Opinions

Seems like our chicken wings are coming to Singaporeans again. Eligible Singaporeans will be receiving their CPF top ups/GST Vouchers in Novembers. Eligible Singaporeans will be receiving notices on what they would get near the end of October through email/smses.

Once again it seems like the Government is handing out chicken wings for us Singaporeans. It seems like everything they are doing recently is pointing towards something. These type of wayang will only increase over time when the time draws closer. We must all remember that it's all part of their ploy to make us vote for them.

When the elections are over our lives will go back to the same old thing. Where most of us suffer due to the rising costs. Vote wisely. Don't be fooled by these gifts they freely give out before the elections. Think about our future, our children's future. How we want to live ten years down the road. Make the right choice.

In a recent speech by our PM Lee, he mentioned that there were 50 million visitors since the opening of Jewel in April. That's 50 million visitors in 6 months. Of course, this number drew many skepticism from Singaporeans. According to the calculations of local food blogger KF Seetoh, 50 million visitors in 6 months roughly equate to 280,000 visitors a day for the Jewel.

To further break it down, 280,000 visitors a day equate to approx 11,000 visitors in a hour. Can the shops even handle that much volume? Does this volume even equate to the amount of profits earned from the mall? This all just sounds like PM Lee tooting his own horn again. But of course, this is to be expected. If he does not sell the idea of our $1.7 billion 'symbol of bold dreams', he will receive even more backlash then he already have.

He once claimed that the mall will bring in more visitors and profits. But honestly, how many of us Singaporeans are even willing to travel all the way to Changi just to see an oversized fountain? The queues for popular food choices such as a&w and shake shack are abysmal as well. Many of us would rather stay home for home cooked food or settle for some hawker fare would we not?

What exactly is the point of our Jewel? To once again put ourselves on the world map? I say, screw that. We should be concentrating on bettering the lives of all Singaporeans. Who cares if we are on the map if our citizens are suffering? Our ministers should stop spending money on unnecessary things before they better our lives. Such monies could have went into our education, a better transport system, etc. But because of their pride, they are making us all suffer.

Yesterday, was the last time that The Merlion at Sentosa admitted visitors.

The imposing and iconic attraction will be demolished as part of the Sentosa Sensoryscape project that looks to rejuvenate the tourism destination.

In Singapore, most buildings and attractions don't stand the test of time.

Some are lucky enough to be designated as a local heritage, and therefore, preserved. 

Many are torn down to be replaced with shinier, glitzier, and more often than not, more expensive building and attractions.

Last week, PM Lee highlighted the Jewel as a symbol's of Singapore's 'can do' spirit. He branded it as an instantly recognisable icon of Singapore.

This may be true. For foreigners, the Jewel is an iconic symbol that they can identify Singapore with.

What about local? How many of us have been to Jewel and is proud of it?

With the phasing out of the Merlion attraction at Sentosa, one wonders if the expensive Jewel will meet the same fate in the future. 

Veteran opposition politician, Goh Meng Seng, has done the opposition cause no favours with his criticism of the Workers Party (WP) over the town council saga.

On his social media, Goh slammed the WP for what he deemed as their incompetence and mismanagement of their town council. He also lamented the lack of proper "checks and balances" in WP, emphasising the importance of good governance.

Simply put, Goh is of the view that he can't support the WP.

In the interest of a free media and freedom of expression, Goh is entitled to air his thoughts on the matter.  People who criticise him for his views are being hypocritical - they are doing what they have accused the PAP of doing to the opposition. 

Goh can choose to vote for whoever he choses to vote for whatever reasons.

However, let's not forget the bigger fish at hand.

Now, more than ever before, the ground is ripe for opposition parties to make greater inroads into parliament. Many have the conviction and believe that they will be members of parliament after the elections are done.

The key to the success is opposition solidarity.

A fragmented opposition will only play into the hands of the PAP. It is what the PAP wants.

The opposition must learn from this.

Instead of bickering with fellow opposition politicians, leaders like Dr Tan Cheng Bock, Pritam Singh, and Chee Soon Juan should focus on cooperation and charting the way forward for the opposition parties.

In his paper titled "Equal Justice Under The Constitution And Section 377A Under The Penal Code" published online by the Singapore Academy of Law (SAL), former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong opined that the law was outdated and needed to be reviewed.

Chan explained that the current wordings and provisions of S377A fail the reasonableness test set out for a case in 2015. The contention was that the wording may be perceived to be discriminatory against men who commit acts of gross indecency in public.

This led Chan to conclude that S377A is a violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution. 

Three people have filed court challenges against the constitutionality of S377A and they will be heard in court in November. They include LGBT-rights activist and Pink Dot pioneer, Dr Roy Tan, former executive director of LGBT group Oogachaga Bryan Choong Chee Hong, and DJ Johnson Ong Ming. In particular, Dr Tan is leveraging on the views of former Justices such as Chan, Walter Woon, V K Rajah, as well as current Deputy Attorney-General, Hri Kumar, for his case.

Chan is one of an increasingly long list of former and current government officials and legal personalities who have voiced out against S377A and questioned its validity.

Lee Hsien Yang (LHY), the younger brother of PM Lee Hsien Loong, and his family members, are known supporters of the LGBTQ community. LHY's son, Li Huanwu, and his husband, Heng Yirui, is a part of the LGBT community. The family graced the latest iteration of Pink Dot earlier in June this year.

In September this year, Ambassador-at-Large Tommy Koh, also called for the repeal of S377A, and urged the LGBT community to bring a class action to challenge the constitutionality of the law.

Before that, in 2018, former AGs Woon and Rajah, asserted their views that the selective enforcement of S377A undermines the rule of law.

Indeed, the voice against S377A has gained greater gravitas and credibility with the show of support from esteemed and highly regarded personalities such as Woon, Rajah, LHY, Koh and now Chan. 

It will be increasingly difficult for the court and the government to maintain status quo.

It is a matter of time before S377A is repealed.

Will religious and anti-LGBT groups come around to this or will they continue their opposition to the liberal voices?

What are the implications for Singapore?

According to media reports, Speaker of Parliament and PAP politician, Tan Chuan-Jin (TCJ), addressed activists from the PAP Seniors Group (PSG). He reportedly urged them to help "reframe the narrative" on ageing, and in the process, making Singapore the "best place in the world to retire and grow old in".

TCJ is of the view that the negative framing of ageing must be replaced with one that is more positively oriented. This is not surprising coming from someone who views having to collect cardboards in their old age as a positive (to earn income or for exercise).

It is ambitious. What makes a country or city the best place to retire and grow old in? 

There is no straightforward answer. Different people with different values and different socio-economic backgrounds will have different parameters.

However, one parameter common to a large group is the quality of life that they can look forward to.

This quality of life is not necessarily strictly defined by tangible mesaures like a country's GDP. This is where Singapore, is lacking.

A recent survey by Natixis Investment Managers ranked Singapore 28th out of 44 countries for retirement security. The survey noted that while Singapore came first in terms of retirement finances, it performed relatively poorly for the retirees' "quality of life and material well being".

This is the reality for retirees in Singapore. It is the reality that the PAP government needs to accept, understand, and help improve.

It is not a coordinated negative framing of ageing in Singapore. It is a reflection of the reality here.

Singaporeans work to prepare their finances for their various life stages, and also to ensure financial adequacy during retirement. This does not guarantee contentment and happiness in old age.

Whether one works through retirement and old age through their own volition, or otherwise, also makes a difference.

That is the challenge for the PAP, or for whatever party/parties that govern Singapore. This is an issue that needs to be managed with sound investments and policies to ensure a good quality of life for Singaporean retirees.

The problems will not disappear by a simple re-framing of the issue.