First of all, we all must agree that no policies are cast in stone, whether from the PAP or the SDP (or any other oppo parties), because we live in a changing world with a changing ennvironment.
I am very disappointed that inspite of all their hard work, the SDP is the most misunderstood party.
Cosmos, thank you for your views. I know what you are deriving at. They did try. I am not saying there are no good things coming from them. For eg, the only thing I like is the healthcare paper which says some good things but I am skeptical about the financing portion - I am of the view that Government should play a bigger role in healthcare financing, and since 2011, the Government has reacted in kind as well.
For eg, Paul Tambyah is somebody I like and know. His perspective and approach to healthcare financing comes from dealing with patients and that worldview begins with the patient - not a bad thing. The government's view, unfortunately not so simplistic as Paul claimed, to be totally against patient's interest. That is just political talk. The government is for the patient's interest but it has to balance the costing for it as of now and the future, and also the economic ethos of Singapore.
Overall here, SDP totally disagrees and in my view, does not consider enough the economic situation Singapore is in and also the future burdens it may place on the next generations. The taxation picture is very key - if we are to raise taxation rates highly for the rich, we have to understand it will affect the economic competitiveness of this country of which we are fully dependent upon. The next phase of Singapore's economic growth is focused on developing Singapore as a hub for key biz growth to keep us ahead of neighbours. There are zero natural resources in this country and tapping on economic surpluses is just not wise though tempting and easy for opposition to propose. Singapore needs substantially these economic surpluses to generate returns.
A lot of lay folks do not understand the strategic economic vulnerabilities of this country and regard this government as constantly using scare tactics. Every decade, the economic strategy of Singapore has actually evolved and changed to keep itself ahead and they are simply very aware and competent to keep adjusting. The day they fail to adjust will spell doom for this country. To its credit, it has done amazingly well and I am aware it is no easy feat. If you ask what is next new thing for the next decade, it is still an open question. Can someone come out with a new solution instead of just saying "spend and spend"?
All opposition parties esp SDP spent most of the time tackling the easier part of policy making - the distribution of returns for social and infrastructure building. This is by far the easier question to answer and convenient to blame the government. To their credit, I do think these areas are important but since 2011, the government has co-opted much of these proposals. Now the opposition in order to differentiate itself, pushes for more !
It is easy to criticise the 6.9 million population proposal but do you not know that this country faces critical manpower shortages, and if we are to grow, we need foreign labour to grow and generate economic returns, and that in return, generate employment for everybody. It is so easy to criticise that companies want foreigners more than locals, yet in my interactions with local companies, many find it hard to employ Singaporeans. We can slow down and have zero economic growth - but this does not make sense at all. It will effects on us. Wages will be stagnant and it is the very thing the government policies get criticised again - both ways in contradiction terms, the opposition is gunning after them to slow economy growth by restricting manpower growth and at the same time, accusing them for not doing enough for wage growth. It is either done through lack of understanding, lack of competence or being purely opportunistic.
Also it is far better that Singaporeans advance themselves to go for higher-skilled jobs than to compete with foreigners. I believe strongly about the market competition is essential instead of the socialist impetus of favouring local labour as in the long run, such a stand will diminish the motivation drives to improve. Lack of competition is not good for Singapore. To the opposition, they will say "oh the government favours foreigners over local labour" and that is a simplistic 'lie'.
I am just citing some examples not wishing to go into details. Opposition parties should spend time to propose how to generate economic growth than to tackle the simpler questions which ultimately lead it to keep blaming the government.
The government is not dumb - it has to focus on generating economic growth, that means it needs labour and it needs to increase productivity which some opposition demands but productivity is something that is very difficult though not impossible to increase. Do opposition parties have better ideas? SDP suggests that all maids should be paid competitive rates for eg, and it just does not make sense to me and they accuse owners' tax levies as a way for a greedy government to make money. Taxes that the government generate as income goes back to fund expenditures for the nation. How else do we get better roads, hospitals etc when we cut down on revenue collection aka tax? Does it mean government has to raise funds from other sources? Money does not just fall from the sky. There is a need to examine everything holistically and not just paint "half truths".
For this very reason, when I look as a whole the opposition agenda, it is still opportunistic and still has not answered many questions better than those which the government folks have considered.
This is not to say opposition has no value. I recognise they work under severe resource constraints. This is why I have not expected too much from them. On an objective front, looking at both sides, I will say opposition still got a long way to go to match PAP in terms of policy making. SDP has a good start and I hope they improve but resources are against them. They have to improve and if the election is about whether a government will be formed or weakened in the process, I have to select the option of having a stronger government for the sake of this country.