'Let's worry about ordinary Singaporeans instead': PSP says losing a few ministers won't weaken govt, Singapore News
The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) disagreed with the notion that losing some cabinet ministers would weaken the government, stating that voters need not worry for the People's Action Party (PAP) and should "worry about ordinary Singaporeans instead".
At the party's final rally this general election on Thursday (May 1), PSP vice-chair Hazel Poa said: "PAP also says that if you vote for opposition, they could lose ministers.
"But look at Minister Ong Ye Kung. He lost in GE2011 in Aljunied GRC, but he was brought back in the next election through a different GRC.
"So do not worry for PAP. Let's worry about ordinary Singaporeans instead," she added.
Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Ong were some of the PAP candidates who made similar statements during the election period.
These came as the focus was sharpened on the battleground ward of Punggol, where PAP had deployed Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong to fend off Workers' Party's advances.
PSP secretary-general Leong Mun Wai also chimed in on the topic during the rally held at Jurong West Stadium.
"Has the government been weakened since it lost George Yeo, Lim Hwee Hua and Ng Chee Meng?" he asked.
"Could a weak government have raised GST (Goods and Services Tax) during high inflation? Could a weak government have passed laws like Pofma (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act) and Fica (Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act)? Could a weak government have amended the constitution to create the reserved presidency in 2017?
"The PAP government will not be weakened if they lose a few ministers, because the opposition will come in and provide more ideas," Leong added, calling the sentiment "rubbish".
Party chairmain Tan Cheng Bock also addressed the matter as the rally concluded.
Referring to NTUC secretary-general Ng, who this time is PAP's candidate for Jalan Kayu SMC, Dr Tan said: "When they say they are worried that... [they] will lose him as a minister, I worry.
"Because on the one hand, they say [a] minister must be tough, must be strong, must be decisive... but he wasn't.
"That episode that was related by Mun Wai and Hazel, the Allianz episode concerning NTUC, reflects the quality of that leadership, and you want him to be a minister? You better think twice," he added.
Last year, German insurer Allianz had offered $2.2 billion in cash for at least 51 per cent of shares for Income Insurance, in which NTUC Enterprise has a majority stake.
But the government intervened in October, pausing the deal as it decided it would not be in the public interest.
Two months later, Allianz pulled out of the deal.
Ng addressed the saga on April 27 at a rally, apologising while explaining the circumstances.
During her speech, Poa also called on fellow West Coast-Jurong West GRC candidate Shawn Huang to clarify whether alleged plans by his PAP volunteers to disrupt a PSP walkabout were true and if they were executed.
These plans were allegedly discussed in a WhatsApp group linked to grassroots volunteers of Huang's, she added. Supporters fill stadium for final rally
A large, boisterous crowd was present for the PSP's final rally for the 2025 General Election.
Some supporters came with flags, signs and party merchandise in tow and cheered loudly as candidates delivered their speeches.
The rally also saw a surprise host: former Workers' Party MP Leon Perera, who has been spotted volunteering with PSP since last year.
PSP is contesting in Chua Chu Kang and West Coast-Jurong West GRCs as well as Pioneer, Kebun Baru and Marymount SMCs.
The party's West Coast-Jurong West team consists of Dr Tan, Leong and Poa alongside newcomers Sumarleki Amjah, 53, and Sani Ismail, 49.
At the last general election in 2020, PSP contested in West Coast GRC where the PAP won by a whisker — getting 51.59 per cent of votes to PSP's 48.31 per cent.
[[nid:717557]]
bhavya.rawat@asiaone.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
12 hours ago
- Straits Times
Forum: What about a safety net for local students wanting a place in university?
I was heartened to learn that our Government is extending support to the 151 Singaporean students at Harvard (S'porean undergrads at Harvard can continue studies in universities here, June 6). I am sure the Government will similarly extend support to Singaporean students at other elite US universities if the situation deteriorates there. I sympathise with the Singaporeans studying at Harvard, but I wonder if the message is that our local universities do in fact have the capacity to take in more local students. Or is it that our local universities will reduce the number of places available to local students, to accommodate the returning US students? Many local students do not have the financial resources to seek an overseas education, and universities at home are their only option. But due to limited capacity, not every eligible applicant is accepted. So, I was surprised to learn that local universities are able to accommodate the affected Singapore students at Harvard. Wouldn't this be at the expense of eligible local applicants? Finally, these Ivy League students no doubt have the ability and resources to study in the US. They took the decision to study abroad willingly. In the face of adversity, is our Government expected to offer a safety net back home? What about a safety net for local students? Roy Tan Choon Kang More on this Topic Forum: What readers are saying Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
CNA
18 hours ago
- CNA
Singaporeans living in Los Angeles take extra precautions amid immigration protests
Some Singaporeans living in Los Angeles say they are taking extra precautions, like avoiding downtown LA, as US immigration protests enter the fourth day. They tell CNA that the Singapore embassy has also not issued any warnings or advisory notes, as the bulk of the Singaporean community who are still there feel relatively safe.
Straits Times
3 days ago
- Straits Times
Hear Me Out: Has the swing against elitism gone too far?
An art installation at the Padang. Vocal naysayers recently accused the Government's SG Culture Pass initiative of being the very thing it counteracted: elitism. PHOTO: ST FILE Hear Me Out: Has the swing against elitism gone too far? SINGAPORE – At a time when most people understand that the personal is political, individual views have become a battleground of virtue – equality, good; hierarchy, bad. Elitism? The worst possible kind of social evil. Yet, take a step back from this instinctive repulsion and there might be benefits to muddying the waters. Elitism, the belief that an elite group, however defined, should be entitled to the reins of power has been the norm throughout much of history. Whether it is the clergy, kings with their divine right, the Confucian scholar or today's fintech bros, there have been groups in each time period that societies tend to value and reward. It was only with increasing democratisation, and a growing disenfranchisement at the chasm between the top and the rest, that elitism has become a byword for undeserved privilege and gross injustice. This brief trip back in time is not to rehabilitate elitism, but to show that the current period against it – or at least one that pays lip service to not believing in an elite class – may be an aberrant one. In the West, this has been taken to extremes, manifesting in a debilitating disregard fo r e xperts and fatal results during the Covid-19 pandemic against the advice of doctors to vaccinate. In Singapore, it is the elite schools that are targeted, in the idealistic slogan that every school is a good school. Though, for perplexing reasons, this scepticism has not yet been extended to the natural reverence the majority of Singaporeans harbour for lawyers and doctors. Their expertise is assumed to be universally applicable – a mentality that has narrowed parents and students' conception of what success looks like. In any case, the ills of elitism have been thoroughly aired, including the type of entitled, discompassionate divas that it ends up producing. The very consensus of who deserves to be elite has also fractured. I wonder, though, if this enmity has led to some unexpected side effects. This is a train of thought sparked by recent reactions to the Government's SG Culture Pass initiative set out during the Budget statement in 2025. Self-sabotage Under the scheme, $100 would be given t o Si ngaporeans aged 18 and above for the consumption of the local arts, redeemable from September. One would expect rejoicing, but there was uproar from a group of vocal naysayers. They accused the credits of being the very thing it counteracted: elitism. Why? Because the money could be better spent on support for groceries. This, I thought, was a case of anti-elitism as self-sabotage. Central to this worldview was that the arts is an elitist activity patronised only by the rich and the hyper-educated aesthete, when one type of activity for the elite and one for the others is exactly the sort of segregation and self-limiting mentality that perpetuates divides. There was no sense that this $100 in credits was a way of making the perceived barrier more permeable. To put it in context, the Government also announced $800 in CDC vouchers. This was bread for all, and roses too. Yet another potentially problematic by-product is that the word 'elite' has since been tainted by association. No one dares lay claim to the word 'elite', or acknowledge that someone else may be elite in his or her field. The rare exemption is perhaps in sports, where athletes accept the cut-throat nature of their competition, and where non-athletes are so tangibly outside their league that there is no point in pretending otherwise. This is not in itself a problem – elite is after all just a word – though I find no easy replacement term that can immediately convey excellence to the same degree. But it incidentally comes at a time when there is a general reluctance to impose any kind of objective standard, supplemented by that compassionate but useless invention: the consolation prize. This applies to things: Is no one taste now better than another? As well as people, where so many takes on social media are considered equally valid, measured just by virality. It is the kind of ChatGPT mentality where how often something is repeated or the number of clicks on a website can influence results, with no regard to its truth value. The war against elitism may have come at the expense of standards and good sense. Reclaiming elite This impulse to drag discourse to the same level – usually downwards – has the right intentions, timely given that, for so long, highly selective elitist standards have been imposed as objective metrics. To right the ship so discourse is levelled upwards though, perhaps elite can be thought of as separate from elitism, rehabilitated without the corresponding concentration of resources and power. This should be expanded so that who is elite becomes not just about education but also because of other qualities – role models people can aspire to in different contexts. What constitutes an elite has always been reliant on man-made barometers, negotiated by the community. There should be no shame in aspiring to be elite. Anti-elitism should not mean an absence of the elite, but that all who put their heart and minds to it should have a fair shot at claiming its pedigree, or getting closer to it. It is a lifelong dusting off of mediocrity, and it begins with first recognising what is good. Hear Me Out is a new series where young journalists (over)share on topics ranging from navigating friendships to self-loathing, and the occasional intrusive thought. Check out the Headstart chatbot for answers to your questions on careers and work trends.
