The first thing that comes to mind is why the unequal time allocation to PAP. They took up half of the time slot, while the 5 alternate parties have to share the other half. PAP has 2 representatives, while the other parties only 1.
They are all parties contesting the election, why must PAP be given unfair advantage ? Most of the time alternative party representatives were cut off in the middle of their speech as their time is up. While PAP ones can take their own sweet time to talk. Even then, Chan CS over shot the time allocated, but continue talking anyway as he ignored the moderator. Typical PAP 'big shot' mentality.
The topics for discussion are the same for both broadcast. They are : high cost of living, foreign workforce / immigration and future direction of S'pore politics
In the English broadcast, the alternate parties NSP (Lim Tean) , Reform Party(Jeyaretnam), SDP (Chee SJ), SingFirst (Tan JS), WP (Leon Perera) all spoke pretty well. Lim Tean is impressive with his clear and short delivery. His body language is sincere and reaching out to us.
Denise Phua from PAP come across as passionate and sincere. If there are more folks like her, may be PAP will not be rotting. Lawrence Wong is a smooth talker, he reminds us of those snake oil seller, smiling away trying to get you to buy his product.
In the Chinese broadcast, NSP (Sebastian) and SDP representative presented themselves very well. The WP guy spoke too fast and tried to bring up too many points. SingFirst (Ang) is handicapped by his weak mastery of Mandarin. Reform Party representative performance was below par. Sebastian gave the best analysis of the high cost of living being contributed by high business cost whereby the govt has influence over such as worker's levy...etc
PAP (Chan CS) is another snake oil seller. Saying a lot of motherhood statements without facts to substantiate it - like the minimum wage issue. Keep repeating other countries have failed - hello where are your data to support it ? Which are the countries which have failed and in what way have they failed? He talks about voting in the people we 'trust'. Isn't this an irony. Did not PAP said they want to gain back out trust? So this means we don't trust them. If we do not trust them, we should not be voting for them right? So this ex-paper general is reminding us not to vote for his party! Ha...ha.
Sim Ann come across as insincere and cold. Pretty typical PAP elite hypocritical type. Compare to Denise Phua, she is a real turn off. Her assignment from her master is to throw stone at WP over the Town Council issue. Next she tried to explain the difference between population and workforce (direct translation from Chinese 'human mouth' and 'human hand').
She was smoking us again by repeating the same old thing, - aging population so not enough hands to support the mouths. They still failed to acknowledged the fact the aging population is aggravated by the liberal FT and immigration policies. These folks bringing along their aging parents and at time even grandparents. It matters not if they are on visitor pass or long term pass, as they still use our overburden infrastructure and facilities (transport, healthcare....). So the ratio could be at least 1 : 1 to 1 : 4 (ie every foreign import brings in one or more senior). Besides if the FT, PR and new citizens are in their 40's, they are fast becoming the aging population too !
We the citizens want constructive debate on policies. Mud slinging and stone throwing is dirty and immature. We don't like DIRTY POLITICS. So those who love to wear white please stop playing with mud and stones.