Latest news with #MarineParade–BraddellHeights
Online Citizen
4 days ago
- Business
- Online Citizen
PAP's Goh Pei Ming tops spending so far as 35 candidates declare S$884,978 from 3 May General Election
SINGAPORE: A total of 35 candidates who contested the General Election on 3 May have declared their election expenses, with combined spending reaching S$884,978. These figures were made publicly available on the Elections Department's (ELD) website on 28 May. Under Singapore's election laws, candidates must declare their expenses and the nature of spending. This process aims to ensure transparency and accountability in campaign financing. Candidates have until 16 June to file their election returns. PAP's Marine Parade–Braddell Heights team spent S$388,756 in sole walkover victory Among those who have submitted so far, People's Action Party (PAP) candidate Goh Pei Ming topped the list with S$104,085 in declared spending. More than half of his expenditure went towards non-online election advertising, including printed materials and physical displays. Goh, a former chief of staff in the Singapore Armed Forces, was part of the PAP team in Marine Parade–Braddell Heights GRC. His team was the only one to win in a walkover on Nomination Day. Their collective campaign expenditure stood at S$388,756 — the highest recorded among the teams that have declared their finances so far. In total, the 35 candidates represented a range of parties, including the PAP, Progress Singapore Party (PSP), National Solidarity Party (NSP), People's Alliance for Reform (PAR), Red Dot United (RDU), and Singapore People's Party (SPP). One candidate each from the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), People's Power Party (PPP), and Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) also submitted their expenses. Additionally, independent candidates Darryl Lo and Jeremy Tan have declared their financial statements. No candidates from the Workers' Party (WP) have submitted returns to date. This leaves 176 candidates either yet to file or whose submissions are pending announcement in the Government Gazette. According to the data released, the average expenditure per candidate came to S$25,285. However, spending varied significantly. While some candidates incurred no expenses, others spent over S$100,000. The PAP led the average spending per candidate at S$77,751. This was followed by the PSP with an average of S$32,303 and the NSP at S$24,378. At the lower end, RDU averaged S$1,297 per candidate, while PAR had the lowest average at S$898. Seven candidates report zero spending Seven candidates declared zero expenditure. These included Sharad Kumar, David Foo and Pang Heng Chuan from RDU; Alec Tok from SDP; Harminder Pal Singh from SDA; and Lim Rui Xian and Muhammad Norhakim from SPP. PPP's Samuel Lee reported S$100 in 'other expenses'. He announced via TikTok on 27 May that he had resigned from the party, effective 23 May, to pursue other opportunities. Among independent candidates, Jeremy Tan, who contested Mountbatten, spent S$16,075. His largest cost was for his solo rally at the Home of Athletics on 1 May. Darryl Lo, contesting Radin Mas, spent S$12,213, with most of it going towards printed materials and other non-digital promotional tools. The only other full team to have submitted expenses was NSP's Sembawang GRC team, which reported a total of S$121,888 in spending. In addition to spending, candidates are required to declare any donations received. Among the 35, only RDU's Ben Puah, who contested Jurong East–Bukit Batok GRC, declared donations. He received S$280 from anonymous donors, via six PayNow transactions ranging from S$10 to S$100. Puah spent S$109 in total on his campaign. RDU's Kala Manickam submitted disputed claims Another RDU candidate, Kala Manickam, submitted disputed claims amounting to S$1,365. These included S$404 in food expenses for campaigners, S$66 for transport, and S$895 for printing extra campaign fliers. According to the ELD, such claims are filed when election agents dispute or fail to settle expense claims within the 28-day window. Kala, who contested in Jurong Central SMC during 3 May poll, told The Straits Times that her claims were not reimbursed by the party. She explained that she was advised to submit them as disputed. 'The party told me to raise petty cash to claim back my money, but when I submitted it after the election, they said the spending was not endorsed by the party,' she said. She added that the party also cited her lack of fundraising as a reason for the rejection of her reimbursement request. Kala said she would personally absorb the cost, stating her campaign was driven by a desire to serve Singapore. The ELD allows members of the public to view candidates' declared expenses by logging into its digital service with their Singpass credentials. Further updates are expected as the 16 June deadline approaches.
Independent Singapore
27-04-2025
- Politics
- Independent Singapore
RDU calls for greater opposition unity and collaboration
SINGAPORE: As Singapore gears up for its most pivotal General Election in years, Ravi Philemon's recent reflections on Marine Parade–Braddell Heights GRC and the broader state of opposition politics offer a sobering warning: if the opposition does not wake up, if it continues to fracture and falter, the only winner will be the People's Action Party (PAP) — as history has repeatedly shown. The Workers' Party (WP)'s decision not to contest Marine Parade–Braddell Heights was surprising to many. However, as Mr Philemon noted, it is understandable when seen through the lens of pragmatism. He pointed out that the WP remains a relatively small party, despite its successes and mobilising resources — the much-needed 'Vitamin Ms' of manpower, money, and media presence — demands tough decisions. Still, while the WP's calculus makes sense internally, the external reality for residents of Marine Parade–Braddell Heights is grim: there will be no alternative voice at the ballot box. In a country where democratic competition is already scarce, that is not a small loss. It could be a warning sign of a larger rot setting in within the opposition ecosystem. The Historical Playbook: Fragmentation favours the PAP Singapore's history is clear. Whenever the opposition has been divided, distracted, or disorganised, the PAP has seized the advantage. In 1997, opposition parties contested 36 seats against the PAP's 83, and most battles were three-cornered fights. The result was a near wipeout. Only two opposition MPs were elected — Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang. The PAP's powerful electoral machinery, community outreach, and policy apparatus allowed it to deepen its hold, portraying the opposition as fractured and unreliable. Every time the opposition frays into multiple camps, the PAP benefits — not through conspiracy, but through sheer structural advantage. It has the ground networks, the resources, and the ability to reassure an anxious electorate that 'stability' and 'unity' must trump all else. And now, in 2025, we are seeing a repeat of this historical cycle. Other constituencies may yet see three-cornered or even four-cornered fights. And if that happens, we must be clear: the result will not be more choices for voters. It will be fewer opposition MPs, fewer checks and balances, and less real democracy. Why so many opposition parties? Some might ask: why can't the opposition simply unite into one party? Why do we have so many opposition groups — WP, PSP, SDP, RDU, NSP, PPP, and others? The answer lies in Singapore's political reality. Each party represents different visions for the country and different strategies for change. Some, like the SDP, emphasise civil liberties and welfare reform. Others, like the PSP, focus on accountability and gradual reform from within. RDU seeks to represent the squeezed middle class and ordinary Singaporeans yearning for a fairer future. These parties are born from real needs, real frustrations, and real communities. They are not vanity projects. They are genuine attempts to represent slices of Singaporean society that feel unheard or underserved by the status quo. But in a mature democracy, multiple parties can coexist without sabotaging each other. The opposition's challenge is not to erase their differences, but to mature past petty rivalries, to recognise that strategic cooperation must come before ego, ideology, or pride. They must reach a stage where, even if they disagree on ideologies, they agree on the principle: Singapore deserves a strong, credible, united opposition. PAP is here to stay. So is the opposition. The PAP is not going anywhere, nor should it. It has an undeniable legacy in building Singapore's success story. For all criticisms, it has steered the country to prosperity, peace, and global stature. But prosperity breeds new challenges: rising inequality, declining social mobility, an ageing population, and the widening gulf between elites and ordinary citizens. No single party, however brilliant, has a monopoly on ideas or compassion. Singapore needs collaboration to stay vibrant, needs alternative voices to challenge assumptions, propose new policies, and hold those in power accountable. The opposition is not here to 'overthrow' Singapore. It is here to strengthen it. Yet the opposition must also recognise: survival is not guaranteed. A total opposition wipeout in Parliament is possible. If the electorate perceives them as divided, untrustworthy, or chaotic, voters will swing decisively towards the familiar and the stable — the PAP. This is why Mr Philemon's message matters so deeply. The bonds of camaraderie that once linked opposition parties are fraying. The shared sense of purpose — that it is not about personal ambition, but about serving the people — is under threat. When the RDU chief negotiated for Jalan Kayu, he prioritised two things: who could best serve the people, and how to maintain opposition unity. That is the spirit needed now, more than ever. The way forward: Lessons from history, hope for the future When Singapore's first generation of opposition leaders stood up in the 1980s and 1990s, they faced overwhelming odds. Yet they persevered, and in doing so, they kept alive the flame of democratic choice. Figures like J.B. Jeyaretnam, Chiam See Tong, and later Low Thia Khiang showed that it was possible to win, even against the odds — provided the opposition stayed disciplined, principled, and people-focused. Disagreements are inevitable. Ideological diversity is healthy. Strategic coordination is no longer a luxury; it is a necessity. After this election, as Mr Philemon says, we must pick up the pieces. Rebuild trust. Rebuild unity. And it cannot wait until the next election cycle. The work must begin immediately, or there might not be another chance for a very long time.
