GE Issue: Accountability --- PAP's Broken Promises

GE Issue: Accountability --- PAP's Broken Promises

Workers’ Party has brought up three broad categories of issues in GE 2006. They are:

1) Accountability
2) Hope for the Future
3) First World Government

I will be touching on the issues I have brought up in my election speeches that are related to the three categories in the following postings.

Accountability

The question of accountability is a very important issue. We have to hold politicians and political parties to their promises, make them account for their actions. This is the fundamental pillar of a democracy as contrast to a monarchy. In order for such a democratic system to function well, transparency of the whole government is very critical. Sad to say, many of the decisions made by the PAP government is not transparent at all. For example, they have never explained about how they allocated government funds for HDB upgrading. Some PAP wards have more upgrading than many other PAP wards, not to mention about wards held by other political parties.

Without much information of the governance of the ruling party due to such opaque management, the only way I could think of is to use PAP’s broad promises made in past elections as the attack point. There are many PAP broken promises made in the past, like “Swiss Standards of Living”, “Asset Enhancement”, “More Good Years” etc, but these are just too general. Thus, I decided to concentrate on three more specific issues:

1) Restoring CPF contributions to 40%
2) Building of a Nothern Hospital in Yishun East
3) Providing “Affordable” Medical care

These are issues closer to Singaporeans’ hearts to start with.

Restoring CPF contributions to 40%

For a start, WP’s stand on CPF is to maintain it at 35% (higher than the present 33%). This stand has been recorded in our 1991’s manifesto. This to balance between the needs of retirement and business cost. This stand was made in the context of 1991 whereby HDB flats were cheaper (no asset inflation and asset enhancement), no payment of HDB upgrading using CPF and no payment of rapidly inflated medical cost using CPF.

Conditions have changed since 1991. We are facing insufficient retirement financing right now and in the next one or two decades, the problem of insufficient retirement financing will balloon with an increasing aging population. Since PAP made the promise in 2001 Elections that it will restore the CPF contributions to 40% once the economy is good, it is then only right to hold PAP accountable to this important promise.

As usual local media has a blackout on this attack against PAP’s broken promise. I have even suggested that the problem of insufficient retirement financing is due to low return rates on our CPF savings. Imagine that if you could invest your CPF funds in some very safe government bonds for 5%, why are we getting only 2.5% or at most 4% from CPF board? I have also suggested that if we want to increase the return of our CPF savings, then it is only wise to have a better investment mechanism. Let GIC and Temasek Holdings invest our CPF for us since they claim to have high return for the past decades! Why would GIC and Temasek serve the interest of the government only but not the citizens?

We do not want the government to be rich while the citizens suffer insufficient funds for retirement! If PAP government has the citizens’ interests at heart, we will not end up in a situation that government is rich while citizens are poor. Every profit made by GIC and Temasek Holdings, most of it are put into the reserves. They did not serve Singaporeans directly. Why not let citizens utilize the World Class investment arms of Singapore Government to make more money for their retirement?

Building of a Northern Hospital in Yishun East

This promise is made by PAP back in 2001 Elections. Some may wonder why this issue is so important that I need to put emphasis on it again and again.

The reason is that in Singapore, we are short of government hospitals! This is the primary reason why our public hospitals, despite increasing fees, could face bed shortages! This problem was raised when Mr. Low Thia Khiang was rushed to Tan Tock Seng Hospital when he contracted dengue fever. Mr. Low lives in the North. For those of you who live in the North, you would realize that there isn’t any hospital in the North at all. This is really an abnormality as the population residing in the North is rising rapidly with the new estates of Sembawang, Sengkang and Punggol growing in size. Together with the matured estates Woodlands, Yishun and Ang Mo Kio, there are at least half a million people but there is no hospital in the North! If one depends on Tan Tock Seng Hospital alone, I do not think it could cope as it also serves residents in Toa Payoh, Bishan and Thomson. Imagine if you have an emergency in Woodlands or Yishun, how long will it take to reach Tan Tock Seng? Not to forget, CTE is always jammed during peak hours!

This is a matter of life or death to residents living in the North! Thus to me, it is a very important issue to bring up. Of course, PAP tries to respond in a positive way that it is taking “actions” to build one hospital in Yishun East. However, 5 years have passed, where is the hospital? They say it will be ready by 2010, earliest 2009. A first world government needs 9 years to build a hospital?

Affordable Medical Care

PAP has stressed that Medical Care will be kept “affordable” in 2001 Elections. But we know that right after 2001 elections, medical costs shot up, increasing at such a speed that only in 2005 PAP suddenly woke up and realize that something is wrong. Re-structuring of public hospitals and the liquidity provided by CPF Medisave are the key reasons why medical costs have shot up. After many complaints about certain medical costs in supposed “subsidized” restructured hospitals are higher than private hospitals, PAP government suddenly woke up and pulled the brakes. But this is just too late. We are facing high medical cost but no increase in quality in their services as they are overloaded.

Medical cost is not just about money. It is also about life and death. As I have mentioned in my speech that there are even people who would rather risk their lives instead of calling the ambulance! (I did not bring up comparison from Hong Kong basically because I have insufficient data but I will write more on Hong Kong’s medical service after these few GE related posting. )

PAP has said it wanted to debate about issues but it seems to me that they have chosen to avoid such debate. There were no direct responses from PAP towards my serious attacks during the elections. Only a token demonstration of the Yihsun hospital was made during the GE. But they did not say why it takes 9 years for a First World government to build a hospital that is in urgent need!

I will leave my readers to judge about these issues. PAP has not made any substantial promises this time round, save and except HDB upgrading. Maybe they are running out of ideas or that they are just not confident about fulfilling their own promises after breaking so many promises made in the past!

Goh Meng Seng

Afternote: During the GE, I have asked PAP to answer a few questions on fees increases. Are they going to increase public transportation fares? Are they going to increase public utilities fees? They would better list out all the good (HDB upgrading) and also the bad things (fee increase) and let Singaporeans decide whether to vote for them or not. Again, PAP chose to keep silent on these questions. Now, we know the answers: they are going to increase electricity tarriffs and most probably public transportation fare in the coming months. This is only a few months after elections! They should be more open and Singaporeans should take them accountable to their policies next time.

GE Issue Lift Upgrading

Recently, quite a number of people have written and spoken on the issue of lift upgrading. I would like to put up my view from another angle. This view is formulated after some discussion with some friends.

Many people would be surprised by the "generous promise" of lift upgrading made by PAP government. But one should ask, has the PAP government been so generous towards Singaporeans before?

Many people really think that PAP wanted lift upgrading just for its political gains but there is some more valid technical reasons for having lift landing at each and every floor for old HDB flats.

For a self proclaimed World Class government, it has made a grave mistake in the past by building HDB without lift landing on each and every floor. The reason given as "people at that time like privacy" is really crappy to start with and cannot hold any water. Even for the colonial ruled HK back in 70s, all buildings more than 7 storey high fitted with lifts will have at least one lift that could reach each and every floor. This is called "fireman lift". Yes. This is to adhere to world class fire safety standards but one may ask, why the self proclaimed world class government did not adhere to world class fire safety standards?

What PAP govt is doing right now is to correct past mistake; it is not really about political gain but it is about fixing up past mistakes.

I was told that the fire safety rules have been made in such a way to exempt HDB flats built before a certain year from adhering to the stringent fireman lift requirement. But new HDB flats and buildings will have to adhere to this fire safety standards strictly. One must ask, are HDB flats built before that arbitrary date so "special" that it makes fire fighting so easy that we do not need fireman lifts? Contrary to this, the design of these old HDB flats make fire fighting very difficult.

It is of course really absurd to ask residents to co-pay for such glaring world class mistake made by the world class government. Besides, those living in these old flats are mainly elderly Singaporeans who might have retired and have little or no income at all. Why would we want to force them to pay for the world class government's mistake of the past? And even more ridiculous for PAP to use it to gain political capital!

To be fair to PAP government, it has corrected its oversight of fire safety for HDB flats before, though quietly. Fire access roads to old HDB flats have been created. Fire rated doors have been installed for those flats near the staircase FREE OF CHARGE. But what about fireman lifts? Lift landing on each and every floor to facilitate fire fighting?

I would urge the PAP government to step out of their own political agenda and look at the issue on a more altruistic manner. This is about fire safety of ALL SINGAPOREANS living in old HDB flats we are talking about, regardless whether they vote for PAP or not! I would urge PAP government to make this an urgent need, top priority of all other cosmetic HDB upgrading, to make it a safer living environment for all. If we could save on all other less urgent upgrading, we could well finance all the necessary lift upgrading for ALL OLD HDB flats.

Lift upgrading for lift landing on each floor is an URGENT AND NECESSITY to comply to fire safety standards. It should not become a political party's tool to win votes.

Goh Meng Seng

PAP's dismal performance in GE 2006

PAP's dismal performance in GE 2006.

PAP may have gotten 66.6% of valid votes in GE 2006 but in my view, they have performed very badly throughout the whole election period. From the strategic point of view, their whole campaign was in total disarray right from the start.

Prior to the General Elections this year, many people thought that Casino and NKF would be THE issues for this GE. However, the casino has been decided last year and the pending court case on NKF saga has technically prevented it to be discussed in public else one risked breaching the law.

It seemed that it would have become a “No Issue” General Election until PAP made a big fuss over Workers' Party manifesto, asserting that there were four time bombs in it. At a point of time, PAP were putting up a front to “debate” over such issues. We have challenged the PAP to a live telecast TV debate but PAP did not respond to it. I have personally brought up the challenge to a live telecast TV on nomination day to one of the PAP candidate but it seemed that they viewed it as “advantageous” to us and thus would not want to have such debate. So be it.

Surprisingly, after the first salvo of “time bomb”, “poison” comment on WP manifesto by a few of PAP ministers, PAP did not mention this again throughout the whole election period. I thought that PAP has made a big fuss over our manifesto because they considered as “very important”. I was wrong. Neither did PAP raise any significant issues that are important to citizens other than character assassination.

The word “fix” has been used twice: first to make allegations that James Gomez has wanted to “fix” the Election Department. The second time is by PM Lee in his speech about “fixing the opposition”. Is this an election of “fixing” each other? I believe it should not be so. PM Lee has clarified the misuse of the word “fix” in his speech. I could understand that because it must have been a misuse of word in the heat of the hustling. We do say the wrong things when we get involved in a heated argument or debate, don't we? But I sincerely hope that PAP would stop overreacting to the innocent mistake that James made over the form. General Election IS NOT about fixing each other! Election is about the future and well being of our country, our people!

I have mentioned in my last rally speech that I am truly disappointed with PAP's performance in the GE. First, they were more interested in character assassination and insinuating us rather than debating about issues that truly concern our citizens. Secondly, they only viewed HDB/lift upgrading as the sole important issue to our citizens in this election! Thirdly, they continue to use HDB/lift upgrading as a threat to the voters! I am really touched by the 62% of Hougang voters who have stood up to PAP's unfair tactic and send a strong “NO” to them through their votes. Although we did not manage to convince more than 50% of voters in other constituencies to say “NO” to PAP's tactic of tying HDB lift upgrading to their votes, but people of Hougang and Potong Pasir have shown to the whole Nation that we should not succumb to PAP's tactics.

I would say that PAP's dismal performance during the election campaign has got to do with their inability to understand the ground. There are many post independence generation voters who are highly educated with very different expectations. They are sick and tired of politically motivated law suits. They definitely dislike character assassination and arrogance. They are more concerned about fairness and social justice rather than HDB upgrading. They are more vocal and internet savvy..etc. PAP has agitated them on all these fronts.

Right from the start, PAP has mismanaged the James Gomez Saga. PAP has stretched it too far to suggest malicious intent from such simple, innocent mistake of absent mindedness. It is amusing to see how PAP swayed in this episode. First they said it is a serious matter. Then some PAP members decided to drop the matter but only ended up being “convinced” to take the issue up again. They have even gone so far to make a very strange suggestion to WP to drop James Gomez as a candidate! In the end, they have to clarify that this could not work! Then again, just two days from polling day, they PUBLICLY DECLARED that they would drop the issue altogether, trying to refocus on “other important issues” which basically refers to HDB/lift upgrading. I have never seen PAP conducting any election campaign in such manner before!

Due to the lack of REAL issues, PAP candidates begin to pick up the line of James Gomez Saga to “discredit” opposition candidates as the overall strategy. But it backfired. It reflected very badly on them when they started to make baseless defamatory remarks against us. Labels such as “liar”, “thief” and “trouble makers” were used by PAP's seasoned politicians. Even the new PAP candidates picked up such convenient attack on characters by calling opposition candidates donkeys and even make baseless remarks that ALL WP candidates have doubtful characters! By then, I knew that PAP's campaign was in total disarray! They have completely lost their plot and direction! I am very surprised that despite having so many talented and bright people in their rank and file, PAP has mismanaged this election campaign so badly!

This is indeed a watershed election whereby PAP has totally defeated itself by its own predictable election strategy. It has become prisoner of its own past success. The strategy of tying upgrading to votes has failed. The strategy of character assassination has failed. The effectiveness of its past strategy has expired. PAP has to seriously consider changing their outdated strategy and mindset.

Goh Meng Seng

Why Contest Ang Mo Kio GRC?

Rally At Ang Mo Kio Cheng San (Photo by netter)

Many people have asked me this question, "Why do you want to contest AMK?" Even before nomination day, quite a number of supporters have "cautioned" me of the idea in contesting Ang Mo Kio GRC. I could only smile at them basically because there are reasons that I could not reveal at that time.

The initial idea of contesting AMK was mooted way back end of 2002 by Shin Leong and me. It was I that made this suggestion in the coffeeshop in Hougang. Somehow, somebody got winds of it and started to discuss it in private as well as Young PAP forum. I took the risk by making arguments for this idea but with a catch in it, if and only if we have the resources. I have since then openly discuss the idea so much so that many people thought that I am calling a bluff basically because no one would believe that for such strategic matters, I would want to discuss it so openly. Somehow, it has come to people's mind such happening is "impossible". Even though the journalists and reporters have picked up bits and pieces from the internet forums, but it seems to me that right before nomination day, very few of them really think we would be "stupid" enough to contest AMK.

It was a successful (reverse) psychological campaign in my opinion. However, I must admit that to suggest such strategic option back in 2002 must be the wildest poiltical dream. As the initiator of this idea, I was prepared to be the one challenging AMK GRC, partly because AMK IS my home ground. But with the strength we have back in 2002, we could hardly mount such operations as there are really short of candidates, manpower and resources.

My initial strategic considerations include the following:

1) PM Lee needed a "personal mandate" and we should put pressure on him while he was still relatively new as the Prime Minister.

2) To teach PAP a lesson that gerrymandering with electoral boundaries will one day, backfire on them. They could try to redraw the boundaries, let "heavy weights" swallow up unfavourable grounds and bet on the alternative parties not wanting to contest in these constituencies. Ultimately we want to show them that by doing so, they will just have "indisgestion" eventually.

3) To keep the new PM busy during the 9 days of election campaigning. The logic is that back in 1991, the then PM Goh CT was too busy with his own battle in Marine Parade and thus, the surprise win of 4 seats by the opposition. In 1997 and 2001, Marine Parade was not contested and Mr. Goh CT was so free to go around and campaign for his other comrades.

4) By sending a young team to the PM's ward has many advantages. It will provide the perfect training ground for them to gain experience and political capital, simply because everyone will remember those who challenge the PM in their youth. Furthermore, it provides the perfect contrast between WP and PAP: for WP's young and new candidates, they dare to dream and do the seemingly impossible tasks, instead of hiding behind "heavy weights" to fight the electoral battle. They are not afraid to lose and dare to take the challenge, work towards a long term political road map.

There are other considerations by the party as a whole which I do not have the liberty to reveal here. The above points are based on my personal views.

How successful is the strategy? In my opinion, the contest in AMK has achieved most of my initial objectives. In fact, I was surprised by PAP which suggests that they could get more than 80%. By a mere conservative calculations that we did, due to the fact that AMK GRC includes 3 important WP or opposition strongholds, we expect PAP to get at most 70%. The 3 parts includes Cheng San, Yishun South (which was cut out of previous Yishun Central) and Jalan Kayu. By averaging out using past election datas, we should get about 30% of the total votes. Getting 3% more is a plus to us. I guess PAP is totally out of touch of the ground to even suggest "high 80%" or make our team lose election deposits.

PM Lee was caught in a tight situation. Its a catch 22 situation. If he campaigned vigorously as he did in the first two days (going to MRT station at 6 am to shake hands), it would give people the wrong impression that he took the challenge from the young ones too seriously. However if he did not campaign hard enough, the PAP team might not fulfill its aim of 80% and above! In the end, what we observe was that other ministers (who has no contest in their wards) were deployed to help out with the campaigning in AMK. Whatever was the situation, PM Lee was unable to go around other wards (especially the Aljunied GRC) to campaign as he did in the 1997 & 2001 GE.

The contest in AMK GRC did change many people's perception of WP, especially when the term "suicide team" was publicised but turn around as "better not to fear death as to be kiasi".

But this come with a price: PM Lee gets his own personal mandate eventually. We did not manage to cross the 35% as I have hoped for. With this 66% mandate, PM Lee will be able to consolidate his position and grows stronger in the next few elections. At the very least, he will not be termed as the "uncontested" or "walkover" PM in Singapore and he has earned his own battle stripes in 2006 GE.

If WP has not contested in AMK GRC, there will always be a question mark hanging around the new PM: he would have become the "walkover Prime Minister" which will not be good for Singapore's international standing.

Thus, looking on the bright side for Singapore as a whole, it is really a win win situation for us all, including WP and PAP. Of course, we will still have to solve the problem of "walkover ministers" and "walkover MPs" but at the very least, we do not have a "walkover Prime Minister" to start with.

Goh Meng Seng

The Most Important Success ---- Political Awakening

The Most Important Success ---- Political Awakening

Right after the results were announced on 6 May 2006, one reporter asked me to describe the whole election campaign in one sentence and I gave him just a phrase: “Political Awakening”.

Ironically, we should thank the local media for such massive political awakening process for Singaporeans at large. As I have explained in my post “Why I join WP?”, my own political awakening happened back in 1991 whereby what I have read on NUS BBS with regards to the political rallies held by the alternative parties was so different from what local mass media reports that I decided to visit the Potong Pasir rally held by Chiam See Tong. I was awed by what I saw and politically awaken by my experience. The gross disparity between the reports on local mass media as compared to what actually happened on the ground has convinced me that the local mass media cannot be trusted when it comes to political reporting. The political reality of the biasness sets in. From then on, I volunteer myself to be independent ground reporter of political rallies during the 1997 as well as 2001 GE. I believe that nobody should be deprived of the truth.

While back in 1991, there was hardly any “solid evidence” to be presented on BBS which was basically text based. But in 2006, a digital photo speaks a thousand words. I would like to express my special thanks to Yawning Bread ( http://www.yawningbread.org ) for putting up very good photos and coverage of the rallies. When the following digital photo first appeared on Yawning Bread, there was a massive instant awe in the internet community. The local mass media has avoided reporting on the massive crowd attending our rallies until this photo appears. They knew that they are fighting a losing battle over control of information. Their credibility is at stake if they carry on their old mode of reporting. Thus, interesting enough, we witness a slight change in the print media thereafter.

Photo from Yawning Bread

However, I suspect that massive damage has been done on local mass media and that is basically why more and more people are interested in attending our rallies, to witness for themselves the true happenings instead of relying on the bias reporting on local mass media. One interesting point is that more young people were attending our rallies, even students who are supposed to prepare for their examinations, took the trouble to come to our rallies. They are the internet savvy generations who have experienced early political awakening. One 17 or 18 years old student came to my shop two days after polling day to give me moral support. He has tied our WP wrist band on his backpack, come forward to shake my hand and say, “Well done! Please don't give up!” I was truly touched because when it signifies HOPE for our future as a nation, a HOPE based on more balanced views and sources of information.

I have actually written about the important role of bloggers in this digital age. Bloggers could change the society's information structure and indeed, they are a “threat” to a place where political power is being prolonged by the control of mass media. The local mass media's biggest threat is to have alternative competitive sources of media that could provide reliable information that could be verified independently. In this GE, bloggers at large have successfully contributed to a more open society by challenging local media's credibility, in which, forced them to react accordingly.

On a broader perspective, independent bloggers, with the contrast to local mass media's skewed reporting, have brought upon a massive political awakening process to many people, in particular, the younger Singaporeans. I have been through such awakening process and I understand the disgust one feels when the truth reveals.

The more interesting point of this political awakening process is that it has negated most of the negative impact of James Gomez Saga. Independent views as well as satirical postings or podcasts (like those in Mr. Brown's blog http://www.mrbrown.com ) have somehow derailed PAP's predictable election strategy. So much so that PAP has openly said that the role of internet in this election should be reviewed.

Though there is a massive political awakening in my view, but I must say there are still many people out there who only depend on local mass media as their main source of information. I have noticed that some of those forum letters writing about this GE have a very skewed view. Some have admitted that they form their views only through the TV or newspapers they read. Some claim that opposition parties have not raised any important bread and butter issues or any good suggestions! If they have attended our rallies, they will realize that many of the main hard hitting points of the bread and butter issues (including retirement financing, healthcare cost etc) have been omitted by local mass media reports!
It would mean that there is still much to be done in terms of political awakening; i.e. There aren't enough people awaken.

Goh Meng Seng

Search Thy Soul

Search Thy Soul

This will be one of the series of postings with regards to the 2006 Elections.
Throughout the elections period, as a candidate, I have to deal with many reporters from local press and media. From the introduction of candidates to post elections period, I will have to engage reporters from the newspaper, radio and TV.

Although many felt that the reporting in local media has improved, but I think there are still lots of room to improve on. For those who have a conscience in them, felt very depressed over the whole period of elections. A couple of reporters I have spoken to are so depressed that they told me that they would consider resigning from local journalism altogether. I have to console them. I told them that they have been through the whole process, understand how it works against their own conscience but it is not for them to give up. They should stay on to make it better, more balanced. This is after all a country that we own and the future is for us to make.

Some of the reporters say that they have to push the envelops very hard to get their points through. And most of us think that the TV channels are the worse performing media so far, though they have improved a bit from the past.

I would say that the internet, especially the blogsphere has contributed to the improvement of the local media reporting. This is expected as these alternative sources of credible information have forced the local media to react, else whatever credibility of local media has will erode quickly. For example, in the beginning of the elections campaign, the local media avoided reports on the crowd we attracted to our rallies. Later on, they just report one thousand (yeah, that's from a local press media) or just a few thousands, not putting up the photographs of the massive turnout. Later on, after the words and pictures of internet spread like fire, local mass media has no choice but to put photographs and video footages of the real turnout.

On the other hand, the content of the rally speeches are not fully reported. For example, my rebuttal to PM Lee's challenge was not put up. My suggestion of GIC and Temasek Holdings to help Singaporeans invest their CPF monies so to get higher returns were omitted. PAP has claimed that they want to debate on policy issues but in the end, they are too engrossed in Gomez Saga. This is very disappointing and yet, the local press “help” PAP to go over and over again about this Gomez Saga. This reminds us about the last 2001 GE whereby the video footage of Dr. Chee Soon Chuan shouting at Mr. Goh Chok Tong was played endlessly over the 9 days campaign period. However, Gomze Saga is totally different from Dr. Chee's shouting incident!

To me, from a news angle, there is no news value in repeating Gomez Saga as compared to the various issues raised by the candidates.

Improvement there might be, but I think the local media has to search their own souls. For those who feel very depressed basically they still have their conscience intact, I would urge them to stay on and try to make it better for Singapore. It is a heritage that we need to pass on to our future generations and I think all of us do not want to feel shameful of the things that we leave for our children.

Goh Meng Seng

Time For Battle

You Have A Choice!

The time has come for battle!

Someone asks me whether I am "excited" about it, I say no. There is nothing exciting about going to battle. Nervous? No as it is not a matter of life and death in fighting the electoral battle. Stressed? Maybe so, basically because we are fighting a battle with an opponent who will outnumber and outgun us.

Neverthless, I have to do what I have set to do, for my family, children and future generations. I do have a CHOICE of not doing it, just like many people and friends around me, minding my own business and keep quiet about things happening around us. But I have CHOSEN to face the reality with my heart, soul and actions. The reality of the pitfalls of a one party rule, the reality of the undesirable social moulding by the ruling party using public fundings to provide HDB upgradings SELECTIVELY. The reality of the environment of FEAR (and yes, even before the battle starts, some who have promised to be our assenters have back out already, due this very pervasive FEAR!).

For the country that have provided me the opportunity of good education and grooming, the very least I could do is to stand up to all these undesirable factors and say NO! For my family and my future generations, this is the very least I could do to fight for a better environment and future for them.

Before I sign off from this blog and stop my contributions for the next three weeks, I want to thank all of those who have given me your words of encouragement. I want to thank my friends from the internet forums who have decided to take a calculated risks to come forward to help out in whatever capacity they could offer. Without them, fighting this battle would be lonely and more difficult.

My best wishes to my readers and please remember, you do have the choice to decide for yourself and your future generations what kind of society you want them to live in!

Goh Meng Seng

Comments without Ideas?

I was stunt by the recent announcement on political blogging. A Straits Time reporter called me up yesterday to have my views but only part of my response has been published today.

The following are some of the points made during the telephone interview:

1) Am I going to register my blog with MDA?

Ans: I will not do it on my own accord as it contradicts my belief of the rights of individual citizens to express his own political views. I will wait and see whether MDA makes a request for me to register, by then, I will come up with an appropriate response.

2) Did Dr. Balaji make good clarifications on political blogging?

Ans: No. He has not answered what constitutes political campaigning in specifics. The line is very vague as in determining what constitutes "promoting political ideas"; how could one discuss politics without a single political ideas or ideals in him? He must be speaking with his political ideas or convictions when he writes in his own blogs; does that considered as "promoting political ideas"?

3) Is your blog considered as "party" blog, with links to WP?

Ans: Mine is not the only blog that has links to WP. I ask him after reading my articles on my blog, did he feel that I am "promoting" WP as perse? He said no. Precisely. It is only a collection of my political views and ideas. But if I am going to be a candidate in the coming elections, my blog will be one avenue whereby voters could read about my political views to judge for themselves whether to vote for me or not....does that constitute "campaign advertising"? This is a big grey area.

4) Will I be updating my blog during election time?

Ans: No, basically I don't think I will have the time to do so. All cyber election campaigning will be done through WP election website.

I am quite amused by one of the so call "criteria" set by MDA. Bloggers "are allowed" (yeah, very paternalistic in nature, it is not your right but privilege to be allowed to do so!) to make comments on politics on blogs as long as you are not "promoting" any political ideas or political parties.

That really bugs me! How could one make any sensible comments on politics without an idea in him? Are we supposed to make comments without any ideas behind it?

Furthermore, a person could only have a set of ideas or ideals in him on various political stand. Thus, when he make any comments in the political arena, of course he will be "propagading" what he truly believes in! If he is not "consistent" in promoting his views, then what type of bloggers are your talking about?

It is really amusing in reading between the lines of such laws! Are we encouraging people to make sensible and consistent political views or just that we just want silly, no bainer comments? If we want to cultivate a more politically responsible and aware citizenry, such stupid laws should be abolished!

Goh Meng Seng

Election Campaign Starts Early

After the electoral boundaries are out, it seems that the "unofficial" election campaign has started on both sides, the ruling party as well as alternative parties.

However, with the recent reports in various TV news channels and newspapers, they have given Singaporeans the wrong perception that political parties are only active when the General Elections is near.

Any political parties that take their political work seriously would have started preparations way before elections is being called.

For Workers' Party, strategies for this coming elections have been made as early as 2002. Ground work was initiated back then, though in a quiet way. The manifesto was planned and discussions started in late 2002.

The various ground work is only sustainable with the dedication and hard work of grassroot supporters and party members. Many people, including our opponents, thought that our early start of ground movements are not sustainable in the long run. But as a team of serious contenders for this election, we have proven all our skeptics wrong. All these would not be possible without the great support of our party members.

The delimma of starting early is that all efforts would be lost if the electoral boundaries are being redrawn drastically. This is especially so for single seat wards. This has happened before in Singapore's political history where Kampong Glam was absorbed when alternative party's members have spent time working the ground there during off election period. Even for GRCs like Cheng San could disappear overnight in last elections. This is one important reaon why we ask for electoral boundaries to be made known at least one year before the General Elections.

Neverthless, we took the risk (of wasting efforts on the ground when it was redrawn out) and carried on our intensive coverage of our targeted areas over the years. Hopefully our efforts will pay off.

In reaction to our aggressive ground movements, our opponents have also started their house visits very early. I guess it is only beneficial for the residents and voters to have their MPs visiting them to understand their needs and expectation.

I would say that the battle has already started way ahead of time. And hopefully this would always be so in future elections, for the benefits of citizens.

Goh Meng Seng

Changes in Electoral Boundaries

Although I have responded to ST reporter on how I feel about the redrawing of the Electoral Boundaries, I think I will have to put up the full picture here.

I have told the ST reporter that I am neither happy nor disappointed. He asks me whether I am happy that Aljunied GRC remains, I say in the very first place, I do not think Aljunied GRC will disappear basically because Mr. George Yeo is a respectable opponent as a senior minister. He is not just anybody but a senior minister in cabinet. If PAP is to disband Aljunied GRC, then it would make itself looks very bad... kiasu.
I am not disappointed basically because I don't expect them to make it easier for us! No expectation, thus no disappointment.

Many people, including the reporter himself, think that “it could be worse!”. But that bags the question, why should it be “bad” in the very first place? Some bloggers have put up very insightful analysis on the changes made on the electoral boundaries. Some were relieved that there are just “minor changes” made this time round, but to me, it all boils down to A MATTER OF PRINCIPLES.

The whole exercise of redrawing the electoral boundaries basically lack principles and thus, consistency. The following are just some examples:

1) Aljunied GRC increased by 20,000 voters but it still remains as 5 man GRC? 20,000 voters is a size bigger than Potong Pasir SMC! The fact is that with 145K voters, it could well be a 6 member GRC as the old 6 member East Coast GRC and the present 6 member Tanjong Pagar GRC have only 148K voters!

2) The total number of voters in Aljunied GRC jumps from 120+K to 145+K while other 5 member GRC like Bishan Toa Payoh remains at less than 116K! The question is that since Aljunied GRC compared to many other previous 5 member GRCs (eg. Jalan Besar, West Coast, Jurong, Bishan Toa Payoh) have more voters, why should its number of voters increased further? If the redrawing of boundaries is based on “demographic changes”, Aljunied GRC should not be increased in voters at all. Jalan Besar needs to be increased instead!

3) Similarly, since Nee Soon East is already one of the biggest SMC, why should its size increase further? Potong Pasir is the smallest and it should be the one that needs increment in voters, not the already bloated Nee Soon East!

4) Base on what principles are the two SMCs being “absorbed” and the two new SMCs being born?
Sembawang and Pasir Ris-Punggol have become one big gigantic GRC. They could well take out 25,000 voters to form another two SMCs and yet remain as the bigger 6 member GRC!

The only rational way of adjustment should be, Jalan Besar GRC reduces into a 4 member GRC without changes in its boundary. Bishan Toa Payoh should reduce to a 4 member GRC while annexing part of it with 5000 voters to be crossed over to Potong Pasir. Two additional SMCs should be crafted out from Pasir Ris-Punggol and Sembawang GRCs. After doing that, Pasir Ris-Punggol could well be 6 member GRC, increased from previous 5 as its size is still reasonable large enough to justify that.

5 member GRCs should remain at the size of about 120K to 130K voters. 6 members GRC should have size of 145K to 160K. More SMCs could be crafted out from big size GRCs while those GRCs with less than 120K could well be reduced to 4 member GRCs. This would be a more principled and rational way of redrawing the boundaries.

This would mean that for Aljunied GRC, there isn't a valid reason to increase its size, neither is there a need to reduce East Coast from 6 member to 5 member GRC. Bishan-Toa Payoh, Jurong, Holland Bukit Timah and Jalan Besar GRCs should be reduced to 4 member GRCs while Aljunied, West Coast (both without increase in size) and Tampines remain as 5 member GRCs. Ayer Rajah should remain as SMC. The 28,000 bulk of voters from Serangoon cut out from Marine Parade should be made into one SMC. Hong Kah's size is just too big for a 5 member GRC and it should become a 6 member GRC.

The following would be the outcome:
GRC
Aljunied -------------------------5
Ang Mo Kio --------------------6
Bishan Toa Payo-----------------4
East Coast ----------------------6
Holland-Bukit Panjang-----------4
Hong Kah -----------------------6
Jalan Besar ----------------------4
Jurong ---------------------------4
Marine Parade -------------------6
Pasir Ris Punggol-----------------6
Sembawang ---------------------6
Tampines ------------------------5
Tanjong Pagar-------------------6
West Coast ----------------------5

Sub Total(GRC): 73

SMC

Bukit Timah
Chua Chu Kang
Hougang
Joo Chiat
Macpherson
Nee Soon Central
Nee Soon East
Nee Soon South (from Sembawang)
Potong Pasir (increased from Bishan-TP)
Yio Chu Kang (From Ang Mo Kio)
Sengkang (From PasirR-P)
Serangoon (From Marine Parade)

Sub Total (SMC): 12

This is what I would call a fair and rational electoral boundaries. Changes are made here, according to merits, not some arbitrary "rules" which are not explained properly. We will see that there is an increment of 1 seat as this is pretty normal as the number of voters has increased over the years. This result will provide 3 more SMCs (from 9 to 12) and 4 smaller size GRCs. This will definitely increase electoral participation rate.

Goh Meng Seng

Local Press Reporting

For the past few days, Straits Times has been going around asking for comments on the Electoral Boundaries Report. I obliged and talked to one of the Straits Times reporters on Friday night.

My comments were reported the next day. I wasn’t very happy about the incomplete quotations from my reply but just shake my head and carry on with my life. When one does not have any expectation of the local reporters, one wouldn’t have much disappointment at all.

However, people around me started to call me up and "complain". First, I have used the phrase "George Yeo is a respectable opponent and as a senior minister, it would look very bad for him if the whole Aljunied GRC disappears. It will make PAP looks very kiasu…." Well, the reported version doesn’t look good but never mind about that.

The more disturbing comment from my friends was that the ST reporter or editor doesn’t respect me at all. For all other alternative parties’ council members, they were reported with their designations clearly stated beside their name. But why would I only be a "WP member" only when I am not merely a CEC member but also the assistant organizing secretary of Workers’ Party?

In actual fact, this is not the only time when the ST show disrespect of Workers’ Party members. Back in 2001, though Dr. Poh Lee Guan has a phd, they only put up "Poh Lee Guan" (didn’t even have a Mr.!) while his opponent was fully named as "Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee"!

For me, personally I don’t even care about such lopsided treatment though I have noticed for the past few reports, ST has been deliberately "discriminated" me in their reporting. The last report in ST on the Singapore Political Forum held in NUS, also did the same thing, using "WP member Goh Meng Seng". I just laugh at such reporting.

But my wife, as an ex-producer in TCS (the pre-Media Corp era), told me that it is totally unprofessional for journalist or editor to do such things. I must exert myself on these reporters and editors to get my point through, for the good of my party. They could do such thing to me, they could also do the same to my other comrades.

Thus when the same reporter called me up on Saturday, I reminded him about my designation. He claims that such title is a bit "long" but the point is, when ST could assign similarly long designation on other alternative parties’ members or even PAP members why should he discriminate me or my other comrades? I dare them to address SM Goh Chok Tong as "PAP member Goh Chok Tong"!

When I met the same reporter on Sunday in East Coast GRC, I just reminded him that if he and his editor do the same thing again, he should be prepared for a boycott or total ignore on ST reporters during the elections. Well at least for today’s ST report on our activity in East Coast GRC, Mr. Chia Tilik was fully mentioned as assistant organizing secretary of WP, not just "WP member".

I would say that reporters are just human beings. They need to get a good story, good comments and quotes to write on. They earn a living by doing so and we fully understand that they are just doing their job. But when the reporters or editors become totally unreasonable, like the January report in New Paper on our manifesto launch, we will have no choice but to ignore them in future, at least in the coming general elections. I would make sure that New Paper will not get any news or extraordinary coverage on WP in the coming elections after the episode on our manifesto launch. They have practically destroyed the basic trust built up between us.

My point is that reporters and editors must also understand we are also just human beings. If they want to play punk or use unfair tactics against us, then they deserve the general perception that alternative parties’ sympathizers and supporters cast upon them. They will lose whatever little credibility they have tried so hard to rebuild in recent months or years. And we will definitely deprive them their daily breads, news. With the advancement of technology, the availability of alternative media like internet, forums and blogs, we will have other ways to get our messages across to the voters.

Some reporters have lamented that SDP seems to shut them off totally. I told them it is pure karma; imagine if they were in SDP and experienced the type of media reporting done on them during 2001, would they do the same, shun the local media?

Thus my advice to reporters and journalists of local media, don’t try to play punk with totally slanted reporting on alternative parties. Karma will bounce back on you. We do not expect you to be "PRO" non-PAP parties, but at least report fairly. Else you will risk suffering like New Paper or the response from SDP.

Goh Meng Seng

Political Rally Speech Training

Workers' Party has initiated a few Pre-General Elections training sessions for both its members at large as well as candidates in specific.

We have conducted an in house GE seminar last year, open to all our members. This is to bridge the gap of knowledge and experiences between veterans and new members in running an election campaign effectively.

Following the main GE seminar held last year, specific closed door seminar and training have been conducted for its potential candidates. One of these important training involves political rally speech writing cum speech delivery. I would say that we learn from past experiences as well as PAP MPs who may well have very good "paper qualifications" but when it comes to delivery of rally speeches, they failed to "move" the ground.

Many people assume that giving political speeches is just like any other speeches we used to give in our professional working environment. This is a very dangerous presumption. One may give effective board room speeches, delivery good lectures to a lecture room full of students or even a put up a persuasive legal argument as a lawyer in a courtroom, but when it comes to rally speeches, it is totally a different ball game.

We could adapt an off the shelf standard menu on speech writing and speech delivery but it seems that alot of modifications must be made. Rally speeches should be written differently with different emphasis. A political rally speech is not a lecture, trying to teach something "NEW" to the audience. A political rally speech is not a business proposal that is to be delivered to a small number of audience. A political rally speech is definitely not meant to be delivered to an audience which we expect them to pass judgement. Writing a political rally speech needs specific niche skills but least of bombastic wordings. The potential audience may come from many different background with different intellects. The most difficult part of writing a good political rally speech is to use the lowest denomination of language vocabulary to win the hearts and minds of the people that have different levels of intellect.

The delivery of political rally speeches is totally different from "reading" a speech. One should deliver but not read a speech. And to deliver a speech nicely in a wide open space fill with thousands of audience needs specific skills. How not to sound soft but yet not "fierce"; how to speak clearly and slowly and yet not to make your listeners bored....

Practice makes perfect. Lots and lots of practices are needed to prepare a candidate adequately for the final D day. Besides practices, we also need to watch more political rally speeches delivered by others, especially from those veterans who have given wonderful speeches back in the 1950s and 1960s where intense political competition has nurtured a generation of good speakers.

The recent memorial TV program featuring the late Rajartnam is a very good learning tool. People of that time deliver wonderful speeches with a natural flare. If we make a comparison between the present political leaders' delivery of rally speeches as compared to those veterans back in the 1950s and 1960s, we could see distinctively the wide gap of quality. This is mainly due to the lack of political competition.

I believe that if we are not born a good speaker, we could learn up to 90% of the skills of a good speaker. Watching how good speakers deliver their speeches is an important learning process. Getting into the REAL environment whereby the good speakers give their speeches is a great experience for learning. In today's context, we may not get too many of such opportunities but we could get it overseas. I have deliberately flew to Taiwan during its last Presidential Election period, just to observe and learn from the Taiwanese speakers. The atmosphere and how the speakers move the crowd is really an eye opening experience.

To win an uphill battle against a giant opponent, it will take more than consistent ground work. Personal development in various aspects must be made progressively. Writing good political speeches and deliver them effectively is one very important aspect that we must spend more time on.

Goh Meng Seng

Election site allocation --- Letter to Zaobao

The following is a letter which I wrote to the local Chinese daily, Zaobao on 28 Jan 2006.

This letter is about the way the authority allocate election rally sites during the GE campaign period.

大 选 群 众 大 会 地 点 申 请 方 式 应 予 改 善

贵 报 于 1 月 27 日 刊 登 内 政 部 公 共 事 务 司 长 赵 碧 云 致 函 《 早 报 交 流 版 》 题 为 《 “ 申 请 不 到 大 会 地 点 ” 的 指 责 不 实 》 一 文 是 对 蔡 深 江 先 生 早 前 发 表 的 评 论 作 出 回 应。 由 于 蔡 先 生 一 文 是 就 后 港 区 议 员 、本 党 秘 书 长 刘 程 强 先 生 在 国 会 提 出 有 关 课 题 所 作 的 评 论 ， 现 在 却 被 内 政 部 指 责 为 没 有 弄 清 事 实 ， 因 此 本 党 必 须 依 据 我 们 的 经 验 作 出 反 驳 。

第 一 ， 内 政 部 列 举 了 群 众 大 会 的 场 地 可 供 三 个 时 段 给 政 党 举 行 集 会 ， 以 证 明 现 有 的 制 度 能 提 供 足 够 场 地 供 政 党 申 请 。 但 是 实 际 上 ， 由 于 上 午 与 中 午 的 时 段 天 气 炎 热 ， 加 上 多 数 人 都 在 上 班 ， 因 此 根 本 不 适 合 集 会 ，最 后 只 剩 下 晚 间 的 时 段 才 适 合 举 行 群 众 大 会 。 因 此 ， 内 政 部 以 场 地 共 有 三 个 时 段 可 供 租 用 来 说 明 群 众 大 会 地 点 足 够 ， 是 无 法 让 人 信 服 的 。

第 二 ， 内 政 部 指 出 在 2001 年 的 大 选 投 票 前 夕 ， 全 部 17个 地 点 中 ， 只 有 10 个 地 点 被 使 用 ， 因 此 举 行 群 众 大 会 的 场 地 是 足 够 的 。 另 外 ， 内 政 部 也 以 行 动 党 在 为 期 8 天 的 竞 选 期 间 ， 只 在 后 港 和 义 顺 东 分 别 举 行 了 一 场 和 三 场 群 众 大 会 为 例 ， 说 明 行 动 党 并 没 有 占 据 全 部 的 场 地， 因 此 “先 到 先 得 ” 的 配 给 方 法 是 公 平 的 。 然 而 ，行 动 党 却 是 在 投 票 前 夕 同 时 在 后 港 和 义 顺 东 举 行 群 众 大 会 ， 使 工 人 党 无 法 在 当 天 申 请 到 任 何 场 地 。 值 得 注 意 的 是 ， 在 现 有 的 条 例 下 ， 各 政 党 并 不 能 在 非 参 选 的 选 区 举 行 群 众 大 会 ， 所 以 纵 使 有 其 他 选 区 的 场 地 未 被 使 用 ， 对 我 党 也 无 补 于 事 。 显 然 ， 这 种 配 给 方 法 已 造 成 工 人 党 在 上 届 大 选 投 票 日 前 夕 的 最 后 关 键 时 刻 ， 无 法 通 过 群 众 大 会 对 行 动 党 的 攻 击 作 出 回 应， 以 及 直 接 向 选 民 作 出 最 后 重 要 的 演 讲 。 这 就 是 问 题 的 症 结 所 在 。因 此 ， 内 政 部 所 列 举 的 数 据 并 不 能 确 实 反 映 政 党 所 面 对 的 现 实 境 况 。

第 三 ， 警 方“ 秉 公 处 理 ， 无 私 无 惧 ”的 精 神 无 疑 是 值 得 赞 扬 的 。 然 而 ， 他 们 所 采 用 “ 先 到 先 得 ”的 方 式 尽 管 透 明 ，却 不 利 于 资 源 不 足 的 政 党 ， 这 也 是 刘 程 强 和 蔡 深 江 先 生 所 关 注 及 强 调 的 。为 何 内 政 部 避 重 就 轻 ， 对 此 观 点 完 全 没 有 回 应 呢 ？

第 四 ，蔡 先 生 也 提 及 在 讲 求 效 率 的 新 加 坡 ， 警 方 现 今 为 何 还 要 坚 持 排 队 制 度 而 不 考 虑 采 用 诸 如 电 子 申 请 等 方 式 呢 ？即 使 不 采 用 电 子 方 式 ， 为 何 警 方 还 是 认 为 排 队 制 度 比 起 蔡 先 生 所 提 议 的 抽 签 或 轮 流 制 来 得 透 明 合 理 ？

最 后 我 们 质 疑 的 是 ， 为 何 警 方 不 在 每 个 竞 选 的 区 内 提 供 至 少 两 个 举 行 群 众 大 会 的 地 点 ， 并 限 定 参 选 的 政 党 或 独 立 人 士 只 能 在 各 个 选 区 的 每 个 时 段 申 请 其 中 一 个 地 点 呢 ？ 这 样 的 安 排 将 能 确 保 在 野 党 与 执 政 党 都 有 平 等 的 机 会 ， 在 同 一 个 时 段 租 用 到 群 众 大 会 的 场 地 。

我 们 希 望 警 方 能 看 清 和 顾 及 全 局 ，从 选 民 的 角 度 来 看 问 题 ， 修 复 现 有 制 度 的 不 足 之 处 ， 让 选 民 有 机 会 充 分 听 取 各 参 选 政 党 的 理 念 和 政 纲 ， 以 掌 握 足 够 的 讯 息 来 作 出 明 智 的 选 择 。 这 应 该 是 警 方 作 为 公 共 服 务 机 构 的 责 任 和 义 务 。

工 人 党 助 理 组 织 秘 书

吴 明 盛 上

Time Bombs, Poisons & Election Strategy

Time Bombs, Poisons & Election Strategy

I shall not keep our reporter friends in suspense and I will write my thoughts on the recent "rare" sensational political sparks created by PAP and WP.

However, I am not going to debate on the "time bombs" or "poisons" as my party leaders, Mr. Low TK, Ms. Sylvia Lim as well as Mr. Tan Wui-Hua, have made our party stand very clear in the past weeks' cross fire. This may just disappoint my reporter friends. ;)

I am going to talk about the tactical and strategic angles that PAP is taking at the moment. I have postponed this article just to make sure that PAP's first wave of assaults is finished. There are a few multiple aims of PAP's first wave of assaults:

1) Use sensational phrases to dominate citizens' attention without the need to go into detailed explanation of the issues.
2) Try to dominate and set the main agenda for the coming elections.
3) To lure WP into the racial debate.
4) Discredit WP by using words like "irresponsible", "dangerous" etc.
5) To draw discord among WP's rank and file (especially the leadership), trying to break the party's unity before it could go to battle.

On the night where PAP ministers first fired at WP Manifesto, I received a "nervous" call from a friend asking, "Hey, what happened? What time bomb you have?" The impact of such sensational phrases used by PAP is pretty great in its initial period where the fine details of the issues are buried by "Time Bombs". There isn't any time for people to think and digest at all when the bombastic phrase "Time Bombs" is used. I think up till now, for those who do not bother to find out more about the issues or read our Manifesto in totality, will be captivated by such sensational words.

It is obvious from the PAP's publicized messages that they want to set the election agenda by narrowing it to the 4 issues. It saves them the trouble of guessing what issues we will bring up in the coming elections as well as diverting the real issues at hand. Strategically speaking, PAP is trying to choose the battleground it thought "BEST" suits itself.

More importantly, PAP tries to lure us into the racial debate. PAP has so far dominated each and every social political discourse on issues of race. They say racial issues are sensitive issues and it seems that PAP believes only it could put up the "RIGHT" views on these issues. Anybody who tries to bring up anything that contradict or challenge PAP's stand on local race issues or policies that concern racial nature openly, they will zoom in and all sorts of labels will be handled out immediately. Labels like Malay chauvinist, Chinese chauvinist etc, will be immediately tagged on those who don't agree with PAP's stand. The playing field is never leveled. However, it is precisely this "I know best" attitude that puts off many younger voters at the end of the day.

Obviously the main intention is to discredit WP as a credible alternative party as against PAP. But how successful is PAP in making such inferences? Asking WP to "modify" or "change" its manifesto is to belittle WP. It is of course an insult to a political party. If we really change our manifesto just because the ruling party is not happy, isn't that a mockery in the making? We are not a sub-structure organization of PAP! And it is an insult to our effort, work and research into all the wide-ranging topics mentioned in the manifesto. My assessment is that PAP has done more harm than good to itself in this short episode. I will explain later but lets look in PAP's most intriguing attempt in trying to break WP's leadership's unity.

PAP has first suggested that Mr. Low is being "misled" by some"?other members". After Mr. Low stood firm on our party's stand, it turns towards Ms. Sylvia Lim and "other individuals" involved in the launch of the manifesto. It is a common tactic of divide and conquer but apparently PAP was misled about the "conflicts" or "disunity" within WP! I have noticed that reporters have been probing about "potential disunity" in our party way back in early 2005. It seems that they are misinformed by some sources that there are disunity within the party leadership! And such misinformation has been impressed upon PAP but I must say it has bad judgement! If there is truly any signs of "disunity", PAP's tactic might have been effective in breaking us up. But PAP has underestimated the leadership of WP.

Diversity in views within a political party and its leadership is very common. What is not common is the system or process that could create consensus among the members. I would say that PAP has underestimated Mr. Low's leadership. They may see Mr. Low as a non-charismatic or non-assertive leader but that?s exactly where his strength lies. The consensus building process is a long and tedious process but at the end of the day, each and everyone involved knows exactly where we stand, why we make such stand.

There are reasons for the relatively rapid growth of WP under Mr. Low Thia Khiang. Many people would expect the frictions experienced by other political party in the process of growth to happen in WP. However it is how we manage such growth that is more important. Mr. Low and the leadership of WP has a strong common convictions, vision and maturity to handle such growth. This is where PAP has failed to understand. In fact, PAP's onslaught has made us more united than ever!

In view of the strength of WP, not only in numbers but also in mental strength and unity, PAP's first wave of assaults have failed miserably. The sensational phrases "Time Bombs" and "Poisons" are used to "stun" both the public as well as WP members in the hope to create doubts in its leadership. However, PAP has underestimated the amount of trust and confidence that we have in WP leadership.

In the eyes of the public, the main battleground lies in the middle ground voters. Those who do not bother to check our stand or manifesto, will believe and vote for PAP anyway. Those who will vote for us, will not be bothered by the "Time Bombs". Only those who are undecided or "vote swingers" in the middle ground will be intrigued to find out more. Besides, the issues chosen are really "controversial" in nature. There are already well established reasoning against the GRC and Elected Presidency while almost every Singaporeans in "contested" wards know how politicized RCs and CCCs. While for the HDB quota, at first sight PAP's reasoning may sound rational but at closer examination, one would find that such reasoning is weak.

Thus so far, responses from coffee shops or internet blogs or forums have not reached the "desirable impact" for PAP. It might have backfired in certain fronts and this is the main reason for the abrupt silence from PAP in pursuing these topics further.

Two main broad objectives have been set for PAP's first salvo but it has achieved little. Ironically, the unintended impact caused was a massive surge of interests in WP manifesto. The public interest was so great that we have decided to put up our manifesto online way before the intended schedule.

I would say that from a tactical and strategic perspective of a political party, PAP has set the right direction but it fails in making due considerations of the situation at hand. First, it miscalculated the strength and unity of WP. Secondly, they have rushed into firing off its salvo without full empathy on the public perception on the issues raised. They thought by using sensational phrases, they could get away from detailed deliberations on the issues at hand. It seems that when WP made its points about RCs and CCCs are over politicized, it strikes a strong resonance with the public at large. As for the GRC and Elected Presidency, I think despite what PAP wants the public to believe, most people from the middle ground understand the issues far better than they thought. PAP will suffer a backlash on their own credibility if they keep insisting that the suggestion of removing these institutions will constitute a "time bomb"!

I think PAP should take their own advise seriously: take your time, no rush, no need to come up with firecrackers in haste, go through our manifesto carefully before you shoot! Apparently they have fallen flat on their first salvo, I expect better fire or "bombs" from them. Finally, I would suggest that they drop the idea of trying to "break" us up. It will just make them look very silly indeed. They are grossly misinformed about WP all this while.

Goh Meng Seng

Democracy --- Idealism or Pragmatism?

Democracy --- Idealism or Pragmatism?

There has been a persistent debate on "Asian Values" versus "Western Democracy" and why Singapore should not take "Western Democracy" wholesale.

PAP has gone a step further by equating "Asian Values" with "Confucius Values". Sometimes, a Western philosophical term will also be used, Socratic "Philosophical King" to determine the "high standards" or "expectations" of political leadership. Ironically, the "Western Democracy" is termed as "Idealistic" in nature whereby the demands of "Confucius Saints" or "Philosophical Kings" are accepted as achievable standards in Singapore?s context. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that throughout the thousand years of human civilization, there were hardly any saints or Philosophical Kings in existence. This is only NAUTRAL as human beings are full of imperfections.

To understand fully the context of Confucius political demands of the "rulers", one must understand the historical background whereby Confucianism was born. Confucianism was born in the midst of warlords fighting each other to gain power and control when the decline of Zhou Dynasty set in. Confucius paid highest regards to pre-Zhou Dynasty emperors whom have passed over power to those who were not of the same blood but had good characters and wisdom. That is the ideal situation of political setting for Confucianism instead of a monarchy rule which is passed from father to son and then to grandson. Those with the best talents or wisdom, in their context, with the best characters like a saint, will become emperors.

In the historical context, Confucius was trying to convince the various rulers that in order to become the ultimate ruler of China, one must be a saint who practices benign, compassionate and "pro-people" rule. However Confucius did not advocate "elected ruler" though he believed that the ultimate ruler would be the one who wins the hearts and minds of the people. A certain element of "divinity" or monarchy element was installed even though he paid highest respect to rulers that give up their position to those with talents and wisdom.

For those who are well verse in Western Philosophy, Socratic "Philosophical King" was developed as against the context of Greek's first "democratic institution". Socrates believed that only a "Philosophical King" with all wisdom, virtues and talents, will give the country best political leadership as contrast to the Greek system. It was never mentioned that the "Philosophical King" must be "elected" but yet his rule would be assumed to be absolute as only he has full wisdom.

Both the concepts of Confucius Saints and Socratic Philosophical Kings have implicitly pointed to an absolute rule of a single PERFECT ruler. And it also assumed that there would always be Saints or Philosophical Kings available at any time.

Is this assumption acceptable or practical in any sense? I truly doubt so. Human beings could aim for perfection but the fact is, in all recorded human civilization, how many Saints or Philosophical Kings or Perfect human beings could we find?

Apparently neither Confucius nor Socrates have catered for the situation whereby there isn't any Saints or Philosophical Kings around.

Human civilization has come a long way to understand that a country cannot do without a governing body but yet, nobody is perfect. To rely on the feudalistic monarchy system will only breed hardship and anarchy. Thus Democracy is born.

Democracy is never "idealistic" as it is designed to cater to human beings who are understood as imperfect, thus the need of checks and balances. Power corrupts and human beings are corruptible. Thus Democracy aims to serve the masses by providing a system of checks and balances for the imperfect human beings that are endowed with powers to rule.

If we do have near perfect human beings around to become our political leaders, then it is our fortune. But if we do not have such good fortune, we will rely on the system of checks and balances provided by the Democratic system to serve the masses.

I would say that it would be too idealistic to hope for a Confucius Saint or Socratic Philosophical King to appear in each and every generations of Singapore to lead us to prosperity. It would be more pragmatic and realistic to depend a democratic system of checks and balances to serve us all.

Goh Meng Seng

Why I join WP?

I am going to disappoint my reporter friends here but I will delay my remarks on the "time bomb" & " poison" issue till later post.

The following is my response to a fellow forumite in SGpolitics forum with regards to why I join "opposition" party when it seems that we will be fighting a "losing battle".

Dear ahtansh,

I think this is a good question. The battle could only be lost if your mind has already surrendered. Look at the Vietcongs in the Vietnam War. Nobody back then in the early days of the Vietnam War could ever imagine the almighty US Army would lose the war. The Vietcongs, in your very own words, were fighting a losing battle.... at least that's what everybody back then thought. On hindsight, everybody now knows that it is not the advanced weaponry that will help anyone to win the war, it will be the "mind" that will determine the outcome of the war.
As for why I want to fight a "seemingly" losing battle, I will put it in four simple forms:

1) Social consciousness to political consciousness.
2) Sense of social justice.
3) Non-conformist.
4) My children.

I have been active socially in various ways back from my schooling days till I join WP. It takes a gradual path from social consciousness to cultivate the political consciousness. Believe it or not, I was active in community centre back then. After being disillusioned by this "grassroot organization", I volunteer myself to charitable organization. Why disillusioned? Mr. Low's reply to the grassroot leader has explained it all. The fact that these grassroot organizations being totally "politicised" make someone like me (back then) who are not interested in PAP politics but just want to serve the community feel totally disgusted.

It was in 1997 GE when PAP brought up the HDB upgrading as "carrots" for voters to vote for PAP that invoke my great sense of social justice. I was outraged basically because such moves will destroy Singapore as it sets the social atmosphere into a totally individualistic and materialistic one. I do not want my future generation, especially my children to be cultivated under such social structure and atmosphere of materialism. This is the first seed of political awakening for me.

In 2001, PAP's further pepertuation of HDB upgrading with "PRECINCT COUNTING" irks me. I was debating with an old PAP veteran in soc.culture.singapore about why PAP's "time bomb" should not be allowed to continue, he challenged me that why would I want to support an opposition camp that does not seem to have any "working faculties" at all. In my heart, I wanted a more balanced and diversed democratic system but my head tells me that that PAP veteran has a point.

Thus the only logical conclusion for me is that I will have only two options left:

1) Shut up and prepare to migrate out in order to find a better place with a better social atmosphere to nurture my children and future generation.

2) Join the alternative party and make it works.

After a week of pondering, I decided to join Workers' Party and the rest is history.

Goh Meng Seng


[quote]Originally posted by ahtansh:[b]With Goh Meng Seng starting this thread. I really would like to know, what drive him to be an Opposition and since he has put it as being unfair and not right for the ruling party to change their plans. Its going to be a losing battle. So how he motivate himself?[/b][/quote]

Electoral Participation

Recently, talks of elections have been heated up again after SM Goh Chok Tong "hinted" that elections will be held before 2007.

The mass media has begun to drum up the election fever by all sorts of election-related reporting. Guessing the dates of polling day, put up reports on where alternative parties are going to contest, raise Singaporeans' expectation of the "good fights ahead"....etc etc.

The PAP government has not stop pushing through goodies after goodies, from multi-billion HDB/ estate upgrading plans to billion dollar "Workfare" up to "bonuses" for NS men etc etc.

Amidst all these rustling of the impending General Elections, there is a growing number of Singaporeans young and old, voicing out for more contests and leveled playing field. They basically WANT TO VOTE! Some of them lamented that they have not voted even once in their whole life!

Ironically when Workers' Party announces that it is gunning for four GRCs which includes PM Lee's Ang Mo Kio GRC, someone wrote to Today and say that it is a foolish move to contest in Ang Mo Kio! So we have on one hand, people who complain about the lack of opportunities to exercise their votes while on the other hand, people who say it is "foolish" for Workers' Party to contest in Ang Mo Kio GRC just to let its voters exercise their CHOICE? Several people who stay in Ang Mo Kio that I met are happy that they finally get to vote. I guess this is the general sentiment on the ground in Ang Mo Kio, regardless of other "bystanders" opinion of whether it is foolish or not. Maybe those who feel that we are "foolish" really wanted us to contest in their constituencies instead so that they could also exercise their votes.

For whatever reasons, Singaporeans like to exercise their "POWER" to vote. Voting is a way of participating in the electoral process which may help to develop a strong sense of ownership of this country. However I would say that voting is NOT THE ONLY WAY for one to participate in the electoral process to cultivate that sense of ownership. Every Singaporeans who are eligible to vote could well choose to volunteer themselves to be polling agents, counting agents, election agents as well, regardless of whether they could exercise their voting rights or not. If their constituencies are being contested, they could further enhanced their participation in the electoral process by coming forward to volunteer themselves to be nominators, seconders and assenters.

There are absolutely no reasons for any Singaporeans to complain about the lack of opportunity in participating in the electoral process to gain the sense of ownership to this country, even when their constituencies are not being contested. It will take a little bit more of their courage and willingness to step forward and be counted in the electoral process.

Goh Meng Seng

Political Press Conference & Media Image

14 Jan 2006 WP Launch of Manifesto

From left: James Gomez, Dr. Poh Lee Guan, Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim, Mohammed Rahizan bin Yaacob, Tan Wui-Hua

For any political party in the world, it is inevitable that it needs to engage the press and local mass media to maximize its public outreach. Holding Press Conference is one important way of getting political messages and ideas across to the masses.

In Singapore's context, we all know how bias the local media could be when it comes to political news and reporting. I am a very keen observer of local mass media reporting of local political news. For the last election in 2001, it was really an eye opening experience to see how skewed and bias the local mass media could be in putting up the WORST shots on alternative parties they could get from rallies or walkabout to put up on newspapers and prime time TV news on all channels. We have Dr. Chee's close up shots of his shouting incident, TV shots on the falling of chairs and speakers during one of SDA rallies, TV shots on a man wanting to go to WP rally stage and speak but was wrestled away by police, shots on candidates stretching heads, shots on the commotion and SDA supporters stopping buses and vehicles to paste SDA posters on them....etc etc.

A picture speaks a thousand words, a stream of films speaks a million words! It is important for us to learn how to make use of every opportunities provided to put up the BEST images to the press so that they could take good camera shots from whichever angle they choose to.

The recent press conference for our launch of Manifesto 2006 is pretty successful in the sense that we have managed to improve on the image front for good camera shots. Take a look at the following photos which were taken last year on 5 March 2005 for Casino Forum and 15 Oct 2005 Youth Wing Forum. Make a comparison with the photo above, taken on 14 Jan 2006 Launching of Manifesto.

5 Mar 2005 Casino Forum

From left: Goh Meng Seng, James Gomez, Chia Tilik

15 Oct 2005 Youth Wing Forum

From Left: Michael Cheng, Sylvia Lim, Tan Wui-Hua, Dr. Kelvin Tan, Glenda Lim

I hope you see the vast differences betwen the three photographs. We have come a long way to learn and progress from the amateurish set up to a more professional image. We could observe that in the first public event, CasinoForum, that we held in our new HQ in 2005, the setup of the "stage" was not properly done. The speakers (yes, including me in it) were not seated in a conducive way for good photo shots. We were all seated too "spread out" and it would make photos produced to become "loose shots". Furthermore, the party logo and wording was not up yet. If it wasn't for the charts that I have put up, the back would look very bare.

For the Youth Wing Forum, we have improved tremendously by putting up the party logo and wording. However the sitting arrangement is still a bit loose as there was a gap between Michael Cheng, our guest speaker, and Sylvia Lim. Furthermore, if you observe carefully you would be able to see there is a vast difference between the photo on Manifesto Launch and the Youth Wing Forum. Although both photos are taken with the WP logo and wording at the back, the distance between the heads and this logo are different in the two photographs. Loose shots could occur by having people spreading too far from each other. It could also occur when the distance between the people and the object of interest (in this case our logo and wording) is too wide apart.

From a camera man's point of view, it is difficult to get a good camera framing or shots when the distance between the object of interest is far away from the people who are also the focus theme of the camera shot. You would feel that the first photo on our Manifesto Launch looks good at first sight but most people cannot explain why it looks better than the one on Youth Wing Forum. If you have seen the photographs published in the local newspapers or the TV news report on the Manifesto Launch, you would feel that the images are "good" as compared to previous coverage of WP's forums without knowing exactly why. The reason is very simple. Under the environment that is within our control, we try to do our best to fine tune the setting so that it could provide us with the best camera shots. If you click on the various photographs to enlarge and observe carefully, the main difference lies in the chairs the various individuals are sitting on!

The new chairs that we used in the Manifesto Launch are able to provide a "higher" seats to all the speakers on the panel. It provides adjustable heights to each different individuals so that they could adjust their seats according to their heights. If you look carefully you would find that the "head level" of each of the speakers in the Manifesto Launch are basically quite even compared to those in the other two photographs.

It is a common "camera trick" for studio or film makers to "adjust" the heights of those involved by various means; eg, adjustable chairs, wear high/low heels or simply put planks for the shorter one to step on it. Thus it is also important for us to learn how to make adjustments to the environment under our control so that we could present the best images for the mass media.

Goh Meng Seng

WP Manifesto

The long awaited Manifesto of Workers' Party has been successfully launched on 14 Jan 2006. There are 52 pages which included 14 chapters that cover almost all aspects of governance in all the ministries.

Among the more prominent BOLD ideas included in this Manifesto are those involving Proportionate Electoral Representation, Justice, Transport, Education, Freedom of Information, Unemployment Insurance, Healthcare financing and CPF.

The following is the outline of the Manifesto:

IntroductionChapter 1: Government and Civil Liberties
1A. Elections & Parliament
1B. Constitution
1C. Civil Service1D. Civil Liberties
1E. Cabinet

Chapter 2: Justice, Law and Order
2A. Judiciary2B. Legal Aid
2C. Protection of Victims
2D. Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code
2E. Others

Chapter 3: Economic Policy
3A. SMEs and Local Businesses
3B. Potential Sectors of Growth
3C. Others

Chapter 4: Society
4A. Disabled
4B. Elderly and Family
4C. Unemployed
4D. Community
4E. Others

Chapter 5: Education
5A. Replacement of The Streaming System
5B. Balanced Resource Allocation
5C. Tertiary Education
5D. Others

Chapter 6: Health Care
6A. Medishield and Public Health Insurance
6B. Containing Health Care Costs
6C. Step-Down Care Facilities

Chapter 7: Public Housing
7A. Home Ownership
7B. Housing Administration

Chapter 8: Public Transport

Chapter 9: Environment

Chapter 10: National Security
10A. National Defence
10B. Foreign Affairs

Chapter 11: Arts, Media, Information and New Technology
11A. Arts
11B. Media
11C. Information
11D. New Technology

Chapter 12: Sports and Recreation

Chapter 13: Population

Chapter 14: Labour Policy and CPF
14A. Trade Unions
14B. Central Provident Fund
14C. Employment Act

This Manifesto is sold at $5.00 each. If you are interested to buy a copy, you could either email me or buy a copy at Workers' Party HQ Monday Open House (excluding Public Holiday) from 8.00pm to 9.30pm weekly, at 216 Syed Alwi Road #02-03.

Goh Meng Seng

Freedom is NOT FREE

Freedom is NOT FREE

Most of the time, people take for granted many little important but seemingly "insignificant" things around them. This complacency is especially glaring in the midst of the great debate over the insignificant fine over NS defaulters. Those who have not gone through National Service have such a "no big deal" attitude, so much so to the extent of belittling the whole process.

Our Freedom as a Nation depends on the many sacrifices of many people in the National Service and regular arm forces. The issue of the NS defaulter's case is not about dollars and cents but rather the insult to those who have made sacrifices to grant us the Freedom and Sovereignty as a Nation. It is of course partly the case of emotional imbalance but it is also the values we are cultivating in the process.

Similarly, people are taking their freedom in our democracy for granted. In many occasions, there are people would approach me and say WP should contest in this and that constituencies. I could only smile at them. I ask them, are they willing and prepared to come forward to contest in those constituencies themselves? If not, are they willing to fork out money to sponsor such teams, with their name and I/C numbers stated beside the amount of money they have donated to the party? By then, they would have been speechless. If not, are they willing to come forward to help out on the background, even without the need to sign up party membership? They would say no time, too busy.

It is interesting to note that some people have always asked us about why they have to pay for our Hammer publication or pay for our manifesto. Freedom is not FREE my friend! There are already so many people making sacrifices to provide you the choice and your right to vote, what else could you ask for? Yes, by all means, if you could ill afford to pay for our publication, you could well "opt out" of the purchase. We could understand that, as many Singaporeans have either lose their jobs or taken hefty pay cuts in one way or another.

Our existence as an alternative political party is meaningful to each and every Singaporeans as it is a way to manifest the Power of the People: When you have a choice, you will have the Bargaining Power. But this platform is shouldered on by many people's sacrifices, in terms of effort, time, opportunities, family life, monetary contributions and many other forms. On top of all these, there is the important element of "risk".

One of my friend (just call him Alex for convenience sake) paid me a visit one day and we have dinner together. Alex is a typical middle class professional who is well educated and has a wonderful family. Our conversation naturally ended up with the concerns expressed on my involvement in "the risky business" of non-PAP politics.

Alex, being a good friend of mine, has always shown concerns about my involvement in "opposition" politics. First there is a question of "needs". Second, there is a question of worthy sacrifices one has to make. Third, the necessity of risking myself and most importantly, exposing my family to possible hardship just because I "go against PAP". I have asked a typical question that is always the talk of the town, "Have you thought of emigration out of Singapore before?" He said "No". I asked again, "Then your children will be living in Singapore?" "Yes", he replied. I said, "Do you think Singapore's present environment is good for your kids?" "Yes....." he hesitated. "The fact that you are concerned about I getting into trouble by merely taking part in the democratic political process, isn't that an unhealthy mindset behind it?" Paused.

I put it simply to him that if I am going to stay in Singapore and have my children live in it, I won't want my children to live in this very FEAR that almost every Singaporeans are experiencing. It would be totally irresponsible for me to subject my children to this exposure. Thus, this is the primary need to change the situation we have now for the sake of our children....not only mine, his children as well, all future generations of Singapore. I could choose not to do anything to it for the FEAR of the repercussions but who is going to make sure my children and future generations to have a better environment OUT OF FEAR?

Someone has to take the risks and sacrifices to make things better. Imagine that if our forefathers have chosen to keep quiet and stay tame in front of the colonial rulers, would we ever evolve into a Nation today? Many have sacrificed their money, time, blood and even lives for what we have right now. If we know that the present country that we have now is less than desirable or fall short of our basic expectation of a truly democratic country with true FREEDOM (from that erratic FEAR) for ourselves and our children, why wouldn't we change it, just like what our forefathers have chosen to make sacrifices to change their environment for us back then?

Yes, FREEDOM IS NOT FREE. And most importantly, FREEDOM has the element of free ridership in it. Everyone may want it, but all waiting for someone to get it for them.

I do not want my children to be caged by the very same FEAR that have arrested many Singaporeans' mind for decades. Most probably, the only most valuable gift I could give them is to fight for their liberation from this cage of Fear.

Are all these little sacrifices worthy? Freedom is priceless, though it is Not Free.

Goh Meng Seng