General Election 2011 has attracted many comments and debates circulating around online. Information is not just restricted to newspaper prints, as social media such as facebook, twitter and youtube etc ensure easy access to the latest news on GE2011. As similar to the past, the elections have generated many attention. However, what is different is that the opposition parties are contesting 82 out of 87 seats available in parliament. Public disgruntlements against the ruling party have risen significantly as the campaign is reaching to its peak. One just needs to check his/her facebook news feed to look out for the anti-PAP sentiments posted to justify the current phenomenon. It seems that joining this 'anti-PAP bashing' bandwagon is the norm. Suddenly, the PAP has become a convenient scapegoat, bearing the brunt of accusations, backlashes from mistakes emanating from the outcomes of policies sanctioned by the government. Personally, I find all these intriguing. From my perspective, it seems that the General Election has become a channel for Singaporeans from all walks of life to release their pent-up frustration.It smashes the allegation that Singaporeans, especially the youth, are apathetic towards politics and what is going on in their country.

I started following up the news of General Elections immediately after my semestral exams ended on April 29th. As a Singaporean, the thought of being able to exercise my voting rights for the first time excites me. What makes it more exhilarating is that my GRC, which is Aljunied GRC, is arguably the battleground where the most pulsating contest is taking place between the incumbents led by Foreign Minister George Yeo against the 'A' team led by Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim of the Workers' Party. In this post, I would like to pen down my thoughts and opinions of both the incumbents (PAP) and the opposition side (by the word opposition, it means I have collectively group all political parties which are not associated with the PAP together. However, I will single out specific opposition figures or parties to substantiate my points). I would like to assess both sides in terms of personal calibre, political issues raised, track records (which I will only focus on the incumbents and challengers of Aljunied GRC)and last but not least, the main political rallying call by the PAP and WP respectively.

Firstly, calibre can be judged according to the educational qualifications and the way speeches are delivered by candidates of both the PAP and the opposition side. For educational qualifications, overall I would say most candidates are highly educated. There are several NUS alumni, such as Nicole Seah, Pritam Singh (who majored in history), Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim, and not to forget, Ms Kate Spade aka TPL. The most conspicuous person armed with impressive educational feats is none other than Chen Show Mao. Nonetheless, having supple educational qualifications do not necessary translates to being a good politician. In other words, a good politician should not be judged just by his educational qualifications alone. Chiam See Tong is a good illustration of this.

Indeed arming with good educational credentials does not mean that a person can deliver what he/she intends to bring across to the public. I am particularly unimpressed by the NTU undergrad from the Reform Party, especially his speech on 1st May. Besides committing ungrammatical errors and being a bundle of nerves who stumbles along his words, his arguments were absolutely unconvincing. Yes, it takes tremendous courage to stand out and speak in front of the public. However, one must be mindful that this is a public rally, not some campus election for presidency of a club or something. Some of the men in white fell short of expectations too, especially the guy who told a story of trees and wild mushrooms. I was like wth, someone please give me an axe to allow me to chop off his trees. We want to hear a speech, not some bedtime story. Another man delivered a speech with no clear agenda, continuously reiterating the same old stuffs about having the passion and compassion to lead. What was worse was that he even resorted to Chinese 7th month bidding style in the end, shouting each of the candidates' names in his team but with lukewarm response. It was epic failure and I couldn't help but laugh whenever I watched that video. Definitely a good stress reliver. In my opinion, the speakers who left a deep impression in this GE2011 are NSP's Nicole Seah, WP's Pritam Singh, PAP's George Yeo and SDP's Michelle Lee and Vincent Wijeysingha.

Secondly, the political issues raised in the campaigns strike a chord with many concerned Singaporeans. The opposition has managed to pick every flaw and magnify it, to the rousing applause of many people who attend the rallies. Precisely the job of the opposition is to criticise the government, for being less perfect than it may claim itself to be. That is why opposition rallies attract the largest number of crowd as compared to PAP rallies, because concerned voters identify more easily with those who portray themselves as representatives of people. Issues at heart are the concern of rising costs of living, widening income disparity between the rich and the poor (in which ministerial salary is being scrutinized), influx of foreigners, GRC system etc. I appreciate the opposition parties who dared to bring up issues that are of real concern to many Singaporeans out there. However, I have my doubts over the feasibility of some of the proposals dished out by the opposition on how to eradicate or minimise existing problems.

One of the SDP candidates proposed the drawing out of SGD60 billion out from our reserves as funds for an alternative economic proposal. I am not very sure if this guy knows what he is talking. Mind you, the money in our reserves belong to the efforts of Singaporeans from the past till to the present. These money are meant to be saved up for rainy days, for unexpected crisis that may occur such as economic downturns. It is certainly not an ATM, whereby one can draw money out easily and claims it is a 'small change'. Does he even know that our currency value will depreciate as a result?

Next, NSP and SDP propose the reduction of national service duration, possibly to 1.5 years or even 1 year. From the perspective of a man who has served his mandatory 2 year national service, I feel that there is a need for national service. Like many others, I do complained at times how NS robbed 2 years of our precious time away. Despite such grouses, I am not against the idea of national service and I think 2 years are a reasonable length of time for soldiers to learn some necessary military and life skills that can be applicable in future. Do not forget that Singapore is a small country with no natural resources except its population. There is a need for citizen-soldiers who are adequately prepared to defend our country. If war or outbreaks of conflict really happen, who is going to defend our country? We can't possibily depend solely on mercenaries right? 1.5 or 1 year of NS is insufficient for a man to be properly trained. It is going to be a waste of resources and tax payers' money. Cutting on military expenditure has its repercussions, in which the compromise of our standard of the military we have currently is going to be palpable.

In regards to the widening income disparity, this is a worldwide phenomenon in which Singapore is not the exceptional case. The rich are getting richer, whereas the poor are being stuck in a rut. The government is accused of neglecting the poor while its ministers are getting fat pay check. Opposition parties have come up with several plans to help the poor, such as unemployment insurance. In my opinion, I feel that indeed the poor has to be helped. They should not be forgotten and left as social outcasts at the expense of our burgeoning economy. Nonetheless, cases should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, so as to determine how help can be rendered more efficiently and effectively. I think there is a need for people to know that our country is not a communist or socialist country, whereby everyone receives equal salary and food regardless of educational qualifications or social status. Nobody owes anybody a living. All of us have to strive hard in order to succeed in life; in order to attain our goals. Imagine a person who is healthy with four limbs. He goes around begging and sleeps in community parks. Do you think it is fair to blame the government for his plight? Seriously I don't think so. If he is able-bodied, why can't he find a proper job such as being a cleaner? No matter how meagre the pay is, at least it is an honest job. If a middle-income person complains about how envious he feels whenever he sees the rich enjoying luxuries which he himself may have to slog for ages to afford them, can he blame the government for his current situation? Again, I do not think so. My point is, everyone has a chance to succeed in life. Some may be more privileged than the others. For instance, some may be born in rich families that allowed them to take over families' businesses, connections with heavy-weight names that ensure them a bright future. But must we really viewed matters with a jaundiced eye? Are these the only routes to success and ensuring a fat pay check? This links to the next point which is ministerial salary. People complain about ministers getting millions while poor is left to suffer. The poor should be helped, but as I mentioned above, they should not be led to the false assumption that the government is responsible for everything in their life. Certainly not to the extent of allowing the breeding of complacency and laziness. People are red-eyed over ministerial salary. But seriously, is being a politician and a MP the only route to getting such a fat pay check? Moreover, as long as these salaries ensure that the ministers are incorrupt, efficient and do a good job in securing our nation's prosperity and harmony, I have no strong issues against them receiving what is justifiable for their efforts in running the country.

On the other hand, it does not mean that the men in white are totally absolved from all blame. Like many Singaporeans, I am especially concerned with the rising costs of food and basic necessities, as well as the influx of foreigners. I am going to graduate soon. I foresee myself getting married, settle down and start a family with someone whom I wish to spend the rest of my life with. However, I would certainly ponder over how many number of children to have like many other pragmatic Singaporeans. Definitely it has nothing to do with the lack of intimacies in the bedrooms, but more of considerations to rising costs such as education fees, food, necessities etc. The government has to come up with plans to mitigate rising costs if it wishes to convince more Singaporeans to have more children. Bringing in large number of foreigners to boost the population is not going to solve the root of the problem. Yes we need foreign workers to build our houses, clean our roads, clear our dishes at hawker centres etc. Yes we need foreign talents who may be equipped with the relevant expertise that not many locals may have; and that these foreign talents are useful to train locals to succeed them one day. However, there must be a quota for the number of foreigners allowed in Singapore. Frankly, sometimes I feel like a tourist in my own country when I turn around and look at the number of foreigners jostling for spaces in public transports and communal areas. We need foreigners, but not to the expense of Singaporeans being relegated to being 2nd class citizens and feeling inferior. What is the criteria for immigrants who wish to settle in Singapore? What is the limit of the number of foreigners allowed into Singapore? The opposition has accused the PAP of making use of the GRC system for its gerrymandering purposes, while the PAP has insisted that this system ensure that minorities are represented. While I certainly do not doubt that minorities' voices are being heard through the stepping up of Malay and Indian MPs, nonetheless there is an element of truth that the changing electoral districts sanctioned by the PAP after past elections fueled such suspicion. I am uncomfortable with the sight of untested candidates riding on the coattails of ministers and getting seats into parliament with particular reference to Ms Kate Spade and that uncontested ex-general. On what criteria is the changing of electoral districts justified? On what basis are potential candidates assessed to determine whether they are eligible to stand for MPs?
These issues should be addressed.

Thirdly, I would like to address the track records of political candidates. As it is almost impossible to examine each and every political candidate from the diverse political parties out there, I will just focus on the incumbent MPs and potential WP MPs of Aljunied GRC. There is no reason to doubt the calibre, sincerity of both sides. They had promised to work hard to earn the trust of Aljunied residents and had came up with plans on how Aljunied GRC will be transformed if they are elected. Aljunied GRC is the focus of this elections. It is particularly intriguing, due to the fact that WP has focused its heavyweights to contest here, with the likes of Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim and Chen Show Mao. Low surprises everyone when he decides to leave his Hougang stronghold to contest here. Indeed he is taking a big gamble, because there is a possibility that the PAP will make a clean sweap of seats in parliament. That is why how Aljunied voters will vote is being scrutinized. But I think it is not fair us to vote just for the sake of ensuring there is more opposition voices in parliament. Like other residents in GRCs and SMCs, Aljunied voters have the right to discern which party is capable of not just securing national interests, but also be able to manage the area efficiently and effectively.

Low has proven adept to running a town council, given that Hougang really does not look like slum. Lim knows about Aljunied, since she was here 5 years ago and has been keeping in touch with Aljunied residents for the past 8 years as she has claimed. However, I cannot be certain of the other members in their team. Take Chen Show Mao for instance. He had been away for 30 years. Yes he is highly educated and no doubt he closed great IPO dealings. But how much does he knows about Aljunied? Does he really knows what the residents want? Pritam can talk and has the charisma (he reminds me of Obama), but can he deliver?

On the other hand, the incumbent MPs led by George Yeo, have been here for a considerable length of time. My family and I shifted to our current location 8 years ago. I would say I am pretty satisfied with the upgradings of facilities managed by the current town council headed by Cynthia Phua. George Yeo is our foreign minister, who has proven to be a competent foreign minister who help Singapore to foster good foreign relations with other countries. Lim Hwee Hua is our first full-fledged female MP, who resolved the dormitory issue at Serangoon Gardens successfully. The other two members, they have established their own niche in their fields of work.

Last but not least, I will talk about the political rallying calls both the PAP and WP respectively. PAP's main election slogan is 'securing the future together', whereas it is 'towards the first world parliament' by WP. Let's talk about WP first. I agree with the need of having the presence of opposition parties to act as check and balance. This is to ensure that the ruling government does not get away with policies it deem fit as it likes without consulting the majority of Singaporeans. Definitely, if given a choice, I would like to see the likes of Nicole Seah, LTK, Sylvia Lim, Michelle Lee etc in parliament. The slogan 'first world parliament', implies that a 21st century government should not be a dictatorial one. In other words, it should not be managed by only members of a political party, but to ensure that alternative voices can be heard as well. Multi-party parliament can exist, in which there can be unity among diversity, as argued by the analogy of having a co-driver beside the driver. This is an idealistic notion, and realistically speaking, is it really feasible for Singapore? What if our parliament turns out to be like those in Taiwan, where fightings only broke out due to disagreements? Will the co-driver be merely contented to act as a guide and serve as a check to remind the driver of his duties? Or will it plot against the driver so as to take over the wheel one day? Can Singapore continue its prosperity under these people? Let's say they manage to take over the wheel and form an alternative government, can they do a better job than the existing incumbents?

PAP's main slogan is 'securing the future together'. I think this future should not be solely directed by the PAP alone. The ruling government must recognised that Singaporeans are no longer apathetic and docile to conformity; to simply obey what is being laid out. I am glad the PM and George Yeo have recognised this fact. There is a need for a more compassionate and understanding government who seeks opinions from its citizens. This is to allow citizens to feel like they belong in this country; being valued for their constructive opinions, instead of just owning a HDB flat and make to feel like they have a stake in this country. The PM has apologised on behalf of the government, that incumbents are humans as well who commit mistakes. I do agree with that. No human beings are infallible; no one is perfect. Our government is made up of mere mortals who learn from mistakes and improve along the way. I would like to give them the benefit of doubt based on this. I think deep down, people appreciate the PAP for their contributions to nation-building. Imagine, if not for LKY and the PAP old guard, we would still be part of Malaysia and remained as 2nd class citizens. However, times have changed. What came as charismatic and authoritative leadership style are being viewed as arrogance and complacency in the present era. LKY's 'repent message' to Aljunied residents definitely aroused some displeasure. I am uncomfortable with it too. Hence, while we appreciate 'hardwares', 'heartwares' should not be neglected too. Will the PAP really seek to humbly listen to people's opinions and tackle issues concerning the majority at heart? Or will it still be as authoritative like before if given a clear mandate to continue ruling?

This long post is just my personal thoughts on GE2011. It is definitely not exhaustive, but merely some of the points which I feel strongly on. To conclude, I would like to say everyone is entitled to their own opinions on who to vote for. Regardless of the PAP or the opposition parties, both sides have their merits and demerits. Ultimately, the party which one votes for should be able to strike a better balance between looking after the welfare of its constituency residents and securing national interests in the long run.

Vote wisely everyone! We have a choice!