TOTD: What matters most in Politics?

Thought of the Day - What matters most in Politics?

I have put up a teaser just not too long ago, asking my FB friends to guess what I had replied a reporter's query on "when are you going to do ground work?".

My answer shocked him. I said, I am not going to "walk the ground", so to speak. Not going to knock on doors, shake hands and kiss babies.

His reaction is quite "normal" as this is the "default thinking" that politicians, be it PAP or opposition, should "walk the ground" in order to "win votes".

I explain to him clearly, I am not going to play the games according to the "indoctrinated rules" set by PAP.

PAP has not only drawn the electoral boundaries but also the "invisible political boundaries" for Opposition, to its own advantage, of course. PAP has always been trying to "mislead" and "misguide" political engagement via subtle "brain washing".

It all started way back in 1981, right after JBJ won the Anson by-election. The almighty PAP has lost its very first seat in one and a half decade. Naturally, the late LKY jumped with anger.

The often DULL parliament sittings had suddenly become all fiery with exchanges of missiles and dramas. It was apparent that the total dominance of PAP in the past immediate decade had made it complacent and lost the art of debate in the face of a strong and fiery opponent, JBJ. Parliament in the past could be an "empty rubber stamp" without the need of any real debates or even the need of attendance of MPs and Ministers. JBJ had changed all that. Even LKY himself had to make it a point to attend parliament whenever JBJ was making his speeches of criticisms.

In 1984, PAP lost another seat in Potong Pasir and this led to a serious rethinking of political strategy. Town Council Management entrusted to MPs was the solution.

It was an attempt to divert voters and politicians attention from the REAL CORE RESPONSIBILITY of an MP in parliament to drain their energy and attention into municipal issues.

In the Westminster system, municipal issues are taken care by District Councillors, who are also voted in by residents. An MP is never expected to manage the estate or be bothered by municipal issues because they are voted in to speak up on policy matters in parliament.

But PAP, knowing that they do not have strong MPs in parliament while having all the resources to take care of municipal issues by subcontracting out to professional estate management companies, tried to change the focus and direction of political engagement towards municipal matters instead of policy debates and law making in parliament.

PAP has successfully to mislead and brainwash both voters as well as opposition politicians to think that they should put most of their energy in knocking doors, convincing voters they can run town councils instead of putting up strong debates, policy ideas and scrutiny in parliament. After opposition won some seats, they will compete with PAP which has the whole machinery of People's Association (PA), in conducting durian tours, temple tours, organizing events etc... instead of spending most of their time in policy research and debates.

In the end, we have political parties doing Charity Work, giving out goodies, organizing events .... instead of doing the REAL political work of analysing, researching and commenting on Real political issues. Political parties are more like Charity Organization or Event Organizing companies or simply Social Clubs nowadays.

Voters are judging the "quality" of candidates by looking at whether they "serve" them by "knocking doors" or "visit" them. Or whether they attend wakes or temple dinners and such. Or organize any events for them...etc. The most illogical thing is, they even expect opposition who have not won any seat to do all these!

Instead of looking at the political views, ideologies or ideals of political candidates, we have voters basically "voting blindly" according to "party branding" or whether candidates "walk the ground"! These totally misguided perception and concept of politics is the direct result of PAP's subtle brain washing.

It always irks me when people start talking about "I only vote XXX party and not small parties" or "if you are contesting under XXX party, I will vote for you". I consider that as an expression of political immaturity. One who cannot discern good candidates from bad but resort to some "fuzzy branding", he must be too lazy to really study and understand each and every choices presented to him.

This is the reason why we ended up with lots of empty chairs and empty tables in Parliamentary sittings most of the time. When voters and politicians have WRONG and misguided priorities in politics, that's the end result we will get.

I will vote or support a person or a team for only two reasons:

1) Not PAP because I do not want them to be complacent when they get too high votes.

2) In the event of multi-corner fight, I will support the candidates who make good sense and have good political ideals or ideology which resonate with my belief, regardless of which party he or she is from.

I have gone through 3 General Elections. GE 2006 WP made great progress up from the devastating state of 2001 GE. This is partly because we played according to the brainwashed setting of PAP configurations, doing house visits, shaking hands and kissing babies.

In GE 2011, I changed the methodology subtly. I didn't knock on all the doors in Tampines but decided to ignite the fire on policy issues, mainly HDB issues. It set on a fire which ran wild and benefited all opposition.

I thought Singaporeans have evolved and matured politically. Finally they understood the importance of checks and balances, with a desire to vote in more opposition MPs. The path of Democratic Development should be on the right track of no return.

I was proven totally wrong in GE 2015. Voters are basically more Emotional rather than politically matured with the determination of making progress for Democratic Development.

I decided to stop all "political wayang" which is totally misleading, misguided and even detrimental towards REAL political Democratic progress for Singapore.

What we need is more public political discourse and education, not more door knocking saying Hi and Bye, shaking hands, kissing babies and making people "feel good" so that they will vote for you.

I decided to spend most of my time writing on my FB and copy some of the postings to my blog as an archive. I hope more people will be enlightened and provided with better reasoned ideas for them to talk about in their daily lives so that they could convince more people in their real life circles. Share the public discourse, ideas and ideals through FB or real life chats with friends and strangers.

This is a slow and painful process. It needs consistent commitment, nothing less than sweating out in knocking doors.

All political movements always start with evangelism of alternative ideas and ideals, not with knocking doors and kissing babies. When the seeding of ideas and ideals take root in the minds and hearts of voters, their emotional sway will be dampen and hopefully, what happened in 2015 GE will not repeat again.

Dr Sun Yat Sen had done that all his life, in order to convince people that a change of regime from Monarchy to Republic was a necessity. He changed China, not by knocking doors, kissing babies or doing charity work or organizing tours. He did it through endless and continuous evangelism of his political ideas and ideology, which were so alien to his people of his time.

Thus, I decided to break through the walls and boundaries set by PAP's political brainwashing. I will not play into their game of political patronage and wayangism. I will do what is MOST important in politics, the evangelism of political ideas, ideals and discourse.

If you expect me to knock doors, kiss babies, do charity work or organize events, then don't vote for me. If you only want to vote for some "big party with big brand", then I am not for you.

But if you want an MP who will put 101% in parliamentary work, scrutinize each and every policy and laws which PAP wants to pass, then I will be an extremely good choice for you.

My "Track Record" has nothing to do about how many blocks of flats I have "walk and knock", has nothing to do about whether I have run a town council before, definitely nothing about whether I am a good organizer of events or involve in giving out goodies as charity.

My "Track Record" is my consistency in providing my political views, ideas and ideals. Ideas and views which PAP would even adapt quietly without giving due credits, even million dollar "elite" ministers would read and adapt in their policies.

So next time, anyone of you start to talk about "walk the ground", "start campaigning" or "track record", think again.

I have never stopped "campaigning" since I graduated from university, against bad PAP policies. I "walk the hearts and minds" and my "Track Record" of policy ideas and ideals are thick.

Anyone who wants to be in politics, must have some policy views or policy ideas to start with. If you have none, sorry, I won't even bother.

Goh Meng Seng

TOTD: The Great Asian Political Idealist 12 Nov 2017

Thought of the Day - The Great Asian Political Idealist

Today is the Birthday of a Great Politician of Asia in 20th Century, Dr Sun Yat Sen.

In remembrance of this Great man, I shall dedicate my Thought of the Day to talk about his greatness.

Many people would have mistaken the source of greatness in Dr Sun. Rightfully, he is credited for bringing the fall of Imperial rule in China, although in actual fact, the success of 1911 mutiny and revolution wasn’t part of his deliberate efforts at all.

It was his inspiration, undaunted effort in advocating the topple of the Imperial Qing Dynasty that gained him great respect among his contemporary revolutionists.

However, his greatness in politics didn’t stop at that. He wasn’t exactly the top politicians in politicking and in fact, he had failed in his politicking efforts when he conceded his position to Yuan Shi Kai who tried to reinstate Imperial rule to modern China again.

His main contribution to the world, especially to the Asian political arena, lies in his political ideology of Separation of Five Powers and the Three Principles.

The concept of Separation of Five Powers is especially profound and herein lies the main difference he had against the Western Democratic ideology.

Although he was against the Imperial rule in China but he recognized the strength of the political administration which was installed and implemented by the Imperialists. This is a five thousand years legacy of Chinese wisdom in political management. He recognized that throughout history, China had always been the country which possessed the most sophisticated and advanced political management system as compared to their contemporaries. Many foreign states wanted to emulate its complex political administration and in fact, its neighbors were greatly influenced by its system. These include Japan, Korea and Vietnam.

The scholar system which Chinese dynasties had implemented throughout history ensured basic competency of the control and management of the country regardless of who was the Emperor. Even when the Emperor was just a 10 yea old kid, the scholar system would ensure basic competence in the running of the Empire.

The Chinese dynasties also valued the importance of Checks and Balances. There would always be periodic Audit checks carried on various local governance by Special Envoys empowered by the Emperors themselves.

In the inner court, they Emperor would appoint special officials empowered with the Power of Impeachment. They were allowed to speak up their mind and criticize court officials and even against Emperors without any dire consequences.

The most important institution of the scholar system was the Board of Examination. The Chief examiner would make sure the selection process for the brightest scholars from the country was done properly.

These selected students would then be fielded into the respective departments of the Empire administration.

The Western countries didn’t have such complex system of political administration until much later in the 18th or early 19th century. The idea Checks Andy Balances was actually first implemented in the Chinese dynasties as far back as 4000 years ago!

Thus even Dr Sun was heavily influenced by the western ideology of democracy, he realized that China itself had a much superior system of political administration.

However, the most common problem faced by past dynasties was the corruption of powers via full concentration of powers by One or few court officials, other than the Emperor himself.

Thus, he had raised the importance of the Separation of Five Powers, instead of the Three powers advocated by the Western world. Other than the Three powers of Executive, Judiciary and Legislation, he added two more powers that were inherently the most critical for superior political administration..... Power of Impeachment and Examination.

The Power of Impeachment is equivalent to the modern days Corrupt Practice Investigation Bureau and Audit General. The Power of Examination was catered towards the important Board of Examination which was the gate keeper of selection and appointment of scholars to civil service positions. Basically it refers to the power of selecting, appointing and promoting those who work for the government. These two are the critical powers for clean, effective, efficient and competent government.

The contribution of Dr Sun in raising the significance of these two powers should not be underestimated. Many of the problems we are still facing right now, even in 21st century, is how incompetency creeps into the political management of countries when the Power of Impeachment is lacking coupled with cronyism infestation when the Power of Selection and Appointment is totally corrupted.

This is the reason why my comrades and I decided to form People’s Power Party using Dr Sun’s profound ideology of Separation of Five Powers as the pillars of our Core Value.

PPP will strive to pass on the legacy of Dr Sun’s greatest political ideology which will always be relevant to good governance in all centuries ahead.

Goh Meng Seng

Open Letter to Halimah

Open Letter to Halimah

Dear Madam Halimah,

At this very moment when I pen this letter to you, I still have the opportunity to address you as Madam Halimah instead of Madam Kelong President Halimah and I hope NOT to have that unfortunate opportunity to address you as such.

There is absolutely No Glory nor Dignity for you to become our First Lady President under the current circumstances. Your eventual "acceptance" of such farce arrangement of "Reserved Presidency", apparently meant for you, by submitting your nomination papers tomorrow, will be seen as an dishonorable act which will undermine the Presidency even before you begin your tour of duty.

Most important of all, your nomination and eventual acceptance of this Presidency now will cause more hurt and damage to the very Malay community which you claim to represent and lead. The implicit humiliation and hurt suffered by the Malay community will never recover fully due to the disgraceful ways of political manipulation by the power that creates unfavorable inferences upon the Malay community throughout the process.

You have said that you want to be the unifying figure for ALL Singaporeans but ironically, if you accept the "reserved appointment" of Presidency under such circumstances, you will not gain any substantial respect from any Singaporeans from any race. Your role of unification of Singaporeans would ironically be a figure head that every Singaporean stand in unity to disrespect or even despised!

The damage to our foundation of Core Values based on Meritocracy is just too great to quantify. This is one of the biggest damage your acceptance of such reserved appointment would do to our nation.

I would urge you to reconsider on submitting your nomination papers on 13 Sep 2017 because such move would only bring damaging consequences to everyone, to the whole Nation because it would be seen as the ultimate sophistry of rigging a simple electoral progress that would bring shame and disgrace to our Nation. A President-to-be who would put the whole Nation to shame and anger, is definitely not a good start for your six-years term which would be void of any legitimacy in the eyes of Singaporeans and the whole world at large.

I would urge you NOT to submit your nomination papers tomorrow so to trigger the mechanism to open up the Presidential Elections to contest by ALL qualified individuals from all races. Then you should contest in a fair and open elections to exemplify the values of meritocracy we hold so dearly for the success of this Nation.

Respect, dignity and legitimacy are earned, not Reserved in appointment. You will do yourself no justice as well as harm and damage to your Malay community as well as the Nation at large if you do not really understand this simple value.

Regrettably,
Goh Meng Seng

#MadamKelongPresident
#NotMyPresident

TOTD: Sympathy to Madam Kelong President

Thought of the Day - Sympathy to Madam Kelong President

My deepest Sympathy to the Madam Kelong President to be. No matter how you try to prove yourself capable of being independent of PAP, you will always be FOOT noted in the History of Singapore as the Kelong President who is beholden to PAP for getting this disgraceful position of Presidency.

It may not be your fault but you are one who made the choice to play right into the hands of PAP and thus, rightfully so, you will have to be responsible for your decision to play the puppet of the power that be.

The circumstances under which you become the President bring no glory or pride to you, your family or your clan but only insults, shame and anger to the Malay community.

You have already been addressed as "Madam President" by your powerful colleagues even before the race and now, being made the Madam President as "planned" through administrative means. We cannot help to feel that this is all Kelong or an elaborated set up of a wayang.

Your colleagues have helped to set up barriers to all competition by making Reserved Presidential Election... yes, make no mistake about it, it is indeed RESERVED for you and nobody else. By doing so, your Malay community has suffered humiliation not only once but twice throughout the whole farce process. One, they have set on record that any Malay Presidential candidate, including you Madam Kelong President, will not be able to win in a fair and open Presidential Elections because you are a minority despite the fact that not so long ago, an Indian PAP candidate has just won a by elections against the Secretary General of the second largest opposition party in Singapore!

The Malay community is further insulted when their two very successful self-made millionaires were denied Presidential candidacy even though they have created their own business empires which are worth multiple hundreds of millions. Do they lack any business, economics or financial capabilities to perform the role of the Elected Presidency when they have basically built their own business empires through their own merits? Obviously not and I believe they are better qualified in business, economics and financial capabilities than you do, Madam Kelong President!

You are only qualified on the technicality of being the PAP appointed Speaker of Parliament which doesn't involve in managing any big business, lest a $500 million paid up capital entity!

These are the Business Elites of the Malay community but they were put down as not good enough to be the Elected President?! Only people like you who are beholden to PAP by working for PAP could be qualified as Kelong President?

How hurtful could that be to your Malay Community, which you proclaim to represent and belong to?

Madam Kelong President, you may think that you have brought glory to yourself and the Malay community but no, you have instead brought shame, hurt and anger to the Malay community.

I would have even more sympathy to you if you really think it is something great to become the Kelong President as you wish because you are living in a dream that lacks legacy and dignity. Even your predecessor Tony Tan has more dignity than you do despite the fact that he had won only by less than 35% but at the very least he fought the battle till the very end! But you? You will always been seen as appointed by the 16 persons and PAP and nobody else.

My heart felt thanks to the other two Malay candidates, Mr Salleh Marican and Mr Farid Khan for stepping forward to offer yourself to serve Singapore as President. Don't feel bad to be rejected by the political sophistry of PAP because it is not the people like us who have rejected you. Only 16 people plus the PAP have rejected you. All the best to both of you. Thank you.

Goh Meng Seng

#MadamKelongPresident

#NotMyPresident

PAP's Political Miscalculation on Reserved Presidential Election

Political Miscalculation of the Day

So the cat is out of the bag, there will be no contest for the Presidential "Elections" because by the latest straw poll, PAP won't have the confidence of having Halimah winning the PE!

CCS has said that PAP "is prepared to pay the political price" but we all know all PAP cares is winning by all means, never to lose an election, especially the Presidential Elections whereby the one who is not endorsed by them may give them trouble and headache like what OTC had done to them!

The so call "short term political price" is merely the price of negative public opinion in the short term which may be overcome by giving goodies when GE comes!

This sudden groundswell against PAP's Reserved Presidential Elections strategy is totally unexpected turn of event for PAP. Instead of talking about how good the Reserved Presidential Elections is, people are instead debating on "spoiling the vote" vs "vote against PAP, anyone but Halimah"! This debate has taken over the public discourse and it will only snowball and cannibalizes on the support of PAP Halimah.

Although both sides of the camps are against each other and even evolves into calling each other PAP moles, BUT it has unexpected impact on the quiet majority middle ground swing voters. Both sides have a common belief that this RPE is BAD although we just have different approaches towards showing our unhappiness against it.

This unhappiness is contagious and has started to spread like wild fire. Our reasoning against REP is the same, it is against our Core value of Meritocracy and Racial Equality. The pathetic attempt by PAP Ministers to explain and justify their RPE has failed miserably to impress lest convince Singaporeans because their arguments are full of loopholes based on false premises or even untruthful "facts"!

PAP is pressing the panic button and making calculations on the least damaging options now. No matter what option it is, they are not prepared to lose the seemingly unimportant post of Electec Presidency but in actual fact, it is a small dagger hanging over their heads.

Thus, the only logical conclusion is, there shall not be a contest, at all cost... this cost is cheaper of having a non-conforming President sitting on their heads.

Goh Meng Seng

TOTD: Democracy in Destruction, Dictatorship in the Making

Thought of the Day - Democracy in Destruction, Dictatorship in the Making

Many people have spoken about bits and pieces of Conflicts of Interests in the appointment of AG and DAG, appointments of key positions in civil service and GLCs which are dubious with signs of cronyism and of course the "rigging" of the Elected Presidency by turning it into race based election which rules out potential strong contest from non PAP approved candidates etc...

Most people could only see the trees but not the whole forest. I was having dinner with a couple of friends and I explain to them that this is in fact a Dictatorship in the making but they couldn't really understand the whole picture.

As stated in PEOPLE's Power Party constitution, the fundamental principle which determine a Democracy is the Separation of 5 Powers. Most people would only know or familiar with the basic 3 Powers of Judiciary, Legislative and Executive but not the other two Powers. True enough my friends ask me what are the other two Powers?

I explain to them it is Power of Impeachment and Power of Appointment of civil servants (Examination).

In Singapore's context, the President who is supposed to safeguard our foreign reserves, is the key institution of Power of Impeachment together with CPIB. PSC which takes care of the civil service recruitment and appointment is the institution empowered with the function of Examination Power.

If we take a good look at what PAP is trying to do, we will realize that they are CONCENTRATING ALL THE FIVE POWERS under them by appointing their own people to the key positions.

They have controlled both the Executive and Legislative powers by default, then they started to influence heavily on the appointments of key personnel to civil service and a GLCs, sometimes even put their own family members in these important positions. Then they start to meddle with the whole judiciary system by appointing their own people to the AGC!

IF all these Five Powers are separated and independent of each other, we would have a good functioning Democracy with proper checks and balances. But the reverse would mean a total interdependent Powers tightly controlled by a centralized figure or organization. This would basically mean a total concentration of powers which in effect, turning our system into a live dictatorship!

Singaporeans should wake up to this fact that the Post LKY era will mean a tightening control of all Five Powers and the destruction of Democracy for Singapore will be completed without any effective system of checks and balances.

The Post LKY ERA is turning into a total nightmare for Singapore Democratic development...

Oxley Temple Saga: Lessons on Separation of Powers And Good Governance

WARNING: This is going to be a "LONG BORING POST" if you are not interested in learning more about what is "Conflict of Interest" or "Separation of Powers". 

In this post, I am not interested on the Oxley House  itself but what came out from the whole saga; especially on the issue "Abuse of Power" and such.

Mr. Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling had made serious accusations of "Abuse of Power", among other things. PM Lee Hsien Loong claims that he has "answered" all these allegations in parliament and concluded that these are "baseless".

Many Singaporeans seem to be "convinced" that these are "baseless allegations" and even our opposition MPs in parliament seemed to think that these are just "calculated allegations" (sic) without much substance or substantial evidences made to undermine the Prime Minister. (Anyway, I do not think it is the job of opposition to defend the Prime Minister himself.)

From recent events in the appointment of Deputy Attorney General, Attorney General to this Oxley Temple Saga, it is clear that Singaporeans didn't really see any problems with the massive potential conflicts of interests as well as the breach of the simple rule of Separation of Powers. I personally feel that this is the main weakness of Singapore. Singaporeans lack a clear understanding of the importance of Separation of Powers and what constitutes "Conflicts of Interests". It is also apparent that even our opposition MPs have weak understanding or even lack of understanding of Separation of Powers and Conflicts of Interests; else they won't be found or criticized for the lack of proper handling of potential "conflicts of interests" in the management of their Town Councils. They have tried to make a case of Conflicts of Interests in parliament against the appointment of Hri Kumar and Lucian Wong as Deputy AG and AG but it wasn't forceful nor "convincing" at all. And it is not surprising that they did not see the case made out by PM Lee's siblings as convincing and important enough to call for investigations of any sort, but pass these allegations off as "baseless" or "lack substantial evidence" and conclude these as "calculated accusation to undermine the PM". They even gave the PM "benefit of doubts" over these issues!

Let me go through the various issues one by one, giving a contrast by putting up examples from Hong Kong. Why Hong Kong? Well, both Singapore and Hong Kong adopted the Common Laws as the basis of our legal systems. It is comparable in many sense.

Inappropriate Appointment of AG and DGA

It is a fact that the appointed AG Lucian Wong was PM Lee's personal lawyer as stated by LHY and LWL. It is a fact that the appointed Hri Kumar was a PAP MP. PM Lee tried to brush away the accusation of him appointing his own personal lawyer as AG as non-issue because he opines that Lucian has "provided good service" to him!

Now some people pointed out there is "Conflict of Interests" but didn't know exactly how interests could be "conflicted". This is why PAP could get away with such blatant act.

There are actually TWO GREAT Problems here, instead of One. Conflict of Interests is only one of the problems. The other is the breach of the Democratic Principle of Separation of Powers.

Let me give you an example and you will see clearly why there is a potential conflict of interests here.

If you are the Director of a Stats Board or department in the civil service. You made the recommendation of a lawyer as the legal advisor of the department, without declaring that he is your personal lawyer, would that be permissible? Obviously not.

In the world of good governance in public sector, all related interests must be declared before the decisions for any position or any contract is offered. Else that would be considered as a breach of proper procedures and the omission of such declaration of interests or relationship would be considered an attempt to hide critical information and will automatically trigger criminal investigation procedures.(Remember the NEA Brompton Bike case?)

Why would that be considered as "Conflict of Interest" in the first place? Well, as long as there is a relationship (close relationship) or business dealings between the Director and the lawyer, there will be a possibility of transfer of tangible or intangible interests which may be suspected to result in the favorable decision to appoint or give the contract to the lawyer. For example, hefty discounts or even "Free Service" provided to the Director for his personal matters and in return, the Director decides to appoint him as legal adviser to the department. These possible events may not have happened but as long as there is such possibility, the relationship must be declared. i.e. If there is nothing to hide, you should declare such relationship.

Now, regardless of whether there is any "favors" transacted between the PM and his lawyer, which means, we do not need to prove there is such transactions of goodwill or favors, PM should declare such interests or relationship when he proposed and made decision to appoint him as the office holder of Attorney General.

The question now is, did PM Lee make such declaration in the process of appointing Lucien Wong as AG?

I believe that after the Hotel Property saga which PM Lee was implicated, PM Lee should now be extremely careful to accept any "discount" or even "free" service from anyone, but still, in the system of good governance, such potential conflict of interests should be dealt with proper declaration in the process of selection and appointment. This is especially so when there is no indication that PM has recused himself from this decision of AG appointment.

Thus, what Opposition MPs in parliament should ask is, did PM Lee declare this critical potential conflict of interests in the process of appointment? He did not mention it nor make proper declaration of such relationship when the previous parliamentary sitting had a debate on the appointment of Lucien Wong as the AG! 

The second aspect of such appointment of Lucien Wong as AG, together with Hri Kumar as DAG, is the breach of the Democratic Principle of Separation of Powers.

In People's Power Party's concept of Separation of Powers, there are Five Powers. This is more stringent requirement but even for the normal concept of Separation of Powers which involves mainly Three powers or maybe even the forth state of Freedom of Press, it is important to note that the Executive, Judiciary and Legislative powers should observe a strict separation to effect Independent functioning of these institutions of the Democratic system, without fear nor favour.

AG office is an important part of the Judiciary system and it must not only act Independently but also SEEN to be Independent of the Executive and Legislative arm.

The appointment of Lucien Wong as the AG has breached the rule of independence of the AGO from the Head of the Executive Arm, i.e. PMO! The appointment of Hri Kumar as DAG, who was ex-PAP MP (or what we call legislative member) is also a breach of the rule of independence of the AGO from BOTH the Executive arm as well as the Legislative arm! (PM is effective the leader of the ruling party PAP which dominates the parliament, the legislative arm).

Thus in any way we look at it, these appointments are totally inappropriate and smack of effecting a non-Democratic rule because the basic principle of Separation of Powers has been seriously breached!

Thus, the important question we should ask is, do we still want Singapore to be a developed Democracy or just regress into a system of authoritarian or dictatorship whereby Separation of Powers is basically non-existent? 

In Hong Kong, such situation will never happen, especially for appointments of important positions in the Judiciary system, be it AG or Chief Justice.

Even for positions which are less sensitive like Board of Directors of university, if the Chief Executive appoints people who have direct relations with him, the whole society will criticize such moves. It has happened before during CY Leong's term. But as this doesn't breach the Principle of Separation of Powers (Board of University is not part of the 3 powers) and such appointees are WELL KNOWN to be politically connected to the CE and no obvious transactions of service nor interests, no further actions were taken.


Obtaining Official source of Information for Private Use

LHY and LWL had accused PM Lee of obtaining the Deed of Gift via his official capacity as Prime Minister and (passed it to his lawyer) used it against them.

PM Lee had explained that as one of the inheritor of LKY's assets, he has the "right to know" or have the Deed of Gift.

However, whether the PM has the "right" to the Deed of Gift or not, is PRIVATE matters between him and his siblings. This is purely a PRIVATE matter.

To make use of his official capacity of PM to get the deed, which Minister Lawrence Wong has confirmed that LHL received the Deed via his official capacity as PM, and pass it to his PRIVATE lawyer to settle his private matters with his siblings, is already a breach of procedure and official protocol.

I believe there are laws governing the proper use of information obtained in official capacity as we have seen in recent cases, police officer was charged for accessing information in their official capacity but pass these information to his friends for their private use.

Any information obtained by any civil servants or political appointees in their official capacity, should only be used for official business instead of private matters! That's the basic protocol of any good governance for the civil service!

The evidence provided by LHY and LWL had clearly shown that LHL's PRIVATE Lawyer has indicated that LHL has passed the Deed of Gift to the law firm while Minister Lawrence Wong has confirmed LHL received the Deed via his Official capacity of PM. This is a clear breach of protocol.

The proper way for LHL to get the Deed of Gift to settle his private matter is to ask his lawyer to write in on behalf of HIS OWN CAPACITY as one of the inheritors of LKY's estate to get the Deed from National Heritage Board.

Having the right to the Deed doesn't mean that you can use the wrong channel or your official capacity as Prime Minister to get the Deed for your private use.

Thus, it is very disappointing to note that Opposition MPs didn't make this point clearly in parliament in objection to his flimsy and unconvincing defence.

In Hong Kong, there were cases of politicians or political appointees being charged and imprisoned for misusing information obtained in official capacity for private use. There is a clear cut line in maintaining good governance.
 

The "Secret Ministerial Committee"

Whether the Ministerial Committee is "secret" or not, or whether PM Lee recuse himself from this Ministerial Committee or not, does not clear the fact that such arrangement of having "direct subordinates" to meddle or investigate into the DIRECT Boss' matters is a total upheaval of hierarchical ethics! And obviously, it is a messy conflict of interests in itself!

We only have superior conducting investigation into subordinates' matters but direct subordinates investing and meddle in superior's matters is really hardly heard of! This is also a clear breach of Separation of Powers!

Besides the declared members of this Ministerial Committee are neither history experts nor heritage preservation experts! Thus on what basis or merits do they have to convene such a committee to determine the "options" for the Oxley house in terms of heritage preservation?

LHY and LWL had accused the committee of focusing on the attacks on the legitimacy of LKY's Last Will instead of the Options. And unwittingly, PM Lee has put up the summary of his Statutory Declaration which confirms that his main submission to the Ministerial Committee is all about putting doubts on the validity of LKY's Last Will.

How could anyone come to the conclusion that LHY and LWL have put up "baseless" allegation in this case? 

The proper place to question the validity of the Last Will is to challenge the probate of the Last Will in court. If PM Lee is reluctant to go to court for fear of tarnishing his father's good name, then why would he bring it up to his subordinates in this Ministerial Committee?

The proper way of dealing with determining the OPTIONS is to call in REAL INDEPENDENT EXPERTS from the academic field to look into it instead of the ministers! Why isn't this so? 

Thus the pertinent question should be asked in parliament is that why isn't an independent penal of experts set up instead of the Ministerial Committee which is bound to breach basic hierarchical ethics tainted with conflict of interests? 

In Hong Kong, when they are looking into heritage preservation of any buildings or landmarks or sites, they will convene an independent penal filled with REAL experts in the respective fields, instead of Ministers. Just simple as that.



Inappropriate Use of PMO Official Authority 

This is the MOST Ridiculous part of the whole saga. The Prime Minister Office  is neither the official owner of ANYTHING from the Estate of LKY although Lee Hsien Loong the son, is one of the inheritor. And Ho Ching, PM Lee's wife, has no official appointment in PMO but yet, she can be listed as the person for contact representing PMO to give away something that doesn't even belong to PMO!

And our dear Prime Minister just brush it off by saying that they were just excited to find something of "historical significance" to give it to NHB for its exhibition, without prior informing his own siblings! How could this be a convincing explanation of such lack of clear differentiation between what is Official and Private?

LHY and LWL had provided the clear documented evidence of such blatant misuse of official capacity in this case but yet, people are saying that they didn't provide "enough" evidence for this?

In Singapore, even if the Prime Minister wanted to sue anybody for defamation or anything, he cannot use the letter head of the Prime Minister Officer (PMO) or his title as Prime Minister! This is a clear cut between Official business vs Private matters.

Thus, apparently, the Prime Minster has totally ignored BASIC Official protocols and blurred the lines between his Official political appointment with his private matters! The PMO doesn't own any thing from the estate of LKY and it should not be used to process any things obtained from the LKY estate!

In Hong Kong, Donald Tsang who was former Chief Executive and Finance minister of Hong Kong, was chided for using official letterhead of his office to write to government departments to request for information and help for his private matters. This is a big taboo in Hong Kong.

Conclusion

Good Governance and Separation of Powers are inseparable.  All civil servants are expected to have a clear concept of "Official Capacity" vs "Private Matters" and what will possibly constitute conflict of interests. More so for top civil servants as well as political appointees like Ministers and Prime Minister. On top of that, the only why to avoid conflict of interests is to maintain proper Separation of Powers.

Conflict of Interest does not mean there must be real wrong doing of any sort but by virtue of POSSIBLE undue influence based on any close relationship of any kind, one must declare such potential conflicts.

Beside the consideration of Conflict of Interest, the OVERALL system of Separation of Powers must be maintained.

PM Lee clearly lacks the strong sense of "Separation of Powers" and most important of all, has blurred all lines between what is Official business vs Private matters. There is a CLEAR consistency demonstrated in all the issues brought up by PM Lee's siblings that suggests that PM Lee himself lacks clarity in differentiating what is "Official" vs "Private" matters.

He is setting a terrible example for the whole civil service and I have serious doubt that with such aptitude and attitude, he couldn't possibly maintain Good Governance without any concept of Separation of Powers and avoidance of conflict of interests.

If such things happen in Hong Kong, such evidence along with the self-admissions made by either the Ministers or the Chief Executive himself would be serious enough to trigger or warrant an immediate thorough investigation, either by an independent commission convened by the Legco or any appropriate authority, like ICAC.  But just too bad, this is Singapore which doesn't follow such strict and stringent rules set upon the civil service as well as political appointees.

For the Prime Minister to brush it aside by saying "no evidence" at all and to state that he himself will ask for investigation if there is evidence, is just totally unconvincing and ironically, lack of the very principle of Separation of Powers and avoidance of conflict of interests! It is not for him to decide whether there is enough evidence thrown against himself! It is should come under an independent panel to decide on that!

Separation of Powers and avoidance of conflict of interests must not only be maintained but must also be SEEN to be maintained. There are laws and mechanisms available within the system to make things transparent and these should be strictly followed. Sad to say, the TOP boss, the Prime Minister himself, is now seen to breach every important part of this system. 

The Prime Minister doesn't deserve any "benefit of doubts" because it is totally unacceptable to let any DOUBT on his own conduct and management to exist and linger in the minds of Singaporeans. All doubts should be cleared and none should left lingering. Else I would regard that as a sign of unfit for the top public office.

Thus, I maintain my call for Lee Hsien Loong to resign as Prime Minister for the sake of Singapore.

Goh Meng Seng

TOTD: Oxley Temple Saga - PAP, why?

Thought of the Day - PAP, why?

Many people have been "misled" in this Oxley saga that it is a "Private" matter but apparently, it is not.

The WHOLE Cabinet of PAP Ministers wanted the Oxley House to be preserved and no compromise on just having a garden, why?

While PM Lee and his siblings LHY and LWL may have called for a "cease fire" and wanted to "solve the issue in private", but to me, this issue cannot be solved without looking hard at what these PAP Ministers want.

First of all, why did the FIRST Will of LKY signed in Aug 2011 stated so clearly that he wanted the house to be demolished immediately after his death? This was done right after the 21 Jul 2011 Cabinet Meeting which he was "invited" (I would refrain from using "summon") to the Cabinet to "discuss" about the fate of the Oxley House.

It is in my view that this is part of PAP's reactions and "strategy" to cope with the bad GE result in May 2011. PAP has never been so "enthusiastic" about "Heritage Preservation". It has demolished quite a lot of important landmarks in Singapore without much consultation or even winking. These includes the National Theater (I doubt many younger generations know what it is!), National Central Library etc.

But why LKY's Oxley house suddenly become so important for them? It is only about PAP's history and not much of value as a "National Heritage".

Thus, it is my view that PAP has its own self vested interests in mind, in a direct response to the dwindling popularity of its rule. Someone must have come up with the brilliant idea that LKY's political capital, embedded in the Holy Temple of Oxley, could help PAP in retaining its perpetual rule! Thus, this is the reason why that Cabinet meeting was called and basically telling LKY that they need to preserve his Oxley house to create his temple.

LKY, though throughout his life, he has been no short of a dictator, didn't like the idea. He knew that his system of rule could only be sustainable with good people as "benevolent dictators" but apparently, this is almost impossible to get in real life. He didn't want his name to be linked to any foreseeable failure of PAP's dictatorial rule in future, or even become the political milking machine for these incompetent PAP Ministers who cannot even hold their own fort and ground without depending on him, as a dead man!

Thus, he decided to add that demolition clause into his First Will, right after that Cabinet Meeting. This is the response he made against these PAP Minions.

Thus, Singaporeans must really understand the FULL Context of this Oxley saga. I am rather worried to see some people being "indifferent" or even "supportive" of setting this Oxley Political Temple of PAP! People have been mistaken this issue as some "National Interest" but there is absolutely no "National Interest" in it, only PAP's interests of perpetual rule!

In fact, the REAL National Interest is to prevent the PAP from creating the Oxley Political Temple, making use of LKY as the idolized God in it. It is in National Interest to prevent ANYONE from continuously milking a dead man for political capital to sustain his rule.

Although I am not a fan of LKY but I guess on this point, I have to agree with his decision.

This is especially true that after PAP has tasted "success" in milking a dead LKY for all his possible political capital in GE 2015, right after his death and achieving an exceptional result of 70% in the polls, PAP's minions will definitely be more determined to use all means to preserve the house and turn it into a permanent Oxley Temple for them to milk the dead man indefinitely! They would even threaten to say, with total disrespect and disgraceful that they have the power to over write LKY's last wish through forceful land acquisition or gazetting that house!

This shows how desperate they are in wanting to create that Oxley Temple for their own political interests! But they just want to be seen "nice" and this is the only reason why they didn't act straight away. They are just trying to have the cake and eat it as well.

Thus, having this true context in mind, would you expect the Lee family could possibly settle this issue amicably in private? The answer is NO. Whether we like it or not, it is PAP's political will at play and it will become a "National Issue", no matter what superficial agreement could be reached between PM Lee and his siblings.

Many people cannot see the point why LHY and LWL had accused LHL and his wife of having this intention of making use of their father's name for "Dynastic Rule" because they do not see the whole context of this Oxley saga.

If you understand the full context why, in the first place, PAP has insisted of turning Oxley house into a Political Temple and why LKY resisted, you will understand why LHY and LWL would see LHL's anger and objection to the demolition plus attempts made to preserve the house, even to "rewrite" their father's history to achieve that, as an attempt to get his son to become a successor in future.

This is because, in LHY's and LWL's perspective, if LHL and wife didn't have that intention, why would he be so assertive and even emotional in wanting the house to be preserved as a "Heritage Site"? In LHY's and LWL's view, if LHL has nothing to gain from it, why would he be so anxious about the intended demolition of the house?

I would urge all Singaporeans to oppose PAP's intention of turning this Oxley house into PAP's Political Temple. It is LKY's foresight in not having it and I must admit, this time round, he got it right.

LKY knew that his system of political rule is not sustainable and it should be abused, definitely not in his name. He was prepared to subject PAP to a more democratic system after what he saw the true colors of his PAP Ministers, after that Jul 2011 Cabinet meeting.

We will just have to trust his political judgement for one last time and oppose this blatant attempt of PAP creating that Oxley Temple.

Goh Meng Seng

TOTD: Who do I believe?

Who do I believe?

My political mentor had always taught me this simple methodology of Criminology... always look for Motive first before you do anything else.

There are many accusations and counter-accusations flying around. Now the Pro-PAP-LHL people are saying Lee Suet Fern is a "puppet master"... manipulating behind the scene of the will... etc. But I ask, what is her motive, if any?

Allowing her husband to get slightly higher share when LWL's share is reduced to be equal to the other two siblings? But this will in fact, benefits LHL as well! So why would LHL complains?

People are not looking at things in proper context. All three children of LKY are MULTI-Millionaire (if not billionaire), at least tens if not hundreds of millions net worth. Their families most probably could live for generations without doing anything! When you are that rich, the marginal utility of additional wealth is really marginal.

In fact, if it is really about money, LHY won't have agreed to pay 150% for the Oxley house (50% for charity) to buy it from his brother, just to have it and allow his sister to stay in this house and later, demolish it! Thus, I do not believe money is the issue here and Lee Suet Fern has no obvious motive to gain anything out of all these bickering.

So what's the beef here?

I do not think Lee Wei Ling mind how much she will get from LKY's estate. Having read her past writings published on newspapers and her FB, rightfully or wrongfully, she has great emotional attachment to things, to people, to her parents, especially her father. She is single and has no family. All she has now, in terms of money, is more than enough for her to live till the end of her life. But there is only one motive and desire in her, the desire of living in the old Oxley house due to her emotional attachment. And of course, she will guard her family's privacy with all force and thus, insisting that the house should not become a public place whereby other people could throng in and out of it.These are after all, her precious memories of her life.

Thus, when her relationship with LKY was frosty, for whatever reasons, she was more upset that she wasn't allow to live in the Oxley house after LKY's impending death, than having less share of his estate.

Lee Suet Fern just happened to become the mediator between the father and daughter. She managed to secure the most important part of the will, to allow LWL to stay in the house and to have it demolished after her passing.

From the emails released by LWL (the one LSF wrote to Shanmugam), I could see that Lee Suet Fern's only concern is to mend the ties between the father and the daughter.

Thus, it is totally unfair and uncalled for to make Lee Suet Fern to look like an "evil puppet master" or "evil manipulator" of any sort.

To accuse LSF or even LHY to insert that Demolition clause into the Last Will sneakily without letting LKY know, is totally absurd. For this Demolition Clause, they gain absolutely nothing! Why would they risk the wrath of LKY by doing such thing?

LWL is the one who benefits directly and emotionally to have this Demolition Clause to be reinstated. And this is why she fought so hard against LHL when LHL tried to preserve it. Even felt sour when this Demolition Clause, for whatever reasons, was taken out in the two preceding wills.

LHY didn't make noise openly against his brother until now, which I think is because he and his wife felt THREATENED. LHY didn't even make noise of his unhappiness when he was made to pay 150% for the Oxley house, because basically money isn't really a big problem to him. It is only when his and his family's lives are THREATENED, he would openly put up such devastating joint statement.

On the other hand, LHL has been shown to be inconsistent.. as LHY has put it, saying different things at different times. But one thing is very clearly consistent, his desire and motive to keep the Oxley house intact, against his father's wish even when LKY was alive!

For what motive? LWL and LHY had provided the reason: to make full use of LKY's political legacy to extend his own political agenda. Do I believe in their assertion? Yes, I do because there isn't any other plausible reason other than political reasons.

Thus, if you ask me who do I believe? I would say I believe LWL, LHY and LSF. I empathize LWL's position of wanting to stay in Oxley house for sentimental value. I believe LSF genuinely wanted to mend ties between LWL and LKY. I also believe that there is no monetary motive on LHY's part to want to fulfill his father's wish. In fact, he has lost quite a bit of money here but yet, he felt betrayed by his brother, PM Lee, after paying so much money but still the brother wanted to use his power to keep the house via administrative powers.

As to whether Oxley house should be preserved for "heritage" or "historical value", I shall comment another day.

Goh Meng Seng

TOTD: Respect LKY's Last Wish

Thought of the Day - Respect LKY's Last Wish

As an opposition politician, I am apparently not a fan of LKY for all my adult life, for reasons I have already expounded during his death in 2015.

However, if he truly wished not to have his old house to be made into a memorial monument for himself because he did not want to become the idol of hero worshiping in spite of all those high praises (regardless whether worthy or not) of his achievements for Singapore, then at least this formidable opponent whom I do not like, earns my respect for this last decision.

It is shocking to me that the current PAP government under his very own son's leadership, has seek all means and ways to go against his last wish. If what Lee Wei Ling had said in her latest combined statement with her other brother, Lee Hsien Yang, is true, then I would say this is a FEARFULLY DISHONORABLE act from our government.

PAP and its Prime Minister had been screaming "Rule of Law" high and low in recent months over all things but I would say, to use all legislative means to DISHONOR the last wish of their very own "Hero", Mr Lee Kuan Yew, is neither a good example of "Rule of Law" nor Rule of Morals. Do they not want LKY to Rest In Peace?

LKY has not only stated once in his life that he did not want any monument for himself and has stated clearly in his last memoir that he wanted the old house to be demolished after his death.

Why is that so difficult to grant the very person whom so many Singaporeans adore and respect, his very last wish?

As far as the house is concerned, this is a Private house belonging to LKY and now, his estate and immediate family after his death. Though PM Lee has stated that this is "private family dispute" over the house, but why should his government be meddling in this private matter of the house?

PM Lee is totally incoherent here. Once his government decided to exert power to determine the future of the Private House of the Lee family, it will no longer be a private matter but a public matter.

Why would he set up a Ministerial Committee to determine the fate of this Private house? To determine a dead man's will? There isn't a need to. LKY had repeated expressed in no uncertain terms that he did not want any monument to be set up for him after his death. Isn't that clear enough? Thus, I would say that although I am not prevail to all the insider's details, I have to agree with Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang that the government under PM Lee is abusing its power to force or influence the outcome of a purely Private matters of the Lee family.

This is especially so when the three siblings had just signed an agreement on how to deal with house but yet, PM Lee set up this Ministerial Committee to re-look into the matter again. Why would that be so? It is no wonder both Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang felt betrayed and anyone in their position will naturally think that their brother has abused his political power to get what he want. Most importantly, how could they ever trust him again with this political maneuver?

This saga has sent chill deep down into my spine. Imagine:

If PAP government could even dishonor their very own founder, LKY in such manner, who else would they respect? Definitely not small potatoes like us in the street.

If what Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling said is true, even they felt uncomfortable by their brother's use of national machinery to monitor them up to the level of making them feel overwhelmingly intimidated and wanting to migrate out of Singapore, what else could we expect for those of us who are powerless but brave enough to stand up as opposition members?

If the PAP government even dare to use their administrative and legislative powers to forcefully take over a private house in such manner, with so much disrespect to the one they claimed they adored, loved and worshiped, there is no other people's private property they would not dare to take forcefully if they fancy!

If even the member(s) of the most powerful and influential Lee family would say openly that the Singapore's Main Stream Media is controlled by the government and the 154th ranking given to them by international organization is somewhat justified, how else could we as a nation trust the MSM?

If even the members of the Lee family felt that there is basically no proper separation of powers and a total lack of checks and balances of the power that be, why should we still trying to make believe that this is a meaningful democracy at all?

The latest public statement made by both Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang is highly provocative and even up to the point of potentially defamatory if all these assertions are untrue. Apart from the accusation of abuse of power, there are other serious accusation. This is especially so on the part of indirectly accusing Ho Ching of instructing senior civil servants when she holds no political office and has no power to do so. There is also mention of PM Lee obtaining official document (Deed of Gift) from one of his ministry and passing it to his own lawyer. (The last time such thing happened was in the 1997 defamation case against Tang Liang Hong.)

All these are serious accusations made by two prominent public figures from the distinguished family in Singapore and they cannot be ignored or brushed away lightly.

Goh Meng Seng

TOTD: The Paradigm Shift Which PAP missed

Thought of the Day - The Paradigm Shift Which PAP missed

When I read about how Singapore propaganda machine tried to justify Singapore's diplomatic stance by saying that Singapore "has not changed", I nearly choked.

The Global Power structure has gone through a critical Paradigm shift and the Diplomatic dynamics has also gone through a Paradigm shift but yet, PAP government still singing self-praise about "We have not changed"?

Didn't they realize this may be their Greatest Problem in Diplomacy?

Diplomacy is about getting the Best deal out of the Global situation for the welfare and benefits for our country. Najib knows this, so does Duterte but not our PM Lee and his bunch of inept colleagues.

Our Core Interests in the South China Sea saga is NOT about judging who is right or wrong, nor who should have what claims. All countries around the world will have their own territorial claims and nobody could really change their stance or mind, lest a Little Red Dot like Singapore! And this is not ordinary country we are dealing with but an economic as well as military giant in the making!

Our main Core Interest is only to keep SCS a safe passage way for our trading port to function effectively and it is about maintaining PEACE instead of escalating conflicts which may result in potential war. Besides, we are NOT even one of the claimants in this SCS saga!

PAP government has got it ALL Wrong. We may not like what China is doing but our aim is to maintain status quo of Peace at SCS, not about banging our heads against the evolving giant in this region.

And we have over 100 billions invested in China but yet, this silly bunch of White Ministers actually think they could get away with agitating China without getting hurt?

Someone keep pestering me to say what's my plan or how would I handle such situation. I would say that my only interest is to keep Singapore prosperous out of any situation. We should not take side but maintain our position that it is for EVERYONE's interest to keep Peace at SCS. No matter what happens, how the situation develops, we should always maintain PEACE within the region, especially at SCS.

To ask people to subject to some "international settlement" when one side didn't agree to bring it to International Court in the first place, is UTTERLY NAIVE and silly. International Law and judgement passed is one thing but could it be ENFORCED? The Americans have been ruled against in international court before but they just ignored them and what could the other countries do about it? An International judgement which is not enforceable is as good as toilet paper!

That's the reality of International politics and diplomacy.

Goh Meng Seng

TOTD: Technology KISS - Bus Fare System

Thought of the Day - Technology KISS

Recently there is an article and comments which try to mock or belittle Mr Tan Kin Lian in bringing up an idea of improving the cash payment system for bus company.

It is quite typical of Singaporeans, really. They don't really understand the problem and how system could be improved before they tried to belittle others.

Mr Tan had put up a suggestion that all cash payment for bus ride should be fixed at a price (let's say $2 or $3) and that will keep it simple.

I understand where Mr Tan is coming from but not many of his detractors. First thing you got to ask yourself, have you tried to take a bus by paying cash before? If so, do you always get your bus fare right all the time without the need to ask the driver? Most of you will not know how much and some of you would think the fare is the same as the EZ-Link card fare!

This is the problem Mr Tan tries to address. Application of Technology may not be always good. The principle I used to assess whether an application of Technology is excellent, good or bad or flawed is to look at KISS. What is KISS?

KISS is Keep It Simple and Stupid. Technology is supposed to make life better by making the process Simple and Idiot Proof. It would and should probably increase productivity, effectiveness and efficiency. If it doesn't, then the system is flawed. (I have used this to assess the Self-Check-in System implemented in Changi Airport as well. I will touch on this again in my future post)

For example, the EZ-Link card is a good system, though not the Excellent system. Why? Because it does not address the issue of people forgetting to tap while exiting the bus. It does not expand to other usage like replacing the cash card system and for retail purpose. This is only passable with a Grade C as compared to Hong Kong's Octopus Card, in my view.

As for the Cash payment system for the buses here, it is utterly complex and it is neither efficient nor productive. If a commuter does not know his fare, he will ask the driver. This will take a couple of minutes normally. And for this system, the bus company has to employ additional supervisors to do spot checks on buses just because of the relatively fewer commuters who use cash payment!

Hong Kong system is something worth looking at. Although Hong Kong's system does not differentiate fare based on whether you use Octopus Card or cash, or that it will give discount when you change bus or train (this is part of the strength of Singapore's system), but it is simple, neat and clean. The bus fare is based on a stepping down system. When you take the bus from the terminal, it will charge you a flat fare of let's say $7.80. At the next section (maybe a few bus stops away), the fare may drop to $6, etc.

The beauty of this system is that it is KISS. When you board the bus, if you use Octopus Card, you only tap once when you board and bus fare deducted. You don't need to worry on whether you would forget to tap when you alight the bus. If you use cash for payment, there will be LED display panel to show how much you should pay. The bus driver will just make sure you pay the right fare. No tickets needed or given! End of transaction.

Is there any technology applied here? Yes. The Octopus Card system as well as the auto-fare calculation display panel. And you don't need bus company to send people going around to check whether you have paid the fare or not!

Singapore could adopt the part of cash payment system. If you are paying cash, then be prepared to pay more or just equal if you are taking full ride to the terminal end. The fare will be calculated based on maximum distance trip. For example, if you take a bus from the start terminal, you will pay the full fare from Start to End Terminal in cash, regardless of where you will be alighting along the way. The LED display panel will show that fare. Even if you take the bus at mid-point, the fare calculated will be from mid-point to End Terminal, regardless of where you want to alight.

For this system, there will not be a need of issuing tickets nor sending bus conductors to do spot checks (save cost to the bus companies). The commuters will have fare clearly stated to them when they board the bus, don't need to waste time of asking the bus drivers and having the drivers to start figuring out the actual fare.

You do not need to be Techie to use such system like searching through internet or phone apps, just like EZ-Link card. It is basically Simple and Stupid Idiot Proof system.

It improves productivity, effectiveness and efficiency. Quite easy to implement as well.

The main problem with Singaporeans is that they do not observe and learn much things about other systems in other places when they travel. Most Singaporeans would think our system is the best around the world without knowing how fast the other cities had progressed.

The worse part is that they started to attack others who would just comment on the inadequacy of our own system without much thinking on whether there are better ways of improving it

On the sideline:

I have known Kin Lian Tan for quite some time now and I know he is always trying to comment on how things in Singapore can be improved. In fact, his consistency in doing so just demonstrates he genuinely care for Singapore.

Try asking Tony Tan to take the public transport, or even board the bus and see whether he knows how to use that EZ-Link card! Or simply ask the standard questions to all President-wannbe, how much is the bus fare in cash for our system! See how many of them could really answer without googling for it!

Thus, I find it extremely disappointing in some Singaporeans who are so myopic and vindictive, blinded by their own prejudice, emotions and misplaced "loyalty" to see the BIGGER context of things. Other than Tan Kin Lian and maybe Tan Jee Say Tan, had any other President candidates contributed their ideas, time and effort in trying to improve Singapore?

Goh Meng Seng

After Note:

Just for illustration. The current cash payment system is horrendous. For short trips, you will pay almost DOUBLE of the card payment. For my system, it may be more or lesser depends on where you board and alight the bus.

But for long distance travel, you will definitely pay lesser than the current system by paying cash.

TOTD: Are We Too Lenient to People Who Misappropriate Public Funds?

While Kong Hee has expressed "disappointment" over his conviction, many more Singaporeans were disappointed or even angry that he and his gang get their sentences halved!

Apparently the sentences meted out by the judges in reduction of their sentences by half, are totally out of expectation and out of sync with public sentiments.

While we expect the court to be independent from "populist" sentiments as well as any other interference but to have a judgement which is totally in reverse of public expectation would create a lot of unnecessary speculations and distrust of our judiciary.

It is of utmost important for the court to publicize and lay out the basis of their judgement and try to convince the public as well as the legal profession that their judgement is right with legal basis in granting a slash of half the initial jail terms meted out by the High Court. It is an important case which may have dire consequences for future similar cases as a precedence.

In contrast to the previous cases of Mingyi monk who was sentenced to jail of 10 months which was reduced to 6 months later for a the $50K illegal loan a close aide along with forgery of documents as well as TT Durai NKF case which he was sentenced to 3 months jail term for forging invoices, this case involves millions and far more complex financial arrangement. in channeling funds to benefit the spouse's singing career, an immediate family member, of Kong Hee. These three cases would become important case study for the law school and the legal argument should be properly set out.

Although in the CHC case, the sentences are seemingly relatively more severe than the previous two cases, but it begs the question of whether our court or legal system is just too lenient to people who misappropriate public funds.

Misappropriation of public funds as compared to private funds should be of more serious consequences as it involves public trust in public institutions. However, these three cases have somehow gave the public the impression or mis-perception that misappropriation of public funds is of lesser consequences to those found guilty of CBT in private companies.

As the saying goes, Justice needs to be done and seen to be done as well. The disparity between public expectation and the sentences meted out by our court may not be a good sign for Singapore and it needs to be resolved asap.

Goh Meng Seng

TOTD: "Racial Chauvinists", Religion, Humanity & Balance

Thought of the Day - "Racial Chauvinists", Religion, Humanity & Balance

This is going to be a "political incorrect" and sensitive topic but it sets me thinking for quite a long while.

What will happen when a "perceived" Chinese Chauvinist meets a "labeled" Malay Chauvinist?

A good friend of mine, a Malay, told me that his friend "warned" him about me being "Chinese Chauvinist" and wanted him to "stay away" from me. My friend replied "I am also a Malay Chauvinist, so what?"

Simple Labels are thrown around in politics as a means of divide and rule. I get this "Chinese Chauvinist" label ever since my first electoral contest in Aljunied GRC under WP because I played the role as "Chinese Anchor" by making more speeches in Mandarin during elections rallies. My SAP school background has also been played up to justify this label of "Chinese Chauvinist". But as far as I am concerned, technically speaking, I am not truly a Chinese educated person. I always tell others I am "half Chinese-educated" because SAP schools aren't really "Chinese Education" at all.

Yesterday at the Water Protest, I met a veteran Malay political activist/politician who has been labeled as "Malay Chauvinist" by PAP during one of the hotly contested elections. Guess what happens? Did the "fight" between the two "Chauvinist" figures occur? Nope.

He said to me that he has been following my various postings and find that I have been very fair in writing towards the Malays/Muslims issues.

Deep down in my heart, I regard everyone as a Human Beings first (unless you want to be a dog of some kind...) before you are racially or religiously classified. We have the same color of blood running in our veins. As human beings, we should have the same understanding of Humanity.

I just told him that sometimes, for some "sensitive Malay/Mulsim" issues or perspectives, it is better for Chinese or non-Malay/Muslim to speak up for them, else PAP people would use the opportunity to put labels on those Malays/Muslims who dare to utter those words. We are humans and Singaporeans, we look after and speak up for each other. Don't ever allow PAP to use "divide and rule" on us anymore.

PAP has always emphasized on the FEAR of racial disharmony and what not. It has always proclaimed that we need "racial balance" and it has always been playing the racial card whenever it suits their agenda. The Elected Presidency and GRC system the most prominent examples. Of course, at the same time, it will disallow others from "playing racial politics".

The curious thing is this. While PAP played the racial card well and regularly, it has always shy away from the topic of "religious balance" in politics. Religious political perspective is more sensitive than racial politics to PAP. The last opposition politician who touched on this "most sensitive" topic of "religious balance" in PAP government, got hammered and chased out of Singapore. This is none other than Mr Tang Liang Hong. He had two labels thrown at him, not one. "Anti-Christian Chinese Chauvinist". That was the exact label.

Despite the fact that Mr Tang can speak Fluent Malay and learned Indian Dance, the "Chinese Chauvinist" label was put on him.Yet some Singaporeans actually buy PAP's story! Just because he is really "Chinese educated" and also speak fluent Mandarin. The "Anti-Christian" label was put on him just because he mentioned about the imbalance of religious mix within the Cabinet in one of the dialogue sessions.

He had just poked at the sensitivity of PAP government, which was and still is factually correct.

Religion is of course, a sensitive and emotional issue. Some people could lose their sensibility and even human logical mind when discussing religious topic. Especially in politics, it makes people irrational, ignoring all other issues but focusing solely on their own religious beliefs.

I have met several people of such mindset in my FB. When it comes to the issue of "Israel", it seems that some people just went bonkus. They were "known" to be "opposition supporters" but when I try to make sense of the happening in Israel as an issue of atrocities against humanity, they will somewhat justify that as "Palestine is the God's promised land to Jews". Well, for people like me who do not believe in Abrahamic faiths, this is really a non-issue. The real issue of the day is that sufferings to humanity are happening in Palestine due to Israel's unreasonable doings.

At the end of the day, they would end up with "I will not vote for you" just because I am "against Israel"!

I raise this point to illustrate how religious faiths could greatly affect one's rational thinking and we should NOT pretend that such things don't happen. I would say that beside racial balance, religious balance in politics is an important key issue for Singapore as well. This is especially so when the Abrahamic faiths followers are somewhat affected by the tensions created in the Middle East.

Every religions will have its extremist factions. They might be the minority but their twisted teaching may affect a lot more people unknowingly. Even Buddhism has its fair share of cults created over the decades and centuries.

In Singapore's context, we have to eradicate and prevent such extremism from evolving in ALL religions in Singapore. And the best way to effect such preventive measures is to have a good balance of representation of people with different religious beliefs in parliament as well as the Cabinet. The religious moderates should dominate the political sphere, in prevention of any extremism from any religious faith from hijacking the platform.

However, comparatively, Buddhists and Taoists are rather inactive in the political sphere. Somehow, among the Buddhist community, there is a subtle inherent discouragement of political engagement or involvement due to our religious belief. Most of the Buddhists would just take a detached attitude towards politics. Their religious faith is personal and do not see the need or importance of political involvement.

Even more so for the "elites" in the Buddhist community. They view politics as "dirty" and it would hinder their own practice of mindfulness, gaining merits so that they could be reincarnated or reborn into better realms or even attaining Nirvana.

This is why in Singapore, even though the Buddhist/Taoist community is the largest among the various religions, we are "under-represented" in the political sphere.

But I think otherwise. Buddhists could well be the balancing force in Singapore politics when the tension between the Abrahamic faiths could well spill over from Middle East.

The reason why I could put up a FAIR position on the issue of Islam, Malay and Israel is not because I am Chinese but rather, I am a Buddhist and not bounded by the Abrahamic-faith mindset. I see things as it is, in modern context and I am not bounded by whatever past historical religious happenings in the Middle East.

Having said that, I personally feel that Catholics are generally more moderate in nature. They have a better understanding that Islam, has similar roots to their faith. It is a curious point because the Crusades and Jihads have been fought bitterly between the Muslims and Catholics centuries ago. But they have evolved.

I had a Catholic friend who said that Catholic encourages fasting for one month prior to Easter or Good Friday. They will fast for a meal a day and the money saved from this meal, they will donate out to charity. Doesn't that sound familiar? The only difference is that Muslims and Catholics chose to fast on different months but both believe that fasting is essential in keeping mindfulness about the cleansing of their body and mind.

Sometimes many people ask me to give up opposition politics altogether. Well, I will give up eventually and hopefully soon. Like all good Buddhists, I would like to have my last years of my life spent in seclusion and private practice to attain enlightenment. It would be a great blessing if I could become a monk in this life. But for the time being, I will have to continue to play my role and duty to my country.

Hopefully when the time is up, I shall know by Divine intervention. :)


Goh Meng Seng

TOTD: The Police State - Singapore

I have met an activist not so long ago. He was basically subtly INTIMIDATED by the PAP establishment via physical mail to his residence. They also sent a physical mail to his parents as well.

From the information printed out in the mail and the mail itself, it seems that it came from the SAME SOURCE which THREATENED Roy. And apparently, this is done by someone with the establishment apparatus!

It basically means that most probably ISD is involved in this case.

My young friend is shaken and shocked. He had never believed all the stories I have told him about how ISD operates and only now, he is convinced that PAP has been using or rather, abusing its power as the government to utilize the state's apparatus for its own political agenda.

My young friend had decided to stop all internet writings, activities and close down his FB as well.

I told him pretty straight forward. These dogs are tailing him and decided to bark at him basically because they have psychologists who studied his mental profile. He is scared, afraid and timid, which he refused to admit.

Well, the crux of the matter is this, no matter how I and other more seasoned politicians and activists seem to put forward the proposition that PAP is basically a dictatorship and there is no such as "benevolent dictatorship" but only a FULL POLICE STATE in all essence, terrorizing and using all methodologies to intimidate opponents and dissidents, most people will not believe UNTIL the day that they suffered the same fate of being persecuted by this invisible Police State.

PAP pretends to build a "democracy" but in every essence, it is not a party which believes anything about democracy and its core values. Not only its ministers would openly denounce democracy as "inferior" but in effect, propagate that only one party rule under PAP will be good for Singapore. It also asserts draconian means of any dictatorship would put up.

My young friend is one of the "unfortunate" or "fortunate" one who will experience first hand how a Police State works. But he chose to be threatened, hide away and went on in life with that constant nagging of fear behind his mind. I do not blame him. Most Singaporeans are tamed and timid in every sense, politically speaking. There are really very few REALLY courageous who would stand up and do what that little white monkey does, to PAP.

But make no mistake about it. PAP is not some good and innocent ruling party. It is a party with a great tendency towards full dictatorship. If it is not stopped, then there will be disastrous impact on the democratic development for Singapore. That would be too late for anyone to defend democracy anymore.

Goh Meng Seng

TOTD: The Parasites of Elitist Cronism

Thought of the Day - The Parasites of Elitist Cronism

GLCs or Government Linked companies used to be the PRIDE of Singaporeans where many Singaporeans would like to work for them. We always thought that being "government linked", they are big and supposed to protect Singapore's and Singaporeans' interests, including those Singaporeans who work for them. And indeed, in the past, these GLCs set the high standards of employment, in terms of pay as well as benefits, in Singapore's labour market.

But now, we suddenly find more and more of these GLCs are actually in suspect of breaching the labour law or good HR and employment practices. Some even bully their lowly educated employees to take advantage of them, by deducting their over time hours consistently without giving any good reasons and making them working excessive overtime hours, much more than the 73 hours over time per month allowed by labour law.

Worse still, these entities play with figures manipulated the pay structure in their employment contract as contrast to their advertised salary. They set extremely low basic pay so that whatever overtime pay you claim would be based on a low pay structure. Furthermore, they will set unreasonable conditions to milk the employees, basically inhumane to take away the "monthly allowance" if the employees take Medical leave or annual leave in the month which were legitimately protected as entitlement under the labour law!

Basically such employment terms are MODERN SLAVERY to the max and it is really unimaginable that all these bad practices are actually coming from our once glorious GLCs!

And now, we have another GLC trying to disguise massive retrenchment as some "sacking of under performers" in the bid to avoid paying retrenchment compensation!

What is wrong with all these GLCs? Well, to me, this is the inevitable result of a government that runs on Ultra-capitalism mindset. The top management will only care about their own fat pay cheque and to meet all KPI (Key Performance Indicators) so that they could get more salary increment to their million dollar pay as well as asking for bigger "performance bonus". But these KPI or "performance" don't really add value to the company nor the economy as a whole. These are all based on exploitative unethical enslaving employment practices rather than real value add to the company.

This is the reality of PAP's entrenched rule of over 50 years. They have lost sight of their moral compass in running the country after all these years and ended up with a bunch of elitist cronies who are turning into parasites of the whole system. Instead of adding real value to the companies, people and country as a whole, they are only interested in feeding on the blood and sweat of the people.

When they screw up a GLC and cannot turn it around, they would just do lelong sale of valuable assets to show unreal "profitability and value", cut cost by cutting jobs to continue justify their big fat pay and eventually sell off the whole company to foreign ownership just to wash off their hands of the inconvenient truth of their failure! Well, never mind if that is an National iconic company!

This is the sad state of affairs in Singaporeans, run by a group of unethical, heartless and soul-less, undeserving and overpaid elitist cronies groomed by PAP's rule!


Goh Meng Seng

TOTD: Political Illiteracy

Thought of the Day - Political illiteracy

I had a nice chat with an alumni of my Alma Mater today over lunch.

We talked about almost everything under the sun but eventually, the topic comes back to Singapore politics.

He told me that many of the Singaporeans he came into contact with are basically politically ignorant. He gave me an example that two of his close associates did not think that it is wrong that PA or Town Council under PAP's control refusal to let opposition party use the facilities is wrong. The reasoning given was that these "belong" to PAP and it is purely politics that PAP should not allow opposition parties to use these facilities.

But when they were corrected that these facilities were built using taxpayers' money and do not belong to PAP, they raised doubts about it!

Such political ignorance is really deep rooted all thanks to PAP's deliberate effort in blurring the lines between itself and PA. Opposition controlled TC is expected to allow PAP to use whatever premises in their town via "grassroot organization" like PA or RC or CCC. But PA has all rights to allow PAP to use its facilities for whatever activities disguised as "grassroot events" while opposition parties were banned from using its facilities by using the excuse of "PA's premises should not be politicized"!

And you may wonder how could well educated Singaporeans who are graduates or diploma holders, actually agree and even support such blatant abuse of tax payers' money for partisan interests!

The conclusion my friend has made, most Singaporeans are not "Politically Educated" and PAP is very happy to maintain such Political illiteracy for Singaporeans. This I will have to agree. Do our schools teach our students on what is Democracy? Rule of Law? Separation of Powers? Judiciary Independence? Freedom of Speech and Expression? Well, only on some "abstract Highfalutin" National Pledge which PAP didn't even believe in nor respect!

Goh Meng Seng

An Open Letter to President Xi of China

致中国国家主席公开信
尊贵的习近平主席先生

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

尊贵的习主席，我相信以您的睿智，您必能理清这种种的利害关系。

吴明盛敬启

A Lesson from US Presidential Contest - A Robust Democracy

Thought of the Day

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

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


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

Goh Meng Seng