Who's actually dealing with tangible issues?

I must applaud the Straits Times for giving alot more coverage to the opposition this time round.
Suppose you need to when a combined crowd of about of 100,000 Singaporeans packed into opposition rally sites yesterday.

But I must also caution readers that no matter how objective our excellent, young journalists want to be, their hands would be tied by the powers that be. (Ex PAP Dr. Tony Tan is the Chairman of SPH)

That's why I woke up only to read a somewhat distorted view of the elections.
If you read front pages of today's ST, it would seem that only PAP is tackling the tangible issues while the opposition is merely trumping their own agenda.
This couldnt be further away from the truth. And I'll tell you why.

Firstly, I'm not sure what kind of moral compass PAP is using when the tangible issues of today's Singapore like cost of living, immigration, medical, housing, education etc were caused by..... them.
We can safely say so because the PAP has had half a century of uninterrupted rule.
It's like saying to someone I'm going to poision you and then claim that I'm are the only one with the antidote.

Secondly, the SDP did give credit to the old PAP, something which ST has totally failed to report. There's no doubt that we had men of courage and servitude like Goh Keng Swee, Lim Chin Siong and of course Lee Kuan Yew. For the latter, yes not everyone agrees with his hard-handed tactics but one can't begrudge him of his contributions to early Singapore. So I'm strangely happy that Tanjong Pagar GRC is a walkover so his legacy will be intact.
In actual fact, one can argue that pre Independence Singapore was already some sort of crown jewel in the region. The British built our policies and infrastructure and left Singapore in a very good state.
Should Gordon Brown come out and claim credit?

I think the point here is that Singaporeans have repaid the old PAP many times over with our hard work and sacrifices over the last 50 years. In any case, the role of the elected government is to serve the people, not the other way round.

So alot of the misgivings are with the current crop of PAP ministers..or the new PAP.
All of them are millionaires, some born with silver spoon. You seriously expect a bunch of sheltered millionaires to know that feeling of squeezing into stuffy MRT trains? Or feel any sort of pinch from 7% GST? Or understand the frustration of balloting for HDB and schools? Or fathom the agony of a 5 hour wait to see a doctor?

The PAP must realise that in the age of social media, they can no longer control information. A google search will reveal that Khaw Boon Wan did suggest sending the elderly to Johor and even to Batam.
A google search will prove that unpopular policies like COE and ERP were introduced during SM Goh's time as PM.

In fact, it is the opposition who are campaigning on tangible policies. Unlike the PAP, opposition parties today have a well balanced breed of scholars and doctors but also ordinary Singaporeans like small business owners and marketing executives. We all know that a political party solely consisting of government scholars may not produce the best ideas.
Imagine a football team with 11 Ronaldos or 11 Shiltons. There must be diversity to represent different interests.

Still, at the SDP rally (I will be the other parties rallies over the next week), there were some good ideas, needing fine tuning, that are worth considering.
1) Dr. Ang suggested bringing down class room size from 40 to 20. This will certainly benefit each child and also create more teaching jobs
2) Focus more on services sector- less labour intensive (hence fewer foreigners needed) and less land intensive
3) Donating half their MP allowance if voted in to set up a bursary for the less fortunate. I wonder if any PAP minister will do the same.

On the topic of housing, I suggest the opposition should talk less about high prices as general wisdom will dictate that high asset prices are good. And the PAP will drum this into voters everytime.
Try arguing that if PAP track record was so good and if they really have improved the lives of Singaporeans, then why is the ratio of those staying in public vs private housing (condos) nearly the same as 20 years ago.
I'm not aware of another developed country that has public housing for the masses. (Public housing in Hong Kong is rental housing for the poor, many Malaysians own private apartments)