This was stated by Minister Josephine Teo, whose obscene salary means she will probably no need to set aside any retirement money, as her role as a Minister in the PAP government ensures she is well paid to retire anytime she chooses to. And now, she is telling Singaporeans that they do not have enough money for retirement and they should save more. Would Singaporeans not safe money if they could? Why is the Minister stating the bloody obvious?
Now is this not putting the blame somewhere else and refusing to take responsibility? We know that if this happened in a WP ward, the MPs there would definitely be taken to task and be accused of not doing their duty to ensure resident's safety, even though the problem lies with Town Council staff. What about Murali then? Would he be let off without a single admonishment?
A good solution is one that takes into consideration the interests of as many users as possible, which of course include the safety of pedestrians on footpaths. But what we have seen with the reactions of the food delivery riders, where they gathered in big groups to meet MPs to hear them out, it is clear that no one was appeased in this fiasco of a decision by the PAP. This goes to show that the PAP has no idea how to solve the problem they themselves created. They have really lost their way.
But come 23rd November, PMD riders have been given a platform to air their grievances in public, without fear of getting cut off by Lam Pin Min or any of the PAP MPs who so readily agreed with the overnight ban. PMD delivery riders are invited to come and speak your mind at Hong Lim Park, and let Lam Pim Min and the other ministers know that they are taking away your livelihoods by taking away your PMDs.
While this will be painted in the MSM as PAP MPs going out of their way to accommodate the PMD riders by meeting them and having a dialogue with them, the reality is that this was nothing more than a PR exercise, where the angry and unhappy PMD riders are gathered under one roof, and told in no uncertain terms that the government will never budge from their stand. This was never a dialogue, but a monologue from a PAP MP.
The fact that GST is going to be raised sooner or later now does not even surprise Singaporeans anymore. So, is integrity really about telling Singaporeans in advance about the expected hike, or actually apologising to Singaporeans that all those noise about GST not being raised were in the end not true? Shouldn't DPM Heng, who is also the Finance Minister, show more integrity to Singaporeans by saying that the government could not fulfill its promise of just four years before, and thus apologise for this breaking of promise? That is integrity.
His statement smacks of him praising his party to high heavens. He might have forgotten PM Lee's promise during the last election campaign that GST would not go up, quashing WP's claims that it would. No matter, because according to Heng, just because you are upfront about the raising of GST it means you have integrity, past promises be damned.
For sure, if it occurred in AHTC itself, WP will be questioned over and over, and motion filed in Parliament to accuse them of negligence of the highest order. After all, an oversight like this may cost lives, as it so nearly did in this particular incident. WP will be accused of not exercising due diligence.
Many Singaporeans question the timing of this new Law, indicating that if this was to be passed into Law, it should not be parachuted in immediately for the next election, but instead should be carried out for the next one. Many also questioned if the hurried nature of the Reserved Presidency Election was to stop Tan Cheng Bock from contesting, as he had been widely tipped to run for the President, and most said that he could have won.
While Senior Minister of State Lam Pin Min told Parliament that the move was necessary to make pedestrians feel safe again, about 100,000 PMD users who depended on them to make a living, were left jobless and clueless as to what they can do. The question that most PMD users had for the people who made the decision from their ivory towers was that did the new law kick in without proper consultations and deliberations, and was there any thoughts given to those whose very rice bowl depended on them riding the PMD.