Singapore Alternatives

Crisis Management Lessons For Politicians

2012-01-27T17:44:00.002+08:00

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

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

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

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 It is an outdated PR method (ostrich mentality) which could only apply with total monopoly of information flow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goh Meng Seng

Stand by me

2012-01-16T01:28:00.001+08:00

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

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

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

部长薪金调整 – 换汤不换药的政治秀

2012-01-05T21:04:00.000+08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

吴明盛

PAP MP Seng Han Thong should do better

2011-12-24T21:33:00.160+08:00

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

You can watch the whole BlogTV show here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch the video again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Misquoting SMRT spokesman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goh Meng Seng

双语教育的迷思

2011-12-12T17:03:00.001+08:00

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

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

双语教育的迷思

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

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

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

李光耀的双语政策是建立在两个基本考量：

（一）政治整合
（二）经济发展策略

政治整合

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

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

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

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

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

经济发展策略

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

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

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

失败的双语政策

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

吴明盛

Journey Forward

2011-11-24T11:50:00.000+08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goh Meng Seng

Software of Open Society - Learning from HK

2011-10-30T20:07:00.005+08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goh Meng Seng

Reply from ICA

2011-10-29T15:31:00.002+08:00

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

I have written the following reply to ICA:

Dear Mr. Wee,

Thank you for your reply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goh Meng Seng

ICA Feedback/526564

Dear Mr Goh,

Please refer to your enquiry on 5 Sep 2011.

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

3 Thank you.

Yours Sincerely,

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

香港復建居屋 – 從住屋和土地策略性資源說起

2011-10-05T13:46:00.001+08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

吳明盛

Queries to Singapore Immigration & Checkpoint Authority (ICA)

2011-09-05T22:08:00.005+08:00

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

I have a few questions to ask:

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

Thank you.

Best Regards,

Goh Meng Seng

After note:

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

Please read the Constitution properly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is assuming that they were born in America.

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

Tan Kin Lian Speech at Rally

2011-08-25T01:46:00.001+08:00

Ivy Singh's Speech at TKL Rally

2011-08-25T01:45:00.002+08:00

Tan Kin Lian's Daughter speaking at Rally

2011-08-25T01:32:00.000+08:00

Rally Speech in Support of Tan Kin Lian (English)

2011-08-25T01:28:00.001+08:00

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

Rally Speech in Support of Tan Kin Lian (Chinese)

2011-08-25T00:13:00.005+08:00

大家晚上好！

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

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

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

先谈谈陈庆炎博士吧。有三个最重要的理由不能选他：

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

吴明盛

Tan Kin Lian for Presidency

2011-07-09T11:12:00.003+08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goh Meng Seng

Political Sabbatical

2011-06-26T09:50:00.002+08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What will I be doing during this Political Sabbatical period?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goh Meng Seng

Elected Presidency - Why Tan Kin Lian?

2011-06-25T10:00:00.000+08:00

In my previous post, I have stated PAP's intentions when they first set up the Elected Presidency system. I have also stated that back in 2008, I decided to turn the table around and try to beat PAP at their own game and rules. That is why I approached Mr. Tan Kin Lian.

But why Tan Kin Lian?

I have known Kin Lian through his writing to the ST Forum as well as his blog. Though I do not agree 100% with what he has said (eg. his stand on Casino) but through his writing, he is always positive about things, even when he disagreed with certain policies or views. He would always try to suggest alternative solutions etc. He also appears to be quite FAIR in his comments and approaches.

Most importantly, I get to know Kin Lian much better through a mutual friend. An unassuming person who judge people on their performance and abilities, not merely on their education certificates and family background. These were just some of the information I gathered before I met him.

I finally met him over a drink to talk about the need to have a truly independent minded Elected President so that the separation of powers coupled with checks and balances within our political system could be enhanced. He agreed in principle of such needs but he said he wasn't ready to consider candidacy for Elected President. However, he put up his views on how PAP has changed over time and the very core values (eg. Public Service) which are so valuable have been eroded.

Even thugh he wasn't ready to stand as candidate, but he mentioned that if he ever stand and become President one day, he will donate off a big portion of the salary of the President to charity. This is because he feels that the salary of the President is just too excessive as this is basically Public Service. Although I may not have "achieved" my initial aim but I am glad to have met Kin Lian and have a friend like him.

As an opposition member, it is naturally for me to hold certain views which will have a tendency of bias against PAP. Most of the time, Kin Lian is able to balance it up with his Fair deliberations. I have learned the value of Fairness through Kin Lian in my various subsequent meetings with him.

When the Minibond saga exploded, many people wrote to Kin Lian to complain about how the structured financial products have been sold to them. Subsequently, Kin Lian decided to hold protest rallies at Hong Lim Park to help Minibond victims to gain access to Fidrac. He has also held meetings and discussions with lawyers to explore various legal options.

Kin Lian subsequently found out that there were quite a large number of victims who could only understand Chinese. After failing to secure help from his PAP friends, he finally approached me. That is how I get myself involved in the whole Minibond saga.

After much research into the various financial structured products, we are convinced that there is no way layman on the streets could understand these products well before committing their investment. We also believe that the banks and financial institutions should not put up these products for retail banking and MAS should not have approved such move. Massive mis-selling of such products is possible because we believe that even those promoters at the front counters did not really understand Minibonds fully. All signs of mis-representation and mis-selling were all there but most Minibond victims did not get a Fair treatment and Justice.

Kin Lian has tried his very best to uphold his values of Fairness by getting involved in the Minibond Saga. It proved to be a long drawn battle which died off because Fair Justice cannot be obtained within our system without committing hefty cost. Unlike Hong Kong whereby the pressure put up by the opposition parties in their Legislative Council has paid off and most investors were able to recover more than 70% or even 90% of their losses. In Singapore, those who are successful in recovering substantial part of their investment are very limited.

By then, I was told Kin Lian has resigned from PAP. Kin Lian, in return for my help in the Minibond Saga, promised to speak on my Rally Stage if I stood for elections. He kept his promise in GE2011.

I have written this lengthy essay on how I meet Mr Tan Kin Lian and what happens in between just to show readers why Tan Kin Lian is a person who can be trusted to perform the critical role of Elected President. He has not only spoken dearly about the core values which he believes in but when the need arises, he will stand up to the challenge to uphold his values of Fairness and Public Service. His courage to stand up for justice to the Minibond victims and even risk clashing with his ex-PAP colleague, Mr. Goh Chok Tong who was then the Chairman of MAS (Kin Lian has served as his branch secretary before) is commendable.

We need a President with the MORAL Courage to stand up for Justice, Fairness and the welfare of the people. This Moral Courage must be huge enough to overcome fear and even barriers of personal relationships. By standing to lead and help the Minibond victims in time of needs and desperation, Kin Lian has demonstrated the kind of public spirit needed in a caring President.

To put it simply, NONE of the MPs in parliament have stepped forward to help the Minibond victims. Even though some of the town councils which were run by PAP MPs were hit by Minibond and lost millions, they just kept quiet and mention the losses in such a "matter of fact" way that gave people the impression that it is just a SMALL MATTER to lose just that millions.

Some people have viewed all his doings in contempt. They would say he did all these because he was planning to run for President all along. As one of the persons who have tried to persuade Kin Lian to run for Presidency, I must categorically refute such unfounded accusations and insinuations. He just tried his best to help out when he saw the unfairness Minibond victims faced.

He wasn't even thinking of running for General Election as opposition candidate, least Presidency. The only reason why he spoke at my Tampines Rally to campaign for me is basically to fulfill his promise made earlier on. I initiated it by calling him up to request his presence and support.

Kin Lian may be strongly opinionated at times but he is prepared to change his views if he is being convinced otherwise. The prime example is the views he held against Dr Chee Soon Juan. Initially, he has bad impression of Dr Chee just like most Singaporeans. But after having close contacts and observing Dr Chee for sometime, he realizes that Dr Chee isn't that "evil person" that the PAP and Press made out of him. He has since openly made an apology to Dr. Chee for his past views.

Having said all these, Kin Lian is definitely not a Saint. He will have some shortcomings just like anybody else. But most importantly, in my opinion, after all the contacts I have made with him, I feel that he has the necessary qualities to be a good and effective President in performing the role of safeguarding our reserves. Someone who is fair minded but yet has the moral courage to stand up against all odds to ask the necessary and difficult questions. Up to the point of risking his own personal friendship with his ex-PAP colleagues, in safeguarding the interests of the People and the Nation.

Thus, my personal support of Mr. Tan Kin Lian in this Presidential Election.

Goh Meng Seng

Elected Presidency - What Kind of President?

2011-06-21T11:16:00.000+08:00

By now, most people who follow the news of the pending Presidential election closely would know my support for Mr. Tan Kin Lian to contest for Presidency.

My endorsement of Mr. Tan Kin Lian as President comes a long way but before I explain why I support Kin Lian, let me address some of the views which have been made by various people, including past and present Ministers on the role of the Elected Presidency.

The gist of the messages from the PAP ministers is that the Elected President has limited power and His Excellency could only act as the custodian of the reserves with some limited veto power. He cannot comment or influence the investment directions of any reserves, may not even question the accountability of various people and organizations who may make huge losses of the reserves they are in charge of. His role is only restricted to preventing the government of the day to spend the reserves when he deems fit.

One could easily see the biggest irony here. The President does not have the power to direct investment decisions nor extract accountability from those who are appointed to invest the reserves, when they make huge losses to the reserves. However, he has the power to prevent ELECTED GOVERNMENT of the day from spending the reserves!

As for the appointment of key appointment holders, the President must appoint key appointment holders ACCORDING to the advice of the Cabinet and the Presidential Council whose members are basically, appointed by the Cabinet. Interestingly, the PAP leaders have said several times that if there is a "rogue government" voted in, presumably not PAP, the President could help to prevent it from making various key appointment so to preserve the integrity of the system. This is in fact a contradictory motive and power distribution.

Basically it means, if PAP is in power, the President will have to listen to it and his power will be curbed. But the PAP has also planned for the day when it loses power, then it could make use of the President to curb the power of the "rogue government" or even cripples it totally. Why? This is because the President will be there to protect the PAP appointed individuals on the key positions from being removed by this "rogue government". Yes, this includes the Chairman of GIC.

This is the kind of system PAP has designed for Singapore; or rather, for its own self interests. PAP leaders have once said, if opposition is to form the government consecutively for two terms, Singapore will be finished. Actually what they meant was that for the first term, PAP could still try to cripple the rouge government but by the second term, this rogue government would have people who will be qualified to be President and the system would actually deprive PAP from making a come back to be the ruling party again. It is PAP which is going to be finished, to be exact.

This is really a kind of irony, really. It is just like the GRC system. It will be very advantageous to PAP as long as no opposition party is good enough to win any GRC. But once a GRC is lost, it will become the biggest nightmare to PAP's hegemony of power or it might become the beginning of the end of PAP's ruling status.

Similarly, the Elected Presidency will only be good as long as no "non-establishment" individual could win it. They may not be the cute little puppet that PAP wants him to be. PAP thought that as long it is in power, this will not happen. But the late President Ong Teng Cheong has proven to be too inconvenient for it to handle.

The incoherence of the Elected President system arises because of the conflicting aims of PAP's intention under different scenarios and situations. i.e. they just want to have the cake and eat it. By right, if the Elected President has so limited power, PAP should not be too concerned about losing the post to someone whom it may not endorse. However, PAP cannot disarm the power of the Elected President totally because it may end up compromising the original idea of using it as a means to cripple the rogue government. It is really a Catch 22 situation. Thus the best outcome is to continue to make sure that only the people PAP endorse will become the President.

Logically, as an opposition member, I should be opposing this Elected Presidency system. Any rules or system designed with the intention of protecting PAP's interests will have to be opposed.

However, I have second thought back in 2008. I would want to beat PAP at their own games with their own rules. I would rather to take this opportunity to turn this around so that some real checks and balances could start right now, via the Elected President.

PAP wanted a President who is preferably performing mostly ceremonial roles and not exercising any real influence or power of checks and balances on them. i.e. A President who will just sit there and not say anything which could embarrass the PAP. The President may have no real executive powers, but it doesn't mean that he could not make timely comments on issues which will affect the people in various ways. An Elected President should not be robbed of his voice, his freedom of speech with respect to the welfare of the people.

Thus, what kinds of people should we be looking for to be our President? I always tell people around me, we should not be looking for a SAINT to be our President. There is hardly any SAINT around here in Singapore, least one who could qualify as a Presidential candidate with such materialistic criteria and measures. Maybe we may have a monk or pastor or any other religious leaders who are saint-like but most probably they won't be CEO of some companies with $100 million paid up capital, least a politician.

We should be looking for a person who have an independent mind, FAIR, HONEST and most importantly has the moral courage to speak up for the people. The moral courage to stand up and question the government of the day if there are problems with the reserves or otherwise.

There are a lot of nice people around but nice people may not be the right people to perform the role of the Elected President.

Goh Meng Seng

P.S. I will write about why I find Mr. Tan Kin Lian the right person to be our President in my next post.

Rule of Law - Justice and Equality

2011-05-27T00:31:00.006+08:00

All of us remember how "efficient" the police was when they reacted to the police report filed against James Gomez by the Elections Department over that "criminal intimidation" charges. This happened in 2006, right after the General Elections.

Even Opposition MP Mr. Low Thia Khiang was interviewed within days after James Gomez was prevented from leaving the country and brought back to Cantonment Police Headquarters for investigations.

Fast forward to 2011. New electoral rules were added by the ruling party, People's Action Party (PAP). Particularly, the cooling off period ruling was implemented, initially perceived by many to give PAP the advantage. However, what we have witnessed is a series of possible breach of these rules by PAP itself.

We have seen how grassroot leaders sending out SMS messages to its network of members to mobilize them to go out all force on cooling off day to talk to people on the ground, trying to canvass votes for PAP.

We have seen how PAP's own candidate breaching the rule and indirectly admitting to the act when she tries to put the blame on someone else.

We have residents from various constituencies complaining about PAP's foot soldiers and contractors distributing pamphlets, booklets, flyers and even PAP's party publication Petir during cooling off day. Some of these acts happened in the wee hours of cooling off day! PAP's response to reporters' enquiries were that Petir was printed before cooling off day! Here again, they have indirectly admitted that such acts were committed during cooling off day but the excuse given was that the publication distributed was printed before hand. It seems that even PAP members don't really know nor understand about the cooling off day's rule. But wait, isn't these rules written and implemented by PAP itself?

Some Singaporeans have reported police about the breaching of these rules by PAP. Notably, the police report filed on the breach of the rules by Tin Pei Ling's FB administrator (well, we don't even know if she has nominated an administrator or not) was done on 12 May 2011. The case was allocated to an Investigation Officer from the Commercial Crime Division (well,they don't have Political Crime Division). It has been almost two weeks but nothing has been heard of. Well, at the very least, there isn't any report on MP Tin being interviewed by any police officer.

I was a bit puzzled on the deterioration of the police's efficiency after these 5 years. Back in 2006, a speedy investigation was carried out right after GE. But now, after two weeks, there is still no news about any investigation being launched.

I could empathize with the police department which was tasked to investigate this case as well as other cases involving PAP's breach of electoral laws. But I believe, as civil servants, these policeman would carry out their duties without fear or favor.

It is obvious to many people, especially those who are active on Social Network on the internet, that a law has been breached. There are also public records of what Ms Tin has said which could well be submitted as evidence on such breach of law. The comments on her FB was deleted after 20 minutes but that doesn't change the fact that the law has been breached. In fact, strictly speaking, it could be viewed as a deliberate effort to destroy critical evidence. Luckily (or unluckily?), a screen shot of this evidence was recorded in public domain as well. I believe that the with all these evidences available on public domain, it should not be a very difficult case to investigate at all.

NSP has lodged a complaint to Elections Department on polling day with regards to two breaches of law by PAP. The Elections Department has brushed off the complaint by asking us to make police reports. At that point of time, I found it pretty absurd that the Elections Department didn't react to the breach of electoral laws which they were supposed to enforce. I would expect them to make the police report instead. I decided not to report police at that point of time because the issue might be painted into a case of petty politicking.

However, now that police reports have been made by the members of public, we should follow up with these cases to make sure that the Rule of Law applies. These cases will also become the first precedences of such breaches of the cooling-off day rule and it is important for us to see how such rules can be enforced.

If we want to build a Democratic Society based on Justice and Equality (National Pledge), we must make sure that the Rule of Law is applied across the board.

I have absolutely nothing against Ms Tin personally. Unfortunately, it is in the Nation's interests to make sure that the law (set by PAP itself) is being enforced fairly. Ms Tin just happened to be implicated in one of these cases.

I hope that the police could act on this case with the same efficiency that they have shown in 2006 against James Gomez. Whether the police will take action or the AG chambers will press charges, the authorities should at least give us a reasonable explanation on whatever actions they intend to take. Such actions will form the basis of precedent case for future enforcement of the Cooling Off Day rule.

Goh Meng Seng

Nicole Seah's fund raising

2011-05-23T14:45:00.000+08:00

Dear All,

Thank you for all the concerns raised here. I apologize for the great confusion and anxiety caused by this episode.

Under the Political Donation Act, it is LEGAL for candidates to solicit donations under their names. Thus what Nicole has done is legal. The main concern is why personal bank account has been used instead of Party bank account. First of all, Nicole is soliciting funds for her candidacy in Marine Parade. She is also trying to get funding for her whole Marine Parade Team. Thus, it would be technically tedious for us to differentiate between funding meant for Marine Parade Team if donations are made to the Party bank account. Besides, financial reporting for the Party will be very complex if every Teams or individual candidates utilize the Party bank account for their fund raising activities.

I believe that those who have donated to Nicole or any other opposition members would have full confidence and trust in them to utilize the funds solely for the GE only. Having said that, I also understand the demand for transparency from the public on the fund raised. Rest be assured that due diligence will be carried out by the whole Marine Parade Team since the fund raised is intended to defray the cost of its election campaign.

As I have mentioned before to the press, young people are using the New Media more often and it will become a trend for them to utilize New Media for their political work and engagement which will include soliciting political donations. It is unfortunate that this present issue was blown out of proportion due to the utilization of the New Media. On hindsight, it could have been managed better.

Nevertheless, I have full confidence in Nicole and her Marine Parade Team in managing public funding properly. The stakeholders who have contributed money to their funds have the right to know how the funds have been utilized. This is a matter of transparency. This can be done by sending them the details via emails.

However, I think it is totally inappropriate for the members of public to insinuate corrupt practices, intent or misconduct with regards to this issue. It would be unfair to Nicole and her team to suggest that because they have acted within the legal limits. Unless there is any proof of misappropriation of funds, I think such slander is totally unwarranted. I hope the members of public should refrain from making such insinuations.

I think that this issue would be a good public education process for both politicians as well as Singaporeans. Singaporeans may not be used to politicians soliciting funds under their names but this is perfectly legal for candidates to do so, just as any other democratic countries in the world (US, Europe countries etc). On the other hand, politicians have to be mindful about perceptions of the public as well as the transparency of the whole fund raising exercise.

To conclude, I hope that Singaporeans could bear with us while we move on to a more open society. It is perfectly healthy for Singaporeans to raise their concerns on transparency and accountability when such public donations are involved. But I hope that my explanations and clarifications here could address their concerns adequately.

Yours Sincerely ,

Goh Meng Seng

PAP lost their BIGGEST GAMBLE

2011-05-17T01:57:00.005+08:00

The People's Action Party lost its first battle after 15 years of monopoly of power since independence in 1981 Anson by-election. Mr. JB Jeyaratnam has dented PAP's strong hold of power back then. In 1984 General Elections, PAP lost two seats in total: Mr. JBJ retained his Anson seat while Mr. Chiam See Tong won Potong Pasir beating Mah Bow Tan hands down with a respectable 60% of valid votes.

Ever since then, PAP was worried about losing more seats in the years to come. They squeezed every drops of brain juice they have, from suggesting some people may have two votes instead of one to tweaking the electoral system. Eventually, they came up with this BRILLIANT idea of GRC. Basically, the GRC system literally up the stakes for every electoral contest.

They have succeeded in preventing losing more seats in 1988 GE with a close shave of winning Eunos GRC with Workers Party's Team losing by merely 1%. Predictably, they are so dependent and addicted to the GRC system that they subsequently increased the size from 3 to 4 and eventually created the giant 6 man GRCs. It basically up the stake further just like a gambler who thinks he will sure win all.

Of course, PAP has very thick skin to ignore all logical criticism of its "kiasuism" (mentality of being afraid to lose). At one point of time, the Prime Minister even proudly joke openly about Singaporeans being "Kiasu" (afraid to lose), "Kiasi" (afraid to die) "Kiabo" (afraid of wife). However, ironically PAP has become like a gambling addict who keep increasing its stake in electoral contests.

It is indeed a paradox. While PAP is afraid to lose, it thought that it could prevent losing by increasing the stake for all. The most ironic argument I heard during this GE 2011 is that PAP has actually accuse Workers Party of making things difficult for Aljunied voters by "forcing them to make difficult choice". It could even be interpreted that WP is "holding voters at ransom" by fielding Mr. Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim together in Aljunied GRC.

It is PAP who is trying to hold Singaporeans at ransom by setting up the GRC system. Not only did it try to use HDB upgrading as the carrot ransom, it also uses subtle threats of depriving voters funding for various services. The ultimate ransom is the argument that the Nation will lose two ministers plus one Speaker of Parliament along with one potential ministerial candidate.

But wait, isn't this PAP's own doing? It tries to gamble big by putting TWO ministers in Aljunied GRC. In fact, it is gambling away its "ministerial talents" by putting ministers in each and every GRCs! It just thinks that Singaporeans will not "sacrifice" its ministers and thus those who contest along with these ministers will have a safe passage way to parliament.

PAP's high stake gambling habits has cost it dearly. If you think the cost of this gambling is merely two or three ministers, think again. The implications of this lost in Aljunied GRC is much wider and deeper.

First of all, which PAP minister would be willing to risk their million dollar pay to contest in Aljunied GRC next round in the bid to win it back? Even George Yeo and Lim Hwee Hwa have bowed out of the game! Would it mean that once a GRC is lost, PAP will never be able to win it back again?

Secondly, after this defeat, how could PAP convince "high flyers" to quit their jobs like BG or superscale civil service positions to join them and promise them a safe passage way to become ministers? There is no longer SAFE Passage to parliament. BG Tan should understand this very well!

Thirdly, even the recruitment of backbenchers for PAP will face problem! No more hiding behind heavy weights so to walk into parliament safely!

Last but not least, there are several GRCs in "danger zones" which opposition parties have achieved more than 40%. These include East Coast GRC, Bishan Toa Payoh GRC, Marine Parade GRC, Tampines GRC, Moulmein Kallang GRC and Nee Soon GRC. There are two GRCs which are near 40%: Holland Bukit Timah GRC and Choa Chu Kang GRC.

It basically means that PAP will be fire fighting in all these places next round and I do not think it has enough ministers to have two ministers fielded in each of these GRCs. If PAP is not careful enough, it may face the possibility of losing more ministers.

It will be double whammy for PAP. On one hand, it will not be able to attract and convince talents to join its rank while on the other hand, it will keep losing ministerial talents.

PAP will do the same thing they did in the mid-1980s: think of some genius way to prevent the tide of losing more. They may try to raise the stake again (well, maybe turn Singapore into only 5 GRCs, North South East West and Central GRCs) or implement the one man two votes system for people who reach certain age. Else the only option is to go for some kind proportional representation.

Implementing proportional representation system may see PAP's percentage of seats dropping in parliament but it will help to prevent any further loss of ministers.

It seems that the implementation of proportional representation system would benefit Singapore. It will make sure that our parliament will maintain diversity of views for better debates on policy issues and at the same time, secure enough ministerial candidates to serve the nation.

The PAP has lost big time for GE 2011 and I hope that it will wake up in time to carry out the necessary electoral reforms to embrace diversity and cater to Singaporeans' urge of having more opposition voices in parliament.

Goh Meng Seng

Reflections on GE 2011

2011-05-11T23:34:00.000+08:00

Many people tend to believe that Internet, New Media or Social Media have played the critical role in GE2011 but I think otherwise. Among the highest scoring teams, most of them enjoyed significant spotlight by the main stream media.

Workers Party (WP) is the biggest winner in terms of media coverage. Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)also enjoys significant media coverage on their two main GRC teams. As for NSP, the best performing team, Marine Parade Team, enjoys the most media coverage as well.

Many people have talked about the strategic failure of NSP Tampines Team. To put on record, NSP Tampines Team is quite a decent team with passionate people on board. Nevertheless, there are many factors to make a team win. My failure to convince people like Tony Tan, Hazel Poa or even Nicole Seah to join the Tampines Team has cost us a lost opportunity of punching through.

There are many other factors which will determine the results:

The Ground
1) Class Types: In comparison, Tampines is definitely a hard ground in terms of housing types. 32% of flats are 5 room and above, presumably middle class. This is the highest percentage among all other GRCs. From GE 2006 and further confirmation in this GE 2011, surprisingly those who lives in landed properties are more supportive of opposition as a whole.

2) Pass electoral records: Tampines result in GE 2006 was only slightly more than 30%. Tampines is a fortress and doesn't have any changes to its boundaries. Though we do not have fair comparison of Marine Parade, but Marine Parade has the worse ground. Prior to nomination day, my estimate is for NSP to get about 35% to 40%. This is based on past electoral records of Braddel Heights (48%, Sin Kek Tong time), Eunos-Ubi (49%, Francis Seow's time) and the swollen ground from Chai Chee, part of Joo Chiat. On top of that, better ground like Mountbatten was cut out.

The People

3) Demographics & Race composition: Tampines has a pretty high percentage of Malay as well as young voters. The swing in Malay and young votes have actually helped us to get much better result, though falling short of a win.

4) Candidates play an important part in winning votes. Apparently Nicole Seah has managed to win quite a substantial number of votes in Marine Parade. Uncle Chiam also played an important role in getting votes for both Potong Pasir and Bishan Toa Payoh. Needless to say, WP's three stars, Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim and Chen Show Mao are the pillars of WP's branding which helped to raise the votes and profiles of all other teams and candidates. As mentioned, the failure to convince Tony and Hazel to join my Tampines Team has cost us dearly.

5) Opponent's profile is also an important factor to determine whether we could get better results or even a win. Minister Mah and Tin PL are just two prime examples.

The Issues

6) Marine Parade has issues in Joo Chiat area as well as local issues in other places. Tampines has less local issues but national issue like high HDB Housing prices was the main thrust.

Party Branding

7) Apparently Party Branding plays a very important role in WP's campaign while NSP has to depend on other factors which I have mentioned above.

Failure of Minister-Specific Strategy?

Contrary to news report, I think the Minister-Specific Strategy has worked, though not to its fuller extend. Both Tampines and Marine Parade teams have applied minister-specific strategy and they have yielded better results as compared to other NSP teams.

However issue-based minister-specific strategy is just necessary but insufficient strategy for parties without STRONG branding to win the elections.

Although overall NSP has done better than the National Vote swing of 6% (we have gotten about 8% against the setting of 31% in GE 2006) but anything falling short of a win is still regrettable.

Goh Meng Seng

Response to Mah Bow Tan

2011-05-05T23:52:00.000+08:00

I am very disappointed with Mr. Mah Bow Tan's "rebuttal" on the Housing Issues.

First of all, he has chosen to do so at the very last rally while refusing to take up the challenge of having a Live TV Debate. I could understand why because his so call rebuttals cannot hold water at all.

First of all, we are not saying that Singaporeans cannot use their CPF money to buy HDB flats. We are just saying with a 30 year mortgage, there will be little money left for retirement! It seems that Mr. Mah Bow Tan either chooses to side step this problem or deliberately mislead voters about our manifesto.

Secondly, he claims that our flats sold at Cost Plus will have to be sold at the same amount and all units will look the same. This is the most uncreative way of thinking and rebuttals. We could still build very different flats with different costings but yet, selling at Cost Plus. Yes, the sales price will be different but still, it is Cost Price system.

Thirdly, he still insists that such flats cannot increase in value. I do not understand how he come to that conclusion since the resale market will still be there.

I am totally disappointed with such rebuttals as I was expecting something much better. Anyway, it is up for Voters of Tampines to decide.

Goh Meng Seng

Goh Meng Seng Speech on 4 May 2011 Tampines

2011-05-05T08:24:00.001+08:00

Rally Speech on 2 May 2011 Moutbatten

2011-05-03T00:45:00.001+08:00

The elections are getting HOT. Someone just torn off our posters put on our trucks and some of our supporters have been throwing stones at PAP posters in Tampines. I would like to urge our supporters to keep calm. We can afford to lose this elections but not our dignity.

BG Tan Chuan Jin (陈川仁), PAP candidate of Marine Parade has said many things lately. Before Nomination Day, he has challenged opposition party not just talk or wayang but go and contest in MP. Now, after NSP sent a team to contest in MP, he is saying that NSP is wayang!

I believe that a General like Tan Chuan Jin would not want to be just PAPER GENERAL and definitely he won’t want to HIDE behind a so-call HEAVY WEIGHT in MP GRC. IF he is really dying for a good fight, he should have offered himself to stand in a SMC! Regrettably he is now hiding in MP GRC. I really don’t know who is wayang!

As I have stated in our first MP rally, the STRATEGIC reason is to extract ACCOUNTABILITY from SM Goh Chok Tong for his past bad policies which are turning Singapore from a country to a COMPANY. Do you want accountability from Goh Chok Tong?

BG Tan also said that NSP doesn’t know the people in MP. I have to ask our dear general, as a ROOKIE candidate in MP, how much does he know about MP voters? Has he knocked every door? I guess most of the incumbent PAP MPs who are paid more than $14,000 a month didn’t even knock every door!

Alright, let’s not be distracted by our General Tan from the real issues at hand.

We are having a PAP system which is SUCKING every drop of blood we have in the name of AFFORDABILITY. Right from Healthcare, Transport to Housing. Especially for housing which is the most expensive item that Singaporeans have to buy.

Mah Bow Tan says that the length of your mortgage doesn’t really matter. If you can have the FALSE SENSE of affordability of having 30 years mortgage as it is “cheaper” to pay each month, please go ahead.

BUT, my Dear Minister, do you know that by having 30 years mortgage instead of 5, 10 or 20 years, we are going to be paying more COMPOUNDED interests?

Do you know that WE will not be able to RETIRE 30 years later if ALL our CPF money is used to pay for your EXPENSIVE HDB flat? 1 Our WHOLE GENERAL will be ENSLAVED by your 30 years mortgage!

If Mah Bow Tan continues his pricing mechanism pegging NEW HDB flats to resale market prices, we will definitely end up with 40, 50 or even 100 years mortgage! Why?

Anyone with just that bit of common sense will know that ASSET INFLATION is always MUCH HIGHER than NORMAL INFLATION. It is also a fact that as compared to 1990, our income has only increased by 2 times BUT HDB resale prices have increased by FOUR TIMES!

Moreover, according to some reports, prices for NEW HDB flats have increased almost 70% for the pass 6 years but median income has only grown by 37.7% and worse, the lower income group only grows only at 22.6% for the whole decade of 2000 to 2010!

Pegging prices of NEW HDB FLATS to resale market prices will definitely erode the ability of our younger and future generations to own their home!

NSP has come up with a more viable pricing mechanism for NEW HDB FLATS. We are advocating pegging the prices of New HDB FLATS to the COST of building the flat plus a hefty discount on the land prices. This will eradicate the UNFAIR impact of ASSET INFLATION RATE while taking into account of the Normal Inflation rate through the cost of building the flats.

Only by adopting NSP pricing mechanism for new HDB flats, the REAL affordability for any generations of Singaporeans will be secured.

Our forefathers have made sacrifices by giving up their lands to PAP government at DIRT CHEAP PRICES. Don’t you think that the PAP has the SOCIAL OBLIGATION to ensure Singaporeans, generations after generations, should have a CHEAP ROOF over their heads?

If you want to secure the future of your children, your grandchildren, your great grand children, You will have to make your stand clearly on 7 May.

If you don’t want to be ENSLAVED by PAP’s 30 or even 40 years mortgage in time to come, please vote NSP.

If you don’t want your future generations to SELL their flats for retirement, you will have to vote NSP.

And IF you do not want your future generations to continue to be THREATEN by PAP, which is fast becoming GOD which we need to repent to, VOTE more opposition members into parliament.

Our FUTURE lies in your hands my fellow Singaporeans. VOTE NSP, YOUR VOICE, YOUR CHOICE, YOUR FUTURE.

Funeral Wake of the Unsung Hero

2011-04-29T09:24:00.001+08:00

Dear Supporters,

The Funeral Wake of our Unsung Hero, David Goh Meng Hee, will be held at Tampines Street 71, Blk 721 from evening onwards. The family of the hero declines any press interviews or reporting. Please respect the privacy of the family. Your cooperation will be much appreciated.

NSP Tampines Team

Back to Fundamentals

2011-04-26T14:41:00.001+08:00

Today is the eve of Nomination Day for GE 2011. I have mixed feelings within me.

Looking back, this is the 10th anniversary of my involvement in partisan politics. However, if I look deeper to my consciousness, the seed of political activism has been planted into me 20 to 30 years back.

Reading MM Lee's comment on going back to fundamentals and not "rock the foundations" of this Nation really make me feel more righteous about my involvement in opposition politics. I have told reporters that it was PAP which has "rocked" the very foundation which this Nation was founded upon.

The TWO main pillars of our nation's Core Values are:

1) Social Justice and Equality
2) Meritocracy

The most important reason why I decided to take the plunge into opposition politics is because I realize that PAP has eroded these fundamental principles. The final push comes in GE 1997 whereby Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong made used of HDB upgrading as the carrot in pork barrel politics, threatening voters (especially Cheng San voters like me) that if we do not vote for PAP, we will not have HDB upgrading.

In this one master stroke, PAP has destroyed the sense of Social Justine and Equality as well as the Spirit of Meritocracy. Whether a HDB flat needs upgrading or not should depend on the MERITS like the age of the building, conditions of the infrastructure etc and not about who the voters vote for or anything else. I fear for my children and Singapore's future generations to live under an environment that is devoid of such basic Social Moral principles. This is why I have chosen to fight against PAP to reinstate such basic Fundamentals which we have depended on for success.

While I was still an undergraduate back in early 1990s, I was furious about Goh Chok Tong's plan of "Asset Enhancement Scheme". The Goh's Administration sold the idea of having our assets increase in value but it has not mentioned about the prices of new HDB flats would go up as well. As an undergraduate waiting to graduate, get married and start up a home, I was furious but NO ONE represented us. I have written articles about the ills of this scheme which will result in inter-generation wealth gap but all fallen on death ears.

This is why I am prepared to encourage young people in their 20s to stand for Elections. I have experienced such desperation as a youngster who could only just sit down an watch politicians selling away the future of my generation, helplessly. I believe youngsters should play a role in this parliamentary system because many policies made by the ruling party will have long term great impact on our youngsters in 10, 20 or even 30 years to come.

It was PAP who have changed the fundamentals of HDB as public housing. PAP has discarded its social obligation as the ruling party in providing cheap or even subsidized housing for Singaporeans. They have forcefully acquired our forefathers' land at dirt cheap price and they should carry the social obligation to provide cheap public housing for our future generations. Instead, they are more interested in keep growing the National Reserves by selling land at high profits for building HDB flats!

Yes, MM Lee, it is about going back to fundamentals. PAP should do a deep self reflection on what went wrong with its fundamental principles of governance. PAP has lost its socialist roots along the way and now, it has lost the political moral high ground to talk about fundamentals.

Goh Meng Seng

Response to Minister Mah's twisted logic

2011-04-22T00:15:00.003+08:00

I have made the following rebuttals to Minister Mah Bow Tan's assertions:

1) Asset Enhancement Scheme

As an undergraduate in early 1990s, I was pretty upset when the Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong announced his plan for "Asset Enhancement Scheme". It would mean that my generation as well as future generations will have to pay MORE for HDB flats in future. Indeed, I have to pay 10 times more than my parents for a similar 4 room HDB flat. There is a COST of this Asset Enhancement Scheme to next and future generations.

Every Singaporean can only own ONE HDB flat as their HOME. HDB flat is a HOME, NOT an investment tool.

Furthermore, can the value of HDB value keep going up forever when it has only a 99 year lease? Obviously not! When our HDB flat is 50 year old or more, banks will be very reluctant to provide loans for potential buyers. It would mean that the demand for our old flats will drop drastically and the value will definitely drop.

To ask Singaporeans to depend on their HDB flats for retirement financing because we have this Asset Enhancement Scheme is totally flawed.

2) Lower Land Cost is Raiding Reserves

The PAP government has "raided" our forefathers by using Land Acquisition Act to acquire their land while paying peanuts in compensation! While our forefathers made sacrifices for the sake of our Nation's development needs, it is the social obligation of the PAP government to take care of our people by providing cheap public housing. At the very least, they should provide such cheap public housing for their FIRST matrimonial home.

Even with lower land price, the government of the day will still GAIN from such land sales due to the fact that they have acquired such land at dirt cheap prices.

We have accumulated more than $300Billion reserves basically due to the hefty profits gained via land sales. We could afford to slow down the growth of our reserves by making more concessions to our young Singaporeans.

3) Will we crash the market?

Resale market and first hand new HDB flat market are totally different market segments.

Resale market is a free market with many buyers and sellers. The demand in this market segment consists of Permanent Residents, Upgraders as well as some First time buyers.

For the first hand new HDB flat market, HDB is the MONOPOLY of supply with many Singaporean buyers. But the demand of this first hand HDB market consists only FIRST time buyers.

Thus, only Singaporeans who are first time buyers of these NEW HDB flats will benefit from this Cost-Plus scheme which NSP is advocating. Even if those first hand buyers in the resale market start to consider buying New HDB flats directly from HDB, there is no risk of total collapse of the resale market at all! This is basically because PRs and upgraders would not benefit from this scheme at all. PRs cannot buy direct from HDB and upgraders cannot benefit from this scheme. There is no incentive for them to switch to buy new HDB flat.

If the PAP government is sincere and serious about solving the low fertility rate problem, it should fulfill its social obligation by giving our young Singaporeans a big Ang Pao in terms of cheap HDB flats. This will allow them to have a head start in owning their first home when they get married.

Goh Meng Seng

Cheaper housing key to securing future

2011-04-18T01:00:00.000+08:00

From Channel News Asia:

The National Solidarity Party (NSP) has said there would be no future for Singapore if the People's Action Party cannot secure cheaper housing for future generations.

It was responding to the ruling party's manifesto entitled, "Securing the Future Together", which was released on Sunday.

The NSP's Secretary General, Goh Meng Seng, along with his party's members and volunteers, covered the Chua Chu Kang, Jurong and Pioneer areas on Sunday.

Mr Goh said he disagreed with National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan's comments that lowering the cost of state land was equivalent to "raiding the reserves".

Mr Goh said: "At this moment, we know that we have about S$300 billion of reserves. And I think it is about time that we can do with a lower growth for the reserve. And I would rather (have) a lower reserve growth than HDB raiding the people. Raiding our young generation with high cost of housing."

The NSP will be going up against Mr Mah in Tampines Group Representation Constituency (GRC).

Mr Goh said that the Socialist Front's move of not standing in the Whampoa and Mountbatten single-member constituencies was a "considerate gesture", while the NSP's withdrawal from Moulmein-Kallang GRC was to have a more "harmonious opposition movement".

Mr Goh said: "But of course, there are still areas which we are facing three-cornered fights at. As far as NSP is concerned, we have made the greatest compromise that we could, and I think the ball is in other people's court now."

The NSP still faces possible three-cornered fights in Radin Mas and Pioneer, which the Reform Party is also contesting.

Mr Goh was walking the ground with his party's Chua Chu Kang and Jurong GRC teams, and its candidate for Pioneer, Steve Chia.

Potential NSP candidates like former Nee Soon Central MP, Cheo Chai Chen, as well as 35-year-old Dexter Wong and 29-year-old Abdul Salim Harun, were also present.

- CNA/ms

In the Name of Opposition Harmony...

2011-04-17T02:26:00.002+08:00

Yes, in the name of Opposition Harmony, NSP has decided to give up both Moulmein Kallang GRC to Workers Party and Yuhua SMC to Singapore Democratic Party.

It is indeed a very painful decision to make for NSP but for the larger good of opposition movement, we have decided to give up both places to the respective parties.

I personally feel that this is the only right thing to do even though I may be really upset by such development. With all the signs and observations made, I am convinced that this decision is the right decision in order for the opposition movement to advance forward. Right from the start, I have repeatedly stressed that Singapore voters do not want to see 3 corner fights, especially in a GRC. This is based on the observations made on the ground.

Another reason for NSP to come to this decision is reported on Yahoo News:

OOne of the reasons for backing out included WP's refusal to reveal its candidates who will be contesting in the area, leaving the NSP with uncertainties. This, Teo said, 'does not make it worth for the NSP to wait till the last minute'.

"For the benefit of the voters, for the benefit of the whole opposition, I think we have to make our decision early.

"As a responsible party, we should give our residents an informed kind of choice as early as we can," he said.

I am especially grateful to Socialist Front's Secretary General Chia Tilik to make the announcement that in the spirit of opposition unity and avoiding 3 corner fights, SF has decided not to send any candidates to contest in this GE.

He has earned my utmost respect for making this move for the bigger picture of the whole opposition movement.

NSP's full press release is as follows:

NSP's Decision On Moulmein-Kallang GRC and Yuhua SMC Singapore

15 April 2011

As had been reported by the media, both the National Solidarity Party (NSP) and the
Workers’ Party (WP) have expressed interest in contesting in the Moulmein-Kallang
GRC (MK).

There have been further discussions between NSP and WP since then. During the
discussions, WP has expressed a strong desire to contest in MK.

The decision that NSP has to make is a painful one. The Moulmein-Kallang GRC has a
large overlap with the Jalan Besar GRC in which NSP had contested in GE2001 and
GE2006, and bonds had been built with the residents in that area. However, in the
interest of opposition harmony, NSP has decided to withdraw from MK, and is declaring
this intention so that WP can proceed with its campaigns there unhindered.

We wish to apologise to the residents in Moulmein-Kallang GRC who have welcomed
our contest, but we are confident that WP will be able to put up a strong team to fight for their benefit and work for their well-being if elected.

In view of this new development, the team originally slated to contest in MK, namely
Jeisilan Sivalingam, Nor Lella Mardiiiah Binte Mohamed, Tony Tan Lay Thiam and Hazel
Poa Koon Koon will instead be led by Sebastian Teo, the President of NSP, to contest in Chua Chu Kang GRC (CCK).

We would also like to take this opportunity to announce the launch of our CCK Team’s
website: chuachukang.nsp.sg

On this website, interested readers can get to know more about the candidates and
what they stand for.

NSP will also not be contesting in Yuhua SMC. We wish SDP all the best in their contest.

Sincerely,

Sebastian Teo
President of NSP

A Challenge to Minister Mah

2011-04-15T11:11:00.003+08:00

NSP has introduced its Tampines Team of candidates as well as Poineer SMC and Whampoa SMC yesterday afternoon.

I have taken the opportunity to issue a CHALLENGE to Minister Mah Bow Tan to have a debate on housing issues, whether it is in Town Hall or TV.

Housing prices will affect lots of other issues like fertility rate, cost of living, retirement financing etc. It is a serious issue with a long term impact of 20, 30 years or even more. Mah Bow Tan may not be a minister by then but who will be accountable for such impacts?

Thus, I feel that the seriousness of Housing Issue warrants a thorough debate and we will let the voters decide for their future, their future generations' future.

Goh Meng Seng

Singapore Cannot Lose 新加坡输不起

2011-03-12T00:19:00.014+08:00

There are a lot of comments on my previous post on Friendship and Politics. Terrence from New Nation has even written a pretty critical article on my blog post. I have made a comment on his article as well.

How opposition parties contest is an important National issue because at this stage, it involves the critical development of the Nation's political landscape for Post-LKY era.

There are a few points I would like to put forward which I believe represent the aspiration and expectation of Singapore voters at large:

1) Singaporeans want to have credible opposition MPs in parliament
2) Singaporeans want opposition to win at least 1 GRC so to put pressures on PAP
3) Singaporeans do not wish to see 3 corner fights especially for GRCs.
4) Singaporeans want to vote, wish to see as many seats contested as possible.

Many people have mistakenly perceived my previous blog post as "attacking" fellow opposition party WP. Those who have met me during my ground work would know very well, whenever I meet people staying in Aljunied or East Coast GRCs, I would naturally encourage them to vote WP. How would I be attacking a party which I promote?

As I have explained to Terrence of New Nation, when I wrote that blog post, I was writing as a normal person, not a politician. It was true feelings that I have expressed which includes my frustrations of how things went wrong.

As I have mentioned, I regard Mr. Low Thia Khiang very highly as my political mentor while I was still with WP. Even till now, I would still respect him as my political mentor. I believe he too has the soft spot for his ex-student like me when he said he has given up WP's "first choice" because he knows I am going to contest there. Thus, WP chose Moulmein Kallang as the target for its expansion plan.

However that is really the crux of the problem.

I think most people really think too much of my blog post. The Zaobao reporter actually thinks that I am hinting WP is trying to block NSP because NSP is becoming a "threat" to its position. That is just that bit too far off. The truth is, when the space within the eastern corridor is so packed, two opposition parties enjoying growth will definitely face each other in a situation of 3 corner fight if they don't want to move towards the "untested" territory in the WEST.

NSP has done its part. Although NSP has generally been contesting and working the ground in the eastern corridors like Tampines and Jalan Besar (which is now split into Moulmein Kallang and Whampao), in order to avoid clashes with WP, we have started our expansion plan in the wild wild west, Jurong GRC which was not contested in 2006. We have tried to avoid WP's traditional ground like Aljunied and East Coast.

The clash of 3 corner fight is inevitable because unfortunately WP has taken up a totally different strategic approach from NSP. WP chose to stay put and expand in the eastern corridors which inevitably step into "traditional turfs" like NSP's Jalan Besar. Mr. Low Thia Khiang has even indicated that WP's first choice was Tampines.

That is why I say I would understand why it is inevitable that both WP and NSP will end up with 3 corner fights, in the eastern corridor.

In both NSP's and WP's perspectives, the mid-eastern part of Singapore would have more "fertile political land" basically because most parts in this area has been contested in past GEs. Consistent GE contests would naturally improve political awareness and consciousness of voters.

When good people like Tony Tan and Hazel have shown interests to join NSP and contest in the coming General Elections, as the co-leader of NSP, it is my duty to make sure that they will get a reasonably good fertile ground to work on.

In order to protect Tony and Hazel's team from 3 corner fight in Moulmein Kallang, I have even offered their team to stand in Tampines but both of them have declined the offer immediately citing the reason that I have worked so hard on the minister-specific strategy on Minister Mah for so long and I should stay put there. They decided to contest Moulmein Kallang instead, which is the other ground which NSP has worked on consistently for the past decade.

I believe that both WP and NSP are responsible and credible opposition parties which would make due considerations in terms of national interests to avoid 3 corner fight in Moulmein Kallang GRC in the spirit of trying to enhance Singapore's political landscape by trying to send good and credible people into parliament. This could only happen if and only if we could provide them a reasonable good fertile ground to work on.

It would be sad if both WP and NSP have two teams of good people clashing in a 3 corner fight. This is especially so when there are other constituencies like Sembawang GRC which will go uncontested for the coming GE. NSP has done its part in deciding that the team which is supposed to contest in Nee Soon GRC would be withdrawn from there to be deployed somewhere else.

Any opposition parties, including NSP, could afford to lose elections, but Singapore cannot afford to lose, to lose the opportunity to send in good and credible people into parliament. I just hope that in the coming days, the negotiation will have fruitful outcome that will serve the Nation's interests as a whole.

Goh Meng Seng

Friendship and Politics

2011-03-08T14:02:00.007+08:00

This is the 10th Anniversary of my involvement in opposition politics but instead of feeling happy about this "unusual journey" that I have chosen, I just feel sentimentally strained.

Throughout these 10 years of active involvement, I have made quite a number of friends as well as unknown faceless foes. I have worked hard and contributed to both Workers Party's as well as National Solidarity Party's growth in two different periods.

I have special sentimental attachment to WP especially when I have contributed to the rise of WP in its re-branding exercise by helping to revamp the party and fighting the battle of Aljunied GRC in GE 2006. I would regard Mr. Low Thia Khiang as my first political mentor who have guided me through the formative years of my involvement. And I still respect him as the saying goes, once a teacher forever a teacher.

Along the way, I have made many other friends in WP who have up till now, still remain close friends.

My departure from WP was the darkest day of my political life. I have chosen to leave very quietly without much fanfare even though the pain within is just like a heavy stone pounding the heart repeatedly non-stop.

After a few months of self reflections and reassessment of the roads ahead, I finally decided to join NSP with strong persuasion from Sebastian Teo, President of NSP. Frankly speaking, at first, it was a cultural shock to me. I have to spend time adjusting to new party culture and such. I was asked to take up the Secretary General post when Law Sin Ling decided to step down but I declined because I know I still cannot fully integrate into the party just yet.

It was last year that I finally decided to take up the Secretary General post and from then on, it is a road of no return.

NSP has transformed very fast under the leadership of Sebastian Teo. Within a few years, we have revamped our newspaper North Star into one of the top selling opposition papers in town. Even some ex-WP comrades have told me privately that North Star is indeed better than other opposition papers. We have inaugurated the Malay Bureau and our membership has grown significantly.

Never would I expect that WP would have 3 corner fights with NSP in the coming GE. I am being torn apart as my loyalty for my party NSP has to be weighed against the friendship I have cultivated in WP. At one point of time I was even contemplating to be the one leading the team in Moulmein-Kallang GRC to fight out the impending 3 corner fight because it would not be fair for my other NSP comrades to bear the brunt of such aggression. I am totally disappointed but in a certain way, could understand why WP has to go into such aggression. For two parties which are growing rapidly, it is just a matter of time that such battles will be waged.

Although there will be more heart pain in the process of such 3 corner fights but the wish of having "friendly 3 corner fight" will really be wishful thinking. There can never be "friendly 3 corner fight" in politics when the stake is heavy where any one party could just lose their election deposits.

It is not a battle of politics for me but rather, a battle of sentimental emotions against upright reasoning. There is absolutely no reason for WP to step into Moulmeign Kallang and wasting resources in a battle that nobody can win when there are other places like Sembawang GRC which is just next to Nee Soon GRC which is not contested.

The main aim of all opposition parties should be winning a GRC, not going into 3 corner fight. This is especially so for WP which is viewed as the biggest party with the highest potential to wrestle Aljunied GRC from PAP in this coming GE. A 3 corner fight in a GRC with fellow opposition party like NSP is truly unnecessary distraction from the main mission.

But somehow, I think WP members have lost sight of the most important mission they have set for themselves for this GE. Many of the new members have not gone through the baptism of fire, least contributed to the re-branding exercise that we have gone through but yet they have such a "gungho" feeling that they are invincible and could possibly thumb down other parties.

It is with my saddest and painful heart that I have to fight for Singapore in a very unique way. Arrogance and head-swell syndrome are bad traits for Singapore politics. It will be a hard battle ahead but I believe that each and every voter will have a very clear mind of what fairness and good reasoning mean.

Goh Meng Seng

3 Corner Fight, anyone?

2011-03-03T01:31:00.004+08:00

I have just come back from the Pre-Elections Conference for all opposition parties. It is a tiring process although we have made some progress.

I am not in the position to reveal any details of the meeting but I will speak about my view in general of why this meeting is so important for Singapore, not just opposition parties.

I think Singaporeans are having high expectation of opposition parties as a whole to avoid 3 corner fights and most Singaporeans want to vote. It is the responsibility of ALL opposition parties to make sure that we could meet such high expectations. If not, the disappointment created may have big repercussion on all opposition parties; i.e. the middle ground voters may just abandon us altogether. No matter how we try to "differentiate" our "party branding" from each other, but there is still a substantial number of people who will view opposition as one big group.

Some people may not agree with me but this is the sentiment on the ground. People are prepared to vote for opposition but NO 3 CORNER FIGHT PLEASE!

NSP has been very open, reasonable and ever ready to negotiate so far in this whole process. Although there are still some outstanding issues to be ironed out, I believe and am hopeful that most opposition parties will come to reasonable settlement for all. It is not going to be a simple process but i just hope that everyone of us can take a good look at the overall picture. When we come to negotiation table, it is all about give and take. There must be willingness from all parties to reach a reasonable settlement for all.

The next meeting will be held on this coming Saturday (5 March 2011). I just hope that every outstanding issues will be solved by then.

Goh Meng Seng

NSP Response to Budget Statement 2011

2011-02-20T19:37:00.006+08:00

NSP Response to Budget Statement 2011

The National Solidarity Party is very disappointed that the PAP government has not addressed in this budget the fundamental question on whether the current economic growth model of “Growth at all cost” based on indiscriminate importation of foreign workers at ALL LEVELS of employment should carry on. Instead, it tries to address the “ill symptoms”, which are caused by this flawed economic strategy, in such an inadequate way.

While the excuse of low fertility rate is cited as the main reason to import excessive foreign workers into Singapore, the miserable $300 to $400 Child Development Credit is totally inadequate to address this problem. We would expect healthcare cost to be lowered or a comprehensive social safety net for children up to 18 years old or heavy subsidy for pre-school education etc. The little top ups to students’ Edusave by $130 could hardly offset the enormous increase in tuition fees over the years. Apparently there are not enough subsidies given to tertiary institutions to defray the rising costs. On the other hand, there are no new initiatives to strengthen work-life balance for couples so that they could enjoy family life with their children.

The only “real” solution to the low fertility rate provided by PAP government is to depend on the influx of foreign workers. Although PAP has increased worker levies but it falls short of giving us the assurance that the number of foreign workers, thus population, will not grow any further.

The first critical problem of having excessive foreign workers is, either citizens' jobs are displaced or wages are suppressed by them. PAP has chosen to increase workers levies while giving more workfare to citizens to address these problems. However, we believe that without a minimum wage scheme, the effectiveness of both the workfare and worker levies will be dampened (due to substitution effects).

The influx of cheap foreign labour has apparently suppressed wages and thus widened the income disparity. According to the chart shown in the budget speech as well as what the Finance Minister has said, the real income growth of the 20th percentile in the past decade would only be 5% instead of 8.1% if it was not for the workfare. The income disparity has widened when the real income growth for the 50th percentile is 20.7%!

There is no doubt that workfare has managed to close the gap of the widening trend just a bit but the most important question we have to ask: is this economic model sustainable in the long run? Can the PAP government guarantee that it will keep giving out more and more workfare in the years to come in a bid to cushion the impact of the widening of income gap?

We are very doubtful about the Finance Minister’s assertion that the real income of all our workers could grow by 30% for the next decade. While we are only able to raise the income of the 20th and 50th percentile by 8.1% and 20.7% in real terms respectively with a corresponding average growth of 4%-6% in GDP for the last decade, how can we possibly achieve a higher growth of 30% in real terms for ALL Singaporeans when our Finance Minister only expects our economy to grow at a slower pace of 3% to 5% for the next decade? We believe that only the million-dollar salaried ministers will enjoy more than 30% increase in real terms in the coming decade!

In the mad pursuit of more foreign workers, the PAP government has taken the lead to cultivate the mindset that only foreigners are “talents” while Singaporeans are not. The government should not put too much emphasis on foreigners as talents. Our homegrown MNCs should emphasise more on grooming our Singaporean PMETs instead of replacing them with “foreign talents”.

We do not think that the effort to raise productivity would bear fruits in raising our citizens' wages as long as PAP continues to let the whole world supply us with cheaper and younger foreign labour indiscriminately. The economic growth model needs a major overhaul. Comprehensive plans should be put in place to groom local SMEs as well as local talents with global view.

The sudden rapid increase in foreign workers has also caused a whole range of other problems, from rising inflation to inadequate public transport and healthcare infrastructure as well as high housing cost. However the PAP government has not effectively addressed all these issues at all.

The Minister says he wants to help Singaporeans to fight inflation but yet he has conveniently avoided mentioning anything about GST. Either GST should be reduced or at least stay permanent at 7%, but there is no commitment from PAP at all.

In spite of a shortage of hospital beds, the budget for Ministry of Health has been reduced for 2011 resulting from a cut in “development expenditure”. We are surprised that the government has cut healthcare funding but increased the defence budget by a substantial 5.4% instead.

On the property front, we believe that the key issue of high HDB price lies with the pricing policy of new HDB flats. NSP advocates cost-plus pricing for new HDB flats. Giving more grants to low-income buyers will not solve the burden of 30-year mortgage tagged on these flat purchases.

In conclusion, NSP would want to make an open call to the PAP government to set its priorities right. The PAP should not merely focus on giving away goodies to voters in this election year. but focus on the long-term structural problems of our economy. As long as the ruling party refuses to realign its economic growth model for the coming decade, we will forever face the critical problems raised above.

A responsible government should take the welfare of our citizens at heart in longer terms instead of engrossing itself in populist policies which may temporarily alleviate unhappiness on the ground but are totally unhelpful in solving our longer term structural problems.

Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party

Afternote: I have some feedback, including from my wife, that some of the technical things are difficult to understand. Especially the part in bold.

The logic is this, the Finance Minister Tharman claims that in order to continue to have real income growth, we need GDP to grow continuously. But the question is, by this logic, how could we have HIGHER REAL INCOME growth with LOWER GDP growth? He was talking about 30% REAL INCOME GROWTH FOR EVERYONE! But, in spite of the fact that we had HIGHER average GDP growth in the last decade of 4%-6%, the real income growth for BOTH 20 percentile and 50 percentile is far lesser than 30%. He then projected that we will have LOWER GDP growth for the next decade at 3% to 5% but expect REAL INCOME growth to be HIGHER! On top of that, with the present economic growth model the real income growth is going to be unequal and income disparity will widen. It is really impossible to have EQUAL real income growth for everybody. It is really an amazing contradiction or simply MISSION IMPOSSIBLE.

Budget 2011 - Back to Basics

2011-02-17T23:47:00.013+08:00

Many Singaporeans are expecting "BIG ANG BAO" (Red Packets filled with money) from the government for this year's Budget because this is an "Election Year". How big is big? $1000? $2000? Some even suggested $3000!

I have no problem if such cash handouts are given with full sincerity to help Singaporeans to cope with runaway cost of living. But if this is another exercise of "Fix Opposition and buy votes", I would be very disappointed that we have not progressed nor matured at all politically.

But what matters most for Singapore at this juncture is that the ruling party has "gone astray" from basics and fundamentals of governance. When the ministers' pay is tied to some "KPI" which includes GDP growth as the main component as well as the salary scale of those top earners in Singapore, it will inevitably create the mindset of "Growth at ALL COST". The widening of Income Disparity would not be the top concern of this government because what matters most would be how much the top income earners would grow!

The appropriate way of pegging the salary of ministers would be pegging it at different percentages at different percentile of the income of Singaporeans. eg. 500% of 10th percentile + 400% of 20th percentile + X% of 30th percentile +....+5% of 90 percentile. Maybe it could also include GDP growth in per household capital instead of GDP growth alone. Only such KPI will make the ministers more focus on "Quality Balanced Growth" in GDP as well as the plight of the lower income earners!

By now, Singaporeans should realize that it is actually quite easy to push for high GDP growth. Just introduce vice like casino gambling, just increase enormous amount of foreign workers in a short time and just give huge preferential packages to foreign MNCs to set up shops here. Never mind if the MNCs are providing more QUALITY jobs for Singaporeans or not or whether casino gambling will erode work ethics and cause irreversible damage to our social fabrics or not.

The side effects of such "Growth at all cost" strategy has finally reached a boiling state. All warnings sounded previously about inflation, run away prices of HDB flats, overcrowded public transport and hospitals etc.

Some may wonder why would inflation be blamed on this "Growth at all cost" strategy? There are already analysis on the internet which touched on the impact of "non-tradable" goods and services on inflation. Non-tradable goods and services refer to things that we could not get from importation. These include land, health services, barber service, taxi service, supermarket/market etc.

The sudden rapid increase in population would have caused great demands on various goods and services, both tradable and non-tradable. Singapore could well import as many food and other products from other places to meet such demands. Most of the inflation on tradable goods are due to factors beyond the government's control. eg. Food and commodities. They could well increase the strength of Singapore dollars via foreign exchange intervention to offset most of such inflation.

But for non-tradable goods and services, there is no way we could meet the sudden increase in demand by a spur in our mismanaged population growth. Especially rental for commercial space has been pushed up significantly, worsen by the fact that retail space has been more or less monopolized by a cartel of big GLCs.

For critical services like hospital healthcare, it is really an eye opening when our restructured hospitals were so strained by the spike in demands, they are still going around the world to promote their "medical tourism"!

There a lot of problems with the economic situation in Singapore right now but the source of problem is only one: the misadventure of wrong economic direction. If we do not solve this root problem, we will be stuck with all these problems of high inflation, shortage of housing, medical care, public transport... for years to come.

It is time for the PAP government to go back to the basics. There is nothing wrong with a slower growth with higher growth in income per capital for Singaporeans. There is nothing wrong to cut down cheap foreign labour substitutes which take our jobs and suppress our wages.

It is only when the direction of Economic policy is changed, the companies in Singapore will react accordingly to raise productivity in view of higher labour cost.

It is only when PAP government review the need of the Casino resorts, we will always be threaten by the huge social impacts which these vice activities brought upon our nation.

I would like to see the PAP government address this very important issue for this coming budget instead of dealing with "ineffective medicines" to address all the ills created by their previous economic policy.

Goh Meng Seng

Honest Talk on Race

2011-02-12T23:26:00.013+08:00

It was a tiring but fruitful week right after the Chinese New Year celebration. National Solidarity Party Malay Bureau has successfully conducted its first Malay Reflection Forum on 11 Feb 2011. We have learned quite a number of things through this forum.

The other forum was conducted by James Gomez on 12 Feb 2011 touching on racial discrimination and a preview of his report on the UN Rapporteur visit to Singapore.

In both forums, we had honest talks over racial issues. From religion, social, culture (pop culture), education to job discrimination etc. Yes, we can. We can hold public talk, honest talks over such "taboo" racial issues.

In the NSP Malay Reflection Forum, the very first response from the participants was about "Freedom of Expression" with regards to racial issues, or just issues which the Malay community face in their daily lives. Nobody wants to talk about it, in a constructive way.

We also talk about job discrimination. My take is that while Singapore, as a multi-cultural society, has taken upon Meritocracy as the core value of our system, the government should not get into systematic discrimination. The various talks by the leader of the ruling party about what race cannot hold what jobs is least helpful to enhance the bonds between Singaporeans of all races. It is not helpful for them to declare "We are not ready to have an Indian Prime Minister" or "We cannot have Malays as machine gunners, air force pilots, generals" etc. My position is that we need to set up an Equal Opportunity Commission to look into discriminative practices in employment. As a Chinese, the so call "majority", I also feel discriminated when job advertisements open declare that "PR and Foreigners preferred"!

In the forum conducted by James Gomez, the issue about HDB Ethnic Quota was raised again by the well known human rights lawyer M Ravi. He has asked me about this question back in TOC Face to Face forum in December 2010 and my answer didn't satisfy him. Thus this issue was raised again.

My stand is that the HDB Ethnic Quota should stay but it could be modified or relax by have a range of not more than 50% for "minority races" and not more than 85% of Chinese in any precincts. It doesn't sound good to human rights activists who will still maintain that this is "discriminative" rules which disadvantaged the minority races in terms of lower sales values of their flats etc.

I have explained that congregation and segregation of different races will not do us good. An Australian couples whom I met have praised Singapore's HDB Ethnic Quota because of their experiences back in Australia. In Australia, when left alone, the various different races congregate and segregate themselves. Racial tension increased due to such setting.

As a student from a SAP school which is predominantly a "Chinese school", I have experienced first hand how racist stereotyping could arise when a single race congregates together.

Thus, I have to make the difficult political stand to keep the HDB Ethnic Quota in a modified form, to cushion the impact on the minority races. Of course there are both people who agree and disagree with me on this issue. I would agree to disagree.

Issues on Thaipusam and MM Lee's remarks on the Malay community were raised as well, by Mr. M. Ravi. Well M. Ravi has, unconsciously and unintentionally, made a "racist remark" or "racist stereotyping" that Chinese are racist and that, opposition members have not raise objection to these issues.

I have to correct him again. My colleagues, especially Syafarin, who are present at the forum, would have known that I was very upset about the new rules on Thaipusam as well as the remarks made by MM Lee in the new book. I explained that I have issued a statement on behalf of NSP AFTER Thaipusam. I would be putting my party and members AT RISK if I issue a statement BEFORE Thaipusam and any riot happened during that event, the ruling party may take the opportunity to detain us under ISA for "inciting racial riot"! It is a political judgment I have to make.

Having been through these two forums, I must say that all these were discussed in a rational and civil way. I think one of the greatest achievement we have made is to prove to the authorities that sensitive racial issues could be debated, discussed in a very calm and civil way. We have matured intellectually as a people and there is nothing too taboo to be discussed or debated in public forums.

Goh Meng Seng

Reservist as an Officer

2011-02-05T13:37:00.008+08:00

I have just completed my annual In Camp Training (ICT) in January and I guess many of the Mindef people are waiting for my usual reports on this blog with regards to the ICT.

It is always good to meet up with old buddies and men. However, many of them will MR (i.e. completing their NSmen cycle of 7 High Keys and 3 low keys or going to pass 40 years old). But some officers have completed more than 7 High Keys (ICT more than 5 days is considered to be 1 High Key) and some like me, are 40 years old or above, are still serving.

Ever since Mindef announced the changes made to the 13 year cycle to 10 year cycle, there are confusions among the officers. Many officers thought that they will only need to finish 7 High Keys and 3 Low Keys and they could MR. This is not true. Officers are liable for reservist training UP TO 50 YEAR OLD.

But some officers are "lucky" that they MR together with their units; especially those "mono-intake" infantry or Guards units way before 40 years old. Thus the confusion was deepen when logistic officers who are in "evergreen units" like mine are required to serve way beyond 7 High Keys and 40 years old.

This disgruntlement is primarily due to poor manpower planning of succession. At the end of each and every of my ICT, the discussion on succession planning always dominates the meeting. Succession planning for officers as well as key NCO postings like CSM, CQ etc is pretty weak. Officers with special technical skills like signal officers are lacking.

Even for my position, MTO (Motor Transport Officer) is lacking. I was sent for two courses during my reservist, both about 2 to 3 weeks each. These are supposedly to be considered as High Keys but it seems that there are rumors courses attended during reservist period are not considered as High Keys! This created much unhappiness on the ground and if Mindef did not come clear on this issue, we will find less officers willing to attend prolonged courses like mine.

Two to three weeks off from our normal work routine to attend military courses are big sacrifices to NSmen officers. It would be unfair to them that all these time spent are not going to be considered as High Key ICT.

Such treatment will aggravate the succession plan for Officers. i.e. If no Officers are willing to attend courses, how could they take on the roles of their predecessors?

Quite a number of officers (as well as warrant officer) in my unit have completed more than 7 High Keys. Some of them chose to sign on as Rovering key appointment holders. Their dedication to National Service is really commendable.

But I think it is unfair for other officers who have completed the needed 7 High Keys and who have reached 40 years old and above to be made to stay just because of the failure of succession planning by the S1 or G1.

Service Officers should be treated fairly as the Combat Officers. If Combat Officers could MR even before they reach 40 years old, why should Service Officers made to stay on beyond 7 High Keys and 40 years old? Such unfair treatment is going to affect the morale of the Service Officers.

I am raising this problem not because my fellow officers in my unit are complaining nor unwilling to serve. We treasure our comradeship and companionship. But in this highly competitive job market, people are worried about their jobs being taken away by FTs who do not pose such disruptions to the company's work routine. Whether we are Officers or men, we face the same constrains and competition on the job front.

The additional problems we officers face when we are serving above 40 years old is IPPT. For any servicemen, you are required to take the IPPT even when you are 40 years old and above. However, we have to take the FFI (a medical check up to certify fit for IPPT) every year. Sometimes, the FFI may drag due to additional medical check up needed. By the time the FFI is done, the window left for IPPT will be very limited.

After going through all the trouble of FFI, we are required to take only THREE stations for the IPPT. This is pretty ironic.

Most reservist officers who serve beyond 40 years old are service officers (logistic officers) like me. Our main role is to provide combat service support to the frontline troops. We are not required to go on physically strenuous combat missions but most of the time, we do a lot of planning on logistics deployment. i.e. We are using more brain power than muscles to complete our missions.

Thus it is kind of inconvenient irony that we are still put through the hassles of FFI and IPPT. The main risk in taking IPPT after 40 years old lies in the 2.4km running. There is totally unnecessary for service officers to take such risks especially so when they are already serving unfairly more than Combat officers.

Personally I am most willing to serve up to 50 years old if the hassles of FFI and IPPT are taken off. Almost all my men in my unit know I am "the opposition man" but I always tell them, even opposition man can be a good soldier. It is a kind of National Education by example that opposition members can be "deadly patriotic" too.

I hope Mindef, especially G1 has to come out and clarify certain things for officers, especially for logistic officers who need to attend courses. I also hope that succession planning for logistic units should be done properly by G1 so that most logistic officers would be treated equally as their combat counterparts. Last but not least, the requirement of IPPT for those NSmen officers above 40 should be reviewed or scrapped totally (especially for logistic officers).

Goh Meng Seng

Afternote: BTW, I am very sorry that I may have caused some anxiety within my unit's admin.

This article is specifically written for higher authority (i.e. G1 & Mindef) to reconsider their policy directions and not meant to doubt the efficiency and effectiveness of my unit's administration.

The key issues here is about fair treatment to Service Officers vs Combat Officers, as well as the redundancy of the IPPT requirement for those NSmen who are above 40.

Imagine that every year you are required to go through the hassle of medical check up and ended up with a watered down IPPT (i.e. required to do 3 stations instead of 6). It really doesn't make economic and practical sense to me.

NSP Press Statement: We Are Singaporeans united as one irrespective of politics, religion or culture

2011-01-30T22:55:00.002+08:00

The party is disappointed to read recent news report on what Minister of Home Affairs Shanmugam’s comments on Thaipusam as well as Minister Mentor Lee’s recent comments on Malay community as the main hindrance to social integration in Singapore. The politics of Division, Distraction to ensure PAP political dominance should have no place in political discourse in Singapore.

We feel that the strict enforcement of law on Thaipusam is totally unwarranted. Singaporeans have evolved as one people in spite of the diversities in race and cultural heritage. We have enhanced our understanding and tolerance to various cultural and religious celebrations as well as practices in almost all aspects of our lives. For almost four decades, Singaporeans have no problems in living with all sorts of “noisy” religious-cultural celebrations.

If the law is to be strictly applied and enforced on all activities and procession, we would have ended up with Chinese lion-dragon dance without drums and gongs, Malay traditional marriage without gendengs, Thaipusam without drums and cheers, Christmas without chorals played along Orchard Road and Chingay procession without all those “noisy” performances and music played on floats. Rules on festive noise-making should be determined by weighing upon inter-racial tolerance and strengthened civil society, through open consultation instead of administrative fiat by the minister concerned.

MM Lee’s comments on race and religion in “Hard Truths” are totally unwarranted and somewhat out of touch with the sensibilities and feelings of a younger and more cosmopolitan generation. In general, our party’s observation is that Singaporeans of all races have no issue with eating on the same table or for that matter halal food served and eaten at different tables even at the same event. Resistance to inter-racial marriages is on the decline even though there are some Singaporeans, just like MM Lee, who are still unable to accept and remain resistant to their children marrying to spouses of other races. However, such resistance to inter-racial marriages is NOT UNIQUE to Muslims alone just as MM Lee has made known his own resistance to it as well.

On the contrary, it seems to us that the ruling party is the biggest hindrance to social integration in Singapore. It has constantly reminded Singaporeans of the racial divides wherever possible. It has reminded voters that an Indian cannot be Prime Minister even when the candidate is proven to be the better choice. This is contrary to the system of Meritocracy which PAP has always emphasized on.

PAP has also used the excuse of the inability of minority candidates in winning an election against Chinese candidates to push for the GRC system. On the contrary, historical facts have shown that many PAP Malay and Indian candidates have won against Opposition Chinese candidates and the late JB Jeyaratnam has won in Anson against PAP’s Chinese candidate as well.

We believe that most Singaporeans are moderates in every race and religion. We believe that they share our core values as well as frustration at PAP’s aggressive FT policy which caused problems on jobs, housing, transport and healthcare.

We would want to urge the PAP to focus on these problems instead of sidetracking to sensitive racial issues so as to divide, distract and attempt to ensure its political dominance.

Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party

Elaboration on answers to Housing Issues @ TOC Forum

2010-12-18T16:27:00.017+08:00

I was invited to be one of the panelists at TOC end of year event, Face-to-Face Forum on 16 Dec 2010. Housing issues became one of the hottest again.

Due to time constrains, I have given key points and short answers to the questions asked. I would like to elaborate further here on what I have said during the forum.

The first question asked was whether HDB should be privatized. My first response is that it should not. HDB is part of a socialist Land Reform program. Due to scarcity of land in Singapore, it is important for us to avoid land hogging by a small group of landlords while the masses and future generations suffer. The fall of the ancient feudal systems was basically due to the income and wealth inequality partly exaggerated by the unequal distribution of land.

Thus it is important for the government to act as an arbitrator in making sure that land can be recycled over generations for public usage like housing. The 99-year leasehold HDB flats are part of this scheme to maintain sustainability of land usage across generations. Privatizing HDB will not do us good. It will most probably result in higher prices for HDB flats due to the profit maximizing nature of a private entity.

The second question about HDB is on what will happen to those who have paid hefty prices for their HDB flats but now I am advocating lower HDB prices. I explained that the HDB has two market segments. First, we have the NEW HDB flat market and second, the resale market. The government, via HDB, is the sole monopoly of supply in the NEW HDB flat market. The demand comes from citizens only. The resale market is basically a free market where sellers are those who own HDB flats (both PRs and Citizens) and buyers from both PRs and citizens as well.

The government has FULL CONTROL over the New Flat market as the monopoly. It should sell these flats at cost to Singaporeans as I have explained earlier that our forefathers have sacrificed their land for the development of this Nation. It is the unwritten social contract that the government in return should take care of Singaporeans' basic public housing needs.

On the other hand, the government should not meddle or distort the resale market, which is a free market by giving grants to first timers. This is a bit "counter-intuitive" which results in people calling it a "radical view" but it is not!

The rational is very simple. Just taking an analogy of a fireman trying to put out a fire. Will he add oil to the fire? Obviously not. If there is a pipe leaking oil to the fire, what will he do? Obviously, it is to stop the leakage.

Money and easy credit are just like fuel to the fire of high prices. Giving grants to first timers to buy resale flat is an act of market distortion to increase the demand of resale market. There are a few implications:

1) The present system is such that the NEW HDB flats prices are pegged at the resale market prices. It is naturally for the government to want to maintain a high Resale prices.

2) The grants given to first timers have to come from somewhere. i.e. from the higher prices of New HDB flats. At the same time, resale levy is charged on those who sold their flats and apply for new flats.

3) It is basically a scheme that goes round about, self-feeding itself to maintain or push up the prices of HDB flats, both resale and new HDB flats.

4) Such grants coupled with easy credit and low interest rates will encourage more young couples to OVER COMMIT themselves. If these young couples, in spite of low interest rate of 1.5% or less from private banks need to commit 30 years loans to buy their resale flats, they will be in trouble if interest rates rise in future! That will become Singapore's Subprime!

My proposal of a new system is:

1) Sell NEW HDB flats at cost.
2) Don't meddle in the free resale market by removing the grants.

Many youngsters may scream at the second point. I would advise them to take a step back and ponder. The proposal is a package. New young couples will have a far CHEAPER OPTION of having their first new HDB flat when it is sold at cost.

After you get your first HDB flat at CHEAP price, it will provide you a good financial position to get your resale HDB flat later on. My concern now is that too many young couples are over committing themselves by going for resale HDB flats. This will add financial burden to the new families and in the end, you may not have enough finances to have babies.

It is also an important thing to show to young couples that it is more worthwhile to buy NEW HDB flats with a big difference in the prices. If young couples are to be lured into resale HDB flats with the HDB grant and resulting in over committing themselves, a 30 years mortgage loan starting at low interest rate but going up later one, most people will be forced to sell their flats for retirement in the end!

However, I also caution that our only HDB flat is OUR HOME and SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED AS INVESTMENT. A HOME is not something you can sell off that easily. Each and every corners of your HOME are embedded with the collective memories of your family members.

I am asked about how I am going to make such "unpopular" idea to Singaporeans. I just replied, we just have to make it "popular". We should be careful about politicians trying to sell you GREED and be populist. My generation as well as my father's generation has been hoodwinked by PAP's sales of GREED through "ASSET ENHANCEMENT SCHEME". Who suffers in the end? My generation, the younger generation as well as future generations.

Two years ago, nobody would have thought that the campaign on HDB issues would be fruitful. Nobody believes that I could convince so many people that the HIGH HDB PRICES IS BAD FOR THEM. Nobody sees the bad points of 30-year mortgage for HDB flats. With the help of the online media, blogs and networking tools, we have managed to get the message viral. Many people are talking about the ills of the 30-year mortgage. I strongly believe that I can go a step further to bring forth my point about my "instinctively unfavorable" or even "politically incorrect" policy views that this is the best way for Singapore's future generations.

Of course, for those who have committed at high HDB prices, I just have to remind them that it is PAP who makes them suffer with such bad policy. Look on the bright side. Just like many people of my generations who were caught in the late 1990s property boom and subsequent bust, as long as we treat our flat as our HOME, whether the price went up or down, it didn't affect us, even when we became negative asset holders. On top of that, in my proposal, the resale market will be allowed to grow on its own. In the long run, the HDB resale prices will still grow although in a relatively slower pace.

One sensitive HDB issue was raised by M Ravi on the ethnic quota. It is a well-known fact that ethnic quota restrictions affect the minority races adversely.

I went a bit further to say that the present restriction may have impact on ethnic economy. Look at Tampines. It has a bigger proportion of Malay community of 24%. Tampines has the most number of Muslim coffeeshops as compared to other places. There are even shops selling Malay traditional clothing. A critical mass congregation of the minority ethnic group will provide more opportunities for their ethnic entrepreneurs to strive.

Thus in my view, I have no problem with any precincts or groupings with less than 50% composition of the minority races. Why not more than 50%? If the minority race becomes the majority composition of a precinct, that would mean statistically, it has become a big outlier!

I have not mentioned the lower band. My proposal is to have a band, instead of a tight rule of 25%. The band will range from 15% to 45%. It also means that the Chinese majority race cannot exceed 85% of the composition in any precincts.

Many people would suggest to get rid of the ethnic quota once and for all. I do not favor that but instead, take a progressive step towards that aim. I have spoken to foreign visitors from Australia, Sri Lanka and other places on Earth and they admire our racial policies in this aspect. It is something that we may have taken for granted for all this while. But a relax of such rules may foster better ties and lessen the price that any ethnic groups may suffer as the result of the ethnic quota rule.

I hope that these elaborations on my comments and responses given during the TOC Face to Face Forum will provide more insight into the policy rationale behind them.

Goh Meng Seng

行不通的公共组屋政策

2010-12-14T04:59:00.003+08:00

尽管组屋价格还是需要以30年房贷才能让国人买得起，国家发展部长马宝山还是坚持政府组屋还是“负担得起”。但他最近还提起几个有意思的观点。

在这些观点当中，他似乎刻意的把之前所说的“卖屋养老”的话给收回了。他说许多人也许不必卖屋降级来维持退休生活。

我之前已经在我党报悉数这“卖屋养老”计划根本行不通，更非是一个可持续的选择。

我现在就解释为什么这高屋价政策在“资产提升”的掩护下成为行动党的蓄意执行的政策方针。

以高房价解决人口老化问题

自1980年代初起，行动党就意识到它在70年代执行的“两个就够了”政策是大错特错，而这政策将促使人口史无前例的迅速老化。在做了人口统计规划预算后，执政党便发觉公积金政策可能无法持续的给老化的人口提供足够的退休资金。

为公积金户口提供稳定回报作为国人的养老金是政府的责任。如果有能力工作的人越来越少而向公积金提钱的退休人士越来越多的话，这情况会促使公积金局造成现金周转的压力。这问题将随着时间而逐渐严重。

维持高屋价的“好主意”就是为了解决人口老化带来的种种问题而构思出来的。以下是这计划的详细的论述：

1）如果新加坡人在公积金户头里有较少的储蓄的话，政府就无需承担太大的利息负担。也就是说，政府就可把资助人口老化的养老金的责任推卸掉。

2）但是将来老人的生活由谁来担当呢？30年的房贷肯定会逼使多数新加坡人卖屋养老的！只要让政府组屋价格持续上升，这一些未来的退休人士就可在高屋价的环境中卖屋“提取退休金”！这不就解决了他们养老金的问题了吗！

卖屋养老计划的影响和冲击

这过于简单的想法将会有几个影响。所有的现象都对新加坡人不利，反而对政府有利。

1）政府可从以高屋价把政府组屋卖给公民中得利。与此同时政府也无需拿出任何钱给以任何津贴。

2）首要调整就是提高地价。建屋局会在账目上承担赤字，因为它必须向土地局（两个部门同样隶属于国家发展局）以市价买地。我们必须认清土地局因运用土地征用法令强行以超低价收了私地而成了最大地主，拥有垄断权来制定地价。

3）所有卖地所得都直接进入储备金。这也就是为什么我们的储备金会自1980年起迅速增长。

4）政府减少了在公积金给以的利息反而从借给组屋买者的贷款中赚取利息。这也意味着新加坡人不只要承担高屋价的负担，除此之外还要承担房贷的利息。

5）如果这计划要能持续下去，房价就必须随时间大幅度飙升。要不然，整个的制度就会垮了。

影响

很明显的政府是这计划的既得利益者。它推卸了为老化人口提供资金的责任。它基本上把这责任以高屋价政策转嫁给下一代。与此同时，它却从中得利而把这利益转入储备金里头，使执政党看来能干。除此之外，它还从房屋借贷利息里获利。

政府的获利就是人民的失利。建屋发展局是新组屋市场的唯一供应者而它也是从房屋借贷中收取利息。

这政策将对这一代以高价买组屋和往后世世代代的新加坡人。这一代以30年房贷买屋子的人将会被逼卖屋养老。下一代的新加坡人就必须承担更高的屋价，因为这是政策方向以便这一代人可以筹足养老金！

行不通的政策

从长远看来，这计划根本是无法持续下去的。原因显而易见。如果要保住那一些新加坡人放进房子的钱的购买力的话，他们房子未来的价钱就必须要盖过利息和30年里的通货膨胀。

但是工人的工资通常只能以通货膨胀的速度增长。这也就是为什么我们在这二十年间已经面对工资的增长大幅度落后于政府组屋价钱的增长率的情况。

资料源自 singaporemind.blogspot.com

从1990至2009年间，工资只翻了一番，但是组屋的价钱却翻了四番！在这期间，房贷也因此从15年增长至30年。如果这形势持续下去，我们的后代也许就必须
会面对40或50年的放贷才能买得到政府组屋！

这能行得通吗？

这是两个矛盾的政策目标。这一方，如果要卖屋养老计划成功的话，房价的飙升必须超越薪金的涨幅。但是在另一方，我们又要世世代代的新加坡人“负担得起”房子，那么房价的涨幅就不能超越薪金的涨幅！我们怎么可能同时达到这两个矛盾的目的？

再说没有人能保证房价能以这速度飙升。在这人口老化的前提，二手房屋的供应将会增加而需求量反而会因年轻人的数目少而减少。这就会致使房价承受下跌的压力。

新加坡人必须彻底的了解这“卖屋养老”对我们这一代与后代所带来的严重后果。

最新的报告显示新加坡的房贷已经占了我们经济所有贷款的51%。这比香港的20% 还要高！如果房地产市场崩溃的话，整个金融体系将会承担超重的坏账！

一个经济体系不能把过多的资金投入像房地产一样的无生产力的资产上。如此会剥夺了需要资金来创业的国人。这也会使整个金融体系过度暴露于能使我们的财富瞬时间化为乌有的泡沫经济里。

日本，爱尔兰或甚至美国的经验显示金融体系过度暴露于潜向于泡沫的房地产将会摧毁整个经济体系。日本自从1990年代的泡沫经济引爆后，至今还是无法重新振作起来！

政治上，对大众推销贪婪是最有效的手段但是这也会致使对我们后代无法扭转和弥补的伤害。要说服人们高屋价是对他们不利是非常艰难的。我已等了很久才等到这适当的时机来试图以我在这些年里对此课题深入研究的知识来尝试解释这政策祸害的来龙去脉。我恳请那一些认同我的看法的读者能帮我把这重要讯息传达给你的亲朋好友们。

这祸害子孙后代的政策必须被制止，否则我们的后代会因我们的不理不睬而受害。

Unsustainable Policy : HDB

2010-12-11T00:33:00.018+08:00

Minister Mah Bow Tan has continued to claim that HDB flats are "affordable" inspite of the 30 years mortgage. He has however, made a few interesting points lately.

One of the points he made has somewhat RETRACTED from his earlier position that it is alright to have high HDB prices because we could "monetize" or sell our HDB flats for retirement. He said that we may not need to sell our flats and downgrade for retirement.

I have explained why selling flat for retirement is NOT A WORKABLE and SUSTAINABLE OPTION at all.

Before I talk about why this scheme of "selling flat for retirement" is not sustainable in the long run, I would like to address the basic fundamentals of why such HIGH HDB PRICES under the guise of "asset enhancement" is the deliberate policy direction of PAP government.

High Property Prices to solve Aging Population Problems

Since early 1980s, PAP has suddenly realized that their aggressive "TWO IS ENOUGH" policy is flawed and it would create unprecedented acceleration of an aging population. By doing a demographic projection, it would mean that the CPF scheme may not be sustainable in providing adequate retirement financing for this aging population.

The burden of providing retirement financing lies on the government to give constant returns to CPF account holders. If less and less people are going to work in the work force while more and more people are going to withdraw their CPF money in future, it would create cashflow pressures on CPF. This problem will aggravate in time to come.

The brilliant idea of maintaining high HDB flat price comes about to solve a lot of these problems derived from aging population. The followings are the reasoning:

1) If Singaporeans have less savings in CPF, the government won't be burdened by interest payment to the account holders. i.e. the government will wash its hands off from retirement financing of an aging population.

2) How or who will finance the future retirees then? A 30 year mortgage plan will DEFINITELY force Singaporeans to sell their flats for retirement! This is basically because their CPF accounts will have very little amount of funds left! By allowing HDB prices to increase, these future retirees could well "withdraw" their "retirement funds" by selling off their HDB flats at high prices! This would solve their retirement financing!

Impact of HDB flat for Retirement Financing

Such simplistic thinking will have a few impacts. All of these impacts are unfavorable to Singaporeans but very favorable to the Government.

1) The Government could benefit from selling HDB flats at high prices to citizens and they no longer need to fork out money for any subsidies. All so call subsidies are basically on paper accounting, market subsidies.

2) The first adjustment is to raise land prices. HDB, on paper, is in deficits because it has to buy land from SLA (both under Ministry of Development) at market prices. Please note that SLA has become the biggest land owner in Singapore through forceful acquisition of private land with monopoly power to determine prices.

3) All proceeds from Land Sales go directly into the reserves and that is why our reserves grow at rapid rate since 1980s.

4) The government earns interests, instead of paying interests, from making loans to HDB buyers. This also means that while Singaporeans are paying higher HDB prices using almost all their CPF monies and they are also incurring mortgage interests.

5) The prices of HDB flats MUST increase substantially over time in order for this scheme to be sustainable. If not, the whole system will collapse.

Implications

What are the implications?

Apparently, the government benefited the most from such scheme. It relinquishes its responsibility of providing retirement financing for an aging population. It basically transfers this burden to the future generations in terms of HIGHER HDB PRICES. It MAKES PROFITS from these higher HDB prices which transferred into reserves which make them look good. On top of that, it makes money from interests collected from HDB buyers

What the government gains will be what the citizens will lose. HDB is the MONOPOLY of the new HDB flat market and it is also the lender who earns interests from all outstanding loans.

What the government gains will be what the citizens will lose. HDB is the MONOPOLY of the new HDB flat market and it is also the lender who earns interests from all outstanding loans.

Unsustainable

This model is NOT sustainable in the long run. The reason is pretty clear. In order to preserve the purchasing power of the amount of money Singaporeans have put into their HDB flats, the future price of their flats has to increase tremendously to cover the interest cost as well as inflation throughout the 30 years period.

However, wages of the working class will normally grow at the rate just enough to cover inflation. That is why we are witnessing this impact of wages lagging behind HDB price growth for the past two decades. From the following graph prepared by Lucky Tan .

Wage doubled while HDB prices grow by FOUR folds during the period from 1990 to 2009. It corresponds to the increase in the mortgage payment period from 15 years to 30 years. In time to come, our future generations may have to pay for a 40years or even 50 years mortgage for just a decent HDB flat

Is this sustainable?

There are CONFLICTING policy objectives. On one hand, in order for the scheme of utilizing high HDB prices as a means for retirement financing, we need HDB prices to outstrip wage growth but in order to maintain "AFFORDABILITY" for all generations, we need to maintain the price increase according to wage growth! How could these CONFLICTING policy targets be met simultaneously?

Nobody can guarantee property prices will grow forever at such rapid rate. With an aging population, demand will be lower while supply will be increasing due to the increasing number of elders trying to sell their flats. This will have downward pressure on relative prices.

This is really an ill-thought out HDB-retirement scheme by the PAP government. This scheme benefits only the present government by alleviating its burden to provide for the retirement funding needs for the citizens while benefiting from all the higher HDB prices and interests earned from loans to HDB owners. This is in the expense of Singaporeans both present and future.

Almost all present Ministers will not be around in 30 years time to take responsibility for the effects of their policies. It is important for Singaporeans to understand the great implications of this HDB-retirement scheme upon our present generations as well as future generations.

I have come to this realization of this scheme ever since PAP started to embark the so call "Asset Enhancement Scheme" back in early 1990s. I have written a number of articles in protest of this scheme but many Singaporeans were overwhelmed by the immediate gain of paper capital gains. There were even Singaporeans trying to capitalize on the sudden increase in their flat value by upgrading or multiple upgradings. In the whole process, they committed higher and higher debts.

The latest report has indicated Singapore's housing debt has constituted more than 51% of total loans from our financial loans! This is even higher than Hong Kong's 20%! We will be doomed if there is a property crash! The whole financial system will be burden with unperforming loans!

An economy cannot invest too much of its financial resources in assets like properties which are not "productive" for the economy. If the property sector takes up too much of the financial resources of the economy, it will crowd out resources for financing investments by our local entrepreneurs. It would also mean that the financial sector would be over-exposed to a potential bubble which would wipe off our wealth when it bursts.

Experiences from Japan, Ireland and even US have shown that over-exposure of the financial sector to the bubble-prone property sector will destroy the economy. Japan has hardly recover from its collapse of economy due to property bubble since 1990s!

It is up to every Singaporeans to judge on whether what I write here make any sense. It is easy to sell greed to the masses but it will create irreversible damage to our future generations. It is not easy to convince people that high property prices are BAD for them. I have waited this long for the opportune time to explain what I have learned throughout these years. I urge every reader who agrees with my views to help me to spread this message to your friends and relatives.

This unsustainable and potentially damaging HDB-retirement scheme must be stopped and ceased else our future generations will suffer in vain for our inaction.

Goh Meng Seng

The Battle of Tampines

2010-12-10T13:48:00.006+08:00

Yes, I know, I am supposed to write about the unsustainable policies of PAP. But the Straits Time's constituency report on Tampines is just too interesting to be missed.

I have made a comment on The Online Citizen Facebook with regards to Minister Mah's column on TodayOnline and it is as follows:

Two years ago, before TOC went into the homeless issue and I banging on the unaffordability of HDB flats, many people think that HDB under MBT is great. When I first started the fire on HDB issue coupled with my minister-specific strategy aiming at MBT Tampines, many people say I am crazy. They reasoned that Tampines has the best flats which is appreciating, why would they want to vote for someone who tell them their flats are too high a price?

I am glad that after one and a half year of banging on housing issues with the help of New Media blogs and websites like TOC (and Temasek Review), we manage to change people's mind and get this very important point across. So much so that even hardcore PAP supporters have to admit that high HDB prices are a grave concern.

We have successfully completed half of the mission of political education, raising issue like Housing into hot topic. Now, according to ST, there are still 28 out of 30 who thinks MBT shouldn't be blamed for this HDB blunders. The other half of the mission is to convince voters that we must safeguard MERITOCRACY as our CORE VALUE by voting out those ministers who have screwed up.

I have written an article entitled "Basis of Meritocracy: Competency and Accountability" for the next issue of NSP North Star. This is to address the second part of the campaigning. I will put up this article in January 2011.

It is interesting to note from the ST report that "about half" in Tampines support PAP. To me, it actually means LESS THAN HALF supported PAP because if the figures are that great, it would have reported "MORE THAN HALF" supported PAP. This is in spite of the fact that 28 out of 30 don't "blame" Minister Mah.

It is also interesting to note the fact that the question of affordability of HDB flats is "no longer there": i.e. apparently, EVERYONE, including PAP supporters, has accepted that affordability of HDB FLATS IS AN ISSUE. This is a vast different from two years ago whereby people would pour scorn on me for raising high HDB prices as an issue.

The strange part is this: according to Mah Bow Tan's write up on Today, he is open to debate about HDB issues. I have requested a live debate with Miniister Mah but till now, no response from him just yet.

It is also interesting to note that Minister Mah has shifted his position subtly from his earlier assertion that "you could sell your flat for retirement" to "most probably you don't need to sell your flat and downgrade for retirement" because they have "savings, CPF" etc... BUT WAIT! With a 30 years mortgage payment to the max, how much money would an ordinary folk has in his CPF when he reach 60 years old? Well maybe the million dollar paid minister would have lots of other assets and savings, but for an ordinary folk, this is DEFINITELY NOT THE CASE!

The blatant truth is, with a HDB flat to be liable for a 30 years mortgage, Singaporeans would be FORCED to sell their flat and downgrade for their retirement financing!

It is quite surprising that after I have declared that Minister Mah's HDB policy is TOTALLY NOT SUSTAINABLE in the long run, he insisted that to remain "SUSTAINABLE" he needs to keep the present pricing policy! Scarcity of land is the reason he cited. But as I have mentioned before, this is NOT an issue when all LAND sold by the government comes with a 99 lease!

Minister Mah also claims that there is "hefty subsidies" for HDB flats. It is already a well known fact that HDB only gives "discounts" NOT ACTUAL SUBSIDIES to buyers. In fact, they overpriced the land which they have acquired DIRT CHEAP from Singaporeans. Then, they give discounts based on that price!

Contrary to what Minister Mah's assertion, pricing new HDB flats at COST WILL NOT COMPROMISE the BUDGET. This is basically because whatever revenue they gained via LAND SALES, go straight into the reserves, not the Budget revenue! Thus, by cutting down the price of the LAND sold to HDB will NOT compromise the BUDGET at all!

The Battle of Tampines is about the future of our children. It is also about defending our core values of Meritocracy, especially so when we are pay the HIGHEST SALARY in the world to our ministers.

Goh Meng Seng

建屋局违背社会契约祸害子孙后代

2010-12-01T14:34:00.005+08:00

I have just written a Chinese article on the ills of HDB policy which is not sustainable. I will be reconstructing this article into English article soon as part of my promise of posting on the unsustainable policies of PAP government.

Goh Meng Seng

建屋局违背社会契约祸害子孙后代

在建国初期，百业待兴。行动党在成为执政党后，便积极使用土地征收法，强制以超低价格向各个大小地主征收土地以便供国家发展。为了补偿这一些新加坡人为国家发展所做出的牺牲，政府与人民达成了不明文规定的社会契约，那就是政府会为人民提供优质廉价，甚至是受津贴的公共住屋。

政府把永久地契的土地以超低价格征收回来，然后以99年地契的组屋出售给人民，这种社会主义的土地改革和建制对于我们世世代代新加坡人的住屋需求提供了保障。如果没有我们先辈对土地的牺牲，我们千千万万的同胞和我们的后代便没法有足够的住屋了。

政府也从这以超低价格征收土地中得益良多。到目前为止，政府已从征收廉价土地中累积超过80%的国土！我国几千亿的储备金中，有一大部份是买卖土地的收益！这也就是为什么政府有责任和义务为世世代代的国人提供廉价组屋。我们也不期望政府亏钱，但至少必须以成本价提供住屋给国人。就算要从组屋用地赚点利息回报，它也必须以合理的计算法计算土地价格给建屋局。

政府与建屋局在建国初20年里的确履行了它对这社会契约的义务和责任。我们的父辈的确以廉价的价格向建屋局买到了组屋。我们父辈能以少过15年的按揭买到他们心仪的房子。这基本上解决了国人的住屋需求。

但是一踏入1990年代，行动党却以“资产增值”为利诱，说服国人组屋升值是好事，积极发展组屋转售市场，更以“组屋翻新”为竞选伎俩。但是新组屋价格也悄然地猛涨两三倍以上！以往行动党所依赖的“组屋津贴”政治资本逐渐站不住脚了。在反对党议员屡次挑战这“组屋津贴”的神话后，行动党才婉转的以“市场津贴”搪塞。说穿了，这“市场津贴”也只是从市场给以“折扣”而已。行动党政府还是从买组屋中牟利。关键就在土地价格的制定上。

新加坡土地有限，政府又是最大的地主。政府基本上垄断了土地市场的供应。从经济常理看来，土地价格在这种情况下肯定会随着时间以超过经济和国民平均薪金成长的速度飙升！

这也就反映在组屋价格与国民中间收入增长日益扩大的差距。从1990至2009的统计看来，国民中间收入只增长了一倍而组屋转售价竟然升超过三倍！由于新组屋是以市场转售价给以折扣，所以新组屋也应该升了三倍或更多！如果是以1980年代为基准的话，那这差距肯定会更大！

Source: Data compiled by Lucky Tan, http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/

这扩大的差距也反映在按揭年限逐渐的延长上。我们父辈只须15年或更低的按揭，在1990年代买组屋的我这一代就需付上20年的按揭。到了这世纪初至今，我们的新一代就必须给30年的按揭奴役了！

如今这30年房屋贷款将使我们年轻国人无法有足够钱在老时养老！如果他们30岁结婚，要到60岁才能把房贷还清！他们还能有多少公积金储蓄来养老？如果按照马宝山部长的说法，组屋可是“投资”，我们能卖房子养老，那么我们不是要祈求房价能一直勇往直前，继续往上狂升吗？姑且不谈这种期望屋价不断上涨的妄想是否不切实际，但是试想想，要是真是如此，我们的子孙后代是不是要付上更长的按揭才能买到组屋吗？40年还是50年按揭？如果让行动党政府继续如此搞下去的话，我们的子孙后代便须付出沉重的代价！

吴明盛

Sustainability is the KEY ISSUE

2010-11-29T19:00:00.005+08:00

Straits Time reporter called me up today to ask me about PM Lee's speech made on PAP's congress on Sunday. My first response is that the Prime Minister is just executing what he has said in last General Eections 2006. (Watch the above video). He will always look for ways to "buy support" and this announcement of "goodies" for the Election year 2011 will definitely be viewed as "buying support".

What make it worse is that the main bulk of the increased government revenue, as hinted by PM Lee who pointed out the increase in tourists due to the casino resorts, comes from casino-related taxes. I would have to agree with Ngiam Tong Dow that the ruling party has gone "astray" and its policies lack moral bearings.

I would prefer all these collections from such "immoral source" be used to reform our Healthcare Insurance system as well as providing more subsidies to Education, especially for the vulnerable group.

I was asked on whether such goodies in the coming Budget would affect my party's (NSP) performance in the coming elections. I said whether my party win or lose, it is just a democratic process. I am more concerned about how voters make their choices. If such goodies could actually "buy them over" by the ruling party then it would be a very setback for Singapore's democratic progress. The key issue of any General Elections should not lie on how much "Red Packet" the ruling party is going to give you, not even about how much HDB upgrading is at stake.

I said categorically that A GREAT POLITICIAN SELLS HIS VISION FOR THE FUTURE, NOT PORK BARREL. Voters should look beyond immediate gains or goodies handed out and look at the policies that will affect their future and their future generations.

One example I cited for GE2006 is that PAP didn't tell voters that they were going to increase GST from 5% to 7% in spite of me asking them openly in my rally speech for them to state clearly whether they are going to increase GST from 5% to 7% and then 10%. But we know that immediately after GE2006, the Prime Minister declared that GST would be raised "to help the poor"! However so far, we have not seen any concrete programs that utilize this increased revenue to help the poor! On the contrary, we have seen the increase of Singaporeans forced to live on beaches, collecting card boards and living in poverty! (For reference, please read this link.)

The Health Minister Khaw has tried to clarify during GE2006 that the means testing for healthcare would not take place that "soon" but it just kicked in just about a year later!

I was asked about PM Lee's mention of issues for next GE, particularly immigration, housing, helping low-wage workers and a sense of disorientation among Singaporean due to rapid changes in the society. I would say that all these are just "symptoms" of the KEY PROBLEM/illness of PAP's policies. The KEY PROBLEM is SUSTAINABILITY.

From politics, immigration, minimum wage, housing, retirement financin (CPF), transport to healthcare, PAP's policies are not sustainable at all in the long run. I have touched on politics in my other postings here with regards to Post LKY era and I will not repeat.

I will break down other issues into different posts on my blog for the coming days and weeks, all talking about the sustainability of these policies.

While PAP thinks that First Class candidates means top bankers, lawyers and other elites as their core, I believe that good candidates are those who have the passion to serve, who believe that politics is all about public service and those who can deliver the voices of the people into the parliament.

I have told the reporter that NSP is not going to sell HATRED in the coming GE as it was the norm for opposition to talk bad about PAP. We are going to sell our policy views on the sustainability for our Nation and future generations.

Just watch this space.

Goh Meng Seng

What does "Freak Election Results" mean?

2010-11-28T01:56:00.002+08:00

Well, this is definitely not an alien phrase for all of us. PAP has been talking about it for donkey years and this phrase has been raised again recently.

RP SG Kenneth gave a good rebuttal on "Freak Election Results": “How could it be a freak result if it is the will of the people?”

Yes, how could PAP ever think of such term? Does it mean that the people are "freak" to vote in opposition to replace PAP? How could the will of the masses be considered as "FREAK"?

Well, some PAP supporter has put it another way, when "freak" opposition members who have character flaws are voted into parliament, then it is considered as "freak election results". Sound good right? But wait, why would the masses vote someone who are "freak" with character flaws into parliament in the first place? What would these PAP supporters call them?

In democratic countries in the world, politicians who lost their elections, will just bow out, thank his supporters and respect the will and choice of the people. No matter how seemingly "unjust" the results could be. The following is the "DEFEAT SPEECH" by the President of Democratic Progressive Party of Taiwan after she lost her elections yesterday.

Opposition parties have not mentioned about "Freak Election Results" when we know there are people who vote for PAP out of fear.We can lose elections but we must not lose our character. Never blame the voters, least accusing that as "Freak Election Results" because it is a disrespectful insult to the voters. Although we might have lost an elections, but we must win back applause and respect.

I initially thought that those who proclaim "Freak Election Results" are just Sore Losers. Only Sore Losers will make hell lot of noise when they lose, just like our childhood friends who will cry father cry mother when they lost a game or two.

But on second thought, there is more to it. It may really be a "Freak Election Results" because the ruling party has become so FREAK that Singaporeans will just abandon them. Maybe this is the real reason for "Freak Election Results" to happen.

Goh Meng Seng

The Contest in Tampines against Mah Bow Tan and ...

2010-11-17T13:30:00.009+08:00

The above picture shows a major event coming up in Tampines on 21 Nov 2010. Tree planting, Neighbourhood Renewal Programme and free Dinner etc. The intriguing thing about this poster is on the left bottom corner where it states Guest of Honour as Mr. Masagos, the newly promoted minister of state for Education and Home Affairs. The distinguished guests include all other MPs of Tampines except Minister Mah Bow Tan, the anchor minister of Tampines GRC.

As there is a hint here that MBT may not be standing in Tampines, I have told a ST reporter that PAP or Minister Mah should make clear whether he is still standing in Tampines or any other place else because I will follow him. PAP has claimed that they take GE as the "contest of ideas" and I would like to contest MBT's or PAP's idea of public housing as investment.

If MBT is to retire from politics, which is more probable than moving to other GRC or SMC, then such intentions should be made known so that I could contest such idea of Public Housing against future Minister of National Development.

Of course, I hope that it is just coincidental that MBT is out of town and unable to attend the above mentioned event on 21 Nov 2010.

Many people tend to think that Tampines is a "sweet ground" to contest for the next GE. However, in reality, Tampines is traditionally a "hard ground" for opposition parties. The main reason is that more than 32% of Tampines flats are 5 room flats, executive flats, condominium or landed properties. (refer to data released by Department of Statistics in 2000).

Although Mah Bow Tan is one of the rare PAP members/ministers who have lost an election before (in Potong Pasir 1984) but he is definitely not a pushover. It is precisely the fact that he has tasted bitter defeat that he is exceptional careful in cultivating his own turf in Tampines. Choosing one of the hardest ground in Singapore is one of the first step to ensure better chances of defence against challengers. A typical HDB estate would have only 9%-15% of 5 room flats/ condominium. (eg. Ang Mo Kio estate has about 9%) Tampines is one of the very few HDB estates with such high percentage of 5 room or higher flats.

Intriguingly, a couple of opposition parties begin to be interested in Tampines GRC or rather, contesting against Mah Bow Tan AFTER NSP has set the fire on the HDB issues since 2008/9. I was tasked by my party to take over the responsibility to form a team to contest in Tampines and I have formulated the Minister-specific strategy since then. Most people in opposition parties are not very keen in contesting in Tampines basically because of the higher middle-upper class mix in Tampines, which is traditionally viewed as more supportive of PAP generally. Truly so, Tampines has NEVER been a "hot spot" since its inception.

NSP has been contesting in Tampines GRC for the past elections. NSP has been contesting in Tampines GRC since its inception in 1988, except for 1997 GE whereby it was a walkover for PAP. In 2001 and 2006 GEs, NSP candidates stood in Tampines GRC under the SDA banner.

Thus, while I am not surprised at SDA declaration on Berita Harian as well as SDP's assertion of interests that they want to contest in Tampines GRC, I am sadden by the fact that they have disregarded NSP's continuous political effort in Tampines GRC for the past two decades. Especially so when NSP has successfully turned Tampines GRC from a "traditionally cold spot" into a "hot spot" via various deliberate strategic moves made in the past two years. Unfortunately the bees will definitely be attracted to the honey.

I sincerely hope that SDA and SDP should reconsider their position so to avoid multi-corner fight in Tampines GRC. I think in general, Singaporeans do not wish to see multi-corner fights at this instance. However, if all rational reasoning fails, I am prepared for the worst scenario as well.

Goh Meng Seng

HDB 50 Years: From Affordable to Struggle

2010-11-16T00:42:00.002+08:00

Note: This is the article which I wrote that Minister Mah Bow Tan is trying to "rebut" in his weekly column in Today newspapers. This article first appear on NSP newspaper, North Star, which we have sold thousands and thousands in various parts of Singapore.

Goh Meng Seng

HDB is celebrating its 50 years of existence recently and has started a round island exhibition of its past achievements. It has even come up with a two part TV series on Channel News Asia to glorify its past achievement. For the first 20 years or so, from 1960 to 1980, HDB has done a relatively impressive job of providing cheap public housing for the majority of Singaporeans.

However, we must recognize the fact that without the Land Acquisition Act that empowered the PAP government to acquire land from many small and medium land owners at dirt cheap prices, it would not be possible for HDB to redistribute these lands in terms of cheap public housing to the masses. Without the sacrifices made by all these land owners, the PAP government would not be able to acquire up to 80% of land in Singapore at an unimaginably low prices.

Thus, it would not be complete to talk about HDB’s achievement of housing more than 80% of Singaporeans without looking at the power given to the government via the Land Acquisition Act as well as the enormous sacrifices made by many land owners in the past. The Land Acquisition Act and HDB are the pillars of the socialist land reform tool that is aimed solve the problem of inadequate housing for the masses. The government has the privilege and power to forcefully acquire land from many land owners at dirt cheap prices but it also has the social obligation to redistribute these lands to the masses via HDB by providing cheap public housing.

The enormous amount of past PAP’s political capital is derived from the success of such land reform effort to provide cheap public housing at REAL SUBSIDIZED prices to the masses. When the late Minister Teh Cheang Wan (who has committed suicide after corruption probe) tried to explain about affordability of the new increased prices of HDB in a news article published in Straits Time 1981, he has put up an impressive chart of the breakdowns of costing for the various HDB flats. The costing includes construction and land costs. The selling prices were based on these costing in which different amount of REAL COST SUBSIDIES were given. Most of the time, the subsidies stated were more than the land cost stated.

It is almost impossible for us to know the present costing of any HDB flats built in modern days, least REAL COST SUBSIDIES if any. The pricing mechanism of HDB’s new flats has been changed drastically, from cost based pricing to resale market based pricing. HDB claims that it is giving “MARKET SUBSIDIES” when it prices the new HDB flats at a discount from the resale market prices. I guess I could also tell my customers that they are getting “MARKET SUBSIDIES” from me when I give them some discount on the products they buy from me, this is in spite of the fact that I am still earning a profit from the sales.

If the prices of new HDB flats are based on the resale market prices, wouldn’t it be in the interests of HDB and the PAP government that the prices in resale market to be kept high so that they could sell their new HDB flats at higher prices?

This pricing mechanism is flawed. On the surface, it is supposedly based on “market forces” but could such market force price the flats in accordance to the general affordability of the people? The answer is obviously no. Such pricing mechanism will only capture the availability of liquidity and demand that is created by population growth. It cannot represent the actual “affordability” as it could not reflect real income growth as well as general inflation rate.

In recent years, the prices of the HDB resale market are heavily influenced by:
1. The increase in demand caused by the influx of foreign migrants who became Permanent Residents (PRs).
2. The excess liquidity that brought in by these PRs.
3. The shortage of new HDB flats due to HDB’s inability to forecast accurately the demand of housing
due to the rapid population growth.

All these factors have nothing to do with the real income growth and affordability of Singaporeans. In fact, it is not difficult to realize that over time, HDB prices have outstripped income growth in the past decades.

During my father’s generation, a family with only one income could possibly pay off its HDB mortgage loan within 10 years. For my generation, we could only pay off our HDB mortgage loans with two incomes of husband and wife. For our present and next generation, they could only afford their new HDB flat with a 30 years mortgage paid by two income earners! It is very obvious from this general observation that HDB prices have outstripped our wages at least by two times.

Minister Mah Bow Tan whose Ministry in charge of HDB has tried very hard to prove the affordability of HDB by using all sorts of statistics. It has used an inherently bias Median Household Income of HDB flat applicants as well as statistical data comparison between income growth and HDB resale price growth for the period of 1999 to 2009. This comparison is totally inadequate. We should look at the comparison of income versus HDB resale prices for the period of 1990 till 2009 instead. This is the most appropriate comparison because the PAP government started its “Asset Enhancement Scheme” in early 1990s.

Although the data is incomplete due to the lack of data for the period from 1991 to 1994, but it is very obvious to us that the HDB Resale Price Index has outstripped Median Household Income growth by 200%. I shall also quote the analysis from Lucky Tan’s blog:
1. From 1990 to 2009, RPI rose to 442 (442% of the base year) but household income rose only to 211 (211% of the base year) i.e. income rose at roughly half the rate property rose over a 20 year period. The RPI was only 34.1 in 1990, today it is 154 i.e. a HDB flat today is 4.5 times the price 20 years ago but household income is only 2.1 times.

2. You will notice the big jump from 1990 to 1995 when the RPI rose from 34.1 to 101.9. That jump occurred just after CPF was liberalised for housing in 1991. During that period household income only went up by 36% but HDB price almost tripled. CPF basically went from funding retirement to funding
home purchases.

The conclusion is very obvious. Due to the fact that HDB prices have outstripped income growth for the past 20 years, it is inevitable that we will be shortage of funds for retirement since almost all of our CPF funds are being used to pay the 30 years mortgage for our flats.

Minister Mah Bow Tan and PAP leaders have not denied the fact that with the present HDB prices which need a 30 years mortgage payment, Singaporeans would have shortage of retirement funds in CPF. CPF would have failed its mission in providing savings for comfortable retirement of most Singaporeans. In fact, Minister Mah has suggested a way out of this situation: Monetize your HDB flats to finance your retirement. It is a very nice sounding way of saying you need to sell off your flats for your retirement!

It is really a cruel suggestion to all hard working Singaporeans who have worked so hard for more than 30 years of their life to sell their flats and lower their quality of live for their retirement just because the cheapest HDB housing in town during their time has sucked up almost all of their CPF contributions which left little for their retirement.

HDB has started out as a good socialist tool for land reform and redistribution. However it seems that half way down the road, it has totally diverted from its original humble but important objective of providing cheap public housing.

It has developed into a monster that overpriced basic housing which results in it cannibalizing on Singaporeans’ retirement funds. If we do not stop the PAP government’s Minister Mah from perpetuating this policy direction of high HDB prices, we would be supporting his plan to get Singaporeans to sell off their HDB flats for retirement in future!
Is this some big achievement for HDB to brag about for its 50 years existence?

Dawn of Post-LKY era

2010-10-13T02:05:00.008+08:00

I have spoken about Post-LKY era in several occasions over the last few years and I have just done that on the day Mrs. Lee Kuan Yew died, 9 September 2010. When I heard that news, it immediately struck upon me that we are walking right into Post-LKY without any adequate preparation at all.

The loss of his beloved wife at this ripe old age of 87 would have great impact on his health and well being, especially so when he has just been admitted into hospital for chest infections.

When I watch him speak at his wife's funeral, reading his eulogy painfully with a barely audible voice and head facing down most of the time, I suddenly felt very sorry for him. The once one of the best political orators in this region, has suddenly lost his flare and magical touch. The severely wounded old lion may not roar again. I still hope that he would have a speedy recovery from both his illness and grief.

Someone has a lively discussion with me about Post-LKY era and declare that "LKY doesn't matter at all". I said, "But the fact that we are using LKY as the indication in Post-LKY era discussions truly reflects the fact that his political life is an important part of Singapore's history!"

Although Mr. Lee Kuan Yew is still alive, but death to everyone, including all of us, is certain, just a matter of when. With due respect to MM Lee, for the benefits of Singapore, we will have to examine all the possibilities carefully so that we could prepare ourselves, the Nation, for a smooth transition into Post-LKY era.

There are many questions of uncertainties with regard to Post-LKY era:

1) Will LKY's legacy outlive his passing?
2) Can the present social-economic-political model sustain in the long run?
3) Will there be power struggle within PAP? If so, will political instability occur?
4) Will both foreign and local investors maintain their confidence in our country's stability?
5) Will Singapore's political hegemony continue to strive?

The ultimate question is, will Singapore be better or worse off without Mr Lee Kuan Yew and how could we maintain or develop our political system thereafter?

In human history, particularly Chinese ancient and modern history, the passing of an Emperor or a political Strongman will always trigger off power struggle within the system. eg. The death of Chairman Mao Zhe Tong is the prime example how the power vacuum leads to intense power struggle. Luckily for China, Chairman Mao during his last breaths, has done the right thing of reinstating Deng Xiao Peng so that the Gang of Four could not extend their political atrocities by capturing power.

In Singapore's context, one may think that all is fine since Mr Lee Hsien Loong has become the third generation Prime Minister in Singapore. However, from all observations made so far, the undercurrent of power struggle is quite eminent.

It is only natural for any organizations to have different cliques or factions, especially so for political parties no matter how big or small they are. The most important thing is to find the balance whereby all factions could compromise and work together for the bigger picture. However, when there is a change in the dynamics between the factions due to the diminishing or total absence of a strongman like MM Lee, it will initiate fresh round of struggle to find the new balance of interests and power among them. Whether we like it or not, such realignment of power balance will take place.

In my opinion, for the sake of the country, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew should retire from active politics in either the form of total withdrawal from contest for the coming GE or just become a backbencher. This is to allow the Nation and all social, political and economic sectors to get used to a system without Strongman LKY. We need such gradual transitional period to cushion off the impact of the uncertainties arise from Post-LKY era.

Post-LKY era will pose great challenges as well as opportunities for the country as a whole. Post-LKY era will practically mean the end of strongman politics in Singapore. Many countries in the world have gone through such transition. eg. Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and even China etc.

The common phenomenon of Strongman politics in many countries during last century is basically due to the Post War impact whereby strong leadership is needed for the initial phase of stability, recovery and rebuilding from the devastating effects of World War II and the political uncertainty imposed by Cold War. However, most of the countries have walked out of the need of Strongman politics and many of them are working towards a more open and democratic political system.

Whether Singapore will follow the footsteps of these countries in embarking on the journey of developing a more open and democratic political system suitable for Singapore's context will depend largely on voters, not merely the ruling party alone.

It is a world trend for such political transition to happen because the model of political hegemony is NOT SUSTAINABLE in the long run. We should ensure the transition from Strongman politics to democratic development to be in a controlled and smooth manner.

Concurrently, we should reexamine on the kinds of political models we want for Post-LKY era. This should be done with the interests of our future generations instead of the usual narrowly defined interests of the ruling party.

MM Lee has once said that if the "opposition party" wins the elections twice consecutively, Singapore will be doomed. The basic reason why he comes to that conclusion is that the present political system is designed in such a way that a lot of power has been CENTRALIZED to give the ruling party absolute control. There is practically little SEPARATION of POWER to talk about, least, any meaningful checks and balance system. It is basically a system that is designed to entrenched the system of power hegemony.

However, MM Lee may have forgotten that the main threat of "dooming" Singapore may not come from any opposition party winning the elections but rather a corrupt group of politicians evolving out of PAP itself! The PAP may be seen as relatively clean by world standards but NOBODY can guarantee that this will forever be so and PAP will never be led by corrupt leaders in future!

I really hope that we will not face turbulent time ahead in Post-LKY era. If that happens, it would also mean that Mr Lee Kuan Yew has failed to build a sustainable system that could outlive his own legacy. There is still time, no matter how little it is, for MM Lee to do what is right for Singapore.

MM Lee should initiate and oversee the fundamentals of a better and more democratic political system to be established before he retires from Singapore politics. Nobody else in PAP has such political clout to do it except him.

He should institutionalize the independence of the Elections Department and fair play in our elections.

1) Gerrymandering and pork barrel politics should be outlawed.
2) A form of Proportional Representation should be adopted.
3) Independence of the press and government establishments like People's Association should be established.
4) All political parties should be given equal access to Government resources and funding to enhance healthy competition.
5) Political Donations Act should be amended to allow political parties to solicit funds.
6) Freedom of speech should be further institutionalized so that political parties or politicians could air their views freely in the context of public interests.
7) Freedom of information access to government statistics and data should be made available for enhancing political debates.
8) Intimidation or use of coercion on political opponents through government agencies, institutions or GLCs should be outlawed. No one should be intimidated or persecuted for his political beliefs and involvement.

There may be more things to be done but it would be a good start with the above mentioned. There is an urgency for him to do so else Singapore will fall and become the victim of intense power struggle within his own party after his passing. That would be a sad Post-LKY era the entire Nation will face in time to come.

Goh Meng Seng

Condolences to Mr. Lee Kuan Yew & Mr. Lee Hsien Loong

2010-10-05T00:54:00.005+08:00

I pay a visit to the Wake of Mrs. Lee Kuan Yew today with a few party colleagues including Steve Chia and Nor Lella to offer my deepest condolences and sympathy to Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and their families.

I have given a short statement to Radio 95.8 on the importance of the support of a capable spouse, a soul mate for people who are involved in politics and public service. The lonely road on pursuing our political dreams will be much bearable with the support of our soul mates in our lives. I am fortunate to have my soul mate who has provided strong moral support all these years and I empathize the great grief of MM Lee losing his soul mate. My sympathy and condolences to him and wishing him speedy recovery from his present illness.

Goh Meng Seng

Long term coalition cannot be based on anti-PAP or anti-LKY sentiments

2010-10-04T23:00:00.000+08:00

The following is a very good report written by Donaldson Tan of News Asia Republic on the Elections Forum organized by SFD.

“A team building process cannot be based on a common enemy. It is not sustainable over the long term, ” Mr Goh Meng Seng told participants at a public workshop on electoral reform organised by Singaporeans For Democracy (SFD). “What will happen [to Opposition unity] when LKY dies or when PAP looses half its support?” This reply was a response to a question from the floor on Opposition unity. Mr Goh is the Secretary-General of the National Solidarity Party (NSP) and a panelist at the workshop. The 40-year-old politician was elected to the top post at NSP this February.

He told participants that PAP practises confrontational politics because of its historical baggage with colonialism and communism. As such, it is not unusual for PAP to treat Opposition politicians as troublemakers. This mindset is not sustainable. “You must first believe that the Opposition is part of the government, but plays a different role,” Mr Goh told the participants.

The ‘troublemaker’ mindset is evident in the Political Donation Act. Total anonymous donation to political parties cannot exceed S$5,000 a year. This limit is hardly enough to cover a year’s rent of office space for the political party. To make matters worse, the Singapore Land Authority does not permit residential spaces (e.g. HDB flat) to be used for conducting political activities. Yet, MPs can rent void deck space of HDB flats for political outreach. Moreover, PAP MPs enjoy a discount when they rent the HDB void deck space through the People’s Association.

This constraints political competition in Singapore. Mr Goh pointed out that political competition is good for the state. This is why political parties in Hong Kong and Taiwan enjoy state funding as long as the parties can win votes above a particular threshold. Perhaps Singapore should do the same to allow the current political system to be more balanced. Political parties are agent of change, but change still must come from the electorate. The electorate has to believe in fairness in the political system.

In Singapore, the elected MP is not given funds to set up an office in his constituency. In Hong Kong, the elected representatives and town councillors receive state funding to pay for the office rent and staff salaries for the operation of his office. In comparison, Singapore is very primitive. Opposition MPs have to meet their constituents in the HDB void deck. Certain constituents require privacy when meeting their MP but this is not possible if the Opposition MP has no office space.

Mr Goh also shared his concern that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had refused to call for by-election in response to the news that Dr Balaji Sadasivan, a MP of the Ang Mo Kio GRC, had passed away from Colon Cancer. The Prime Minister’s rationale is that the remaining MPs in the same GRC can take on his roles and responsibilities. Mr Goh pointed out that a MP has 2 roles: (1) serve the constituents; and (2) debate in parliament. “How can anyone simply replaces another MP to debate in parliament?” he said.

He opined that the problem of by-election can be circumvented by proportional representation. In proportional representation, by-election can be circumvented more fairly as it allows the party to internally select a new representative to take over the vacated MP post. While it may not be fair to aspiring MPs who are alive, proportional representation is more inclusive. For example, proportional representation allows LGBT interest to become an election agenda, unlike the current situation, whereby first-past-the-post system restricts General Election candidates to campaign along mainstream issues. After all, LGBT members are still members of society.

Mr Goh also raised another concern relating to the GRC – race politics. The Election Department requires the certification of race of General Election candidates of minority race. This certification is not permanent. It is only valid for one General Election, so candidates have to be re-certified at every General Election. “Does your race change over time” asked Mr Goh. According to Mr Goh, the reason for the certification of minority race is to inform PAP how many wards the Opposition will be contesting. The Election Department reports to the Prime Minister’s Office. Moreover, it creates the perception among minority race candidates that the opposition political parties need them because of their race and not their individual merits such as integrity and political acumen.

Last but not least, Mr Goh touched on the conduct of General Election by the Elections Department. He noted that Singapore does not have a fixed date for General Election, thus there is no incentive for the Elections Department to release periodically a report on electoral boundaries. The Elections Department does not brief partisan players on electoral procedures. This includes issues such as what counts as a voided vote and how votes are counted. The Elections Department needs to beef up in this aspect.

The Elections Department is also in charge of venue booking during General Election campaign period. Rallies are important for opposition parties as they are the only means for an Opposition political party to access masses during the campaign period. “Singapore has a very primitive way for the Opposition to book rally venues. People has to start queuing up the night before [outside the Elections Department],” said Mr Goh. Online booking of venues is so prevalent today. Mr Goh noted that the ruling party benefits from the current set-up as it can easily mobilise a lot of people to queue, unlike any of the Opposition political parties.

There were 2 other panelists – Mr Chia Li Tik (Secretary-General of the Socialist Front) and Dr James Gomez (Executive Director of SFD). Film maker Martyn See was the workshop moderator. The workshop, titled SFD Election Consultation, was held at Post Museum on 2 Oct 2010 (Saturday) from 1500 to 1800. There were 50 participants in total. The 3 panelists had campaigned together as candidates under the Workers’ Party in the 2001 General Election.

Singaporeans For Democracy Elections Forum

2010-10-02T01:11:00.004+08:00

I will be speaking at the Elections Forum organized by Singaporeans For Democracy (SfD)

Date: 2 October 2010
Time: 3-6pm
Venue: Post Museum,107+109 Rowell Road S209033 (directions)

I will touch on mainly three aspects of the electoral system here.

1) The Electoral Process
2) Unreasonable rules
3) Alternative System

All are welcomed.

Goh Meng Seng

Taiwan Government encourages installation of Flood Gates

2010-09-26T20:46:00.004+08:00

In one of National Solidarity Party's press statement released after Singaporeans experiencing frequent flooding in Singapore, we have recommended the PAP government to consider subsidizing individual households and small businesses who are adversely affected by the floods. However, PAP government has not responded, neither did the main stream media dare to publish anything about it.

It seems that not only the British government has implemented the flood gate installation program, even the Taiwanese government has praised the effectiveness of such implementation of the flood gates.

After the big disastrous flooding caused by typhoon Morakot last year, the Taiwanese government responded by coordinating the installation of flood gates:

Morakot Relief and Reconstruction
Reconstruction Council: Government will coordinate installation of floodgates to boost flood prevention in disaster areas

Publication Date：08/27/2009
Deputy Executive Director Chern Jenn-chuan of the Southern Office of the Morakot Post-Disaster Reconstruction Council said August 27 that in order to improve flood-prevention capabilities of people in disaster areas, Premier Liu Chao-shiuan had directed the Construction and Planning Agency (CPA) of the Ministry of the Interior to provide full subsidies for installation of floodgates in Linbian and Jiadong townships. The CPA shall also oversee local government polling of township residents as soon as possible concerning their willingness to erect floodgates. As long as residents are willing, the CPA shall call on existing contract floodgate vendors to complete installation within seven days.

Chern went on to explain that Linbian and Jiadong are low-lying areas of Pingtung County, so the public in these rural townships should remain on high alert before the water has fully receded in order to cut post-disaster risks. He stressed that Premier Liu has instructed that comprehensive disaster response preparations be completed at both the central and local government levels to reduce future disaster damage or losses.

(Source: Southern Office, Morakot Post-disaster Reconstruction Council, Executive Yuan, August 27, 2009)

I sincerely hope that the PAP government will respond positively for the benefits of Singaporeans who are affected by such flash floods. The following is the news from Taiwan:

馬：高市退回防水閘門補助很可惜

* 2010-09-26
* 中國時報
* 【呂素麗、張立勳／綜合報導】

　馬英九總統昨日下午到災情慘重的高雄文藻外語學院巡視，他說，防洪不外乎是「外水不越堤防，內水不入家門」，他大力推崇防水閘門是「小兵立大功」，曾在台北市防洪上發揮極大效果，他強調，「高雄市安裝防水閘門比例不高，還把中央補助的八千萬元退回，很可惜！」

　馬英九總統是在聽取文藻外語學院簡報淹水災情之後，當著高雄市長陳菊、國民黨高雄市長參選人黃昭順及多名官員的面前，突然「數落」高雄市安裝防水閘門比例不高，令人感覺暗藏選戰機鋒。

　在場的陳菊基於禮貌，不便打斷總統致詞而未立即回應，但私下對此表示，防水閘門確實對防水有幫助，可是不具強迫性，市府不能勉強要求市民一定要裝設。她說，過去高雄市民對安裝不踴躍，未來市府願檢討並將鼓勵民眾增設防水閘門，一起來防災。

　馬英九在巡視時表示，這次颱風雨量超大，六小時下了六十公分的水上來，很難不淹水，而文藻大淹水主要是愛河的水進來，校園的水又排不出去所致。

　馬英九相當推崇防水閘門，他舉台北市為例，他說，台北市淹水淹怕了，「久病成良醫」，知道如何防水，其中以防水閘門效果最好，他當市長時，鼓勵市民安裝防水閘門，有八成安裝後很滿意；這次凡那比颱風，行政院已決定動用第二預備金，補助一半安裝防水閘門的費用，希望民眾多安裝。

　他指出，去年莫拉克颱風後，中央特別從預算一千二百億元中撥出十五億元補助縣市政府做防水閘門，屏東縣做了一萬一千多件、高雄縣做了一萬件，但高雄市只做了一千一百十二件，花了七百萬元，還把沒花完的八千萬元退還給中央，他覺得很可惜。

　根據教育部統計，凡那比颱風造成七百五十三所學校受損，災損共九億一千四百多萬元，高雄市占了三億多元，其中又以文藻外語學院及高雄大學最嚴重，災損各為一億六千萬元及一億二千萬元，兩校都在災後停課一周，下周一才恢復上課；立委黃昭順建議教育部，專案處理補助兩校的災損。

　馬英九總統昨日下午也前往高雄縣仁武工業區和永安漁會關心受災情況，高雄縣長楊秋興向馬總統提出治水計畫，在阿公店溪、典寶溪與曹公圳等水系，預計施做十三座滯洪池，包含土地與工程費用，總計約九十億。

　黃昭順則提議，永安地區淹水狀況不同，希望淹水補助標準降至卅公分，但礙於現行法令不可行，馬總統則表示，研議是否修法幫助凡那比颱風受災戶。

Working Poor

2010-09-20T20:11:00.009+08:00

About nine years ago, Jame Gomez was talking about "New Poor" in Workers Party's various rallies. But after nine years down the road, many people are talking about "Working Poor". i.e. It is no longer "New" but just as any other average guy or gal in the work force who are now considered as "Poor".

What has happened throughout this period that created this Working Poor phenomenon? The widening gap of income inequality caused by Globalization as well as ultra-capitalism has taken its toll on the middle class in all societies. The changing of labour conditions also caused a great diminishing middle class in many societies, including Singapore.

Karl Marx has predicted the eventuality of the diminishing middle class which will create social class struggle within an economy, if Capitalism is allowed to go to the fullest extreme and unregulated or checked.

This is especially so in Singapore when our country is just a little red dot on Earth. There will always be "Cheapest, Fasterest, Betterest" labour else where who are willing to come to work in Singapore. There are billions of people on Earth and Singapore only need a few millions of them.

What it would mean to Singaporeans is that without proper checks and control, each and everyone of us could be replaced by some other "Foreign Talents". Our wages will be forever suppressed or stagnant, which is the case right now. In spite of wonderful Economic Growth, the real income of the working class has stagnated in the past 10 years. Some even face depression of wages and some, worst, retrenched and face either structural unemployment or simply underemployment. Thus, our Working Poor emerges.

The problems of Working Poor will continue to deteriorate in the years to come in Singapore. Without a proper social safety net, we will face more Singaporeans being displaced by the "Cheapest, Fasterest, Betterest" Foreign Labour. Wages will continue to be suppressed while cost of living will continue to rise, mainly due to higher rental charges.

Standards and quality of living will go down while cost of living goes up.

Jobs is no longer a problem; Jobs that pay enough to sustain decent livelihood will be the main problem. It is under such circumstances that places like Hong Kong and Malaysia are setting minimum wages for their vulnerable group of workers.

The widening income gap is the main concern that this PAP government has refused to acknowledge. If this is allow to carry on, social tension will mount. What will become of Singapore? I really don't want to imagine.

But here are some key indications:

1) Singaporeans can no longer afford a decent HDB flat. It takes two income earners to take up a 30 years mortgage to pay for a decent HDB flat. Singaporeans may need to pay a 35 years or even 40 years mortgage if things carry on like this.

2) There will not be enough CPF savings for retirement for 80% of Singaporeans.

3) Singaporeans will have no retirement at all and will have to work until the day they die. This is what PAP and the Main Stream Media trying to "mentally condition" Singaporeans into believing that working until death is "NORMAL" or even "GOOD FOR YOU".

4) There will be more people living in poverty when they get older. Well, new definition of poverty will emerge.

5) Social instability. There are already ground grumbles and whispers of great discontent on the ground. If this carries on without proper social safety net being set up, I really don't dare to imagine what will happen in the near future.

Goh Meng Seng

Casino levy to be RAISED after the elections?

2010-09-16T10:38:00.002+08:00

Yesterday, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan released some startling statistics. According to media reports, more 1 million visits to the casino have been made by Singaporeans in the past 7 months.

Based on these numbers, it is obvious that the bulk of the record profits reported by the casinos are being earned from Singaporeans rather than foreigners.

As an immediate stop gap measure, the Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) has issued directives to stop the casino from engaging in activities that encourage Singaporeans to visit the casinos. These include free shuttle rides to the casinos and media releases that showcase big winnings by gamblers.

In the longer run, it is obvious that these stop gap measures will have only a limited impact . There are more than 1 million visits to the casino in the past 7 months are made by Singaporeans. It appears the exiting levy ($100 per 24 hours and $2000 per year) is NOT having the desired effect of deterring Singaporeans from visiting the casino.

WILL THE LEVY BE RAISED AFTER THE ELECTIONS ARE OVER?

If there are no plans to raise the levy, Minister Balakrishnan should state this clearly.

If the number of Singaporean gamblers continues to surge and we start seeing a large number of broken families due to problem gambling, we can then hold Minister Balakrishnan accountable for having failed to manage the social problems of the casinos.

I am also interested to know some of the unpublished figures to determine the extend of the impact of Casinos on Singaporeans:

1) What is the total number of visits by foreigners to the casinos within the same period of time? This figure is important for us to assess on whether these casinos are “successful” in attracting MORE foreigners than Singaporeans. The KPI for this success is for every local Singaporean patrons, the casinos should attract 4 foreign patrons (20-80 ratio).

2) I would like to know the number of Singaporean who have signed up the $2000 yearly membership. On top of that, I also want to know the breakdown of the number of visits by Singaporeans, including those holding the $2000 membership. Eg. How many visited the Casino only once in the 7 months. How many visited twice, three times, four times…. etc. This is to determine the social impact of the Casinos on Singaporeans.

I believe MCYS has all these data and it is time to do a review on the casinos.

There are still problems of Casinos providing rolling credits (Casino operators basically turn into money lenders!) and not stating clearly the odds of each different games. But I guess we will have to do it one at a time as it seems that Minister Balakrishnan may not be able to cope with too many things simultaneously.

Goh Meng Seng

No Race-based Politics in Singapore?

2010-09-14T13:55:00.008+08:00

During the launch of NSP Malay Bureau last Saturday, a Malay reporter asked me whether NSP is moving towards "race based politics" with the launch of this Malay Bureau.

My instantaneous response is, "Aren't we living in a political system full of race based politics and policies already?"

Coincidentally, MM Lee was reported talking to foreign correspondent about how Singapore will fall into "race based politics" if we to allow more political liberalization.

Let me get this clear here, Singapore under PAP's rule, has already been engaging race based politics all this while! From the HDB racial quota rule, GRC system to setting up of Mendaki, Sinda, CDAC, all these are race-based politics. Although PAP's Rajaratnam has written the National Pledge on "regardless of race, language or religion", but that is all "Highfalutin ideals" in PAP's eyes!

And the truth is, the ideal of cultivating a "Singapore Singaporean" has been subtly put off because of the recognition of the racial fundamentals of various ethnic groups in Singapore. That is why PAP starts putting up the HDB racial quota rule, set up racially based Mendaki, Sinda and CDAC... etc.

GRC is set up precisely because in PAP's eyes, "minority candidates" (I do not like to use the word minority at all) could not win a single ward seat because of the assumption that the Chinese would be biased and vote according to racial lines. This is in spite of the fact that BOTH PAP's and Opposition's Malays, Indians and candidates of other races have won elections for decades!

These changes are initiated basically because PAP realized that it has somewhat lost some support of the Malay and Indian communities back in the 1980s electoral contests. It wasn't a problem for the 1960s or the 1970s. But when Mr. JB Jeyaratnam started to break PAP's total monopoly of power in 1982 by-elections, PAP started to play the race cards. The high concentration of “minority votes” was considered as one of the prime reason why opposition parties in the 1980s were able to score well. Thus the HDB racial quota rule sets in. GRC was set up. Eventually, racially based organizations like Mendaki, Sinda and CDAC were set up as well.

Thus, I cannot understand how opposition parties could be insinuated as the ones who will go into "race based politics" when PAP has already covered all these racial aspects!

The truth is, any politicians or political parties will not survive politically if one is to concentrate on a single racial issue! This is basically because by being singular racially based, you will lose the support of other races. The ONLY WAY for a political party to win the elections is by winning the TRUST OF ALL RACES!

This is why PAP has gone into multiple race-based system with the set up of Mendaki, Sinda and CDAC. Yes, these are race based, but they are multiple race-based.

Should we be worried about anyone going into race-based politics? Singular race based politics? Apparently not. That would be the most stupid thing for a politician to do. He will not get support from the other races at all! How could he be taken seriously?

I believe most Singaporeans nowadays, regardless of race, language and religion, would not buy that kind of racial rhetoric even from people of their own race. We are an open society with citizens who are exposed to the outside world. We may be concerned about issues that are particularly important to our own racial community but that does not mean that we will go all out to encroach into other races' space.

There are still social or even political problems which are specific to different races. This is something we cannot avoid. This is why any political parties who are serious in the long term political development of Singapore, will have to address it in an open manner. We cannot just pretend differences in race don't exist. But we must always bear in mind that we need to apply fairness and critical considerations in a just and balanced manner to all problems face by different races.

PAP has jealousy guarded itself as the only party that could deal with race based politics in Singapore. Anybody who dares to challenge this position would normally face "demolition" from its leaders. Jufrie and Tang Liang Hong are those special cases for us to examine closely. Incidentally, both of them represented the same opposition party, Workers Party at different point of time. One would wonder how could two "accused" racial (i.e. Malay and Chinese) chauvinists ever serve the same party at all.

Strategically speaking, such deliberate racial divides enhanced by the present the race based political setting, would require any political parties to convince each and every Singaporeans of all different races that they could well represent their interests in parliament, in a balanced way. It is not a simple task to accomplish especially so when PAP has deliberately set the OB markers for all other opposition parties from touching "race based issues" while itself dominates the race based agenda.

As the leader of NSP, I feel the need to address such challenges. Forming the Malay Bureau is my first step towards establishing a party which will be seen as a multi-racial party which will take all views from all races into considerations. NSP must be seen to be the other party which is able to take care of all races in helping them to mitigate or voice out their concerns in parliament in a balanced and responsible way. If I could, I would like to form the Indian Bureau for NSP if I could get critical mass of Indian Singaporeans to join us as well.

The point I want to make here is that, don't be frighten by PAP's scare tactic on "race based politics". As long as a political party is responsible in dealing with all race based issues in a balanced, fair and just manner, there is nothing wrong to be all inclusive in our approach of forming Malay and Indian Bureaus, just like PAP forming Mendaki, Sinda and CDAC.

There might be competing ideas among different races. But I think we should have the wisdom to resolve such differences while working towards our common interests as a Nation.

NSP is definitely not going into a narrow path of singular race based platform. In fact, I asked the reporter one simple question, NSP has always been seen as a "Chinese party" in the past. Won't the formation of the Malay Bureau actually diffuse such racially based perception once and for all? Won't it be seen as more racially balanced if we have Malay Bureau as well as Indian Bureau in NSP? How could we be perceived as "race based" political party when we are in fact moving towards in building a multi-racial political party platform?

If anyone wants to accuse NSP of being race-based party, they should reconsider us as "multi-race based" party.

Goh Meng Seng

National Solidarity Party plans to field some 30 candidates in next GE

2010-09-11T22:31:00.002+08:00

Media Conference Brief

1) This is the official launch of Malay Bureau of National Solidarity Party.

2) This is to provide a platform for Singaporeans to gather and discuss on issues important to the Malay community.

3) It also allows issues pertinent to the Malay community to be heard in proper public discourses so as to achieve better understanding among Singaporeans and racial harmony.

4) It also provides a platform for passionate and dedicated Malay Singaporeans to participate in Singapore’s electoral politics meaningfully and contribute to the political development of Singapore.

5) Ms Nor Lella Mardiiiah Binte Mohamed will head the Malay Bureau while Mr. Syafarin Sarif will be the Secretary. They will be the key appointment holders leading a core team including Mr. Ramli as Organizing Secretary, Mr. Yadzeth as Treasurer and Abdul Mr. Salim as Assistant Secretary.

6) With the formation of this Malay Bureau, NSP is ready and determined to send our first Malay candidate into parliament, whether as MP or NCMP.

7) NSP is now confident to achieve its initial target of fielding 20 candidates in the coming elections with this formation of Malay Bureau.

8) We are now working towards fielding 30 candidates as we are now expecting more Malay potential candidates to join us.

9) As long as anyone who has the passion to serve, has the right attitude towards politics as the means of public service and the ability to be the effective voice of the people, we welcome them to join us.

Selamat Hari Raya Aidilfitri

Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party

Broken promises of Casino?

2010-09-10T00:32:00.020+08:00

I have wanted to write about this issue earlier but couldn't get the appropriate "evidence" in time. But it seems that the PAP has taken a step faster than me this time round.

When PAP decided to build these two Casino Resorts (yes, I refuse to fool my readers on the true nature of these resorts by calling them "Integrated Resorts"), they have declared openly that these Casino Reports' primary targets are foreigners/tourists.

However, it seems that Casino operators do not agree with the government at all. This brochure from Resort World is distributed ALL ROUND ISLAND. It provides shuttle bus schedules which covers North South East West and Central.

If we take a good look inside this brochure, we will find a total of 19 pick up points all over Singapore being served by this FREE SHUTTLE BUS service. There are two full pages of DETAILED schedule:

Some may think that there is nothing wrong for Resort World to provide free shuttle service for Singaporeans who want to visit the Universal Studio. But wait, take a closer look at the time scheduled. On normal weekdays, the last bus leaving from most "terminal" bus stop is at 10pm while returning shuttle bus service also ends at about 10pm. However, during week days, the Universal Studio closes at 7pm!

During weekends or public holidays, the timing is even more absurd: last shuttle bus ends at 12am in some places while others ends after 2am! So who do these FREE SHUTTLE BUSES serve? Apparently, only the Casino operates 24 hours!

The above are all documented evidences I have gathered. Marina Sands also provides Free Shuttle Service but I do not have the details. But Sands has the advantage of situated right next to the MRT station.

It is obvious that the Free Shuttle Bus service is aimed at local Casino patrons. Resort World seems to take the fastest step to "rectify" the situation by declaring that all Free Shuttle Bus service to the heartlands will stop with immediate effect. Is this a sign of self confession even before MCYS completes its "investigation"?

Well, does the fault lies only on the Casino operator?

It is unimaginable that the authority didn't know about all these scheduled free shuttle bus services at all. First of all, license needs to be issued to these buses to ferry the public. To run such scheduled service round island at different intervals, it will need at least 10 buses for these 5 zones. Did LTA know about such service?

The Free Shuttle Bus service has been running for quite a few months. (I first heard about it in May.) Brochures have been distributed island wide. There is even signboard tied on lamp posts at the respective pick up point!
Photo from Channel News Asia Website

How could such an extensive operations escape the ears and eyes of this government? It actually takes months to react to it?

I am not too sure how the new law created specially for governing Casino operators say about those operators who breach rules on marketing the Casino to local patrons. But I think it is important for the PAP to keep up to its words that these two Casino Resorts are marketing aggressively to local population.

This Free Shuttle Bus service is just the tip of the iceberg. I was told that personalized letters to individuals have been sent to market the Casino. I was even told that credit card holders or some VIPs were given special privileges for visiting the Casino. Are they allowed to do all these local marketing?

Casino gambling is a vice, no matter what. While we ban advertising for things like cigarettes, why should such vice be allowed to be marketed to the people? Besides, PAP has reiterated that such Casino Resorts are meant for Foreigners and Tourists but it seems that this is not the case at all!

I am a staunch Anti-Casino person. I have delivered a speech back in 5 March 2005 to reason why Casino is bad for Singapore. The PAP has claimed that the successful casino in the world has 80% foreign patrons with only 20% local gamblers. But in Singapore, we have seen that the gamblers in casino here consists of 60% of local gamblers! But yet, they are still marketing the casino to local population!

Apparently, the Casinos have broken their promise of focusing on foreign gamblers. They are not keeping to their own term of success, attracting 80% of foreigners but instead, concentrating on marketing to local population!

The other area of problem is the huge amount of credits that the casino operators could grant to its patrons. We just realize that one Singapore businessman has lost $26milloin to the Casino. This is mainly because the Casino is all willing to grant credit to this man, almost unlimited credit.

I was told that as long as you could put up a $50k deposits, you could possibly get credit terms from the Casino!

My question is this, do Casino operators have any finance license to grant such big loans to its patrons? Are the present laws adequate to cope with such extensive loans or credits given by the Casinos? If Casino is allowed to grant such huge amount of loans/credits to its patrons, then it is apparent that it will become a big money lender as well! Shouldn't it be made to abide to existing finance law?

Most importantly, will PAP do something about it?

Goh Meng Seng

BE RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABLE PLEASE!

2010-09-08T20:13:00.002+08:00

1. Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong has finally conceded what the National Solidarity Party (NSP) has been saying all along: that the government’s liberal immigration policy was poorly thought out, and has had an adverse impact on housing plans. In his comments reported by The Straits Times on 7 September 2010, SM Goh offers the implausible excuse that the government was “caught by surprise”.

2. Given that the government sets quotas on the number of foreign workers to be let in to the country every year, it is ridiculous for the government to claim that it was caught flat footed by a sudden surge in immigrants.

3. Mr Mah has said as early back as 2007 that Singapore is planning for a 6.5 million person population within the next 20 years. Apparently, as a Cabinet Minister, Minister Mah is well aware of the direction that this government is heading to. It is thus inexcusable for HDB, under Minister Mah’s charge, not to respond accordingly to the intended population plan. Minister Mah will have to be made accountable for such mismanagement of the housing planning by HDB.

4. SM Goh and the NSP are in complete agreement over one point: the National Development Ministry, helmed by Mr Mah Bow Tan, is the Ministry that should bear the responsibility for the housing bubble that resulted from this surge in immigrants.

5. On the other hand, NSP is doubtful of PAP’s policy of increasing the population size to 6.5million. The falling total fertility rate (TFR) of native Singaporeans means that the government’s race towards the 6.5 million figure will be spearheaded by a further influx of foreigners. Despite the government’s packaging of the 6.5 million figure as a “planning parameter”, Singaporeans will be justified in demanding reassurance given that previous planning parameters have been exceeded, as SM Goh concedes.

6. Singaporeans across almost every demographic have borne the brunt of this poorly thought out policy: low wage workers have seen their incomes decline as foreign workers depress wages, while at the other end young middle income couples have seen public housing continue to rise beyond their means. Every Singaporean taking public transport has seen the reality of a public transport infrastructure bursting at its seams.

7. In light of all of the above, the NSP calls on the government to urgently revise the 6.5 million person population target downwards, and commission an inter-Ministry study with the purpose of accounting to Singaporeans regarding how housing, transport, and social infrastructure can continue to be assured.

8. The NSP also reiterates our stand that new HDB flats should be sold at cost price to citizens. HDB should also consider selling new flats to PR at market price so to ease the demand due to unusual increase in PR population.

Goh Meng Seng
Secretary-General,
National Solidarity Party
On behalf of the National Solidarity Party
8 September 2010

NSP RECOMMENDS AFFORDABLE SHORT-TERM SOLUTIONS TO FLASH FLOOD

2010-09-08T20:11:00.004+08:00

It has flooded again today, NSP empathize with Singaporeans who have been suffering from these floods which seemingly has become a norm nowadays.

Following our recent call for the government to commission a Committee of Inquiry to look into the recently frequent flash floods, the National Solidarity Party (NSP) has researched into possible short-term solutions to alleviate the problem of flooding temporarily for those who are affected. NSP recommends a combination of three affordable and practical measures that the government can implement quickly as a short-term solution to minimise the threats from future flash floods.

The three short-term measures are: flood alarm system, “Floodgate” and submersible pump.

An effective Integrated Flood Alarm System (IFAS) consisting of Short Message Service (SMS), localized siren and broadcast warnings should be put in place. The government should open up a website for those residents and workers in flood-prone zones who would want to be warned of flash floods via SMS to register themselves there. Whenever a flash flood occurs, the nearest neighborhood police post should deploy personnel to sound off a unique siren around the affected area. Lastly, radio and television broadcast warnings should also be given to drivers and motorists.

We have researched for a relatively cheap, portable and viable “Floodgate” which may help residents and businesses to prevent flooding damaging their properties whenever the need arises. The British Minister, Huw Irranca-Davies, responsible for flood response has made recommendation of the product featured by British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). This product had effectively prevented flooding in business and residential premises where it was deployed. Huw Irranca-Davies, had promised to inject government funding to supply it to Britain’s flood-prone areas. Costing as little as S$700 each, Floodgates may be easily installed into, and removed from, standard doors. We also hope that the PAP government could provide funding for residents and businesses to acquire such cheaper alternative to help alleviate the pain caused by these floods. More details on the product could be found at http://www.floodgate.ltd.uk

Lastly, submersible pumps may be distributed to residents and businesses in flood-prone zones. They can be used to pump flooding water out of their premises if all things fail. The Civil Defense or another defense unit should also be equipped, and deployed, with heavy-duty submersible pumps that are able to channel flooding water into a nearby unblocked drain, river, or reservoir, or the sea.

NSP empathizes with residents and businesses of their pain in coping with these flooding which seems to become a norm after PUB has turned 90% of Singapore into water catchment area. The damages of the few past flooding have surpassed ten million dollars and we believe it will continue to go up.

While NSP believes that the government still needs to commission a Committee of Inquiry to look into long-term solutions, it believes that the above-recommended short-term measures can and should be implemented immediately with government funding in order to safeguard the interests and safety of the residents and businesses in our flood-prone zones.

Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party

国民团结党：别遗弃任何人

2010-09-02T01:57:00.002+08:00

国民团结党对人民行动党只对现有的战备军人表彰而对以往对我国国防和稳定做出贡献的老兵置之不理感到震惊。

行动党可以轻易地说这钱不太重要。但行动党并不了解如此刻意的把老兵之置于这奖励表彰制度之外已经伤了他们的感情，而这并是那$9000的奖励可弥补的伤害。

当总理宣布会对每一位战备军人付与$9000以表彰他们为国家的贡献时，很多新加坡人都为执政党能正视人们对国家的牺牲感到非常高兴。就算我们当中有一些会得到比较少的表扬金，我们也可理解这是政府对我们象征式的奖励。

然而，我们万万没想到行动党会把两三代的老兵给完全忽略掉！这批四十岁以上的男性公民肯定会对如此对待感到气愤。这是不是意味着当人们因老了而再也没有“利用价值”时，这国家就会遗弃他们，对他们以往的贡献完全置之不理吗？这也暴露了行动党那种以实用主义治国的冷酷无情。

不要遗弃任何人。这是军官训练营所提倡的精神，也是国民团结党所坚持的。行动党也附和这口号，但它并没真正履行它自己所提倡的信仰。

国民团结党秘书长
吴明盛

NSP: Leave No Man Behind

2010-09-02T01:55:00.001+08:00

From Mr. Brown...

Like many Singaporeans, NSP is shocked to learn that the PAP is only giving due recognition to present NSmen while ignoring those past NSmen who have contributed to the safety and stability of this country.

It is easy for the ruling party to say that it is not just about the money. However, the exclusion of those NSmen in Mindef Reserve from such rewarding system has hurt their feelings more than the mere $9000 in question.

When the Prime Minister mentioned about this hand out of $9000 to NSmen, many Singaporeans are happy and glad that the PAP has not forgotten of the sacrifices and contributions that Singaporeans have made towards this country. Even though some of us may not get the full amount eventually, but at least it is a token of appreciation by the government that matters.

However, we do not expect the PAP to miss out a whole two or three generations of older male Singaporeans who have completed their full cycle of National Service. This leaves a bitter taste in them and it seems to indicate that once they have passed their “useful” time to the Nation, the PAP will just abandon them aside. Such move betrays the cold, clinical pragmatism of PAP rule. It also makes us wonder whether PAP will abandon all of us when we become old and incapable to contribute to the country in time to come!

Leave no man behind. This is what NSP believes in as what the Officer Cadet Course would teach all leaders of SAF. This is also the mantra of PAP but it just doesn’t really practise what it preaches.

Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party

NSP: Response to PM Lee's Nation Day Rally Speech

2010-08-31T22:55:00.004+08:00

We are glad to hear the Prime Minister addressing the various key problems that we have been raising for the past one year in his National Day Rally speech.

However, at closer examination, we have the following key points to make:

$60 billion for MRT infrastructure over 10 years

1. Where would the government get the funding of $60B from?

2. Will the PAP government increase the GST to 10% or raise other taxes to get additional funding? Will the public transport fares increase to finance this expenditure?

3. Will the PAP government keep to the promised time frame of 10 years? The PAP government has delayed various important infrastructure projects, like the building of hospitals as well as the Downtown line, which have resulted in the increased cost of construction. Will the PAP government promise to keep to the budget of $60B instead of allowing it to balloon out of control, just like what happened to the YOG budget?

Measures to keep Housing Affordable

1. We are very confused by the various contradictory signals that the PAP ministers have sent within these few months:

a. Late last year, Minister Mah Bow Tan claimed that housing was still affordable, and that the influx of immigrants was not a main factor causing the rise in resale prices. But now the Prime Minister has acknowledged that the influx of new immigrants has contributed to the rise in resale prices.

b. When Minister Mah put up the first few measures in March 2010 to curb rising resale prices, some Singaporeans questioned the inadequacy of such measures. Minister Mah defended his ministry’s decision and said no other measures would be necessary. But just 5 months down the road, Minister Mah has introduced more drastic measures to curb property prices.

c. In March 2010, Minister Mah claimed that the supply of flats was more than sufficient to meet any surge in demand. However it seems that his ministry must now go into overdrive to ramp up the supply of BTO flats.

d. In March 2010, Minister Mah raised the minimum occupation period for resale flat owners who take bank loans from 1 year to 3 years. Barely a few months later, the ministry is now further pushing it up to 5 years. It seems that HDB is unable to provide any policy stability at all.

e. On 26 June 2010, MM Lee said there probably isn’t any property bubble. But now, Minister Mah admits that a property bubble is in the making.

2. In December 2009, after admitting to being “caught off guard”, Minister Mah reassured us of the ministry’s ability to keep this problem of “unexpected” rise in property prices in check. Yet the contradictions as noted above clearly signal that his ministry continues to lose sight of the severity of the problem.

3. The latest drastic measures have caused unwarranted shocks to the whole system. Those who have based their purchases of HDB flats or private properties on the past policies will face great financial losses. The frequent policy changes will erode investor’s confidence in the government’s competency in dealing with such problems.

4. As long as there isn’t any fundamental change in the pricing mechanism of new HDB flats and the increasing demand of new migrants (Permanent Residents) is not effectively met by other means, we do not see how prices for both new and resale HDB flats can become affordable. NSP reiterates our stand that new HDB flats should be sold at cost price to citizens. HDB should also consider selling new flats to PR at market price so to ease the demand due to unusual increase in PR population.

Immigration Policy

1. We do not think that the Prime Minister understands the real problems caused by the huge influx of foreign labour on the ground.

2. PM Lee has raised the example of coffeeshop owners unable to find Singaporeans who are willing to work until 12a.m. and thus they need to employ foreign workers. But the truth is, to ask workers to work 14 hours or more in a day is an act of exploitation. The labour law should be applied equally on both local and foreign workers. We cannot allow employers to exploit foreign workers just because Singapore workers are unwilling to be exploited.

3. We also notice that there are firms putting up recruitment advertisement which discriminate against either Singapore citizens or races. The liberal FT policy that the PAP government has adopted is partly to be blamed for this discrimination of local Singapore citizens by businesses. This practice has to be stopped and NSP urges the government to set up Commission of Equal Opportunity and setting laws to outlaw discriminatory employment practices.

4. PM Lee has ignored the severity of the depression of wages of both middle and lower income earners due to the influx of foreign labour. There is no mention of any concrete plans to deal with this problem.

5. PM Lee may think that foreign labour will help to create jobs for Singaporeans but the reverse is also true. Many Singaporeans’ jobs have been displaced by foreign labour. The problem is so severe that engineers and managers are now becoming taxi drivers. We have invested lots of money in the education of our citizens but such displacement of jobs of foreign labour has effectively made our investment wasted. Here again, there is no mention of any concrete plans to deal with this problem by PM Lee.

6. Raising workers’ levy alone will not help much in preventing engineers and professionals being displaced by foreign labour. Raising workers’ levy will not prevent exploitation of foreign workers nor save jobs for citizens.

7. Last but not least, this liberal immigration policy has caused a serious problem of income disparity within our society. Wages of both middle and lower income earners have been depressed while some have basically lost their jobs and face underemployment or even unemployment. The widening of income gap and the diminishing of middle class are great concerns to social stability but the Prime Minister has not addressed it either.

Conclusion

Although we feel that the Prime Minister has put up a very good pre-election National Day Rally speech but we still find that the solutions that his government has provided are generally inadequate.

We must bear in mind that all the problems and issues addressed by the Prime Minister are mostly the result of oversight by the various ministries under the charge of the respective ministers. All these problems are not new and have been raised by many people including NSP over the year. These problems could be long anticipated as it is the direct result of PAP government’s deliberate policy of opening the floodgates for foreign workers and migrants to come to Singapore. These “caught off guard” ministers should be responsible and made accountable for their deficiencies.

We also note that the Prime Minister did not resorted to giving out goodies or red packets to citizens as a populist tactic to win support. We would be impressed if PAP decides to abandon its past undesirable election tactic and choose to contest the elections based on its policy views, ideas and plans instead. We would be even more impressed if PAP could put up the boundary report way before the impending general elections. It will open up a new era of healthy political competition and engagement for Singapore.

Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party

Avoidance of Income Disparity...

2010-08-29T15:47:00.002+08:00

Some reporter ask me what I would like to hear from PM Lee's speech and whether those key problems of Housing, Public Transport, Healthcare, floods...etc. Of course, whether PM will give out goodies.

My take is this, the problems of Housing, Public Transport, Healthcare and floods are not simple issues that could be resolved within a short period of time. The fact is, mistakes and oversights have been made by various ministries with regard to the explosive growth in population due to PAP's own FT policy. Whatever he says will not take effect immediately and solve the problems in a short period of time. Thus, most probably he will avoid them.

PAP is just too used to giving out goodies prior to GE since GCT time. Such "populist vote buying exercise" has been entrenched. I would be pleasantly surprised if LHL decided to go into GE without giving out goodies. That would mean Singapore politics will take a turn for a better change in which political contests are based on contest on ideas and strength, instead of pork barrel and vote buying politics. But I guess even if the LHL wanted that way, his party colleagues would not agree. They are just too used to such pork barrel and vote buying politics that they will pressure their leadership to continue doing it. Else, they will feel insecurity and not confident of holding their grounds.

I would want the PM to address the vanishing middle class which result in the worsening of income disparity. When PAP MPs took the signs of engineers turning into taxi driver as a consolation, this is where the problem will explode. Retail stores targeting the middle class have suffered and withdrawn in size. This is a BAD SIGN. We will end up with two extreme polar income earners which will create social tension in the mid and long term. This situation is worsen by the influx of foreign labor which displace the middle class workers or depressing their wages.

These are important issues that could not ignore. But it seems that PAP's economic discourse has always avoid this important issue altogether.

Any students of economics who study Capitalist by Karl Marx would know that such income disparity will eventually result in class struggle and instability. I just hope that our Nation would face this severe problem of income disparity with an open mind and try to resolve it before it is too late.

Goh Meng Seng

转载：新加坡今夜无人做梦？

2010-08-21T15:16:00.001+08:00

淡马锡评论

作者：新加坡文献馆

庚寅年农历七月初某夜，一群生话在虚无缥缈之境的新加坡白羽大仙，在各自的空中楼阁就新加坡之梦喃喃自语。

一个说：新加坡是个没有梦想的社会，因为新加坡迅速发展，也变化得快，国人忙于自我鞭策，所以没有追梦的心思。

一个说：新加坡人为了追求物质而产生许多现实顾虑，所以敢于追梦的人不多。

一个说：一次行差踏错会毁了一生的大半积蓄，所以做个好梦只是一种奢望。

一个说：天有不测风云，国家应该爱钱，因为钱可以解决问题。把时间全放在追钱，所以无暇追梦。

一个说：为五斗米折腰的人，钱仅够花用，没有储蓄自然也没有追梦的的奢侈。

一个说：平日无所事事的富二代，爱怎么挥霍就怎么挥霍，有了这样的梦幻生活又何需织梦？

一个说：凡夫俗子生活在金钱矛盾之间，追梦只是另一个梦想罢了，所以斯人无梦。

这些神仙教诲是说：新加坡凡人应该脚踏实地，循规蹈矩的工作，奇思妙想有违务实原则，会危害社会安宁，不利国家经济发展。

时值新加坡45国庆之际，有人说，有了李光耀于是就有了新加坡；这是典型的新加坡痴人说梦。

新加坡人的新加坡历史现实是，有了华惹之梦，有了华校学生之梦，以及有了华印职工之梦所共同滋生的反殖民运动，才历经磨难塑造了一个独立的新加坡。

在这段反殖历史过程中许许多多各个民族的爱国人士，为了追求独立的理想而卖命流血的付出了沉重个人代价，这其中李光耀并非先行者，亦不是付出牺牲代价的受难者，但却是最终的利益收割者。史料上，李光耀的反殖反英事迹是相对的有限。

当年的时代精神就是新加坡人争取独立之梦。如果当年的新加坡年青人没有那种强烈筑梦的意愿与能耐，或许，到了今天新加坡还是米字旗飘扬，国人高歌天佑女皇。

回顾历史，培植与巩固新加坡两大经济支柱之一的本土经济体系，就是得益于南洋先驱的开荒之梦。

清代末叶的鸦片战争之后，天灾人祸使到中国南方的农村经济破产，人民被迫过蕃谋生，离乡背井的先辈就是靠自力更生白手起家。无可置疑的，南洋华社的政治与经济资本就是来自这群先驱的创业致富之梦。

追根究底，新加坡今天的种种成就是来自早年南洋先驱的愚公移山之梦，以及二战后，新加坡年青人的反殖民运动之梦的共同成果。饮水思源，这就是新加坡建国的根本之源。

显然的，追梦是成就新加坡的不可或缺的人文精神元素。

那么，何以在50年李光耀政权之后却会变成‘新加坡是个没有梦想的社会’？

首先，美国梦之所以历久长青是因为美国文化核心价值观的尊重人权和民主精神，都始终受到严峻的宪法保护。在三权分立的政治体制内，个人可以海阔天空去追求与实践自已的梦想。

但是，新加坡在一党专政下，宪法保障有名无实因为法规可以随时任意的修订，甚至于取消。在政权领导政府的格局下，依法执法可以轻易变质为以法凌人。自由环境激励自由思维，当社会丢失了思维空间，个人也就丢失了梦想空间。

其次，美国梦扎根于西方文明的以人为本的精神。这种人文精神突破了神权与封建的政治约束。人于是有了满足欲望的梦想，经济活动就是源于人的欲望无穷。在小政府格局下，个人享有相对大的经济自由，这个流动性极大的社会空间允许个人凭着自已的天赋和勤奋去主动的力争上游。

然而，按李光耀政治思维，人的劳动力只是一个生产因素，所以人只不过是一个经济数据。当人民沦为国家经济生产机器的齿轮之后，个人只能被动的依附着机器转动。

在新加坡的大环境里，个人主动性是不受到鼓励的，甚至于会受到严峻惩罚，因为主动性会破坏政府制定的社会规律，就象在机器里不听使唤，不依规律运作的齿轮是要被替换掉的。

当新加坡人被剥夺了生命的主动性，也就丧失了自我思考的能力，没有了思想，又何来会有欲望去编织新加坡梦？

其三，美国梦除了追求金钱财富的物质文化之外，也追求科学，知识和艺木等精神文化上的超越。

前不久，一名官二代说：务实新加坡人的生活目标是注重一份好工作，追求高素质的医疗和教育，以及满足于干净和安全的生话环境。在国庆晚宴上一名高官亦指出，新加坡人的人生目标应该是：好事业，舒适生话，多生育，关怀与慈善。

新加坡统治阶级所弘扬的是以物质生活为主要考量的狭隘人生观。这种思维下的新加坡只会走向一个缺乏精神文明的物质社会：追求舒适生话是否就是过着神戶牛式的生活？神戶牛是生活在一个很干净，安全，舒适，关怀与医疗照料周到，以及有古典音乐为伴的优质生活环境里。

狭隘的人生观带来没有实质内涵的社会行为。国庆期间有人劳师动众并浪费宝贵资源去创造可乐喷泉的世界记录。同样是虚荣心作祟，新加坡以外包伎俩去争取竞技场上的荣誉。但是，比赛的真实意义並非是为了锦标，而是鼓励个人超越自我的体能与精神界线。

想当然儿，一个有精神文明的高雅社会是不会有这种沽名钓誉的不诚实社会行为。

当一个政府只剩下唯有用钱去解决问题的途径，那么，这一个政府必然是已经处在黔馿技穷的困境。这种了无生机的一潭死水又如何滋生，并且激励人民去追求科学，知识和艺术等精神文化上的超越？

不是吗，吹皱的一池春水才能触动心弦，撩人遐思，令人想入非非？

新加坡从一个有追梦意识的先驱精神社会，演化到如今的一个没有梦想的社会。这种社会文明往后倒退发展的情况确实是一个非常可悲的景象。

社会文明退化的问题事关重大；这并非是一个人的面子，或者是一个政党的荣誉，而是一个国家的未来前程。

当先驱开荒的竞争精神被独裁霸权的垄断精神取代，当爱国精神被爱銭精神取代，新加坡不就己经失去了两个十分宝贵的建国人文元素？

当银行业失去了谨慎与诚实的人文元素之后，霸林就是毁在爱銭的无能之手。雷曼亦是毁于爱銭的欺骗之手。

危言耸听？这乃是前车之鉴。当领导的唯利是图蔚然成为上行下效的不良风气，一个栋梁不正的构筑必然是要坍塌的。

还会有人关心这个病态的新加坡社会吗？

新加坡的聪明人是制度下的既得利益者，他们已经生活在纸醉金迷的梦幻世界里，宛如庄周梦蝶，他们已经无法分辩真实与虚幻，再也体会不到外边的世界是什么模样；他们对新加坡社会的病态无知无觉。对这群制度的塑造与执行者而言，新加坡社会是完美无瑕的，新加坡制度是值得他人借鉴。

新加坡的奴才和他们的主子同流合污，奴性使然，他们丧失了体恤与同情弱者的慈悲之心。奴才对社会的病态未必是无知无觉，可惜的是已经麻木不仁；入鲍鱼之肆，久而不闻其臭。对这群制度的守护者而言，新加坡社会虽然未必尽善尽美，但是，新加坡制度还是值得他人借鉴。

新加坡的傻子是制度的反对者与制度的受害者。他们努力的，即便受尽了惩罚的苦楚，还是坚毅的要挖掘制度的墙脚，要在制度的墙上开天窗，让外边的艳阳天驱散阴霾，让外边的清新空气冲刷乌烟瘴气。

在新加坡社会的这三种人群里，聪明人已经在春梦里醉生梦死，再也无需追梦寻梦。奴才干了为虎作伥的勾当，夜晚做的都是恶梦，也就不会有心思去追梦。或许，在新加坡只有儍子才会去追梦导梦。他们憧憬新加坡的明天会更美好，人人都可以自由自在的表达自已的信念，凭着本身的才华去追逐与实践自已的美梦，让梦想成真。

新加坡今夜无人入梦？您呢？您有梦吗？

YOG Spending in perspective...

2010-08-13T17:13:00.003+08:00

PAP government is spending $387,000,000 for YOG which Singaporeans have shown very little interest. They even need to FORCED students to volunteer in the event while giving them TERRIBLE FOOD!

On the other hand, there are many problems which the PAP is very reluctant to spend money to solve. The recent flooding needs to be solved but at an UNKNOWN cost which the PM said would be TOO HIGH.

ON top of that, PAP government has refused to provide to many less privileged Singaporeans. They have refused 50% of applicants for public assistance.

This $387million was spent to host 5000 athletes and officials for YOG. This means on average, S$77400 was spent for each of the 5000 guests. This could have lasted 5000 citizens who are on public assistance of $360 for almost 18years!

It is time for us to re-examine the priorities of the PAP government. Why would they be willing to spend hundreds of millions on an event which very few Singaporeans are interested in while become a miser unwilling to spend in improving or helping the lives of Singaporeans at large?

NSP National Day Message 2010

2010-08-09T11:40:00.003+08:00

I used to write special posting for each National Day on my blog every year (well almost). Most of the time, the theme is about National Identity.

For personal "ranting" during National Day is quite straight forward. But writing a National Day message for my political party is totally another cup of tea altogether.

I have been helping my party to do the recording of our National Day Message in three languages since last year. This year, I have to do it for myself as well as my friend, Syafarin who is delivering the Malay version.

Although this message is written for my party, National Solidarity Party, but it fully reflects my sentimental at this moment on what this Nation needs to change. The truth is, I have decided to join opposition politics 9 years ago basically because of my belief that I have to change the whole political system of Singapore, for the sake of my future generations.

So here it is:

English

It has been a frustrating year for many Singaporeans.

Although our GDP has grown significantly for the past quarters but the decline in the retail sector speaks volume of the kind of growth we are getting.

Our purchasing power is either stagnant or unable to catch up with the inflation caused by various factors. Any GDP growth that doesn’t benefit Singaporeans
in terms of higher purchasing power and quality of life is meaningless. It is at best
just another justification for the ministers to increase their own pay.

On the other hand, we have to ask ourselves while our Nation achieves almost 20% growth in GDP for the last quarter but have our income achieve even half of that growth?

Besides, the cost of having such high GDP growth is tremendous. We are just increasing more and more foreign labour to achieve growth. This may result in suppressed wages for Singaporeans and at the same time, a more crowded place for everyone else.

According to our study and research, the PAP government has consciously embarked
on a very aggressive foreign workers policy to help boost the economy since 2006. However, many ministers, including the Ministers for Transport, Health and National Development are basically “Caught off Guard” by such explosive population growth.

Our public transport system could no longer cope with the excessive increase of population over such short period of time. The growth in train and bus services is lagging far behind the growth of population over the years. This results in over crowded MRT trains and buses during peak hours.

On top of that, the fares have increased for many of us since July, for as much as 7% or more!

Our HDB flat prices are shooting off the roof. HDB failed to build enough flats to cope with the population growth. The need of paying a 30 years mortgage for a simple HDB flat is definitely not a sign of affordability.

Hospital care is the most important matter of life and death. However hospital beds are in great shortage as the building of the new hospital is delayed for nearly a decade. It seems that the Ministry of Health does not plan ahead. The problem could be so acute that sometimes patients have to be left lying along the corridors of the wards!

But yet, our Prime Minister has just declared that we need another 100 thousand more foreign workers! Are we supposed to endure a further deterioration of these problems?

The recent floods that we have are creating doubts on the competency of the highly paid PAP government. We do not want to hear excuses from “once in 50 years”, “it is impossible to be flood free” to “it is an act of God”. When we are paying the world’s highest pay to the ministers, we expect such fundamental problems to be solved.

To suffer 3 or 4 floods within a couple of months is totally unacceptable to a small island that prides itself as a modern world-class city state.

All these happenings come under the charge of the world’s most expensive ministers in Singapore. We need accountability but there is none. We need proper checks and balances but there is little.

Singapore needs to progress both economically as well as politically in a balanced way. We should not just aim for some huge GDP growth at all cost. We should also build a political system whereby accountability is effectively in place.

It is time for us, my fellow Singaporeans, to reflect upon all these happenings during this National Day. We have to ask ourselves what kinds of living environment and quality of life we want for our children. High GDP growth no longer guarantees better quality of life but in contrary, lower our overall standard of living.

We also have to ask ourselves whether we want our children to inherit a political system that is based on total dominance of power by a single ruling party, which will use every means to fix its opponents and those who hold alternative views. Do we want our children to inherit a government which only demands the highest pay in the world but shy away from accountability and responsibility?

We need a change to this system and we need courage to change it.

Wishing you a Happy National Day.

Chinese

今年是一个令很多新加坡人感到沮丧的年头。

虽然我们的国内生产总值在过去几季都有显著的增长，但从零售业的衰退看来，却又完全是另一回事了。

这显示我们的购买力并没有随着经济好转而增强，根本追不上
通货膨胀的步伐。如果ＧＤＰ的增长没能使新加坡人受惠，没能提升我们的购买力和生活素质，那也是完全毫无意义的。

这也许只能为再次提高部长们的薪金制造一个漂亮的借口。
另一方面，我们要扪心自问，虽然国家的ＧＤＰ在上一季
取得了约２０％增长，但我们的薪金是否有相应的提高呢？

此外，要取得如此高的ＧＤＰ增长，我们所需要付出的代价是膨大的。为了促进成长，我们输入越来越多的外劳。但这会造成新加坡人的工资被压低。于此同时，我们的生活空间
也因此就越来越拥挤了。

根据我们的调查和研究，行动党政府从２００６年起，就刻意进行一个野心勃勃的引进外劳的计划。然而，有多位部长，包括交通、卫生和国家发展部长等，基本上却都对如此急速的爆炸性人口增长显得“措手不及”。

我们的交通系统，已没能应付在短时间内过度激增的人口。这些年以来，地铁和巴士服务已远远落后于人口的增长。这也造成地铁和巴士在繁忙时间内变得非常拥挤。然而，车资的提高却对很多人造成不满。增加的幅度可高达７％，或甚至更高。

我们的组屋售价有如冲天炮。建屋发展局在过去几年里，所提供的新组屋根本无法满足急速人口增长的需求。如果一间普通组屋，都须用３０年的时间才能还清房贷，那么，很明显的，这根本就不再是个“负担得起”的房屋政策。

医疗设施对国人的生和死是至关重要的。但是建新医院的计划
已被拖延长达１０年之久。这导致我们的医院的床位严重的不足。从这也可以看出卫生部并没有依据人口增长而实施相应的措施来应付医院床位需求的激增。情况有时可以严重到，病人必须被滞留在病房外的走廊!

然而，我们的总理却宣布我们还需要多１０万个外劳！我们还能容忍这些问题继续恶化吗？

最近发生的水灾，使我们质疑这超高薪的行动党政府
的治国能力。我们不想再听到以“５０年一遇”、“想要完全没有水灾是不可能的”或“这是天意”等借口来推卸责任的。

当我们付出全世界最高的薪金给我们的部长们时，我们便有权要求他们解决这些基本的问题。我们引以为荣的现代化、世界级小岛，竟然在短短两个月内蒙受了３至４次水患。这是我们完全无法接受的。

所有的这一些事都发生在由世界最昂贵的行动党政府管理之下的新加坡。我们需要问责，但我们却没能做到；我们需要适当的制衡，但我们拥有的却很少。

新加坡必要在经济和政治双领域下，取得平衡的发展。我们不应只盲目追求高经济增长，而不惜付出高昂的代价。

同胞们，国庆之际，正是我们反思时候。

我们应自问，我们要为新加坡创造怎样的生活环境和生活素质？高经济增长，再也不能保证我们能拥有更好的生活素质；相反的，它却会降低我们的生活水准。

我们也要自问，我们是否要我们的孩子们继承由一党独大
一党垄断的专制政治体系吗？继承一个只要求高薪但没有担当和问责的政府吗？

我们需要改变这体系。
我们更需要勇气来改变它。

祝国庆快乐！

Malay

Tahun ini merupakan tahun yang menghampakan ramai rakyat Singapura. Meskipun GDP kita telah meningkat dengan banyaknya dalam beberapa bulan kebelakangan ini, sektor runcit yang menjunamlah yang memberi kita gambaran yang sebenar tentang pertumbuhan ekonomi kita.

Kuasa membeli kita sama ada telah mendatar atau tidak dapat menampung kadar inflasi . Sebarang pertumbuhan GDP yang tidak memberi faedah kepada rakyat Singapura dari segi kuasa membeli dan mutu kehidupan yang lebih tinggi tidak bermakna sama sekali.

Keadaan begini hanya memberi peluang kepada para menteri kita menaikkan lagi gaji mereka sendiri. Sebaliknya pula, kita mesti tanya pada diri kita – negeri kita telah mencapai hampir 20% pertumbuhan GDP bagi tiga bulan terakhir ini tetapi adakah pendapatan kita akan mencapai separuh daripada kadar pertumbuhan tersebut?

Kita harus berbelanja lebih untuk menampung pertumbuhan GDP yang begitu tinggi. Kita terpaksa menambah lebih banyak lagi tenaga asing untuk mencapai pertumbuhan tersebut. Ini bermakna pendapatan bagi rakyat Singapura akan dicantas
dan pada masa yang sama, negeri kita akan menjadi lebih sesak dengan orang asing.

Menurut kajian kami, pemerintah PAP memang dengan sengajanya memulakan pengambilan tenaga kerja warga asing ini secara melampau sejak 2006 semata-matanya untuk merancakkan ekonomi. Bagaimanapun, kebanyakan menteri kita, termasuk Menteri-menteri Pengangkutan, Kesihatan dan Pembangunan Negara, telah disentakkan dengan pertumbuhan penduduk yang mendadak.

Sistem pengangkutan awam kita tidak dapat lagi menampung ledakan penduduk yang keterlaluan dalam masa yang begitu singkat. Perkhidmatan MRT dan bas-bas begitu lembab dibandingkan dengan pertumbuhan penduduk yang semakin banyak kebelakangan ini. Ini membuat keadaan begitu sesak dalam MRT dan bas-bas pada waktu puncak. Untuk memburukkan keadaan lagi, Kebanyakkan di antara kita terpaksa membayar tambang yang lebih sejak bulan Julai ini, adanya sehingga mencecah lebih 7%.

Harga flat-flat HDB kita sudah membumbung tinggi. HDB gagal membina flat-flat yang cukup bagi menampung pertumbuhan penduduk yang begitu pesat. Sekarang kita perlu membayar duit rumah selama 30 tahun untuk sebuah flat HDB yang biasa – ini menandakan rumah bukan lagi sesuatu yang kita mampu.

Penjagaan kesihatan di hospital merupakan perkara terpenting
antara hidup dan mati. Bagaimanapun, katil-katil di hospital
sudah banyak berkurangan disebakan pembinaan sebuah hospital baharu tergendala selama hampir sedekad. Ini membuktikan betapa Kementerian Kesihatan tidak memandang jauh semasa membuat rancangan untuk memastikan pertambahan katil-katil hospital seiring dengan pertumbuhan penduduk yang melampau. Masalah ini menjadi begitu runcing
apabila ada pesakit-pesakit yang terpaksa berbaring di tempat lalu lalang di wad-wad hospital.

Nanum begitu, baru-baru ini Perdana Menteri kita mengumumkan bahawa kita memerlukan lagi 100 ribu pekerja asing! Adakah kita harus bertahan lagi dengan keadaan yang sememangnya telah begitu buruk?

Banjir yang menimpa kita baru-baru ini membuat kita tertanya-tanya tentang kebolehan pemerintah PAP yang bergaji lumayan. Kita tidak mahu lagi dengar alasan-alasan seperti “hanya sekali dalam 50 tahun”, “mustahil kita tidak dilanda banjir”, dan “ini kuasa Tuhan”. Kita harapkan perkara-perkara asas sebegini
dapat ditangani memandangkan kita membayar menteri-menteri kita gaji yang paling lumayan di muka bumi ni. Tetapi kita terpaksa mengharungi 3 atau 4 banjir dalam masa dua bulan
dan ini amat tidak munasabah bagi sebuah pulau kecil
yang mendabik dada sebagai sebuah bandar moden bertaraf dunia.

Semua ini berlaku di bawah jagaan menteri-menteri termahal dunia di Singapura. Kita perlu ada pertanggungjawaban
tetapi tiada langsung, Kita perlu ada mekanisme keseimbangan
tetapi terlalu sedikit.

Singapura perlu maju dalam kedua-dua bidang ekonomi dan politik dengan cara yang seimbang. Kita tidak harus mensasarkan pertumbuhan GDP yang besar sehinggakan mutu kehidupan kita sengsara. Kita harus ada sistem politik di mana terdapat pertanggungjawaban.

Saudara-saudara dan saudari-saudari setanah air, masanya telah tiba untuk kita memikirkan tentang perkara-perkara ini sempena Hari Kebangsaan kita. Kita perlu tanya pada diri kita – suasana kehidupan yang bagaimanakah yang kita mahukan untuk Singapura. Pertumbuhan GDP yang tinggi tidak lagi menjamin mutu hidup yang lebih baik tetapi sebaliknya, merendahkan taraf kehidupan secara keseluruhan.

Kita juga perlu tanya pada diri kita sama ada kita mahu anak-anak kita mewarisi sistem politik berteraskan kekuasaan mutlak
di bawah pemerintahan satu parti, yang akan menggunakan apa cara sekalipun untuk ‘kerjakan” lawan mereka dan sesiapa sahaja yang mempunyai pandangan yang berbeza.

Kita perlu menukar sistem sebegini dan kita perlu berani menukarnya.

Selamat menyambut Hari Kebangsaan.
Dirgahayu Singapura.

Japan proves MM Lee WRONG!

2010-07-31T10:09:00.006+08:00

MM Lee has claimed that no amount of Engineering could prevent floods.The Japanese has proven MM Lee WRONG.

The Japanese has started to build the G-Can, termed as "Underground Temple" to rid Tokyo of floods. This massive project which cost about S$4Billion was started in 1992 and completed in 2006. You can view more photos and read the introduction of G-Can here.

It has almost rid Tokyo of flooding due to typhoons and heavy rains. It is also believed that it could act as a massive underground bomb shelter.

You could read about the background information of this G-Can Underground Temple here.

Instead of letting GIC and Temasek Holdings losing billions of dollars in financial crisis, it will only cost us less than 10% of the total losses suffered by GIC and Temasek Holdings to engineer our way out of flooding. Tokyo is many times bigger than Singapore and I guess we should use less than the total amount of money needed for such project.

The following is a video in Japanese which show what will happen if such flood control measures like G-Can is not in place:

tokyo flooded
Uploaded by sokodoko44. - See video of the biggest web video personalities.

The video is part of a Japan government report warning that as many as 3,500 people could die in the event of such flooding. Water would also quickly flow into Tokyo’s subway network, putting as many as 97 stations out of commission.

Goh Meng Seng

illegal hawker? My Story

2010-07-18T18:52:00.009+08:00

In the past two weeks, when my party, National Solidarity Party, went on our usual political outreach on Sundays to promote our publication North Star, we were warned for illegal hawking and our Vice President Christopher Neo was eventually summoned for this offence of "illegal hawking". I shall not deal with the details of the case here but it is pretty bizarre that political activists who make sacrifice of their time and effort to be involved in public service of politics were charged for "illegal hawking".

It is pretty insulting actually. Most probably someone in National Environment Agency doesn't really know what exactly an illegal hawker is. I will illustrate what it means to be an illegal hawker here.

I am born in a poor family of 10. My parents have to feed and send 8 children to school. I am proud to say that my parents have given all they have to provide these 8 children the best education that each could achieve and that include sending 1 to polytechnic, 2 to local universities and 1 overseas.

They could only do that by becoming illegal hawkers. There is nothing shameful to admit that I was also an illegal hawker since I was 5 years old, helping my parents to mend our temporary "stall" or going around the flats to sell their lasi lemak, ottah kwei and bee hoon. I am the youngest and thus I have to help out in the morning before I go to school. I spent most of my holidays hawking these food "illegally". If there is anything PAP or ISD want to dig, this is the ONLY DIRT they could find about me, a young illegal hawker at the age of 5 till 11.

My parents have to wake up 3am in the morning to prepare all the food for sales to the morning working crowd.They have made a name for themselves in the neighbourhood for selling the delicious nasi lemak and dumplings. Pre-orders for dumplings during the festive season were in the tens and hundreds. Well, I did receive orders from my fellow Primary School classmates quite frequently as well. They still remember my parents' nasi lemak and will mention it each and every time without fail when we have our occasional reunions!

Beside helping out the sales, which trained me to be very quick in mental Maths calculation (yeah, that's why I scored full marks for my Maths in Primary school!), I have to help out with the carry of bags of chili and endure the strong smell of belachan when they prepare the chili for the nasi lemak. All 10 of us have to squeeze in a small two-room rental flat with only 1 bedroom.

Life was tough but enjoyable though. I enjoyed every minute of it, especially going up that 20 storey high flats to shout out "Ottah, Ottah kwei, Nasi Lemak!" Even the avoidance of the "dee gu" (law enforce officers from NEA) was just like hide and seek or playing catching for me.

My parents have tried to apply for hawker license many times but failed. They were not granted the license or any hawker stall at the market. But for survival sake, they have no choice but to become illegal hawkers to bring 8 children up and provide them with all the education they could get. If they haven't done that, there might be another 8 delinquent youngsters on the streets and eventually add on to the social problems of Singapore!

It was all pure hard work and determination of earning enough money to raise 8 children with proper education that make them carry on with that label "illegal hawkers". To me, I am proud of my parents for their dedication to us, their children. "Illegal hawkers"? Who cares! When the system fails to provide the adequate means for the family to survive, then we will have to find our own ways to survive.

Nobody wants to break the law unnecessarily. I do not view my parents as "law breakers" but rather survivors of the system on the fringe. They did not choose to cheat, rob or become criminals but just "illegal hawkers" to earn a living for all of us. When the survival of the family is at stake, you will have to find ways to fight the lesser evil of the law.

I write this to illustrate one very important point. As far as possible, we will be law abiding citizens. But when the circumstance is such that our survival is being threaten, the only way would be playing on the fringe of the law. The situation NSP and all other opposition parties are facing due to the inappropriate enforcement of "illegal hawking" law on us is pretty similar to my story.

The survival of NSP is being threaten now due to this "illegal hawking" summon. The only difference is that WE ARE NOT HAWKERS but VOLUNTEERS in Political Public Service. The law is inappropriately applied to us and it would mean that politically, NSP will face closure if its political activity of promoting its messages and publications are being curtailed.

Just today, I have met an old gentleman who accused us of appearing just before elections. I explained to him that we have been selling our North Star all around Singapore for years! PAP has always sneered at opposition parties by saying we only work when elections come. That is totally untrue and PAP knows it. Be it walkabout on the ground or various press releases on policies and current issues, NSP has been pretty active doing all these.

It is now NEA trying to curtail our political activism on the ground by issuing such silly summon of "illegal hawking". Choosing between becoming a totally law abiding of silly law which make us politically inactive and being an effective political party actively engaging the ground but risks being summoned as "illegal hawkers" by NEA, I would choose the later. I am not here to make NSP just a flower vase of PAP's farce pseudo Democracy. I am here to make NSP an effective party that would actively challenge and put proper checks and balances on PAP's dominance of power.

This is not only about the survival of NSP or any other opposition parties alone. It is about the sustainability of the healthy political development for Singapore. If there is a small price to be paid as being insulted as "illegal hawkers" by the unreasonable PAP's rule, so be it.

Goh Meng Seng

Sales of NSP North Star Online

2010-07-16T18:46:00.005+08:00

We will continue to carry out our usual weekly political outreach on Sundays from this Sunday onwards.

On top of that, if you are unable to see us on the ground but very curious about what kind of publication the authority doesn't want us to sell on the ground, you could purchase a copy from our NSP website at the following address:

http://www.nsp.sg/catalog/9

You could well purchase past copies as well from this site.

I hope that every supporters on the internet would purchase one copy and give us feedback if any.

Goh Meng Seng

Minibond Saga in HK - Role of Democratic Pressures

2010-07-14T20:52:00.003+08:00

The following is the news in Reuters on DBS paying compensation to Minibond victims in Hong Kong:

DBS Hong Kong to pay $84 mln in Lehman settlement

PRESS DIGEST - Hong Kong - July 14

DBS Group Holdings Limited
4:05pm GMT+0800
HONG KONG | Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:13am EDT
July 14 (Reuters) - DBS Hong Kong, a unit of Singapore's DBS Group Holdings (DBSM.SI), will pay out a combined HK$651 million ($84 million) to some buyers of Lehman Brothers constellation notes, the territory's financial regulator said on Wednesday.

Customers classified by the bank as having a low to medium risk profile would receive their money returned plus interest that would have been payable had it been placed in a fixed-term deposit, Hong Kong's Securities and Futures Commission said in a statement.

Investors in Singapore, Hong Kong and Indonesia who bought the product had lost their money after the U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers went under in 2008.

The constellation notes are credit-linked notes related to the collapsed U.S. bank. (Reporting by Kelvin Soh; Editing by Chris Lewis)

I have played a very small role in this Minibond Saga, both in Singapore and Hong Kong. But I am very glad that the Hong Kong Victims have finally get at least 60% to 70% compensation from the banks and financial institutions.

This is especially an important lesson for Singaporeans to understand how TRUE DEMOCRACY could work to their advantages in times of such crisis. The Hong Kongers have put great pressures on its government to make good of a settlement for the Minibond saga. This could only be possible with the help and pressure exerted by the Pan-Democratic Legislative Councilors (equivalent to our MPs in parliament) through the various hearings conducted by the Legco.

In Singapore, the government would prefer to protect the interests of the banks and financial institutions in such an ultra-capitalist manner basically because the government itself holds substantial shares in most of the local financial banks and institutions. It would be difficult for the government to be a good referee (i.e. regulator) as well as the main players (shareholders of these institutions). Naturally, the interests of investors would be compromised in the process.

This situation is further worsen by the fact that there is a lack of true checks and balances in parliament. In HK's case, the Legco enforce an equivalent of "Commission of Inquiry" to get civil servants from the Finance ministry as well as chiefs of those banking institutions to be questioned thoroughly. Such pressure has finally paid off by a reasonable settlement being made by getting the institutions to compensate up to 60% to 70% to their investors.

In great contrast, Singapore Minibond victims are left to their own peril. Whatever little effort the MAS puts up, the settlement is a sham which favors heavily to the financial institutions, with compensations as little as 10% only. The only consolation is that Great Eastern has willingly put up 100% compensation to its investors.

But we cannot trust and depend on the magnanimous acts of these institutions. We must have a system which could balance the interests of the masses vs the capitalists. We should not have a government that will face conflict of interests in this case, to act responsibly and fairly.

It is an important lesson of the Democracy for all of us. You will not realize the importance of Democracy unless you need it.

New and Old Bus Fare comparisons

2010-07-14T14:37:00.004+08:00

The following is an article by "Blowing in the Wind" on the comparison of New and Old bus fares:

Old and new bus fares compared
It's not only long-distance commuters who have to pay more under the new fares in Singapore. So do many others if you compare the old fares with the new. Here's how the so-called "distance-based" new bus fares compare with the old fares, which were based on how many "stages" one travelled. I am comparing only the adult fares payable by EZ-Link cards on air-conditioned buses.

Up to 3.2 km now 71 cents, earlier 69 cents (up to 4 stages)

3.3 km to 4.2 km now 81 cents

4.3 km to 5.2 km now 91 cents, earlier 3.6 km to 5.6 km 91 cents (4.5 –7 stages)

5.3 km to 6.2 km now $1.01

6.3 km to 7.2 km now $1.09, earlier 5.6 km to 8 km $1.11 (7-10 stages)

7.3 km to 8.2 km, now $1.15

8.3 km to 9.2 km now $1.21, earlier 8.4 km to 10.4 km $1.21 (10.5 – 13 stages)

9.3 km to 10.2 km now $1.25

10.3 km to 11.2 km now $1.29

11.3 km to 12.2 km now $1.33

12.3 km to 13.2 km, now $1.37

13.3 km to 14.2 km now $1.41, earlier 10.8 km to 14.4 km $1.31 (13.5 – 18 stages)

14.3 km to 15.2 km now $1.45

15.3 km to 16.2 km now $1.49

16.3 km to 17.2 km now $1.53

17.3 km to 18.2 km now $1.57, earlier 14.8 km to 18.4 km $1.41 (18.5 – 23 stages)

18.3 km to 19.2 km now $1.61

19.2 km to 20.2 km now $1.64

20.3 km to 21.2 km now $1.67

21.3 km to 22.2 km now $1.70

22.3 km to 23.2 km now $1.73, earlier 18.8 km to 23.2 km $1.50 (23.5 – 29 stages)
23.3 km to 24.2 km now $1.75

24.3 km to 25.2 km now $$1.77

25.3 km to 26.2 km now $1.79

26.3 km to 27.2 km now $1.80 , earlier 23.6 km to 28 km $1.60 (29.5 – 35 stages)

27.3 km to 28.2 km $1.81

28.3 km to 29.2 km now $1.82, earlier 28.4 km and more $1.65 (35.5 stages or more. That was the maximum fare)

You can see the fares between 29.3 km and 39 km in the chart below.

39.3 km to 40.2 km now $1.93

Over 40.3 km $1.94 (now the maximum fare)

Both the old and new fares were taken from the SBS website when I blogged about them (When is a fare hike a fare cut?) in April when the new fares were announced. The old fares used to be based on "stages". But I could convert them to kilometres since each "stage" covered a distance of 800 metres.

The new fares can be seen in a chart on the SBS website, which seems to have taken down the old fares. Here's the complete new fare chart which I also published in my earlier post.

I asked in my earlier post if the Public Transport Council could please explain how two in three commuters won't have to pay more despite the fare hike.

For that's what it said it found in a survey.

But now the Straits Times reports more than 80 per cent of the 600 respondents in a Hardwarezone.com poll said they have to pay more since the new fares came into effect on July 3.

That contradicts what the council said.

A month of barring and banning - Joshua Chiang

2010-07-13T13:49:00.007+08:00

An insightful sum up of recent draconian acts of the PAP government in recent month by Mr. Joshua Chiang

First there was the barring of former ISD detainee and 'Marxist conspirator' Vincent Cheng from speaking at a public forum organised by the NUS History Society at the National Library.

(http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/06/late-inclusion-an-excuse-vincent-cheng-tells-nlb/)

Then there was the forum held at Fort Canning Park two weeks ago where another ex-detainee, Teo Soh Lung launched her book "Beyond The Blue Gate" about the events surrounding Operation Spectrum and her days as a detainee in Whitley Detention Centre. That, surprisingly went ahead without incident. Despite the fact that there wasn't any official outcry over the book, only one major bookstore, Kinokuniya now sells it. (Though you can purchase it from other sources here -

a) Contact Rizal via cellphone: 91460944 or email: isrizal@function8.org
b) Online purchase through Ethos Books Online
c) Select Books (Tanglin Shopping Centre)
d) At Pagesetters Services Pte Ltd, 65 Ubi Crescent, #06-04 Hola Centre, Singapore 408559

There are no other major bookstores in Singapore whom I know will carry titles critical of the Government, for eg. books by Chee Soon Juan. (But you will find Men In White, The Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew displayed proudly at all other major bookstores)

But one book apparently got the authorities worried enough to ban its sales in Singapore, even going to the extent of asking Kinokuniya to remove it from its shelves. The book in question is Once a Jolly Hangman. It paints an extremely unflattering picture of the process in which Singapore carries out its Mandatory Death Penalty, except that, based on what the author unearthed, the process appears rather abituary. (see here - http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/07/new-book-puts-death-penalty-on-trial/)

You will also be surprised that the opposition party newsletter you pay a dollar for, for the past donkey years, is actually not allowed to be sold as the political parties do not have an NEA license to 'Hawk'.

(see here - http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/07/opposition-party-fined-for-selling-party-newspaper/)

Now this is worrying because not only is selling the newspapers the major source of income for most oppositional parties, it is the best way in which they can disseminate their views. We know of course that dropping political pamphlets into letterboxes is wrong (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/04/that-anti-pap-flier/). Last I heard the chap who distributed the anti-PAP flier has been arrested. Getting around the lack of a hawking license to sell the party papers is not as easy as it seems because you will find all sorts of laws and legislation that are so loosely written that they can easily be used to stop you from selling anything.

Which leads us to the question of why did NEA act only now, considering that opposition parties had been selling their stuff on the streets for years. I've even bought a copy of The Hatchet Man from JBJ once.

Well I wouldn't presume to read the authorities' minds but you would be interested to know that most opposition parties nowadays regularly sold out their newsletters. Which means every time a party goes out to the housing estates and hawker centres, 3,000 copies of publications containing alternate views gets circulated around. It also means that there are many people sick and tired of reading the Straits Times.

And finally there is the ban on Martyn See's film on Dr Lim Hock Siew in the name of mantaining confidence in the government. (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/07/breaking-news-mda-bans-sees-film-on-isa-detainee/)

All in all, it is a rather oppressive month, and not because of the weather. I remember a National Day speech by PM Lee in 2006. He said, "We have to debate. If we didn't have a debate, I think we will come to the wrong conclusion." Right now my impression of 'debate' is really the joke I keep using - "Debate is de thing that you catch de fish with".

------

On a very separate note, my brother's maid returned to Burma for good. (Sorry i can't bring myself to call it "Myanmar" - it is the name the regime, and those who recognize the regime uses) Just the day before she left, I asked if she could get me an autographed poster of Aung San Suu Kyi. It amused her to no end.

NSP Public Statement with regards to Summon issued by NEA

2010-07-07T19:52:00.002+08:00

We hereby categorically make the following open statements with regards to NEA’s action against us in our recent outreach on 4 July 2010 at Blk 137 Tamines St 11:

1) We strongly believe that it is totally inappropriate to use the Environment Public Health Act to charge us for “Illegal Hawking” when we are merely promoting our party publication North Star News. There is no issue of public hygiene with regards to selling a publication. There is no applicable licence, as confirmed by NEA officer, for political parties carrying out such activity. How could we be charged for not applying a licence under the ACT when there isn’t a relevant one to start with?

2) We are a legally registered political party carrying out our legitimate political outreach just like any other political parties or grassroot organizations like the Resident Committees (RC). We sell publications just like all other political parties, including PAP (in some branches) and RC which periodically send members to sell National Flags, dinner tickets, fun fare tickets etc. We are all volunteers who are providing Public Service in terms of grassroot or political activism. WE ARE NOT HAWKERS, least illegal ones, who depend on such activities to earn our individuals’ livelihood.

3) It is a total blatant INSULT to us, including all other social-political activists (from RP, WP, PAP, RC etc), who have sacrificed their free time and effort when NEA considered all of us as ILLEGAL HAWKERS.

4) We are a lawful and law abiding organization but we will not ignore UNFAIR and UNREASONABLE rules and regulations. We will fight to change these rules and regulations for the betterment of Singapore.

5) We will defend our Dignity as political activists in Public Service with whatever little resources we could garner.

6) However, we also hope that we could first meet up with the relevant people in NEA with the authority and power to make decisions on such serious matters to resolve this issue ONCE AND FOR ALL for the benefits of ALL social political activists who are actively engaged in their respective organizations.

7) With due respect to NEA as the law enforcer, we will voluntarily take a temporary break for the coming Sunday (11 July 2010) and we hope that NEA would reciprocate by meeting up with us to resolve this serious matter amicably.

Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General of the 13th CEC

国民团结党: 针对国家环境局对我党党员发出传票的公开声明

2010-07-07T19:51:00.004+08:00

国民团结党针对国家环境局稽查员在2010年7月4日于淡滨尼11街大牌137巴刹对我党党员发出非法贩卖传票事件在此作出如下的严正声明：

1) 我们坚决的认为稽查员以环境公众卫生法令对我党党员在例行活动发出非法贩卖传票是绝对不恰当的。我党推销党报绝对不会对环境或公众卫生造成任何问题。而国家环境局在早些时候也承认他们也没有任何适当的准证能让政党申请。如果没有适当准证可供我们申请，他们又凭什么控告我们在没有申请准证情况下非法贩卖我们的党报呢？

2) 我们就像任何政党、政治团体或如居民委员会的基层组织一样，是一个合法注册的政党团体，进行着合法的政治活动。我们也如这一些组织，包括一些行动党支部和居委会时不时到处售卖国旗、党报、庆典酒席门票等，到全岛各处去推广我党党报。但是我们并非小贩，更不是非法小贩，而是投入公共服务的志愿活跃份子。我们并非依赖非法贩卖物品来维持各自生计的非法小贩。

3) 国家环境局把我们归类为非法小贩，不只是对我党，而是对所有牺牲自身时间和贡献于这土地的社会-政治活跃份子（包括革新党、工人党、行动党、居委会等）的莫大侮辱。

4) 我们虽然是个合法和奉公守法的政党，但是我们也绝对不会对不合理的法规坐视不理。我们必定尽我们所能去争取对新加坡有利的变革。

5) 我们也必定全力以赴的捍卫所有身为公共服务里的志愿社会-政治活跃份子的尊严。

6) 然而，我们也希望能先与国家环境局有相关权力做出重要决定的官员举行会谈，以便能一次过圆满解决此影响深远的事件。这将有利于所有参与公共服务的政党和各个基层团体的活跃份子继续参与我国的社会与政治建设。

7) 鉴于给予国家环境局作为执法者应有的尊重，我党决定自愿在这来临的星期天（2010 年7月11日）暂停我们原定的例行基层活动。我们也期许当局能以善意回应我们的要求，能与我们对此严肃的事件展开会谈以达至圆满的解决方案。

国民团结党秘书长
吴明盛

按车程收费新制度等于变相加价

2010-07-02T12:43:00.002+08:00

按车程收费新制度等于变相加价

国民团结党对于公共交通理事会打算在2010年7月3日实施的按车程收费新制度，表达极度失望。根据地铁公司及陆路交通管理局的公共交通网站上的资料显示，在新制度下几乎所有地铁路线的车资将会大幅增加。

下表列出我们的调查结果：

虽然我们无法对所有路线的新旧车资作比较，但是初步的抽样对比结果显示，在新票价制度下，国人要付更高的车资，增幅从3.75%至逾7%不等。

公共交通理事会在试图说服国人的时候，提到在新制度下，大多数乘客每天将付较低的车资。理事会应停止误导国人，让他们以为多数乘客将从新票价制度下获益。理事会应将所有地铁路线的新旧车资比较，详尽和如实地全部列出，让乘客完全掌握车资的改动。

事实上，我们认为任何超过2%的车资增幅是完全不可以接受的，因为依赖公共交通的低收入人士，并没有获得较大幅度的加薪。

多年来许多国人已经惯常搭乘地铁，他们并没有太多另类的交通选择，除非他们准备花更多时间搭乘不同的巴士，以接驳方式完成他们惯用的地铁路线，及在路上忍受交通阻塞的不便。拥有地铁专营权的地铁公司在新票价下大幅提升国人的车资，国民团结党坚决认为这是完全不可以接受的。

另一方面，要巴士乘客在繁忙时段花更多的时间转乘短程巴士，以达到省钱的目的是不切实际的。

我们相信这样的节省可能只是在新车资制度下以远程巴士与短程巴士车资比较所得出所谓“较低车资”的结果。我们相信这新制度下的“较低车资”仍然比在旧制度下的远程巴士的车资为高。公共交通理事会应该向国人展示主要车程干线服务的新旧车资的对比。

我们强烈谴责公共交通理事会，实施达到变相加价目的的按车程收费新制度。

国民团结党13届中委会秘书长
吴明盛

NSP Press Statement: Fare Increase in Disguise

2010-07-02T02:20:00.008+08:00

New Distance Fare System is Fare Hikes in Disguise

We are greatly disappointed by the new fare system that the PTC intended to implement on 3rd July 2010. Our recent research on SMRT as well as LTA Public Transport websites shows that almost all the MRT fares that we have checked from different lines have increased quite substantially.

Please refer to the following table for our findings:

We are not able to do a complete table on the various fare comparisons for all possible rides but from our sample findings, it shows that fare increase resulted from the new Distance Fare system ranges from 3.75% to more than 7%.

The PTC has not made such straight forward indications when they try to convince Singaporeans that most of them will enjoy lower fares for their daily travels on public transport. The PTC should stop misleading Singaporeans with its assertion that most Singaporeans would benefit from this new fare system. PTC should be more truthful upfront by publishing the whole matrix of comparisons between fares for MRT rides between all possible combinations.

Any fare increase more than 2% in such simple straight forward MRT rides is totally unacceptable as wage increase for many of the lower wage earners who utilize public transport most do not have much increment on their wages.

Many Singaporeans rely on MRT for their travelling needs and there is little alternative to MRT rides without wasting great amount of time in interchanging between buses and being trapped in traffic jams. Such enormous outrageous hike in fares is totally unacceptable for a monopoly like SMRT.

On the other hand, it is impractical to expect bus commuters to waste time changing buses during peak hours just to “enjoy” any lower fares. Such “lower fares” may only be lower in comparison with the new long haul trunk services.

We believe that even with such “lower fares”, it will still be higher than the old fares for long haul rides. PTC should present to Singaporeans the comparison between NEW and OLD fare structures for some main trunk services.

We strongly condemn PTC for its attempt to implement such a fare system which is in fact an outrageous hike in fare in disguise.

Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General of the 13th CEC

SMRT Chief is misleading!

2010-06-30T01:38:00.007+08:00

As to what SMRT plans to do as trains seem to be maxing out their capacity, she said: 'Trains will be crowded during peak hours. The question is, how crowded?'

She did not think that trains here are as packed as those in cities like Hong Kong, Taipei and Shanghai.

Even at its most crowded, an SMRT train carries 1,400 passengers, she said.

This is 'not crush load', where a train is carrying more passengers than the standing load it is designed to carry under normal circumstances.

Crush load happens when a train carries more than 2,000 passengers.

'People can board the train - it is whether they choose to,' she said.

SMRT chief executive officer and president Saw Phaik Hwa in Sunday ST report "SMRT: Tighter security will not mean higher fare" has claimed that while trains may be crowded, they are not at 'crush load' and 'people can board the train - it is whether they choose to'. She used the example of Hong Kong MTR trains' ability to take in 2000 people during peak hours as compared to singapore's MRT train of 1400 people during peak hours to support her view.

Ms Saw is either misleading or ignorant. HK MTR trains have EIGHT cabins. Singapore's trains have only six cabins! How could she use it as a comparison to Singapore's train system is really beyond my comprehension!

On average, each HK MTR train cabin could take in about 250 people. If we use 250 people as an indicator, Singapore's train would only able to take in about 1500 during peak. This is not very far from the present situation.

This calculations is perfectly relevant and reflect accurately to what we are experiencing on the ground. i.e. the trains are just too packed!

I would advise Ms Saw, as the chief of SMRT, should walk out of her Ivory Tower and dependency on some blind statistics and experience herself first hand the situation on the ground. Apparently she is taking statistics from other places VERY BLINDLY without even understanding the differences involved to make up her IMAGINARY conclusions that Singapore's trains are not at "crush load"!

Goh Meng Seng

P.S. Added information for maximum capacity for a train cabin in HK:

Seats: 46 Standing: 268 Total maximum capacity is 314.

According our SMRT Chief Ms Saw, Crush Load is 2000 per train with six cabin. Means, each cabin will have 333 passengers! How could that be?

Caught off Guard Ministers' Ranking

2010-06-29T14:11:00.000+08:00

Mr. Tan Kin Lian did a survey on "how well ministers are doing their jobs"

It seems that almost all the "Caught Off Guard" ministers have the lowest ranking, from Raymon Lim (Public Transport) to MBT (HDB).

Goh Meng Seng

Survey: Rating of Ministers, June 2010

Based on 100 replies

13 Mr KHAW Boon Wan (Health) 51.53
7 Mr George YEO (Foreign Affairs) 42.35
6 Mr TEO Chee Hean (DPM and Defence) 39.29
14 Mr Tharman SHANMUGARATNAM (Finance) 38.01
3 Mr LEE Kuan Yew (Minister Mentor) 35.97
1 Mr LEE Hsien Loong (Prime Minister) 33.93
2 Mr GOH Chok Tong (Senior Minister) 33.42
4 Prof S. JAYAKUMAR (Senior Minister) 31.7
15 Dr NG Eng Hen (Education and Defence) 29.64
10 Mr LIM Hng Kiang (Trade & Industry) 27.55
21 Mr LUI Tuck Yew (Information, Comm and Arts) 26.79
18 Mr K Shanmugam (Law and Home Affairs) 25.26
19 Mr GAN Kim Yong (Manpower) 24.74
16 Dr Vivian BALAKRISHNAN (Comm Development) 23.98
20 Mrs LIM Hwee Hua (PM Office, Finance, Transport) 22.19
11 Mr LIM Swee Say (PM Office) 21.43
17 Mr Raymond LIM Siang Keat (Transport) 20.36
9 Mr LIM Boon Heng (PM Office) 17.35
12 Dr YAACOB Ibrahim (Environment & Water) 17.09
5 Mr WONG Kan Seng (DPM and Home Affairs) 15.31
8 Mr MAH Bow Tan (National Development) 12.5

(note: first column denotes what TKL calls "seniority")

NEA under Yaacob disturbing Opposition Parties instead...

2010-06-27T15:33:00.002+08:00

We were at Bendemeer market selling our North Star this morning. Someone called up the NEA to come down and check on us. While I keep asking the two nice officers to carry out their duties to summon us and I would admit to selling our papers, they did not take action. NEA under Dr Yaacob should spend more time to check the longkang for debris instead of disturbing opposition parties...

This problem about "illegal hawking" for opposition parties when they go for their ground work and sell their newspaper/newsletter must be solved once and for all.

SDP has tried to apply "hawking license" to sell their papers Democrats before but application was rejected. Most likely nobody in NEA dares to grant that kind of license to opposition parties.

So I would urge NEA to DO THE RIGHT THING, carry out their duties and summon all of us. We will not pay for the summon. We prefer to go to court and go to jail and let the whole world see how PAP government is set to deter opposition parties to carry out their political work on the ground.

Fine all opposition party members, including Mr. Low TK for "illegal hawking". Let's settle this issue once and for all. But in spite of my constant persuasion to the officers to summon us, they have refused and walk away. I actually feel very sorry for them. Someone has sabo them and burn their weekend. Calling their office and sending them down for nothing!

I will let NEA knows where we are going to conduct our "illegal hawking" next Sunday in advance and hope that they carry out their duties properly.

Goh Meng Seng

Press Statement on recent Floods

2010-06-26T13:17:00.002+08:00

I have been in self-imposed retreat for quite a while now. I intended to stay off my blog and the media just for a little longer but it seems that this unbearable reoccurring of floods around the island has forced me to cut short my peaceful retreat. I have issued the following Press Statement on behalf of NSP:

Setup A Committee of Inquiry to look into improving drainage & weather warning system

NSP shares the frustration and disappointment of many Singaporeans whose lives have been severely disrupted by the reoccurring floods in recent days.

The Ministry of Environment and Water Resources under Minister Dr. Yaacob Ibrahim has reportedly spent billions in improvement works on the various canals on this island. However it seems that the situation seems to have little, marginal improvement over the years.

In 2009, when flood hit Bukit Timah, Dr. Yaacob Ibrahim has claimed that it is a once in 50 year happening. We know that this is pure exaggeration as flash floods were happening quite often in that area in the 1970s and 1980s. But since 1990s, millions, if not billions have been spent on improvement works on the Bukit Timah Canal and we would expect floods of such magnitude should be a thing of the past.

On 16 June 2010, Orchard Road was flooded, causing millions of dollars of damage to private properties and businesses. The ministry under Dr. Yaacob Ibrahim has given the excuse of debris blockade.

Today, floods appear again, not only in Orchard Road and Bukit Timah, but in various places around Singapore. What could be the excuse then?

Back in 1999, an article in New Paper has once boasted that Orchard will never flood because of the Stamford Canal. It was said that it will take a COMBINATION of hide tide and 100mm of rainfall within an hour to flood Orchard. But since the Marina Barrage has been built, high tide should not be the main issue here anymore. Could the Marina Barrage be the main issue then?

The first incidence of flooding in Bukit Timah could be excused as Act of God. The second flood in Orchard Road could be excused on the blame of debris. How about the third one? Isn’t it too much of an excuse for such floods to keep reoccurring? Could it be too much of a coincidence that such floods occur after the Marina Barrage has been built?

We hope that the government would form an Independent Committee of Inquiry on this matter. This committee should consist of people who have the expertise to review the whole drainage system in Singapore. Singaporeans should deserve better accountability from the highly paid minister and civil servants instead of resigning to praying to heaven for not flooding Singapore.

On top of that, we would also like to urge the authority and the Committee of Inquiry to look into the possibility of implementing a colour coded weather warning system. This is necessary to reduce the risks of people being exposed to adverse weathers like heavy rains and floods. A Red code rain weather warning would mean that young kids will not have to attend kindergarten while a Black code rain weather warning would mean that all classes in schools should stop. This should reduce the risk of young children being endangered by adverse weather.

Singaporeans want the government to ACT NOW to resolve and improve the drainage as well as weather forecast systems. We hope that the PAP government would respond promptly to this call.

Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General of the 13th CEC