Thursday, May 02, 2013
Political Implications of 6.9 Protests
Many people have overlooked one very important fact of these two protests in Hong Lim Park... Even without any opposition party acting as organizer, it can draw a sizable crowd. Particularly, Workers Party is no where to be found but yet, thousands and thousands of people attended these protests.
What does this mean? It means that the anger on the ground is REAL and opposition party branding itself, doesn't effect such anger. It was PAP's own doing that has caused such dissatisfaction and anger on the ground. It also means a dangerous signal... next time round, not only WP will win seats into parliament, as long as there isn't any multi-corner fights because this anger, when translated into protest votes, will be independent of opposition parties which stood against PAP. Singaporeans are just angry with PAP and will have only one singular aim... to teach PAP a good lesson and vote PAP out of parliament, irregardless who they send as candidates.
This is the hypothesis I held for the Punggol East By-Elections. WP won in a 4 corner fight with such big swing, dumping the other two opposition parties so badly, basically because of this anger. Voters are voting strategically, they just want PAP to lose and WP in their view, has more chance of winning over PAP. Thus, all votes swing tactically to WP.
The danger is looming for PAP if it continues to brush aside such signs....
Goh Meng Seng
Labels:
Activities,
Democracy,
Elections,
FT Policy,
Labour Policy
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Democracy - Are you for REAL?
In Singapore and Malaysia, or most ill-democratic countries in the world, opposition parties are fighting on the moral high ground of Democratic principles.
However, for any political parties that fought on such Democratic principles, they must first TRULY EMBRACE and PRACTICE such Democratic principles themselves. Else it would really be hypocritical for such parties to talk and sing high about Democratic principles while internally, they do not welcome or even scorn at Democratic practices and contests within.
For a start, political leaders should expect healthy contests from fellow comrades and not try to demonize any challenge to their positions. It is also a good time to gauge on their own support level among party cadres. If you don't get satisfactory vote count, it means that you will have to work harder to gain their support.
In Democracy, there will be healthy contests and definitely, win and lose. It is quite a normal process. But it is unhealthy to treat every leadership challenge as sinister plot of moles or otherwise. Most parties in Singapore install the cadre system to protect themselves from "infiltration" by political opponents. However, the flip side of such cadre system is that it tends to lead to "inbreeding". This is because only the CEC members or just the key leaders of CEC could approve promotion of cadre membership and obviously, as human nature dictates, the CEC members will only approve those who are in support of them. This will ensure uninterrupted support and election of the few individuals into CEC. This is unhealthy as it hinders diversity and promote group thinking within.
In fact, I have always tried to change the present ill-democratic practices and constitutions of the party, to balance the values of democracy vs safeguards of infiltration.The power of appointment of cadre membership should not lie solely on the few CEC members only but rather, the whole Congress of party cadres should have the right to move motions to appoint any members to be cadre members. As long as 50% of the Congress voted in support for such appointment, the promotion of the respective members to cadre status should take effect immediately.
The other safeguard I have proposed to change is that any MPs of the party should only be sacked or removed by the Congress of cadre members, with the means of calling for Extraordinary Party Congress to decide on such important matters. MPs are key assets of the party and they should not be subjected to the power of the few in the CEC and removed due to politicking. Such safeguard should be installed to prevent unwarranted sacking of MPs by the CEC. If any MPs have made grave mistakes, he or she should be "trial and judged" by the Party Congress of cadre members. He or she should be given the chance to put up defence of such sacking.
On the other hand, we cannot just blush off healthy contests and challenges as "instigation" or attempts of "moles working" just like that. If you are good, you won't be worried about challenges. If you are mediocre, be prepared to lose and step down for better player. That's real Democracy for you.
Goh Meng Seng
Tuesday, April 02, 2013
Think Thrice before buying HDB Resale flat!
Most of us presumed that when we buy our HDB flats, we could well pay off ALL our HDB mortgage loans by using our CPF money. This MAY NOT BE TRUE for those of us who bought our flats from the resale market.
Even some property agents are either confused or unaware of the rules on how much money we could use from CPF to pay for our HDB mortgage loans. Some thought that this only applies to bank loans but not HDB loans. This is false. Most of the time, property agents won't even advise you on such matters even if they know about the rules.
You can only
use your CPF to pay for your resale flat up to 100% of the valuation
price of your flat at the time of purchase. There after, it will depend
on whether you have enough money to set aside for the prevailing minimum sum, then you
can use your CPF to pay up to additional 20% of the valuation price of your
flat. In total, you could only use your CPF to pay up to 120% of the
valuation price of your flat at the time of purchase (before 55 year
old).
The following is taken from an article at this blog.
It basically explains the restrictions and mechanism of CPF limits on usage for mortgage payment:
ONCE AGAIN, REMINDER: PLEASE THINK THRICE BEFORE BUYING A RESALE FLAT!
It is always more prudent to go for a BTO or new HDB flat if you are a young couple buying your first flat. This will allow you to accumulate more buying power or prevent you from over-committing yourself. For BTO or new HDB flat mortgage, the Property Valuation Limit and CPF Withdrawal Limit will not be applicable and you could safely use your CPF money to pay all the mortgage for this flat. This will allow you to have certainty in your financial planning.
Goh Meng Seng
Even some property agents are either confused or unaware of the rules on how much money we could use from CPF to pay for our HDB mortgage loans. Some thought that this only applies to bank loans but not HDB loans. This is false. Most of the time, property agents won't even advise you on such matters even if they know about the rules.
You can only
use your CPF to pay for your resale flat up to 100% of the valuation
price of your flat at the time of purchase. There after, it will depend
on whether you have enough money to set aside for the prevailing minimum sum, then you
can use your CPF to pay up to additional 20% of the valuation price of your
flat. In total, you could only use your CPF to pay up to 120% of the
valuation price of your flat at the time of purchase (before 55 year
old).
If you engage in a 30 year mortgage loan for your resale
flat, you may find problem in servicing your mortgage even if you have
money in your CPF because you won't be allowed to use your CPF to pay. i.e. you will have to service your HDB mortgage loan by cash alone. As a thumb of rule, normally you will face problem in paying your
mortgage after 15 years of purchase. Generally speaking, the total
amount of money you need to pay for your flat, with compounded interest
rate, is about double the amount of the initial loan.
So please
THINK THRICE before you decide to buy a RESALE HDB Flat!
The following is taken from an article at this blog.It basically explains the restrictions and mechanism of CPF limits on usage for mortgage payment:
Property Valuation Limit and CPF Withdrawal Limit
If you depend on financing your home property loan using your CPF OA, do you know that you might be hit with a scenario where you can’t use your OA to pay for your housing many years down the road? (This does not apply to new HDB apartments purchased using a HDB loan)
Here are three terms you need to be aware of:
- CPF Withdrawal Limit
- Valuation Limit
- Available Housing Withdrawal Limit (AHWL)
CPF Withdrawal Limit
This is the maximum amount of CPF that you can use to pay for your housing. It varies from 150% to 120% of the loan amount depending on when you bought the property. From 1st Jan 2008 onwards, the limit is 120%. Note that if you refinance your housing loan, the prevailing CPF withdrawal limit will apply to your new loan.
Depending on the interest rate of the loan, the CPF withdrawal limit is likely to be hit towards the 2nd half or tail end of the loan.
Once this limit is hit, you can’t use any more CPF monies to pay for your housing loan.
Valuation Limit (VL)
This is the lower of:
- Purchase price of property
- Valuation of property at time of purchase
Once your CPF withdrawals (for paying the property) reaches the VL, you will not be able to use your CPF to pay for your housing loan unless you have the Avaliable Housing Withdrawal Limit (AHWL).
Obviously, the Valuation Limit will be hit before the CPF withdrawal limit is hit. It can also be reached in the early years of a loan if someone uses spare monies in the OA to pay down the housing loan rapidly.
Avaliable Housing Withdrawal Limit (AHWL)
For those below 55, the AHWL is the balance available after setting aside the Minimum Sum component. Savings in the OA, SA and amounts withdrawn for investment can be used to meet the prevailing Minimum Sum cash component.
CPF has a calculator that helps you estimate your AHWL.
While the terms might sound confusing, any potential property owner should definitely try to understand the implications of these limits on their housing loan repayments before they buy any new property (or refinance an existing one).
Not doing so might result in an unpleasant surprise many years down the road, especially if there is not enough free cashflow to be diverted towards the housing loan.
ONCE AGAIN, REMINDER: PLEASE THINK THRICE BEFORE BUYING A RESALE FLAT!
It is always more prudent to go for a BTO or new HDB flat if you are a young couple buying your first flat. This will allow you to accumulate more buying power or prevent you from over-committing yourself. For BTO or new HDB flat mortgage, the Property Valuation Limit and CPF Withdrawal Limit will not be applicable and you could safely use your CPF money to pay all the mortgage for this flat. This will allow you to have certainty in your financial planning.
Goh Meng Seng
Monday, March 25, 2013
Healthcare & Fertility Policy Options
I have attended the forum on Population White Paper organized by Transitioning.Org yesterday. There are some interesting perspectives and policy proposals made.
The first one is Universal Healthcare Insurance proposed by Associate Professor Paul. This one is no stranger to me as I have written similar Universal Healthcare Insurance policy although the mechanism is quite different from his proposal. (Mine was modeled along the Canadian/Taiwanese model where Government, Employers and Individuals would take co-responsibility of the insurance scheme.) The most important point raised is that we should empower private GP to play a more important role in our National Healthcare. By implementing a Universal Healthcare Insurance system, people who visit private GPs will also be covered by this insurance scheme. This would mean that there is no necessity for us to build too many Polyclinics (PAP wanted to build 12 more polyclinics and 4 hospitals... I really wonder where they are going to get enough doctors to run them... foreign doctors again?) anymore and recommendation made by private GP should get the same treatment as those fro government polyclinics.
The second proposal on raising Fertility rate was made by Mr Tan Kin Lian. He proposed that we should do away with that ineffective baby bonus scheme. Instead, we should provide $500 per month to each baby, up to 3 per household, until they are 12 years old. This will give incentive to some mothers to have more babies as this will help to reduce their financial burden drastically if they so decide to have 2 or 3 babies. Based on 30,000 babies per year, the total cost to the government will be about $2.16B per year. Even if we are successful in raising the number of babies to 50,000, the total handout would not be more than $3.6 Billion per year. This amount is manageable in Singapore's context and it would definitely give Singaporeans the confidence to have more babies as most of the cost of taking care of the children in their formative years would be financed by this scheme.
I believe that PAP government could well afford to finance this scheme and it is just a matter of political will in implementing it. The present "Baby Bonus" scheme has failed miserably because it doesn't provide longer term financial support for Singaporeans in coping with the high cost of child bearing. Imagine that if you are to have 3 children under the age of 12, you will have government financial support of $1500 in total. This is a substantial amount of money that could help the family effectively.
I have thought of such scheme before, providing direct financial support to families with children but I couldn't decide on the numbers and mechanism. Mr Tan Kin Lian has provided a good insight of a possible mechanism for such scheme and it is reasonably within the means of the PAP government to finance it.
These are the two policy options which interest me greatly as they are quite similar to my previous thoughts on the issues. I hope there would be more discussion and debates on these issues.
Goh Meng Seng
The first one is Universal Healthcare Insurance proposed by Associate Professor Paul. This one is no stranger to me as I have written similar Universal Healthcare Insurance policy although the mechanism is quite different from his proposal. (Mine was modeled along the Canadian/Taiwanese model where Government, Employers and Individuals would take co-responsibility of the insurance scheme.) The most important point raised is that we should empower private GP to play a more important role in our National Healthcare. By implementing a Universal Healthcare Insurance system, people who visit private GPs will also be covered by this insurance scheme. This would mean that there is no necessity for us to build too many Polyclinics (PAP wanted to build 12 more polyclinics and 4 hospitals... I really wonder where they are going to get enough doctors to run them... foreign doctors again?) anymore and recommendation made by private GP should get the same treatment as those fro government polyclinics.
The second proposal on raising Fertility rate was made by Mr Tan Kin Lian. He proposed that we should do away with that ineffective baby bonus scheme. Instead, we should provide $500 per month to each baby, up to 3 per household, until they are 12 years old. This will give incentive to some mothers to have more babies as this will help to reduce their financial burden drastically if they so decide to have 2 or 3 babies. Based on 30,000 babies per year, the total cost to the government will be about $2.16B per year. Even if we are successful in raising the number of babies to 50,000, the total handout would not be more than $3.6 Billion per year. This amount is manageable in Singapore's context and it would definitely give Singaporeans the confidence to have more babies as most of the cost of taking care of the children in their formative years would be financed by this scheme.
I believe that PAP government could well afford to finance this scheme and it is just a matter of political will in implementing it. The present "Baby Bonus" scheme has failed miserably because it doesn't provide longer term financial support for Singaporeans in coping with the high cost of child bearing. Imagine that if you are to have 3 children under the age of 12, you will have government financial support of $1500 in total. This is a substantial amount of money that could help the family effectively.
I have thought of such scheme before, providing direct financial support to families with children but I couldn't decide on the numbers and mechanism. Mr Tan Kin Lian has provided a good insight of a possible mechanism for such scheme and it is reasonably within the means of the PAP government to finance it.
These are the two policy options which interest me greatly as they are quite similar to my previous thoughts on the issues. I hope there would be more discussion and debates on these issues.
Goh Meng Seng
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Don't lose sight of the fundamentals of a Nation - Singaporeans First
Are slogans like "Singapore for Singaporeans" and "Singaporeans First" really Xenophobic?
We have to go back to basics. A country will always give FIRST Priority in taking care of of its citizens, its people. Else it will be no different from a hotel or any private entity that only concerns in making money and serving whoever their clients or guests.
Having said that, there is a clear thin line of being Xenophobic vs Nationalistic. We are not asking everyone to be nasty to anyone who are foreign. But we are just merely saying, no matter how many foreigners we invite AS A COUNTRY to live and work on our land, the motive will always be in the interests of the citizens!
If getting foreigners to work in Singapore really benefits Singaporeans as a whole, providing opportunities for Singaporeans at large, then we will welcome them. We should not be shy or hypocrites to deny that the motive of any policy is to take care of Singaporeans first.
As economic theory always dictates, there will always be a diminishing marginal utility in having too much of anything. Apparently, Singaporeans at large are feeling the pain and pinch of the diminishing marginal utility of having MORE foreigners working on our land. As I have stated earlier, if calling for government to put Singaporeans' interests as their TOP Priority is Xenophobic, then what do you call foreigners discriminating our citizens in the employment?
We should not put a blind eye to the fact that tensions have been raised by some bad practices executed by our foreign guests working here. We should not put a blind eye to the fact that having foreigners working here aren't really putting more jobs to Singaporeans but in fact, turning into displacement of Singaporeans from worthy employment and pushing our citizens into underemployment.
While there are people who will cry, in the name of anti-Xenophobia, to undermine the movement for us to reclaim our very basic right as a citizen on this land, I believe more people are more objective and rational in seeing the impact and the truth of the imbalance brought upon us by the "Free for All" mentality in PAP's FT policy.
Make no mistake about it. There is absolutely nothing wrong to call for "Singaporean First" or "Singapore for Singaporeans" in today's context where the overwhelming problems brought by the liberal FT policy have really blinded us from the fundamental role of the Nation's government. It is not fault of the foreigners working here that they are brought onto our land but the fault lies solely on the PAP government. These slogans are called to remind the government of the day what their basic fundamental roles are... their TOP Priority should lies with taking care of the citizens' interests at large, not just some MNCs or business interests only. It is definitely not the priority of providing jobs and employment for citizens of other nations.
While we are not ANTI-FOREIGNERS as in personal hatred against them, but we are definitely against the PAP government's liberal FT policy and their intent to continue to import even more foreigners onto this tiny little island without putting our citizens' interests as their top priority. They have basically lost sight of their basic fundamental understanding of the role in taking care of Singaporeans FIRST.
Goh Meng Seng
Do you really understand what Xenophobia is?
Do you really understand what Xenophobia is?
I believe many of those people who keep accusing others, especially those activists and participants of the 6.9 protest, as "Xenophobic" don't really understand or experience Xenophobia before.
I will tell you what slogan will be considered as "Xenophobic" : eg. "Go Home FTs!" "Get Lost FTs!" or any slogans targeted at foreigners in Singapore... that's Xenophobia. All these aren't new because it had happened all around the world before, be it in Australia, Europe, Japan, Korea, US, China or even Hong Kong. Nothing new, really.
Singaporeans are very mild and well behave in nature. We seldom take to the street for anything unrelated to monetary interests. But when we do take to the street to protest for something like this, it means that we are really pissed off. But yet, I believe in most of my Singaporean brothers and sisters that we do not translate this anger upon foreigners. Our anger is targeted solely on PAP government's liberal FT policy that is now doing more harm than good to us. Worse, their insistence of pushing forward to a totally unrealistic figures of 6.9 million population by importing more FTs in spite of the present uneasy shrinking living space has really added oil to the fire of anger.
Our anger is targeted at PAP government, not FT. Although there are really some cultural behaviors and insensitivities of these foreigners to our way of life are making us frustrated at times, but we are still treating them decently as another human beings.
Thus we should reject anyone who tries to label us as Xenophobic because we are not. Calling for "Singaporean First" isn't Xenophobic but a timely reminder call to PAP government to get to the basics of how a Nation should treat its citizens.
Goh Meng Seng
I believe many of those people who keep accusing others, especially those activists and participants of the 6.9 protest, as "Xenophobic" don't really understand or experience Xenophobia before.
I will tell you what slogan will be considered as "Xenophobic" : eg. "Go Home FTs!" "Get Lost FTs!" or any slogans targeted at foreigners in Singapore... that's Xenophobia. All these aren't new because it had happened all around the world before, be it in Australia, Europe, Japan, Korea, US, China or even Hong Kong. Nothing new, really.
Singaporeans are very mild and well behave in nature. We seldom take to the street for anything unrelated to monetary interests. But when we do take to the street to protest for something like this, it means that we are really pissed off. But yet, I believe in most of my Singaporean brothers and sisters that we do not translate this anger upon foreigners. Our anger is targeted solely on PAP government's liberal FT policy that is now doing more harm than good to us. Worse, their insistence of pushing forward to a totally unrealistic figures of 6.9 million population by importing more FTs in spite of the present uneasy shrinking living space has really added oil to the fire of anger.
Our anger is targeted at PAP government, not FT. Although there are really some cultural behaviors and insensitivities of these foreigners to our way of life are making us frustrated at times, but we are still treating them decently as another human beings.
Thus we should reject anyone who tries to label us as Xenophobic because we are not. Calling for "Singaporean First" isn't Xenophobic but a timely reminder call to PAP government to get to the basics of how a Nation should treat its citizens.
Goh Meng Seng
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Budget 2013 Point 2 - Wage Credit & Productivity
I was waiting for the Parliamentary Debate on the Budget (they call it "Committee of Supply") to end before writing this point 2 because I don't want to be seen as "snatching" topics from the opposition MPs in parliament.
Unfortunately, none of the opposition MPs in parliament has raised this issue about Wage Credit and Productivity. Other opposition parties like SDP didn't touch on Wage Credit as well. I was pretty disappointed.
I got to know about NSP post-debate forum in which they released their paper on budget. I decided to wait for them to have a say on the budget.
I attended NSP forum and I was pleasantly surprised that they have proposed to do away with the Wage Credit scheme. Although their reasoning is quite different from mine but at the very least, they dare to pin point at the "populist" move of extending the Wage Credit scheme beyond necessity.
Wage Credit scheme came about after 2008 financial crisis. Just one day before the release of Budget Statement for 2009, I wrote an article on Budget for Crisis of Confidence. In this article, I explain that we need wage subsidy during that crisis period to cushion the impact of the financial crisis. Indeed, for the Budget 2009, PAP came up with the similar idea Wage Credit (subsidy seems to be a dirty word to them!). However, Wage Credit or Subsidy, is supposedly meant to be a Crisis Management Fiscal Tool. It is not meant to be a long term fiscal policy as this would create undesirable distortions to the wage pricing mechanism for the labour market.
We are not facing any imminent crisis now and there are absolutely no reasons for the government to continue to use Wage Credit in its fiscal plans. This may have long term repercussions when the system sunk into over-reliance on such measures. If there is going to be another financial or economic crisis, Wage Credit's effect may just diminish when we really need it as the pricing mechanism for labour has been overly distorted for a long period of time.
It is just like taking anti-biotic. If you abuse anti-biotic for unnecessary usage, you may find it ineffective after a while and you will be in deep trouble later on!
On the other hand, providing Wage Credit to increase wages for workers to increase producivity WILL NOT WORK at all! Such move is based on totally flawed and overly simplistic premise that when wage increase, productivity will increase automatically!
Productivity don't just increase when you give your workers more salary. You may increase your employees' salaries AFTER productivity increase i.e. company make more money. Or that, when you feel the pinch of higher wages due to market forces, you will try to increase the productivity of your employees by changing work flows or investing in more capital goods and machinery. But Wage Credit DISTORTS the wage mechanism and the business owners WON'T feel the full pinch of wage increase, thus, why would they invest in more capital goods to increase productivity?
On the contrary, if the Wage Credit is scrapped, business owners will face an increase of wage expenditures and thus, will think of ways to increase productivity and thus maintain or increase profitability!
What the government could do is to scrap the Wage Credit but at the same time, enhance soft loans or even more substantial subsidies for firms who want to engage consultants or invest in capital goods to increase their productivity. By doing so, we would provide both the push and pull factors to entice SMEs to reinvent themselves, invest in more capital goods and change work flows to increase productivity.
The continuation of Wage Credit by PAP is just a ploy to be "Populist" at best. The humiliating defeats in Punggol East has created an over-reaction from PAP to just throw out every goodies they could think of without really thinking through carefully the logic and implications of their policies.
Such moves are really undesirable for Singapore's reconstruct of our economic model. Unfortunately, those opposition MPs in parliament had also go along the tides without critically examining the negative implications of such populist moves made by PAP. Well, politically, they are also populist in thinking. This is the reason why I am totally disappointed with both PAP and opposition MPs' performance for this Budget debate.
Well, the only consolation I have is to know that NSP actually dares to address the issue of Wage Credit and propose to scrap it altogether! We may still have hope after all.
Goh Meng Seng
Unfortunately, none of the opposition MPs in parliament has raised this issue about Wage Credit and Productivity. Other opposition parties like SDP didn't touch on Wage Credit as well. I was pretty disappointed.
I got to know about NSP post-debate forum in which they released their paper on budget. I decided to wait for them to have a say on the budget.
I attended NSP forum and I was pleasantly surprised that they have proposed to do away with the Wage Credit scheme. Although their reasoning is quite different from mine but at the very least, they dare to pin point at the "populist" move of extending the Wage Credit scheme beyond necessity.
Wage Credit scheme came about after 2008 financial crisis. Just one day before the release of Budget Statement for 2009, I wrote an article on Budget for Crisis of Confidence. In this article, I explain that we need wage subsidy during that crisis period to cushion the impact of the financial crisis. Indeed, for the Budget 2009, PAP came up with the similar idea Wage Credit (subsidy seems to be a dirty word to them!). However, Wage Credit or Subsidy, is supposedly meant to be a Crisis Management Fiscal Tool. It is not meant to be a long term fiscal policy as this would create undesirable distortions to the wage pricing mechanism for the labour market.
We are not facing any imminent crisis now and there are absolutely no reasons for the government to continue to use Wage Credit in its fiscal plans. This may have long term repercussions when the system sunk into over-reliance on such measures. If there is going to be another financial or economic crisis, Wage Credit's effect may just diminish when we really need it as the pricing mechanism for labour has been overly distorted for a long period of time.
It is just like taking anti-biotic. If you abuse anti-biotic for unnecessary usage, you may find it ineffective after a while and you will be in deep trouble later on!
On the other hand, providing Wage Credit to increase wages for workers to increase producivity WILL NOT WORK at all! Such move is based on totally flawed and overly simplistic premise that when wage increase, productivity will increase automatically!
Productivity don't just increase when you give your workers more salary. You may increase your employees' salaries AFTER productivity increase i.e. company make more money. Or that, when you feel the pinch of higher wages due to market forces, you will try to increase the productivity of your employees by changing work flows or investing in more capital goods and machinery. But Wage Credit DISTORTS the wage mechanism and the business owners WON'T feel the full pinch of wage increase, thus, why would they invest in more capital goods to increase productivity?
On the contrary, if the Wage Credit is scrapped, business owners will face an increase of wage expenditures and thus, will think of ways to increase productivity and thus maintain or increase profitability!
What the government could do is to scrap the Wage Credit but at the same time, enhance soft loans or even more substantial subsidies for firms who want to engage consultants or invest in capital goods to increase their productivity. By doing so, we would provide both the push and pull factors to entice SMEs to reinvent themselves, invest in more capital goods and change work flows to increase productivity.
The continuation of Wage Credit by PAP is just a ploy to be "Populist" at best. The humiliating defeats in Punggol East has created an over-reaction from PAP to just throw out every goodies they could think of without really thinking through carefully the logic and implications of their policies.
Such moves are really undesirable for Singapore's reconstruct of our economic model. Unfortunately, those opposition MPs in parliament had also go along the tides without critically examining the negative implications of such populist moves made by PAP. Well, politically, they are also populist in thinking. This is the reason why I am totally disappointed with both PAP and opposition MPs' performance for this Budget debate.
Well, the only consolation I have is to know that NSP actually dares to address the issue of Wage Credit and propose to scrap it altogether! We may still have hope after all.
Goh Meng Seng
Labels:
Budget,
Economics,
Government,
Parliament,
Policy Views
Friday, March 01, 2013
Budget 2013 Point 1 - Car Loan Policy & COE Prices
I was pretty puzzled by the new measures made by PAP government with regards to the car loan policy. I couldn't really figure out exactly what they are trying to achieve.
COE prices have increased recently due to a curb on the number of COE issued. This is basically due to the corrective measures LTA has made due to the excessive number of COE issued prior to 2012. On the other hand, the demand on COE has increased due to an expanding population.
There must be an understanding that just like population, we cannot be expanding on the number of vehicles on the road forever. The primary concept of COE is to control the total number of vehicles on the road rather on the control of the prices. Is COE the best tool to control the number of vehicles on the road? It is supposedly to be so but there are other possibilities as well.
Nevertheless, if you want to control the number of COE issued, you will not be able to control the prices. That's basic economics. However, is COE bidding system efficient? I have been talking about pay-as-you-bid system vs the present system even since 1993. I shall not repeat on this again because apparently PAP won't listen and only interested in the revenue generated by this piece of paper.
I suspect PAP's recent measures on the restriction on the loans are aimed at curbing the demand of cars by the population. But look at the overall impact you will realize that this will further create a great divide between the rich and the middle-lower class.
Some may consider vehicles as "luxurious" goods and only those with money should buy it. I do not think so. Transportation needs via own vehicle is not merely "luxurious" goods like "jewelery" but may be basic needs for many people like salesman. This is especially so when our public transport system is really far from being efficient in such a small city state.
Sometimes you may wonder whether the allocation model for car ownership really makes sense when the rich could own not only one or two cars but a whole fleet of 5 to 10 within a small household while those middle lower class salesman who need their own transport vehicles are deprived of it.
Second hand car market is the only possible means for these people to fulfill their transportation needs. However, the recent measures put up by PAP government applies across the board! Why? If the aim is to reduce COE prices by curbing demand on new vehicles, why would the loan measures apply to the second hand market as well? Second hand car market is the "poor middle class people" market and most likely many people with various needs will not be able to meet the stringent loan restrictions.
Such measures are totally irrational and will further widen the wealth divide between the rich and the middle-lower class. You will see more and more rich families owning more cars which they don't really need (eg. kept in the garage most of the time) while those with real needs are deprived of it.
Curbing demand on the second hand car market really serve no purpose on the two parameters: Total number of Cars and prices of COE.... unless the PAP government is thinking of crashing the second hand car market so that more people will scrap their old car instead of selling off at second hand car market. It is only then they could increase the supply of COEs to the market and reduce prices...but wait, who will benefit? The rich!
We will end up with a totally skewed market situation where all resources will be allocated to the rich while the middle-lower class who may have even MORE VALID need of car ownership will be deprived. Such scarce resource allocation situation will only further inefficiency as well as social tension and instability due to wealth and income inequality; not only in terms of monetary terms but totally lopsided resource allocation that resulted in wastage.
PAP government is not doing anything good by applying such measures across the board. Second hand car market is the indirect means of "fair" resource allocation to the middle class who can't compete with the rich on COE bidding. I would suggest that loan requirement should be set at a max of 80% instead of 50% for second hand car market. At the very least, this will give the middle class a chance to meet their needs instead of squeezing them out of car ownership totally.
There are other issues about the COE and car ownership allocation but I would not want to comment on these for the moment. Let out MPs in parliament a chance to come up with their views, right? :)
Goh Meng Seng
COE prices have increased recently due to a curb on the number of COE issued. This is basically due to the corrective measures LTA has made due to the excessive number of COE issued prior to 2012. On the other hand, the demand on COE has increased due to an expanding population.
There must be an understanding that just like population, we cannot be expanding on the number of vehicles on the road forever. The primary concept of COE is to control the total number of vehicles on the road rather on the control of the prices. Is COE the best tool to control the number of vehicles on the road? It is supposedly to be so but there are other possibilities as well.
Nevertheless, if you want to control the number of COE issued, you will not be able to control the prices. That's basic economics. However, is COE bidding system efficient? I have been talking about pay-as-you-bid system vs the present system even since 1993. I shall not repeat on this again because apparently PAP won't listen and only interested in the revenue generated by this piece of paper.
I suspect PAP's recent measures on the restriction on the loans are aimed at curbing the demand of cars by the population. But look at the overall impact you will realize that this will further create a great divide between the rich and the middle-lower class.
Some may consider vehicles as "luxurious" goods and only those with money should buy it. I do not think so. Transportation needs via own vehicle is not merely "luxurious" goods like "jewelery" but may be basic needs for many people like salesman. This is especially so when our public transport system is really far from being efficient in such a small city state.
Sometimes you may wonder whether the allocation model for car ownership really makes sense when the rich could own not only one or two cars but a whole fleet of 5 to 10 within a small household while those middle lower class salesman who need their own transport vehicles are deprived of it.
Second hand car market is the only possible means for these people to fulfill their transportation needs. However, the recent measures put up by PAP government applies across the board! Why? If the aim is to reduce COE prices by curbing demand on new vehicles, why would the loan measures apply to the second hand market as well? Second hand car market is the "poor middle class people" market and most likely many people with various needs will not be able to meet the stringent loan restrictions.
Such measures are totally irrational and will further widen the wealth divide between the rich and the middle-lower class. You will see more and more rich families owning more cars which they don't really need (eg. kept in the garage most of the time) while those with real needs are deprived of it.
Curbing demand on the second hand car market really serve no purpose on the two parameters: Total number of Cars and prices of COE.... unless the PAP government is thinking of crashing the second hand car market so that more people will scrap their old car instead of selling off at second hand car market. It is only then they could increase the supply of COEs to the market and reduce prices...but wait, who will benefit? The rich!
We will end up with a totally skewed market situation where all resources will be allocated to the rich while the middle-lower class who may have even MORE VALID need of car ownership will be deprived. Such scarce resource allocation situation will only further inefficiency as well as social tension and instability due to wealth and income inequality; not only in terms of monetary terms but totally lopsided resource allocation that resulted in wastage.
PAP government is not doing anything good by applying such measures across the board. Second hand car market is the indirect means of "fair" resource allocation to the middle class who can't compete with the rich on COE bidding. I would suggest that loan requirement should be set at a max of 80% instead of 50% for second hand car market. At the very least, this will give the middle class a chance to meet their needs instead of squeezing them out of car ownership totally.
There are other issues about the COE and car ownership allocation but I would not want to comment on these for the moment. Let out MPs in parliament a chance to come up with their views, right? :)
Goh Meng Seng
Friday, February 22, 2013
Contradictions between people from Big and Small Countries – Root problem of New Migrants’ integration
The following is the translation of the previous Chinese article I have written with regards to the debate between Mr. Li Yeming and MP Mr. Low Thia Khiang. Special thanks and credits to Temasek Review Emeritus (TRE) for coming up with the translation which I have made various editing. However, any misrepresentation or mistakes found on this Translated article would be my responsibility.
Having read the exchange of
words between Mr Li Ye Ming and MP Mr Low Thia Kiang for the past few days, I
find it ironic that the differences brought out by this debate between Mr Li,
coming from a mighty country, and MP Mr Low, who was born and bred here (a small
country) are somewhat a miniature reflection of the difficulties and challenges
faced by new immigrants trying to integrate into the core of Singapore!
First of all, I must clarify
that even though I belong to the opposition camp, undeniably started my
political venture from the Workers Party and I could even regard Mr Low Thia Kiang
as my initial mentor in, but just as Mr Low himself had said during the Punggol
East By-election rally, we no longer walk on the same path and we have nothing
to do with each other now. Furthermore, I do not actually agree with the
political views of the Workers Party with regards to the population policy. If
Mr Li thinks that the views of the Workers Party are ‘radical’, then my
political views on this issue may come across as being ‘extremely radical’ to
him. Radical or not, it is just a matter of relativity. I see the political
views of the Workers Party as being too lax and gentle. The views of PAP are
actually so radical that they have ignored the welfare of the Singaporean
people at large. But these are our personal views and they are relative. It’s
pointless to argue on these terms.
In my view, Singapore has
already reached a critical stage in all aspects, results of its aggressive
import of foreign population and labour for the past ten over years. Not only should
we have to restrict the influx of foreign population, we should also try to maintain
the total population at present level (at zero growth) by systematically and
progressively reducing the number of foreigners coming to our shores. This goes
even further than the zero growth of foreign labour and the target of 5.9
million by 2030 proposed by the Workers Party. I’ll not go on about the basis
for my views here but basically, the main difference between someone coming
from a ‘mighty country’ and someone from a ’small country’ is that from a very
young age, all of us have the basic sense that our country is very small, or
simply put, just a little red dot. Land is scarce and everything has to be
considered with this objective reality in mind. This is something that Mr Li
will never be able to comprehend, having come from a vast state.
China is the most populous
country in the world, with a population of 1.3 billion. Although Singapore is
only a small country with a population of 5 million, but it we look at the population
density alone, Singapore has already surpassed China by more than fifty times!
Therefore the conflict arises between Mr Li, coming from a ‘mighty country’,
and us from such a ’small’ country- the inherent perception of our objective realities
are entirely different and thus, it’s no surprise that we will reach different
conclusions! In China,
if one can’t stand the crowded cities, one can always retreat to the villages to
be farmer in the countryside and live off the land. But in Singapore, if
we screw up on our population policy, there would be no hinterland that we can
retreat to. Or are we expected to jump into the sea?
We oppose the continue import
of foreign population not because we are xenophobic, but due to the consideration
of the constraints imposed by these objective realities. We do not have the
means to continue to import foreigners indefinitely. Perhaps we had really been
a society of migrants in the past, but to put it colloquially, that was when
‘policemen wore shorts’! ( If as a new citizen Mr Li does not understand this
phrase, please ask the true-blue Singaporeans around you!)
Mr Li claimed that he is not
ignorant of the ‘White Terror’ era of our country, but I really suspect that he
only possesses a superficial knowledge. Even for myself, as a Singaporean born
and bred here, I cannot say for sure that I have really understood what this
historical vacuum presented by the ‘White Terror’ was all about, let alone a
new immigrant like Mr Li. And this is one of the reasons why new immigrants
like Mr Li will find it hard to integrate into Singapore- they only have a
half-baked knowledge of Singapore’s history, yet feel that they already have
the history and conditions faced by Singapore all figured out.
As for Mr Li, he also has a
half-baked knowledge of economic theory, and yet he has opened fire on the
Workers Party so blatantly. He said that “If the Workers Party wants to put a
freeze on foreign labour, then how will they propose to solve the current
problem of labour shortage? The Workers Party is advocating lower economic
growth, to bring down demand for labour, and yet they are asking for a rise in
wages on the other hand, in order to encourage more people who are currently
inactive to enter the workforce. They don’t seem to understand the
contradiction presented by lowering economic growth and yet raising wages.”
Such reasoning is actually fallacious. Rise in wages do not necessarily lead to
greater economic growth, because if wages are raised on one hand, but the total
labour force remains stagnant (as profits drop) or is reduced, GDP may not rise
that fast. The GDP is the sum total of all wages and income. So, the stand of
the Workers Party is not self-contradictory at all.
Singapore
is the most open country in the world with regards to its immigration policies.
We are unlike China or Japan, where they
only award citizenships to their own race, be it Chinese or Japanese. Singapore does
not take into account racial differences. Even if anyone were to come from
Latin America, as along as they meet the criteria, Singapore will award the
citizenship to them. On the contrary, it is extremely difficult to obtain
Chinese or Japanese citizenship if one is not of the same stock or race. I can
definitely say that many new immigrants like Mr Li, who have given up their
Chinese nationality to apply for Singapore
citizenship, will not complain that China is being xenophobic because
of this. I have also never heard of any Chinese national or new immigrant
express any dissent over China’s
“xenophobic” immigration policy. Therefore, I am extremely puzzled that Mr Li
has slapped on the label of being “xenophobic” on the Workers Party. Has he
ever protested China’s
“xenophobic” policies? Then why is he kicking up such a ruckus over someone
‘fanning xenophobic sentiments’ in a small country like Singapore?
Any country in the world would
look after the interests of its own citizens first, as its priority. This is
only right. Any policy of the country should also ultimately be beneficial to
its own people. And these benefits do not just refer to financial benefits, but
also include factors relating to the citizens’ quality of life. Of course, if
Mr Li has become a citizen, then the country needs to take his welfare into
account as well. And these benefits are not just about economic growth. If the
fruits of economic growth are not distributed evenly and bring little benefits
to most citizens at large, but on the other hand the social costs of this
growth has to be borne by them, then this is totally unacceptable. So, when Mr
Li asked: ‘ Isn’t economic growth important?’ I simply think that his question
is extremely narrow and naive. At present, we cannot ignore the problems caused
by the foreign labour policies. Not only will these foreign labour policies
depress the wages of some Singaporeans, it may even lead to serious inadequate or
under-employment. If economic growth is achieved at such a cost, on top of
inflation, increased pricing of houses, deterioration of the living environment
and extremely crowded traffic conditions etc., we have perhaps paid too high a
social cost for such economic growth!
The tirades of Mr Li against
MP Mr Low for his views regarding the integration of new immigrants into the
Singaporean core demonstrate the vast difference in understanding between
people from a ‘mighty country’ and that of people from a ’small country’, which
cannot be ignored. Our forebears had nothing when they first arrived in Singapore. They
endured the hardships as coolies together, three years and eight months of the
Japanese Occupation, the period of anti-colonialism, the tumultuous times of
nation-building, racial riots …etc. They worked hard to learn how to live in
harmony with other dialect groups and races; and faced the same external threats
together. Back then, Singapore
was not so crowded. The population did not even pass a million, so we still had
the means to import more immigrants. It is really not an easy task for any
society or country to forge a united citizenry or people within the framework
of very diverse races. But we weathered the crises together, and reached
certain consensus, we served NS together, endured the hardships together, and
speak Singlish together…all these has not been simply a day’s work for such a
small country like Singapore.
This work required at least a generation or two to achieve our present status.
If many more new immigrants are injected within a very short span of time, this
will have a very large impact on the initial core values that we had built up.
This is not xenophobia but mere objective reality. In fact, the various
troubles that have arisen so far have actually validated this point. New
immigrants kicked up a big fuss because they were not used to the smell of
Indian curry. They also kicked up a big fuss about funeral wakes being held
downstairs of their homes, or the celebrations of the Seventh Lunar Month… and
the native Singaporeans who were born and bred here were actually dumb-founded
by all these complains. They simply could not understand what the fuss were all
about! It is indeed not easy for immigrants who have come to such a small country
from large, mighty ones to integrate into a multi-racial and multi-cultural
society like Singapore.
And the social impact which they have brought along is also an undeniable
objective fact as well.
One’s cultural values will not
automatically change just because he has had a change of nationality. Short of
a shared experience, and the creation of a collective memory; to integrate new
immigrants into this society is easier said than done! Even for Singaporeans
born and bred here, we may have a sense that we are one country one people, but
all of us also aware of the differences that we still have among one another. The
key is to integrate in the midst of the differences, to co-exist with mutual
respect and prosper together. Similarly, even though new immigrants have
obtained their citizenship, they need to keep in mind the differences that
exist between themselves and native Singaporeans. Without a recognition of the
existence of such differences, how will they ever acknowledge and face head on
the challenges of integration? And that is why I am in complete disagreement
with Mr Li’s views that the act of MP Mr Low raising the differences of new
immigrants is tantamount to fanning ‘xenophobic’ sentiments! This is as
ridiculous as accusing me of being racist just because I say that Singapore
Malays are different.
Stopping or even reducing the
influx of immigrants for the greatest benefits of one’s own citizens is not xenophobic, but simply making the appropriate choice based on objective
realities. How can it possibly be that a country does not put the interest of
its people as a priority? If Mr Li has really become a Singapore
citizen, then I have to ask him where his loyalty lies. Or do he has lingering ties
and attachment with his former Motherland? He needs to at least have this very
basic understanding that he should be fighting for Singaporeans’ interests
instead of his former compatriots. If he is a new immigrant who is just having
PR status, then he needs to realise that this is Singapore. It is only right that we
look after our own citizens first. He has no rights to interfere in our
internal politics.
I’ll stop here. As for the
other more complicated matters relating to the population policy, I’ll leave it
to the next time.
Goh Meng Seng
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
强国人与小国人的矛盾 – 新移民磨合的困处
这两天拜读了李叶明先生和刘程强议员的针锋相对的文章后,我觉得讽刺的是,这争论反而凸现了来自强国中国的李生和土生土长的刘议员的矛盾正是我们面对新移民难于磨合融入新加坡核心的缩影!
首先我必须先申明,虽然我是反对党阵营的人,无可否认的也是“师出工人党”,甚至可以说刘程强曾是我政治启蒙老师,但是就如刘议员在榜鹅补选的群众大会上所说的,我们如今道不同,已不相为谋了。更进一步的讲,我并不完全认同工人党在人口政策的政见。如果李生认为工人党的政论是“极端”,那我的政见可能对他来说是将是“非常极端”了。极端与否,是相对的。我看工人党的政见是太松散温和了,行动党的根本是极端得无顾及新加坡人的广大福利。但这些都是我们各人相对的看法,以此争论对错是没什么意义的。
以我之见,新加坡目前在这十多年来过度输入外来人口和劳工下,各方面已经病入膏肓了,我们不止要制约外来人口的输入,反而要以有序的步伐去减低外来人口的数目,以维持人口总数(总人口零增长)。这比起工人党的外来劳工输入零增长而在2030年达到五百九十万的人口目标还要进取。姑且暂时不论我的论述是以什么为基准,但基本上与“强国人”不同的是,我们“小国人”从小就意识到我们国家是非常小,俗称“弹丸小国”,土地有限,所以培养了对各方面的看法都会以这客观现实为主要考量。这是来自大国的李生无法真正理解的。
中国虽然以十三亿人口冠为世界上人口最多的国家,但像新加坡这样的一个五百万人小国,以人口土地比例来算却已经超越中国五十多倍!所以强国人的李生跟我们小国人的矛盾就出自这里:对客观环境的认知完全不同,得出的结论当然也一定不同了!在中国,如果你受不了城市的拥挤,你大可回到乡下田野,靠山靠田生活下去。但是在新加坡,一旦人口政策搞砸了,我们是没有腹地可退居的。难道要我们跳下海不成?
我们反对继续输入外来人口的原因不是因为我们排外,而是基于客观事实的局限,我们没有那个本钱永无止尽的继续输入外来人口。也许我们以前真是移民社会,但是套一句新加坡的俗语,以前的“马达”穿短裤哩!(如果身为新移民的李生如果看不懂这句话,请你请教周围的道地新加坡人吧!)
李生说他对我国“白色恐怖”时期不是一无所知,但我真的怀疑他是否只知皮毛而已。就算是我这土生土长的新加坡人,对于这“白色恐怖”时期的历史空白都不敢说是非常了解,更何况是身为新公民的李生呢?这也是为什么新公民难以磨合和融入新加坡的原因之一:他们对新加坡历史只一知半解,便以为他们已经非常了解新加坡历史和国情了。
至于李生,他还对经济理论一知半解,便针对工人党乱开枪。他说:“工人党要冻结外劳,那目前人手短缺的问题怎么解决?工人党主张调低经济增长,抑制人力需求;另一方面又主张提高工资,吸引更多经济不活跃者重返劳动队伍。他们似乎完全没意识到,下调经济增长与上调工资之间的矛盾。”这是似是而非的观点。工资提高不一定能提高经济增长,因为如果一方面提高工资但是另一方面因减少外劳输入而导致总劳动人口呆滞或减少的话,总国民生产就不会增长得太快。国民生产是所有工资和收入的总和。所以说,工人党的立场并没有矛盾。
新加坡是世上对外来劳工最开放的国家。我们不像中国或日本一样,只给自己族人,华人或日本人,国籍。新加坡不拘种族分别,就算你是从远自南美洲,只要能符合资格,新加坡也会发公民权给他们。反之,其他外族的外国人要拿中国或日本的公民权是非常困难的。但是我可以很肯定许多如李生放弃中国国籍而申请新加坡公民权的新移民并非因为中国如此“排外”。我也没听过任何中国人或新移民有对这种“排外”的政策有任何异议。所以我对李生对工人党直批“排外”感到非常不解。他有曾针对他以前伟大的祖国抗议过政策“排外”吗?为什么到了新加坡这样的小国就会敏感的嚷嚷着“煽动排外”呢?
无论世界任何国家都会优先对待自己的国民,这是再自然不过的。任何政策的最终目的都必须“利民”,有利于自己的国民。这利不止于钱财的利益,还包括了所有关系到国民生活素质的因素。当然,如果李生已经成为新加坡公民,国家也必须顾及他的利益。这利益不只关于经济增长;如果经济的增长因分配成果不均而没有给广大国民任何好处,而这增长的社会成本竟然要广大国民去承受,那这是不能容忍的。所以当李生问:“难道经济增长不重要吗?”的时候,我想那是非常狭隘而天真的提问。目前,我们不能无视外劳政策所带来的弊病。这外劳政策不只导致一些国人承受薪金被压低,严重的还导致就业不足。如果这经济增长是建立在这些成本再加上高物价、屋价、居住环境变差、公共交通超拥挤等等的话,那这些社会成本未免就太高了吧!
李生非议刘议员针对新移民磨合融入新加坡核心所做的言论也显示了强国人和小国人存在着不可忽视的认知问题。我们祖父辈刚到新加坡时,是一无所有的。他们一起经历了艰苦的苦力生活、三年零八个月的日治时期、反殖民、建国的动荡时期、种族暴动。。。等等。他们努力学习如何和其他籍贯和种族相处,面对同样的威胁。但是,那时他们到新加坡时,新加坡还没那么拥挤,人口没过百万,所以我们还有本钱继续输入外来人口。一个社会或国家要在多个不同种族的框架里磨合融入成团结的人民并非易事。我们共同经历了种种危机,也有各种共同意识,一起当过兵,吃过苦,说着共同新加坡式英语。。。这对一个小国来说不是一朝一夕就能建立起来的。这至少需要一两代人才能铸成的。如果在短时间内,加入过多的外来新移民的话,这对原有的核心价值观会造成冲击的。这不是排外论而是客观事实。事实上,以往发生的种种事端便能证明这观点。新移民不适应印度咖喱味道而大闹;新移民不能忍受邻居在组屋楼下办丧事或传统农历七月拜祭而大闹。。。这些对土生土长的新加坡人来说是匪夷所思的!对于从大国强国移民到这小国度的移民来说,要适应或真正磨合融入新加坡这多元种族多元文化的社会里,并非易事。而带给我们社会文化的冲击,也是不容置疑的客观事实。
一个人的文化价值观不会因换了一换国籍身份就会顺理成章的改变。少了共同体验,制造共同记忆,要新移民磨合融入这社会,谈何容易啊!就算是土生土长的新加坡人,虽然我们能有国民的认同感,但是我们也非常了解彼此的差异。能在差异中磨合融入,互相尊敬共荣,这才是关键。同样的,虽然新移民拿了公民权,他们也不能忽略自己和其他土生土长新加坡人的差异。如果不认为有差异,又怎么能正视磨合融入的问题呢?所以我对李生把刘议员所提出新移民的差异作为“排外”论很不以为然!这好比说,我说同样是新加坡人的马来人跟我们有很大的差异就等于种族歧视一样荒谬!
为了捍卫自己人民最大利益而必须停止增加或甚至减少外来移民绝对不是排外,而是根据客观环境事实而做出的正确取舍。一个国家如果不把人民的利益摆在第一位,那还像个国家吗?如果李生真的已经是新加坡公民,那我可要问问他的忠心到底是归属哪里?是他和以往的祖国藕断丝连吗?他必须有这起码的认知,他应该争取的是广大新加坡人民的福利,不再是他同乡的利益。如果他只是拿了永久居民权的新移民,那么他也必须意识到这是新加坡,我们一定先照顾本国国民而他不应该干涉我们的内政。
我就写到这里,至于其他有关人口政策比较复杂的问题,留到下回再解。
吴明盛
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
We need Guard Dog not Watchdog Politics
Chi Huahua as Watch Dog?
It pains me to write this article and it is not an Asian tradition to rebut your mentor even if the mentorship has ceased long ago. I will only publish this article on the eve of the cooling off day, just to make sure that PAP will not be able to use my points in their attacks.
In an earlier answer to the press during the press conference, Mr Low has also explained why WP didn't work on Punggol East after last GE as WP is a small party and all resources were drawn back to focus on Aljunied and Hougang.
I have written on why WP should give this by-elections a pass just before it was called. It is exactly the reasons given by Mr Low himself, as it is quite obvious to us that WP is really over stretched and it needs to put its own house in order first, after so many boo boos happened. The mediocre performance, not only on the parliamentary front but also on the Town Council management front, must be addressed. WP should have stopped and re-consolidate themselves first before trying to fight another by-elections.
Imagine that if WP was already so stretched before this PE BE, what would happen if it was to win another seat in PE? Won't such victory put further strains on WP's resources? Is it wise for Mr Low to admit that WP is far too stretch to work the ground in PE but in the end, still insisted to get into this by-election to try and win this ward which they have already admitted that they are having resource constraints to work on? It is a glaring contradictions that PAP failed to pick but voters in Punggol East should seriously consider.
I was told that prior to Palmergate, some residents who voted WP in last GE have emailed WP about the stoppage of work at the Rivervale Plaza upgrading but WP has ignored about it. In the end, it was Kenneth Jeyaratnam who took the trouble to make a visit to Rivervale Plaza and made noise about the work stoppage there. I believe these former WP supporters have decided not to vote for WP in this PE and they are right in not doing so! If this is true, then it is rather ironic that WP members has reiterated that they will be the voice of Punggol East Residents now on their rally stage when they have chosen to ignore their pleas just a few months ago!
How much time and effort would it take WP to make a visit to the site to find out exactly what happen and make an appropriate statement about the stoppage? But WP didn't bother to do anything about it. It only came to their mind when the by-election was called!
All these boil down to the kind of political strategy WP has adopted in the past 18 months. WP Chief, Mr Low Thia Khiang was reportedly said that WP 'will keep close watch of over Govt'. In this news report, it says that WP has sent a flyer message to residents of Punggol East during this by-election to explain about WP's strategic positioning in parliament, most probably in an attempt to defend criticisms of WP's mediocre performance in parliament.
His message to the Punggol East voters has somehow reiterated his "Watchdog Politics" which he has so famously coined in the past that WP wants to be a Watchdog, not a "Mad Dog".
He reiterated WP's commitment to seeing Singapore progress and PAP improve. But WP must also "be ready one day to be an alternative choice for the people, especially if the ruling party should become incompetent or corrupt".
My question is, is "Watchdog Politics" enough to safe guard our interests in and out of parliament? If WP is only committed to see PAP improve, is it serious about being the alternative to PAP at all? Is it serious in wanting to set its own political agenda and direction for Singapore? Keeping a close watch on PAP alone isn't going to make parliament First World in any sense. First World Parliament isn't gonna to evolve just by having opposition parties sitting down there and watch and hope the ruling party will become better. First World Parliament can only evolve when all political parties, including both ruling and opposition parties, to debate rigorously on various policies based on their own political belief that their policies best serve the Nation.
Our interests as a Nation can only be safeguarded if and only if the opposition parties in parliament can perform the role as GUARD DOG that could well bark and bite whenever it is necessary, not just a Chi Huahua Watchdog that will only give a symbolic bark but run away when challenged. A Guard Dog must prove its worth by its performance in responding to threats to any compromise on our interests. The recent AIM saga is a prime example of such impotency of Watch Dog politics. Why the issue of AIM wasn't raised immediately when WP found out about it instead of dragging for 18 months, after WP's competency in Town Council management has been put in doubt?
Furthermore, as Calvin Cheng has rightly put in his comment to Yahoo News, the parliament is the place whereby key issues should be brought up by MPs to be debated. This should be done by filing a motion or adjournment motion whereby WP is well capable of since it has already had 8 MPs in parliament. But WP has failed to do that. Even when Sylvia Lim has filed an adjournment motion on the AIM saga, she has subsequently withdrawn it for some incoherent reasons.
Such Watchdog mentality has set into WP quite deeply when we start to hear WP MPs and members talking about voters must vote them into parliament to make PAP works harder. On the other hand, they make claims that whatever policies made good by PAP is just because they were elected into parliament, sitting down there and watch.
It is just like saying that "Vote us in because PAP is not working" and on the other hand, saying "if PAP is working hard, it is because we are there, thus vote us in". This is the Bao Chiat and Bao Yah (Sure Win) Watchdog strategy whereby, head WP wins, tail PAP loses. It disregards totally of whether WP MPs are performing effective or not and what is needed is basically a presence of WP MPs sitting in parliament.
I do not think it is healthy for Singapore's democratic process if we were to cultivate such mediocre mentally.
I would urge voters of Punggol East to consider very carefully what they want for Singapore, not just what they want for themselves. As an opposition activist, I would not encourage them to vote PAP but at the same time, I would also urge them not to vote blindly in support of opposition.
It is especially so when your votes could either encourage or enhance unwanted political behavior or directions. A strong signal must be sent to all parties that supporters should not be taken for granted and parties should not expect blind support if they could only put up mediocre performance. Each and every vote counts in choosing the right direction for our political development for our future generations.
Allow me to quote Calvin Cheng to end this post:
The Worker’s Party thus has far bigger questions to answer than the PAP. When the Prime Minister asked where its policy alternatives were, the answer is obvious: they lay hidden in the depths of its Manifesto. The more crucial question is why a party which campaigned forcefully for more debate and a ‘First World Parliament’ has allowed these alternative policies to remain there, rather than forcing a fundamental rethink from the government by requiring them to stoutly defend its policies in the House.
At the end of the day, the Worker’s Party did not promise to run Singapore’s town councils better. The Worker’s Party did not even promise to solve bread-and-butter issues that Singaporeans face . Instead, the Worker’s Party promised that it would be a check-and-balance, that it would be a co-driver, and that more debate would lead Singapore to a ‘First World Parliament’. It is this, this that the voters of Punggol East, and perhaps Singaporeans at large, must ultimately judge them.
Goh Meng Seng
WP's Path away From Opposition Unity
This may sound surprising to many opposition supporters but it is from the horse mouth. Mr Low Thia Khiang has said it in the Punggol East rally that WP has chosen to walk its own path when he tried to explained why WP didn't go into talk with other opposition parties with regard to candidacy for this by-election.
This basically means that from WP's perspective, opposition unity doesn't exist at all or they will not work towards opposition unity. That explains why WP was too eager to go into 3 corner fights in Moulmein Kallang and Punggol East back in GE2011 instead of consolidating its forces to contest in Marine Parade which is right in its backyard.
Many people have attacked me during the hustling back in GE2011 right up till now for criticising WP, putting up fantasies and imaginary Sour Grape and Bitter Gourd theories but I don't really blame them because they are ignorant of the finer details of opposition politics. They accused me of destroying opposition unity when I reasoned that WP was the one that is unreasonable in its insistence to create potential 3 corner fights. They even accused me as "PAP mole" when I suggested that other opposition parties would have to test out the relative strength to WP by contesting in Hougang By-election. It is an important strategic move to prepare themselves because make no mistakes about it, WP will definitely go into massive 3 corner fights in the next GE.
I have been a member of Workers Party from 2001 till 2006 and I have quit after the GE2006. The main reason that triggered my resignation has been explained in this blog before. We have a good contest in GE2006 and logically, any aspiring politicians like me, Chia Tilik, James Gomez etc, won't want to quit for no good reasons. There are various factors affecting our individual decisions but mine was pretty straight forward.
However, I must said that I felt disillusioned after GE2006. Right after GE2006, Mr Low has wanted to draw a clear line between SDP and WP. He wanted to denounce Non-Violence Action movement that was carried out by SDP as well. I believe the trigger of such thought came from SDP's contest in Sembawang GRC which WP has claimed but did not plan to contest anyway. There are of course other issues as well. I have opposed vigorously against such propositions at that time.
I reasoned that if WP was to do that back then, we may agitate hardcore SDP supporters. It will just take 2% or 3% off WP and that may just make a decisive difference between a win or lose in any contest in future elections. I also reasoned that Non-Violence Action should not be denounced totally by any political party like WP. This is basically because there will always be a great possibility that PAP may enact or use whatever administrative rules to curb opposition party's activities. I have put up the example of NEA using the illegal hawking rule to curb our selling of party newspaper Hammer. From time to time, we have met NEA officers giving warnings to opposition party activists for selling our newspapers on the streets. What happens if NEA is to come down hard and apply this rule harshly? Are we going to just obey and stop all political activity? NVA may be the only option left if such situation arises.
Indeed, such situation did arise prior to GE2011 when I took over the SG post of NSP. While NSP continued to sell its newspaper North Star in defiance of NEA summons, WP stopped for the whole month. If it is not for NSP's continuous pressure and refusal to pay up for the summon, all opposition parties like WP won't be carrying out their weekly newspaper sales until now! If NSP was to pay up the fines and admitted we were in the wrong, we would expect NEA to apply the rules and summons all across the board on all political parties! Unfortunately, during the tough deadlock with NEA, WP CEC member has openly accused and blamed NSP of "dragging them into the mud". It seems that WP does not realize that it is on the same boat with all other opposition parties instead of on the same boat with PAP, which it has suggested lately.
On the other hand, as I understand WP as a key member, WP has always blown the trumpet of two party system, especially after a good GE2006, which I always have reservations with. To work towards the two party system, it would mean that WP will have to thumb down all other opposition parties as well... or even destroy them with 3 or multi-corner fights and such. This is an undesirable direction and detrimental to democratic movement and development for Singapore.
The progressive aims for freedom activists is first to breach the obstacle of winning the first GRC, then to slice down PAP's monopoly of power by winning at least one third of the parliamentary seats so to deprive PAP the absolute power to amend the Constitution as the way it likes. Whether the system evolves into two party system should be of the last concerns. But apparently, WP doesn't see it this way.
Thus when WP insisted on contesting in Moulmein Kallang back in GE2011, I knew it wasn't just the simple reason of training their new young candidates. The reasoning of geographical proximity was even more outright ridiculous and unconvincing because Marine Parade would be the best choice for WP as it is sitting right next to Aljunied and East Coast GRCs! It is obvious to me that it is a ploy to trigger a 3 corner fight, with the aim to undermine NSP's growth or even destroy NSP totally.
It was very difficult to explain to many people but I took pain to persuade the scholars, Tony and Hazel, to pull out of Moulmein Kallang at the very last minute for self-preservation. I told them that it was their first election contest and they should not risk destroying their future political career by taking this unnecessary risk. The rest is history.
I cannot agree with WP and Low's strategic perspective in choosing this path of disunity. This is absolutely nothing personal but rather, a very technical difference in opinion on how to bring democratic development to Singapore. Different parties may have different problems but to even suggest that only WP is successful while other parties will only disappoint Singaporeans is much too arrogant to begin with.
For the better or the worse, people and parties change over time. I am proud to say that NSP has evolved stronger after GE2011 and so did SDP, thanks to the participation of new generation of professionals. WP is not the only party that has evolved stronger and it is obvious that other parties have enjoyed the same vote swing in constituencies where their new promising blood has contested.
I believe all these good people who are non-WP members, have great potentials to play an important role in Singapore's democratic development. Mr Low should not write them off that easily. Contrary to his assertions, these new blood have brought promise and hope, not shame or disappointment, to opposition movement as a whole.
Mr Low should leave his political historical baggage down and start to look at the whole environment and situation in a more positive way. If you want to talk about disappointing voters in the past, WP was also guilty of it in the past as well, with mass resignations, lawsuits, scandals (Yawgate is just a year ago) and such. WP's new image only comes about with the injection of new blood right after 2001. Thus, I do not think it is right for Mr Low to imply that others have brought disappointment to voters but not WP. Nevertheless, what had happened in the past, has passed. All parties now are having a fresh start with new generation of politicians joining them.
I just hope that WP will not stray away from the unity of opposition aim in bringing democratic development to Singapore by focusing in cutting down PAP's monopoly of power and enforcing democratic reforms to our political system. Obviously, the advocate of two party system is definitely tainted with self interests. We should focus on winning one third of the seats first an it doesn't necessarily mean that only WP could do it alone.
But I believe, all these are wishful thinking of mine. Premature 3 corner fights will become the norm in next and future GEs. So be it.
However, it would be total hypocrisy for WP people to criticise or scold and whine about other parties of being "spoilers" if WP itself doesn't believe in opposition unity in the first place. Let fair contest takes place but voters must be even more discerning in making their choice in such contests. Opposition supporters should not be confused from now on. They should not vote blindly but instead, should spend more time in assessing the performance, strength and weaknesses of each candidates instead of just vote according to party loyalty.
Opposition politics will never be the same again after Mr Low Thia Khiang's rally speech tonight. I believe that it is basically a public confirmation of distinct departure of WP from the rest of the opposition parties. Maybe Mr. Low feels that with 8 MPs in parliament, it is an opportune time for WP to take flight and establish itself as in the same league as PAP....on the same boat as PAP. But one thing Mr Low must realize, the only thing could stay constant, is impermanence and this knife will cut both ways.
Goh Meng Seng
This basically means that from WP's perspective, opposition unity doesn't exist at all or they will not work towards opposition unity. That explains why WP was too eager to go into 3 corner fights in Moulmein Kallang and Punggol East back in GE2011 instead of consolidating its forces to contest in Marine Parade which is right in its backyard.
Many people have attacked me during the hustling back in GE2011 right up till now for criticising WP, putting up fantasies and imaginary Sour Grape and Bitter Gourd theories but I don't really blame them because they are ignorant of the finer details of opposition politics. They accused me of destroying opposition unity when I reasoned that WP was the one that is unreasonable in its insistence to create potential 3 corner fights. They even accused me as "PAP mole" when I suggested that other opposition parties would have to test out the relative strength to WP by contesting in Hougang By-election. It is an important strategic move to prepare themselves because make no mistakes about it, WP will definitely go into massive 3 corner fights in the next GE.
I have been a member of Workers Party from 2001 till 2006 and I have quit after the GE2006. The main reason that triggered my resignation has been explained in this blog before. We have a good contest in GE2006 and logically, any aspiring politicians like me, Chia Tilik, James Gomez etc, won't want to quit for no good reasons. There are various factors affecting our individual decisions but mine was pretty straight forward.
However, I must said that I felt disillusioned after GE2006. Right after GE2006, Mr Low has wanted to draw a clear line between SDP and WP. He wanted to denounce Non-Violence Action movement that was carried out by SDP as well. I believe the trigger of such thought came from SDP's contest in Sembawang GRC which WP has claimed but did not plan to contest anyway. There are of course other issues as well. I have opposed vigorously against such propositions at that time.
I reasoned that if WP was to do that back then, we may agitate hardcore SDP supporters. It will just take 2% or 3% off WP and that may just make a decisive difference between a win or lose in any contest in future elections. I also reasoned that Non-Violence Action should not be denounced totally by any political party like WP. This is basically because there will always be a great possibility that PAP may enact or use whatever administrative rules to curb opposition party's activities. I have put up the example of NEA using the illegal hawking rule to curb our selling of party newspaper Hammer. From time to time, we have met NEA officers giving warnings to opposition party activists for selling our newspapers on the streets. What happens if NEA is to come down hard and apply this rule harshly? Are we going to just obey and stop all political activity? NVA may be the only option left if such situation arises.
Indeed, such situation did arise prior to GE2011 when I took over the SG post of NSP. While NSP continued to sell its newspaper North Star in defiance of NEA summons, WP stopped for the whole month. If it is not for NSP's continuous pressure and refusal to pay up for the summon, all opposition parties like WP won't be carrying out their weekly newspaper sales until now! If NSP was to pay up the fines and admitted we were in the wrong, we would expect NEA to apply the rules and summons all across the board on all political parties! Unfortunately, during the tough deadlock with NEA, WP CEC member has openly accused and blamed NSP of "dragging them into the mud". It seems that WP does not realize that it is on the same boat with all other opposition parties instead of on the same boat with PAP, which it has suggested lately.
On the other hand, as I understand WP as a key member, WP has always blown the trumpet of two party system, especially after a good GE2006, which I always have reservations with. To work towards the two party system, it would mean that WP will have to thumb down all other opposition parties as well... or even destroy them with 3 or multi-corner fights and such. This is an undesirable direction and detrimental to democratic movement and development for Singapore.
The progressive aims for freedom activists is first to breach the obstacle of winning the first GRC, then to slice down PAP's monopoly of power by winning at least one third of the parliamentary seats so to deprive PAP the absolute power to amend the Constitution as the way it likes. Whether the system evolves into two party system should be of the last concerns. But apparently, WP doesn't see it this way.
Thus when WP insisted on contesting in Moulmein Kallang back in GE2011, I knew it wasn't just the simple reason of training their new young candidates. The reasoning of geographical proximity was even more outright ridiculous and unconvincing because Marine Parade would be the best choice for WP as it is sitting right next to Aljunied and East Coast GRCs! It is obvious to me that it is a ploy to trigger a 3 corner fight, with the aim to undermine NSP's growth or even destroy NSP totally.
It was very difficult to explain to many people but I took pain to persuade the scholars, Tony and Hazel, to pull out of Moulmein Kallang at the very last minute for self-preservation. I told them that it was their first election contest and they should not risk destroying their future political career by taking this unnecessary risk. The rest is history.
I cannot agree with WP and Low's strategic perspective in choosing this path of disunity. This is absolutely nothing personal but rather, a very technical difference in opinion on how to bring democratic development to Singapore. Different parties may have different problems but to even suggest that only WP is successful while other parties will only disappoint Singaporeans is much too arrogant to begin with.
For the better or the worse, people and parties change over time. I am proud to say that NSP has evolved stronger after GE2011 and so did SDP, thanks to the participation of new generation of professionals. WP is not the only party that has evolved stronger and it is obvious that other parties have enjoyed the same vote swing in constituencies where their new promising blood has contested.
I believe all these good people who are non-WP members, have great potentials to play an important role in Singapore's democratic development. Mr Low should not write them off that easily. Contrary to his assertions, these new blood have brought promise and hope, not shame or disappointment, to opposition movement as a whole.
Mr Low should leave his political historical baggage down and start to look at the whole environment and situation in a more positive way. If you want to talk about disappointing voters in the past, WP was also guilty of it in the past as well, with mass resignations, lawsuits, scandals (Yawgate is just a year ago) and such. WP's new image only comes about with the injection of new blood right after 2001. Thus, I do not think it is right for Mr Low to imply that others have brought disappointment to voters but not WP. Nevertheless, what had happened in the past, has passed. All parties now are having a fresh start with new generation of politicians joining them.
I just hope that WP will not stray away from the unity of opposition aim in bringing democratic development to Singapore by focusing in cutting down PAP's monopoly of power and enforcing democratic reforms to our political system. Obviously, the advocate of two party system is definitely tainted with self interests. We should focus on winning one third of the seats first an it doesn't necessarily mean that only WP could do it alone.
But I believe, all these are wishful thinking of mine. Premature 3 corner fights will become the norm in next and future GEs. So be it.
However, it would be total hypocrisy for WP people to criticise or scold and whine about other parties of being "spoilers" if WP itself doesn't believe in opposition unity in the first place. Let fair contest takes place but voters must be even more discerning in making their choice in such contests. Opposition supporters should not be confused from now on. They should not vote blindly but instead, should spend more time in assessing the performance, strength and weaknesses of each candidates instead of just vote according to party loyalty.
Opposition politics will never be the same again after Mr Low Thia Khiang's rally speech tonight. I believe that it is basically a public confirmation of distinct departure of WP from the rest of the opposition parties. Maybe Mr. Low feels that with 8 MPs in parliament, it is an opportune time for WP to take flight and establish itself as in the same league as PAP....on the same boat as PAP. But one thing Mr Low must realize, the only thing could stay constant, is impermanence and this knife will cut both ways.
Goh Meng Seng
Friday, January 11, 2013
AIM, mis-AIM & Punggol By-Election
I have refrained from writing about AIM saga here on my blog officially because of a few reasons. First of all, I feel that both parties, are guilty of politicking without really account to what is the REAL COST to the residents of Aljunied GRC. PAP didn't come clean on how much it has cost for all the PAP TCs back in 2003 in developing the estate management software in the first place. WP didn't come clean on why they initiated the development of the new software and how much they have spent in doing so.
PAP has used AIM as a political vehicle to do politicking in the event of a loss of any constituency controlled by them. Although it is not clear whether they have actually did it explicitly right after losing Aljunied TC (we will never know if a conversation transpired between both parties might have hinted anything of this sort) but apparently there is absolutely no reason for TCs to sell the software to PAP owned AIM and it is obvious that AIM bought the software out of political considerations rather than commercial value. Of course, this is obviously a serious breach of conflict of interest and residents' interest was compromised in very sense. PAP's explanation is totally unconvincing at all and this has been dealt with many bloggers and writers already. I shall not repeat here.
As for WP, it didn't raise the red flag of such blatant conflict of interests until its competency of running the Town Council was put into question and doubt by the Town Council report. In fact, WP has gone on the record to say that the handover was smoothly done. I cannot see how AIM saga, which has been resolved back in Sept 2011 could have affected WP's performance in the whole year of 2012 or how it could delay the auditor's report until now. Apparently, this is just smokescreen of excuse for the below par performance.
Sylvia Lim has filed a motion in parliament to debate about "Safe Guarding Public the Interests in Town Council Management" and PM Lee immediately called for an inquiry by HDB into this matter.
Thereafter, PM Lee called for snap By-election in Punggol East and immediately, Sylvia Lim withdrew her motion, giving the excuse of wanting to wait for the Inquiry to be completed.
Such adverse politicking between the two parties is rather sickening to me. Many of you may not really understand the whole process here, thus I will dissect what the whole matter is all about.
The whole issue of this AIM saga has developed from the small little bickering between the two parties, PAP and WP, into something more important. If such things happen in Hong Kong, there would be an uproar of public opinion over it, on both parties. The issue is MORE THAN AIM itself. It is about REAL Potential Conflict of Interests in management of public entities and the government.
It has happened in places like Taiwan before, whereby the ruling party, has sold public enterprises or assets at dirt cheap prices to companies owned by people related to the party or directly to the party itself. The potential threat of corrupt practices is REAL if such things are not kept in check with transparency and accountability.
However, conflict of interests may not just stop at the party level. What does conflict of interests mean? A political party selling a software developed using by public money to a company it owns? A public entity giving contracts to companies owned by immediate family members or relatives of those running or managing that public entity...is that considered as conflict of interests ? Or even worse, these public entities giving business contracts to companies owned by the very people who manage or running that public entity.... is that considered as conflict of interests ?
Conflict of interests MAY NOT be illegal or criminal in nature as long as bidding processes are done with proper documentation. However the question is, is it politically ethical or correct?
In my view, Sylvia Lim was just too bold to file that motion to be debated on Monday. This is because ultimately, the debate will be focused on how to define Conflict of interests. She has forgotten that WP has been involved in running HGTC for all this while. When you are in charge of a TC for over 20 years, it is difficult to guarantee that you will have no issues of Conflict of Interests at all, regardless of whether or not there are conscious effort in avoiding it. Thus, PAP may just pull out some examples of conflict of interests that happened in WP controlled TC in the past and that would make WP look extremely and extraordinarily bad politically. Unless Sylvia Lim is 100% sure that there isn't any visible or underlying conflict of interests in EACH AND EVERY DEALINGS, CONTRACTS ISSUED etc, she is basically opening up a dangerous front for her own party!
People assume opposition like WP would be angels and above board of everything but is that really the case? For eg, since they attacked on vote buying in HDB upgrading pork barrel politicking but ended up they have done similar act of vote buying when they have that little power in hand, i.e. Lucky Draw for Voting for HDB upgrading. Such thing won't be made known to us if there is no whistle blower.
In the case of town council management, conflict of interests may not be "illegal" though politically not right. PAP has all sorts of conflict of interests and we now know that AIM is one of them but we expect opposition parties not to do such things. If one day, you found out such conflict of interests also happen in opposition parties, how would you think? It would be a total disaster on the political front, not only for WP but for the whole opposition movement.
Apparently, PM Lee took that golden opportunity to immediately draw a clear line from AIM and call for an independent inquiry. It would be unimaginable to call for a By Election immediately if he felt that the parliamentary debate on Monday on the proposed Motion by Sylvia is going to hurt PAP badly. That would be disastrous for PAP's campaign in Punggol but why did he call for the BE? I don't think the PM is that stupid after all and we should not underestimate our Prime Minister. There is no coincidence that he did the both things almost at the same once Sylvia filed that motion. It shows that he is prepared to go for scorched earth, to spill it all!
I believe that the PAP is prepared to go all out to debate on Sylvia Lim's motion and they must have something up their sleeves, they are so confident that they are willing to put Punggol By Election at stake. I guess they should have sensed the unusual courage and boldness of the predictable conservative PAP, thus finally realized that it is not a good idea after all to file that motion. Thus, just like playing the poker game, they blink and withdrew the motion. This is the whole politicking process all about.
This may not be the end of the issue if PAP decide to carry on and ask their own MPs to file the same motion on Monday.
I have long proposed not to have TC managed by MPs. You can read about the rationale here at New Asia Republic and the original write up. A MP should focus on parliamentary and law making. This should be their core business that voters voted them while taxpayers pay them to do. They should not be expected to run the TC. Else, we will end up with these messy situation of AIM saga and all sorts of politicking that would undermine the effectiveness of the MPs in doing their core business.
As for my views about the impending By-Election in Punggol East, I shall talk about it in my next few postings, if I have the time to write.
Goh Meng Seng
PAP has used AIM as a political vehicle to do politicking in the event of a loss of any constituency controlled by them. Although it is not clear whether they have actually did it explicitly right after losing Aljunied TC (we will never know if a conversation transpired between both parties might have hinted anything of this sort) but apparently there is absolutely no reason for TCs to sell the software to PAP owned AIM and it is obvious that AIM bought the software out of political considerations rather than commercial value. Of course, this is obviously a serious breach of conflict of interest and residents' interest was compromised in very sense. PAP's explanation is totally unconvincing at all and this has been dealt with many bloggers and writers already. I shall not repeat here.
As for WP, it didn't raise the red flag of such blatant conflict of interests until its competency of running the Town Council was put into question and doubt by the Town Council report. In fact, WP has gone on the record to say that the handover was smoothly done. I cannot see how AIM saga, which has been resolved back in Sept 2011 could have affected WP's performance in the whole year of 2012 or how it could delay the auditor's report until now. Apparently, this is just smokescreen of excuse for the below par performance.
Sylvia Lim has filed a motion in parliament to debate about "Safe Guarding Public the Interests in Town Council Management" and PM Lee immediately called for an inquiry by HDB into this matter.
Thereafter, PM Lee called for snap By-election in Punggol East and immediately, Sylvia Lim withdrew her motion, giving the excuse of wanting to wait for the Inquiry to be completed.
Such adverse politicking between the two parties is rather sickening to me. Many of you may not really understand the whole process here, thus I will dissect what the whole matter is all about.
The whole issue of this AIM saga has developed from the small little bickering between the two parties, PAP and WP, into something more important. If such things happen in Hong Kong, there would be an uproar of public opinion over it, on both parties. The issue is MORE THAN AIM itself. It is about REAL Potential Conflict of Interests in management of public entities and the government.
It has happened in places like Taiwan before, whereby the ruling party, has sold public enterprises or assets at dirt cheap prices to companies owned by people related to the party or directly to the party itself. The potential threat of corrupt practices is REAL if such things are not kept in check with transparency and accountability.
However, conflict of interests may not just stop at the party level. What does conflict of interests mean? A political party selling a software developed using by public money to a company it owns? A public entity giving contracts to companies owned by immediate family members or relatives of those running or managing that public entity...is that considered as conflict of interests ? Or even worse, these public entities giving business contracts to companies owned by the very people who manage or running that public entity.... is that considered as conflict of interests ?
Conflict of interests MAY NOT be illegal or criminal in nature as long as bidding processes are done with proper documentation. However the question is, is it politically ethical or correct?
In my view, Sylvia Lim was just too bold to file that motion to be debated on Monday. This is because ultimately, the debate will be focused on how to define Conflict of interests. She has forgotten that WP has been involved in running HGTC for all this while. When you are in charge of a TC for over 20 years, it is difficult to guarantee that you will have no issues of Conflict of Interests at all, regardless of whether or not there are conscious effort in avoiding it. Thus, PAP may just pull out some examples of conflict of interests that happened in WP controlled TC in the past and that would make WP look extremely and extraordinarily bad politically. Unless Sylvia Lim is 100% sure that there isn't any visible or underlying conflict of interests in EACH AND EVERY DEALINGS, CONTRACTS ISSUED etc, she is basically opening up a dangerous front for her own party!
People assume opposition like WP would be angels and above board of everything but is that really the case? For eg, since they attacked on vote buying in HDB upgrading pork barrel politicking but ended up they have done similar act of vote buying when they have that little power in hand, i.e. Lucky Draw for Voting for HDB upgrading. Such thing won't be made known to us if there is no whistle blower.
In the case of town council management, conflict of interests may not be "illegal" though politically not right. PAP has all sorts of conflict of interests and we now know that AIM is one of them but we expect opposition parties not to do such things. If one day, you found out such conflict of interests also happen in opposition parties, how would you think? It would be a total disaster on the political front, not only for WP but for the whole opposition movement.
Apparently, PM Lee took that golden opportunity to immediately draw a clear line from AIM and call for an independent inquiry. It would be unimaginable to call for a By Election immediately if he felt that the parliamentary debate on Monday on the proposed Motion by Sylvia is going to hurt PAP badly. That would be disastrous for PAP's campaign in Punggol but why did he call for the BE? I don't think the PM is that stupid after all and we should not underestimate our Prime Minister. There is no coincidence that he did the both things almost at the same once Sylvia filed that motion. It shows that he is prepared to go for scorched earth, to spill it all!
I believe that the PAP is prepared to go all out to debate on Sylvia Lim's motion and they must have something up their sleeves, they are so confident that they are willing to put Punggol By Election at stake. I guess they should have sensed the unusual courage and boldness of the predictable conservative PAP, thus finally realized that it is not a good idea after all to file that motion. Thus, just like playing the poker game, they blink and withdrew the motion. This is the whole politicking process all about.
This may not be the end of the issue if PAP decide to carry on and ask their own MPs to file the same motion on Monday.
I have long proposed not to have TC managed by MPs. You can read about the rationale here at New Asia Republic and the original write up. A MP should focus on parliamentary and law making. This should be their core business that voters voted them while taxpayers pay them to do. They should not be expected to run the TC. Else, we will end up with these messy situation of AIM saga and all sorts of politicking that would undermine the effectiveness of the MPs in doing their core business.
As for my views about the impending By-Election in Punggol East, I shall talk about it in my next few postings, if I have the time to write.
Goh Meng Seng
Labels:
Democracy,
Elections,
Law,
Policy Views,
Public Service
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)







Singapore People's Party