Canning Hill Piers, the most talked about new condominium launch in Singapore is creating a buzz in the Singapore property market. CDL and CapitaLand’s marketing blitz hopes to create a new niche property segment, the young ‘wannabes’. 
Young buyers may be enticed by the eye popping common facilities in a lively location. Close to 75% of the 696 units are less than 800 square feet, the majority of these under 500 plus square feet. For the upwardly mobile singles and young couples a home at Canning Hill Piers is their passport to the lifestyle they aspire. But when  their priorities change can these small units become a family home?
Despite the developer’s brilliant and intensive marketing campaign there are challenges. About 25% of the units are larger units that will require buyers of a different profile. The most naive buyer, if any, will be the person who forks out $50m for a penthouse where several hundred units are sold below $2m. One can understand why a buyer would pay $75m for a penthouse at Les Maison Nassim where there are only 14 units and entry price is over $30m. For this select group exclusivity and privacy are their primary considerations. It will also not appeal to buyers of premium four and five bedroom units who have to fork out $5m or more. Buyers in this segment will prefer the exclusivity of a Boulevard 88 or Gramercy Park to the buzz of Canning Hill Piers with common facilities that are shared with many residents. The vibes at the common areas will be totally different when shared with numerous other residents. At the high per square foot price any unit will be hard to justify minus the common areas.
The young couples will enjoy living at Canning Hill Piers but when they start a family will their apartments be too small? Can they offload at a profit if they buy at this price or rent out their unit in future at a decent rental yield?

With it’s attractive amenities and location one can confidently say that Canning Hill Piers will remain attractive to foreigners and professionals. As for capital gain the developer is already factoring in forward pricing. Whether it goes up even higher depends on the market movements. I am generally quite pessimistic on mass market condos as it has already moved up quite a bit. Canning Hill Piers is in the  Core Central Region which has not moved up as much and could  still offer an upside potential.

The crux of the problem facing Singapore now is how to transform a government that has achieved so much good for it’s citizens by controlling everything and being able to execute and enforce it’s policies rather effortlessly.

Now PAP, the ruling party for nearly the last six decades has to engage a more activist electorate to get on it’s side by being open and persuasive. The problem is compounded by indecisive leadership and no clear successor in the 4G team who can provide the visionary leadership required to continue Singapore on a strong growth trajectory.

The lacklustre results and anaemic projections for the economy is as much because of problems within the government as it is of the external environment. This will be worrisome for the PAP as failing to continue improving the lives of citizens will erode it’s legacy and ultimately grip on power.

The recent saga of the ‘selected’ elected President is a telling sign of the discomfort the PAP leadership has dealing with an alternative view point and the mentality that only they have the infinite wisdom to address faults in society. That smugness does not sit well with young Singaporeans and the better educated. Even more problematic is their convoluted solution to fix the issue by creating numerous rules where the obvious solution is reaching out to the public and persuasive argument.

The 1G leadership was ahead of it’s cohort and delivered record beating growth for Singapore because they took a pragmatic approach and could rally citizens to support their methods in exchange for solid results and an improved quality of life. While other governments became protective they adopted an open economy, choosing free trade over import substitution and harmonious labour relations instead of industrial strife. But now the 3G and 4G leadership appear to be lagging their peers in other countries who have become enlightened and progressive.

Singapore’s methods are definitely incongruous with an open, data driven digital world. Perhaps the PAP does not get it that in a fast changing world the control  resides with the individual and government has to be the partner and not the monopoly. The 1G leaders faced tremendous challenges too but their focus was on how to beat the odds and not explain their way out of a mediocre performance. Had they taken the latter approach it is unlikely that the PAP will still be in power today.

The current leadership cannot be the custodians of an outdated model and must change course to ensure Singapore will again be the vibrant nation that can outpace bigger and better endowed countries to remain at the top of the league.

Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong made a prescient call for a stronger, more inclusive leadership team. It could not have been more timely given the challenges facing Singapore. On it’s current trajectory it is difficult to see how surrounded by more youthful populations that are in tune with advances in technology and business models Singapore can sustain it’s pole position as a beacon of success in a resurgent Asia. 

Basic corporate management retreat exercises will highlight that the 4G leadership is a weak team because all of them have the same strengths in abundance. They would lose to a mediocre team with a wider range of diverse skills.

The other major problem is that there is no clear leader within this group and no one stands out. A strong leader will be essential to keep the team together, maintain internal support and to deal effectively with neighbours and major powers that are becoming increasingly assertive.

The third problem is that our neighbours are getting cleverer while we are losing our competitive advantage. This will be exacerbated by numerous development projects all around the region that will erode Singapore’s advantage in a globalised world.

Finally, there is a fundamental disconnect with what the government  is trying to preserve and what it takes to be successful in a world where the twin forces of innovation and entrepreneurship creates continuous disruption.

The PAP has to loosen up, incorporate mavericks and outsmart the opposition and not pummel them at every opportunity.  If the 4G leadership cannot tolerate dissent in it’s own backyard and aims to control everything they will ultimately fight a losing battle and slowly Singapore will slide in it’s ranking among the first world of countries. Many successful corporations that have been knocked off their position can trace the genesis of their decline to a leadership transition. But it became obvious only well into the term of their lacklustre and clueless management team.

Hopefully the PAP is conscious of these challenges and working hard to include entrepreneurs,  innovators, private sector executives, Singaporeans who have accomplished success overseas and dilute the presence of generals and civil servants to form a diverse 4G leadership team that is in tune with the times and possess the requisite skills to manage in a complex and dynamic environment with many worthy competitors.

It will be sensible for the Singapore government to back off from the ill conceived idea of an elected President from a small pool of qualifying candidates. An election that excludes at least 99.999 % of the population cannot be democratic by any norm.

They will make matters worse if they have to make concessions to their own rules. Does a person of mixed origin qualify for Mendaki or fall under the quota reserved for Malays under HDB rules if he or she identifies as being Malay? Rules no matter how flawed should not be bent by the originator.

Halimah cannot be a unifying President if she only qualifies by identifying with one part of her mixed heritage and denying the other. Is she being respectful towards her late father and would her Indian relatives be offended? Would a candidate of mixed Indian Chinese heritage stand a chance of being elected in a future Presidential election by solely identifying with his or her Indian heritage.

The performance of the PAP members of Parliament was incredulous. Serious allegations of impropriety behaviour were levelled at the Prime Minister by his own siblings. The PAP MPs should have played the devil’s advocate instead of being nice to the PM. Their questions should be probing and relentless to get to the bottom of the matter regardless of Lee Hsien Loong’s position as the leader of their party. How Hsien Loong stands up to this barrage of questions from his own party and his unwavering responses would convince the majority of the citizens on the baselessness of the claims by Hsien Yang and Wei Ling.

He stands to gain nothing from a tame performance but will win sympathy and respect for a necessarily ugly session that he has to withstand because the accusations were serious and made against him by credible individuals from the establishment. Taking pot shots at the Workers Party only does further damage to what should have been a sober session in Parliament. Most unexpected was ESM Goh reiterating that Tang Liang Hong was not his brother, only confirming the point Low Thia Kiang was making that by not suing their siblings the PAP leaders practice double standards.

This was a lost opportunity for the PM to strike the tone for a major change in direction which is probably needed if the PAP is to remain relevant and leading a totally different society than which existed decades ago. The younger citizens are more expressive and want to have the freedom of expression on a far wider range of sensitive subjects than what was permitted in the past. They also do not accept explanations easily and are more diverse in their thinking. Social media and generational change makes it impossible for the government to easily explain inconvenient issues.

Hsien Loong could have turned the table on his siblings and make this unhappy episode his ultimate triumph. I have no doubt that he is an honourable person with a passion to do well for the citizens of Singapore. The charges levelled against him are mainly emotional and lack evidence to substantiate the serious charges. Calling your sibling a dishonourable son is an opinion. Differences with his siblings on their family estate does not prove he is unfit to lead or abusing instruments of government. He could have said that he has not made the decision yet whether to sue his siblings but upmost in his mind is family reconciliation. He can also emphasise that if he feels compelled to sue them to put an end to this matter he will not make a financial gain out of this unfortunate saga.

After subjecting himself to this inquisition he will be in a good position to state that it is time to take stock of changes in society and declare that moving forward the government will be more tolerant of criticism but will defend itself robustly but not necessarily always in court. This will definitely resonate well with younger Singaporeans who will increasingly be less tolerant of high handed tactics in a battle they perceive to be between a David and a Goliath. But this does not mean that there are no red lines but rather the red lines should be pushed further to allow more criticism. Arresting a group of vocal students for their left leaning views as in the past is likely to backfire. It is better for the PAP to demonstrate that it has changed instead of being forced to change.

Ultimately how history remembers Lee Hsien Loong depends on his role in transforming the government to reflect attitudinal changes in society. Continuing the practices started by his father and ensuring the economic goods are delivered will not be enough. This was an opportunity for him to take the high ground and lead the party in a change of direction it inevitably must make in the future.

Lee Kuan Yew’s life was the execution of a vision to perfection. In a single life time he uplifted Singapore from the third world to a class leading position in the first world. Unlike Qatar’s transformation because of a sudden good fortune of discovering vast reserves of natural gas, Singapore’s success was due to the quantum increase in the value of it’s human capital through decades of good policy and prudent investment. The ideas that the first generation of leaders had for Singapore and their dogged determination, removing any obstacle in the way of achieving progress for the majority of Singaporeans were largely responsible for Singapore’s success.

It was truly a remarkable achievement because Singapore achieved first world status not just because of a huge leap in per capita income but simultaneously created a highly developed society. When Lee Kuan Yew and his youthful colleagues took over the reins of government Singapore could be best described as a sleepy backwater with terrible quality of life indicators and stood the risk of becoming less relevant to the the world. Singapore had a low level of literacy, a minuscule percentage of it’s population had university education, low life expectancy, slums everywhere and backward infrastructure. Altogether an unattractive and rather uninviting place for the talented and well heeled to make their home.

The first generation of leaders under Lee Kuan Yew’s leadership were able to transform Singapore’s hardware and software. The physical landscape has changed dramatically and Singapore is now one of the most attractive cities in the world even though it is poorly endowed with natural beauty. It’s infrastructure places it on par with the leading cities in the world. Similar strides have been made with the population. Standards of education are among the highest in the world and attendance at university on par with developed economies that took several generations to achieve such participation rates. The life expectancy has increased dramatically with good access to medical care for the population without the high taxes or high medical cost so prevalent in other first world countries.

This dedicated and capable team had delivered stunning results and kept their word so unlike politicians elsewhere. As the leader of this team Lee Kuan Yew deserves respect and admiration. He should not be revered but emulated for generations to come. Politicians should be held accountable to results and the progress they achieve to make the lives of citizens better. Not because they can appeal to sectarian segments of the population and stir up emotions to gain office and exploit these fault lines to stay in power. Few political parties have achieved what Lee Kuan Yew and his team did for Singapore because they chose popularity over good governance.

For all his remarkable achievements Lee Kuan Yew did make a few mistakes which fortunately for all Singaporeans pale in comparison to his decisions that were ahead of his time. But two issues can affect his legacy.

He was being visionary when he actively nudged the first generation of leaders to make way for younger leaders. This ensured that Singapore unlike many developing countries was not governed by a geriatric group of politicians that was out of tune with changes in society. It ensured leadership renewal and a cabinet that was dynamic and had a fresh perspective on the needs of the citizens and savvy enough to find the solutions to deliver change. But the policy was not applied to himself. A true leader walks the talk and leads by example. LKY did not need to be a senior minister or minister mentor to retain his influence. He should have had confidence in the second generation leaders who were carefully selected by him to run the show independently and to continue with policies that will achieve the long term goal of advancing Singapore society. Had he stepped down earlier there would not be any lingering doubt that Lee Hsien Loong became the prime minister on his own merit and does not derive legitimacy from his father. It is a pity that his own siblings are now throwing aspersions at him despite his popularity and having won a resounding mandate at the last general election.

The second issue is developing a personality cult around a core leader. Many third world countries fall into this trap and history has been rather unkind to these leaders after their demise. Lee Kuan Yew’s claim to fame and his legacy was built on Singapore’s success and having institutionalised meritocracy and good governance as it’s management principle. This will ensure Singapore continues to remain vibrant by optimising it’s potential. Implicit in this strategy is a hard nosed approach to achieving the maximum benefit for the majority regardless of whether individual preferences would have to be disregarded from time to time. It is difficult to implement such a tough approach if the rules can be bent to favour the elite. Nowhere has this been as controversial as the ‘Land Acquisition Act’ which resulted in many family homes being acquired for development. While there may have been no reason to acquire 38 Oxley Road for development in the past some may wonder whether the mandarins in the urban planning department would have dared to propose an idea that infringed on the area because of the presence of Lee Kuan Yew’s abode. By demolishing the house it removes an unnecessary symbol to the legacy of Lee Kuan Yew and proves that there are no sacred cows in Singapore even if it happens to belong to Lee Kuan Yew.

Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy will be terrible if his children fight over a sorry house and reputations are tarnished over a questionable issue. It is time to move on and demonstrate that the institutions created by Lee Kuan Yew and his team are still robust and only the best and talented will continue to win favour in Singapore to serve and lead. Then Singapore will be a calm oasis in an increasingly turbulent world where too many charlatans are masquerading as politicians. That will be the best acknowledgement of the wisdom of Lee Kuan Yew.

There are many things like fruit cake, clotted cream and luxury cars for which the British are justifiably famous. To this list of superlatives we could add a new entry, clueless politicians. It is astounding how the Prime Minister could call for a referendum to take the country out of the European Union without a plan and based on a split vote that does not even command the support of majority of the population. The only conclusive outcome of the referendum is that there will be a prolonged period of uncertainty and no good options to move forward. It would be a far more elaborate process to lower the voting age or to raise the legal age for drinking. David Cameron with his misplaced confidence had taken liberty with the lives of the citizens to play political Russian roulette. A decision with grave consequences had been taken without a plan to mitigate the impact nor with any checks and balances.

David Cameron would likely go down in history as the most clueless and incompetent British prime minister. But it is the antics of his party colleagues that is bringing this drama to new heights of lunacy. None of them has come out with a stand that a second referendum is absolutely necessary despite the fact that there were numerous misstatements, a razor thin margin for the winning side, less than half the population voting to leave and clear evidence that leaving the EU will not be painless and might lead to the break up of the United Kingdom itself. Predictably they are behaving as politicians by claiming to be the saviour, backstabbing former allies and quickly changing sides on the debate. It is clear that their only motive is to move into 10 Downing Street. Another trait of politicians, a complete lack of remorse for the pain they inflict is abundantly in display. There is no mea culpa for the mess that the UK is in now but finger pointing at others.

The entire British politics is in a state of upheaval and politicians of all shades and affiliations are engaging in a fierce food fight while the economy is in a state of shock because of the lack of direction to tackle the self inflicted problems. The opposition Labour party is in disarray. Their members will definitely demand that a new general election must be called before Brexit can be invoked. Whoever is the new leader of the Labour party will have a shot at being the Prime Minister which makes evicting Jeremy Corbyn a more attractive proposition. The Liberal Democrats also see this as the best opportunity to reverse their declining fortune by taking the contrarian position and staking themselves as the party to remain in the EU.

It is clear that Teresa May, Andrea Leadsom, Michael Gove or whoever becomes the next British Prime Minister will lead a divided party, face a hostile parliament and will be under tremendous pressure from various stakeholders with conflicting objectives. Those that voted for Brexit would demand a firm date to exit the EU but an equal number would demand a second referendum, Scotland and Northern Ireland would demand their own referendum again and residents of the City of London will appear even more alien in a Britain that they no longer have much in common. It is difficult to see how this toxic mix can negotiate effectively with the EU to leave and the ensuing gridlock will be disastrous for the British economy.

There is a silver lining in this tragedy, it provides fodder for playwrights to come out with another Best of British, political satire.

Now that the referendum for the United Kingdom to remain or leave the European Union is over the only certainty is that there will be chaos for the next few months. It is not inevitable that Britain must leave the EU. Whether and how she leaves depends on the unpredictable events that will unfold following the referendum. The outcome of the referendum is unlikely to serve the expectations of the remain or the leave camps. It was an exercise in political opportunism that will forever be a stigma on the record of Prime Minister David Cameron.

Leaders galvanize their constituents towards a common goal that serves the interest of the majority. Unfortunately some politicians exploit the differences between constituents to remain in office. Sadly David Cameron is not a leader and a poor politician. He is unable to control his party nor stay in office. A leader must command the respect of party members before he can win support from the population at large. Calling for a referendum to get rebellious party members to toe the party line only demonstrates David Cameron’s incompetence. It is not surprising that he was ignored by large numbers of his own constituents and he does not deserve any credit for the overwhelming support to remain in the EU by Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The referendum is not legally binding and has to be ratified by Parliament first before invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. That will trigger an irreversible course leading to UK exiting the EU in two years. In the aftermath of the Brexit vote it is clear that there were many misstatements made by the leave camp. Their leaders do not want a swift exit and hope to negotiate concessions from the EU to retain many of the benefits of membership. To quote Boris Johnson “This does not mean that the United Kingdom will be in any way less united, it does not mean it will be any less European”. But Nicola Surgeon already said “As things stand, Scotland faces the prospect of being taken out of the EU against her will. I regard that as democratically unacceptable”. It will be clear to those that voted for leave that when they achieve their aim it will be on terms that are painful and not what they were promised. But those who voted to remain feel that they have been deceived by fraudulent actions by the leaders of the leave camp. They are unable to keep their campaign promises but bind the entire population to a decision that was supported by only a third of the electorate, taking into account those that did not vote in the referendum. Even many of those that voted to leave the EU are likely to change their position when they fully comprehend the impact of such a move.

This colossal blunder has brought to the surface the many fault lines in British society and exaggerated the divisions without offering any tangible solutions. The young versus the old, the highly educated versus less educated, Scotland and Northern Ireland versus England and Wales and London versus the rest of England. The leave campaign promised prosperity and greater control over immigration and Britain’s own affairs. Their supporters are rapidly finding out you cannot have your cake and eat it too. The continued prosperity of the United Kingdom depends much on London’s success as the center of global finance and innovation. It is essential to maintain access to a larger European market and the ability to attract technology talent to her shores. UK cannot force the EU to make the concessions it requires to maintain London’s preeminent status. The kind of talent that the UK must attract are more likely to leave when they find it increasingly a xenophobic place. London’s pain will not be England’s gain either.

The outlook is murky and can get a lot worse unless strong action is taken to prevent a further slide. The politicians that created the mess must face the reality that the referendum was hasty and did not provide clarity to the British public on the implications of such a major decision. In the current circumstances it is best to go for a cooling period now and call for a second referendum after negotiating with the EU on the terms to remain closely aligned to the EU as an alternative to being a member. While logical a second referendum may not be likely as politicians generally put their personal interest before the interest of their constituents despite claims to the contrary.

This will be Boris’s chance to get a shot at being the PM. But is it by no means certain as there could be a strong faction within the Conservative party that would want to stop him for creating the mess that has disrupted their lives and possibly prematurely ended their careers. Even with the support of the majority of the Conservative Party it will be difficult for the new leader to hang on in office for long before calling for another general election. Members of his own party may co-operate with the opposition to bring him down. An interim leader of the UK will not be able to get concessions from the other EU members without agreeing to terms that are unacceptable to the leave camp. By the next general election it will be very clear that leaving the EU without a negotiated agreement will cause considerable pain and possibly the break up the United Kingdom. But even an agreement will not deliver all the benefits promised and stands the risk that Scotland and Northern Ireland will want to leave and remain part of the EU.

The EU is unlikely to agree to negotiations unless the UK invokes Article 50 first. But it might agree to further discussions if David Cameron or his successor tells the British public that deciding to leave the EU without first understanding the exit terms will be disastrous and a second referendum would be called with clarity on the details should UK decide to leave the EU. The UK public clearly deserves better than their politicians. Hopefully common sense, a quality sadly lacking in politicians will prevail.

Bobby Jindal is a smart guy. His academic credentials are impeccable and he is one of the youngest former congressman and governor. As expected of a person of his intellect Bobby’s opinion article in the Wall Street Journal today was a well written piece on why he is voting for Trump despite his earlier criticisms. But his arguments ring hollow. It is amazing how politicians can obliviously change their position without the slightest embarrassment for their earlier statements. Trump does not need Jindal’s endorsement and there will be no shortage of political sycophants who would join his bandwagon if they stand to gain from a Trump Presidency.

Time and again Trump had demonstrated that his appeal only increases when he disregards establishment politicians. Many political pundits have made a big deal of the swing to the left in American politics. They miss the point. The swing is not a shift from the conservative end of the pendulum to the liberal but a revolt against politicians. Politics should be a noble profession as it impacts the lives of people in profound ways. The low standing of politicians in America is due to their lack of credibility. The voters do not trust politicians who easily justify changing their position when it is expedient and do not carry out their election promises.

Trump could disappear from the American political scene like a shooting star but his role as the catalyst who brought change to the American political scene will be remembered for years to come. It is no longer acceptable for politicians to be members of a cosy club detached from the  majority. Politicians will have to choose their agenda carefully when they are held accountable for results and not just rhetoric.  People are attracted to Trump not because they believe he is  reliable but because he exposes the weaknesses of establishment politicians. The odds of Trump becoming the next President of the US is  thankfully low and even if he did he cannot be as effective as he brags. But Trump has earned his stripes as a formidable fighter taking down multiple opponents who assumed he was no match for them.

The next cohort of GOP leaders that replace this vanquished lot will have Trump to thank for accelerating their ascent. The voters want office bearers who work for their interest and not those that engage in partisan politics and risk another gridlock in the legislature. Ultimately politics is not a game but a serious business. Only those that have the commitment to serve and the capability to make a difference to the lives of their voters should seek elected office. By exposing the opportunism of establishment politicians and their near total rejection by voters the 2016 American Presidential election may be the forum for real change. Politicians must regain the trust they lost by reconnecting with their constituents and work hard to serve them.

In a strange manner Trump’s  bluster and insulting campaign maybe the ticket to a much needed reform in American politics!

Either side of the political divide, PAP or SDP  can predict a win for their party in the Bukit Batok by-election. The PAP is still basking from the strong mandate it received at the last general election, the personal popularity of the prime minister, still fresh memories of SG50 and a humble and sincere candidate who had done many years of grassroots service in Bukit Batok. The SDP has in it’s favor the by-election effect, a surprisingly strong mandate for the PAP in the last general election, sympathy for the underdog candidate and Chee Soon Juan’s new image as a moderate and reasonable politician.

For the SDP it is critical to win at the by-election to secure a toe hold in Parliament and have the opportunity of promoting it’s views on how to create a more caring society. The PAP can afford to try a different approach in this by-election. Instead of pummeling the opposition candidate it should take the high ground and run a gentlemanly campaign. This does not imply that the PAP is getting soft but signals that it is confident of Murali Pillai. It is therefore rather surprising the Prime Minister lambasted Chee Soon Juan. Character assassination is a sign of weakness and not strength for the PAP. As the stronger political party the PAP should set the example by steering the debate to issues and policies and refrain from character assassination. By focusing on Chee Soon Juan’s character  the PAP provided the SDP with the opportunity to retaliate and  win many undecided voters.

Murali is a good candidate who has earned the respect of Singaporeans. He last contested in what was perceived to be a no hope GRC and did remarkably well. Lee Hsien Loong himself said Murali would have been an MP if his ward of Paya Lebar had been a single member constituency. The PAP cannot practice double standards here. Ministers should avoid making personal comments and highlighting the racial angle when they speak at PAP rallies. The PAP should just let Murali run the show and win plaudits for running a clean and fair by-election campaign that will surprise even the PAP critics. He stands a fair chance of winning in Bukit Batok and the PAP will win many more supporters in Singapore for the next general election.

Chee Soon Juan would now look good even if he lost the by-election because he persevered against the full weight of the PAP establishment instead of squaring off against Murali. It is flattering to the SDP that Lee Hsien Loong would be concerned if Chee Soon Juan is elected.  The statement is perhaps a tribute to Chee Soon Juan and he should be honored by the Prime Minister’s anxiety. If Chee Soon Juan were to make it to parliament he should not be such a threat to the PAP. The PAP would still have an overwhelming majority of 82 seats out of 89 seats in parliament. There would be more debate in Parliament and a counter weight to the Workers Party as the only opposition voice in parliament. The PAP members of parliament can challenge Chee Soon Juan in parliament and expose the weakness of his ideas if they are poorly constructed.

In the long-term it is inevitable that there will be greater diversity in Singapore politics and the dominance of the PAP will be diluted. The PAP had done a tremendous job in the last 57 years. Even if not as dominant in the future it can continue in government for many more years. It is time for the PAP to prepare for this eventuality. It must  reinvigorate the party with new members who uphold it’s core values and can  effectively engage a stronger opposition. That was the PAP in it’s early years when it prevailed against formidable forces who had very different ideas for the future of Singapore. It appears that the success of the PAP had sown the seed of it’s own weakness. The PAP should not be threatened by a strong and credible opposition. It must be a party of dedicated and capable leaders  who are able to effectively connect with the ground. They must get buy in for the PAP’s roadmap even when there is a plethora of choices facing the electorate. The opposition parties must also be able to attract leaders of calibre  who are able to present different ideas. The voters are sophisticated enough to discern which candidates have integrity and can deliver the promise.

For the long term good of Singapore the inevitable battle between the PAP and resurgent opposition parties in future must be a clash of ideas and approach and not a battle between the only good guys and the bad.