Two Key Factors which Corrupt Power

Power corrupts but what corrupts Power?

From ancient history to modern time, the golden truth has never changed i.e. Greed (of money) and Sex are the two key factors which will corrupt those people in the position of power.

The famous story of the warring states in ancient China where the defeated 越 state managed to corrupt the king 夫差 of its arch rival 吴 state by sending the most beautiful woman 西施 to become his concubine still lingers on in modern days. 越 state finally destroyed and captured 吴 state. It is a classic case on how sexual desires could corrupt and eventually destroy the whole country if it was left unchecked.

In modern days, woman spies are used to seduce potential targets to get vital National secrets in espionage cases unveiled. In business world as well as civil service such as police force, sex is also widely used to corrupt decision makers and law enforcement officers to get favorable treatments or tip offs.

Of course, beside sex, money is also the common form of bribery used. No government in the world, whether it is under dictatorship or democratic system, could be spared from the corruptions done through these two key factors.

The only way is to minimize the chances of corruptions by using all kinds of measures. In Singapore, PAP has argued that only high pay could keep politicians and civil servants from being tempted by money bribery. But one could argue that how could more money prevent a greedy person from being corrupt? There is no end of desires for more money for a greedy person. It is a debatable issue in governance.

PAP used to have stringent screening rules in their selection process in the search of good candidates to hold political office. It used to have zero tolerance for adultery or sexual misconduct.

Many people have argued that we should not be "moralist" and having affairs are "private matters". Some even argued that what one does in private will not hurt their official work. But the truth is, the CPIB (Corrupt Practice Investigation Bureau) has investigated two Chiefs from the SCDF and CNB recently for alleged "serious personal misconduct" which was rumored to be in connection with sexual favors offered by a woman. It was reported that even if there were no evidence of corruptions involved, both officers would be disciplined internally for serious personal misconduct. They have since been sacked from their positions.

We cannot be sure that anyone in power would be compromised if they engage in affairs or womanizing. But I have argued that human civilization progresses throughout time because we are able to make use of past experiences and data to forecast, make predictions and good judgment. If Sex and Money are two key factors which will corrupt those in power, then people who are greedy or have higher tendency to go astray in their private sex life would be considered as "high risk" individuals to be assigned positions of power.

Thus it is only logical when voters in general would not prefer people with past records of cheating to become their MPs or ministers. It is also understandable that people who are found cheating on their wives or basically womanizers are not preferred to be voted as their representatives or ministers as well. An elected representative, in Singapore's context, holds certain power and influence not only in policy making but also allocating and utilizing public resources when they are tasked to run town councils. Needless to say, any ministers would have even greater powers and privileged sensitive information which concerned National security.

It is a matter of choice in risk taking. Generally, Singapore is still a conservative society which is still pretty risk adverse. It is not only a question of morality but also a matter of practicality in political management that we generally avoid entrusting people with higher tendency of being greedy or committing adultery/womanizing to be elected into political office.

Similarly, a government should be mindful about the character of a person before appointing him to become key senior civil servants. Anybody who fails the tests on greed and sex should not be employed as key senior civil servants at all.

Goh Meng Seng

Crisis Management Lessons For Politicians

Right from last December till now, we have witnessed how badly our government and SMRT have managed the various "crisis". In Singapore, we do not have the culture of demanding and providing timely information of all sorts. The importance of timely information is basically ignored. In general, we are not trained in managing crisis.

A domesticated news industry has lost its natural journalistic instinct in looking out for vital information and asking important questions of public interests. Investigative reporting is either discouraged or basically disallowed. Whistle blowers are quickly dealt with internally. The political culture in Singapore is more of "covering up" or providing the least information possible to the public for fear of whatever reasons. However, the New Media has changed the rule of the game.

When certain "undesirable" information is being "leaked" or reported on New Media, blogs or internet based social political websites, the authorities seem to be at a lost on how to deal with such Public Relationship problems.

Politicians from both the opposition as well as ruling parties lack the necessary Public Relationship skills to deal with all sorts of big and small crisis. Most of the time, they would hope that by remaining silent, the problems will just go away. In this internet era, this is not possible. It is an outdated PR method (ostrich mentality) which could only apply with total monopoly of information flow.

The most common quote you can hear from officials is "We do not comment on rumors". While this may apply fairly well on certain issues but it may look bad on the person in question when the rumors are basically detrimental to his or her integrity or reputation. The most common rumor circulated on internet forums is about prominent politicians having extra-marital affairs.

I have been observing Taiwan and Hong Kong politics for quite some time. I will quote a couple of interesting examples of how politicians deal with Public Relationship crisis.

In the run up to the Hong Kong Chief Executive elections, BOTH potential candidates Henry Tang Ying Yen (唐英年, commonly known as Henry Tang) and Leung Chun Ying (梁振英,commonly known as CY Leung) were rumored to have extra-marital affairs. These rumors were spreading like wild fire on the internet but no one has shown conclusive evidence just yet.

CY Leung responded to such rumor immediately to dismiss it as a lie. He even added that it would not be FAIR to the women mentioned in the rumor if he did not come up to deny it outright. He has portrayed himself as someone who is not only protecting his integrity but also protecting the reputation of the women being maligned.

For a politician to respond in such a way, he must be 100% sure that this rumor is false or at least, he must be damn sure that no one could produce any conclusive evidence of such affairs. Most likely, he did not do it and it turns public perception to his advantage. Such rumor will be viewed as malicious attempt out to discredit him.

For Henry Tang, he did the opposite. He walked up to the press, holding his wife's hand tightly and made a simple statement of admission. He didn't answer to any questions raise during the press conference but just read out his statement. He said he is sorry that his personal indiscretion has caused much trouble to many people, especially the woman involved. He refused to confirm the identity of the woman, so to protect her from further unnecessary harassment. He reiterated that the affair was in the past and his wife has forgiven him. They have moved on from that past episode. This will be his first as well as the last response he would make with regards to the extra-marital affairs.

Some may wonder why Henry Tang should offer apology and admission even though no solid evidence has been offered by anyone on the internet. When a rumor is created, there will be some people who will defend the accused politician while there will be people who will use the opportunity to bring him down.

If the politician chose not to respond or deny but eventually someone come up with some conclusive evidence, the tide will totally be turned against the politician. His supporters will feel cheated and he will lose all his support base. This is the greatest nightmare to a politician. He will lose every support, even sympathizers if he ever lied or remained silent. He will be forever labelled as a cheat, a liar and irresponsible person who does not dare to bear the brunt of his own wrong doing.

The alternative option for the politician is to admit it openly and seek forgiveness. In the process, demonstrates that he would be responsible for whatever mistakes he has made in his life while trying to protect the women involved. He will most probably retain his support base and gain more sympathizers.

Furthermore, by making a short and swift response to this rumor, it will end the media disaster. Even if there are any compromising evidence leaked in future, it will have little or no value. The media will hype about it for the admission but it will die off eventually. This is evident in Henry Tang's case. The campaign didn't get derailed into reports on slanderous affairs but rather focus on his policy options he has to offer.

It is with such considerations and advice given by his PR manager that Henry Tang finally stood up and admit. He has successfully neutralized the great amount of bad press generated by this rumor hanging like a sword above his head.

Some may argue that such extra-marital affairs are private matters and it has nothing to do with the capabilities of the politician. However, such argument may be debunked quickly because politicians hold great powers in certain aspects in managing public assets and resources. If he could cheat his own spouse, he could cheat anyone, least to say, the public. Thus, the important thing is to minimize the perception of such cheating. If a politician choose to "try his luck" and bet on others not having concrete evidence, then he will reinforce the perception of being a dishonest man if any such concrete evidence surface.

Thus, in retrospective, Henry Tang has successfully removed or minimized the impression of being a cheat or dishonest by admitting outright, apologized and gained forgiveness from his wife. He also builds up his image as a person who will take up responsibility of any wrong doing. He has successfully minimize the damage of his extra-marital affairs done to his campaign. Nobody seems to think that his extra-marital affairs would matter anymore in his bid for the Chief Executive post after his open admission.

I hope the two case studies I have provided here would enlighten some in crisis management. On the PR perspective, it is not what trouble you get into that matters most. It is about the loss of confidence of your supporters that matters most and it will be determined by how you manage your own crisis.

Of course, I would want to reiterate my personal maxim, 因果不存侥幸: Never try your luck with Karma. The best way to avoid trouble is not to plant the seed at all.

Goh Meng Seng

Stand by me

I attended the birthday celebration of Yong Vui Kong at Speakers' Corner Hong Lim Park today. I have met many friends there, both social and political activists. M Ravi has spent years in his consistent work towards the Anti-Death Penalty campaign. M Ravi has spoken so passionately about his cause ever since I first met him many many years ago when he was helping the late JBJ.

I have met up with many political activists as well, from various parties. Some of them have really paid a heavy price for their participation in opposition politics during GE2011, both on the job front as well as personal relationships. Such sacrifices are hardly appreciated by others and the mental fatigue they had suffered after the GE is affecting them tremendously. This is especially so for first time contestants whom some would fall into depression and disillusion.

I would like to dedicate this song, which was very well sang by Joshua Chiang this afternoon at Hong Lim, to all social and political activists. What couldn't break us will make us stronger ever. Take heart, we will stand by each other on this path of activism.

部长薪金调整 – 换汤不换药的政治秀

历时超过半年的《政治职位薪金检讨报告》昨天终于出炉，建议大幅削减总统、总理和部长薪金达28% 至53% 。这双位数字的减幅看来大刀阔斧，但是仔细研读当中的魔鬼细节后，就不难发现检讨报告只是一场换汤不换药的数字游戏。

去年大选之后，李显龙总理为了“顺应”民意，成立了政治职位薪金检讨委员会，检讨多年来被批评为过高的总理及部长薪酬，这也被普遍视为大选失利而重新笼络民心的动作。然而委员会到头来所作出的薪酬计算建议，显然是令人大失所望，因为它缺乏大胆改革薪金制度的决心。

首先，委员会建议把部长薪金基准与新加坡300万劳动人口中最高薪的48人，增加至与1000人挂钩，这种改动没有实际意义。单单把薪酬与高收入人士看齐，却忽略中层和基层人士薪金的变动，得出的结果是狭隘和有偏差的。

以2007年为例，当年我国基层人士的薪金呆滞，中产阶级的加薪幅度也不高，但是部长薪金却因为跟高薪人士挂钩而水涨船高，一口气飙升了60%！在贫富悬殊日益严重的新加坡，这种荒谬的现象更突显了薪金计算机制的不合理。

此外，委员会建议沿用花红制度，并作一些无关痛痒的小修小补，即使改革后的最高花红从以往的27.5个月降低至14.5个月，但对国人来说，这仍然是个天文数字。

在计算表现花红方面，若纯粹以总理的主观意愿来决定，而完全缺乏客观的理据，那又如何避免官官相护呢？虽然国家花红的水平是依照包括经济增长、失业率等四方面的因素而定，但是报告所设的门槛过低，根本无法准确反映政治官员对国人福祉的贡献。

再者，新加坡作为一个开放型的经济体，取得的经济增长主要是受到外围经济环境的左右，不能直接跟部长的表现扯上关系，更遑论以此作为制订花红的指标。

不过，最重要的还是身为服务国家的公职人员，竟然采用私人机构的薪酬配套，以所谓的“工作表现”来决定花红的多寡，未免偏离了公共服务人员应有的献身精神。

其实，就算不计花红在内，我国最初级部长减薪后的年收入，也大幅超越美国总统薪酬多达20万新元，并与香港特首的薪酬看齐。如果这样才能吸引人才，甚至确保高薪养廉，国人所付出的代价恐怕会是另一个“世界第一”。

诚然，检讨报告的确削减了政治官员的薪金，但是问题的症结未解，薪酬计算方法仍然不合理。我建议简化计算方法，取消花红，综合高、中、低层人士的收入作为官员基本薪金的指标，把官员和整体国民的收入全面挂钩，从而加强总理和部长对民众问责。

如果执政党天真的以为这次薪金检讨能成功化解民怨，那未免过于低估国人的政治智慧了。国民期望的是更彻底的改革，而不只是单纯的减薪。但是从执政党声明接受检讨结果来看，他们显然是缺乏政治决心去实行认真、彻底的改革了。

事实上，部长薪金过高只是民怨的其中一个诱因。多年以来，我国部长在领取世界第一高薪的当儿，却没有为自己的各种政策失误负起应有的政治责任，反而以各种理由搪塞，这才是引发民怨的真正原因。如果行动党不认真对症下药，切实执行政治问责制，相信民怨将继续累积，选民必然会在下届大选中以选票表达不满。

吴明盛

PAP MP Seng Han Thong should do better

PAP Member of Parliament Seng Han Thong has given a twist to the whole MRT fiasco when he gave his opinion to BlogTV. His comment has literally divert the attention from the competency of SMRT management to the racial remarks embedded he made in the show.



You can watch the whole BlogTV show here.

The Online Citizen has put up an article which attracts more than 10,000 likes within 24 hours. TOC has made a couple of updates since then. Cherian George has made the comment that TOC was wrong in its reporting headlines because MP Seng was "just quoting from SMRT sources". At this point of time, the Law Minister Shanmugam has come out to defend MP Seng while the other PAP minority MPs like Halimah and Inderjit have expressed regret that MP Seng has made such comment.

Seng Han Thong (SHT) has initially denied any wrong doing while stressing that he has been quoted "out of context". Subsequently, he came up with an official apology but still insisted that his words have been misconstrued. He finally came up with another press statement to say that he was actually trying to "defend" the SMRT staff but it was TOC which put up the wrong headline. You can read his full statement here.

The magnitude of this issue has inevitably attract the attention of the higher echelon of PAP leadership due to the more than 10,000 likes on TOC article within 24 hours. Debates are going on whether SHT has made a verbal blunder or that TOC has put up "falsehood" on its website.

I am going to dissect on this issue on two fronts. First on whether SHT agreed with SMRT VP assessment that the staff could not handle the situation well because of their deficiency in English language. Secondly, on whether SHT is trying to "defend" the workers.

Some people, including the Minister of Law Shanmugam has claimed that what TOC has put up is falsehood or inappropriate Headline. Let's read the initial article put up by TOC. It says only the following:

"In a BlogTV programme MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC Seng Han Thong admitted that part of the problem with the SMRT breakdowns last week is due to SMRT staffs not being trained in emergency preparedness. He said that because some staffs are “Malay(s), they are Indians, they cannot converse in English good, well enough”. See from 6.12 minutes"

Watch the video again.

1) SHT did not DISAGREE with the quote or rather the misquote he thought he has heard from radio, on what the SMRT VP has said. In fact, he has to agree with whatever quotes he believed he heard in order to make the following comment that the staff should use broken English. He did not disagree the context that the staff cannot or uncomfortable to speak proper English.

So, is it "falsehood" that TOC has made in its article and headline that SHT admits that the SMRT staff cannot converse well in English? Apparently not.

2) If you are still not convinced, roll back and watch the front part. He said the problem should be split into two. SHT has made quite a silly remark about SMRT staff could handle emergency like terrorist attack but could not handle train breakdown. Then he "misquoted" SMRT VP to say that this problem occurs because some SMRT staff because they are Malays or Indians, cannot converse well in English. SHT did not disagree with SMRT VP's assessment but offer a solution, that is to tell the SMRT staff to use broken English instead.

SHT has responded at first instance that he has been quoted out of context and misrepresented by TOC. Apparently he didn't realize or understand that his remark or rather, misquote of SMRT VP, is potentially racial in nature. He blamed it on others like TOC who has misinterpreted him.

Whether SHT is a racist or not, I have no comment on it because I don't really know him personally. I only know him as a public figure, an elected Member of Parliament. Naturally, we would be more demanding on an elected MP, be it PAP or opposition. He is not the Tom, Dick or Harry we meet on the street but a politician who has been elected to represent the constituents.

As a politician, we would expect him to be ultra sensitive to racial connotation inherently. Even if he has quoted SMRT spokesman, it doesn't mean that there is nothing wrong with what he has said. For a politician like him, if he truly believes that SMRT spokesman has said what he has quoted, the first thing in mind is to rebut such racial tag. But SHT didn't do that. He repeated it as a matter of fact, agreed with it and added his own comment that the staff should use broken English instead. If he doesn't agree with what SMRT spokesman has said, why would he suggest using broken English?

SHT may not be racist but at the very least, he has failed quite badly as a politician, a PAP MP to be exact. He lacks racial sensitivity.

SHT tries to defend himself by saying that he was just trying to defend the workers. Did he really do that during that BlogTV program?

He agrees with SMRT assessment that crisis management was compromised due to the workers' lack of linguistic abilities, instead of reprimanding the SMRT of neglect in training the staff in both technical and linguistic aspects.

He wasn't "defending" the staff at all. He was merely telling the staff that they could just use broken English. He seemingly agreed with the blame on the staff's linguistic inadequacy contributed to the bad crisis management during the train breakdown.

I will put up examples on how he could have REALLY DEFENDED the staff:

1) If he has honestly heard wrongly that the SMRT VP was talking about only Indian and Malay workers having problems in speaking English, he should actually say it has nothing to do with their race! That's defending them.

2) He should have said, it is SMRT's responsibility to give adequate training to its workers, including English, so that they could perform their duties more effectively and could handle such emergencies well.

3) He should have said, if their workers cannot handle such situations, it is NOT the workers' fault but the SMRT management which failed to provide all necessary training to them. The SMRT management shouldn't use the lack of linguistic ability of its staff as an excuse of not providing such training.

4) He should have said, you cannot expect the staff to handle the situation if the management, for whatever reasons, didn't provide the necessary training.

It seems to me that SHT was trying to defend the SMRT management rather than the workers. He avoided answering the question posted by the host on whether SMRT management more concerned about profits rather than public service. He even went that far to suggest that SMRT could handle terrorist attacks even though they couldn't handle breakdowns like what we have experienced.

SHT has committed a series of blunders right from the start.

1) Misquoting SMRT spokesman.

2) Didn't even realize at first instance that the misquotes which he has put up is potentially racist.

3) Failed to rebut the racist connotation embedded in his misquotation but instead agreed with it unwittingly to make the other point.

4) Trying to cry foul without realizing that he has misquoted SMRT and what he has done is racially insensitive.

5) Shifting blame unto TOC while "apologizing" which makes him looks bad.

6) Trying to say that he is "defending" workers when the video has shown otherwise.

I have only this to say to PAP MP Seng Han Thong: You failed quite badly as a politician and you should do better than this. Just accept the fact that you have made a series of blunders, just apologize and stop blaming others from "mis-representing" you. You are basically insulting the intelligence of the ten of thousands people who have watched what you say whom come to the conclusion that you have made such inappropriate racially sensitive remarks.

Goh Meng Seng

双语教育的迷思

This is my first Chinese article written for The Online Citizen. I have agreed to take up the task of developing its Chinese section.

这是我给《网络公民》写的第一篇华文稿。我已经答应加盟《网络公民》，肩负起开扩它的华文部的重任。

双语教育的迷思

最近报业控股为李光耀先生出的书，《我一生的挑战——新加坡双语之路》引起了广泛的讨论。

李光耀似乎尝试在这书里为自己“平反”他扼杀方言，大幅度降低华文教育水准的“罪行”。尤其是许多以往受华文教育的国人，对李光耀关闭南洋大学，消灭华校的做法，都只能静悄悄的恨在心里，只等李光耀百年归西才会把那闷在心头的“真心话”大声的说出来。

以李光耀目前的社会和国际地位，其实是无须害怕这一小撮人在他作古后对他的指骂。毕竟他已经把新一代的新加坡人都转变成能以英语通达世界的“环球公民”，还会有谁在意这些“不合时宜”的指骂呢？也许李光耀身体里毕竟是流着华族的血，还是非常在意人们如何为他“盖棺论定”吧！

李光耀的双语政策是建立在两个基本考量：

（一） 政治整合
（二） 经济发展策略

政治整合

李光耀在五十年代是骑着受华文教育的民众反殖民主义的情绪而崛起的。李光耀之所以能成功在1959年夺取政权，全靠这班华校知识分子。

但是一旦夺得政权以后，这批华校知识分子便成为行动党党内分歧的主要原因。最终他们便分裂出来组成社阵。过后在几次的逮捕行动中，几乎所有的社阵领袖都被扣上共产党人的红帽子被关了起来。

自此以后，李光耀所领导的行动党政府就对华校生不再信任。当时的学运大多数都是由华校发起的。南洋大学做为东南亚华文教育的最高等学府就变成被整治的第一号对象。

这政治斗争的历史背景便成为李光耀致力于削弱华文教育的主要原因。行动党便以另一个“名正言顺”的政治理由来把这“以英文为主”的语言政策合理化。理由是新加坡作为一个多元种族的国家，必须有个共同语言平台好让各族都能和谐的沟通。

但是我们要仔细地检视这语言政策的逻辑。我们固然需要建立一个共同的语言平台，但有必要牺牲各族的母语水准吗？有些欧洲国家甚至有四种语言的教育政策。这是为了确保他们能在学习周边各国的语言外，还能继续保持着自己的语文文化程度。他们能做得到，为何我们不能？

经济发展策略

经济发展是另一个李光耀常用来作为偏重英语，削弱母语教育的理由。新加坡经济的发展模式是依靠大量跨国公司来本地的投资。我们为了配合这些跨国公司，也就理所当然把重点放在英文教育上。

但是纵观亚洲四小龙、日本和中国的发展史，唯有新加坡牺牲了各族的语文教育以换取经济发展。对新加坡华社来说，我们不只是牺牲了华文教育水准，而且还赔上了我们各族的方言。行动党一方面说为了加强华文的水准而推行讲华语运动，从而摧毁方言。但是另一方面李光耀和行动党议员又以他们有“精英遗传”的孩子和子孙无法应付华文学科为由，对华文教育一而再，再而三的降低华文教育水平！

香港、台湾和中国虽然都经济发展得非常迅速，但是他们不只保留了方言，并且华文水准更是远远超越了新加坡。李光耀和他的同僚是否让我们新加坡华族付上了不必要的惨痛代价？

失败的双语政策

不管我们从任何角度来看，李光耀最终的目的就是塑造一个以英文为主其他各族语言为次的国家。所谓的“双语政策”根本就不是一个以对等的重要性去实行真正的双语政策。这样长期削弱和牺牲本族文化的双语政策怎么能算是成功的呢？

吴明盛

Journey Forward

I have formally informed the President and Secretary General of National Solidarity Party in September 2011 that I will let my party membership lapse by the end of the year.

I have joined NSP in 2007 and led the party as Secretary General from February 2010 till June 2011. It is my honor to work closely with the people in NSP to achieve the BEST electoral results ever since the inception of the party more than two decades ago. Regrettably, we did not win any seats but I believe we have built a stronger foundation for the party to set its footing right for next General Elections.

The baton was passed to Hazel Poa and I believe the party will progress steadily under her leadership. The party is under good hands with the hearts at the right place and the sincerity to serve Singaporeans.

Personally, I guess it is time for me to move on to another journey of uncharted waters. Many of my friends and close associates thought that I am quitting politics for good but no, this is not so. The fact that once you have politics in your blood, you will have to live with it for the rest of the life. There are other things which are equally important to contribute towards the political democratic development of Singapore other than joining a party. Some of these things need us to be non-partisan in order to be effective.

To my supporters and friends, rest assured that I will continue to work for Democracy in Singapore in other ways for the moment. Some plans have been drawn out but will only be announced later on when things are firm.

For the mean time, as demonstrated in this blog, I have always been keen in making policy comparisons between Singapore and other places, particularly Honk Kong. I will continue my study and observations between policies applied in different places around the world and look out for the better alternatives for Singapore.

Last but not least, I would like to wish NSP all the best in its future political engagement and hope it will gain electoral success for the next GE.

Goh Meng Seng

Software of Open Society - Learning from HK

I have been observing Hong Kong for quite a number of years due to my frequent visits there.

There are a lot of things which I do not feel good about Hong Kong but there are many things which I feel that we should learn from this vibrant city.

Hong Kong has various districts, just like Singapore with different GRCs and SMCs. Within these districts, there are also similar "community centres" but these are not controlled by any partisan organizations financed by taxpayers' money with "symbiotic relationship" with the ruling party. They don't organize "political activities" like getting people to attend political party's rallies.

These district community centres are pretty well equipped. Some have very decent concert halls or performance halls for cultural activities. This is unlike our Singapore's community centres which are filled with "multi-purpose halls" with very bad audio system and acoustic structures. These concert halls or performance halls are definitely no "white elephants". Many LOCAL cultural groups rented these halls at very low price and put up various performances, from Chinese Wayang Opera, Chinese Dance, Western Ballet Dance, Chinese Orchestra to plays and even special film shows etc.




Hong Kong is preparing to build a huge Cultural Centre at West Kowloon and it is not merely for "International Performances" like our Singapore Durian Esplanade. They will have some main Hong Kong cultural groups like Hong Kong Dance Troupe and such to be permanently stationed there. They are confident that this huge Cultural Centre will be filled with local performances because they have cultivated a substantial mass of cultural performing groups and participants.

Although there are quite a number of small district cultural centres in Hong Kong, but it seems that all halls are fully booked all year round. Even the libraries are available for rent for people to put up artistic exhibitions like calligraphy and such.

Many people have mistakenly labelled Hong Kong as "cultural desert" but I think if you look at the cultural events put up by local groups, you will think otherwise. Such booming vibrancy in the cultural setting could only happen not only with the hardware infrastructural support by the government but also depends on maintaining a truly open society with the core value of respecting the freedom of expression by the people.

Such respect of human dignity was extended to other segments of the society. The radio station of Hong Kong has various programs catered for different segment of the society. There is a weekly radio program specially catered for Prison inmates for them and their family members to write in or dedicate songs to each other. They also have a special program on Sunday morning for foreign maids for them to call in or dedicate Indonesian or Filipino songs since that is their weekly off day. Of course, they will have an Indonesian and Filipino as their co-hosts!

Cultivation of the software of an Open Society doesn't depend only on the big infrastructure investment by the Government. It also depends on the willingness of the people and government to uphold the critical core values on the freedom of expression. It depends on catering to the needs to small cultural groups, not only on the finances but also the availability of opportunities for them to put up their performances.




I have watched Drama Box performing at grassroot level in open air stages at various places in Singapore. I find it quite refreshing and but it seems that it has faced excessive censorship from MITA from time to time. Even that, they have continued their excellent work with limited resources and constrains imposed by govenrment censorship.

In Hong Kong, there are many such small local performance groups who are actively involved in putting up local performances at grassroot level. I hardly hear any censorship issues imposed on them at all.

Many people have said that Hong Kongers are very "practical people" but it seems that even under such capitalist system, there are many more people who have the passion to pursue their cultural dreams. So, what about Singapore? What has happened to Singapore which was once the Venice of SEA back in the 50s? It is really something for us to ponder about.

Goh Meng Seng

Reply from ICA

Apparently ICA has the view that as long as you are a "minor", you can hold dual citizenships up to 21 years old.

I have written the following reply to ICA:

Dear Mr. Wee,

Thank you for your reply.

However, I need further clarification on the following clause under our Constitution:

(2) A person born outside Singapore shall not be a citizen of Singapore by descent by virtue of clause (1) unless —

(a) his birth is registered in the prescribed manner at the Registry of Citizens or at a diplomatic or consular mission of Singapore within one year, or such longer period as the Government permits, after its occurrence; and

(b) he would not acquire the citizenship of the country in which he was born by reason of his birth in that country where —

(i) in the case of a person born before the date of commencement of section 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 2004, his father is a citizen of Singapore by registration at the time of his birth; or

(ii) in the case of a person born on or after the date of commencement of section 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 2004, either his father or mother is a citizen of Singapore by registration at the time of his birth.

By 2(B), the children SHOULD NOT become citizen of Singapore by descent IF they acquire the citizenship of the country of their birth.

It would basically mean that those who are born outside Singapore who have acquired citizenship at the place of birth by Right of Abode are actually BANNED from acquiring Singapore citizenship. That is why I am puzzled ICA deems it is alright for any minor to have dual citizenship up to 21 years old when the Singapore Constitution has specifically denied the right of such application in the above clause.

Goh Meng Seng


ICA Feedback/526564

Dear Mr Goh,

Please refer to your enquiry on 5 Sep 2011.

2 Under the Constitution of Singapore, Singapore citizens are not allowed to possess dual nationalities. The exception to this is when a person is a minor. Such a person is allowed to hold dual citizenship (typically citizenships by descent and by birth) until the age of 21 when he/she is then required to make a decision on which citizenship he/she wishes to retain. If he or she fails to make a decision on the choice of citizenship, the Government will initiate action to deprive him/her of the Singapore citizenship.

3 Thank you.

Yours Sincerely,

Wee Yew Boon
Senior Customer Relations Executive
for COMMISSIONER
IMMIGRATION & CHECKPOINTS AUTHORITY

香港復建居屋 – 從住屋和土地策略性資源說起

香港從2003年群起反對董建華八萬五住屋政策到如今民意180度轉變成支持復建居屋的過程，其實都只是隨市場住屋價格波動而起舞．值得一提的是，已宣布競選特首的梁振英由始至终都堅持建居屋政策．梁先生如此擇善固執必有他的政策考量．

土地是有限量的策略性資源．尤其是在一個如香港的小城市般的地區，土地的規劃和運用就顯得特別重要了．香港人口是不斷在增長，但是土地除了少許填土的實質增長外，根本無法跟人口同步增長．如果沒有適當的規劃而任由市場來決定土地的運用的話，必定會出現嚴重的偏差．

自由市場經濟理論在處理有限資源分配時都提倡由自由市場來定價，以便資源得到‘最高效率’的分配．但是土地的擁有權通常是被政府和少數地主壟斷的．這是違反了自由市場經濟理論的定義．再說土地和住屋是關係密切的，因為如果沒有土地就無法建造屋子了．而住屋又是人民衣食住行最基本生存需求之一．所以為了應付人們的住屋的基本要求，土地和房子的價錢必須能讓普羅大眾負擔得起．

但是由於土地的供應量是有限而且是沒法長期增加的，這就使土地和黃金一樣變得有投資價值的資源．當土地和房屋變成了投資的工具了以後，價格便會被人為的操縱炒賣而脫離了原本實際價值的因素．香港的房子除了被有錢人炒賣外，近年來也引來了許多內地人來炒賣．這會使需求量大于香港本土的真正需求，以致供應失衡．這也會使土地房屋價格走勢脫離了基本通貨膨脹．到最後，多數港人的長期薪金增長就會大大落後于房產價格的增長．

如果單以自由市場來支配土地以致住屋的分配的話，這房產因投資與投機炒賣的價格走向和滿足人民基本房屋需求的政策方針就會產生嚴重的矛盾．如果政府沒妥善處理這矛盾的話，我們很有可能就會陷入像古時封建地主制的極端貧富懸殊狀況而產生社會動盪．

目前香港政府提供了公屋給大約40%香港人以便解決他們的住屋問題．但，這是不是最佳的方法呢？再說，由于房屋的價格因港人和大陸人的炒賣而致使越來越多的年輕的香港中產階級沒法置业，這會導致中產階級的沒落、遲婚、生育率下跌等等的長遠的社會問題．這些中產人士並不符合居住公屋的條件，但也沒能力買房子．如果沒有任何機制去解決這問題的話，中產階級的崩潰將會是遲早的事．這將對社會帶來嚴重的後果與動盪．

政府在維持龐大的公屋群時將會承受巨大的社會資源成本．政府除了承擔了用來建造公屋的土地成本外，還必須承擔建築和長期維修的成本．每建一座公屋，政府就必須先拿出錢來付建築費．公屋是以超低價格出租給底階層的港人．如果能幫助至少40%里的一半的公屋家庭和那些年輕中產港人以低成本價買到居屋的話，政府便實際上大大的減少了維持公屋所承受的社會資源成本和中產階級以致社會所面對危機．

香港社會必須取得一個‘安居樂業’的共識：一個家並非是投資或投機的工具．香港人也必須意識到如果房產價格高到需要以超過25年甚至40年的房屋貸款才能擁有棲身之所的話，那麼他們就不是‘有產階級’而是變成‘房奴階級’了．

房地產投機並不會給港人增加財富而是把下一代的房貸奴役變成了這一代的錢財而已．這等與是隔代掠奪．當然，現在的直接受益者便是大地產商們．

土地雖然是有限資源，具備了投資或投機工具的條件，但是土地和房屋也是政府重要的策略性資源．政府必須以謹慎的方法去分配這策略性資源以達到穩定社會和促進經濟健全發展的目的．如果人們沒法‘安居’，那怎麼能樂業呢？經濟生產力也必定受影響．

香港政府也必須認識到只有它才能解決房產價格因投資炒買的升幅超越普通市民薪金的增長所引起的社會矛盾．只有復建居屋才能解決這矛盾，並且達到平衡土地這策略性資源的分配和縮小貧富懸殊的問題．

至於土地和房屋這策略性資源是否應該讓人，尤其是非香港人炒買，那就是題外話了．

吳明盛

Queries to Singapore Immigration & Checkpoint Authority (ICA)

In view of Dr Yaacoob's own revelation that his children will hold dual citizenship up till 18 years old by virtue of the fact that his wife is an American citizen, I have sent in the following queries to ICA:

I have a few questions to ask:

1) Does Singapore allow any citizens to hold multiple citizenship?
2) Is it a chargeable crime for anyone to hold dual or multiple citizenship?
2) Is there any age limit for anyone to hold multiple citizenship?
3) If a child is granted two citizenship (including Singapore citizenship) by virtue of his parents' citizenship status, could he rightfully retain both citizenship at the same time?
4) What is the penalty for holding dual citizenship?
5) Does the Immigration department has the right to revoke the Singapore citizenship of those who are found or caught to have dual or multiple citizenship?

Thank you.

Best Regards,

Goh Meng Seng

After note:

Someone says I should read the Constitution carefully and so I did just that.

Please read the Constitution properly:

(2) A person born outside Singapore shall not be a citizen of Singapore by descent by virtue of clause (1) unless —

(a) his birth is registered in the prescribed manner at the Registry of Citizens or at a diplomatic or consular mission of Singapore within one year, or such longer period as the Government permits, after its occurrence; and

(b) he would not acquire the citizenship of the country in which he was born by reason of his birth in that country where —

(i) in the case of a person born before the date of commencement of section 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 2004, his father is a citizen of Singapore by registration at the time of his birth; or

(ii) in the case of a person born on or after the date of commencement of section 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 2004, either his father or mother is a citizen of Singapore by registration at the time of his birth.

By 2(B), the children SHOULD NOT become citizen of Singapore by descent IF they acquire the citizenship of the country of their birth.

This is assuming that they were born in America.

If they are born in Singapore, it makes me wonder why their parents apply American citizenship for their children.

Tan Kin Lian Speech at Rally

Ivy Singh's Speech at TKL Rally

Tan Kin Lian's Daughter speaking at Rally

Rally Speech in Support of Tan Kin Lian (English)

This is the actual English Speech I gave at the rally.

Rally Speech in Support of Tan Kin Lian (Chinese)

大家晚上好！

本来是六年一次的总统选举却让我们等了足足十八年。所以大家手中的那一票就显得更重要，更宝贵了。如果一个不小心投错了，那就有可能要多等一个十八年或更久了。

这次总统大选非常精彩，互联网上和咖啡店里都充满了形形色色的谣言绘声绘影的诋损各个总统候选人。有些说陈如斯怎么的工作表现不好，陈钦亮为了某种原因而离开职总英康保险等等。我恳请大家别轻易相信这些充满政治目的的谣言。我本身在今年大选中也是这些没名没姓的造谣者的受害者。他们说我搞婚外情，说我去澳门胡搞。幸好我太太听了笑到肚子痛！因为我们有深厚的感情，去澳门是我带着我太太和女儿去度假！有人更以为“无风不起浪”，但是我要告诉大家，这是有心人在兴风作浪！

我们要批评任何候选人，必须有真凭实据，不要躲在网际网络里任意胡扯。做人要光明磊落。我接下来就认真的点评其他总统候选人，都以真凭实据为依据，让大家知道为什么我不选择支持他们而是支持陈钦亮先生。

先谈谈陈庆炎博士吧。有三个最重要的理由不能选他：

１）陈庆炎博士曾经是ＰＡＰ的核心党员，担任过副总理。我们需要的是一位能独立于执政党的总统，而不是一位凡是都唯唯诺诺的总统。

２）陈庆炎博士也是ＧＩＣ的主席。他曾夸自己对金融投资非常了解，但是就在２００８年，他领导的ＧＩＣ做出了非常高风险的投资决定，买了一大堆面临危机的银行股。在这一些投资遭受巨额亏损以后，他还夸下海口说，如果有机会，他还是会继续做这一些具高风险的投资！姑且不论这些投资到最后会怎么样。我想问的是，对于国家的储备金，我们是否应该拿来做具高风险的投资？如果他是拿自己的钱来这样玩股票，我当然没有异议，但是这是国家的钱啊！如果他当上总统的话，他是否还是赞成ＧＩＣ和淡马锡如此冒险投资？如果当年他在ＧＩＣ所做的投资决定蒙受巨额亏损的话，身为总统，他会自我批评吗？这就存在着利益冲突！

３）第三点，也就是闹得沸沸扬扬的他儿子当兵被视为受到特别待遇的问题。国防部已经极力澄清他儿子并没有受到特别待遇，信不信由你，反正ＰＡＰ人都信了！姑且相信陈庆炎博士在当国防部长时并没有指示属下批准让他儿子享有１２年延期服役，但是我要问的是，他为什么没有避嫌，指示属下别批准如此不可思议的优待？反观台湾以前的国防部长郝柏村为了防止部队特别优待他儿子，现任台北市长郝龙斌，特地叫他儿子别在入伍表格里放他的名字！最后，郝龙斌在正常，没有受特别待遇的情况下完成他的国民服役！相比之下，郝柏村的做法就非常周到，令人心服口服！反观ＰＡＰ却怕全世界人不知道哪个孩子有背景，大搞什么黑马白马的标签！

我对陈清木医生原本比较陌生，但最近他批评陈钦亮承诺捐出至少一半总统薪金是在收买选票，而他很有原则，不认同这种做法。你们说说看，捐钱出来做慈善算是收买选票吗？我要慎重的对陈清木说，ＰＡＰ在１９９７年开始以组屋翻新为竞选伎俩，那才是真正收买选票！但是陈清木却还是继续在ＰＡＰ旗下竞选议员，那时候，他的原则跑到哪里去了？他对这样的收买选票的卑劣行径竟然认同！

讲到陈如斯，我的心就会很沉重。我和他都是海南人，也是反对党员。更有海南人同胞指责我背叛族群，不去支持陈如斯反而是支持陈钦亮。本人必须声明，我先自己当成新加坡人，然后才是海南人，反对党人等等。我必须以国家的利益为前提来做出政治抉择。陈如斯将会是个很好的反对党议员，但我不认为他是一位能够给新加坡政局带来稳定的总统。如果下一次大选他要我为他站台演讲，或甚至和他搭档选议员的话，我都很乐意考虑帮忙。但是如果他说他是最“中立”，当总统的最好人选，我就不敢苟同。

我想他搞错了什么是中立和什么是对立。他站的立场是与ＰＡＰ对立的。一个曾经在反对党旗帜下参加大选的人，如果不是与执政党对立，那是什么？从这几天的选举情况来看，我们不难发觉不管陈如斯如何努力，他骨子里还是堂堂正正的反对党人的思维！

新加坡需要怎么样的总统呢？总统应该是超越政治的。只有完完全全政治独立的候选人才能真正处事时没有政治动机或包袱。比如说，如果陈如斯做总统时对ＰＡＰ做出批评的话，不管他是否真是出于中肯的好意与否，肯定会有一大批人会认为他有政治动机的。同样的批评如果是由陈钦亮总统提出，没有人会有这样的想法的！

虽然人人都说总统应是超越政治，但是目前我们四位总统后选人当中，除了陈钦亮以外，其他三位都是有参加过大选的政治人物。我当初主动劝说陈钦亮出来选总统的其中一大理由就是为了有一位政治独立总统。

大家应该都会很强烈的感受到，这几年来我们的生活都更吃力了。因为什么没东西都在起价。而一般老百姓，工友们的薪水都没有跟着物价的步伐提高。在这里我要告诉大家：这一切都更陈钦亮没有关系。物品价格不断猛涨是因为有人联手起来炒地皮房产。这个结果是房屋地产都大幅度涨了价。你们的房子也涨价了。但你们能够卖掉屋子吗？那你们住哪里？你们都被骗了。但骗你们的不是陈钦亮先生。产业价格涨了，各行各业的租金也就一直在追这股涨风。物品的供应商能够不起价吗？商家们，小贩们的来货都起价了。他们能不起吗？这不是因为陈钦亮到小贩中心吃饭，吃面造成的。

你们搭地铁，搭巴士，陈钦亮先生也有搭地铁，巴士。但是让你们做地铁“沙丁”人不是因为陈钦亮去搭而造成的。而是和炒地产同一伙的。过去一段时间乌节路和一些地方经常淹水。这也和陈钦亮先生没有关系。是排水系统出了问题。最近的COE飙升也不是陈钦亮先生去炒的。他更没有教你们忘恩负义，把年老的父母送去新山的安老院。恐怖分子的头目Mas Selamat逃脱不是陈钦亮放他走的。

你们再看看陈钦亮先生在职总英康保险合作社任职时的时候管理一百万新加坡人，一百七十亿储蓄时，他有没有学一些自认很能干的人那样，拿去玩雷曼兄弟的迷你债券吗？你们投保的钱有没有被他输掉？那你们再看看我们的淡马锡控股和政府投资公司一共输掉了我们多少的血汗钱。我没有正确的数据所以不要猜测。但是你们应该知道那是一笔天文数字。所以你们要认清谁和这些有关系。陈钦亮先生不但没有输掉你们的储蓄，他还承诺如果仲选为总统，会捐出最少一半的薪金来推广教育慈善。这已证明了他不是为了总统薪金而出来竞选总统。

所以如果你们投选陈钦亮先生，我肯定你们不需要后悔六年，也不需要忏悔六年。这次的总统选举根据宪法，是超越政治的。但是有些重要的政治人物却违反自己订下的法规，以他的官职公开介入了这场选举，到处号召民间社团组织支持某一个候选人。大家应该想想看，你们能够支持他们认可的人吗？而真正要需要忏悔的是这一些人。

吴明盛

Tan Kin Lian for Presidency

The Certificates of Eligibility have been issued to the Four Tans and now it seems that there is a high possibility of a Four Corner fight.

The approval of Mr. Tan Jee Say has put up quite a bit of interesting points. With due respect to Jee Say, his ability to get the Certificate of Eligibility has opened up a whole new dimension to the Elected Presidency, not only for this one but for future President Elections, i.e. if there are still any in future. According to some information, the paid up capital of Jee Say's company was $1million, far shortfall of the expected $100million. This would mean that many bosses of fund management companies would be able to qualify for Presidency in future.

The Four Corner fight scenario we are having right now may be the worst case scenario but not totally unexpected. As an Opposition Member, many of my friends would expect me to support fellow opposition member who has quit from his party to run for Presidency. However, I still prefer Mr. Tan Kin Lian as our President but this is nothing personal towards Mr. Tan Jee Say. It is just a matter of perspective.

All four candidates have been qualified by the "three wise men" to be men of good character and integrity. However, there are still major differences between them.

The Elected Presidency system was set up by PAP back in the late 1980s when there was perceived massive anti-PAP sentiment. PAP has lost two seats by 1984 and they were planning for the eventuality of what will happen if PAP suffers a "freak election result" and lost power. As explained earlier, they have thought of having a Elected President, supposedly "Pro-PAP", as the last line of defence and platform to handicap the non-PAP government. PAP has been talking about Presidency is not the second power centre... yes, it is not supposed to be when PAP is in power. But if PAP loses power, it will become PAP's second power centre and base for retaking power!

I do not want to see that happening. Political Neutrality is the fundamental pre-requisite for a Truly Independent President. It is not coincident that the most remembered and loved Presidents of the past are all politically neutral in many ways, be it President Sheares or President Wee. President Ong was an unexpected one who acted very independently inspite of his close ties with PAP.

If I do not want to see PAP making use of the Elected Presidency as the platform to enhance their political agenda of retaking power, I would not want to see opposition linked Presidency to do likewise. At this moment, only Tan Kin Lian could be considered as the most Independent candidate in terms of Political Neutrality.

All other three candidates have just quit their party membership just before their announcement of contesting for Presidential Elections. (Tan Kin Lian has quit years ago.) All the other candidates have contested in General Elections before and two of them have political appointments as MP or Minister.

With due respect to Tan Jee Say, if he becomes the President, all his moves would be viewed with contempt by core PAP supporters. If he criticise the PAP government, rightfully or wrongfully, there will always be lingering doubts on whether his criticism is embedded with political agenda or not. This will be the setting for endless political bickering. The same criticism that comes from Tan Kin Lian would not suffer such perceptions.

Some of the candidates have talked about the Presidency as the figure head of unifying Singaporeans. But I really doubt they truly understand what that means.

If either Tony Tan or Tan Jee Say wins and become President, would the core anti-PAP voters and core PAP supporters be happy with the corresponding results? Would they really willing to unite under either of them? But if Tan Kin Lian is the President, even though these opposition supporters or pap supporters may not have voted him, they would find him an acceptable person to become the President.

This is why, in the interest of the Nation, I would rather support Tan Kin Lian instead of Tan Jee Say. Both may perform the same role of checks and balances but Tan Jee Say has the political baggage which may turn the Elected Presidency into the platform which PAP would want to use for politicking in future if they lost power. On top of that, Tan Kin Lian would be in the better position of performing the role of unifying Singaporeans due his political neutrality.

Goh Meng Seng

Political Sabbatical

I am stepping down from Secretary General of National Solidarity Party from today onwards.

It has been an exciting 1 year and 4 months of leading NSP as SG in its preparation and contesting in the last General Elections. There are "crisis" like NEA summon which I have to manage. But I am glad that we have managed it very well by NOT paying up the fines, else the impact would be unimaginable... can you imagine ALL opposition parties being banned from selling our publications and newspapers during our weekly regular outreach? It was a TOUGH but RIGHT decision and judgement made. A very important lesson and experience for all of us.

I have mixed feelings about the GE results NSP has achieved during my tenure as SG. It is the BEST electoral result that NSP has achieved since its inception but it is still not up to my expectation of winning seats in parliament. This is one of the small regret I have so far.

I will NOT be contesting for a seat in the NSP Central Executive Committee as well. I will go into Partisan Political Sabbatical for at least 2 years. I feel that as the outgoing Secretary General, I should refrain from staying in the CEC so that I would not be seen as undermining the authority of the New SG under any circumstances. But for the time being, I will still stay as a Congress member of NSP.

I will leave behind a stronger and better platform for my successor as well as Singaporeans who wish to contribute to the opposition movement to work on.

10 years in politics is a very tiring process. There is one saying, 1 year in politics is just like 10 years in life. It is very true indeed. But looking back at my initial motivations to get into partisan politics, I guess the two key missions I have set out to achieve, have been accomplished; though they might not be directly achieved by me.

The first mission is to break the hegemony of PAP power by breaching the first GRC. I believe that once the first GRC falls into opposition hands, there will be rapid changes which will create a more balanced system. This has been accomplished by Workers Party in GE2011.

The second mission is to bring justice to my generation of people who are so adversely affected by the so called "Asset Enhancement Scheme" created by the Goh Chok Tong administration. I feel that NSP has provided a good platform for me to elaborate on the ills of such irresponsible scheme which promotes GREED in the guise of "asset enhancement" but in actual fact, will cause great wealth disparity across generations. GE2011 is a very special event which allowed me to elaborate on the ills of the insane Asset Enhancement Scheme which was coupled of false sense of affordability of HDB flats propagated by the PAP.

Thus I should safely say that if I have to quit politics altogether now, I will gladly do so PROUDLY. I could finally tell my children and grandchildren wonder stories about my political involvement in Singapore in future!

However, the biggest regret I have during my tenure of SG is the death of my eldest brother in the tour of duty of helping me out during GE2011. His death has provided much grief as well as inspiration for me during this period.

What will I be doing during this Political Sabbatical period?

In the coming couple of months, I will try to help Mr. Tan Kin Lian out in his Presidential Campaign as much as possible. This will be just another small effort on my part to try and institutionalize REAL checks and balances in our political system.

I could be looking into getting myself involved in various international NGOs where I could further practice and enhance the Core Values of Democracy, Social Justice and Human Rights. I am currently looking into the World Problems of Refugees.

I could also be looking into more business opportunities else where so to earn more money to provide enough financial support for my late brother's family.

I could even be setting up a think tank with some other people who are interested in providing non-partisan policy views.

Whichever the case, I think it is about time to take stock of my future directions now. This timely Political Sabbatical will provide me the necessary breather to do just that.

Someone may ask me whether I will be back to stand for the next GE. Honestly, I have no answer to that now. It will depend on situations there and then.

But for my readers of this blog, I will still write periodically about my various thoughts whenever I have the inspiration to do so. Especially so for the coming couple of months, I will be writing more on the Presidential Elections.

I wish to thank all my supporters for all these years. Some of you have been truly great to me.

Last but not least, I also wish to thank my colleagues in NSP who have given me the support and opportunity to serve and lead the party for the past year.

Goh Meng Seng