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