May 31, 2011

PM Lee Defends His Own Grassroots Activists From Internal Flak

As the PAP continues with its post-election reflections and musings, a certain new theme emerges. It seems as if the PAP's grassroots activists are getting some of the flak, for the party's poor performance in the elections.

The allegation is that these activists failed to give the MPs adequate feedback, causing the MPs to lose touch with the ground (that is, with the people of Singapore). Here's PM Lee leaping to their defence.
Don't be discouraged, PM Lee tells activists

by S Ramesh (TODAY)

SINGAPORE - Citing the criticism levelled at grassroots activists in the aftermath of the recent General Election (GE), Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong yesterday defended the work of the activists who had given "their honest feedback, which unfortunately we sometimes failed to interpret correctly".

Speaking at a dinner to thank volunteers of his Teck Ghee division in Ang Mo Kio Group Representation Constituency (GRC), Mr Lee also acknowledged that "clearly there were problems which were missed" and areas where the People's Action Party (PAP) "can and must improve".

But it would be unfair to blame the activists, said Mr Lee, as the majority have committed time and energy to community work and have done their best to serve residents.

He said community leaders and PAP activists played a crucial role in the run-up to the GE, with some even taking leave during the nine days of hustings.

"People say various things: They say that (the activists) stood between the Members of Parliament and residents, you shielded the MP, or you didn't respond enough to the residents' needs, or you didn't speak candidly enough when the residents were giving feedback and the MP didn't get a good sense of what was on the ground," he said.

"Some grassroots leaders and party activists reading this have been discouraged. My response is, don't be discouraged."

The Prime Minister said that shortcomings in the PAP will be remedied and the party will strive to do better.
I don't know how much the PAP MPs rely on their grassroots activists to give them feedback about the ground. I do wonder if the PAP MPs are aware of the inherent weaknesses of such a feedback mechanism.

The first problem is that some grassroots activists are probably not genuinely interested in helping the PAP. They are there just to gain certain specific personal advantages for themselves.

For example, years ago, my wife once considered becoming a PAP volunteer. This would enable our son to  gain priority for admission into the PAP kindergarten near our home. The kindergarten was three minutes away from our home, so it would have been really convenient.

In the end, we decided not to do it. One reason was that the kindergarten looked rather run-down. Neither the curriculum nor the teachers impressed us, when we went for the open house.

However, the fact is that even if my wife had decided to become a grassroots activist, she would have done it just to clock the hours and get the admission priority. Mrs Wang has no love for the PAP. She wouldn't have been interested at all in giving genuine feedback to the MPs.

Especially if the feedback was negative and would annoy the MPs (therefore jeopardising the priority for kindergarten admission).

Now, the second problem for the PAP is that some grassroots activists ARE genuinely interested in helping the PAP. These are the hard-core, true-blue PAP supporters, who will take nine days of leave from work to help out during the GE; and wave the flag and banners; and hug their MPs; and take the chartered bus from one rally to the next and to the next, just to make up the crowd.

The problem here is that such grassroots activists are inherently unable to give negative feedback to the MPs. You can safely assume that a large part of of their loyalty is blind. Whatever was the result of a PAP policy or decision, these activists will automatically view as wonderful, and good, and desirable. Asking them for criticism is like asking an ardent Lady Gaga fan to criticise Lady Gaga - it's an exercise in futility.

That is why such grassroots activists are lousy at providing feedback. (They are good for some things, such as waving flags and banners. But they are lousy at providing feedback).

In the near future, I may blog about how the PAP can get its best, most useful feedback. Of course, such feedback comes from its worst enemies - the Opposition.

47 comments:

Anonymous said...

Truth is PAP MPs need these grassroots to do all the leg work and ground work for them, since all PAP MPs are part-time MPs.

It is important for PAP MPs, especially new MPs, to be able to integrate and get along well and work with existing grassroots. This may be a problem for PAP because of the way the party leadership drops older MPs and parachutes in new ones. And in the case of someone unpopular e.g. TPL, you can imagine the grassroots will be smiling outside but cursing in their hearts for making their job that much more difficult or getting someone they themselves dislike and must work for.

LHL is just trying to rally the ground troops and their flaying morale.

Anonymous said...

I understand that PA gets about $1M a day of grants from the tax payers' money. Using it to advance PAP's own interests is unfair to the tax payers.

Anonymous said...

I don't think it is really a case of PAP not knowing the real feedback or unable to get real feedback.

For one thing, PAP is not daft.

One reason may be that they want to test out how far their unpopular policies can go without losing big at elections.

And indeed it has shown they can still go quite far by being able to win 93% of seats, despite bad policies, "bad feedback" etc etc.

They will only get worried when majority voters do not want PAP to be the government!

And that day will come when the opposition becomes united as one and have enough good candidates to form the cabinet.

But even given the current "improved state" of opposition, PAP no need to worry too much lah. Still got lots of "goodwill buffer" from being voted out.

Anonymous said...

I also will be more worried if, instead of PAP, the opposition had won 93% seats in the recent elections.

As a result of PAP activists failing to give the MPs adequate feedback.

Anonymous said...

Reminds me of a Grassroot Activist by the name of Tin Pei Ling

Anonymous said...

A person's own worst critics are always the best means of getting the message across that you need to work harder. When you have grassroots activists the like of some girl who stomps her feet and then say that she does not know what to say, but says when interviewed by the media that healthcare and education are cheap and affordable in Singapore, then, we get a rough idea enough of the type of feedback going to the PAP, which is basically not very very likely to reflect ground sentiments for the most part. Then again, the PAP is not daft, and it might be a case of whether they even bothered to listen to what is going on on the ground. @Anonymous May 31, 2011 11:43 AM So yes, it does appear that the PAP is still riding on the wave of a brand which is their party, and even despite the declining quality of candidates, and the question about their motives for joining, people still tell themselves they do not have a choice.

Anonymous said...

The more mathematically astute will realize that the sword can cut both ways. This time the PAP has won 93% of the seats with 60% of votes. But this is not the only kind of odd result that can occur under the GRC system.

For example, the Opposition could, say, win 51% of the seats with, say, 40% of the votes. This could happen if the PAP won many SMCs by a landslide, and the Opposition won many GRCs by a very narrow margin.

Such an odd little country we have. :D

Anonymous said...

Members of Parliament are ultimately responsible for getting the accurate feedback needed to get themselves elected into office.

They are not the pampered children anymore.
Mama, Papa and maid got to clean up after they poot-poot and shee-shee all over the place.

Not at $15K/month salary.

You want high pay.
We want high performance.

Anonymous said...

It seems that since 1992, unlike other countries, the PAP govt does not want by-elections, not even when a MP died, or convicted of a crime and disqualified.

So let alone when a MP is not performing, which is not a crime.

So MP job security is at least 5 years at $15K per month.

Anonymous said...

The trouble is that the PAP divides Singaporeans into two distinct groups: US and The Rest. So they depend on the activists for feedback, honest or not but will steadfastly ignore the rest.

So the PAP is putting in place a divisive society by their own admission.

Anonymous said...

Divide & Rule

That's their credo.

Our credo is what's good for Them is bad for Singapore.

Anonymous said...

Only daft Singaporeans will believe that it was the 'failure' of grassroot activists' 'inaccurate' or false feedbacks that resulted in PAP's poor performance in the Last Election.

THE TRUE FACT IS, NOT ONLY THE RULERS IGNORED THE VOICES OF THE PEOPLE, THEY INSULTED AND SPITED THE PEOPLE REPEATEDLY.

THOSE LEADERS MOST TALKED ABOUT, DISLIKED, CURSED AND SWORE BY THE PEOPLE SUCH AS MAH BOW TAN, KHAW BOON WAN, LIM SWEE SAY, SM GOH AND MM LEE WERE LECTURING, JEERING AND CHIDING THE OPPOSITION MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC REGULARLY. THAT WAS DONE BECAUSE PAP WAS confident that It would won the Election easily. Alas, it was not to be.

Now, It is looking to save Itself from disgrace and do repairs, unfortunately, few Singaporeans will buy into their 'excuses'. How far(physical/social) away are the Rulers from the people? How big is Sin? Do they need to depend on grassroot feedbacks? Are the Rulers not able to move about with the people? Must they be cooped up in their ivory towers? Must they behave liked big shots?

Whatever it is that the Rulers are giving for excuses are but just excuses and wayangs(pretensions). And if They insist in managing Sin with such antics, They got no reason to blame anybody for future failures. The LEADERS got to remember that they are the managers NOT the grassroots.

Anonymous said...

Only daft Singaporeans will believe that it was the 'failure' of grassroot activists' 'inaccurate' or false feedbacks that resulted in PAP's poor performance in the Last Election.

THE TRUE FACT IS, NOT ONLY THE RULERS IGNORED THE VOICES OF THE PEOPLE, THEY INSULTED AND SPITED THE PEOPLE REPEATEDLY.

THOSE LEADERS MOST TALKED ABOUT, DISLIKED, CURSED AND SWORE BY THE PEOPLE SUCH AS MAH BOW TAN, KHAW BOON WAN, LIM SWEE SAY, SM GOH AND MM LEE WERE LECTURING, JEERING AND CHIDING THE OPPOSITION MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC REGULARLY. THAT WAS DONE BECAUSE PAP WAS confident that It would won the Election easily. Alas, it was not to be.

Now, It is looking to save Itself from disgrace and do repairs, unfortunately, few Singaporeans will buy into their 'excuses'. How far(physical/social) away are the Rulers from the people? How big is Sin? Do they need to depend on grassroot feedbacks? Are the Rulers not able to move about with the people? Must they be cooped up in their ivory towers? Must they behave liked big shots?

Whatever it is that the Rulers are giving for excuses are but just excuses and wayangs(pretensions). And if They insist in managing Sin with such antics, They got no reason to blame anybody for future failures. The LEADERS got to remember that they are the managers NOT the grassroots.

Anonymous said...

Would the PAP dare to rely on bad feedback and bad policies and see how far they can go in 2016?

Realistically, another 7% swing and they would lose their two thirds majority in Parliament.

If they need to try so hard to create so many obstacles to prevent the opposition from gaining ground, why do they want to waste them on bad feedback and unpopular policies to test how far they can go? It makes little sense.

Anonymous said...

I personally think they aren't dumb. They will still grow the economy because that's what they believe is in the best interest of Singapore. They will, however, tweak the way they put it out to the rest of us and maybe throw a bit more money at the problem by accelerating the pace of infrastructure building so that they won't give the other parties a chance of taking potshots come 2016.

AussiePete said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AussiePete said...

Mr Wang - many of us volunteer and give many many hours every week to grassroots activities with no other motivation than wanting to help the community, help the needy, keep Singapore safe and to promote a sense of belonging and happiness among the residents. Not all volunteers have ulterior motives (such as your wife), nor do we have any political affiliations (PRs such as myself cannot even vote).

My observations thus far, are the people that complain the loudest about the GROs are those that have never lifted a finger to help those around them in the community, nor do they voluntarily give of their time for any of the programs to assist the needy (besides their major activity of whinging). It's very sad, actually.

Anonymous said...

AussiePete,

Bless you! You are a good man! Indeed, we must do good to others and not only complain. Otherwise our criticisms at the incumbent will be hollow.

Anonymous said...

"we must do good to others and not only complain."

we must do good to other and also complain if complaint is due.

Anonymous said...

Mr Wang, you used the term "PAP grassroot activist" but I like to draw a distinction between those with "PAP" prefix and those without.
If you put "PAP" before "grassroots activist", I agree that they will offer lousy feedback.
Take away the PAP, there are grassroots activists genuinely wanting to offer good feedback but are frustrated due to the following:-
1) Poor communication skills and unable to articulate the issues well (remember grassroots can have people with low education background)
2) Some PAP grassroots activists felt that they know better and closer to "god",thus telling the rest to back off or filter out their voices.
3) (I think this is the most crucial part) - PAP MPs wait for feedback instead of approaching the grassroots directly. The MP may set some questions and wait for feedback. Questions direct from the horses mouth usually get picked up by those "closer to god" and filters down (with misinterpretation and misunderstanding). Those on the ground give their feedback that gets filtered up and the MP didn't get any good feedback.

So how? If the MP is genuine about getting feedback and getting good feedback from grassroots, he should approach as many grassroots as possible, especially those who disappear during GE. Approach the people and not wait to be approached.

Anonymous said...

I thought MPS is how an MP get to know the problems of their constituents by meeting their constituents personally & hearing their grievances & problems. Isn't the original intent of MPS is for MPs to connect with their constituents....Unless its their grassroots that are doing the MPS. All we have to do is look at Mr. Chiam See Tong & Mr. Low Thia Khiang's interactions with their constituents at the MPS.

Anonymous said...

I guess the Ministers and MPs all along know the problems. How should they not know. Just that the recent election results told them that the threshold for taking further nonsense has been crossed.

Anonymous said...

This feels like good cop bad cop tactic.

Overall, I dont have good impressions of PA, grassroots, CDC, CDAC, NTUC, CCC, RC, Mendaki, Sinda etc

Anonymous said...

It take 2 hands to clap. MPs are too complacent, only listening to positive comments whilst grassroots wanting to please them only convey good news. So pampered are they that they always have an entourage with them during community events. I personally witness a session when Lim Eng Hen just walk away when a citizen was trying yet some help on her problems and the grassroots prevented her from reaching him.

Anonymous said...

Actually, the solution to all these grassroot problems is to have more opposition activists joining to become grassroots. I have never thought the criteria to become a grassroot leader is that he or she must also be a stout PAP supporter!? Isn't it about serving the community? Don't forget the fact that out of every 10 persons, about 4 are not supporters of PAP. Of the remaining 6, 1 to 3 are probably just fearful of the MIWs. So if these grassroots continue to "serve" for their own agenda, may we see some real change in 2016. By then, it will be a pityful sight for the ruling party. It is puzzling why PM Lee still wants to defend these flawed activists. Does he want to hear the good things from them again? Seriously, people who want to convey real messages to the incumbent should consider joining to become grassroots leaders. Don't ever wait for those selfish people to do it for you. They won't and they just let this country rot.

Anonymous said...

You mean grassroots people are altruistic?

Please lah, don't be daft.

Anonymous said...

If the PM wants to review the way the government or rather the PAP has carried out its policies then it must do a total revamp. There is no point when there is a structural fault trying to repair the problem in drips and drabs.

The PAP should resilutely carry out what MM asserts, "The PAP is never afraid of change" and revamp the whole system that it has constructed pver the years to perpetuate its power. This does not work. Otherwise they will be mocking the MM.

To do a proper job: get rid of the present activist network which is simply tying what should be public and civic into the PAP network - highly irregular and may even be unconstitutional.

Take the PA for instance. Who does it belong to? The PAP, the Government, the people?

However the PAP is not likely to change despite the claim that it is not afraid of change. So we will have more and more insididious link ups and control of public and civic institutions.

How can these so-called "grassroots" activists give informed and impartial feedback when they are implicated in the wrong motivation. They are merely weeds not grass.

Anonymous said...

Does PM expect the Grassroots activists to advise him that:

1. MBT is not building enough HDB flats.
2. HDB flats are unaffordable.
3. KBW is not building enough hospitals.
4. Health care is unaffordable.
5. GKY is importing too many foreigners.
6. Our GINI is too high.
7. Our cost of living is too high.
8. Public transport services are too expensive and too crowded.
9. We shouldn't import adults when what we are short of babies (they can learn a lot from you).
10. ERP is not working.
11. Ministers pay are ridiculous.
12. Everything was better 5 years ago.
13. TPL should be disqualified.
14. He should remove GRC's.
15. He should allow freedom of expression and association.
16. Labour union should be independent.
17. There should be transparency on HDB cost, employment of Singaporeans, ministers salary and bonuses, GLC. TH, etc.
18. He should stop all forms of pork barrel politics.
19. He should not hold back people's CPF in the pretext of trying help them. It only reminds me of the GST nonsense: to help the poor.
20. He should know it is wrong to tell Citizens to tighten their belts and sacrifice to contribute to GDP growth, and then reward themselves handsomely in million$$$ with the growth!

Etc.

You think he would listen Then!?
You think he would listen Now!?

Sigh

Anonymous said...

A bit of digression. I notice that PAP has created another pompous appointment called 'MAYORS' in Singapore. What do they really do? I am really puzzled for years what these 'Mayors' roles are....gather feedback or is this a means for PAP to reward these glorified MP's with more taxpayers' money? I hope Mr Wang or somebody can enlighten on this.

Anonymous said...

Great article,Mr Wang!
I am pretty sure you are familiar with the collapse of Lehman Brothers that rocked the financial world.
One of the prime reasons for its
demise was the isolation of top
management from the floor managers.
The failure of Lehman Brothers has
become a classic case study in all
major large corporations and most
MBA programs.
The buzz words of most top firms now are: `We have a 24/7 open door
policy. Any worker with problems,
we want to know about them`
Back to our local politics. For the
PM to blame the activists is like
the CEO of Lehman Brothers putting
the blame on the floor managers.
You did`nt really try to tell us!
How to? These million dollar
deities have always perform under this cover of unaccountability.And what do you simpletons know about high official matters?
Like I have said in your earlier article, I worry this bunch of
clowns will not correct their
mistakes of the past decades fast
enough or they simply do not know
how to solve them.

mr wang says so said...

There are many ways you could serve your community and be a "grassroots activist".

For instance, you could volunteer to help out with your local temple/church in its charity programmes.

Many primary schools also want parent volunteers, to help out with school programmes, including programmes for kids from disadvantaged families.

Then there are plenty of secular charities and NGOs and cultural/sports associations.

These obviously are not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about those grassroot activists who help a particular political party called the PAP, not those who help a charity or a church or some other non-political association.

Anonymous said...

"I notice that PAP has created another pompous appointment called 'MAYORS' in Singapore. What do they really do?"
Anon June 1, 2011 11:16 AM

Mayors represent the Community Development Councils (CDC) by geographical district, eg NE, NW, SE, SW, Central.

They are equivalent to Minister of State level.

They focus on the social and community welfare and issues for the particular district, eg you are jobless, money no enough etc, etc you go to your district CDCs for help.

Town Councils focus on the estate maintenance.

MPs on all aspects of residents' issues in their wards.

So you see, with PAP, everything is well organised and decided by them.

Except that MPs are the only ones chosen by the voters who will then manage the Town Councils.

The rest, voters have no say.

Unless the PAP government want a referendum (on a particular issue) for the voters to decide.

mr wang said...

"Not all volunteers have ulterior motives (such as your wife), nor do we have any political affiliations (PRs such as myself cannot even vote)."


Incidentally, AussiePete, I also have an aunt who, years ago, volunteered with the PAP to try to get the MP's help, firstly for her foreigner husband to gain PR, and secondly, after he got PR, to become a citizen.

This was many years ago, when the Singapore government did not just casually hand out PRs and citizenships by the tens of thousands every year.

In those days (not sure, but I don't believe that it happens now), PAP volunteers even had priority in the selection/ allocation of HDB flats. Another abuse of the system and a terrible mistake of conflating "PAP" with "government".

But the point is - the PAP system naturally attracts its own kind of volunteers. Together with the flaws they bring - including flaws in the feedback mechanism.

Anonymous said...

My former neighbour was a former Chairman of the RC for my HDB block. He had moved out about 6 years ago to a private condo in Simei which is not part of my GRC.

In the recent election, he was seen wearing white and white and accompanied the PAP candidate in the election house visit.

This is what loyalty is all about. You continue to serve even though you are not living in the area.

Anonymous said...

@Anon 12:24 PM

As a RC Chairman he should be loyal to PA, NOT PAP!

mr wang said...

To put it simply, I don't think citizens should be loyal to any political party.

Citizens should simply vote for the greater good of the country. If that means voting for the PAP, or the WP, or XYZ, or PQR, then vote accordingly.

Being blindly loyal to a political party is like being blindly loyal to a consumer brand.

It's stupid. Whatever brand you're using, you should absolutely feel free to dump it, if you find that the product is no longer serving the customers well, or that there are better alternatives elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

"But the point is - the PAP system naturally attracts its own kind of volunteers. Together with the flaws they bring - including flaws in the feedback mechanism."
Mr Wang June 1, 2011 12:19 PM

I think whatever the flaws, it is still OK. Because PAP still manage to win 93% seats.

And now knowing the flaws, if they can rectify them, they can win 100% seats next round.

So things will only get better. Win win situation for PAP and voters.

Anonymous said...

"In those days (not sure, but I don't believe that it happens now), PAP volunteers even had priority in the selection/ allocation of HDB flats. Another abuse of the system and a terrible mistake of conflating "PAP" with "government"."

Yes it still happens. I knew from a close relative who heard from the property agent that at a recent DBSS project in the north, selection of units was first open to 'grassroot volunteers'.

lorongm said...

Anon @ 11.16 pm and 12.14 pm

"Mayors"

To cynics, this is to create a new class of MPs who are entitled to pensions (as mayors are "office holders").

Anonymous said...

Imagine the feedback sent to MPs, it'll usually be in the form of reports that may get filtered by several layers of grassroots activists, civil servants. All the negative points will be polished and/or removed entirely.

We keep saying the MPs are not daft, but can you imagine how they have gotten to the perceived arrogant stance they now take? It's basically because they get fed with self-censored "feedback" that has been sanitised by layers of bureaucracy.

I sometimes wonder if they truly are so misled by such "feedback" and believe they are really doing such a good job, only because their underlings have effectively shielding them from the realities on the ground just to make sure that everyone and their boss "look good".

If any grassroots members/civil servants are reading, I truly hope they muster the courage to speak the truth when talking to these MPs and ministers, and highlight the problems people are facing, rather than sugarcoat their feedback and fabricate realities that won't help our 'leaders' help their constituents.

Anonymous said...

Do you really believe that MBT and HDB were not aware of the housing shortage? I'm of the opinion that they did it deliberately to clip the supply so as to keep the property bubble growing. The higher the property price the more our money would become theirs!

Imagine if you have $400K in your CPF. If a BTO flat is priced at $200K you can buy a flat and still have $200K balanced. If the same flat is priced at $500K, you get the same flat but your CPF is wiped out and you owe them an additional $100K.

The higher the property price the more taxes and stamp fees they collect too! All of that add up to a much inflated GDP and reserves. The result would translate into FAT bonuses for them. The poors are at the receiving end and the fat cats are laughing all the way to the bank!

Anonymous said...

Got to know some PAP activists that serve in Nee Soon. These are highly educated professional that are established in their career.

These activists commented that they are working the grounds hard. The residents are receptive to them and always get positive feedback. However, they do not know why these are not translated to votes on the ground.

I see two reasons for this. One is that the activists are also staying put in their ivory towers, doing symbolic activities, but without understanding or taking the effort to understand the real sentiment on the grounds. Second is that the residents has given up giving feedback, and just say what they want to hear... Condition to toe the party taglines.

Regards
Diggo

Anonymous said...

Hahaha...

many grassroot volunteers are no different from W/MP Ting Pei Ling.
They volunteer hoping to be with the Inner Circle and hope to be selected for political office.
Sincerity is the last thing in their heads!

Anonymous said...

If you are ordinary PAP grassroots volunteer, forget about being selected as PAP candidate lah.

And by the way, I don't consider Ting Pei Ling an ordinary young girl, although many may think so.

When I say ordinary, it means ordinary in everything, that is ordinary job, ordinary parents, ordinary spouse, ordinary house etc etc.

In other words ordinary means many, many have or are like that.

Anonymous said...

To be fair to the grassroots, most want to give genuine feedback to their political masters but the truth is not always sweet. After a few rounds of querying, bashing and scolding for giving negative but true feedback from their politcal masters like Cynthia Phua of Aljunied GRC fame, they learn how (for survival sake) to say sweet things she likes to hear.

You now need only to walk the markets and food centres at Block 209 Kovan and Blk 115 to learn how unpopular Cynthia Phua is, how elated the stallhodlers and shopkeepers were on the night of 7 May 2011 (they were jumping for joy that they were liberated). And the last person to know about this is Cynthia Phua herself because nobody wants to tell her for fear of her anger and tantrums.

It is a sad day for the ruling party that the feedback system has broken down. Despite feedback, Cynthia Phua is still the Adviser to the Grassroots, when one would have thought that the logical and right thing to do is to replace her with a younger and more compassionate and caring leader.

Unless the top echelon makes the move, she is not going to bow out gracefully and the GRC will remain to rot.

Anonymous said...

For a leader to only want to hear good and filtered feedback, with bootlickers swarming around you, you are also as much a crony to the system as anyone else. In any workplace, some kind of bosses are swarmed with bootlickers, but some bosses don't. Becasue the former one has power, self serving, and obviously enjoying the bootlicking situation, afterall it's better to be in they system than oppose.

It is not uncommon that when someone disagreed with the boss regarding a policy, and the boss asked him to shut up, saying,"you know who you are serving."

Replica Watches said...

This may be a problem for PAP because of the way the party leadership drops older MPs and parachutes in new ones. And in the case of someone unpopular e.g.