TOTD: The Failure of PAP's Scholar-System

Thought of the Day

No matter how smart, intelligent or brilliant you were in your teens, scoring As and A stars in your exams, once you are being "anointed" with the label "scholars", you may just find yourself entrenched and kept in a environment which will not be conducive to your proper development of mental and social faculties.

That label of "scholars" along with the mindset of "Natural Aristocracy" will destroy your common sense and empathy towards the people you were supposed to lead.

It has proven in history, the best leaders come not from the group of "elites" but rather the intelligent people from the streets.

In our Singapore's system, the PAP government tries very hard to "monopolize" all the talents we have in our system by installing the elitist streaming in our education system. They will give scholarships to those identified "early talents" and bond them to civil service or statutory boards. It is one way to monopolize talents and keep them for PAP's selection so to prolong its monopolistic rule over Singapore.

However, just look at the numerous scholar-Generals, or rather, what we call "Paper Generals" we have today.

These scholars were holed up in SAF and lack the exposure of the "REAL WORLD" out there. They have wasted their time in SAF without exposures to the REAL world outside their war gaming computers. Their administration of the SAF is based on simple top-down military command hierarchy without the need of more sophisticated management skills.

Thus, it is no wonder that when they were treated like some Elitist Gods and sent to the various GLCs or statutory boards, they screwed up badly. No matter how intelligent or smart you are, as long as you are not groomed in a proper way, in the most appropriate way but only the SAF way, you will be made redundant and useless outside of SAF in the end, regardless of your rank. This is the sad state of affairs for Singapore. We have wasted so much money and most importantly, these "once potential talents" by keeping them in the worse place for development, so much so that they are causing harm to our whole country as a whole.

These Paper General cannot survive beyond SAF. Even when they were posted to the GLCs and private entities, they expected to be in top management positions, even though they have no REAL WORLD Corporate experience whatsoever, and know NUTs about running the companies, worse, the country! However, they have this "Scholar-Entitlement" mindset. They were "helicopter" into such positions and eventually, they would find that they cannot manage such corporate unless they get their own KAKIs from SAF who knows the exact "military style" of management! This is exactly what happened in SMRT and PAP leadership!

I would not mind if these "retired" Paper Generals were willing to start from middle management to learn the corporate way and work their way up but no, they were expected to be able to "plug and play" which is quite ridiculous! It can only happen in Singapore because PAP government has created a web of GLCs to allocate these paper generals nice management positions to stroke their ego of "natural aristocracy"!

Singapore will definitely decline in the coming decades basically because SAF or the civil service is not exactly the best or right place to nurture our talents for running corporations and the country.

And all these, are the wrong doings and mismanagement by PAP.

Goh Meng Seng

TOTD: EZ-Link and Cash Card Redundancy

Thought of the Day

I was driving a friend's car the other day and found the car braked suddenly while I was cruising, my foot wasn't pressing on any pedal. It nearly gave me a heart attack and a RED LED indicator popped up CTBA... and I got worried when the "Temperature indicator" jumped from the usual 34 degree to 37.

I asked my friend why was this so, was the car having some problem. I got a smacking that I am just too OLD generation and didn't know "NEW (CAR) Technology" at all. I was using "old driving method" to drive a NEW HIGH Tech car!

Cruising is a method I learned from my late father to save petrol and this works especially well for manual gear car.

But I learn from Google (yes, please check Google before asking "High Tech" question, else, will get another suaning... :D ) that the "High Tech Car" nowadays will put brake on if it detected no contact of either the brake or accelerator pedal! Or that when the car was travelling at low speed and there is potential accident, it will apply brake on its own! This is to prevent drivers who are too tired from getting accident when they fall asleep with their feet off the pedal!

Wah, I say... but seriously, that's too "intrusive" for my "Old Method - Petrol saving driving"! And that temperature indicator is not about the car temperature but the surrounding temperature! Well, I told my friend I didn't know the street temperature can get as high as 37 and why do we need to know the "outside temperature" when we should be more concerned about the overheating of the car itself?

My friend scolded me, don't use "Old Method" to deal with "New Technology"!

Actually, this makes me thinking for the day. My friend has a point. When New Technology is evolving, we should be mindful to use new methods of operation to deal with it.

One fine example was the bloody redundancy of "Cash Card" and "Ez-link" card. Why would we need TWO cards when we actually could combine them into one-for-all usage Cashless card?

Cash card can be used for purchases but very few people use it because it was cumbersome. It came up with two types, one with Sim the other "Flash" card.. But some carpark can only use one of them! Such redundancy is caused by the "Old Method Mindset" using "New Technology"!

On the other hand, we have a handy EZ-Link card which we could just Tap away but it could not be used for purchases at 7 Eleven or supermarket! And it can only be topped up at the MRT/Bus stations or ATM machines.

Same for Cash Card. When you go to petrol station, they can't just top up the cash card for you but required you to top up at the ATM machine!

What the Heck! What's wrong with these people at LTA and those in charge of "Cashless cards"?

In Hong Kong, one Octopus Card, can do it all! Carparks, Supermarkets, 7 Eleven, Bakery Shops, Bus, MTR... and you can top it up at any 7 eleven shops or OK shops!

Apparently, these High End Natural Aristocrat Scholars sitting up there are only concerned about their "turf" instead of consumers' convenience and services! In fact, both cards evolved because of transportation needs, be it ERP gantries or public transport. LTA should have combined them all in the first place by setting the protocol and standards!

This is the "Old Methods" using "New Technology" stupidity we are seeing in Singapore... and we still want to pride ourselves as "First World High Tech Cashless City"?

An Open Letter to President Xi of China

致中国国家主席公开信
尊贵的习近平主席先生

贵国最近通过香港扣押了九辆我祖国新加坡最先进的装甲车。据说这些装甲车里包含了世界级的高科技装备，是我祖国自行研法生产的骄傲。

无论这是否是贵国刻意使计由香港扣押我祖国的这批装甲车，我本身也意识到这整件事都是我们国防部的疏忽才导致这事件的发生。无论贵国是否决定归还这九辆装甲车，我们在国际社会里和军备市场中都已经是损失惨重。这是因为就算贵国没有趁此机会去对这批装甲车进行军事科技研探，国际社会的准军备购买者的脑子里都会对这军备的可靠性暗存疑问。

无论如何，我本人觉得这次事件的确是我祖国犯了低级错误，如果军备被贵国没收，也是无话可说的。于情于理，我们都输得彻底。我也认了。

从一个新加坡反对党的角度看这件事，我也只能对我祖国的领导鞭笞，追究责任，也无法理直气壮的对贵国指骂。

如果这真是贵国以计谋导致事件的发生，我本人不得不佩服为贵国出谋献策的智囊团的高明。可是，贵国如此做，也必须付出一定的国际政治代价。没有一个泱泱大国会喜欢国际社会在明或在暗批评以大欺小的。更何况是中国，一个打着和平崛起的旗帜发展经济与周边国家发展政治与贸易联系的大国。更重要的是您本人伟大的政治策略，“一带一路”不只是要靠金钱去发展，还要靠国际政治信誉去赢得参与国的信任。为了新加坡这个小国而冒着国际社会的不良反应，您认为值得吗？

再者，贵国对于我祖国新加坡在台湾进行军事演习提出抗议，我想我祖国的人民肯定感觉到非常反感。就连身为反对党人的我，也不得不站出来对贵国的抗议表示不满。

在贵国邓小平同志领导的时代，他展现了一个大政治家的洪量与风范，确实将心比心，以事论事，站在其他小国的角度看问题。他也谅解新加坡有土地的局限，到台湾借用地方做军训，是形势所逼，并非是要针对中国做出任何军事威胁或卷入贵国的内政。我们小国寡民，就算是真要与贵国搞军事对抗，也没那种能耐！那岂不是白痴说梦话？说了也不会有人相信的！

现在贵国要以这个借口要挟我祖国，打压我们，国际社会里，明眼人一看就知道贵国是故意刁难新加坡，以大欺小了！试问，这样一来对贵国有什么好处呢？

再说，如果贵国要是打算以这做借口开始对新加坡进行经济制裁，这更说不过去了！试问，谁才是真正对贵国进行军事抗争的？或防止贵国统一台湾的？那当然首推台湾人民嘛！但是贵国竟然没对台湾进行经济制裁，反而给台湾人台胞证，让他们到台湾去投资发展，您说，如果贵国要制裁新加坡，国际社会上说得过去吗？

对一个所谓军事反叛岛屿省份的人民给予优待，到大陆去投资发展，反而对一个只为了解决本身土地不够而到台湾军训的友好国家进行打压，经济制裁，这怎么能说得过去？

再说，要是新加坡没有跟台湾打交道，打好关系，政治上我们也没法有效的当大陆与台湾的桥梁了。试想想，为了一个不是理由的理由对新加坡打压，硬要把新加坡切断与台湾的关系，这符合贵国长远的政治利益吗？

说穿了，我们大家都必须务实一点。没有人想在东亚再打仗，因为这对所有东亚国家都不利。维持和平现状，各国为自己的人民福祉努力发展经贸，才是所有国家人民的真正愿望。

我在此恳请习主席，念在我们两国以往都是以互惠互利和务实的原则发展彼此深厚的关系，仔细的思量彼此的立场，核心利益和观点后，才做出谨慎的决定。

我本人身为新加坡反对党人，对本国的领导最近的表现都非常不满，对这次事件的发生，也觉得是我方之错。贵国要如何处置那批装甲车，我都无异议，认了。我相信我祖国对这笔损失千万或甚至几亿的军备收入，还是负担得起。钱输了换来一个刻骨铭心的教训，那也罢。钱可以再赚回来。高科技产品失去了，还可以再研发新的。

但要是贵国如要以不是理由的理由继续打压我们，针对我们国防的核心利益进行攻击，这个我相信所有新加坡人都不会容许发生的。

我更相信这对贵国也会是有伤害。我们两个友邦，以往都是以互惠互利与务实双赢的原则共存共荣，为何如今要以双输的形式自残？

尊贵的习主席，我相信以您的睿智，您必能理清这种种的利害关系。

吴明盛敬启

Why Singapore PM Lee is so concerned about TPP?

I happened to read about an article on TPP posted on TOC (The Online Citizen) website
but I found it has misrepresented some of the things on TPP. I have written the following in response on my Facebook:

There are some erroneous or inaccuracies written in this TOC article. Apparently, it is not written by someone who is well verse in Economics.

First of all, TPP is not just about Trade. It is about Free Market Globalization. i.e. Besides the free trade of goods and services, it also includes free mobility of capital as well as labour.

The reason of "Protectionism" vs such Free Market Globalization is not only because it protects companies and their products, but it also protects its wages for the labour as well as certain sovereignty issues in prevention of critical assets of a country being acquired by foreign countries.

While the article is right to say that most of the time, it is the more well off countries which will resist such agreements, but there are also costs to poorer countries. For example, there is "Economic Colonization"; i.e. all critical resources would be exploited or plundered by the richer countries.

As for wages, it is not a guarantee that workers will benefit from TPP just because companies can sell to a larger market or consumer base. In fact, more likely so, workers will be exploited by wage suppression as they could be replaced by a larger and cheaper source of workers among the countries. i.e. supply of workers suddenly increased many thousand folds. This is actually what is happening right now in Singapore.

Moreover, bigger companies benefit the most as compared to the local companies. All these will result in great wealth and income disparity. i.e. Big companies shareholders will be richer while workers suffered lower wages.

There is also an issue of structural immobility. In Keynesian Economics concept, Free market is good as the invisible hands will solve everything. But the truth is, this doesn't take into considerations of many things. Product life cycle is becoming shorter and thus, we see a lot of structural displacement of skilled workers who will suddenly find themselves irrelevant. Talking about re-training and restructuring is easy but execution will be difficult.

The only reason why Singapore needs TPP badly is due to the fact that it is a small open economy without much agricultural sector. Not even much organic industrial sector to start with. We all depend on MNCs and GLCs. MNCs needs mobility of funds. GLCs and our sovereign funds like Temasek and GIC, needed ease of mobility of capital to effect greater returns with less cost in capital investment. These are the main REAL benefits for Singapore.

Small and Medium companies may benefit from bigger market but the truth is, as stated in the article itself, we already have quite a lot of FTAs with most of the individual countries listed in TPP!

But the cost to us, Singaporeans, in return for GIC, Temasek and all those big GLCs to have more investment opportunities, is continued suppression of our wages. Income and wealth disparity will continue to be widen and only those ruling elites and their cronies in these GLCs will earn higher exorbitant bonuses and salaries.

On top of that, as the article says, we will face HIGHER cost of medicines with the elimination of generic drugs.

BTW, when Japan can sell more cars to USA, it doesn't need to use our port facilities. That's utterly wrong to say that. They could well ship direct to US across the pacific. (For anyone who want to doubt me on this point, please refer to this website on a freight forwarding shipping company specialized in car-cargo transhipment)

In short, the reason why our PM Lee is so concerned about TPP is not about Singaporeans'  well being; in fact, TPP will make most Singaporeans worse off, with bigger wage suppression from a larger pool of foreign labour from the Third and First World countries. Singaporeans will face higher healthcare cost and we will face a deepening of income and wealth disparity in Singapore.

The only reason why PAP wanted TPP so badly is because TPP could enhance its GLCs, Temasek Holdings and GIC investment opportunities overseas. We have seen this in CECA which we have signed with India in which we promised easy access and migration for Indians to come to Singapore and work, in return for investment opportunities in Indian's financial industry and such.

This will only help to enhance the ever rising salaries and bonuses of the top management of these entities, the elite cronies of PAP.

These are the crux of the matter, not so much about "free trade" alone, lest about jobs creation for Singaporeans.

Goh Meng Seng

A Lesson from US Presidential Contest - A Robust Democracy

Thought of the Day

Folks, it is NOT END OF THE WORLD to have President Trump! Unlike Singapore, US has a more ROBUST Democratic political system with Separation of Powers institutionalized and embedded to effect REAL Checks and Balances. No matter how moronic or idiotic the President is, he or she will be checked and prevented from doing too much bad!

An idiotic or moronic President may not do much good, but at least for the next 4 years, he or she won’t do too much bad as well. 4 years later, if he could not perform or basically screwed up, the voters will just kick him out!


So instead of feeling devastated for Trump victory, we should learn something from this saga: It is more important to build a robust political system which has Separation of Powers institutionalized to effect Real checks and balances instead of betting on the hope that we could always choose wise and good guys into government!

Goh Meng Seng

The Rubbish Bin and Aim-less Standards

Thought of the Day

The Rubbish Bin and Aim-less Standards

To Opposition Supporters, especially people like Gilbert Louis

Politics is not just about Anti-Whichever Party. It is the selection of both parties and individuals who are relevant to our ideas of how the country should be managed and run. It also involves in choosing the parties which will set up a proper system which we desire.

In short, whichever political party we support, it must perform the two basic functions:

1) Safeguarding Public Interests
2) Performing Public Service

In the Democratic system we desire, we would understand that nobody is perfect and thus, proper Checks and Balances should be installed, in whichever means. For me, I chose to believe that Separation of Powers is paramount in effecting Checks and Balances.

What WP has erred, is a serious breach of my belief and I hope, it is your belief as well. It is ok to make mistakes as in our belief of Democracy, we expect human beings as imperfect and the tendency to make mistakes is perfectly normal.

However, WP has shown that it refused to admit the fact that what they have done is a serious breach of trust and Democratic principles. They are recalcitrant in every aspects. Do I want to show any support to such a party which does not even know where it had done wrong or plain refusal to admit its own wrong doing? Nope. Not for me.

Can you defend WP in any way? Yes, you can, but only when you throw away your Democratic belief, throw away any high expectation of Moral standards and Integrity. You can do that by using the Rubbish Bin Standards to justify the over payment of consultancy fees to their own people, FMSS. You can justify their massive conflicts of interests by using the AIM-less Standards.

However, what will that make you to be? You are lowering the standards which we expect any political administration to maintain, to such despicably low standards. The Rubbish Bin and Aim-Less standards. You have to give up the higher moral grounds which we depend upon to keep PAP in checks, just to defend WP.

What will that bring us to? We will degenerate into a dysfunctional Democracy whereby both ruling and opposition parties are as filthy as the shit hole. There are many such dysfunctional Democracies around the world and we won't even be unique in any sense. We will be spending time to hurl insults of "You also like that!", "You are corrupt too!" etc etc and nothing gets done, and Public Interests will definitely be compromised in the end.

Each and everyone of us will have to decide for ourselves, whether do we want to accept the Rubbish Bin and Aim-less Standards as the norm or we have to get it right, do it right from the start. I for one, will refuse to be dumped into the Rubbish Bin standards.

The implications of discarding the Moral High Ground and adopting the Rubbish Bin and Aim-less standards are really vast. It is not just about WP anymore. It is about your life, my life, our future generations' lives.

You may think that we should save WP's seats in parliament is something we must do at all cost. You may think that this is the only way to save whatever little "Democracy" we have, as in having an opposition in parliament. But I guess we must first understand the FULL Cost of doing so. The Full Cost, is the Total destruction of our Democracy development process, ironically speaking. It will derail our aim of building a functional Democracy. It will encourage crooks and charlatans to infiltrate into our political system because they see that they can just get away with their greed EASILY just because they have this little label "Opposition " put on their foreheads.

If you wanted that to develop, that's your choice, but not mine. I would rather we have a proper cleansing and rebuild everything proper right from scratch again. It is painful in the short term, but at the very least, we can be sure whatever fruits we will get later, will not be toxic, not only for us but also for our future generations.

I take my Mission and Vision very seriously in opposition politics. These have never changed from the very day I decided to step into it. But I won't stop anyone to disagree with me nor my methodology. Each of us will always have the choices to make. You may disagree with me and I don't intend to have everyone to agree with me, but I only ask for your understanding.

Ultimately, if you don't clear off the rubbish, you will always stuck sleeping with the rubbish dump. I chose to clear the rubbish, no matter what it costs.


Goh Meng Seng

SMRT AGM - A Reflection of Singaporeans

So many small investors made noise and shooting angrily against the SMRT CEO and his management team of the rationale of selling the rail assets back to Singapore government LTA as well as Temasek Holdings privatizing plan but eventually, 98.84% voted yes to the sale of rail assets to LTA and 84.83% voted yes to the privatization of SMRT by Temasek Holdings!

What does that tell us?

I was told that there were many applause to people who raise pointed questions against the CEO Desmond Quek and Koh Yong Guan. Although Temasek Holdings did not have representatives voting in the privatization plan and did not put up sales pitch of why shareholders should sell their shares to them, SMRT management under the leadership of Desmond Quek were the ones trying to convince the shareholders to do exactly that!

It was so ridiculous until a shareholder actually asked why is the management making such advocacy for Temasek Holdings and who are they working for?!

But the final results speak volume of Singaporeans' mentality. They may make a lot of noise, putting up strong pointed questions against the authority, especially when their self interests have been compromised, but ultimately, when it comes to voting, they just too afraid to vote in protest! There was a shareholder who had made the point during the AGM that small retail investors should vote in protest but his call was somewhat grounded and overcome by some irrational fear.

So it seems that this is the nature of Singaporeans at large and I do not think Singapore as a Nation would vote courageously for their rights or for any reforms or Change. After making noise, they will just resign themselves to status quo. Just like the many taxi drivers who will complain high and low, day in day out about PAP government but when it comes to voting during GE, they will quietly vote PAP again.

If one does not fight for their own interests, don't even expect others to fight for you.

Goh Meng Seng

Speech at 9th ICAPP Assembly - The Challenges of One Asia

The following is my speech delivered at 9th ICAPP Assembly:

Greetings to our Hon Madam Chairman, Hon Jose, Hon Chung, all the Distinguish Guests, Hon Delegates and politicians from all over Asia.

After listening to all the speeches made by the previous speakers, there is no doubt that we are extremely thankful to the Standing Committee of ICAPP for organizing this forum and the extremely warm hospitality of the host, UMNO and the Government of Malaysia had extended to all of us here. Let everyone of us put our hands together for one last time, to applause the tremendous efforts and time put in by the Standing Committee of ICAPP and the host, UMNO and Government for Malaysia for giving us such a wonderful conference.

The People’s Power Party of Singapore is a very new and small party in Singapore and this is the first time we are invited by ICAPP to this conference. As a new participant of this conference, I am extremely impressed by the ideology of inclusiveness of ICAPP.

No matter how small the political party is, or how small your country is, they will extend the invitation to you to participate in ICAPP forum. Both Ruling and Opposition parties from the respective countries were invited and this is an extremely rare example in the international platform. Even UMNO, the dominant party of the ruling coalition in Malaysia, has extended invitation to the opposition parties in Malaysia. I am truly impressed by such open minded inclusiveness demonstrated here.

I also believe that small parties do matter in contributing to the Vision of One Asia. The potentials of small parties should not be limited to their physical size, but only limited by their vision, ideology, political will, determination and of course, their brains.

Just like Singapore, my homeland, we may be a small country in the world but we have contributed tremendously to the world in various aspects far much more beyond the limitations of our physical size. I am sure ICAPP also believes in the importance of inclusiveness and potentials of small parties in Asia in contributing towards its Vision of One Asia as well.

After listening to the 50 speeches made by the various esteemed delegates and interacting with some of you out there, I concluded that there are basically TWO pertinent issues constantly revolving around the engagement. As politicians of Asia, regardless of the size of our parties, or whether we are in the opposition or ruling parties, we are all concerned of the sufferings of our people and the prospect of developing our economies to bring wealth, prosperity and happiness to them.

The importance of Peace and Stability could never be over-emphasized for Economic development. In the last century, some of our fellow Asian countries had suffered great sufferings in wars and destructions accompanied by great instability. I am extremely happy to hear some of the delegates from these counties to emphasize that they have walked out of political turmoil and instability while going on the path towards economic development and prosperity. Countries like Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Myanmar etc, have walked out of their past political woes and making progress in economic development. However, there are still some of the countries represented here, suffering from great instability in their homeland; eg. Iraq and Palestine. My heart felt prayer is with them.

Nearer to my homeland, the current instability in South China Sea is of great concern to Singapore. As a small and open economy, it is Singapore’s CORE interest to see peace in Asia, especially the South China Sea which is critical to our status as a trading port.

Fortunately, it is reassuring to hear from Hon Rufus Bautista Rodriguez, the delegate from Philippines, to make the point that the new President of Philippines is taking a pragmatic approach of conducting dialogue with China to achieve mutually beneficial win-win outcome for both countries in collaborative effort of managing the disputed territory. Most importantly, war is not an option for Philippines.

Having attended the IPDA conference which talks about disaster assistance to various Asian countries, I applaud ICAPP for having the vision of providing such humanitarian aids to fellow Asian countries in times of disaster needs.

However, something ran through my mind while listening to the delegates in deliberating on the various Natural Disasters their countries faced in the past, present and potentially in the future.

Disasters, in my humble opinion, appear to have three types. First, Natural Disasters which we are quite familiar like the yearly typhoons, hurricanes and earthquakes etc. The second type of disaster refers to disasters created by humans and unfortunately to say, mostly due to some fellow politicians around the world. These include wars, conflicts and sufferings happening around the world. The third type of disaster refers to disasters created by both humans and nature, in particular, climate change and environmental issues.

As politicians, we yearn for power because power to us, is the necessary tool to govern and make good use in dictating the direction of our countries in accordance to what we believe. However, Power Corrupts and many human-induced disasters were caused by the corruption of power.

If you happen to have my People’s Power Party name card, you should notice that at the back of it, the very first two CORE VALUES written are Public Interests and Public Service.

I believe that all of us, when we first make that decision to join the political field, we have made this solemn vow to uphold Public Interests and give our best to Public Service. We should not forget these important solemn vows which we made when we first get involved in politics. As long as we adhere to these promises, we would resist the enormous temptations that come with Power. These would prevent us from fallen into the wrong side of history in making disasters for our respective countries and humanity. We should always remember that Public Interests and Public Service could also be applied to the responsibility towards humanity of the region or the World or Asia as well.

Power needs to be controlled in order to work well to enhance public interests instead of being corrupted to create great sufferings to humanity. As my contemporary opposition member from Singapore, Hon Kenneth Jeyaratnam, has made about the importance of Democracy in political and economic development, I would like to raise the real substance of Democracy as stated in People’s Power Party’s Core Values.

The Third Core Values of my party, People’s Power Party, is Separation of Powers and this refers to the Separation of FIVE Powers instead of Three. Contrary to most belief, this is the concept of Democracy promoted by the late Father of Modern China, Dr Sun Yat Sen. It is a truly Asian version of Democracy in Checks and Balances.

The Five Powers include the three commonly know one, i.e. Legislative Power, Executive Power, Judiciary Power, Impeachment Power and Power of Selection/Election (Examination).

In ancient Chinese dynasties, all these powers had already existed for thousands of years in the system of governance and this is why, the Ancient Chinese political governance was regarded as one of the most advanced in its time before the Western ideology of Democracy prosper.

This is especially so for the Scholar system where Examinations were held to select the talented people to help in governing as court officials. In modern context, elections department should be independent and the Civil Service Commission which selects applicants to join the civil service in various departments and positions should be independent and separated from the meddling of the Executive as well.

The less talk about function or power in Ancient Chinese Dynasties is the Power of Impeachment which a group of court officials were given SPECIAL Immunity to speak their minds against corrupted officials in the system. This is similar to the functions of Anti-Corruption Bureaus which we have in modern times.

The only problem was and still is, all these Powers were subjected to interferences and manipulations due to the structure of governance. Dr Sun and members of People’s Power Party believe that these Powers should be separated and given Independence before functional democracy could be institutionalized into the system of governance.

No mater what system of governance we have in our country, we should institutionalize the Separation of the Five Powers so that effective checks and balances could take place and thus, prevent ambitious politicians to go astray from the Good Politics of serving public interests and make decisions which will become disastrous to the country as well as the world at large.

We in People’s Power Party believe that this is important for an effective government. We also believe that this is one of the most important safeguards against corruption of power and disasters induced by politicians.

The next important concern most Hon delegates in this conference have in mind is economic development for their countries and rightfully so, because only with economic development, we could bring prosperity and happiness to our own people.

I would like to share our Singapore’s experience in economic development to everyone here. As I have mentioned, peace and stability are paramount prerequisite to our economic success. Apart from that, we have good neighbours like Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei which are extremely important for our success. Without the support and cooperation from these good neighbours, we would not be where we are today.

Singapore has benefited tremendously from the support and cooperation of our neighbours. Can you imagine how Singapore could even survive without the generous supply of water from Malaysia? We have collaboration with Indonesia in developing Batam into an extended industrial arm and our friendly terms with Brunei had provided us with the important oil supplies for our oil refineries.

As a small country scarce of natural resources, we depended heavily on the supply of natural resources from our neighbours for trading even before our country was founded in 1965.

Cooperation and collaboration of countries in emerging countries are even more important for Economic development in modern era. This is especially true when Globalization with rapid information flow and demand of efficient logistics and financing in trading has posed tremendous challenge to countries which are trying to catch up in economic development.

Singapore is fortunate to be one of the pioneer in developing an efficient logistics and financial hub for our region so to provide the necessary service to our neighbours to achieve mutual beneficial economic returns.

Similar development model could be replicated in other Asian countries but this could only be done through sincere cooperation and collaboration between neighbouring countries. For example, a great potential would emerge in Indo-China if Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos could work together to develop a common free trade zone which utilize the comparative advantages of each countries to amplify each other’s economic growth. Of course, my country, Singapore, would naturally be able to provide the necessary know how in developing industrial parks in the Free Trade Zone as well as port management expertise.

In short, my message to all my fellow Hon politicians here is simple. We all strive to seek peace, stability, economic development, prosperity and happiness to our own people. But this could and should only be achieved through mutually beneficial collaborations and cooperation instead of conflicting contests of interests.

In this new era of rapid Globalization which poses great challenges to all of us, we should instead think big and realize that our respective countries’ interests could only be achieved by having good neighbours which are willing to work together for greater benefits for all.

One Asia is a Great Vision of ICAPP and a starting point for all of us. We need to realize there is also an One Politics which all of us share in common, that is none other than to achieve stability, economic development thus prosperity and happiness to our people. Thank you.


Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
People’s Power Party of Singapore.

National Day Thought

Thought of the Day

Today is National Day but I hardly find any other reason to celebrate or be happy about except for our country surviving 51 years of independence with materialistic progress.

There wasn't any great cultural achievement (well definitely can't brag about spending $800K on a Rubbish Bin!)) nor political progress in Human Rights or Democratic development to celebrate, or any social development which we could be greatly proud of. The only thing we could make consolation is the relative economic progress we had, which is tainted by the embarrassing fact that our elderly has to work either as cardboard collectors or just work to death.

The political scene in Singapore has regressed after PAP got the "strong mandate" of 70% last year and it has started to persecute dissidents by administrative harassment. It has also introduced new laws to further seal the lips of dissidents by setting out WORLD's WORST draconian Speech crime law against "contempt of court" which also include those who speaks ill of its police force's "investigation" or "harassment".

This is a BIG regression in Democratic development for Singaporeans but it seems that as a Nation and People, most of the citizenry don't really care or give a damn about it. They are more interested in how much GST rebates and handouts PAP government is going to give out each year and that's about it.

Persecution of dissidents via Speech crime is increasing but we as a Nation of 51 years did not even squeak about it.

A Nation's growth should be balanced with progress in the Four Pillars of National Development: Social, Political, Cultural and Economics. After 51 years of existence, we had only achieved a relative progress in economics but lagging behind in all other three aspects... or rather regressing in some, what is there to be really HAPPY about?

On the other hand, after decades of practicing elitism rather than true meritocracy, we are witnessing a whole lot of incompetence setting in not only in our elitist civil service but also in our crony capitalism of GLCs. But accountability, which is a vital part of meritocracy, has been thrown out of the window. Incompetency was instead rewarded generously with millions of bonuses or just another million dollar job without a brink.

Even when numerous lives were killed or affected by such incompetency, it is only worth a few warning letters! But yet, promotions were still given later just because these are some scholar elites....

The decay and rot of elitism is eminent when the disguise of Meritocracy has been blown over. However, nobody really cares. That's the main problem and illness with our Nation.

I could not wish Happiness to a sick patient with great illness but only wish it speedy recovery.

Wishing Our Nation Speedy Recovery from the Spell of Rotting Elitism with the decay of Incompetency in this 51 National Day.

Speedy Recovery Singapore.

Goh Meng Seng

Politicians and Good Governance

We all know Good Governance cannot be taken for granted. Beside having a good, competent, clean, effective and efficient civil service, we also need politicians to become the political leaders who will lead and give the right directions for the civil service and country to move forward.

On the surface, we demand high morality, competent, knowledgeable, not only intelligent but WISE people with a certain level of empathy to be our political leaders. Even with such political leadership, we still need a system of institutions designed with a clear separation of powers so that REAL Democratic Checks and Balances could be effected.

One of the strong narrative of PAP which has ruled Singapore over 50 years, is its ability to find good, clean, competent people with high morality to become its MPs and Ministers. They claim to have high standards when it comes to selection of their candidates for each and every General Elections. They would immediately remove any MP or Minister once character flaws or other critical flaws were found in their slate of candidates.

In maintaining their "Whiter than White" narrative, they have removed two MPs, one of them who was the Speaker of Parliament, immediately after they were found to have extra-marital affairs.

However, morality is more than having indiscretion in their personal relationship. For example, would you consider people who abuse their workers or domestic helpers immoral? Would you consider a person using all means to get other people into trouble just because he doesn't like them, as immoral? Or someone who helps a big bad guy to bully others who are from the vulnerable groups, knowing that he is really the bad guy but did it for money's sake, as immoral?

Immoral issues may not be "illegal" but it just doesn't appear to be just or right to our own conscience. You can do things in all legitimate way but lacks the morality conscience.

In politics, it is simply not easy to find anyone with unrighteous mind, morally principled and yet, competent and effective. Thus, most of the time, political parties including PAP, may just compromise on the quality on the morality of the person they chose.

Lawyers are presumably the "Natural" candidates to become Politicians because the most important role of a politician is law-making. And lawyers are presumed to be people who have high values in upholding justice, social justice or otherwise, and should be highly principled when it come Human Rights and Civil Rights issues. They are normally seen to be fighters and defenders of Justice, Rule of Law, Human Rights and of course SOCIAL Justice. And lawyers are supposed to have the necessary oratory skills which politicians depended heavily upon to win votes.

Thus, in modern history of politics, there were lots of lawyers who become politicians, some become GREAT politicians like Gandhi. In Singapore's context, we also have numerous politicians both in PAP and opposition camp, who are lawyers. 

However, not ALL lawyers are "good" lawyers with conscience.Some would defend the crooks, rich and powerful for their wrong doings or even help these people to bully other people, just for the extremely high fees these people would pay them.

But we would expect lawyers who chose to become politicians to walk the righteous path of defending the weak, fighting the unjust and upholding the justice, including social justice, without fear nor favor.

It would be pretty challenging for lawyer-politician to strike that delicate balance between their profession and their political work. There are "political incorrect" cases which they should avoid even if they are monetarily rewarding.

Despite of the general cynicism of lawyers are most of the time "liars", they will have to be mindful that they do not lie or do anything which may be legitimate but morally wrong or against basic human conscience.

Avoiding controversial case is normally the first rule that lawyer-politician should adhere to. However we have witnessed PAP lawyer-MPs sometimes get themselves into controversial cases. It is true that by the spirit of justice, even crooks have their rights to legal representation. But sometimes it is the manner which the lawyer conduct their defence that would reflect badly for themselves. Furthermore, as a politician who is supposed to uphold social justice, helping the weak and vulnerable, it would NOT augur well if the lawyer-politician chose to defend crooks to avoid punishment from law for their bad deeds.

 My late brother David, had the chance to study law and become lawyer while he was young. But he declined the offer and forgo his opportunity to university education because he felt that if he became a lawyer, he might have do something against his own good conscience in future. Of course, he didn't choose to become politician either but that shows the kind of dilemma a morally upright person like my late brother may have about legal practice.

This should be even more so for those lawyer-politician because you cannot promise Good Governance when you are sly, dirty and use unethical methods to help crooks to get away from justice or simply bully others. The inherent contradictions are just too glaring to ignore.

So far, I have not heard or seen PAP setting up a Code of Conscience and Moral Conduct to its MPs which may link to their professional jobs outside politics. And after witnessing some of the things they do in their professional life, it makes me wonder how "Good Governance" could be achieved by PAP with the bunch of people it has.



Goh Meng Seng

PPP Press Statement: Defective Trains from China – More than what meets the eyes.

Defective Trains from China – More than what meets the eyes.

People’s Power Party is shocked to read all the various reports that have come in with regards to the 26 defective trains out of 35 trains which SMRT and LTA have purchased from the consortium comprised of Japanese company Kawasaki Heavy Industries Rolling Stock Company and CSR Sifang Locomotive & Rolling Stock Company Ltd.

We demand answers for the following concerns which involved public safety and interest from LTA and SMRT:

1)      According to the report by Hong Kong Factwire, SMRT has suspected that the massive breakdown in December 2011 was caused by these new trains delivered from China. That was the reason why progressive payment from SMRT was slowed down and the subcontractors suffered cashflow problem. It was also said that SMRT has reduced the frequency of the schedule of these new trains from China after that incident in December 2011. We demand a response from SMRT on the validity of this report and if so, why it was not raised in the committee of inquiry which was held to find out the root cause of the breakdown then?

2)      LTA has admitted that structural cracks have been found in these new trains since 2013. We demand an explanation from LTA and SMRT why would they continue to order more trains from the consortium in 2014 and subsequently in 2015, amounting to a total of over 100 trains, after they have found an unusually high defective rate of 74% out of the first batch of 35?

3)      According to records of court proceeding launched in China with regards to the labour dispute between CSR Sifang and its former employee in 2013, the former employee has stated in the affidavit that CSR Sifang has deliberately fabricated test data results and reports in 2010. Was SMRT and LTA aware of such accusations? Did SMRT and LTA send their own engineers or independent Quality Control personnel to perform or audit the various tests? Did SMRT and LTA carry out any due diligence on quality checks before these trains were shipped to Singapore?

4)      It was also reported that these trains offered by the Kawasaki – Sifang consortium was not of the lowest bid. The lowest bid was offered by a Korean company. The pertinent question is why would SMRT and LTA chose to buy from the Kawasaki Sifang consortium which was more expensive but provided sub-standard quality products? Did SMRT and LTA do any due diligence on their quality test statistics before deciding to buy from this consortium? 

5)      74% defective rate is totally unacceptable by any standards. Did SMRT and LTA punish the supplier and consortium by any means? Was there any performance bond submitted by the Consortium in the first place?

6)      In view of the fact that there are several doubts and accusation of fabrication of vital quality test results with higher bidding price coupled with poor quality products, PPP urge the Corruption Practice Investigation Bureau to start a thorough investigation into the procurement process as this involved hundreds of million dollars of public money. 

7)      Concurrently, an independent Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry consisting of opposition MPs and external independent experts should be convened to investigate the SMRT and LTA should be stopped from procuring any trains from this Consortium before the findings of the COI has completed. Ministry of Transport and LTA have opined that the cracks found are not “safety critical”. However, we find their assertion lacks credibility and we should no longer believe in PAP government’s “ownself check ownself” model of governance. The COI should determine whether there is any negligence or dereliction of duties by the various parties in the procurement process and whether public safety has been compromised by these defective trains. 

8)      Last but not least, as a public listed company, SMRT should be censured for trying to hide such vital information of the defective trains from the general public. Transparency and accountability are two key important factors in upholding public confidence in a company like SMRT which is providing vital public transportation service. It is totally unacceptable for institutions like Singapore General Hospital or SMRT which provides critical vital public services to continue to operate in such an opaque and irresponsible manner. We demand accountability from the respective leadership for such mismanagement of public services.

Goh Meng Seng

Secretary General

For CEC

PPP Press Statement: Defective Trains from China – More than what meets the eyes.

Defective Trains from China – More than what meets the eyes.

People’s Power Party is shocked to read all the various reports that have come in with regards to the 26 defective trains out of 35 trains which SMRT and LTA have purchased from the consortium comprised of Japanese company Kawasaki Heavy Industries Rolling Stock Company and CSR Sifang Locomotive & Rolling Stock Company Ltd.

We demand answers for the following concerns which involved public safety and interest from LTA and SMRT:

1)      According to the report by Hong Kong Factwire, SMRT has suspected that the massive breakdown in December 2011 was caused by these new trains delivered from China. That was the reason why progressive payment from SMRT was slowed down and the subcontractors suffered cashflow problem. It was also said that SMRT has reduce the frequency of the schedule of these new trains from China after that incident in December 2011. We demand a response from SMRT on the validity of this report and if so, why it was not raised in the committee of inquiry which was held to find out the root cause of the breakdown then?

2)      LTA has admitted that structural cracks have been found in these new trains since 2013. We demand an explanation from LTA and SMRT why would they continue to order more trains from the consortium in 2014 and subsequently in 2015, amounting to a total of over 100 trains, after they have found an unusually high defective rate of 74% out of the first batch of 35?

3)      According to records of court proceeding launched in China with regards to the labour dispute between CSR Sifang in 2013, the former employee has stated in the affidavit that CSR Sifang has deliberately fabricated test data results and reports in 2010. Was SMRT and LTA aware of such accusations? Did SMRT and LTA send their own engineers or independent Quality Control personnel to perform or audit the various tests? Did SMRT and LTA carry out any due diligence on quality checks before these trains were shipped to Singapore?

4)      It was also reported that these trains offered by the Kawasaki – Sifang consortium was not of the lowest bid. The lowest bid was offered by a Korean company. The pertinent question is why would SMRT and LTA chose to buy from the Kawasaki Sifang consortium which was more expensive but provided sub-standard quality products? Did SMRT and LTA do any due diligence on their quality test statistics before deciding to buy from this consortium? 

5)      74% defective rate is totally unacceptable by any standards. Did SMRT and LTA punish the supplier and consortium by any means? Was there any performance bond submitted by the Consortium in the first place?

6)      In view of the fact that there are several doubts and accusation of fabrication of vital quality test results with higher bidding price coupled with poor quality products, PPP urge the Corruption Practice Investigation Bureau to start a thorough investigation into the procurement process as this involved hundreds of million dollars of public money. 

7)      Concurrently, an independent Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry consisting of opposition MPs and external independent experts should be convened to investigate the SMRT and LTA should be stopped from procuring any trains from this Consortium before the findings of the COI has completed. Ministry of Transport and LTA have opined that the cracks found are not “safety critical”. However, we find their assertion lacks credibility and we should no longer believe in PAP government’s “ownself check ownself” model of governance. The COI should determine whether there is any negligence or dereliction of duties by the various parties in the procurement process and whether public safety has been compromised by these defective trains. 

8)      Last but not least, as a public listed company, SMRT should be censured for trying to hide such vital information of the defective trains from the general public. Transparency and accountability are two key important factors in upholding public confidence in a company like SMRT which is providing vital public transportation service. It is totally unacceptable for institutions like Singapore General Hospital or SMRT which provides critical vital public services to continue to operate in such an opaque and irresponsible manner. We demand accountability from the respective leadership for such mismanagement of public services.

Goh Meng Seng

Secretary General

For CEC

PPP Press Statement: Defective Trains from China – More than what meets the eyes.

Defective Trains from China – More than what meets the eyes.

People’s Power Party is shocked to read all the various reports that have come in with regards to the 26 defective trains out of 35 trains which SMRT and LTA have purchased from the consortium comprised of Japanese company Kawasaki Heavy Industries Rolling Stock Company and CSR Sifang Locomotive & Rolling Stock Company Ltd.

We demand answers for the following concerns which involved public safety and interest from LTA and SMRT:

1)      According to the report by Hong Kong Factwire, SMRT has suspected that the massive breakdown in December 2011 was caused by these new trains delivered from China. That was the reason why progressive payment from SMRT was slowed down and the subcontractors suffered cashflow problem. It was also said that SMRT has reduce the frequency of the schedule of these new trains from China after that incident in December 2011. We demand a response from SMRT on the validity of this report and if so, why it was not raised in the committee of inquiry which was held to find out the root cause of the breakdown then?

2)      LTA has admitted that structural cracks have been found in these new trains since 2013. We demand an explanation from LTA and SMRT why would they continue to order more trains from the consortium in 2014 and subsequently in 2015, amounting to a total of over 100 trains, after they have found an unusually high defective rate of 74% out of the first batch of 35?

3)      According to records of court proceeding launched in China with regards to the labour dispute between CSR Sifang in 2013, the former employee has stated in the affidavit that CSR Sifang has deliberately fabricated test data results and reports in 2010. Was SMRT and LTA aware of such accusations? Did SMRT and LTA send their own engineers or independent Quality Control personnel to perform or audit the various tests? Did SMRT and LTA carry out any due diligence on quality checks before these trains were shipped to Singapore?

4)      It was also reported that these trains offered by the Kawasaki – Sifang consortium was not of the lowest bid. The lowest bid was offered by a Korean company. The pertinent question is why would SMRT and LTA chose to buy from the Kawasaki Sifang consortium which was more expensive but provided sub-standard quality products? Did SMRT and LTA do any due diligence on their quality test statistics before deciding to buy from this consortium? 

5)      74% defective rate is totally unacceptable by any standards. Did SMRT and LTA punish the supplier and consortium by any means? Was there any performance bond submitted by the Consortium in the first place?

6)      In view of the fact that there are several doubts and accusation of fabrication of vital quality test results with higher bidding price coupled with poor quality products, PPP urge the Corruption Practice Investigation Bureau to start a thorough investigation into the procurement process as this involved hundreds of million dollars of public money. 

7)      Concurrently, an independent Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry consisting of opposition MPs and external independent experts should be convened to investigate the SMRT and LTA should be stopped from procuring any trains from this Consortium before the findings of the COI has completed. Ministry of Transport and LTA have opined that the cracks found are not “safety critical”. However, we find their assertion lacks credibility and we should no longer believe in PAP government’s “ownself check ownself” model of governance. The COI should determine whether there is any negligence or dereliction of duties by the various parties in the procurement process and whether public safety has been compromised by these defective trains. 

8)      Last but not least, as a public listed company, SMRT should be censured for trying to hide such vital information of the defective trains from the general public. Transparency and accountability are two key important factors in upholding public confidence in a company like SMRT which is providing vital public transportation service. It is totally unacceptable for institutions like Singapore General Hospital or SMRT which provides critical vital public services to continue to operate in such an opaque and irresponsible manner. We demand accountability from the respective leadership for such mismanagement of public services.

Goh Meng Seng

Secretary General

For CEC

Ineffective MRT Sound Barriers

In land scarce cities like Singapore and Hong Kong, it is inevitable that we will have to build our rail system in extremely close proximity to our housing estates or flats.

It is important that we take a serious view of the noise pollution of the subway/MRT that will cause health problem in the long term.

In 2011 GE, while my team was contesting in Tampines, we have raised the issue of health hazard due to the close proximity of the MRT rail built next to the various HDB flats, especially those in Tampines.

After the GE, SMRT started their so call "noise barrier" experiment but is it effective? Is it the right kinds of Sound barriers needed to reduce the noise from the track sufficiently?

I present my photo essay here on the inadequacy of MRT's "noise barriers"

I have put up an example of how Hong Kong MTR design their Sound barrier as compared to Singapore SMRT.

This photo shows the MTR system in Hong Kong. Arrow A points to the Covered Sound Barrier which it has built when the track is built close to the flat.

Arrow B is the strain station which is build underneath the housing estate, noise completely blocked from above.

This is the most effective Sound barrier.

This is the Sound Barrier built by Singapore SMRT. Observe how close the track is built next to the HDB flat. But the sound barrier is really pathetic.

First, unlike the HK sound barrier, it did not cover the whole track from top to bottom. Secondly, it is not even high enough to be effective! This is because sound will bouce off from the train and it will bounce off towards the flat.

At the very least, the Sound Barrier has to be as high as the train itself! It is a sloppy ineffective design.

 

Look at the whole straetch of rail sitting next to the flats but no Sound Barriers built.

It is a common sight that MRT tracks cut through HDB estates with BOTH sides populated with HDB flats.

We do not know how many such Sound Barriers have been built as they have promised.MRT has just quietly stop mentioning about their ineffective Sound Barrier experiment altogether!

It is surprisng that even those who live in private condominiums suffered the same fate but yet, they didn't make noise or demand for proper Sound Barriers to be built!

The issue of building effective Sound Barriers to MRT tracks as well as Expressway is NOT new. I have raised it several times in this blog since 2004.

Goh Meng Seng

Best Wishes to Finance Minister Mr. Heng Swee Kiat

When my brother passed away during the 2011 GE, Mr Heng Swee Kiat paid a visit during his wake while we were contesting against each other. It was a good gesture.

We may stand on the different sides of the political field but our contest is for the future of Singapore. Nothing personal.

Best Wishes to Mr. Heng. I hope he could overcome his current medical conditions and has a speedy recovery.

Goh Meng Seng

The Critical 10%

The Critical 10%

Well, it has been an interesting day with the expected backlash pouring out. While many opposition supporters and members always cry foul about how the Main Stream Media distorted opposition members' messages by putting up sensational headlines, it seems that many opposition supporters and online media are also 100% capable of doing so as well. ;)

Many anxious friends have expressed concerns to me privately as well as many have expressed quiet support in private messages. But that's the part and parcel of opposition politics.

Apart from all these chest banging and angry shouting, very few actually bother about the rationale behind my article. Maybe I am unable to express clearly and I apologize for that.

Almost none of the hardcore opposition members have asked the intelligent question on why 40% is so important? But definitely they have shown one united trait of labeling people like me who didn't sing their tune as "PAP mole". Well, again, I guess they must have learned from PAP in doing fast labeling work. ;)

I have read Ravi Philemon write up and also some others who try to justify how good SDP DR Chee is by making comparison between the "vote swing percentage" and putting up statistics as such. Vote swing percentage comparison was made between Punggol East By-elections and Bukit Batok By-elections and they declare BBBE is as good as PEBE!

Statistics has to be used very carefully with the context of data. Making such comparison is assuming that the difficulties of converting or swinging the votes at different levels are the same. This is a flawed assumption.

Let me put across this point. Do you think a candidate is great if he is able to swing from 12% votes to 30%? A whopping 18% swing. Is this 18% swing comparable to the 18% swing from 40% to 58%?

Of course not. The context of the data is that the hardcore opposition votes constitute about 30%. The next 10% from 30% to 40% are the opposition sympathizers. The next CRITICAL 10% from 40% to 50% are the neutrals.

To swing from 12% to 30% is nothing compared to a swing of 10% from 30% to 40%! And to swing from 40% to 50% is the MOST difficult because as we get nearer to the 50% point, the voters are neutrals who are white leaning.

Thus we cannot compare the swing of BBBE from 26% to 39% as the same of PEBE swing of 41% to 54%. The level of difficulty is totally different.

The CRITICAL 10%, which is from 40% to 50%, are the most difficult group of voters for opposition to swing and win over. Dr Chee has never crossed 40% and it shows that he has been rejected by this Critical 10% of neutrals consistently.

It may not be entirely his fault as this could be due to the successful PAP smearing but the cruel reality is, he just couldn't get pass that barrier for all his 25 years of opposition political engagement.

To understand why, we must look at how PAP's smearing convinced this group of voters. Don't pass judgement on whether they are right or wrong but these are the messages that the Critical 10% accepted. PAP has portrayed Chee as untrustworthy, lack sincerity and credibility. The Chiam baggage is the biggest convincing factor. Whether we like it or not, the Critical 10% has believed in these messages and voted against Chee.

Thus, if Chee continued in what he is doing right now, without getting rid of the Chiam baggage and its impact, there is no way Chee could get higher votes or win any elections.

Listen to this Critical 10% who are mostly silent. No matter how the 39% of opposition supporters protest, shout, angry or mock at the whole thing, the fact still remains, without the endorsement of this Critical 10%, we will always be the disgruntled and dismay 39%.

If you read my earlier article carefully, I said Chee should take a back seat. Contrary to many people who jump at first sight of what I have written, I fell short of asking Chee to quit politics altogether. He could put more energy in earning and giving his family a better life but at the same time, support whoever the new leadership to bring SDP to greater heights.

In fact, if he is willing to do that, he may just dispel all those PAP smearing about him being power crazy, insincere whatsoever etc. If he chose to contest again next GE, not as the SG of SDP but as a reformed and self redeemed politician under SDP banner, he might cross that 40% or even move towards a victory.

The best way to win over the Critical 10% is to listen to what PAP has been trying to tell them. Hardcore opposition supporters may sneer at these messages but we must understand that this has always been PAP's success formula in convincing that Critical 10%. Don't pass judgement too quickly and understand why the Critical 10% believe in PAP's messages.

If SDP DR Chee and all of us only listen to the ranting and shouting of hardcore opposition supporters, we will lose sight of what really matters to our political battle, the Critical 10%. These are part of the so call "Silent Majority".

Goh Meng Seng

P.S.

I have enough of the attacks by the "MOB" but really, when they start to rant without reasoning, I ask myself do they really understand opposition politics is just not about them. The cult like behavior of these people sometimes makes me wonder whether our education system has failed so badly. Or we are just too far off from the proper development of Democracy. It is really something for me to ponder about.

Reflections on Bukit Batok By Elections

Reflections on Bukit Batok By Elections

Right from the start, the deal looks just too good to be true. Nobody has talked about David Ong's scandalous affairs but PAP imploded the issue on their own accord.

Curiously, Bukit Batok was just carved out from Jurong GRC during last GE2015. Then, PAP announced quickly that it will be sending an Indian candidate who had contested in Aljunied GRC to become its candidate for this BE.

It is just ALL TOO PERFECT and a GOOD deal for any aspiring opposition politician. Dream conditions BEST ever to happen in Singapore's context.

A By-Elections due to PAP scandal, opponent is a minority candidate in a dominantly Conservative Chinese ground.

My first instinct is, this is just too good to be true. PAP isn't that generous and its track record has shown that it is a petty and vindictive political party. Thus, the only logical deduction or conclusion is that, this must be a trap bait.

Well, whatever it is, we decided NOT to have multi-corner fight as an opposition. But under such suspicious circumstances, I also believe that we shall practice caution.

I checked on the demography of BB and found that it has an exceptionally high proportion of Indian voters. (It has 11% Indian voters.)  It is no wonder PAP is willing to field an Indian candidate. Well, isn't this ironic for PAP to accuse SDP of practicing "Racial politics"?

It would be PERFECT if SDP has sent Prof Paul Tambaya as its candidate because he will be effective in contesting the same group of voters against Murali.

Bukit Batok had a love hate relationship with SDP. It used to support SDP strongly back in the late 1988 and 1991 GEs when SDP was under the leadership of Chiam. However, it is also precisely due to this linkage to SDP, it has turned against SDP when Chiam left SDP under ugly circumstances/parting.

Thus my initial assessment is that Dr Chee is not exactly the right candidate to contest in BB due to this past baggage. It would be great if Prof Paul is fielded by SDP instead and he would surely have a fighting chance to win when he is short of such past political baggage. This was the basis of my first statement on this By-elections. If Paul is to contest, I will personally campaign on the ground for him because there would really be fighting chance to win.

But SDP has decided to field Chee. With due respect, I would think that this is really a strategic mistake. SDP and Chee is basically "showing hand" in this BE, without a proper assessment of the chances of winning.

True enough, the past baggage of Chiam came back to bite Chee. Whether we like it or not, this dagger is sharp and went deep down right into Chee's heart.

To be fair, SDP has a fantastic and wonderful team of back room operation team. It has run the logistics and media machinery very well. This is the real strength of SDP. Even WP political machinery cannot match SDP's backroom ops.

However, the reality is that Chee's leadership has only a track record of under 40% for the past two decades. SDP has never crossed the 40% barrier ever since Chee took over the leadership. (It is important to strike above 40% because it will keep PAP at their toes as this will make them vulnerable in these seats)

While many people would encourage Chee and SDP, citing this as the Best result Chee has achieved under harsh circumstances, but the hard truth and cruel reality is that JBJ has faced even more difficult and harsh smearing by PAP and its controlled media in the past but he has proven himself to be the true fighter who could bring WP to cross 40% and even won seats.

Whether we like it or not, whether we think it is FAIR to Chee or not, PAP has successfully decimated Chee's political credibility so much so that it actually affects the whole SDP.

And sometimes, I feel that it is really Chee's own doing in which he has given more than enough ammunition to PAP and its media to smear him.

For example, just for this BBBE, Chee has made quite a number of strategic erros.

1) The mismanagement of the Chiam meeting and saga is pretty glaring. While there will always be closed door negotiation but if it is agreed that this meeting should not be publicized or made known to the press, then SDP should keep to that promise. Furthermore, I hate to say this, although I dislike what Lina Chiam has done to Chee during this BE, but Chee must realize that he needs Chiam more than Chiam need him. Chiam is basically the KEY to his FUTURE political success and reconciliation should be achieved at all cost. Never mind on who is right or wrong in the past or present, but public Perception is everything in politics.

For SDP to come up with such conditions for Chiam, that is really a non starter. If there is no sincerity to strike a deal, then there should not be a meeting in the first place. The worse part is, when you come up with such unacceptable proposal but later, seen to milk on the perception that there is reconciliation process, then it is no wonder Lina Chiam is unhappy. She most probably feel that she has been taken for a ride or made use by SDP!

Thus, whatever excuses SDP come up with, any person with a reasonable mind would regard SDP in an extremely bad light, though we may feel that Lina Chiam is just too much to throw such a big dagger at Chee right at such critical moment of BBBE.

2) The focus on Town Council management has been overdone. The over promise of making Bukit Batok as the BEST Town actually backfired on Chee's credibility. No sound mind would believe in that promise basically because we know that to achieve that Best Town promise, you need funding and millions of it. Such funding is controlled by PAP via PA.. People's Association's CCC which will decide whether funding will be given to ANY upgrading projects proposed by any TC.

3) Having said that, swing voters know pretty well that there will be offset or trade off if they were to vote for opposition. Opposition must give them a solid reason for them to vote for them, making compromise or sacrifices on their HDB upgrading. Thus, the focus is about how good you will be as a REAL Check and Balance force in parliament. How good you will be as an MP to scrutinize PAP's policies in parliament. Chee might have that ability backed by his set of policy papers but yet, sorry to say that, he screwed it up when he REPEATED the mistake on MOM's statistics. If you have shown that you cannot digest, grasp or understand simple statistics as such, would the educated swing voters believe that you could debate and scrutinize PAP's policies in parliament properly? Some may believe that but most level headed person would not believe that.

I have tried my best in my own little ways to help SDP during the BE and I have witnessed Chee's family going all out to support him. However, when the dust settles, I feel extremely bad for Chee and his family. His wife and children have suffered much when he was fighting this war with no sign of victory around. When I read commentaries congratulating him and urging him on to continue fighting, I feel angry as well as sad. These people have unknowingly given Chee false hope.

We have to come to terms that Chee isn't going to go anywhere further than the current result due to many reasons and factors. Whether we like it or not, the Chiam baggage will always be on his shoulder if he didn't want to clear it off with sincerity.

He has given his best under the best circumstances any past and contemporary opposition politicians could dream of but yet, unable to cross that 40% barrier. No matter how we look at it objectively and rationality, it could only mean one thing, whether we like it or not, he has been tainted beyond hope. He is just unelectable.

This is this cruel but honest view I have with regard to Chee. As I have said, SDP has a fantastic support team behind but as long as Chee is leading SDP, all their effort may just come to nothing.

I guess for the sake of Chee's family, it is time for him to take a back seat and allow others to take SDP to greater heights. 5 years is a lot of time for a human being, 20 years of his prime has been spent in this opposition fight. It would be too cruel to ask him to continue to fight a destined lost war without much concerns of the sacrifices made by his family members.

Goh Meng Seng

Afternote:

The Independent has put up my article and there were some unhappy comments from the hardcore opposition supporters. I have replied as follows:

I thank you for all your comments here. I just need to make some simple clarifications.

Many people brag about the "high swing" SDP Dr Chee got from this BBBE. This is the common mistake people made in statistical analysis. Statistics must be analysed along with the context of the data.

For example, would you cry victory when someone improve from 12% to 30% in a SMC fight? Nope. Why?

We always say first 30% of opposition votes are the hardcore votes. It is a no brainer that one could increase easily from 12% to 30% under normal circumstances.

30% to 40% are the opposition sympathizers' votes. Need a bit of persuasion but still manageable.

But the Key critical 10% comes form 40% to 50% which are mainly the votes from the Neutrals. That's where we need a lot more persuasion to win over their votes.

Thus, it is totally irrelevant to compare the vote swing of BBBE from 26% to 39% to the vote swing achieved in PEBE which is from 41% to 55%. The core group of voters converted are of totally different nature with different levels of difficulty.

My whole point is simple. It may be a "good result" or even "best result" from Chee BUT let's face it, it was achieved under the most perfect situation you can find in Singapore's political context. It could only mean that Chee has PEAKED.

Throughout all his 20 plus years of leadership, SDP has never crossed 40%, never able to convince the neutrals. That's the harsh reality.

To urge him to carry on, giving him false hope and false prophecy, you will be making him and his family to make more sacrifices for absolutely nothing in sight.

Goh Meng Seng

P.S. Don't ask who I am as you know who I am. I may not be perceived as great as Dr Chee but I have crossed the 40% twice and led a party to cross 40% for two GRCs and one SMC. Yes, I am not that great but I am short of that critical baggage that will prevent me from convincing the Neturals.