1 IN 5 VOTERS "MOVED": STATISTICALLY CAN'T LOSE?

1 in 5 voters in a new constituency

According to the news report “New electoral boundaries announced: 13 SMCs, 16 GRCs, one in five voters will see shift” (Jul 24) – “One in five voters, or 19 per cent of voters, will find themselves in a new constituency …

An earlier version of this story said one in six voters will be affected by the boundary changes. It should be one in five. The earlier calculation excluded voters in Moulmein-KallangGRC who will move to the renamed JalanBesarGRC”.

“Statistically” very hard to lose?

When you can “move” one in five voters at will – arguably, it may be almost “statistically” very hard to lose.

Change “playing field”, “rules”?

But if I may use an analogy – if you are playing football – you should be focusing on improving your play, skills and teamwork, instead of trying to change the “playing field” to “disadvantage” your opposing teams.

Or for that matter – the rules.

Because, the more you are “kiasu”– the more frustrated and infuriated the spectators may become!

Focus on improving lives?

By the same token, Governments should focus on improving the lives of their citizens.

Because, at the end of the day – its not about how many votes, who wins – but for the good of the people.

What you have been doing for the people may be the best “decision maker” for voters.

I shall not delve into the details of deleting constituencies where you may fear to lose, moving out “weak” Ministers who arguably are widely blamed for our daily miseries, etc, as a great deal has already been written by many, in this regard.

Have policies improved the lives of Singaporeans?

So, let’s try to focus on whether we have been improving the lives of Singaporeans by:-

… allowing an estimated 150,000 new citizens, PRs, Dependent Pass (DPs), foreign workers, foreign students, etc, on the average, annually

… accumulating more than $20 billion annually in Budget surpluses (using IMF fiscal reporting guidelines)

… giving only 15,699 families ComCare Short-to-Medium Term and Long-term Assistance (12,535 + 3,164), against about 107,490 employed households with per capita monthly income of only $494 (including employer CPF) - below the ComCare criteria of $650 household per capita income

… increasing the number of non-Singaporean workers to an estimated 47 per cent (not including new citizens) of the total workforce

… having hardly any real increase in the basic, gross and total wage (excluding employer CPF contribution) of all Singaporean workers (full-time and part-time), in the last 16 years or so

… increasing the non-Singaporean population to about 39 per cent (excluding new citizens) of the total population

… keeping an estimated at least 3 per cent of the annualised returns derived from our CPF funds historically, instead of returning it to CPF members, like all other national pension funds in the world

… having the most expensive public housing in the world

… not spending any money on healthcare from a cashflow perspective – as annual Medisave contributions and annual Medisave interest always exceed annual public healthcare spending and withdrawals from Medisave

… spending an estimated $400 million a year on non-Singaporean students at all educational levels – and increase the fees of Singaporeans practically every year in recent years?

The battle lines are drawn – what will be the battle cries?

Win battles lose war

A.S.S. Contributor