Pondering over what MM Lee said

Seriously thinking through what MM Lee has said as reported in ST today. All part and parcel of figuring out how I ought to vote on May 7. I am quite tired of all these. It was never as complicated the last time I had to cast my vote. And the GRC system makes it worse as the stakes are much higher.

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has an answer for voters who ask what else the Government can do to ease their pressure over the rising cost of living: It can give out more.

That’s true, but more important must communicate that it can be and is so. I think he thinks it is too hard to explain to most people to be worth it. Might even backfire.

But to do so, it needs to grow the economic pie. And this requires a capable government to run the country - which means the People's Action Party (PAP), as no opposition party is able to assemble a team close to the quality of the PAP's.

Immediately yes, but a quality alternative takes time and I don’t believe we are capable of producing only one team. Problem is as this alternative tries to mature into that role, it might be stumbling the sitting government. It must behave responsibly, but would it?

Mr Lee acknowledged voters' concerns over high living costs. But these are due to 'higher food prices elsewhere, as a result of higher oil prices, which is reflected in transportation costs for cars, buses and electricity'.

Yes and no. No because we do not allow the SGD to strengthen enough to keep prices down. Yes for those commodities with supply/demand imbalance and/or speculative excess in futures markets. More important, it is the Chinese refusal to adjust their currency in the face of USD weakness. Again, we are a price taker.

He disagreed that PAP policies have raised costs or widened the income gap. Instead, its policies have helped Singapore ride on a 'rising tide' - but not all boats have risen equally.

Yes, it is our preferred economics of land that have raise cost throughout the economy especially for the average and bottom consumer….

For those concerned about falling behind, the Government has Workfare for the low-income. For the majority, it has shared the benefits of growth by giving back rebates and dividends worth up to 'a few thousand dollars per person' in the U-Save and Grow and Share package.

Beats not getting any help but it is very demoralizing and aspiration destroying especially against successful foreigners both at work and school. Make them feel second class. Always you want to earn these “free money” than to be given. Why you aren’t earning it is unhealthy.

'After the financial crisis, last year we grew 14.4 per cent, so we have the cash to give this Growth and Share package. Without that, there will be very little to share,' he said.

Better you help me earn these money for myself and in this way, I am hopeful that my children can also earn their way without extraordinary support from the government. This handouts is a really bad habit.

'The trouble is, young Singaporeans don't know the past,' he said. 'They do not know how vulnerable currencies are if they don't have solid reserves and a stable, strong government.'

Come on, actually mostly it is the financially savvy that know this. Why aren’t our kids educated in school about this? They become voters that are ignorant of this most important truth.

He lamented that the younger generation does not understand the need for an exceptional team to lead Singapore.

This exceptional team had failed to meet their expectation especially when we feel that we have become worse off. We can even prove that we indeed are. This has given alternatives, i.e., the opposition the golden opportunity to come in. We also have no confidence that we can do better staying on this course.

'It is a footloose generation that has not experienced the past and believes that Singapore is now an aeroplane that is flying safely and can go on autopilot and anybody can take over,' he said.

'But I don't happen to believe that. I think we'll run into all kinds of bad weather and you need capable people in charge.'

This smacks of the typical older to younger generation communication style. It doesn’t work.

He warned voters that the opposition seeks not only to be a check on the PAP Government, but also to trip it up and eventually take over to form the Government.

Alas, I wonder how many voters actually want this to happen because they are not happy with the government.

The Workers' Party's ambition, he said, is not just to win one GRC. 'Let's have no hypocrisy about this: Every political party sets out to win, and win a majority - and they're setting out from a single constituency to a GRC, and then to expand to more GRCs, and to take over.'

Don’t we already know this? They admitted as much that they want to grow themselves into that role. The specifics and strategies on getting there, we wouldn’t know and there is always a risk that we might not like it. In which case, we would vote out whoever we think had been irresponsible.

The trouble is that they lack the people who could do the job, he said.

'Low Thia Khiang, he wants to be the co-driver. What does he really want? He wants to take over.

'So I'll ask him, who's going to be his finance minister, his defence minister, his minister for trade and industry, his foreign minister? And who is his prime minister?

'It's up to you to decide whether they're capable of running Singapore.'

He dismissed the suggestion that an elected opposition is needed to maintain checks and balances on the PAP.

It would be helpful if he provides some examples of how the two groups might play. I guess some people don’t need it. The vote count will tell.

'Let me put it simply: Do you want a First World government? What is important? A First World government, or a Second World government with a First World opposition?

If this is a first world government in which we feel we are not better off, and worse we are second fiddlers to foreigners, naturally we want to wish for better and the only way is to examine the opposition for an alternative.

'And I don't think we've got a First World opposition yet. And from 1966 to 1981, there was not one opposition MP and the PAP remained incorrupt, completely dedicated to the job, and made great progress and brought Singapore up to a higher level.

Only a good debating point because the circumstances today is far more challenging and difficult. The PAP doesn’t seem to be up to it. It has been reduced to crossing the river by feeling the pebbles underneath. It used to show far more foresight.

'That is our record. You look at the growth rates from 1965 to 1981. That's my answer. The character of the PAP has not changed. It's incorrupt, it's efficient, it's all-inclusive.'

I don’t doubt its desire to be all-inclusive but I see how it struggles and fail to achieve that. If it were corrupt and inefficient, that’s terrible. However what is the use when it is more clueless than before?