Insist on Meritocracy, Reject Mediocrity

Wan Bao has always been quite supportive of Workers Party (WP) all this while and it is exceptional for it to be so. This could be seen from the reports on WP since the Hougang By-Elections held earlier on. It is indeed rare to have a mainstream newspaper to be so supportive of an opposition party under Singapore’s unique political consrtruct. 


However, it should not be biased by its support to WP so much so that it would go that extra mile to use reports with twisted angle to attack those who have very different stance from it! (I am of course referring to myself!)

Just like the report shown above, it uses a very definite tone to assert that “majority of netizens feel that there is sourness written between the lines”; it would be totally misleading to those who don’t really know the fact at al! Well, I have checked through this comment posted on my FB and I have found there are over 20 FB friends agreed with my comments and have clicked “Like” while there are just only a handful of those usual suspects of hardcore WP people raising disagreement. How could that be considered as “majority”? Maybe the Chief Editor of Wan Bao should help the reporter to get a new pair of spectacles or that send the reporter to a couple of Statistics classes! Such gross misreporting could damage Wan Bao’s credibility and reputation (that is, if there is any left)!

Well, I am a straight talker and will not try to beat around the bushes. Some feel that this is REAL while more feels that this is just “ignorant” or even “idiocy”; this is just a matter of perspectives. Nevertheless, many people feel that as “politician”, it is better to be “slick”and have a “glib toungue”, must be more “politically correct”. However, isn’t that asking politicians to hide their real thoughts and replace them with sweet talking?  I don’t concur to such hypocritical pretence!

As for my comment, that is serious matter. There are a lot of people disappointed with WP’s performance since last General Elections. Even the so call “political observer” whom Wan Bao interviewed has to settle with the assessment of “WP’s performance is so so”. That is basically just a civil way (politically correctly smooth) of saying “mediocre”.  It is a fact that there isn’t much commendable performance. 

Right from the start, Chen Show Mao has conceded to PAP to become the great fearless Wei Zheng who will speak the truth, in all honesty with their criticisms. That basically means that PAP has become the Emperor while WP becomes the loyal court officials. There is basically nothing wrong to concede to the victor as it is a common practice in ancient history. But Wei Zheng is one who will speak up fearlessly (well, isn’t that as ignorant and idiotic as I do? LOL!) of the truth and facts and isn’t one of the fearful silent coward. However, just after one year plus, why has our Wei Zheng become the silent one on the policy front?
 

WP walks into parliament with the slogan of “Towards First World Parliament” but once in parliament, why are they bringing up such inconsequential questions on cats, dogs and bird droppings? Is it true that there isn’t any other important National issue to be brought up in parliament for debate? Why didn’t they bring up the issue of AIM in parliament earlier on?

Even for that “sure score” issue of ministerial salary debate, WP has screwed up so badly that it was mercilessly mocked by PAP. Not to mention about being exposed of plagiarism right in parliament. My little criticism of WP in my FB is really nothing compared to be shamed in the hall of parliamentary debate. How embarrassing! 

Just when we thought the worst is over, WP exploded with the Yaw Shin Leong scandal. The ultimate shame lies in how clueless WP was in handling such scandal. It has dragged the scandal for nearly a month before it was forced to tearfully sacrificed YSL. Apparently this has put a lot of doubt on the crisis management ability of WP. After the dust settled, we thought we could just close the chapter with a by-election. However, the WP candidate’s credibility was again put to doubt by a leaked minutes of its CEC meeting. Finally, the by-election has a happy ending with the magnanimous support of Hougang voters. But just as we thought all the storms have passed, residents under WP’s wards exposed that WP has used lucky draw to buy votes in support of HDB upgrading! This is the greatest ironic blow to opposition as a whole as we have been attacking PAP of using HDB upgrading to buy votes during elections! This is simply the pot calling the kettle black!
   
Our hearts are bleeding with all these missteps of WP! All these mediocre performance has absolutely nothing to do with the lack of confidence. I have thought through rigorously but I just couldn’t figure out how “confidence” (or the lack of it), as mentioned by the political observer, has to do with WP’s mediocre performance. However, I would say some of the incidents have to do with the over confidence, complacency and arrogance.

It is unimaginable that within such a short period of one and a half year’s time, WP has been making such fumbles in such high frequency and how is WP going to survive for the next 3 to 4 years before the next GE! Confidence can never solve these fundamental problems!

It is inexplicable for the Wan Boa’s political observer to assert that we should give WP one more seat so that they will have the confidence to perform better! This is really absurd! When did we become a country that abandon the core principle of meritocracy while rewarding mediocre performance?  We should insist on meritocracy and reject mediocrity.


If we lose this insistence on meritocracy, Singapore would definitely and eventually end up with a political slimy mud filled with mediocrity instead of becoming “First World” class!
If WP chose to contest the by-election due short term political interests considerations, before it rectifies, consolidate and make adjustment to its present team of MPs, even if it managed to win another seat, it will face the greater risk of having further mediocre impact that would cause even more blunders. This is especially so when it is obvious from Hougang By-election that WP is pretty dry on its talent pool now.
 
WP should stop and reflect upon itself, bides its time in re-consolidation and take stock of its weaknesses before it starts afresh again. Only in doing so, it would be able to meet the high expectations of its supporters to accomplish and fulfill its mission of creating the “First World Parliament”.

Nothing is absolute in this world. More may not be good. We should have quality MPs instead of just quantity. If the slate of MPs are still lacking in quality, it should just give them closed door training to perfection. WP should get its house in order first before it moves forward to win any other seats. In short, it is best for WP to give it a pass for this by-election.

Goh Meng Seng

Afternote: There are two interesting comments from private friends to me

1) If what WP lacks is confidence, then there is no need to reward it with another seat to boast confidence but instead, just send them to those expensive Motivational Talks available in the world!

2) If we are to extend the Wan Bao political observer's advice to commercial world, then companies will need to give those mediocre employees a big pay rise in order to boast their confidence to perform better!

选贤与能，拒绝平庸

晚报一向来都是工人党的忠实支持者，这的确很难得。这可从后港补选到现在晚报对工人党的报道可以看得出来。毕竟在新加坡的政治环境下还能有个主流媒体的报章如此拥护一个反对党，实在是得来不易啊！

可是支持归支持，可别以过分扭曲的角度去报道和打击站在不同立场的人士哦！（那当然是指我啦！）

就有如以上这篇报道，非常断定的说“多数网民认为字里行间酸溜溜”，不知情的人可要被误导了！因为我翻查了这面簿的留言，竟然发现有超过二十几位网友赞成我的说法而按了“赞”，而对我言论不满的人也只不过是那几位工人党超忠实的死硬支持者，屈指可数，这又这么算是“多数”呢？也许晚报主编应该给这记者重新配戴新眼镜了，或送去上几堂统计数学课吧！这样有缺事实的报道，可大可小，但对贵报的信誉（如有的话）可能会造成不必要的损害啊！

我这人是有话直说，不会拐弯抹角。有人认为这样才不失真，但有更多人认为这是“无知”，甚至是认为是“白痴“的也大有人在，真是见仁见智。当然，许多人都认为做为”政治人物“，就应该圆滑一点，应该”政治正确“一点。可是那不是叫搞政治的人物都要隐藏真心，而说些讨好人的假话吗？我可不认同这种虚情假意啊！

 说到我的言论重点，这可是重要话题了。有许多人对工人党从上次大选至今的表现都感失望，就连晚报所采访的”政治观察家“也说”表现平平“。其实说穿了，这只是客套话（政治正确的圆滑）。什么是”表现平平“呢？那就是表现平庸了。工人党的表现乏善可陈，这是众人有目共睹的事实。陈硕茂从一开始就俯首称臣的说要做大无畏的”魏征“，那么皇帝肯定是行动党了。这也算不了什么的，胜者为王，败者为寇是自古真言平常事。但是魏征是大无畏，讲真话，说实事的人（是不是有点像我这样无知，白痴的人一样呢？一笑！），而且绝对不会畏首畏尾的不敢吭声的懦夫。但是怎么才过了一年有多，我们的魏征竟然成为了政策沉默的魏征了呢？

 工人党打着”第一世界国会“的旗号进入国会，但在国会里尽问些芝麻绿豆的小事，如猫狗和小鸟粪便的问题，难道真的在也没有国家议题可陈上国会大厅议论了吗？为何没尽早把AIM这样损害选民利益的政治手段提上议会大堂？

就算是能拿高分的部长薪金辩论工人党也搞到一团糟，还被行动党真正在国会大堂狠狠的”酸“ （冷嘲热讽）了一顿。工人党议员在国会大堂上被揭发是文抄公这事不提也罢了。我这在面簿的网络小空间小小”酸“工人党并没什么大不了的，但在所谓的”第一世界国会“大堂上被对手大肆羞辱一番，情何以堪啊！当我们认为最坏的过去了，工人党竟然闹出了婚外情丑闻。这丑闻是丑在工人党一开始就不懂得如何去处理善后！拖拖拉拉的被丑闻纠缠了几乎整整一个月才以孔明挥泪斩马谡方式了结了。这危急处理能力真是叫人怀疑！当尘埃落定后，我们以为可以补选了事，但就在补选期间，候选人竟然被泄露的议会记录质疑在电视访问中所说不实！补选终于在后港人的宽容下圆满结束。也就在我们以为从此会风平浪静时，又被居民爆出工人党在管辖区内以幸运抽奖为利诱，收买对翻新支持的选票！这对于反对党一向抨击执政党以组屋翻新来收买选票是一种多么大的讽刺和打击啊！简直变成了小巫见大巫了！

工人党这种种的一切，是多么令人痛心啊！这一些平庸的表现，跟所谓的“信心”一点关系也没有。 我左思右想，怎么也想不出与”晚报政治观察家“所说的”信心“有任何关系，倒是想到也许有些事是跟工人党太过自信，自满和自大有关吧。我很难想象在这短短的一年半载里头，工人党竟然会失误频频，那么接下来的三、四年到底要怎么过啊！这不是多点信心就能解决的问题！

更令人费解的是，晚报的政治观察家竟然说要给工人党多赢一个议席，那么就更会有信心表现了！这真是似是而非的谬论！曾何几时我们已经抛弃了选贤与能的核心价值观而拥抱了奖赏平庸的道路呢？我们应该坚持选贤与能，拒绝平庸才对啊！

如果失去这份坚持，到最后新加坡的政治肯定不会成为”第一世界级“而将会沦为平庸无能的第九流混沌污潭了！

如果工人党为短暂的政治利益，在现有的团队还没调整和整顿好就参选的话，就算是真的给它赢得多一个议席，那也只会增加平庸误事的风险。这尤其是，很显然的，从后港补选工人党所推出的后选人看来，已经凸现了它蜀中无大将的窘境了。

工人党如今应该闭门思过，韬光养晦，重新整顿一下队伍，重新出发，才能不负众望的兑现它的政治使命和承诺。

事事无绝对，不是每一样事情必须多就是最好的。议员贵精不贵多。 如果既有的议员还未精，那就得先闭门练兵了。这时候让贤是为上策。

吴明盛

后记：我这篇文章，肯定会引来非议，但是眼看工人党如此的表现，真是痛心疾首。爱之深，痛之切。

SMRT - The Ugly Truth of Ultra-Capitalism

 This is derived from a blog post from Transitional Eternity. 

 It has confirmed my suspicion all along that the workers and drivers in SMRT have been short-changed by the management/Directors by allocating vastly disproportionate sharing of the increase in profits over the years. Director has increased their own fees by a whopping 970% over 11 years while the workers and drivers were given a mere 67% increment. These are derived from the costings found in the annual reports. 

 We have been talking about RISING Income gap or disparity all these while and PAP government just act blur when their own GLCs under their charge are practicing such blatant Ultra-Capitalism of exploitation and unfair distribution of earnings. 

Such practice of Ultra-Capitalism is totally unacceptable and unsustainable. It will be a key of social dis-stabilizer in the mid to long term.

Fruits of earnings of any cooperation should be fairly distributed among the workers, management/directors and the capitalists/investors. The percentage of increment should not vary too much else the income gap or disparity will be widen substantially over time. If this is not kept in check, the whole system may just collapse and chaos may reign. 

Goh Meng Seng

Mr Lui Tuck Yew, the money is over here 

Dear Mr Lui recognizes the need of a pay rise for our bus drivers, has asked commuters last Friday where “where is that money coming from”[Here] after two weeks of deliberate hibernation and expects commuters to pay for the persistent mistakes of SMRT’s poorly-maintained train tracks and exploitation of foreign labour at the expense of wage depression for local workers. His first appearance and golden words came after the dust for the SMRT bus drivers’ strike saga has settled.  

I spent my Saturday afternoon scouting for possible sources of that “money” that our transport minister Lui Tuck Yew demanded. And easily found the pool of money in:

(1) The Directors’ Fees

Steady growth in directors’ fees between 2002 to 2012 and 2007 is the exceptional year which sees a 0.26 million drop in directors’ fees. There are certainly more years of upward growth in directors’ fees than in SMRT’s net profits. By 2012, directors’ fees have grown to a whopping 970% in a span of 11 years.

Contrasting the generosity of SMRT on its directors, the growth of staff costs (excluding directors) is a mere 67%. While directors have seen their fees increased in several folds in the last decade, staff below the directorial level who constitutes the bulk of SMRT’s labour force and where a big majority of these people are directly involved in SMRT’s daily core business, sees little growth in their income.

Not belittling the role of SMRT directors play, however, staff who operate SMRT’s business are neither of negligible importance either. Without these people, directors will be deemed redundant! It is no surprise to see SMRT’s deliberate maneuver of low wages for its operational staff to drive away Singaporean workers and thus, giving way to the excuse of seeking overseas labour at a cheaper price.

When we compare directors’ fees with staff costs, it is not difficult to notice that the percentage growth in the former outruns the latter. Directors’ fees grow at a double digit rate for most years except for 2006, 2007 and 2011, indicting an above-inflation rate of growth for this group with a greater absolute amount than the wages of the majority of non-directorial staff. A 10% increase of a $60 000 fees would result in $12 000 in absolute terms.

Between 2004 and 2005 and 2008 itself, non-directorial staff sustained an actual fall in costs despite SMRT operating at a positive gain in those years. The percentage rise in staff costs ranges between 2.5% to 42.5% and a double digit growth occurred only in 2003 (42.5%) and 2012 (11.6%), where the rest of the decade, staff costs are either at a negative growth or growing less than 7% single digit rate on the average, which if inflation rate is factored in, the real growth is minimal.

Suggestion:

1 million dollars to come off directly from the directors’ fees towards the bus drivers’ increment fund as a compensation for the persistently poor performance of both train and bus services since 2011 and the inconvenience caused to commuters. As SMRT employs approximately 2000 bus drivers [Here], about 30% of its total staff are employed in thebus sector (SMRT Annual Report 2011), one million dollars would bring about an average of $500 p.a. extra.

Total number of employees in SMRT group

(2) In SMRT’s Net Profts

This is one area which private company SMRT could consider dipping into for raising bus drivers’ salaries.

Since 2002, SMRT has sustained consecutive years of positive gains. By 2011, it generated a 2.8 fold of net profits compared to 2002 and even during a weakening net profit in 2012, there is still a 2.1 fold gain as compared to the 56.8 million in 2002.

There were three less better years in SMRT’s overall net profits growth for the period between 2002 and 2012, namely 2006, 2011 and 2012 but respectively years of net profits still clinches 2 times more than 2002’s net profit.

Total net profits’ accumulation comes to a figure of 1.3 billion dollars in the last 11 years alone, 23.6 times of that of 2002’s net profit figure. However, on paying its staff (excluding directors), SMRT has spent a total of 2.5 billion in the last decade, a mere 13.9 times than that of 2002’s. Net profit growth easily outstripped the growth of staff costs, baring the strong reluctance of profit sharing with its non-directorial staff who does the actual work in generating revenue.

SMRT may be successful in expanding its sources of alternative revenues beyond its core business—public transport itself. However, it would be myopic to neglect its core business without which will cause a severe dent in its alternative sources of revenues. 

As much as SMRT’s claim of its accountability [Here] towards its shareholders (the government being the largest shareholder in this case as Temasek Holdings owns a 54% stake in SMRT), however, it has more to account to the commuters for the facts that SMRT’s infrastructure comes from the public funds, as well as the transport fundallocated to the transport providers comes from the public’s purse strings.

Suggestion:

Dip into the pool of funds reserved for SMRT’s shareholders. As the largest shareholder, the government has the obligation in restoring the confidence of the public and its citizens of the promise of Singaporeans First by: 

1) securing well-paid jobs for locals (pay foreign drivers the same wage as local bus drivers to reduce the unfair reliance of foreign cheap labour) 

2) stop fleecing local commuters for profiteering. 

Mr Lui should allocate at least 4 million dollars from the pool of net profits which SMRT has amassed in the last decade. That meagre amount will not dent the 1.3 billion pool but will bring more quality living for its frontline workers and will also help to transfer the expense of SMRT's mistakes from the commuters. 

After all, our government works for the welfare of the people and isdistinctly different from those corrupted nations which milk its people to the last drop.