura secara kesuluruhannya telah menerima habuan sebanyak $1.8 bilion tahun ini, sebuah belanjawan yang disifatkan sebagai “ penuh belas kasihan, menyeluruh dan memandang ke hadapan,” oleh Menteri Kanan, Encik Goh Chok Tong.
Memang tidak dapat kita nafikan, bahawa belanjawan kali ini memang ada unsur-unsur belas kasihan dan sebagainya, tetapi pemerintah, pada masa yang sama, harus diingatkan juga agar tidak mudah mendabik dada. Harus diingatkan juga kepada semua bahawa pemerintah mempunyai lebihan belanjawan sebanyak $6.45 bilion pada tahun lalu, tetapi hanya $1.8 bilion yang diagihkan kepada rakyat. Masih banyak yang boleh diambil dan dilakukan oleh pemerintah untuk meringankan beban rakyat dan memperbaiki serta diperhalusi bantuan-bantuan yang diberikannya.
Disebabkan itu, saya berasa agak terkilan dan kecewa sedikit apabila Menteri Kanan, Encik Goh Chok Tong, menggesa rakyat agar lebih bersifat realistik dalam jangkaan masing-masing. Saya percaya dan saya yakini, rakyat Singapura memang sebenarnya bersifat pragmatik dan realistik dalam jangkaan mereka. Apa yang dimahukan oleh rakyat ialah agar pemerintah lebih memahami secara mendalam akan keperitan dan kesulitan yang terpaksa mereka alami dan tempuhi disebalik bantuan-bantuan yang diberikan, yang sememangnya sudah pasti tidak mencukupi.
Kita mengambil contoh, seorang penerima bantuan awam yang kini mendapat $330 sebulan, berbanding $290 sebelumnya. Kita akan lihat ada kenaikan sebanyak $40, tetapi, bagaimanakah jumlah $40 itu dapat menolong dan memperbaiki kehidupan si penerima, yang sudah tentu mahukan kehidupan yang lebih sempurna, dan bukan dengan penuh keperitan dan kedaifan?
Memang kita tidak dapat nafikan, si penerima juga akan mendapat bantuan-bantuan lain dari segi subsidi dan sebagainya, tetapi jika difikirkan dan direnungkan dengan teliti, ia tidak mencukupi. Lihatlah kos kehidupan yang tinggi di sini. Dengan kadar GST yang terus meningkat tinggi, kos pengangkutan awam, kos makanan dan sebagainya yang terus meningkat, bagaimanakah kenaikan sebanyak hanya $40 itu dapat membantu si penerima? Bandingkan ini dengan kenaikan gaji beratus ribu dolar oleh para Menteri dan juga Presiden kita. Fikirkan dan renungkanlah.
Bagi saya, bantuan seperti inilah yang dapat dan harus diperbaiki dan diperhalusi lagi oleh pihak pemerintah. Saya ingin mengesyorkan agar bantuan yang diberikan kepada si penerima bantuan dinaikkan kepada $500. Saya rasa ini tidak akan membebankan pemerintah mahupun rizab negara kerana perlu ditekankan sekali lagi di sini bahawa pemerintah mempunyai lebihan belanjawan sebanyak $6.45 bilion tahun lalu, dan jumlah ini belum dicampurkan lagi dengan jumlah simpanan yang sedia ada dalam rizab negara. Harus diingatkan juga bahawa hanya $1.8 bilion yang dikembalikan kepada rakyat.
Dengan itu,saya ingin ulangi sekali lagi seruan Parti Pekerja agar pemerintah menurunkan kadar cukai GST kepada 5%. Dihapuskan juga sama sekali cukai bagi barangan-barangan asas seperti tepung, beras dan sebagainya. Selain daripada itu, untuk membantu rakyat mengharungi masa-masa sukar ini, kos-kos tambang pengangkutan awam dan sebagainya juga tidak harus dinaikkan sama sekali. Saya juga ingin menggesa agar diadakan semakan semula gaji-gaji yang diterima oleh Presiden dilantik dan para Menteri kita yang tidak munasabah itu. Jika mereka jujur dan ikhlas ingin berkhidmat, biarlah kerana rakyat dan negara, bukannya disebabkan oleh gaji yang tinggi. Wang yang berlebihan dapat disalurkan kembali kepada rakyat yang memerlukan.
Akhir sekali, saya percaya, jika saranan-saranan yang disebutkan diatas dilaksanakan dengan penuh keikhlasan, dan mereka yang memerlukan dapat dibantu dengan sewajarnya dan sebaik mungkin, barulah pemerintah ini boleh dikatakan sebagai pemerintah yang berjiwa rakyat, yang benar-benar belas kasihan, menyeluruh dan memandang ke hadapan.
Dalam rencana saya yang sudah, saya telah menggesakan agar masyarakat menghapuskan BUDAYA PAK TURUT.
Siapa yang dapat berbangga dengan seorang yang hanya TAKLID MEMBABI BUTA.
Bila anda membuat keputusan tanpa maklumat, terlalu mudah terpangaruh dengan arus berita media massa yang dikongkong ketat serba menekan maklumat, terbujuk dengan pojokan iklan dan propaganda, maka keputusan anda bukan satu keputusan yang boleh dibanggakan.
Orang yang tidak mahu kebenaran itu menonjol, tentunya akan menyorok informasi.
Cuba kita fikirkan peranan sains kemanusiaan dan ilmuilmu sains yang lain – usaha itu bertujuan mengungkapkan maklumat-maklumat yang benar bagi kesejahteraan umat sejagat.
Kalau menurut istilah saya, maklumat yang benar adalah berlandaskan “sains bersih”, “sains tauhid” (ketuhanan) – yakni renungan kajian terhadap alam semesta membawa kepada rumusan adanya pencipta yang Maha Esa – yang Satu, tidak tua atau tiga.
Cuba bayangkan kalau pembangunan itu tidak berasas maklumat sains yang betul – alamat akan roboh atau mereng pembangunannya.
Lantaran sebab yang sedemikian saya selalu berpendirian – “there should be transparency of information, exchange of information and dissemination of information” (ketelusan maklumat, pertukaran maklumat dan penyebaran maklumat) kerana inilah yang akan merangsangkan sains pembangunan yang sihat dan makmur.
Cuba kita ambil satu contoh
Apabila PM Lee Hsien Loong menyorot saya dalam Pilehan Raya Umum 2006, dengan soalan “Apa Mohd Rahizan akan berbuat tentang pelajaran anak-anak Melayu…”, saya telah mengemukakan pandangan saya pada Pilehan Raya Umum yang lalu di khalayak ribu-ribuan pengundi-pengundi: -
Pada pandangan saya, Mendaki itu walaupun merupakan pembentukan yang mulia daripada masyarakat Melayu, hanya dapat memainkan peranan sampingan sahaja (supplementary role) kerana terhad oleh dana, kepakaran dan lain-lain sumber yang terbatas. Saya menegaskan, peranan yang asasi dan utama adalah tanggung-jawab Kementerian Pelajaran dan telah membalikkan soalan agar Menteri Pelajaran ketika itu, Encik Tharman mengemukakan alasan kenapa pelajar-pelajar Melayu tercecer ataupan apa usaha yang diambil untuk membantu pelajar-pelajar yang tercecer dari pelbagai bangsa, termasuk pelajar-pelajar Melayu.
Peristiwa ini tidak dibuat liputan oleh Berita Harian, Straits Times dan akhbar-akhbar tempatan yang lain.
Senang kata di “black-out”.
Kami, telah sebal dengan keadaan seperti ini dan peranan yang dimainkan oleh pemberita-pemberita utama di Singapura ini.
Maka, kerana inilah juga salah satu dari Manifesto (Dasar- Dasar) Parti Pekerja (Workers’ Party) mengambil sikap dan pendirian bahawa Media Massa perlu bebas dan berkecuali. (Demi sains Tauhid seperti apa yang telah saya ulaskan tadi.)
Tentunya bukan secara kebetulan Encik Masagos dilantik oleh PM untuk menjawat sebagai Setiausaha Kanan Parlimen Kementerian Pelajaran.
Kena jaga pelajaran anak-anak Melayu beb!
Kita tengok apa nak jadi? Boleh jadi Menteri tak?
Lagi satu informasi yang anda perlu tahu.
Tahun demi tahun, ramai rakyat Singapura yang telah meninggalkan bumi kelahirannya dan membuang kerakyatan Singapura. Diantara mereka ini seramai 1,000 professional terbaik Singapura telah meninggalkan Singapura buat selama- lamanya baru-baru ini.
Di kalangan masyarakat Melayu kedengaran bahawa mereka memileh untuk berhijrah ke Australia.
Orang Melayu Singapura yang berakar umbi di sana, mempunyai pandangan kritis terhadap Pemerintah PAP – mereka bersikap vokal dan kritikal. Apa nak jadi?
Apakah akan lebih ramai lagi masyarakat Melayu yang akan berhijrah ke Bandar-Bandar Utama Dunia. Jangan salah faham bukan kita menyalahkan Globalisasi. Bagus kalau kita mempunyai semangat perantau dan meraih peluang di mana saja.
Yang menjadi tanda-tanya mereka membuang kerakyatan mereka.
Apa sebabnya?
Apa seronoknya apabila kita mendapati akhirnya rakyat tempatan diambil alih tempatnya oleh pendatang yang diberikan kerakyatan oleh sebab penduduk asli telah beramai- ramai keluar meninggalkan negaranya buat selamanya.
Pada tahun 2006, seramai 57,310 penduduk diberi status sebagai Penduduk Tetap dan seramai 13,209 diberi kerakyatan Singapura.
Ada pengkritik yang telah menggelarkan bahawa Singapura bukanlah sebuah Negara lagi tetapi, sebuah “Hotel”, orang cuma menginap dan pergi.
Apa nak jadi?
Kalau ini terus berlaku, bererti kita telah gagal dalam “Nation- Building” (Pembangunan Negara).
Kita syok-syok mendabik dada negara kita adalah Dunia “Kelas Pertama” tetapi rakyat asli kita berpusu-pusu meninggalkan negara ini.
Apa sebab ketidak-puasan ini? Tentu banyak faktor yang perlu dikaji dan suatu huraian perlu disediakan.
Diantara kemungkinan yang perlu diteroka berdasarkan teori Maslow, seorang pakar saikologi, dalam teori jenjangan keperluan manusia—tahap keperluan bukan hanya berdasarkan keperluan “mengisi perut” tetapi juga menjenjang ke tahap yang lebih tinggi – jenjangan “santapan” rohani dan keindahan seni dan nilai-nilai sejagat.
Sebab itu, diantara pendirian dan misi yang diperjuangkan parti pembangkang, terutama Parti Pekerja (Workers’Party) adalah pembangunan memerlukan kedua – duanya “hardware” dan “software”.
Minda Pemerintahan sepatutnya bukan hanya diterajui oleh kepintaran IQ (kecerdasan akal fikiran) tetapi juga oleh sentuhan EQ (budi-perasaan).
Gabungan ini menjadi akal-budi; pemerintah yang cerdas lagi budiman. Dan dilowongan itu, kita bergerak mengisi kekosongan sentuhan EQ dan selepas tiga dekad, Pembangkang memberi tekanan kepada. Pemerintah PAP terhadap dasar-dasarnya, kita telah dapat meraih sedikit kejayaan – Permerintah PAP cuba menunjukkan sedikit keprihatinan dan simpati terhadap derita dan keluhan rakyat tetapi masih terikat dengan belenggu dan kekakuan dasar-dasar gubalan perintis-perintis PAP.
Ada benarnya kekata yang mengatakan kita perlu “think out of the box” (keluar dari kotak pemikiran) atau seperti kata pepatah Melayu keluar dari mentaliti “katak bawah tempurung” – maknanya kita perlu keluar dari belenggu tempurung kekakuan dasar-dasar PAP.
Demi Negara, PAP perlu dorongan sentuhan EQ yang tinggi. Apabila ini berlaku semua dapat meraih manfaatnya, termasuk mereka yang berpihak kepada gembung permbangkang.
Negara dan kesemua rakyatnya akan bertambah makmur kerana rakyat yang lebih bersatu dan patriotik kepada Singapura, lebih kepada Parti, adalah bersesuaian dengan falsafah yang baru-baru ini dicetuskan PM Lee agar membangunkan “inclusive society” (masyarakat yang kesemuanya ditampung). Kalau ini tidak dilakukan ianya hanya merupakan “slogan kosong” semata-mata.
Kita perlu ingat gembung pembangkang bukan sedikit. Diantara 1 juta rakyat pengundi, pembangkang biasa membentuk sebanyak 340,000 – 400,000 penyokongnya dan telah menunjukkan potensi dalam beberapa perlawanan sengit dalam agregate 4.5:5.5 dan 49.1:50.9 dalam perlawanan demokrasi pembangkang – PAP.
Bukan sesuatu yang mustahil apabila rakyat bertambah matang dan lebih berinformasi; kerana tekanan informasi sedunia menjurus ke arah ketelusan dan penyebaran maklumat, neraca demokrasi di Singapura akan menjadi lebih seimbang dalam aggregate 5:5.
Apa nak jadi kalau begitu? Alah. Kita kongsi kuasalah.
Kita perintah dengan adil dan seksama, penuh dengan sentuhan akal dan budi selaras dengan saranan Parti Pekerja (Workers’ Party) bahawa perlu ada perkongsian kuasa berlandaskan konsep perwakilan proporsional dalam Parlimen – yakni perwakilan Parlimen berdasarkan undi peratusan yang diperolehi setiap pihak yang bertanding.
On 3 May 2008, the Workers’ Party Youth Wing held its inaugural YouthQuake forum. The first in a series of public forums planned by the Youth Wing, this forum focused on the question: “Should Singaporean Youths be Allowed to Vote @ 18?”
Invitations for the event had been sent to various bodies and organisations, including the mainstream and online media, friends and supporters of the Youth Wing, political parties and various organisations such as the National Youth Council (NYC), REACH, the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) and the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS).
Th forum which took place at the Workers’ Party headquarters at 216G, Syed Alwi Road saw a full house and was enlivened by the presence of many young Singaporeans.
Bernard Chen, the project manager of YouthQuake and organising secretary of the Workers’ Party Youth Wing, was the moderator of the forum. He said: “YouthQuake provides a platform for youths to speak up and interact with fellow youths on issues affecting young Singaporeans, and it prompts youths to take the initiative to bring about changes.”
The inaugural YouthQuake forum saw 3 speakers from varying backgrounds giving their take on the issue. They were Anne Tan,17, a student at Anglo-Chinese Junior College, Khairulanwar Zaini, 20, a full-time national serviceman and Choo Zheng Xi, 23, co-editor of the online portal, theonlinecitizen.
The speakers generally agreed that youths in Singapore were responsible and had the ability to make informed and intelligent decisions; they could, and would, vote well if they were given the opportunity to do so.
The embodiment of participatory democracy
Giving her views on why the government’s efforts at re-politicising youths had failed, Anne reasoned that it was due to the over focus on “head knowledge” in subjects such as Social Studies and the “entrenched cycle of fear” that was still very much prevalent within the civil service.
She offered voting at 18 as a possible solution to the growing political apathy among youths in Singapore. She said: “It is one thing to know that elections take place every 4 to 5 years… and another thing altogether to participate in elections.”
Conceding that lowering the voting age from the current 21 to 18 would not suddenly reduce the level of political apathy among our youths, she argued that it was, nevertheless, a concrete first step to take.
Age is not a barometer of maturity
Khairulanwar Zaini, the second speaker, spoke passionately on the inconsistencies in the existing system of serving national service at 18 while allowing youths to vote only when they are 21.
Noting that the many benefits and privileges offered to national servicemen through the various government agencies and statutory boards were nothing more than a consolatory gesture, he argued that “despite fulfilling our duties of citizenship, carrying out our national duty, we do not get accorded the full rights of citizenship, [because] we still cannot vote. That is almost akin to taxation without representation.”
Khairul believed that as an inherent principle of democracy, we should extend suffrage to those who were serving the interests on the nation, in particular those who provided for the finances and the defence of the state.
Khairul disagreed that 18-year-olds were too immature to vote. “The right to vote should not be accorded based on maturity level; it should be a way of recognising the contribution of citizens by providing them with a legitimate means to voice their concerns,” he emphasised.
Khairul also argued that if we did not allow 18 year old full-time national servicemen (NSF) to vote because that might lead to a politicised military, then it would follow that regular NS men should also not be allowed to vote. He further reiterated that voting at the age of 18 would make National Service even more meaningful, as it would help NSF personnel to forge an identity with the nation and recognise the fundamental meaning of a serviceman’s role as a citizen solider.
The intrinsic value of our vote in a politically apathetic society
The third speaker, Choo Zheng Xi, argued for a lowering of the voting age by situtating the issue first in its proper legal and political context. He observed that Singaporeans did not have the constitutional right to vote but there existed in the Parliamentary Elections Act, the “compulsion” to vote. He also noticed that Singaporeans tended to view the need to vote as an obligation rather than a right.
Although he questioned the effectiveness of lowering the voting age to 18 in reducing political apathy among youths if there was no corresponding change in the mindset of the youths, he did agree with the first two speakers that it would be a good starting point to help Singaporeans to see themselves as stakeholders of this nation and to work towards a system that they truly want to see.
Encouraging feedback
The subsequent question and answer session was well received and many youths voiced their opinions and added much depth to the discussion. Ideas for a complete socialisation of political education in Singapore schools were recommended to complement the vote@18 agenda.
In closing, Bernard left the audience with the following provoking thought: “Leaders whom youths can’t vote for today may send them to war tomorrow. Youths shouldn’t be subject to stricter standards than adults. Lowering the voting age is the just and fair way to set things straight.”
The Workers’ Party Youth Wing would like to take this opportunity to thank the speakers and all the participants who spent their Saturday afternoon at this fruitful forum.
In the words of Alvinder Singh, 17, “the forum was informative, thought-provoking and engaging. The ideas put across by the young speakers were well researched and this inaugural forum certainly provides an ideal platform for political discussion among youths.”
We would like to hear from YOU!
The Workers’ Party Youth Wing will continue to engage young Singaporeans on this issue of lowering the voting age to 18 through its Facebook account.
What do you think of lowering the voting form 21 to 18? We would like to hear from you!
Contact the Workers’ Party Youth Wing @ youthwing@wp.sg for more information on upcoming YouthQuake forums!
Age : 42
Background
Gordon grew up in the Upper Serangoon area. His father passed away when he was only 10 years old. His mother became the sole breadwinner and single handedly brought up Gordon, his elder brother (private investor) and younger sister (banker).
At a young age, Gordon fended for himself when his mother was busy at work. Because of this he became very independent and always told himself never to regret the decisions he makes but to learn from any mistakes and not to repeat them.
Education
He started his education at St Gabriel’s Primary School and went on to obtain his “O” level from St Gabriel’s Secondary School. He now sits on the school alumni board as an executive committee member, a position he has held for the last 11 years.
After having spent 3 months in a pre-university centre, he decided not to continue with his studies. Gordon instead found his calling in the hospitality industry and went on to obtain the National Trade Certificate Grade 2 (NTC 2) in the Food & Beverage Services from the then Vocational Industrial Training Board (VITB) and the Singapore Hotel Association Training & Educational Centre (SHATEC), where he was awarded a Sliver Medal (The SHA medal for Excellence) in 1988. Since 1993, he has been helping out as a Meet Advisor at the Singapore Hotel Association’s Inter Hotel Athletics Meet.
Career
Upon graduating from SHATEC, he went on to work in the Food & Beverage departments in various hotels, rising to the rank of Captain Senior Operations Manager in 1995.
Gordon is now a Sales Supervisor in charge of strategic accounts with a leading Wine & Spirits company in Singapore.
Why he joined the WP?
Having lived in the Upper Serangoon area for a good 40 years and seeing how the residents in Hougang had stood up for their political beliefs, he decided to contribute to the opposition’s cause. The natural choice for him was the Worker’s Party, whose MP, Mr Low Thia Khiang, has been serving the residents in Hougang since 1991.
Gordon joined the Workers’ Party in May 2006, with the blessings of his family. He is currently the Secretary of the Workers’ Party Welfare Committee and a member of the Hougang Constituency Committee.
Gordon also works closely with the Workers’ Party’s Vice- Chairman, Mohamed Rahizan, on their regular house visits in the north-eastern area of Singapore.
Philosophy
Gordon believes that every journey begins with a single step and that there are no short cuts to success.
Gordon also believes that in order for our nation to be successful and progress into the future, we must have a “check and balance” system. He explains: “This is where the Workers’ Party comes into play. Like the saying goes, ‘You need two hands to clap’. It does not matter if you are the ruling or opposition party; we are all Singaporeans.”
“In time of crises, I will be there carrying arms with my fellow Singaporeans, regardless of our race, religion or political beliefs, protecting my Singapore, family and friends,” he declares.
Gordon is a Roman Catholic and has four daughters.
Age: 32
Background
Frieda is the eldest of two children in a Teochew family. Her father returned to the workforce few years ago after retirement and her mother is a housewife, while her sister ventured to work in Shanghai as product designer two years ago. Frieda attributes her helpful nature to the influence from her dad and late maternal grandfather who were ex-grassroot leaders with the PAP and Residents’ Committee.
Education
Frieda was educated at Boon Lay Garden Primary School, Crescent Girls’ School and Townsville Institute, before she pursued a Bachelor of Arts degree at the National University of Singapore (NUS), graduating with double specialisations in Social Work and Sociology in 2000.
During her pre-university days, Frieda served as the president of the Students’ Council. While at NUS, she joined the NUS Democratic Socialist Club (DSC) where she was elected the Assistant Organising Secretary. She participated in closed-door dialogue sessions with political leaders and was one of the twelve delegates who represented Singapore at the Korea-ASEAN Future-Oriented Cooperation Youth Exchange Programme in 1998.
Career
Upon graduation, Frieda joined an international youth organisation where she worked with local and overseas students, teachers, parents and other youth organisations. She was promoted to Division Coordinator the following year. Within the next two to three years, she was promoted again to Assistant Director and Director of two divisions.
In 2004, Frieda and a group of experienced community development workers founded Life! Community Development Ltd (LCD), a registered charity and VWO committed to promoting local and overseas community development work and volunteerism. Despite being a relatively young player in the field, LCD has gained substantial recognition among the veterans and governments of tsunami-hit areas. Its work was featured on one of the national television programmes overseas.
Since 2005, Frieda has been an Ambassador for the Social Work profession, giving talks and training in schools and to young people. Recently, she joined an international school as Associate Lecturer. Besides teaching, her job as a lecturer allows her to observe and understand the dynamics of foreign students settling in Singapore.
Why did she join the WP?
It was not because of any anti-PAP sentiment that Frieda joined the WP. In fact, she has fond childhood memories of wearing her beige-coloured “RC kid” T-shirt. “I love my country and that’s why I join the WP,” reveals the social worker-cum-educator.
She does not deny that the PAP has performed reasonably well in nation-building, but she feels that Singapore needs strong leaders in parliament who can keep the country progressing through the socio-politico-economic challenges ahead. “Will the newly-elected PAP members who got into parliament courtesy of the ingenious GRC system be able to rise up to challenges ahead?” she asks.
She is convinced that there are many highly credible opposition party members who can do a lot for Singapore. “We need to give these talented opposition party members a level playing field on which to compete,” she says with conviction.
Frieda volunteered her help to the WP Ang Mo Kio team during the General Elections in 2006. Convinced that the Workers’ Party is capable of generating positive dynamics for socio-political change, she joined the party as member in August 2006.
Philosophy
Frieda believes in “Unity in Diversity”. She would like to see a nation-building process where different individuals discover and play their role well in shaping the country’s future. “There can be no room for unchecked fear and political apathy. We should appreciate one another’s differences and help to support, not tear down, one another,” she explains.
Frieda believes we should focus our faith (trust) on facts, rather than on (unchecked) feelings. “Faith is like fuel, which must be fed into the engine of facts, in order for the train to move forward. Pouring faith into the passenger cabin will not move the train,” she explains.
Frieda enjoys studying about human behaviour. Kopitiams and cafes are her favourite hangouts. She enjoys reading, penning her thoughts on paper, and playing badminton, ultimate frisbee and captain’s ball. Recently, she took up Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and acupressure massage. “It is vital to stay healthy; I have not fallen ill for more than year,” she declares.
The year 2006 saw a major revamp of the ‘A’ level syllabus. Among the changes was the inclusion of a compulsory cross-disciplinary subject. This means that all students sitting for the ‘A’ level exams are now required to take a subject from a different stream. Arts students, for instance, must take a subject from the Science stream and vice versa. These changes were on top of the introduction of Project Work, where students have to work in groups on a project which they will then present orally and in a written report at the end of their first year in junior college.
Being in the education sector myself, I have seen how these changes have greatly added to the burden of the students. Yes, it is important to provide our students with a well rounded and balanced education and the brighter ones may find it the perfect way to stretch their minds further and shine.
However, have we forgotten the many students who are already struggling with 3 core ‘A’ level subjects in the previous syllabus? Was the previous system not stressful enough such that we now need to add to their burden? Can we realistically expect an Arts student to be as good in Biology as a student of the Science stream? Or to expect a Science student to be as good in a subject like Literature? Or for a student with a very weak foundation in Mathematics to take the subject at ‘A’ level because that is the only contrasting subject he qualifies for? In addition, having 2 more compulsory subjects has become too heavy a burden for many of our academically weaker students.
These weaker students are already competing with those who can score 4 A’s with minimal effort for the limited places available at the local universities. The weaker students have to play the “catching-up” game throughout their ‘A’ level course, often without much realistic chance of ever catching up. Do we really need to add to their difficulty by constantly raising the basic requirements of the ‘A’ level examinations?
For Project Work, I do agree that the skills that students pick up such as making an oral presentation and working in teams are important ones that they need for the workplace in the future. However, is it necessary to make it another examinable subject? Could the teaching of these required skills not be woven into other ‘A’ level subjects instead? Alternatively, we could make Project Work part of the internal assessment required for promotion from JC1 to JC2, without having to make it an ‘A’ level subject which would affect students’ future i.e. their ability to proceed to university.
In my opinion, these additional subjects, including Project work, should be offered as electives, which give the more academically inclined students a chance to broaden their minds and enjoy a more balanced education from different streams. It will also provide them with an additional opportunity to impress future employers or scholarship panels, just like the current higher level courses offered to potential scholars. Weaker students, on the other hand, may take up these electives only if they feel that they are coping well with their other core subjects, or have a genuine interest in a particular subject of another stream. This will ensure that students still get the chance to study something they like and hence have the best chance to excel.
Some may argue that the ultimate aim should not just be to get to university and obtain a degree, but to broaden the exposure and mindsets of our students and teach them important life skills. However, we all know that an ‘A’ level certificate is in many ways merely a passport to university, so we should give our students the best chance to achieve this ultimate aim.
Hence the ‘A’ level syllabus, in my opinion, deserves another close review to ensure that as many able students as possible will make it to university, and not miss out on the chance just because they have little choice over the subjects they have to take, or because they are over burdened, perhaps unfairly. We need to draw a line between trying to stretch the brightest to their fullest potential, and trying to provide as many opportunities as possible for students to excel in what they are good at.
After all, many of these students are at a stage where they are ready to specialise in an area of study which they like and can excel in. Why “force” them to do something in which they are highly unlikely to find interest and in which they will struggle? After all, nobody is good at everything as we are all different and have different interests.
If students are not able to get into our local universities, many will have little choice but to turn to overseas universities as the next best viable route to getting a degree. Many of them may eventually settle overseas, and this will certainly not help Singapore’s “brain-drain” problem which the government has been working so hard to solve.
When I joined the Workers’ Party in July 2007, my family members weren’t very supportive at first, and my grandparents even advised me to withdraw from the party, “just in case something happens” to me.
Such is the mentality of most Singaporeans. We refuse to stand up for what we believe for fear of “trouble”, especially when it involves opposing the government.
You’ll be glad to hear that other than some problems with the biometric system when I entered Malaysia (which has nothing to do with my involvement in the Workers’ Party), life goes on for me as normal – there has been no “trouble” at all.
Yes, some people were shocked when I told them I was with the Workers’ Party. But, like my family, when they saw that nothing bad had happened to me since I joined the Workers’ Party, they gradually came to terms with it. In fact, some of them have asked me how I thought the government can do better in certain policies, and others have even asked me how they could join the Party.
But why is there this inherent fear associated with opposition politics? Perhaps it can be traced back to the 1960’s, when Operation Coldstore happened. In that year, 117 opposition members and labour union leaders were detained, many of them for up to 17 years. Mr Chia Thye Poh, a member of the Barisan Socialis, was detained for 32 years.
The fact remains that despite Singapore declaring itself as a democratic first-world country, many of us know that our media supports the ruling party, PAP, and this is often reflected in its media coverage and slant. For example, the newspapers and TV have played a big part in painting a glowing picture of the Singapore government, touting it as an incorruptible world-class government that goes beyond its call of duty to take care of its citizens.
Various policies have sprung up and have proven unpopular among many Singaporeans. Yet, I find that such protests and voices of discontent are hardly reported in the media.
With the rise of the New Media, however, a lot of such discontent among Singaporeans has surfaced on the Internet and blogs. Many Singaporeans are now more open to supporting the opposition (albeit merely in cyberspace). It is fine to voice your views online, but we need to do more than just that.
Singaporeans, it is time to stop being a NATO (No Action, Talk Only) person. Join a political party that you believe can help Singaporeans progress in life!
For me, I decided to do something for my country, so I joined the Workers’ Party. If you take that first vital step, you will realise that there is nothing to fear at all.
Once again, Singapore is seeing an upswing of the property market, with private property prices surging 31%, and the HDB resale market rising 17% since early 2007. Although prices have cooled down in the later part of last year, they are still at relatively high levels. More new HDB fl ats have been put on sale with higher price tags, while virtually all resale fl ats in the open market today are selling above valuation.
Rising property prices inevitably make owning a fl at less affordable, especially for young couples who have just started work and are planning to get married.
Opting for a new “build-to-order” (BTO) HDB fl at is one solution, but because of the high values of resale fl ats, there is now a long queue for BTO fl ats; applicants have to wait up to 3 years on average before getting their keys. Those who cannot wait that long have been forced to source for flats in the resale market. Read more
