Election site allocation --- Letter to Zaobao

The following is a letter which I wrote to the local Chinese daily, Zaobao on 28 Jan 2006.

This letter is about the way the authority allocate election rally sites during the GE campaign period.

大 选 群 众 大 会 地 点 申 请 方 式 应 予 改 善

贵 报 于 1 月 27 日 刊 登 内 政 部 公 共 事 务 司 长 赵 碧 云 致 函 《 早 报 交 流 版 》 题 为 《 “ 申 请 不 到 大 会 地 点 ” 的 指 责 不 实 》 一 文 是 对 蔡 深 江 先 生 早 前 发 表 的 评 论 作 出 回 应。 由 于 蔡 先 生 一 文 是 就 后 港 区 议 员 、本 党 秘 书 长 刘 程 强 先 生 在 国 会 提 出 有 关 课 题 所 作 的 评 论 ， 现 在 却 被 内 政 部 指 责 为 没 有 弄 清 事 实 ， 因 此 本 党 必 须 依 据 我 们 的 经 验 作 出 反 驳 。

第 一 ， 内 政 部 列 举 了 群 众 大 会 的 场 地 可 供 三 个 时 段 给 政 党 举 行 集 会 ， 以 证 明 现 有 的 制 度 能 提 供 足 够 场 地 供 政 党 申 请 。 但 是 实 际 上 ， 由 于 上 午 与 中 午 的 时 段 天 气 炎 热 ， 加 上 多 数 人 都 在 上 班 ， 因 此 根 本 不 适 合 集 会 ，最 后 只 剩 下 晚 间 的 时 段 才 适 合 举 行 群 众 大 会 。 因 此 ， 内 政 部 以 场 地 共 有 三 个 时 段 可 供 租 用 来 说 明 群 众 大 会 地 点 足 够 ， 是 无 法 让 人 信 服 的 。

第 二 ， 内 政 部 指 出 在 2001 年 的 大 选 投 票 前 夕 ， 全 部 17个 地 点 中 ， 只 有 10 个 地 点 被 使 用 ， 因 此 举 行 群 众 大 会 的 场 地 是 足 够 的 。 另 外 ， 内 政 部 也 以 行 动 党 在 为 期 8 天 的 竞 选 期 间 ， 只 在 后 港 和 义 顺 东 分 别 举 行 了 一 场 和 三 场 群 众 大 会 为 例 ， 说 明 行 动 党 并 没 有 占 据 全 部 的 场 地， 因 此 “先 到 先 得 ” 的 配 给 方 法 是 公 平 的 。 然 而 ，行 动 党 却 是 在 投 票 前 夕 同 时 在 后 港 和 义 顺 东 举 行 群 众 大 会 ， 使 工 人 党 无 法 在 当 天 申 请 到 任 何 场 地 。 值 得 注 意 的 是 ， 在 现 有 的 条 例 下 ， 各 政 党 并 不 能 在 非 参 选 的 选 区 举 行 群 众 大 会 ， 所 以 纵 使 有 其 他 选 区 的 场 地 未 被 使 用 ， 对 我 党 也 无 补 于 事 。 显 然 ， 这 种 配 给 方 法 已 造 成 工 人 党 在 上 届 大 选 投 票 日 前 夕 的 最 后 关 键 时 刻 ， 无 法 通 过 群 众 大 会 对 行 动 党 的 攻 击 作 出 回 应， 以 及 直 接 向 选 民 作 出 最 后 重 要 的 演 讲 。 这 就 是 问 题 的 症 结 所 在 。因 此 ， 内 政 部 所 列 举 的 数 据 并 不 能 确 实 反 映 政 党 所 面 对 的 现 实 境 况 。

第 三 ， 警 方“ 秉 公 处 理 ， 无 私 无 惧 ”的 精 神 无 疑 是 值 得 赞 扬 的 。 然 而 ， 他 们 所 采 用 “ 先 到 先 得 ”的 方 式 尽 管 透 明 ，却 不 利 于 资 源 不 足 的 政 党 ， 这 也 是 刘 程 强 和 蔡 深 江 先 生 所 关 注 及 强 调 的 。为 何 内 政 部 避 重 就 轻 ， 对 此 观 点 完 全 没 有 回 应 呢 ？

第 四 ，蔡 先 生 也 提 及 在 讲 求 效 率 的 新 加 坡 ， 警 方 现 今 为 何 还 要 坚 持 排 队 制 度 而 不 考 虑 采 用 诸 如 电 子 申 请 等 方 式 呢 ？即 使 不 采 用 电 子 方 式 ， 为 何 警 方 还 是 认 为 排 队 制 度 比 起 蔡 先 生 所 提 议 的 抽 签 或 轮 流 制 来 得 透 明 合 理 ？

最 后 我 们 质 疑 的 是 ， 为 何 警 方 不 在 每 个 竞 选 的 区 内 提 供 至 少 两 个 举 行 群 众 大 会 的 地 点 ， 并 限 定 参 选 的 政 党 或 独 立 人 士 只 能 在 各 个 选 区 的 每 个 时 段 申 请 其 中 一 个 地 点 呢 ？ 这 样 的 安 排 将 能 确 保 在 野 党 与 执 政 党 都 有 平 等 的 机 会 ， 在 同 一 个 时 段 租 用 到 群 众 大 会 的 场 地 。

我 们 希 望 警 方 能 看 清 和 顾 及 全 局 ，从 选 民 的 角 度 来 看 问 题 ， 修 复 现 有 制 度 的 不 足 之 处 ， 让 选 民 有 机 会 充 分 听 取 各 参 选 政 党 的 理 念 和 政 纲 ， 以 掌 握 足 够 的 讯 息 来 作 出 明 智 的 选 择 。 这 应 该 是 警 方 作 为 公 共 服 务 机 构 的 责 任 和 义 务 。

工 人 党 助 理 组 织 秘 书

吴 明 盛 上

Time Bombs, Poisons & Election Strategy

Time Bombs, Poisons & Election Strategy

I shall not keep our reporter friends in suspense and I will write my thoughts on the recent "rare" sensational political sparks created by PAP and WP.

However, I am not going to debate on the "time bombs" or "poisons" as my party leaders, Mr. Low TK, Ms. Sylvia Lim as well as Mr. Tan Wui-Hua, have made our party stand very clear in the past weeks' cross fire. This may just disappoint my reporter friends. ;)

I am going to talk about the tactical and strategic angles that PAP is taking at the moment. I have postponed this article just to make sure that PAP's first wave of assaults is finished. There are a few multiple aims of PAP's first wave of assaults:

1) Use sensational phrases to dominate citizens' attention without the need to go into detailed explanation of the issues.
2) Try to dominate and set the main agenda for the coming elections.
3) To lure WP into the racial debate.
4) Discredit WP by using words like "irresponsible", "dangerous" etc.
5) To draw discord among WP's rank and file (especially the leadership), trying to break the party's unity before it could go to battle.

On the night where PAP ministers first fired at WP Manifesto, I received a "nervous" call from a friend asking, "Hey, what happened? What time bomb you have?" The impact of such sensational phrases used by PAP is pretty great in its initial period where the fine details of the issues are buried by "Time Bombs". There isn't any time for people to think and digest at all when the bombastic phrase "Time Bombs" is used. I think up till now, for those who do not bother to find out more about the issues or read our Manifesto in totality, will be captivated by such sensational words.

It is obvious from the PAP's publicized messages that they want to set the election agenda by narrowing it to the 4 issues. It saves them the trouble of guessing what issues we will bring up in the coming elections as well as diverting the real issues at hand. Strategically speaking, PAP is trying to choose the battleground it thought "BEST" suits itself.

More importantly, PAP tries to lure us into the racial debate. PAP has so far dominated each and every social political discourse on issues of race. They say racial issues are sensitive issues and it seems that PAP believes only it could put up the "RIGHT" views on these issues. Anybody who tries to bring up anything that contradict or challenge PAP's stand on local race issues or policies that concern racial nature openly, they will zoom in and all sorts of labels will be handled out immediately. Labels like Malay chauvinist, Chinese chauvinist etc, will be immediately tagged on those who don't agree with PAP's stand. The playing field is never leveled. However, it is precisely this "I know best" attitude that puts off many younger voters at the end of the day.

Obviously the main intention is to discredit WP as a credible alternative party as against PAP. But how successful is PAP in making such inferences? Asking WP to "modify" or "change" its manifesto is to belittle WP. It is of course an insult to a political party. If we really change our manifesto just because the ruling party is not happy, isn't that a mockery in the making? We are not a sub-structure organization of PAP! And it is an insult to our effort, work and research into all the wide-ranging topics mentioned in the manifesto. My assessment is that PAP has done more harm than good to itself in this short episode. I will explain later but lets look in PAP's most intriguing attempt in trying to break WP's leadership's unity.

PAP has first suggested that Mr. Low is being "misled" by some"?other members". After Mr. Low stood firm on our party's stand, it turns towards Ms. Sylvia Lim and "other individuals" involved in the launch of the manifesto. It is a common tactic of divide and conquer but apparently PAP was misled about the "conflicts" or "disunity" within WP! I have noticed that reporters have been probing about "potential disunity" in our party way back in early 2005. It seems that they are misinformed by some sources that there are disunity within the party leadership! And such misinformation has been impressed upon PAP but I must say it has bad judgement! If there is truly any signs of "disunity", PAP's tactic might have been effective in breaking us up. But PAP has underestimated the leadership of WP.

Diversity in views within a political party and its leadership is very common. What is not common is the system or process that could create consensus among the members. I would say that PAP has underestimated Mr. Low's leadership. They may see Mr. Low as a non-charismatic or non-assertive leader but that?s exactly where his strength lies. The consensus building process is a long and tedious process but at the end of the day, each and everyone involved knows exactly where we stand, why we make such stand.

There are reasons for the relatively rapid growth of WP under Mr. Low Thia Khiang. Many people would expect the frictions experienced by other political party in the process of growth to happen in WP. However it is how we manage such growth that is more important. Mr. Low and the leadership of WP has a strong common convictions, vision and maturity to handle such growth. This is where PAP has failed to understand. In fact, PAP's onslaught has made us more united than ever!

In view of the strength of WP, not only in numbers but also in mental strength and unity, PAP's first wave of assaults have failed miserably. The sensational phrases "Time Bombs" and "Poisons" are used to "stun" both the public as well as WP members in the hope to create doubts in its leadership. However, PAP has underestimated the amount of trust and confidence that we have in WP leadership.

In the eyes of the public, the main battleground lies in the middle ground voters. Those who do not bother to check our stand or manifesto, will believe and vote for PAP anyway. Those who will vote for us, will not be bothered by the "Time Bombs". Only those who are undecided or "vote swingers" in the middle ground will be intrigued to find out more. Besides, the issues chosen are really "controversial" in nature. There are already well established reasoning against the GRC and Elected Presidency while almost every Singaporeans in "contested" wards know how politicized RCs and CCCs. While for the HDB quota, at first sight PAP's reasoning may sound rational but at closer examination, one would find that such reasoning is weak.

Thus so far, responses from coffee shops or internet blogs or forums have not reached the "desirable impact" for PAP. It might have backfired in certain fronts and this is the main reason for the abrupt silence from PAP in pursuing these topics further.

Two main broad objectives have been set for PAP's first salvo but it has achieved little. Ironically, the unintended impact caused was a massive surge of interests in WP manifesto. The public interest was so great that we have decided to put up our manifesto online way before the intended schedule.

I would say that from a tactical and strategic perspective of a political party, PAP has set the right direction but it fails in making due considerations of the situation at hand. First, it miscalculated the strength and unity of WP. Secondly, they have rushed into firing off its salvo without full empathy on the public perception on the issues raised. They thought by using sensational phrases, they could get away from detailed deliberations on the issues at hand. It seems that when WP made its points about RCs and CCCs are over politicized, it strikes a strong resonance with the public at large. As for the GRC and Elected Presidency, I think despite what PAP wants the public to believe, most people from the middle ground understand the issues far better than they thought. PAP will suffer a backlash on their own credibility if they keep insisting that the suggestion of removing these institutions will constitute a "time bomb"!

I think PAP should take their own advise seriously: take your time, no rush, no need to come up with firecrackers in haste, go through our manifesto carefully before you shoot! Apparently they have fallen flat on their first salvo, I expect better fire or "bombs" from them. Finally, I would suggest that they drop the idea of trying to "break" us up. It will just make them look very silly indeed. They are grossly misinformed about WP all this while.

Goh Meng Seng

Democracy --- Idealism or Pragmatism?

Democracy --- Idealism or Pragmatism?

There has been a persistent debate on "Asian Values" versus "Western Democracy" and why Singapore should not take "Western Democracy" wholesale.

PAP has gone a step further by equating "Asian Values" with "Confucius Values". Sometimes, a Western philosophical term will also be used, Socratic "Philosophical King" to determine the "high standards" or "expectations" of political leadership. Ironically, the "Western Democracy" is termed as "Idealistic" in nature whereby the demands of "Confucius Saints" or "Philosophical Kings" are accepted as achievable standards in Singapore?s context. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that throughout the thousand years of human civilization, there were hardly any saints or Philosophical Kings in existence. This is only NAUTRAL as human beings are full of imperfections.

To understand fully the context of Confucius political demands of the "rulers", one must understand the historical background whereby Confucianism was born. Confucianism was born in the midst of warlords fighting each other to gain power and control when the decline of Zhou Dynasty set in. Confucius paid highest regards to pre-Zhou Dynasty emperors whom have passed over power to those who were not of the same blood but had good characters and wisdom. That is the ideal situation of political setting for Confucianism instead of a monarchy rule which is passed from father to son and then to grandson. Those with the best talents or wisdom, in their context, with the best characters like a saint, will become emperors.

In the historical context, Confucius was trying to convince the various rulers that in order to become the ultimate ruler of China, one must be a saint who practices benign, compassionate and "pro-people" rule. However Confucius did not advocate "elected ruler" though he believed that the ultimate ruler would be the one who wins the hearts and minds of the people. A certain element of "divinity" or monarchy element was installed even though he paid highest respect to rulers that give up their position to those with talents and wisdom.

For those who are well verse in Western Philosophy, Socratic "Philosophical King" was developed as against the context of Greek's first "democratic institution". Socrates believed that only a "Philosophical King" with all wisdom, virtues and talents, will give the country best political leadership as contrast to the Greek system. It was never mentioned that the "Philosophical King" must be "elected" but yet his rule would be assumed to be absolute as only he has full wisdom.

Both the concepts of Confucius Saints and Socratic Philosophical Kings have implicitly pointed to an absolute rule of a single PERFECT ruler. And it also assumed that there would always be Saints or Philosophical Kings available at any time.

Is this assumption acceptable or practical in any sense? I truly doubt so. Human beings could aim for perfection but the fact is, in all recorded human civilization, how many Saints or Philosophical Kings or Perfect human beings could we find?

Apparently neither Confucius nor Socrates have catered for the situation whereby there isn't any Saints or Philosophical Kings around.

Human civilization has come a long way to understand that a country cannot do without a governing body but yet, nobody is perfect. To rely on the feudalistic monarchy system will only breed hardship and anarchy. Thus Democracy is born.

Democracy is never "idealistic" as it is designed to cater to human beings who are understood as imperfect, thus the need of checks and balances. Power corrupts and human beings are corruptible. Thus Democracy aims to serve the masses by providing a system of checks and balances for the imperfect human beings that are endowed with powers to rule.

If we do have near perfect human beings around to become our political leaders, then it is our fortune. But if we do not have such good fortune, we will rely on the system of checks and balances provided by the Democratic system to serve the masses.

I would say that it would be too idealistic to hope for a Confucius Saint or Socratic Philosophical King to appear in each and every generations of Singapore to lead us to prosperity. It would be more pragmatic and realistic to depend a democratic system of checks and balances to serve us all.

Goh Meng Seng