The Anti Neo-Democracy Theorist

Do you know that Young PAP newsletter is called ZAP?

Yes, ZAP!

Read ZAP here

Apparently, there is a backlash against Ms. Irene Ng’s letter in ST forum recently.
Three letters here including Ms. Ng original letter. Do go to ST forum today to read more interesting letters.

March 28, 2006

Does Singapore’s political system encourage people to be active in politics?

In her letter “Singapore political system far better than many others” (ST, March 25), Member of Parliament Irene Ng claims that the “key issue is not the right to voice our views, which all of us enjoy, but the quality of the political system, the substance of the political debate and how decisions made can improve the lives of ordinary citizens.”

Such a perspective overlooks an integral aspect of democracy, that of a government by the people. The need to ensure a high standard of integrity and competence in our political system is no doubt important.

But of equal importance to a democratic nation is the need to empower ordinary citizens with the ability and will to exercise decisive influence and control over the system’s policies and institutions which determine their way of life.

My main concern is with the state of political apathy in Singapore. The question which begs serious consideration is: Do our political system and culture, in reality, encourage Singaporeans to actively participate in politics?
I am only critical insofar as the current political system and culture discourage active political participation by the citizens.
Singapore today is a developed country with a sophisticated and highly-educated population. Sustenance issues are not the only concerns and political freedom is no longer mere rhetoric.

Unfortunately, many Singaporeans think that to challenge the government on policies may be a risky and futile exercise.

I had alluded to the defamation suits as a contributory factor for such an attitude. It was not my intention to defend the actions of Mr J.B.Jeyaretnam or Mr Chee Soon Juan.

My purpose was to emphasise the chilling effect these defamation suits have on political free speech. A pertinent question to ask would be: Could the PAP politicians have not sued the opposition?
It would be erroneous to assume that a “freer” political system and media in Singapore would plunge the country into great turmoil, like in Thailand and the Philippines.
Singapore is fundamentally different from its neighbours. It has a formidable political infrastructure, strong economic foundations and a robust social fabric.

For Singapore to eventually mature as a liberal democracy, substantial autonomy needs to be accorded to the individual. Singaporeans have the astuteness to exercise their individual freedoms responsibly.

No doubt the government has the duty to restrain and punish any conduct which could be prejudicial to the security of the nation but such legitimate filters must be established with sufficient safeguards and be subjected to constructive criticism.

Credit must be given to the PAP for being more receptive to divergent views in recent years. But there remains much to be done in terms of mending its image as an illiberal government and in according individuals greater autonomy.

The best way for the PAP to silence its critics is not to assert inordinate control over political speech but to let it flourish so that Singaporeans are allowed to separate the wheat from the chaff.

In time to come, we will be a better people because of it. It should be emphasised that structural machinery like the NCMP scheme and constitutional rights alone are not sufficient to ensure meaningful political participation.

Every citizen must feel encouraged to exercise his or her right to shape the substance of political debates and take part in the government’s decision-making process.

It is only through fostering a higher level of political consciousness and the engenderment of a culture in which people are not afraid to speak their minds can we truly tackle the problem of political disengagement at its heart.

David Cai
Melbourne, Australia

March 28, 2006
Debate in Parliament is far from robust. PAP MPs don’t really challenge government policies

Member of Parliament Irene Ng believes that Singapore’s political system is far better than many others (ST, March 25). Her comparison does not take into account the fact that as a small country, Singapore is far more amenable to government control.

The authoritarian style of our government that operates successfully here does not necessarily work in larger countries. What is happening in Thailand now is a good example.

Things like incorruptible government and bureaucracy, banning demonstrations, crime control and implementation of national policies are far more difficult in other countries because of their bigger size and population.

Singapore also has political weaknesses. There is a need to avoid political smugness that blinds us to them. The building of an orderly society which Miss Ng has pointed out should not be the end. Sound socio-economic policies are also needed.
For this, she said Singaporeans are free to give their views to the government or join the opposition to offer alternatives. But that precisely points to a major weakness in our political system.

Minister Lim Boon Heng said the PAP government looks for people with strong views and convictions to become MPs.
While I do not question the calibre of PAP MPs, what I do not accept is this - debate in Parliament is far from robust. Usually, only a handful of short questions are posed by MPs to the minister. Sometimes these questions are not incisive or pertinent. Does this constitute robust debate?
This phenomenon is likely a result of the short time allotted to MPs, and PAP MPs are also constrained by party loyalty. Therefore, PAP MPs do not really challenge government policies in a strong manner. Without the challenge, where is the debate in the true sense of the word?

It looks to me that the processes in Parliament are such that the authoritarian rather than democratic way of doing things is more the order of the day.

The atmosphere in our Parliament has settled down to the academic calm of a lecture hall. The situation makes a parody of “parliamentary debates”. I do not think we have a better political system than some countries where MPs feel so strongly about issues and policies that they, to their ignominy, sometimes turn violent in Parliament.

A recent ST survey shows that there is little political consciousness in our young generation. This is another political weakness.

This is caused by the government’s de-politicisation of the people in which politics are merely about bread-and-butter issues pertaining to oneself and the family.

When people just look selfishly after their own interests, would this speak well of our political system?

I am sure Miss Ng, as an MP who regularly meets the people with requests or even demands from the government, understands better what this means or could mean for our nation.

Chia Hern Keng

March 25, 2006
S’pore political system far better than many others

IN HIS letter, ‘Politics in S’pore suffers from an image problem’ (ST, March 23), Mr David Cai claims that the ‘image problem’ is due to the ruling party’s ‘hardline management of political dissent’ that results in a ‘deep-seated mentality that speaking out against the Government is analogous to treading on a minefield - one miscalculated step and you could be joining the ranks of J.B. Jeyaretnam or Chee Soon Juan’.
I am glad he felt free to speak up on this at length for The Straits Times. But the key issue is not the right to voice our views, which all of us enjoy, but the quality of the political system, the substance of the political debate and how decisions made can improve the lives of ordinary citizens.

Singapore has a hard-won international reputation for its high standard of integrity and competence in its politics. The PAP ensures this by insisting on honest, capable political leaders who fulfil their promises to the people. This has served Singapore and Singaporeans well.
In such a clean and transparent system, all allegations are investigated and lies refuted. Politicians who make scurrilous remarks must be able to back them up with facts. This applies both to the PAP as well as the opposition. This way, voters can decide better to whom they can entrust their future. Mr Cai forgets that Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang have been in politics for over 20 years without suffering any consequences.

Our system is not perfect, but it is far better than the chaotic and dirty politics found in many other countries. Would Mr Cai prefer the political ferment in Thailand and the Philippines, where distrust of the ruling party’s action and public conflict are ever present? Or the corruption of so many Asian countries, which have ‘freer’ political systems and media than Singapore?

The PAP Government and its MPs have gained the respect and trust of the people over the years. This is something special. In the United States and Britain - where political debates and scandals dominate - cynicism with the political system has become widespread, resulting in declining voter turn-outs in their general elections. Politicians rank lower than used-car salesmen in public esteem.

According to the book, The Vanishing Voter, by Mr Thomas Patterson, a key reason for the voters’ cynicism in the US is that political campaigns seem more like theatre or entertainment than something to be taken seriously. In Singapore, we take our politics seriously.
The PAP is not afraid of different views and, in fact, encourages this. When I was interviewed to be a PAP candidate for the last general election, I made it clear that I disagreed with some of the PAP’s policies. Still, I was selected, and I still maintain these views.

Indeed, if the PAP wants to silence dissent, why should it introduce the Non-Constituency MP scheme to give opposition members at least three seats in Parliament? Because of this scheme, Mr Steve Chia, who lost in the last general election, could still enter Parliament as the ‘best loser’.

All Singaporeans are free to voice their opinions and form associations and, indeed, are encouraged to engage actively in politics if they feel so inclined. However, we all have to play by the same rules and be held accountable for our words and actions.

If Mr Cai has specific laws that he would like changed, he should put forward his suggestions, and get either the PAP or opposition politicians to raise them in Parliament. Mr Cai could even consider putting these ideas to the people by contesting in the forthcoming elections himself. After all, this is a democracy.

Irene Ng (Miss)Member of Parliament

Letter rejected by the ST Forum

Questions with regards to CCTV surveillance

I refer to ST March 22, 2006 article on “Security cameras on most buses and trains soon.”

I applaud the government’s efforts in creating a safer Singapore through greater surveillance on our public transportation. However, I also hope that the authorities could shed light on issues that come with the increasing number of CCTVs in Singapore.

The first issue is the issue of privacy. Is CCTV surveillance less invasive of privacy than alternative means of surveillance? Is CCTV surveillance advantageous to all or at least to most of the people who are giving up their privacy?

The second issue is the presence of a check and balances. Would the public be informed about who is monitoring the cameras, what use is to be made of the tapes and how long they are to be stored? Would there be an independent audit to ensure that the uses of such devices are not abused?

The third issue is the larger issue of effectiveness. Does CCTV surveillance not simply drive a problem from one area into another area that does not have video surveillance? Does CCTV surveillance fulfill an important purpose such as reduction of risk of physical harm or other illegal activities and not simply the control of nuisance such as panhandling? Would CCTV not be used as part of a data-matching program for purposes other than surveillance for the reduction of crime of the area in which it is installed?

The last issue is the philosophy behind the use of CCTV surveillance. It is true that the creation of a state with CCTV surveillance everywhere may eradicate crime and terrorism. However, will the tradeoff between security and freedom be too high for Singaporeans?

Am I an approved history textbook in Singapore?
(Hegemonies Compared: State Formation and Chinese School Politics in Postwar Singapore and Hong Kong. Ting-Hong Wong. New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2002)

An excellent letter in the ST forum today

March 21, 2006
Reading history is more than just rote learning

Mr Chua Chew Yong’s letter “Library has books on Singapore’s history and political leaders”(ST Online Forum, March 17) is right to point out that the library has many books on the subjects.

While they make “excellent reference points for those eager to have knowledge”, I want to point out the need for additional skills when reading books on history.

As a history major from the National University ofSingapore, we are taught to question, compare and analyse the historical sources at hand, be these websites or books.

Contrary to popular opinion, memory work and wholesale acceptance of whatever is written in these sources are the last things to be encouraged.

I can vividly recall my experience in secondary school, where it was a well-known fact that aceing your history examinations meant sheer memorisation of the textbooks.

I am glad that the university’s approach to history is far from this. To us, nothing in the books can be taken as absolutely facts until they are corroborated and compared with other books on the subject.

I am not questioning the validity of the sources of Singapore’s history which Mr Chua mentioned. I am merely pointing out that while it is laudable that there are plenty of books on Singapore’s history that are easily accessible to the masses, the education system still needs to inculcate the right skills to students who take history courses in school.

This way, be it Singapore’s history or that of other countries, future generations would be able to better understand and appreciate history as a discipline.

Eisen Teo Guan Kuan

Click to See my earlier article about History

V’s Quote from the show: People should not fear their governments; the governments should fear their people

V’s Quote two: Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. There is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof.

Sutler (The Dictator) quote: What we need right now is a clear message to the people of this country. This message must be read in every newspaper, seen on every television… I want want *everyone* to *remember*, why they *need* us!

Everybody should watch this show

http://wwws.aa.warnerbros.com/vforvendetta/

This was one of the best shows I ever watched since the Matrix. It is so thrilling, entertaining, insightful, intelligent, sophisticated and rich with satire. Instead of me talking about it, please watch this show if it is near your homes.

“Enjoyable, smartly designed and superbly acted thriller that actually gives you something to think about while you’re watching stuff get blown up.”
– Matthew Turner, VIEWLONDON

“As manifestoes go, this one’s a beauty: draped like a funeral, smart as a whip and full of black-hearted romantic monologues and dramatically slit necks.”
– Amy Biancolli, HOUSTON CHRONICLE

“A visually sumptuous concoction that combines political allegory, bloody action, and a few stunning cinematic moments into a solid piece of entertainment.”
– James Berardinelli, REELVIEWS

Set against the futuristic landscape of totalitarian Britain, V For Vendetta tells the story of a mild-mannered young woman named Evey (NATALIE PORTMAN) who is rescued from a life-and-death situation by a masked man (HUGO WEAVING) known only as “V.”

Profoundly complex, V is at once literary, flamboyant, tender and intellectual, a man dedicated to freeing his fellow citizens from those who have terrorized them into compliance. He is also bitter, revenge-seeking, lonely and violent, driven by a personal vendetta.

In his quest to free the people of England from the corruption and cruelty that have poisoned their government, V condemns the tyrannical nature of their appointed leaders and invites his fellow citizens to join him in the shadows of Parliament on November the 5th ?Guy Fawkes Day.

On that day in 1605, Guy Fawkes was discovered in a tunnel beneath Parliament with 36 barrels of gunpowder. He and his co-conspirators had engineered the treasonous “Gunpowder Plot” in response to the tyranny of their government under James I. Fawkes and his fellow saboteurs were hanged, drawn and quartered, and their plan to take down their government never came to pass.

In the spirit of that rebellion, in remembrance of that day, V vows to carry out the plot that Fawkes was executed for attempting on November 5th in 1605: he will blow up Parliament.

As Evey uncovers the truth about the mysterious past, she also discovers the truth about herself and emerges as his unlikely ally in the culmination of his plan to ignite a revolution, bringing freedom and justice back to a society fraught with cruelty and corruption

How about Postal Ballots, Informing through letters to encourage all overseas Singaporeans to register, Organizing Overseas Conference on local issues, or better still (laughs) open an NTUC in Chicago?

Only less than 900 overseas singaporeans registered to vote out of more than 50,000 -100,000 Overseas. Not bad meh?

The Straits Times
March 14, 2006 Tuesday

New agency to build ties with overseas Singaporeans;
Unit will organise more events to get them together and keep in closer touch with home

Leslie Koh

SINGAPOREANS who live abroad will receive more news and information about events back home, through a new agency set up to build closer ties with them.

Launched yesterday, the Overseas Singaporean Unit will organise more activities around the world to get Singaporeans together, keep them in close touch with what is happening back home, and help them when they return.

It plans, among other things, to hold more networking events to bring Singaporeans and potential employers together, conduct feedback sessions and organise cultural activities.

Set up by the Government, its activities will expand on similar efforts made by such agencies as Contact Singapore, run by the Manpower Ministry, and non-profit organisation Singapore International Foundation.

It will coordinate some of the programmes and activities of these organisations as well as start new ones.

Set up in January to report directly to the Prime Minister’s Office, the agency was launched in London last night by Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng.

He said it was part of a larger effort to address overseas Singaporeans’ desire to stay connected to home.

‘The Government recognises the Singapore diaspora as an integral part of our society,’ he told The Straits Times before he left for London.

Mr Wong is in the British capital on a working visit, at the invitation of British Home Secretary Charles Clarke, whom he is meeting to discuss such issues as emergency preparedness and terrorism.

There are an estimated 100,000 Singaporeans working or studying overseas. Most are in Europe, America and Australia. They can turn to the agency for such information as news of Singapore, jobs or schools for their children when they return to Singapore. One-stop information centres - both online and physical ones abroad - are being planned to help and advise them.

Political observers view it as yet another move to improve links with the large number of Singaporeans based overseas who will for the first time be allowed to vote in the coming general election.

While fewer than 1,000 have registered themselves on the overseas electoral roll, Mr Wong dismissed suggestions that Singaporeans were not interested in politics back home.

Voting was ‘not the only way’ to play a role in shaping Singapore’s future, he said, and added: ‘Countries like the US are many years ahead of us in terms of extending overseas voting to their citizens. We are only beginning and I think we should not be too discouraged.’

Overseas Singaporeans interviewed welcomed the new agency, especially as a source of information.

Beijing-based businessman Joseph Chua, 47, said one common problem Singaporeans faced was fitting their children back into Singapore’s education system after attending foreign schools.

London-based Sylvia Lim, global business development director of shirt-making company CYC The Custom Shop, said that although some of the services were available in Britain, they were provided by informal voluntary groups.

‘So, the frequency or type of activities depend on who is running the group at that moment. It will be useful to have a formal organisation, as it will be more professional and have more stability.’

leskoh@sph.com.sg

Too shocking for words

the apolitical singaporean
He doesn’t know much, won’t get involved and can’t accept that he’s part of the process
Lee u-wenu-wen@newstoday.com.sg

WITH a General Election on the horizon, Faye Tan says she almost can’t wait to vote, if she gets the chance of course.
But ask her to name some political parties in Singapore, and she sheepishly shrugs her shoulders before saying: “I know the People’s Action Party (PAP),” before pausing briefly and adding: “And the other one with a hammer thing.”

When told that the “hammer thing” was the symbol used by the opposition Workers’ Party, she admitted: “Oh. Actually I don’t know why they are even opposing in the first place.”

A series of simple political questions later, the 37-year-old mother of two was prepared to throw in the towel.

“Who’s my MP? I don’t know. I’ve never met him before. I know there are some banners displayed nearby with their faces. But unless you have issues, you probably won’t bother to find out,” said the real estate agent, who lives in Bedok, which is part of East Coast GRC. Almost self-deprecatingly, she describes herself as “ignorant”, admitting that she ought to know a lot more about the political system she subscribes to.

Unsurprisingly, Ms Tan is not alone.

In a recent survey of more than 500 people conducted by the Political Development Feedback Group, a body under the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS), 63.4 per cent of Singaporeans said they knew little or nothing about the Constitution and the organs of state.

But wait, it gets more worrying.
.• Two-thirds or more than 66 per cent of Singaporeans believe that they have little or no influence at all on national issues.
.• A whopping 92.7 per cent have never given feedback to the Government.
.• 94.9 per cent have never written letters to a newspaper.
.• And 94.5 per cent don’t know what it’s like to sign a petition.

A reason for this level of political apathy, said Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) fellow Terence Chong, is that most Singaporeans tend to automatically “switch off” when it comes to matters related to politics.

“Good governance is usually defined as efficient, honest and transparent governance. As such, the political empowerment and participation of citizens, which is sometimes messy and noisy, may actually be seen by some as a hindrance to the smooth operation of good governance,” said Dr Chong.

Expressing not worry but rather “concern” over Singaporeans’ lack of knowledge about basics such as the constitution, he said such a culture and mindset here is perhaps the result of the ruling PAP’s effectiveness in running the country.
“It could mean the PAP government has been so successful in delivering the basic amenities that its role and presence have become invisible to most citizens, paving the way for us to lead happy, contented shopping mall lives,” he remarked.

A question of engagement

Nominated MP and lawyer Chandra Mohan said that the large number of Singaporeans who said they were disengaged and uninterested in local politics surprised him.

“With the population being more educated now — many have at least a Secondary Four qualification — I expected a far better response,” he said.

However, he said that it was “not essential” to rate politics as the most important in facet in life.

“I don’t think there has been a strong interest in politics here over the last few decades. But we must consider what it would take to make people interested. To many, politics is not important because they are not in power and cannot make changes.”

Could the fact that many Singaporeans don’t get to vote due to the lack of contested wards at the General Elections play a part in the apathy displayed?

Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC MP Dr Teo Ho Pin begs to disagree.

“I think that this is about the level of confidence, rather than apathy. In order to ensure that this confidence does not create complacency, the Government has to make sure there are checks and balances, and that they continue to attract good people of good integrity and honesty.”

He added that he was unfazed by the results. Said Dr Teo: “What I’m worried is if people do not contribute constructively in various forms. And already, there are people who contribute in forms by engaging in Voluntary Welfare Organisations, Non-Governmental Organisations. What’s more important is to create greater ownership among Singaporeans and make them more active in society.”

Sociologist Tan Ern Ser added that the interpretation of such surveys depended on the benchmarks employed. He said: “If 30 per cent say they are interested, is this high or low? I would say it’s high, if we consider that Singaporeans have been described as apolitical, and the system is depoliticised.”

“More importantly, 30 per cent equals to almost a million people in a population of three million citizens. My conclusion is that interest and propensity are higher than actual participation.”

But political commentator and academic Dr Ho Khai Leong believes that the nonchalance evident in the survey is “on the high side”, and blames the country’s education system.

“It’s a reflection of our lack of political education in schools. Such education should start from young. But we cannot blame the sons and daughters of Singapore, we should blame the policy makers who have given them very little exposure,” he said.

A Dummy’s Guide to Politics?

The Feedback Group, meanwhile, has proposed its own solution to educate the masses.

It hopes to produce a basic guide - a Politics 101 of sorts - that would provide the public with useful information such as a list and roles of key public figures and organisations, as well as the various channels of feedback and complaints.

The group’s chairman, political watcher Viswa Sadasivan, is pushing for this recommendation partly to make up for the lack of exposure given to Singaporeans at schools and universities.

He said: “When political education is absent, or civic education is narrowly defined and a culture of questioning is encouraged only now, it’s understandable why interest and knowledge in politics is low. There’s a need to help catalyse this interest in a manner that’s relevant and interesting.”

While education is seen as a main tool to improve the situation for future generations, experts also made the comment that Singaporeans, especially the youth, want to be empowered and to see their feedback being taken seriously and appreciated.

And with nearly 70 per cent of the population feeling the need to have “some influence” over national issues, Mr Sadasivan feels the tide is slowly turning.

“It points to a growing awareness of the need to have influence, which in turn could point to a maturing political culture,” he said.

Ms Tan, too, is keen to contribute to grooming the next generation of Singaporeans as one that is in tune with current affairs and political issues.

“I hope my children can have some sort of political education when they go into primary school. It doesn’t have to be much, maybe the teachers could just show them the symbols of the different parties here, for instance,” she said.

That said, Ms Tan too has her own resolution to make: “After the interview (with TODAY), I am now more serious with the newspapers. Everything you ask, I also don’t know. Nowadays, I turn to the main section to read about local and world news first. It’s important to know what’s happening around me.”

National Review
February 3, 2005,
National Review Online

“No” to “Democracy”
By Roger Bate

BODY:

Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe recently cut short a month-long holiday in Malaysia and Singapore to stem wrangling within his ruling Zanu-PF party due to a vicious internal power struggle.Party insiders say Mugabe, never known for admitting a crisis, is now seriously worried that growing rifts in the party could have a catastrophic effect on the March general election in which Zanu-PF is pitted against the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).

For the final, fatal collapse of the odious Mugabe regime, however, the MDC must withdraw from the election it cannot win. The president stole the elections in 2000 and 2002 and has brutally suppressed the opposition from operating properly. He says he will live up to regional Southern African Development Community (SADC) election protocols, but no -one believes him, and with good reason. Without an MDC withdrawal the facade of democracy will remain and the international community will not intervene as it must.As army officers, team captains, and political-party leaders know, nothing prevents infighting as well as a common enemy. So it would be of no surprise if Mugabe sincerely hopes that the MDC contests the election. Without an opposition to fight, Zanu-PF might well implode–the result of which may be civil war.Boycotting the election will have two additional effects.

First, it will force the international community to get off the fence when the reality of Zimbabwe’s dictatorship replaces the facade of democracy. Second, it will exacerbate the infighting within Zanu-PF, probably leading to a real power struggle.As for the U.S., the State Department must make all aid, trade deals, and other largesse to the region dependent on their pressuring Mugabe to stand down–or hold fair elections, not the farces of 2000 and 2002. In the very short run they must demand that food aid be brought in. Mugabe no longer cares how the world sees him, but the presidents in the rest of the region, including South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki, do. It is pressure applied to them that counts, and it can work.

There is an entirely relevant historical precedent–the white Rhodesian Government of Ian Smith was brought to its knees by pressure from America, South Africa, and Britain. If those three countries work together again it could be achieved–but it has to be led by Mbeki. The big question is will Mbeki finally stand up to the man who supported him during the apartheid years by allowing ANC bases in Zimbabwe. America can, and it should, make it too uncomfortable for Mbeki not to.–Roger Bate is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a director of the health advocacy group Africa Fighting Malaria.

My latest Article in TODAY

History is not just one linear truth

Will YCK be the next Hougang?

The Straits Times (Singapore)
March 5, 2006 Sunday
SECTION: NEWS

LENGTH: 788 words

HEADLINE: Prospect of Yio Chu Kang contest sparks excitement

BYLINE: Li Xueying Goh Chin Lian

BODY:

WHEN shopkeeper Lee Kay Him met her MP Seng Han Thong yesterday, she said bluntly: ‘Give me the action, and I’ll give you the election.‘

She was agitating for fans to be installed in the 25-year-old market in Ang Mo Kio Street 61, where she operates a tidbits shop. The humidity deters customers from coming, she complained.

But the 41-year-old was among the very few so quick to seize on the announcement that the Yio Chu Kang ward, previously a part of the Ang Mo Kio Group Representation Constituency, will now be a single-seat constituency.

Mr Seng, the incumbent MP of the Yio Chu Kang area, is expected to be fielded by the People’s Action Party to fend off a challenge from the opposition. Already, the National Solidarity Party (NSP) has said it will contest there, although it has not named a candidate.

If so, this will be Mr Seng’s first election, as he was returned to Parliament uncontested in the past two elections.

Mr Seng, a former journalist but now a divisional director with labour movement NTUC, has an easy way with people as demonstrated during a visit to the ward yesterday, when he teased Madam See Lack, a 76-year-old shopkeeper, about how she does not look her age because of her black hair.

He recognised a toilet cleaner and asked him in Teochew about his earnings; stopped to greet a pizza delivery man whom he knew as an active Malay community leader; and listened to a woman he had previously met at a Meet- the-People session relate how her son was now doing in prison.

Other residents had tales of how he helped them. Madam Ho Mui Cheng, 81, remembers asking for seats at the void deck of her one-room rental flat two years ago - and getting them.

A few said Mr Seng solved their woes by writing letters to the authorities - over issues such as a discrepancy in housing loan interest rates to extending the stay of a relative from abroad.

While those who knew of Mr Seng’s work were full of praise, about a quarter of the 30 residents interviewed could not name their MP.

When asked, retired driver Ong Ah Lim, 68, hazarded a guess: ‘Inderjit Singh?’

Mr Singh is MP for the neighbouring Kebun Baru area of Ang Mo Kio GRC.

During the ward visit, Mr Seng also checked on the progress of a $7 million upgrading project at Ang Mo Kio Town Centre, due to be completed next month.

Broader shopfronts, wheelchair ramps and a bigger open-air stage for performances are what residents can expect.

It is part of a strategy to rejuvenate the town and bring in customers, when the town centre faces competition from a new retail mall opening next door next year.

Mr Goh Ang Jee, chairman of the Ang Mo Kio Constituency Merchants’ Association, said the neighbourhood shops expect their profits to take a hit then, and are hoping the performance venue will feature fashion shows and karaoke performances to attract customers.

Other issues raised by residents include jobs and cost of living - which Mr Seng expects the opposition parties to raise when electioneering in the ward.

‘But the difference between them and the PAP, is that they only raise the issues but never offer a solution. We, on the other hand, are tackling it and we will resolve it.’

On whether he is concerned about constituents who will use the prospect of a contest to ‘push’ him for more goodies, he said: ‘Residents know their limits. They know what we can do for them.’

Some residents were excited about the prospect of voting.

Said private school teacher Michelle Chow, 48: ‘This is such wonderful news! I hate walkovers. You never know if your voice is being heard.’

She said that she will ‘probably vote for the opposition’ as she feels ‘discriminated against’ as a single.

The last election in Yio Chu Kang was in 1988, when it was still a single seat ward.

The PAP candidate Lau Ping Sum won 73.67 per cent of the votes against NSP candidate Rasiah Thiagarajah.

Residents have seen the Workers’ Party at the Yio Chu Kang market and Ang Mo Kio Town Centre selling its newsletter The Hammer.

Mr Seng said that he met Hougang MP Low Thia Khiang in his ward twice last year, including one Sunday morning when Mr Seng was having breakfast at a coffee shop.

‘He was selling The Hammer. I said I wanted to buy.

‘He told me in Teochew he will give it to me, but I paid him.’

‘My daughter went out this morning to buy three copies of The Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao each, and also the Malay and Tamil papers. My son taped the interviews on Channel NewsAsia. My 74-year-old mother told me to do more good things for the people.

My wife said, ‘take care’.’

— MP SENG HAN THONG on how his family reacted to news that his ward will now become a single-seat constituency. Here he listens to Madam Toh Kim Hui, general manager of Hwa Aik General Store in Ang Mo Kio Central