Don't Let Personal Ambitions Rip Asunder All That Has Been Gained

The very thing that I hoped not to see happening has happened, and it has happened within the leading opposition party in the Singapore political scene.

At a time when the opposition should be building and consolidating on the gains it had achieved in the 2011 General Elections, party in-fighting has emerged within the Workers’ Party (WP).

This in-fighting, which I hope is contained, casts a blemish that may overshadow the WP’s successful campaign to retain Hougang and wrest Aljunied GRC from the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).

The resignation of Eric Tan, a WP veteran, over being passed over for the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) seat is certain to cause disquiet among the opposition parties and possibly even more so among members and supporters of the WP.

This may also provide fodder for the ruling PAP to cast doubts on WP’s ability to serve the people and its First World Parliament slogan.

Although, Eric Tan has claimed that the WP central executive committee’s decision goes against the people’s wishes, it presumes that East Coast GRC voters who voted WP voted for him and not the entire team.

If anything, Eric Tan had probably over-played his cards when he presumed that he would be the automatic choice for the NCMP seat after the team secured 45.17% of the votes, the third best loser in the elections.

However, looking at the bigger picture, WP’s decision to hand Gerald Giam the NCMP seat that their East Coast GRC team was entitled to is probably the right choice. He represents the future of WP.

He had also represented the WP in the ChannelNewsAsia debate which featured Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, and had acquitted himself well despite playing it safe.

Going by how the 2011 General Elections played out, it is very much apparent that the growing number disenfranchised voters is made up of younger and better-educated Singaporeans, a section of the population that a much younger WP representative could better champion as an NCMP.

And with his stint as an NCMP, Gerald Giam would probably be able to build his political credentials by the time the next elections roll by in 2016. He would also only be 39 years old by then, as compared to Eric Tan’s 61 years of age.

Understandably, having contested the elections, there are those among the many who have come forward to offer themselves as a voice of the people who would undeniably feel a strong desire to be part of the highest law making body in the land, even if entry were by the NCMP route.

However, it must be remembered that the privilege to be a voice in Parliament is something that must be bestowed and not claimed – whether it be by the voters at the ballot boxes for elected MPs or by the political party for NCMPs.

I am glad to see that both Yee Jenn Jong and Lina Chiam, the best losers in the Single Member Constituencies of Joo Chiat and Potong Pasir, had deferred to the party instead of presuming their automatic appointment.

As an alternative voice in Parliament, they must always remember that they are there as part of a collective, a collective that has entrusted them with the platform to speak for the party and the causes it champions.

At the end of the day, there has to be a realization that the needs of the many outweigh those of the few, and sometimes personal sacrifices need to be made for the greater good.

GE2011: Where Do We Go From Here?

(Originally posted on 12 May 2011)

With a win of 81 out of 87 parliamentary seats, it would be easy to come to the conclusion that the People’s Action Party won a resounding mandate from voters in the 2011 General Elections.

But when we look at the details of the election results, the win came with only about 60% of the popular votes.

Can we truly say that the people have spoken and said that they want a PAP government to chart the next five years for us?

Does that not ignore the 40%, which is a substantial proportion of the voters, who have indicated their wish for a change?

Some people have asked how is it that the party that had garnered only 60% of the votes occupies 93% of the seats in Parliament.

Blame it on our first-past-the-post system, which is practiced in most modern democracies, where the winner takes all. A simple majority, even the smallest of margins of a single vote, is all it takes for someone to be declared the winner.

However, unlike elections of the past, the 2011 hustings has left the PAP metaphorically bloodied and bruised, despite its victory.

The next five years will be a crucial time for the PAP given the sea change in political awareness and participation by the younger and better educated polity.

The past two elections have seen support for the PAP slipping by 15% and if the party does not change, it would come as no surprise if this downward trend continues.

Adapt, Tansform or ….

The PAP, through its Secretary-General, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, has already indicated that it would do some intense soul-searching and find better ways to reach out and connect with voters.

A promise of reform within the party had also been made, albeit by one of the biggest casualties of the election, former Foreign Minister George Yeo, and it is hoped that the PAP will see the promise through.

For now, these are but words that have been articulated, somewhat like extending an olive branch to assuage the masses. But they must go beyond mere articulations and posturings.

There must be real and measureable change in the party and not just a return to business as usual.  

The cost to the PAP for failing to follow through on what it has said and promised would be very high, especially with an electorate that wants to see words matched with deeds.

Already, there are doubts whether the promised reform would come about, given the loss of the key driver for such a reform.

It is hoped that the PAP would not think that the electorate would soon lose interest as they grapple with their own day-to-day challenges.

However, it is said that a leopard never changes its spots and old habits die hard. I guess only time will tell as will the voters come 2016.

Quality of Life

Despite the call to close ranks now that the elections are over, the real issues affecting Singaporeans are still there and just as real. The government must therefore make good its promise that its overriding priority is to improve the lives of its citizens.

Affordable housing, availability of jobs for Singaporeans and cost of living issues coupled with the growing disquiet over the continued influx of foreigners who compete with Singaporeans for jobs, housing, and places in school, just to name a few, are the bread-and-butter issues that need to be addressed over the course of the next five years.

These issues will not go away overnight but they need to be addressed with a clear Singaporean first approach, something that will probably resonate well with every Singaporean who has invested his life and future in this little red dot.

If these issues are addressed well and lead to a better quality of life for Singaporeans, the prize for the PAP is the possibility of winning over some of the 40% who did not vote for them in 2011.

It would show that the PAP was living up to the reminder that Members of Parliament “are servants of the people not their masters.”

It would show that the PAP was truly and sincerely listening to the people it is elected to serve.

At the end of the day, what the people want is “good government – a government that listens, a government that cares for us the people.”

If it is not going to be delivered by the PAP government, then the people will make their choice clear at the ballot box.

Coming of Age of the Younger Generation

It is hoped that Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s indirect assessment of the election results that the younger generation “does not remember from whence we came” is not reflective of the majority view within the party. If such a view prevails, it would only be much to the detriment of the party.

No one would deny the gratitude we owe to the first generation of leaders who built Singapore into what it is today but as we had been reminded in this recent election, gratitude is not servitude.

To suggest, therefore, that Singaporeans, especially the younger generation, have forgotten their past simply because they voted for the other party, is doing them a disservice.

The younger generation is not only better educated, they are better informed too, able to harness the power of the Internet to access the wealth of knowledge and information out there.

Coupled with the use of new media tools, the younger generation is at the forefront of leading the democratization of knowledge and information.

For them, the past, present and possible futures are but a click away now.

Armed with such knowledge and information, they and the growing legions of the Internet-savvy electorate find themselves able to make informed decisions about their future.

No longer are they affected by the fear-mongering that used to characterize the political landscape of the past.

It’s Up To You

One of the remarkable things that happened during the 2011 election was the confluence of ideas that ultimately made clear what the election was all about – You.

While the PAP had launched it campaign on a platform of leadership renewal, the opposition parties made an immediate connection with voters by making the election very personal for each and every Singaporean.

Both sought to be your voice, argue your cause and pursue your interest in Parliament, but the opposition made for a more convincing case by making you the focus of their campaign. 

The election was after all a battle for the hearts and minds of the electorate – something that the PAP had to admit to in the end.

Although in the end the opposition only won six seats, the much improved margins between the votes that went to the PAP and the opposition parties send a clear signal that the opposition’s case had gained ground.

So, as we go forward into the next five years, let us not forget that this election had brought to bear the very purpose of the democratic process we subscribe to, which is to put into office those we think would best serve our interests.

It is ultimately up to you!

The Times They Are A-Changing . . .

The 2011 General Elections (GE) is over and will go down in history as a landmark election for a number of reasons.

Based simply on the results, the following are the most notable.

For the first time, the Opposition managed to break through the seemingly impregnable Group Representation Constituency (GRC) fortress that the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) had put in place in 1988, and close contests in a number of the GRCs.

The Workers’ Party (WP) secured 54.7% of the popular votes in Aljunied GRC to gain the mandate to serve the residents there for the next five years. To top it off, WP retained its seat in Hougang with an improved resounding mandate of 64.8%.

With a total of six elected representatives in the House of Parliament, WP is well-placed to be the alternative voice of the people and the agents for ‘checks-and-balance’ in government.

The party’s overall performance of 46.6% of their total contested votes also augurs well for the shining star among the opposition parties. In all wards contested by the WP, no less than 41% of the votes went to the party, with as much as 49% of the votes in one constituency.

WP could further increase its voice to eight representatives in Parliament should it subscribe to the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) scheme.

In contrast, the fortunes of another long-standing opposition political icon, Mr Chiam See Tong and his Singapore People’s Party (SPP) did not fare as well.

After serving the constituents of Potong Pasir for the last 27 years, Mr Chiam’s presence in Parliament will no longer be felt. His wife, Mrs Lina Chiam, lost out to PAP’s candidate in the contest for Potong Pasir by the slimmest of margins of 114 votes, while Mr Chiam – in his bid for a GRC – lost out to the PAP team in the Bishan-Toa Payoh ward after securing only 43.1% of the votes.

Even though the SPP was unable to unseat the PAP and was itself unseated, the closest of margins of victory (0.7%) in local electoral history would ensure a continued voice for SPP and its supporters in the House by way of the NCMP scheme, provided the SPP takes it up.

The elections also marked the first time that standing office holders found themselves at the losing end of the voting process. In losing Aljunied GRC, PAP lost Foreign Minister George Yeo and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, as well as the likeable Zainul Abideen Rasheed, who had been touted as the next Speaker of Parliament. The voters had apparently disassociated a candidate’s office from the party branding he/she was carrying.

This election is also be marked by the continuing downward trend of the popular vote for the PAP. Despite winning 81 out of 87 seats, PAP’s share of the total contested votes fell a further 6.5 percentage points to hit a low of 60.1%, even lower than the 61% secured in 1991.

Looking back on the two GEs helmed by PM Lee Hsien Loong, the party has lost a combined total of 15.2 percentage points. If this downward trend remains unabated, it could mean a further decline in the PAP’s share of popular votes come the next elections in 2016.

It will be remembered that the PAP had made reconnecting with the people and internal reform its platform in the closing days of the electoral campaign. Whether it was a desperate last-ditch move to stem the tide of voters going over to the opposition or an astute 11-hour strategy to win back the ground on the recency effect is debatable.

GE2011 will also be remembered for the public apology made by no less than the PM himself for mistakes made by the PAP government. Never before had this happened, especially in the context of an election. It was a gamble of a move to show a more human face by the PAP. The gambit may have paid off, given the PAP victories, albeit by slim margins.

So, now what?

With the elections over, it’s time to get back to the business of government and governing the people for the PAP. But the PAP had also indicated that it will do some soul-searching and studying of how to adapt to the new electorate.

If this effort by the PAP is well-intentioned, it will, of course, be good for the electorate as it could mean that the PAP is trying to go back to its roots of being a people’s party.

The days, months, and years ahead until the run-up to GE 2016 will probably see the PAP being put under constant scrutiny by a much more involved electorate who have now had a taste of a true electoral contest and the power that rests in their vote.

How they fare in the next elections would very much depend on how true they stay to their words. The electorate will certainly make their displeasure heard should they lose their way again.

The opposition too, should not rest on its laurels or languish in defeat. The results of the elections speak volumes of the work that they have done over the last two years, going by the pronouncements made by various opposition parties at the close of the elections.

Riding on the back of the support they received in this election, the parties and their candidates should continue to work the ground they have campaigned in, carving up GRCs into single member wards and assigning shadow MPs to stave the possibility of future redrawing of electoral boundaries, and get to know the people they wish to serve better and let the people get to know them as individuals, party branding aside.

The battle for the hearts and minds of the voters should not just be a once in five years event, it should be a constant and continuing effort with eyes ever on the lookout for the constituents and ears ever on the ground to hear the pulse of the people.

At the end of the day, the end goal of the electoral battle is to gain the right to serve the people, and as the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) had rightly put it from the get go of GE2011, the elections is about you. It is not about party renewal, not about goodies that are after all paid with taxpayers’ money, it is first and foremost about you. Even the PAP had to concede in the end that the elections is about you.

We would do well to remember this as we get on with the business of living and working in this place we call home.

Reflections before a date with destiny . . .

As of 10 pm last night, the curtains came down on the election rallies. The opportunity for the contesting political parties and their candidates to put themselves before the voters to be seen, heard and judged has passed.

Today is meant to be a day for quiet reflection, for us to review all that we have heard and seen, before we head to the polling booths tomorrow to pass our judgement with our votes.

For many, it will be the first time that we are voting and taking part in the parliamentary democracy process of giving the privilege to those amongst us who have come forward to serve the people. Is that not after all the basic and fundamental role of the elected members of parliament?

Unlike past general elections, this election has been different from the very start. Even before Parliament was dissolved, the opposition parties came together and worked out a concerted strategy to take the battle for the hearts and minds of the voters to the ruling party.

By Nomination Day, it was clear that despite wearing different colours, the opposition were single-minded in ensuring that it would be a straight fight between the incumbents and the challengers in all but one constituency. In the end, 82 seats are being contested by 165 candidates. The ruling party was returned unopposed in 5 seats due to a technicality.

That, in itself, had been a victory for the voters. It meant that for the first time since 1972, almost all of us would get to vote, to decide our future, our destiny.

As the election campaign swung into motion, it became clear that this would be a keenly contested election given the candidates the opposition had been able to put on their slate.

What was probably unexpected, especially by the PAP, was the determination and sophistication with which the Opposition seized the initiative. They took up the issues of the day, issues that were close to the hearts of voters, and quickly gained ground.

In contrast, the PAP found themselves having to answer and/or fend off question after question that put on display their track record and sought to hold them accountable. Even the “carrots” presented to voters seemed to gain little traction with masses who had had enough of ‘more of the same’.

If attendance at election rallies were a benchmark of support for the challengers, it was clear who was ahead in the hustings. It helped that voters were eager to hear alternative views instead of the same scripted lines.

By mid-campaign, the challengers had not only seized the initiative but also the agenda as the PAP found itself forced to make a number of adjustments to its battle plans.

From dangling multi-million dollar upgrading carrots in front of the voters (along with the veiled threat of withholding the upgrading if voters did not vote for PAP) and casting doubts about the character, quality and capability of the Opposition candidates, as had been the case in past elections, the PAP found itself having to change tack and make overnight promises of policy reviews in housing and education in response to the ever growing number of voices that identified with the Opposition’s cause.

In what was probably a surprise to many, was the PAP’s apology and admission that it had made mistakes towards the close of the election campaign.

Never before had this happened. As far as I can remember, the PAP had never admitted to being fallible, especially in the course of an election campaign. Cracks were beginning to emerge, and the PAP had to switch from its logical-rational approach to trying to make an emotional connection with the voters.

But many found this to be unfamiliar territory for the PAP and questioned the sincerity of the apology and wondered if it was merely a campaign ploy, especially since it was followed by one of the party’s candidates shedding tears at a rally and the posting of an emotive video on the Internet.

And finally, at the close of the election campaign, it was especially notable that the PAP was beginning to borrow lines from the Opposition. From its original positioning of the election as a leadership renewal process, the party now found itself mirroring what the Opposition had all along been saying, that the elections was about us, the voters and our families.

In contrast, the Opposition had been steadfast in its approach and strategy, it stuck to the issues, it reached out and struck the right emotional notes that resonated with the masses. No longer just speaking in rhetoric, the Opposition offered concrete plans for voters to consider as they ponder their future.

The Opposition reminded voters that they seek the privilege to serve, not rule, the people, the constituents. They seek to establish a social contract with the voters, and through such a contract, be their voice in Parliament.

With the campaigning over, it really is up to us, the voters, to make the right choice. Do we simply stay with the familiar and hope that the change we want will come about, or do we take that leap of faith and take charge of the change we want to see?

Gandhi is reported to have said: “Be the change that you want to see in the world.”

Change starts with you… and me!

Identities in Changing Contexts: Whither the Singapore Identity?

Excerpt of a paper I delivered at the Asia-Pacific Youth Forum in Nago, Okinawa, 5-14 December 1997. Even though it's more than a decade since I wrote it, the main thrust is still holds relevance today.

As a researcher, I find Singapore’s experience with ethnic-based community self-help organisations (CSHG) an interesting area for study in relation to the country's efforts to build a national identity. The promotion of CSHGs since the early 1990’s seems at odds with the moulding of a national identity.

What started out as a focused effort to improve the educational achievements of the Malay community with the establishment of Yayasan Mendaki in 1981, spawned a series of similarly constituted CSHGs beginning in the early 1990s with the Association of Muslim Professionals followed by the Chinese Development Assistance Council, the Singapore Indian Development Association and the Eurasian Association.

With each organisation catering to their own community, one cannot help wonder if this will only serve to further delineate Singapore society along racial lines, with each being more acutely aware of their sense of communal identity.

Singapore’s history suggests that the government had wanted to play down the sense of ethnic differences through its policy of multiracialism, multiculturalism and the practice of meritocracy where everyone was judged on the basis of their ability rather than their race.

A question that bears asking, therefore, is, can a Singapore identity ever evolve? Is it at all possible to establish a homogenous national identity for Singapore?

It would be easy to suggest that the answer is an emphatic 'No'. We are all too acutely aware of our own ethnic identities to ever allow it to be subsumed or even assimilated into a single identity.

The notion of identifying ourselves along the Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others (CMIO) framework is very much entrenched in our psyche and looks to stay for quite some time yet. Its most overt representation being found in our identity cards. Maybe this is something that cannot be avoided in a heterogenous society like ours.

Yet, strangely enough, when we go abroad, we tend to identify ourselves as Singaporeans, as a people from one country, having a uniquely distinct identity despite our ethnic differences. How does one explain this apparent paradox? How is it possible that the very people who see themselves as being Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others at home, suddenly adopt a super-identity, Singaporean?

It has been suggested that this strange paradox was borne of the fact that Singapore’s birth as a nation was not quite what was intended at that time. The early and mid-1960s was quite a tumultuous time for the region and especially so for Singapore. Race relations were very fragile following the outbreak of riots in 1964 and later in 1969.

While the government publicly strove to bind the people together through multiracialism and meritocracy, the private domains of the people were very much left untouched, each allowed to develop on their own. Hence, each community saw the rest as the ‘other’.

This sense of otherness may offer some explanation as to why Singaporeans tend to see themselves as distinct communities at home and as one people, one nation when abroad.

While Singapore has generally been structured along racial lines since its colonisation by the British, her economic prosperity and development has also seen the emergence of class stratification.

But even before this, other dichotomies have existed such as majority vs. minority, vernacular vs. English-educated, the local vs. overseas graduate, Asian vs. Western values, to name a few. These dichotomies suggests that at one point or another, every Singaporean could undeniably feel themselves to be marginalised.

With not golden past to return to, save those primordial links to our ethnic identities, it became logical for Singapore to be a nation of many races, many faces. But with the emergence of class as a distinct means of dividing society, racial lines are beginning to be blurred.

It has been argued that this stratification of society has been the direct result of the practice of meritocracy in Singapore. While it served Singapore well in its early years to ensure rapid economic progress and rewards for those who worked hard, it has, as a consequence, produced a society driven by material gains.

This is clearly evident by the standard and cost of living in Singapore and the aspirations of its people – the five C’s (Career, Credit Card, Car, Condominium and Country Club) being an example. This is a concern because if the class divide should become entrenched, it could result in social sedimentation and the formation of a permanent underclass.

So, with so many different factors to consider, is it at all possible to create a common identity for a nation like Singapore? Or are we fighting a losing battle? I hope not.

If our annual national day celebrations can be used as a benchmark, I am quite optimistic. It is quite moving to see people of different class, race and creed coming together in one voice, in unity, in praise of their nation. Somehow they manage to cast aside their differences to see themselves as Singaporeans.

But this is only one occasion.

There are still many hurdles to clear before we can truly say we are one nation, one people.

Maybe, that is the uniqueness of Singapore. Maybe our lack of a common supra-culture is what defines us as Singapore and being Singaporean. And in this ever globalized world, this special characteristic, this diversity may be what will see us through.

To whose drum beat does the public sector dance?

For the first time since the 1972 general elections, the most number of parliamentary seats are up for grabs – 82 out of 87 are being contested. The possibility of the PAP losing some seats looks very real. Casualties could include ministers and chairmen of town councils.


This presents an interesting scenario for the public sector, especially the Civil Service and Town Councils.


Both have long been closely associated with the ruling party. But, if you ask me, they should not be beholden to any party. Their accountability should be to the citizens whom they are expected to serve.


For the Civil Service, this association is a consequence of the long-standing dominance of the PAP as the government of the day and the absorption of senior civil servants into the ranks of the party when the General Elections roll by.


Town Councils too, are a construct of the PAP-led government to allow for some semblance of local/municipal government. For now, all but two town councils are currently managed by PAP Members of Parliament.


However, even if the town councils came into being through the initiative of the PAP-led government, should these town councils be beholden to the party?


For me, the answer is an emphatic 'No'. Town council are, first and foremost, there to serve the needs of residents, not the party.


While the reins have seemingly been handed over to caretakers while the politicians seek a new mandate, the partisanship of the town councils are quite obvious and it does not look like it is going to go away.


Gazing ahead past 7 May, and embracing the possibility of the electorate voting in more opposition MPs and giving the PAP less than the simple majority it needs to form the government, what would this mean for the Civil Service and Town Councils?


How will the Civil Service navigate the new political landscape in the event of the formation of a coalition government? How can we, the citizens, be assured that the bureaucracy will support all members of the new government with integrity, service and excellence, irrespective of their party affiliation?


Even if the PAP secured enough seats to form the government, the same dictum apply, that is, the Civil Service should provide all MPs with the same level of support and access to information, irrespective of their political affiliation.


Despite the Civil Service’s assertion of its party neutrality, one cannot help but wonder if this bureaucracy can be truly neutral given its links with former civil servants who crossed the divide to carry the PAP’s agenda and who in many cases become political office holders within the government ministries they once served.


Closer to the heartlands, can we be assured that Town Councils will extend their full cooperation to whomever gains the mandate of the electorate? It would be ungracious if Town Council officials refuse to work with the non-PAP MPs returned by the electorate on the basis that their allegiance was to the PAP.  


Let us hope that should the outcome of the elections not favor the incumbents, it would not lead to a form of denial-of-services whereby citizens’ needs become collateral damage.


It would be in the interest of the nation as a whole for public service structures to continue to serve the needs of the citizens, irrespective of who the political driver(s) may be.

Making My Vote Count!

Never before in my 26 years as an adult, have I felt such a heightened sense of anticipation and expectation with just two days to go before I go to the polls. Come 7 May, I will have my first real opportunity of choosing who will be my voice in Parliament.

Along with me will be 2.3 million voters who make up the constituents of the 82 contested seats. Each of us will be exercising our rights to determine the future of our country, our home, our family for the next five years.

Our votes, my vote is therefore precious.

This election is truly about us – a cause the opposition has championed quite convincingly judging by the response and reactions of the crowds at their rallies.

In past elections, the choice for most of us would have been very simple and obvious. However, as the ruling party has not really faced a real fight nor have we had to exercise our rights at the ballot box in the past, that’s an untested assumption.

We now sit on the cusp of an historical moment in our political history, of being able to elect a new government, with the possibility of putting in place a multi-party government of the people, for the people.

By all accounts, the era of the dominant one-party government seems to be close to an end given the evolution of the opposition political parties into credible vehicles to carry the voices of the people.

Judging by the slate of candidates who have come forward to serve the people on an opposition ticket, I cannot help but feel that the political landscape has come of age.

Most notable are the credentials that these candidates bring with them – scholars, academics, professionals, just to name a few. Articulate, eloquent, effusive, informed, measured, nuanced, passionate are some of the adjectives that come to mind when I think about the opposition candidates – even the political newbies among them.

Despite early hiccups in carving out where they would contest, they got organized, made bold moves, and took the fight to the incumbents. They zeroed in on the issues, demonstrated their connectedness with the ground, and stayed their course despite the many attempts of the ruling party to derail their cause.

Never before have I seen the ruling party forced to retreat into a defensive stance as they found themselves flooded by the opposition with questions that demanded answers. Answers that had to be cobbled quickly, effectively forcing the party into a reactive stance. Confidence has given way to a sense of resignation that the opposition had been underestimated.

From a focus on leadership renewal, the campaign shifted to dangling upgrading carrots and casting doubts on the opposition candidates and their plans. But when it became apparent that the opposition was making a lot of headway in the contested GRCs despite the attacks, the focus shifted to defending their key candidates and then lately shifting to an attempt at connecting with voters by way of apologizing for mistakes made over the last five years.

Is this apology a timely move on the part of the ruling party or has it come too late?

With just a couple of day to the end of the election campaign, I cannot help but feel that it has come too little, too late. Voters have long memories and coupled with the astute moves of the opposition to play on our collective memories, the apology would probably hold little sway with voters.

Taking everything into consideration, this General Election will truly be a watershed election, with the possibility of surpassing even earlier past opposition gains in 1981 (Anson), 1984 (Anson and Potong Pasir) and 1991 (Bukit Gombak, Nee Soon Central, Potong Pasir and Hougang).

With friends contesting on both sides of the political divide, I kept an open mind but having weighed in everything that I have heard, seen and read, I know with certainty who will get my vote come 7 May.

Majulah Singapura!