50 reasons not to vote PAP

last SG · 2009-12-14T22:58:22+00:00

Last time MP go door to door to ask whether people ok ar not.Now you got a problem you do to their office and for some reasons they are not in.So the next t...

Kawasaki kotobuki denshi SG

Events leading to the revolt

The revolt was precipitated by heavy-handed attempts to enforce the third poll tax, first levied in 1377 supposedly to finance military campaigns overseas — a continuation of the Hundred Years' War initiated by King Edward III of England. The third poll tax was not levied at a flat rate (as in 1377) nor according to schedule^{[clarification
needed]} (as in 1379); instead it allowed some of the poor to pay a reduced rate, while others who were equally poor had to pay the full tax, prompting calls of injustice. The tax was set at 3 groats (equivalent to 12 pence or 1 shilling) compared with the 1377 rate of 1 groat (4 pence). The youth of King Richard II (aged only 14) was another reason for the uprising: a group of unpopular men ruled in his stead. These included John of Gaunt (the acting regent), Simon Sudbury (Lord Chancellor and Archbishop of Canterbury, who was the figurehead to what many then saw as a corrupt Church) and Sir Robert Hales (the Lord Treasurer, responsible for the poll tax). Many saw them as corrupt officials, trying to exploit the weakness of the King.^{[citation
needed]}

The Black Death that ravaged England in 1348 and 1349 had greatly reduced the labour force, and consequently the surviving labourers could demand higher wages and fewer hours of work. Some asked for their freedom. They often got what they asked for: the lords of the manors were desperate for people to farm their land and tend their animals. Then, in 1351, King Edward III summoned parliament to pass the Statute of Labourers. The Statute attempted to curb the demands for better terms of employment by pegging wages to pre-plague levels and restricting the mobility of labour; however the probable effect was that labourers employed by lords were effectively exempted, while labourers working for other employers, both artisans and more substantial peasants, were liable to be fined or held in the stocks. The enforcement of the new law angered the peasants greatly and formed another reason for the revolt.

Incidents in the Essex villages of Fobbing ^[1] and Brentwood triggered the uprising. On 30 May 1381, John^[2] or Thomas^[3] Bampton^[4] attempted to collect the poll tax from villagers at Fobbing. The villagers, led by Thomas Baker, a local landowner, told Bampton that they would give him nothing, and he was forced to leave the village empty-handed. Robert Belknap (Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas) was sent to investigate the incident and to punish the offenders. On 2 June, he was attacked at Brentwood. By this time the violent discontent had spread, and the counties of Essex and Kent were in full revolt. Soon people moved on London in an armed uprising.^[5]

In June 1381, Kentish rebels formed behind Wat Tyler and marched on London to join the Essex contingent. When the Kentish rebels arrived at Blackheath on June 12, the renegade Lollard priest, John Ball, preached a sermon including the famous question that has echoed down the centuries: "When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?"^[6] (i.e. "Back in the Garden of Eden, were there any class distinctions?") The following day the rebels, encouraged by the sermon, crossed London Bridge into the heart of the city. Meanwhile the 'Men of Essex' had gathered with Jack Straw at Great Baddow and had marched on London, arriving at Stepney. Instead of a full-scale riot, there were only systematic attacks on certain properties, many of them associated with John of Gaunt and/or the Hospitaller Order. On June 14, the rebels are reputed to have been met by the young king himself, and, led by Richard of Wallingford, to have presented him with a series of demands, including the dismissal of some of his more unpopular ministers and the effective abolition of serfdom. One of the more intriguing demands of the peasants was "that there should be no law within the realm save the law of Winchester". This is often said to refer to the statutes of the Charter of Winchester (1251), though it is sometimes considered to be a reference to the more equitable days of King Alfred the Great, when Winchester was the capital of England.

At the same time, a group of rebels stormed the Tower of London and summarily executed those hiding there, including the Lord Chancellor (Simon of Sudbury, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was particularly associated with the poll tax), and the Lord Treasurer (Robert de Hales, the Grand Prior of the Knights Hospitallers of England). The Savoy Palace of the king's uncle John of Gaunt was one of the London buildings destroyed by the rioters.

At Smithfield on the following day, further negotiations with the king were arranged, but on this occasion the meeting did not go according to plan. Wat Tyler rode ahead to talk to the King and his party. Tyler, it is alleged by the chroniclers, behaved most belligerently and dismounted his horse and called for a drink most rudely. In the ensuing dispute, Tyler drew his dagger and William Walworth, the Lord Mayor of London, drew his sword and attacked Tyler, mortally wounding him in the neck; Sir Ralph de Standish, one of the King's knights, drew his sword and ran it through Tyler's stomach, killing him almost instantly. Seeing him surrounded by the King's entourage, the rebel army was in uproar, but King Richard, seizing the opportunity, rode forth and shouted "You shall have no captain but me",^[7] a statement left deliberately ambiguous to defuse the situation. He promised the rebels that all was well, that Tyler had been knighted, and that their demands would be met - they were to march to St John's Fields, where Wat Tyler would meet them. This they duly did, but the King broke his promise. The nobles quickly re-established their control with the help of a hastily organised militia of 7000, and most of the other leaders were pursued, captured and executed, including John Ball and Jack Straw, who was beheaded. Following the collapse of the revolt, the king's concessions were quickly revoked.

Despite its name, participation in the Peasants' Revolt was not confined to serfs or even to the lower classes. The peasants received help from members of the noble classes - one example being William Tonge, a substantial alderman, who opened the London city gate through which the masses streamed on the night of June 12.^[8] Although the most significant events took place in the capital, there were violent encounters throughout England. Those involved hastened to dissociate themselves in the months that followed.

Although the Revolt did not succeed in its stated aims, it did succeed in showing the nobles that the peasants were dissatisfied and that they were capable of wreaking havoc. In the longer term, the Revolt helped to form a radical tradition in British politics (a development explained by Christopher Hampton, see further reading). After the revolt, the term 'poll tax' was no longer used, although English governments continued to collect broadly similar taxes until the 17th century. The Community Charge, introduced 600 years after the peasants revolt, was popularly known as the poll tax (particularly by its opponents).

Great1 SG

http://forums.sgclub.com/singapore/dont_know_opposition_231125.html

Kawasaki kotobuki denshi SG

Medieval England experienced few revolts but the most serious was the Peasants' Revolt which took place in June 1381. A violent system of punishments for offenders was usually enough to put off peasants from causing trouble. Most areas in England also had castles in which soldiers were garrisoned, and these were usually enough to guarantee reasonable behaviour among medieval peasants.

An army of peasants from Kent and Essex marched on London. They did something no-one had done before or since - they captured the Tower of London. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the King's Treasurer were killed. The king, Richard II, was only 14 at the time but despite his youth, he agreed to meet the peasants at a place called Mile End.

What were the peasants angry about and why had they come to London ?

1. After the Black Death, many manors were left short of workers. To encourage those who had survived to stay on their manor, many lords had given the peasants on their estates their freedom and paid them to work on their land. Now, nearly 35 years after the Black Death, many peasants feared that the lords would take back these privileges and they were prepared to fight for them.

2. Many peasants had to work for free on church land, sometimes up to two days in the week. This meant that they could not work on their own land which made it difficult to grow enough food for their families. Peasants wanted to be free of this burden that made the church rich but them poor. They were supported in what they wanted by a priest called John Ball from Kent.

3. There had been a long war with France. Wars cost money and that money usually came from the peasants through the taxes that they paid. In 1380, Richard II introduced a new tax called the Poll Tax. This made everyone who was on the tax register pay 5p. It was the third time in four years that such a tax had been used. By 1381, the peasants had had enough. 5p to them was a great deal of money. If they could not pay in cash, they could pay in kind, such as seeds, tools etc., anything that could be vital to survival in the coming year.

In May 1381, a tax collector arrived at the Essex village of Fobbing to find out why the people there had not paid their poll tax. He was thrown out by the villagers. In June, soldiers arrived to establish law and order. They too were thrown out as the villagers of Fobbing had now organised themselves and many other local villages in Essex had joined them. After doing this, the villagers marched on London to plead with the young king to hear their complaints.

One man had emerged as the leader of the peasants - Wat Tyler from Kent. As the peasants from Kent had marched to London, they had destroyed tax records and tax registers. The buildings which housed government records were burned down. They got into the city of London because the people there had opened the gates to them.

By mid-June the discipline of the peasants was starting to go. Many got drunk in London and looting took place. It is known that foreigners were murdered by the peasants. Wat Tyler had asked for discipline amongst those who looked up to him as their leader. He did not get it.

On June 14th, the king met the rebels at Mile End. At this meeting, Richard II gave the peasants all that they asked for and asked that they go home in peace. Some did. Others returned to the city and murdered the archbishop and Treasurer - their heads were cut off on Tower Hill by the Tower of London. Richard II spent the night in hiding in fear of his life.

On June 15th, he met the rebels again at Smithfield outside of the city's walls. It is said that this was the idea of the Lord Mayor (Sir William Walworthe) who wanted to get the rebels out of the city. Medieval London was wooden and the streets were cramped. Any attempt to put down the rebels in the city could have ended in a fire or the rebels would have found it easy to vanish into the city once they knew that soldiers were after them.

At this meeting, the Lord Mayor killed Wat Tyler. We are not sure what happened at this meeting as the only people who could write about it were on the side of the king and their evidence might not be accurate. The death of Tyler and another promise by Richard to give the peasants what they asked for, was enough to send them home

Kawasaki kotobuki denshi SG

The last great peasant revolt to challenge autocratic rule in Russia occurred during the reign of Catherine the Great. Between 1773 and 1774, Emelian Pugachev, a Don Cossack freebooter, rallied thousands of disaffected peasants by proclaiming himself Tsar Peter III, who had been deposed in 1762 and died shortly thereafter. Although there had been many uprisings in the region and numerous pretenders, the Pugachev Revolt was by far the greatest threat to Catherine’s rule.

Ultimately, as General Bibikov told the aristocracy of Kazan, “This is a revolt of the poor against the rich, of the slaves against their masters.” [1] Yet the causes were many and have been interpreted differently by Russian, Soviet, and Western Historians. [2] Generally, the causes can be broken down as follows:

Pugachev was a messianic figure, capitalizing on the popular notion that Peter III was viewed as still being alive by the peasants. Pretenderism had always been a spark in sporadic peasant revolts. Pugachev was a courageous leader with some military skills, having served in the Seven Years’ War. The capture of several garrisons and the rallying of thousands of supporters attested to his leadership.

Catherine herself contributed to the rebellion’s early victories by not taking Pugachev seriously, equating the revolt with the many prior disturbances that had been swiftly quelled by her troops. The resurrection of Peter III in the guise of a brigand was troubling, however, and reminded Catherine that she had seized power in 1762 through a coup.

After a series of successes on his way to Moscow at the head of the peasant army, Pugachev was turned back following the partial destruction of Kazan. Bringing death and destruction to the gentry in the Volga region, Pugachev pursued a course that would take him to home territory. Count Panin, commissioned by Catherine to end the insurrection, rushed fresh troops to the region. The Turkish War had been concluded and now Pugachev was facing veteran forces.

Adding to Pugachev’s problems, a famine swept the region, depriving his motley army of necessary supplies. In August 1774, he fought his last battle against troops commanded by Ivan Mikhelson, an exceptional officer who repulsed a direct charge and counterattacked, totally destroying Pugachev’s army. The battle at Cherny Yar was decisive.

Although he escaped, Pugachev was betrayed by fellow Cossacks and carried to Moscow in a cage where he was tortured and executed. Rather than addressing reforms, serfdom was strengthened and state control became more onerous. Historians researching 19th Century Russian radicalism have linked the efforts of revolutionaries with memories of the Pugachev revolt, believing that the peasantry represented the vanguard of revolution. [3]

Paul Avrich cites early Bolshevik thoughts regarding the use of the peasant class in achieving revolution and highlights the distinct peasant notions of a “tsar” that would emancipate them and act on their behalf. But the Pugachev revolt would be the last great upheaval until the twentieth century when the Revolutions of 1905 and 1917 weakened and ultimately ended autocracy.

Kawasaki kotobuki denshi SG

According to some historians, during the thousand year long Middle Ages in Europe there was on average one peasant revolt per year. All of them failed.

There are several reasons for the failure of the peasantry to successfully revolt against the elites of the Middle Ages, but I’ll mention only one reason to illustrate the difficulty the peasants faced. Before the advent of the hand-held firearm, it required years of training to produce someone highly competent in the best weapons of the Middle Ages. Most peasants didn’t train in those weapons, and as a consequence, were usually over-matched when they revolted. Sickles against lances, hammers against swords.

But why did the peasants so frequently revolt in the first place? The most usual reason seems to have been famine. During most of the middle ages, transportation was so poor that it was almost unheard of to ship food in bulk for any distance. So, if the crops failed in one locality, that locality could experience famine even though there might be a surplus of food a mere 30 miles away. When famine struck a locality, the elites had custom, law and force all on their side — they got what food there was, despite that the peasants produced the food. That left the peasants starving and prone to revolt.

Broadly speaking, at least three things came together to end the thousand year landscape of the Middle Ages. The first was the rise of capitalism, which can be traced back to very early beginnings around 900 A.D. The second was the British Agricultural Revolution — a remarkable increase in agricultural productivity — that can be traced back to around 1500 A.D. And the third was the Industrial Revolution, which began around 1700 A.D.

Those three factors, working together, created Europe’s most successful peasant revolt. For, while all the revolts of the Middle Ages failed, capitalism, the British Agricultural Revolution, and the Industrial Revolution eventually brought not only wealth and long lifespans to the peasantry, but arguably contributed to their political liberation.

It seems odd to me that nowadays so many of us have come to resent those three developments. We see the many serious problems they have created and we sometimes imagine it would be a good thing if we were rid of capitalism, industrialization, and even large scale agriculture. Yet, to get rid of those things would surely plunge us back into an age when most people lived a short life of scarcity and want. So, I think the real problem is not to get rid of the very things that have lifted societies out of poverty, but to “update” them. We do not need, for instance, to abolish capitalism so much as we need a newer, more useful version of it with the most pressing bugs worked out.

A final consideration here is my gripe against ideologies. Not just any ideology, but all ideologies suffer from the fact they are either impossible or cumbersome to change. The world moves on, but the world’s ideologies merely turn into retarded and retarding dogmas. I have never met an ideology that didn’t turn to stone all it touched. If a software company were ever to adopt an ideology of software, you can bet they would go out of business — because they would never update their product in any meaningful or useful way. Version 2.0 would have the same bugs as version 1.0 — and only the marketing department would say it was better than 1.0. If we are ever so unwise as to leave the future of capitalism, the agricultural and industrial revolutions entirely to ideologists, we will surely get the disasters we deserve for our folly.

After all, it wasn’t Christianity, the ideology of the day, that brought about Europe’s most successful peasant revolt. Nor should we expect the ideologies of our day to bring about a successful social and economic future for humanity.

Great1 SG

http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/386711

Great1 SG

posted by LuckySingaporean at 7:24 PM

http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/2009/12/yet-another-new-reason-for-fts-sporeans.html

Great1 SG

Lastest Shin Min New Headline on Adulterous Lady Teacher / Boss

Read this Shin Min Headline news last night. Is on the front page that caught my attention and I bought the paper.

I am refer to the news on the Left Vertical.

"Married lady boss commit adultery, secretly gave birth to 2 bastards"

Mention in details inside the news, is a tuition center boss. I guess she is a teacher as well. With 2 bastards age 1 and 3. Appeal to divorce faster just because she wants to re-married, but was 'throw' out of court.

Anyone know where this center is? I know one with description similar, but not 100% sure.

http://talkback.stomp.com.sg/forums/showthread.php?t=93544

charlize SG

Where got motivation to work harder when salaries are going downwards regardless of how hard you work?

How?

angel7030 SG

just stay employed with a CPF account will do. and only stupid people work hard, try to learn to work smart ya.

Great1 SG

January 2, 2010 by Our Correspondent
Filed under Headlines

Leave a comment

Written by Our Correspondent

A few thousand new citizens and PRs celebrate the New Year together with Singaporeans at a countdown party at Labrador Park organized jointly by the Radin Mas Citizens Consultative Committee from Tanjong Pagar GRC and Chinese paper Lianhe Zaobao.

Though the event is opened to Singaporeans as well, it is obvious who the “guests of honor” are judging from the extra efforts put in by the organizers to publicize the party to new citizens and PRs by contacting formal and informal immigrant organisations in the Cambodian, Filipino, Vietnamese and Indian communities, among others.

The party is supported by the National Integration Council. It is not known if the $10-million Community Integration Fund will be tapped for the event.

The fund was unveiled a few months ago by Minister of Community, Youth and Sports Dr Vivian Balakrishnan to make the new citizens feel “welcomed” in Singapore due to rising social tension on the ground.

From the responses given by the new citizens and PRs, it appeared that their efforts have paid off.

One Indian PR interviewed by the Chinese paper Lianhe Wanbao said she enjoyed the “splendid” evening thoroughly with her family. Another felt it was a good opportunity to “mingle” with the locals.

The exact number of new citizens and PRs who attended the event, which is free of charge is not known.

As a result of the ruling party’s liberal immigration policy, foreigners now make up 36 per cent of the population, up from 14 per cent in 1990.

Of the remaining 64 per cent who are citizens, an increasing percentage are new citizens.

Besides Labrador Park, parties are held in Sentosa, Marina Barrage, the Esplanade and Sembawang to welcome the New Year.

The next decade will probably see more radical changes to Singapore’s demographics as the ruling party aims to increase its population to 6.5 million people eventually via immigration.

In his New Year Day’s message to Singaporeans, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong reiterated the importance of foreigners to Singapore though Singaporeans will remain a “top priority” to his government.

He did not elaborate more on what measures the ruling party will take to ensure that Singaporeans do not fall behind the new comers.

In a recent interview with the National Geographic, PM Lee’s father the Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew continues to support the ruling party’s liberal immigration policies though he is aware that many Singaporeans are unhappy with the influx of immigrants.

“Over time, Singaporeans have become less hard-driving and hard-striving. This is why it is a good thing that the nation has welcomed so many Chinese immigrants.” Lee was quoted saying.

Lee describes the country’s new subjects as “hungry,” with parents who “pushed the children very hard.”

“If native Singaporeans are falling behind because the spurs are not stuck into the hide, that is their problem,” he quipped.

The state media later “clarified” on Lee’s behalf that he meant that he was “concerned” Singaporeans will “lose out” if they do not work harder in the face of more new immigrants flooding Singapore, but the damage has already been done.

Lee’s remarks in the National Geographic magazine’s article – “The Singapore Solution” were circulated widely in Singapore’s blogosphere, attracting much derision and opprobrium from netizens.

A Facebook set up to call on him to apologize to Singaporeans has drawn more than 200 members so far.

January 2, 2010 by Our Correspondent
Filed under Opinion

Leave a comment

OPINION

The recent move by the Ministry of Education to give an additional ballot to Singapore citizens in application for primary school places has won it much public approval and support.

In the past, PRs are able to compete directly with Singapore citizens for place via the Phase 1C scheme which has caused alot of resentment and anger on the ground.

The state media is quick to praise the government for making a clearer distinction between citizens and PRs without asking the fundamental question on why PRs are allowed to compete with citizens for coveted places in schools in the first place.

The additional ballot only gives Singaporeans a higher chance of getting into a school of their choice, but is likely to be diluted with the increasing number of PRs and new citizens.

So long as the government’s underlying liberal immigration policy remains unchanged, Singaporeans will forever have to fight with these newcomers for school places.

According to the Ministry of Home Affairs, there are over 90,000 PRs and 20,000 new citizens last year. Given that there are few good schools to go around, the demand is going to far exceed the supply soon.

To the Singaporean who has to compete with more and more PRs, an extra ballot is nothing more than scant consolation. If one still fail to ballot for a place, then one has to blame providence and not the government.

All primary schools are funded directly by taxpayers under the Ministry of Education. Since they are public institutions, their doors should be opened only to Singapore citizens.

The Minister of Education is an elected official. He should take care of the interests of the voters first and not PRs who do not have a stake in the country.

PRs can be allocated left-over places only after Singaporeans have made their pick. The best schools such as Raffles Girls Primary School, Nanyang Primary and Roseyth Primary should be reserved solely for citizens.

The children of PRs may not be settling down in Singapore after all. They may pack their bags and return to their homelands or study overseas when they reach 18 years of age. They should not deprive locals of chances to pursue a quality education in a school of their choice.

Besides, there are international schools which can cater to the needs of the PRs and they provide an education on par with Singapore schools.

Granted that PRs pay taxes as well, but they should not forget that they are here for economic opportunities in the first place and they should be thankful that Singapore is generous enough to accept them.

If they truly want their children to enjoy a first world education in Singapore, then they must be prepared to take up Singapore citizenship and sink their roots down here.

Perhaps the new rule should be applied to differentiate between old and new citizens as suggested earlier by a writer to the Straits Times Forum.

Singapore men has to sacrifice two most productive years of their lives to serve the nation where they are exposed to all sorts of risks and dangers.

Upon the completion of National Service, they still have a 13-year reservist obligation to fulfil. Surely it is not too much to ask the state to grant preferential treatment to their children?

The new immigrants who flock to Singapore are enjoying the fruits of our National Servicemen without having to pay the price. As such, their children should not be entitled to the same rights and privileges as NSmen.

NSmen are given an income tax exemption of $3,000 in recognition of their contributions to the nation. Why not extend this to primary school application as well?

The superficial changes introduced by MOE are hardly enough to make a “clearer distinction” between citizens and PRs which should be made not only more acute but extended to differentiate between old and new citizens as well.

Singapore citizens should not be competing with PRs for primary school places at all which is hardly heard of in the rest of the world.

We propose that MOE make the following changes to better reflect the contributions of NSmen and Singapore citizens:

1. Two ballots for citizens whose fathers have served National Service.

2. One ballot for citizens who fathers did not serve National Service.

3. PRs are only allowed to ballot only for left-over places in selected neighborhood primary schools after Singaporeans have taken their pick.

Not only will it appease rising disaffection and angst on the ground among citizens that they have been unfairly treated by the government, it will also give PRs more incentive to take up Singapore citizenship.

January 3, 2010 by admin
Filed under Opinion

Leave a comment

OPINION

The PAP government has never failed to emphasize on the “fact” that “Singapore’s politics are reserved for Singaporeans only” as outsiders do not have a stake in the country to deter foreigners from “interfering” in local politics.

Foreign journalists often have their work permits canceled without warning like in the recent case of Daily Telegraph journalist Benjamin Bland or banned from entering Singapore altogether like the Chief Editor of Asia Sentinel John Berthelsen who was once “deported” unceremoniously by the police upon his arrival at Changi Airport.

Foreigners are required to apply for a police permit even when speaking indoors and they are almost always not given when the topic touches on local politics. For example, a Swedish human rights activist’s permit to hold a workshop for SDP members was rejected with no reasons given.

Being a non-partisan public institution, one would expect the Singapore police to apply the law equally to all political parties, but this is not often the case.

Not too long ago, Chinese Daily Lianhe Wanbao hosted a public forum which saw a famous Taiwanese orator heaping generous praises on PAP leaders though the topic of discussion was supposed to be on China’s development in the future.

Since foreigners are not allowed to “interfere” in Singapore politics, then one should expect PRs to fall within the ambit of the unwritten rule as well.

However, PRs are often given ample space in the Straits Times Forum to voice their support for the PAP government, the latest being a Pakistani Sam Ahmed who wrote a letter urging Singaporeans to be “more appreciative” of their own country.

It is strange that letters critical of the PAP are almost always censored while those few lauding it are published to sway public opinion to its side.

The Straits Times should have rejected these fawning letters to curry favor with the ruling party on the ground that they are “interfering” in domestic politics which are for Singapore citizens only.

With the PAP giving Singapore citizenships freely to foreigners, these new citizens will form an increasingly influential voting bloc in the future, but are they ready to partake in the political life of Singapore?

As many of them came to Singapore in the prime of their lives without ever serving National Service, life here is a bed of roses for them especially if they come from developing countries like India and China.

A new citizen from India and YPAP member Mr Fredric Fanthome wrote an article for Contact Singapore in which he expressed his admiration for Singapore’s “efficiency” – “everything works here!,” he wrote.

Mr Fanthome holds a senior position in a local SME. Armed with a decent-paying job and saved from the hassle of National Service obligations, it is little wonder that Mr Fanthome is so infatuated with the PAP.

However for a Singapore man growing up in Singapore in the 1970s and 1980s, it is a different story altogether.

During his younger days, he witnessed his parents being able to afford a HDB flat relatively easily, but when it comes to his time, he has problems servicing the hefty mortgage loan as a result of sky-rocketing prices in the last few months.

He has to compete with an increasing number of foreigners like Mr Fanthome who are lured to Singapore by jobs which offer higher pay than their homelands.

Furthermore, he has the mandatory 4 week reservist obligation to fulfill annually when the newcomers have none. It is only natural that the Singaporean will feel bitter and angry towards the PAP government.

Unfortunately, such genuine grouses on the ground are incomprehensible to the new citizens who are courted by the PAP actively from the very beginning to rope them into grassroots organizations and the party itself to shore up its support base.

Mr Fanthome can therefore be forgiven for dismissing online critics of the PAP as “anonymous hordes which spray venom at the government” for not being born and bred in Singapore as his perception of the PAP is somewhat colored and skewed by the propaganda churned out by the state media daily.

As the new citizens have a limited understanding of Singapore politics, can we really trust them to make an informed decision during the elections?

It is only natural to expect new citizens to vote for the ruling party which gives them the opportunity to start life afresh in Singapore in the first place.

Since their support for the PAP is based largely on gratitude, they may be ignorant of the more important issues at stake such as the direction the nation is heading in the future.

Many of them also appear not to be aware of the lack of accountability and transparency in Singapore’s political system which allows one dominant party to ride roughshod over all other political parties, state institutions and the people.

It may take some time before new citizens come to the same conclusion as the locals – that they are not getting a fair deal from the ruling party and by then it will be too late.

Foreigners now make up 36 per cent of the population, up from 14 per cent in 1990. The percentage of new citizens is unknown, but is likely to be on an upward trend.

In a small country like Singapore, a sizable number of new citizens in the electorate will have a significant impact on the outcome of the election.

There are two ways to counter the unfair advantage enjoyed by the incumbent as a result of the rising number of new citizens:

1. New citizens are not permitted to vote within the first five years of their residency in Singapore to give them ample time to familiarize themselves with the political situation in the country so as to help them to make a calm and rational decision.

2. Old citizens are given one additional vote to give them more say in the running of their nation, especially those who have spent the two most precious years of their lives serving the nation.

Of course it is impossible to expect the PAP to do anything which will hurt their interest when the massive immigration we are seeing now is part of its grand design to perpetuate its political hegemony forever whether we like it or not.

The only way out for locals is to stand up and be counted at the next general election and vote for sufficient opposition MPs into parliament to deny the PAP’s its traditional two-thirds majority.

Only then can we put a brake to its runaway liberal immigration policy to replace locals with their new pets from China, India and elsewhere.

Singapore politics should be reserved strictly for citizens born and bred in Singapore.

Even among citizens, a clearer distinction must be drawn between old and new citizens to acknowledge the sacrifices the former have made to the nation.