Is Population Growth a Ponzi Scheme?

The following is an article taken from this website, The Globalist.

If you read it without knowing who the writer is, you might just conclude that he is writing about Singapore's PAP liberal FT policy but he is not. Joseph Chamie is a demographer who is expert in population issue and was director of the United Nations Population Division for 12 years. Please read on and you will have a better idea of why PAP is selling the "More is Better" solution to us in terms of liberal FT policy.

Globalist Analysis > Global SocietyIs Population Growth a Ponzi Scheme?
By Joseph Chamie | Thursday, March 04, 2010

The basic pitch of those promoting population growth is straightforward in its appeal: "More is better." Joseph Chamie, who has spent a lifelong career as a demographer, including 12 years of service as the director of the United Nations Population Division, finds that more is not necessarily better.

ernie Madoff's recent Ponzi scheme has drifted out of the world’s headlines. However, there is another even more costly and widespread scheme — "Ponzi Demography" — that warrants everybody’s attention.
While it may come in many guises, Ponzi demography is essentially a pyramid scheme that attempts to make more money for some by adding on more and more people through population growth.
While more visible in industrialized economies, particularly in Australia, Canada and the United States, Ponzi demography also operates in developing countries. The underlying strategy of Ponzi demography is to privatize the profits and socialize the costs incurred from increased population growth.

Concerns about population growth become radioactive. Politicians, journalists and environmentalists choose by and large to sidestep the entire issue.

The basic pitch of those promoting Ponzi demography is straightforward and intoxicating in its pro-population growth appeal: “more is better.” However, as somebody who has spent a lifelong career as a demographer, including 12 years of service as the director of the United Nations Population Division, I find that more is not necessarily better.
As has been noted by Nobel laureate economists Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen as well as many others, current economic yardsticks such as gross domestic product (GDP) focus on material consumption and do not include quality-of-life factors.
Standard measures of GDP do not reflect, for example, the degradation of the environment, the depreciation of natural resources or declines in individuals’ quality of life.
According to Ponzi demography, population growth — through natural increase and immigration — means more people leading to increased demands for goods and services, more material consumption, more borrowing, more on credit and of course more profits. Everything seems fantastic for a while — but like all Ponzi schemes, Ponzi demography is unsustainable.
When the bubble eventually bursts and the economy sours, the scheme spirals downward with higher unemployment, depressed wages, falling incomes, more people sinking into debt, more homeless families — and more men, women and children on public assistance.
That is the stage when the advocates of Ponzi demography — notably enterprises in construction, manufacturing, finance, agriculture and food processing — consolidate their excess profits and gains. That leaves the general public to pick up the tab for the mounting costs from increased population growth (e.g., education, health, housing and basic public services).

In an unrelenting public relations campaign, every effort is made to equate population growth with economic prosperity and national progress.

Among its primary tactics, Ponzi demography exploits the fear of population decline and aging. Without a young and growing population, we are forewarned of becoming a nation facing financial ruin and a loss of national power.
Due to population aging, government-run pensions and healthcare systems will become increasingly insolvent, according to advocates of Ponzi demography, thereby crippling the economy, undermining societal well-being and threatening national security.
Low birth rates, especially those below replacement levels, are considered a matter of national concern. Without higher fertility rates and the resulting population growth, the nation, it is claimed, faces a bleak and dreary future.
So Ponzi demography calls for pro-natalist policies and programs to encourage couples to marry and to have more children, which will lead to the promised sustained economic growth.
In addition to financial incentives and other benefits for childbearing, appeals are also made to one's patriotic duty to have children in order to replenish and expand the homeland: “Have one (child) for mum, one for dad and one for the country.”
In addition to measures to increase fertility levels, Ponzi demography also turns to immigration for additional population growth in order to boost companies' profits. The standard slogan in this instance is “the country urgently needs increased immigration,” even when immigration may already be at record levels and unemployment rates are high.
Among other things, increased immigration, it is declared, is a matter of national security, long-term prosperity and international competitiveness. Without this needed immigration, Ponzi demography warns that the country’s future is at serious risk.

The sooner nations reject Ponzi demography, the better the prospects for all of humanity and other life on this planet.

Another basic tactic of Ponzi demography is a pervasive and unrelenting public relations campaign promoting the advantages and necessity of an increasing population for continued economic growth. Every effort is made to equate population growth with economic prosperity and national progress.
"Economic growth requires population growth" is the basic message that Ponzi demography wants the public to swallow. No mention is made of the additional profits they reap and the extra costs the public bears.
Attempts to question or even discuss Ponzi demography are denigrated and defamed to such an extent that concerns about population growth become radioactive. Politicians, journalists and environmentalists, for example, choose by and large to sidestep the entire issue.
When confronted with environmental concerns such as climate change, global warming, environmental contamination or shortages of water and other vital natural resources, the advocates of Ponzi demography typically dismiss such concerns as unfounded and overblown.
And they claim there is no scientific basis, or they obliquely stress “innovation,” ingenuity and technological fixes as the only appropriate and workable solutions.
Many are complicit with Ponzi demography or at least tacitly support its goals. Few politicians, for example, are able to resist promises of campaign financing, the appeal of increased numbers of supportive voters, prospects of increased tax revenues and the political backing of pro-natalist and pro-immigration lobbyists and special interest groups.

Increased immigration, it is declared, is a matter of national security, long-term prosperity and international competitiveness.

Many environmental groups are also reluctant to take up or even touch the volatile subject of population growth, especially those that have been burned on this issue in the past. Such groups fear possibly offending some members and donors, which might undercut their organizations and efforts.
Despite its snake-oil allure of “more is better,” Ponzi demography’s advocacy for ever-increasing population growth is ultimately unsustainable. Such persistent growth hampers efforts to improve the quality of life for today’s world population of nearly seven billion people as well as for future generations.
Moving gradually towards population stabilization, while not a panacea for the world’s problems, will make it far easier to address problems such as climate change, environmental degradation, poverty and development, human rights abuses and shortages of water, food and critical natural resources.
Fortunately, most couples around the world have chosen — or are in the process of choosing — to have a few children rather than many and to invest more in each child’s upbringing, education and future well-being. Nations need to make the same vital transition with respect to their populations.

The sooner nations reject Ponzi demography and make the needed gradual transition from ever-increasing population growth to population stabilization, the better the prospects for all of humanity and other life on this planet.

Losing the Democratic Soul

                                            Image from Fabrication of PAP FB

When I first read about this saga of WP controlled Aljunied Town Council using the "carrot" of attractive Lucky Draw Prizes to get favourable HDB upgrading poll result, I was devastated.

This brings me back to a very emotional past of mine. It was the Generation Elections held in early 1997 (2 Jan 1997). I was one of the voters of the "Legendary" Cheng San GRC, hotly contested by the WP team led by the late JBJ and Tan Liang Hong. For those younger readers who are interested to know more about this GE, please refer to Wikipedia here. During the run up to polling day, the then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong put his reputation at stake by declaring himself as the "special candidate" of that battle. He reportedly

told Cheng San voters that if they returned PAP candidates to power in the election, they would get a host of benefits. These included access to better transport facilities such as the MRT and LRT, new housing projects, such as Punggol 21, and opportunities to upgrade their HDB apartments and public housing estates. The PAP emphasised that constituencies that failed to return PAP candidates to power would not receive priority in government upgrading programmes and might end up becoming slums.

This single incident back then became the main critical factor that decided my fate into the opposition politics. After the WP team lost with 45% of the votes, I wrote a very emotional article posted on soc.culture.singapore. I was emotional because I know some of my family members have voted PAP for fear of the very threat that it has put up, the deprivation of HDB upgrading.

I am against such pork barrel politics practiced by PAP, not only it is unfair, unjust and unscrupulous, but because it will create a social environment and norm that is detrimental to our future generations. It will set a very bad example and system to teach our kids the wrong values and discarding the up-righteousness of being who we are and what we are, without being bought over easily by materialistic favours.

It was with that in mind, I declared that either I would leave Singapore and migrate out, to find a better environment for my future generations or I stay and join the fight against such decay political environment that will shape our Nation very badly. The rest is history.

The first party I joined was Workers Party in 2001, right in the middle of the GE. This was the platform that I chose to carry out my fight against such decadence political environment. I remembered I made my most satisfying speech in Ang Mo Kio GRC, just outside Cheng San Primary School, declaring the Cheng San Spirit will not die and we will not succumb to PAP's pork barrel politics. That was really deja vu for me. That was the Democratic Spirit that I have upheld for decades until today: the fight against injustice, social injustice, pork barrel politicking, democratic development for our Nation, well being of our people and reclaim the rights and power of our people. 

Ironically, I was devastated yesterday when I learn that WP has fallen into the trap of its own success.

According to the "clarification" made by the Workers Party Aljunied Town Council, they have decided to carry out the "Lucky Draw" for those who voted "YES" for the upgrading because they want to encourage the residents to get pass the requirement of 75% "YES" votes so to ensure that the whole precinct will get the upgrading. The first poll conducted by PAP right before GE2011 is merely 50%. The WP didn't specifically state that who paid for the prizes though it was mentioned that HDB has given them $400K to conduct the poll. It claims that the poll was not secret polling as it was "consensus finding" exercise and said it was a "common practice" by other town councils (well, presumably PAP Town Councils). It further said that the residents were informed BEFORE HAND through the 22-page booklet that those who voted YES will get to participate in the Lucky Draw.

What is wrong with all these? Do they seem to sound very familiar? Yes. Using material gain to influence voting process!

First of all, the excuse of "other PAP Town Councils have done it so we do" doesn't sound right at all! PAP doesn't respect the secrecy of such poll doesn't mean that an opposition party that have been fighting vigorously to uphold Democratic principles should not respect the secrecy of such poll! WP should lead the way in good Democratic practice and stay true to its belief of upholding Democratic principles in whatever it does, instead of following blindly of what PAP is doing, which ironically, has been attacked by opposition parties (including WP) all these years!

Secondly, to add salt to the wounds, instead of respecting the secrecy of the poll, WP has in fact EXPLOITED the polling process to practice the very DIVISIVE tactic that PAP has been using all these years to preserve its monopoly over power.... If you vote me, you got your carrot, if not, you will not get it! This is exactly what WP is doing, by declaring that if you vote YES, you will get a chance to win that 40 inc LED TV! In fact, WP has gone even further in this practice... at least for PAP, they could only know their support level at precinct level and cannot discriminate those who didn't vote for them in the precincts that supported them most. But WP actually pin point to EACH AND EVERY household to identify who support and who didn't! Is WP trying to be MORE PAP THAN PAP?

Last but not least, WP should learn to respect residents' choice. To use such method and in fact, implicitly declaring "I know who didn't vote for it" to residents to exert undue stress on them is totally unethical. This is what PAP used to do for the past decades as well.

I am puzzled on why WP is using all these desperate DEVILISH means that we have been criticising PAP all along to try to influence the residents' voting preferences. I remembered very clearly that Pritam Singh has just spoke on the rally stage during the Hougang by-election denouncing PAP's HDB upgrading vote buying tactic and Mr. Low Thia Khiang has also said on the rally stage during GE2006 to openly denounce PAP of VOTE BUYING when Goh Chok Tong dangled that $100million upgrading funds for Hougang. I am very shocked and devastated that WP, after winning the hard fought Aljunied GRC that I have contested in GE2006 as well, has resorted to the very unscrupulous tactic of PAP, trying to win votes of YES for HDB upgrading.

Maybe WP is just trying very hard to outdo PAP, wanting show that under PAP's management of Aljunied Town Council, they could not get that 75% YES votes for this upgrading but under WP, they made it. It just wants to show that WP is "better" than PAP in that sense. However, is it worth losing your Democratic Soul by using the Devilish means to achieve such little battle? 

When a man just do whatever it takes to "win" without holding much principles, he will just become a wandering opportunist.

When one tries to do everything to fight the devil and eventually won the devil by using the devilish means, you might have won a little small battle but lost the bigger war by losing your soul to the devil. You will become the wandering soulless body with no vision nor light to the right path.  

I really hope that while WP enjoys its electoral success and trying every means to "win" at every little battle, they should not lose their democratic soul, losing sight of what they are fighting for and why they are there fighting and who they are fighting for. 

 The so call "Clarification" has done more harm than good for WP. It has put lots of doubts on whether WP is sincere in its fight for the democratic cause. WP should apologize and admit that such UNDEMOCRATIC practice should not have been conceived and carried out in the first place. It owed all opposition supporters a big apology.  Else, all confidence, goodwill and support it received will be squandered off. Who will want to support a party that is More PAP than PAP?

I guess WP didn't really realize the great potential damage that this little episode could bring to them, as well as all other opposition parties at large. We do not just pay lips service to Democracy but we should carry out good Democratic practice whenever and wherever we can. Else, we will lose all the credibility and moral high ground that we held against PAP all this while.

Goh Meng Seng

Open Letter To PM Lee - No Response

Dear Prime Minister Lee,

Please refer to my personal open invitation sent to you on 24 September 2012.

Once again, I am writing this letter with utmost disappointment and regret that you have chosen to give no response or ignore of my open invitation. I am brought up in a humble family and though my parents aren't highly educated, but they have taught me that it is discourteous not to reply to other people's invitation. I have tried to follow their teaching as far as possible, though I might have missed one or two replies in my life so far, but those are definitely not done on purpose. I hope you didn't ignore my open invitation on purpose. It would not look good to the world that we have a Prime Minister who will ignore kind open invitations.

Well, maybe the mass media in Singapore have done you a great disservice because they have not published my open invitation to you and that might have caused you to miss out the importance of this importance. I guess the mass media has further enhanced Singaporeans' skepticism about your administration having a tight control over the mass media in Singapore. It is within many people's expectation that the mass media will not report about it because they would think that the mass media won't even dare to put forward such a "challenge" to you and your administration. I guess we can't blame Singaporeans' perception, rightfully or wrongfully, that the media in Singapore has come under total control of your administration, or even regard them as the "mouth piece" of your party. Such perception had further been enhanced by their deafening silence on this open invitation.

Some people may think that I am throwing a "challenge" to you by inviting you openly. Even some of my close associates have told me that I have "put you on the defensive". I would like to apologize to you if I have made such unintended feeling upon you. My sincerity in inviting you must not be misunderstood. It is a genuine effort to provide a rare opportunity for you to experience first hand what a commoner life is all about.

Some people have told me that you must have "known" of the crowded MRT but I guess, "knowing" is very different from "experiencing" it. We could see photographs of the devastation done by the earthquake in Sichuan but that would stay at a superficial level of "knowing". Empathy is hard to be derived until we visit the devastated sites personally. We would be awed by such personal experience. Thus similarly, I guess it is important for you to experience first hand how crowded the Singapore public transport is.

We cannot blame you for such lack of empathy because we cannot blame you for being born into a family with a silver spoon, that would not be able to provide you that precious opportunity to experience the commoner life. You do not need to feel guilty or shameful about not having such experiences or empathy. It is not your fault at all, that is, before anyone invites you to experience it personally. The least we could do, is to help you, in the interest of the Nation, to experience first hand of commoner lifestyle. Unfortunately, you have chosen to ignore such goodwill.

There has been an uproar about your National Conversation effort recently, with many people "exposing" that some of the attendants on TV were actually PAP members or somehow related to various government linked establishment. Personally I feel that if these people have declared their affiliations before hand, it would not be a big problem at all. However, the sincerity of the whole National Conversation exercise has been put into doubt when their affiliations have been "exposed" by skeptic Singaporeans. In my view, rightfully or wrongfully, your National Conversation has suffered the loss of credibility right from the beginning.

It would be fine for me if you would reply me to give a simple answer "No". I would take respect your decision and hope that maybe someone else who is more acceptable to you, would do the same and invite you over to their place for a Short Stay. However, your complete ignore and silence, perpetuated by the Mass Media, on my open invitation has further enhanced my personal doubt over the credibility or the sincerity of your National Conversation exercise. I am not sure whether others will feel the same as I do but I feel that a conversation is a two-way process. And it should be based on the aim for both sides, the ruling and the ruled, to understand each other perspectives. I would think that experiencing the commoner life would be a very very important part of this National Conversation exercise as well. Unless, your aim and definition of your National Conversation exercise is just another soft approach of talking down or telling Singaporeans how wrong we are and how right your polices are.

It is with much regret that I will have to sign this letter off with the thought that my sincere invitation to you, an effort to help you in enhancing your National Conversation exercise has been totally ignored. But nevertheless, all the best to your effort in National Conversation, regardless of how little it would achieve.

Best Regards,

Goh Meng Seng

P.S. I would not be sending this open letter to your private email, nor send it to the mass media (like what I have done previously) because I guess, you would just ignore it anyway. If you have second thought, I guess your people would probably inform you about the existence of this letter somehow.

A Thought on Opposition Political Development

Many people I have met seem to have great reservations about SDP, particularly about Dr Chee's "re-entry" in electoral politics for the next GE. I am keeping an open mind here.

SDP has done some of the right things after GE2011, Although it has suffered "talent drain" of few GE candidates but it seems that at the same time, it has gotten a renewed support from certain segment of the population.

What impressed me was the new political direction SDP has adopted; more focus on policy specifics instead of the usual human rights cum democratic issues. The launch of the healthcare policy papers and the subsequent effort on housing policy etc is a refreshing start.

Many people thought that opposition politics is simple and to stand on the stage to fire off at PAP's policies are easy jobs. They are not. That is why I have quoted this Chinese idiom on my FaceBook, 台上一分钟，台下十年功, meaning "One minute of stage performance, requires ten years of consistent practices off stage". It may look easy to many for people to just attend political forums, especially those TV broadcast ones and fire off. The truth is, it is not just about how good your prepared scripts are but rather, what depth you have with regards to the topics being discussed. You are facing your opponents face to face and you must be prepared for whatever questions or bombs that they will throw at you. Especially so when you are practically and literally OUTNUMBERED most of the time. Of course, you will have to be quick witted to throw back a spanner or two at them.

It takes years of grooming, in terms of critical thinking, policy studies, discussions etc to come up with that ability to become politically effective on stage. Ideally, any political parties should groom their people, especially potential candidates, on ALL policy aspects by having consistent policy discussions and closed door internal seminars whereby experts are invited to provide crash courses for the party members.

SDP is doing the right thing now, although I may not agree totally with some of their policy ideas but at the very least, they have their own ideas and will know how to defend or sell it to the voters.

Some other political party players may also like or even enjoy the limelight of conducting or attending various high profile forums. BUT for every events you participate, you will have to make sure that you are well prepared, else in the long run, people will see through the shallowness of your political or policy views.

Opposition politics is not just about having limelight, shaking hands with ground people and kiss babies. If you want to stay relevant to Singapore politics, you will have to extra hardworking, not only on the ground, but to read more on Economics, Democratic principles, Public Finance, Statistics, Public Policy, current affairs on both Singapore as well as regional and Singapore.... etc. Politics is not just show business, publicity and such, it will involves much more serious stuffs than that.

Goh Meng Seng

Minimum Wage - The Necessity for Capitalism

Recently, there is a discussion on minimum wage in one of the public forums on income disparity/ gap.

Well, the headline put up by Singapolitics screamed "Minimum Wage is not the solution to wealth gap". Within this report, it was reported that Minimum Wage dominates the forum while Nicole Seah reportedly said, "If we were to impose the minimum wage, then what’s going to happen? Are business owners willing to stay put?"

I find it quite disturbing reading the report because apparently, the headline itself is an oxymoron. How could the panelists or the report try to make that special claim that Minimum wage is not the solution to wealth gap when it is NOT supposed or meant to be used as a tool for that purpose in the first place? For a start, wealth gap itself, is not about income gap. The concept of wealth is totally different from income, though they may be correlated. Well that is not the crux of the matter.

It seems to me that either the forum or the report is trying to "discredit" or "write off" the issue of minimum wage in such a ingenious way.

The issue of Minimum Wage is about FAIR WAGES for the lower income group who may have little bargaining power in the labour market that make them more prone to exploitation. It is also called as "Living Wage" in some places.

The fundamental concept is that if capitalism is left on its own unregulated, it will become "exploitism". This is especially true for the vulnerable group of low wage workers.

In Singapore's context, the liberal foreign workers policy has in fact aggravated the situation of pure exploitation. The exploitation happens not only to local citizens but also to those transient workers. PAP government cannot just keep both eyes closed on such issues which are becoming potentially a big time bomb for us.

Such living wage as minimum wage, is to make sure that the lowest percentile of 10% to 20% of our workers would not be exploited and that their honest labour will provide them with an income that could sustain their livelihood in Singapore.

Throughout history, we know that revolts or revolutions will always start with hungry peasants due to various reasons, with ultra feudalistic exploitation being the main culprit most of the time. Thus, in a capitalist system, in order to prevent instability, a living wage as minimum wage for the lowest wage workers are a necessary regulation.

Will minimum wage policy chase out foreign investments? Most unlikely. We must always remember that such policy only affect the lowest 10% to 20% of the workers at most. The fact is that most MNCs do not employ workers at this spectrum of the labour force. The recent implementation of minimum wage in Hong Kong did not create any significant impact on business closures at all. In fact, Hong Kong is negotiating an increment of their minimum wage after one year of implementation.

Will the implementation of minimum wage affect prices? Maybe yes, maybe not. As minimum wage policy will only affect those companies employing low wage workers, not all sectors and prices will be affected. It will also depend on the levels of minimum wage being set as well. If businesses could still earn a decent profit after implementation of the minimum wage, due to market competition, they may not be willing to increase prices. In fact, even if businesses are to increase prices to transfer the higher cost to consumers, it will not be an increase to facilitate full transfer of higher costing.

Will minimum wage be "the maximum wage" for these workers? The experience in Hong Kong's implementation has shown that many companies, especially restaurants, which are thought to be affected by minimum wage policy, have to employ workers way ABOVE the minimum wage. This is due to the shortage of labour. It basically means that even with minimum wage implemented, market forces will still dictate wages as well and it is possible for low wage workers to earn more than minimum wage.

Should we implement minimum wage for foreign transient workers as well? Yes. Else, the minimum wage will lose its effectiveness as local Singaporeans will lose their jobs to foreign workers. I have touched on this point in my other postings before. In fact, a minimum wage implemented together with the foreign workers levy applied would tilt the balance towards low wage Singapore workers.

The implementation of minimum wage will definitely affect local SMEs more than MNCs. However, it would provide the incentives for local companies to increase their labour productivity through various means.

For example, I find that in the construction sector which is more labour intensive and dependent on transient workers, labour productivity can be increased by more investment in machinery.

The crux of the matter is about how to set a FAIR WAGE to reflect a Living Wage, instead of whether we should or should not have a minimum wage policy.

There are many studies and methodologies derived to calculate FAIR WAGE. You can find some examples here at this website. For Hong Kong minimum wage negotiation, academia, various labour unions and employers groupings have gone through extensive discussion with FULL DATA provided by the government. Well, you may not please everyone but as long as consensus is achieved, the policy kicks off with the promise of yearly review.

I hope that politicians (from both ruling and opposition parties) should not confuse the issue of Minimum Wage with Income gap or disparity, least with "Wealth Gap"! And I definitely hope that the usual "bogey man" scare tactic of "business will close down, MNCs will leave Singapore" should be discarded forever as it does not make any sense for such assertion when Minimum Wage only affects 10% to 20% of low wage workers, not the whole spectrum of the labour force. Such bogey man scare talk is only fit for kindergarten politics.

Goh Meng Seng

The Challenge of the New Age Internet Politics

It is nothing "new" about this New Age Internet Politics but it is just that Singapore, in spite of the high internet connectivity, is pretty slow in riding on the waves and tide of the Internet Politics.

Just across the causeway, Malaysia has been the beneficiary of this new wave of internet politics that had given Malaysian political landscape an irreversible shake up since GE 2008. Internet politics has also exerted great influence all over Middle East, effected even regime changes.

Yes, this is a world trend that cannot be ignored, not even in "Paradize Singapore". We have seen the tremendous impact of the New Age Internet Politics in play whereby policy discourse has been played up and dominated by internet chatters, blogs and citizen reporting websites like TOC. PAP has suddenly felt so hopeless in dominating public discourse on any policy due to the new empowerment of opinion making and access to shared views by individuals via internet access.

Many people would have thought that such development will only benefit the opposition movement. However, I think this New Age of Internet Politics is a double edged sword for both the ruling and opposition parties. For any small mistakes you made, it will be put on focus under the internet microscope to be examined and exaggerated.

I, for one, is one of the earliest victim of internet politics. Most people would recall that I have resigned from WP due to a mistake I made in my internet engagement back in 2006 right after the general elections. It is not really a mistake of death even politically, but it was blown up as the newspaper just picked it up.

Thereafter, WP has adopted a more stringent Code of Conduct for its CEC members and these were subtly applied to other members as well. No CEC members will use their real names in internet engagement, implicitly implied that anonymity is encouraged. Even for personal blogs, CEC members are discouraged to put up policy views as well.

Subsequently, Chia Tilik resigned from WP as well, mostly due to his disagreement on such regimental implementation Code of Conduct.

Many would think that such Code of Conduct would be the best approach towards the rising influence of internet politics. I beg to differ. It will only prevent temporary embarrassment from potential mistakes made by key individuals in any political parties but the tradeoff is the deprivation of the necessary opportunities for these future leaders or MPs of the country to learn how to cope and deal with this new age political trends.

The recent fumble of MP Pritam Singh over the "conversation" with Andrew Loh, a veteran internet social-political activist, is a very good case to look at. The mistake Pritam had made, in insinuating that all other kinds of activism (including interne activism) is less important than partisan political ground work, is a common mistake most people in partisan politics (including me) would make at any point of our political life time. I have to admit that I used to think that way too (many years ago) but after experiencing lively engagement on the internet, I realize that internet activism itself is an important movement to make democratic development happens as well. Partisan politics alone, is just not enough to initiate democratic changes. We will need a holistic approach with people from all aspects of activism, from NGOs to internet activists to make the political awakening happened back in GE2011.

Internet politics would also mean that politicians will have to be very careful on what they post on their very own blogs, FBs or simply say anything to the Main Stream Media. We have seen how, politicians or MPs from both ruling and opposition parties, being mocked at when they made a mistake. Photos, screen shots or even important document will be posted or even emailed to the press to show evidence of discrepancies or question their integrity.

Sometimes, it is not even about discrepancies or integrity, but just purely differences in opinions that would trigger the wrath of public opinion instantaneously. There are many instances and the latest saga involved Lawrence Wong's lament on "politicising" of National Conversation and personal attacks happening in the internet sphere.

Information used to travel at slower pace in the last century but not for now. Information basically travels in the flick of the fingers on the keyboards.

Most people who believe in the healthy democratic development for Singapore would have jumped in joy with such "Freedom" brought by this wonderful technology called internet. However ironically, such development in internet politics will result in the biggest setback for anybody who are pushing for change for more Freedom of Speech and expressions.

The protection of anonymity which gives most people the false sense of security is slowly breeding irresponsible speech and expression. I am not against anonymity in cyberspace because I have also grown out of anonymity from my earlier days of internet activism. However, such anonymity is slowly eroding the moral high ground of the fight for more Freedom of Speech and expression, the very cause that most of us in the democratic movement take it as our core values.

Not only the ruling party PAP MPs and ministers are suffering from unnecessary personal attacks from people under the cloak of anonymity but opposition members like me are also suffering from such attacks, not only from PAP people (supporters) but also from other opposition parties people (supporters). In fact I would say that PAP people have evolved and toned down in their internet attacks on their opponents but opposition supporters or IBs are getting more aggressive nowadays.

If these anonymous handlers in the cyberspace would only comment on their differences in views vs others, that's perfectly fine. But when they start to use aggressive words or even spread lies against their opponents, then they would have crossed the line of responsible freedom of speech and expression.

They must realize that they are not doing any good to the overall democratic movement by such misbehavior. They are giving the exact bullets that the ruling party needs to make their case in controlling or even curbing our freedom of speech and expression.

Someone once told me this and I agree with him totally : For those who do not treasure but abuse their freedom of speech and expression, they don't deserve Freedom in the first place.

Freedom comes with responsible. If sensible people from the democratic movement do not stand up against such abuses of freedom of speech and expression, we may just be letting those irresponsible abuses derail our fight for our rights altogether. We do not need a formal "Code of Conduct" but we will have to help to shape our own turfs in this New Age Internet Politics.

In my view, putting "Code of Conduct" to ban partisan members from using their own identity while implicitly encouraging anonymity in the cyberspace may yield undesirable results. It is alright for people to make mistakes but at the same time have the opportunities to learn and grow from their own mistakes. I would say that encouraging partisan members to use their own identities would contribute to a more healthy development in this New Age of Internet Politics. It would encourage responsible use of this new found freedom of expression provided by technology and thus, cultivate a healthy social norms for all Singaporeans using internet as a means of social-political engagement. What we need more is not just mindless attacks on government policies or individuals (from both ruling or opposition parties). What we need is more responsible people using the internet platform for more fruitful exchange of ideas and views.

The Challenge of maintaining a healthy development of internet politics and thus, National political engagement lies with everyone of us, including both political party members as well as normal citizens. We just cannot allow a few irresponsible agent provocateurs to terrorize the whole cyberspace while destroying our path towards Freedom of Expression as well as democratic development for Singapore.

Goh Meng Seng

Open Letter to PM Lee

Dear Prime Minister Lee,

I am utterly disappointed to hear you saying that Singapore will have no problem to have a population of 6 million during your National Conversation exercise.

This disappointment is not derived from the fact that both of us are standing on the directly opposite positions of the political spectrum but the fact that we have such a distanced perspective and vision for Singapore as a whole.

I appreciate your effort in wanting to have a National Conversation with citizens and hopefully, it also includes opposition activists like me. However, I feel that what you and your ministers lack is not a Conversation or communication channel with Singaporeans but rather, the lack of empathy of the common people's life with different income levels.

This empathy cannot be gained nor learned through mere Conversation. This empathy could only be gained through the actual living of the commoner's life.

It may not be apparent to you but to many of us, Singaporeans, your plain assertion that Singapore can host a population of 6 million is the result of the lack of empathy, as the ruling elites of this land like you, have hardly experienced the actual hassle of living the commoner's life.

This mindset is commonly termed as "out of touch" by many Singaporeans but I would put it more specifically, as the the lack of empathy.

For the sake of Singapore's future, I would like to put aside my political standing and make this very important following offer to you. I cordially invite you to experience the common Singaporean living by spending one week, just one week with me and my friends in a HDB flat.

During this week of your stay, we will not take any private transport so that you will have the precious (because it is so rare to you) experience of taking the LRT, MRT and public bus to travel to your office.

There might be exceptions that we will take the taxi with you without your usual Traffic Police escort and you will experience on what it is like to wait for taxi and talking to a normal taxi driver.

You will experience the REAL Singapore with over 5 million population by visiting the neighbourhood shopping malls for dinner or just plain shopping without the usual staged or pre-arrangement of these places that you are so used to.

We will definitely make it as comfortable as it could be for your living though it is nothing comparable to the comfort of your own bungalow or six-star hotels elsewhere.

You will also have the opportunity to experience the actual size of a new 3 room flat built by HDB and decide for yourself whether the space is good enough for a family of 4.

Nothing beats the REAL experience of living as a commoner in Singapore, least about just a talk in your National Conversatoin.

I sincerely hope that you would take up my invitation to experience the Singapore Life of a commoner. There will be no pretence, special privileges or whatsoever but we will give all the due respect to you as a guest of the house.

Furthermore, I think it would be a fantastic opportunity for us to have our face to face talk over a cup of tea or coffee every night after your day of hard work. It will be an extraordinary experience for you to talk to the REAL people, opposition we might be, about our expectations, aspirations and visions for this country. This would be very very different from your daily meeting of your own ruling elites or those who would put up flattery and praises without reflecting the true feelings on the ground.

President Ma Ying Jiu of Taiwan had took the effort to go for Long Stay twice during his campaigning periods. Like all the good rulers in Chinese ancient history, he made various visits and even stay with the commoners in his vast country, so to understand and enhance his empathy of the ground people's lives.

I do hope that you, my Prime Minister, would take up this offer and opportunity to carry out a SHORT STAY with us so that we could show you the exact livelihood of a family of simple Singaporeans before you start to plan for the 6 million population for Singapore.

It will give you the greatest opportunity to understand why there are thousands and thousands or even million of Singaporeans sneering at your remark that Singapore is able to host a population of 6 million people. Nothing could make you understand such sentiments better than experiencing the common life itself.

Hereby, once again, I sincerely hope that you will give my invitation a serious thought and I hope to hear from you soon.

Best Regards,

Goh Meng Seng

After note: I have the consent of my friends to play host to the Prime Minister if the Prime Minister so agrees to take up my invitation to live with us for just one week. They are very eager and excited to be the hosts. We cannot fault the Prime Minister of being "out of touch" because he truly lacks the common experience that most of us share as citizens and HDB dwellers.

It is only fair to give him the chance and opportunity to share our experiences of common living so that he could make better policy judgement on the 6 million population target.

Scrutiny on Singapore Parliamentarians

I must have missed that important news that a bill wasn't passed last month due to the Parliament wasn't able to meet the quorum of 25%. This news report appears in the July 10 edition of Today newspaper. Ironically, the title of the article is "LTA's role under scrutiny" and the inability of parliament to meet quorum to pass the bill was stated right below the article.

"The Land Transport Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill was not passed yesterday as fewer than a quarter of members were present in the House at the end of the debate. Mr Lui is expected to address the LTA's role in last December's train disruptions in Parliament today."

The quorum of 25% (excluding Speaker) is pretty low taking into account that we have less than 100 MPs (99 parliamentarians including 87 elected MPs, 3 NCMP and 9 NMPs) in total. It simply means that the parliament will only need 25 parliamentarians (including NCMPs and NMPs) to be present in order to debate and pass any bills, laws or amendments.

It is utterly disappointing and outrageous that most of our highly paid elected MPs were not performing their duty as parliamentarians diligently, so much so that their absence had caused an amendment to the bill unable to be passed on time. It is totally unacceptable for MPs to be so irresponsible in not attending the sitting and resulted the parliament to miss such a low quorum requirement.

If these MPs feel that there are many more other commitments more important than fulfilling their role as parliamentarians, to do the very basic thing of attending parliamentary sitting diligently, then they should quit politics altogether. MP-ship is not just a title to make you look good, not just a political reward for your past loyalty to your party. Definitely not just the path for you to make quick money by getting as many directorships from public and private companies. MP-ship is about representing the voices of your constituents in parliament, putting up checks on the government on various issues, making decisions on their behalf when passing laws and bills. MP-ship is about serving the people, not serving your own interests first. If you really feel that there are more important things in your life, eg. making money, than performing the basic role as elected representative in parliament, then please, don't waste taxpayers' money, though that $14K or $15K per month may be just "peanuts" to you but it means a lot to many workers who earn less than $1K or $2K in Singapore. Most importantly, don't just chop place in parliament. There is one Chinese saying, don't just sit on the toilet bowl and not shit! (坐在茅坑不拉屎！)

Someone pointed out that this incident happened because the parliamentary sitting overrun the stipulated time. I don't think this is a good excuse at all. As a MP, what is so important that one could just walk out of parliament without passing the intended law? The basic fundamental role of a MP is to attend parliamentary sittings to facilitate the debates and passing of laws.

Let me use Hong Kong as an example for comparison, as I know Hong Kong much better, other than Singapore's system.

First of all, Hong Kong Legco (Legislative Council) members are paid lesser than Singapore elected MPs.

Secondly, Hong Kong Legco meets weekly (normally on Wednesday, with extension if there are more issues to debate. eg. budget) while Singapore Parliament meets only once a month.

Thirdly, there are 60 Legco Members (increasing to 65 after the coming Legco elections) while Singapore has 87 elected MPs, 3 NCMP and 9 NMPs, total 99.

Hong Kong Legco meeting has a quorum of 50% while Singapore parliamentary sitting has a low quorum of 25%.

Hong Kong has 24 out 60 pan-democratic (opposition) Legco members while Singapore has only 9 (including NCMPs) out of 99.

Technically speaking, Hong Kong Legco has suffered from quorum busting twice in history held by the pro-establishment members, in protest of the pan-democrats' proposed motion or speeches. They just refused to attend meeting to cause the close or adjournment of the meeting. On the other hand, the pan-democrats have used filibuster technique to drag on the meeting to prevent the passing of the government restructuring bill in May and June 2012. Although the Chairman of Legco has forbidden the debate of all amendments raised on the bills, the pan-democrats have successfully dragged on the meeting by making hundreds and thousand of amendments to preceding bills. During this process, the pro-establishment Legco members were basically FORCED to attend the prolonged Legco meetings right into the wee hours of late nights till dawn, just to maintain the basic quorum of 50% in order for the process to finish in time. Calls for count were made by the pan-democrats regularly during the filibuster period.

I have made all these comparisons just to show how overpaid and under-work our elected MPs are. Hong Kong pro-establishment Legco members (equivalent to ruling party members) have to make extra effort to attend legco meetings OVER NIGHT just to maintain the high 50% quorum to fight back against the pan-democrats' aggression of filibuster. Our PAP MPs just let the bill lapse without even facing serious challenge from opposition due to their absence in parliament under a low quorum of 25%!

It is really a total disgrace and shameful for our highly paid parliamentarians not able to meet that low quorum of 25% that caused the adjournment of passing that bill!

It is even more frustrating that the opposition MPs and main stream media didn't take the ruling party MPs to task for wasting taxpayers' money and not taking their role as MPs seriously! These MPs didn't take their MP-ship too seriously and should face censure and reprimand. These MPs are only required to attend parliamentary sitting on a monthly basis and such arrangement shouldn't have caused much disruption to their own work, unlike the weekly meeting conducted in Hong Kong Legco. Yet, they have not put their role as MP as TOP PRIORITY during this period! What kinds of MPs are we having in parliament?

I hope that the opposition MPs' silence on this matter is not due to their own MPs being absent from the parliamentary sitting as well! If so, both the opposition and ruling party MPs should be put to scrutiny for wasting taxpayers' money and not taking their responsibility as MPs seriously.

I would suggest that to enhance transparency of the working of parliament, after each term, a report card on ALL the MPs should be published. Attendance rate (full attendance, not just sign and leave), number of speeches made as well as proposing bills or amendments to bills should be made known after parliament is dissolved, before the General Elections are conducted. In doing so, it will allow every voters to assess their own MP's performance better.

Quorum of parliamentary sitting should be raised to at least one third, if not 50%. We should have higher expectation on our MPs because we are paying them top remunerations in the world! We may not demand full time MP commitment from all of them but at least they should place their role of people's representatives as top priority in their life. Else, why vote and pay them so much?

For those who missed full attendance for a total of 3 parliamentary sittings consecutively or total of 8 sittings in a year, they should be sent to the parliamentary disciplinary committee for questioning and disciplinary actions to be taken against them if they do not have valid reasons. Reports of the findings should be published.

If we want to build our World Class parliament, we should start scrutinizing our MPs more thoroughly. Not meeting quorum for any parliamentary sitting is really totally unacceptable, in view of the low quorum, top remuneration and frequency of our parliamentary sittings. World Class parliament can only come with world class parliamentarians with high standards who take their role as people's representatives as top priority and performing their duties seriously and diligently. Else, all are just empty, highfalutin talks only.


Goh Meng Seng

Verdict : Singapore Constitution Isn't that Democratic

Well, I have been waken from my political slumber once again and this time, it is really the most exciting and important happening that comes into my mind! I have long suspected that Singapore isn't a democratic country that all of us are made to believe by reciting our National Pledge everyday during our school time. Forget about the pledge which just state "Highfalutin" motherhood statements and ideas on "to build a democratic society". That pledge is after all, just for kids and teenagers to recite! How many of us, or the politicians who recite that pledge every time (only on National Day and election rallies), truly believe in all those Highfalutin ideas embedded in it? Stop kidding ourselves!

My suspicion that Singapore isn't and never was, a democratic society at all has been proven by a learned judge today. I am so happy that these mysterious doubts in my head have finally been cleared and solved. I have to thank this learned judge for his great effort in helping me to confirm that our Constitution wasn't really written with true democratic principles in mind. Let me elaborate here.

According to Todayonline report, the presiding judge of the Hougang By-Election case, Justice Philip Pillai, has declared that

"there was no requirement in the Constitution to call elections to fill elected Member vacancies. There being no such requirement, there arises no prescribed time within which such elections must be called".

He further elaborates that

Under the Constitution, to call or not to call an election to fill an elected Member vacancy is a decision to be made by the Prime Minister. Should the Prime Minister decide to call an election to fill an elected Member vacancy. The Parliamentary Elections Act merely provides the mechanism to hold such an election should the Prime Minister decide to call one.

Let me put it in simple words. The learned judge is basically saying that our previous "perceptions" that the government "must" hold a by-election if any parliamentary seat is vacated, is awfully and utterly wrong and rubbish! He is saying that there is absolutely NOTHING in our Constitution that says the government of the day MUST call for by-election under any circumstances! And he is basically saying that it is ALL UP TO the Prime Minister to decide on whether to call for by-elections or not. No other people, including the President, can make that decision! Well, never mind about what the Article 49 says "shall be filled by election ". "Shall" doesn't mean "MUST"! That is, in Singlish (Singapore English lingo), Bo Ba Ke!

Article 49 Filing of Vacancies
(1) Whenever the seat of a Member, not being a non-constituency Member, has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution of Parliament, the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law relating to Parliamentary elections for the time being in force.
(2) The Legislature may by law provide for
(a) the vacating of a seat of a non-constituency Member in circumstances other than those specified in Article 46;
(b) the filling of vacancies of the seats of non-constituency Members where such vacancies are caused otherwise than by a dissolution of Parliament.

This means that the Prime Minister has all the power in Singapore, to decide on his very own, whether to call for By-Elections or not. He is the CHOSEN ONE with the only POWER to do that. Even the parliament cannot force him to do anything if he just doesn't feel like it. Well, doesn't that sound like a dictatorial style kind of Constitutional Empowerment? YES! ABSOLUTELY!

Many other people, even those so call "Constitutional Experts" like Assistant Professor Jack Lee, NMP Eugene Tan, Professor Thio Li-ann, Professor Kevin Tan, ex-NMP Siew Kum Hong etc are ALL WRONG! They thought that it is legally binding that the PM must call for by-elections within a stipulated time. They were all WRONG in arguing on whether the PM must call for by-election within the time frame or not! They didn't know or realize that the Constitution wasn't written with such Democratic principles in mind at all in the very first place!

How could we consider the Constitution to be written with such Democratic principles when the power was empowered to ONE MOST IMPORTANT person to decide on such electoral matters? There wasn't any "RULE" written in Constitution to enforce proper representation of the people at all. Imagine, if a rogue government has been voted in and it started to round up all its opponents and put them behind bars for donkey years, it doesn't need to call for any by-elections at all because the Constitution doesn't say so! Never mind about whether the constituents who voted in those opposition MPs being ROBBED of their voices in parliament or not because, the PM just don't like to hold by-elections! So, the parliament could carry on to rubber stamp anything, everything under the sun; they could even change the Constitution to be written exactly like the ones communist countries have! They could even change Singapore's name to "People's Republic of Singapore"!

When the Constitution doesn't put much weight, stress and respect to the democratic idea of "people's representation" through fair and just universal suffrage or elections, could it be considered as a Constitution written with Democratic principles?

All these years, I have difficulties in convincing many people that Singapore isn't really set to be a democratic country at all but they just simply point to our National Pledge. Hey, how many people would bother to understand what our Constitution says? Well, the Americans might have been taught about their four pages of Constitution or "Charters of Freedom" as "National Education", but we are only taught about how good PAP is in our school's National Education! Nothing about our Constitution at all! Least about what Democracy means to us! I can't blame them because I can hardly remember our Constitution as well!

Well, even when PAP starts to berate the simple National Pledge as full of "Highfalutin Ideas", Singaporeans I have met still insist that we are "Democratic country". Never mind if we score so low in Press Freedom or Political Freedom or being labelled "ill-democratic"... They say we have elections, never mind about whether GRC is fair or not...In fact, our Main Stream Media have "well established writers" who constantly write about Democracy is bad! (Read Zaobao Forum)

I felt so depressed sometimes because so many people thought I am MAD to say that Singapore isn't really built on democratic principles and we are not tailored to be a democracy at all. I finally find solace and feel vindicated by the learned judge's, Justice Philip Pillai, public verdict on this matter.

I feel that it would be even convincing for others to believe me if someone could go to the court again and claim that the PM could actually APPOINT any persons to take over the parliamentary seats which are vacated in any circumstances! The judge could finally put to rest on any doubts about whether Singapore is written with Democracy in mind by giving the rightful judgement that since the Constitution is silent about it and didn't deny the PM of such power of appointment, the PM can just make such appointment! This does not contravene any Constitutional rules and it is in fact consistent with what the Constitution has been empowering the government, of appointing NMPs or NCMPs (who are losers in GE) into parliament! Never mind if NMPs have any basis of constituents' support, just forget about that Highfalutin Democratic idea of representation, just appoint. If the government can appoint anyone without a single constituent's support or vote into parliament, what's wrong for the PM to appoint any one to take over the vacated parliamentary seat? Anything is possible as long as the Constitution didn't state anything about it!

(After Note: Some of my friends questioned me about this point about the legitimacy of having PM appointing any individual to take over any vacated seat. I just told them, our learned judge has written his judgement and verdict based on something which is not written in the Constitution, not something that was written in the Constitution! Thus, I am very confident that our learned judge would also use this argument that anything that is NOT written in the Constitution could be viewed as legitimate! Thus, those who don't agree are those who don't really understand how our legal system works! Just like those Constitutional experts who have gotten all their reasoning wrong because they have blatantly ignore this good practice of our law! )

In fact, PAP has already exercised such idea! Any seats vacated in any GRC, they don't need to go for by-elections, never mind if the constituents of that vacated seat has lost their representative and voice in parliament or not. PAP can just appoint the rest of the MPs in that GRC to take care of his ward, represent his constituents... no need by-election what! This is just short of appointing a non-MP to take over his place!

Well, to further into the logical argument, if they can do that for GRC, why can't they do it to SMC as well? Even if it is an opposition ward, never mind. Just as long as PAP PM APPOINTS a PAP MP to "take care" of this ward, as long as someone can go to the ward and sit down, listen to the constituents' problems and write letters for them, problem solved! Well, even if PM wants to exercise his power further, he could have just appointed the PAP candidate who have lost in that opposition ward to stand in as MP! Why not? All matters are about weekly writing letters sessions! The MPS, meet the people sessions!

In short, my fellow Singaporeans, please wake up and stop your democratic dreams! It must be very clear to all of us now that the learned judge has just basically confirmed that the Constitution has given the PM FULL POWER to dictate on such electoral matters, aka by-elections. The Constitution WASN'T supposed to be written to enhance Democracy as we have foolishly misled ourselves by reciting the pledge with those highfalutin ideas! No matter how hard you dream, the truth has already been revealed and confirmed. Please remember, PAP has all along given all the hints about the TRUE Singapore; it is not our right to vote but just a privilege given by PAP. A privilege that could possibly be taken away from us. Our National Pledge is just full of Highfalutin Ideas which are never meant to be achieved.

We should be prepared, fully be prepared for the day, as I have mentioned, for the possibility to be renamed as People's Republic of Singapore. That would be a name that truly represent what Singapore is.

We will be celebrating our National Day in one week's time. May be it would be a good time to reflect on the REALITY that is brought on by this very important verdict by the learned judge. May be we should pause a while and think whether we should continue to recite that Highfalutin National Pledge after we are awaken to the fact that the very fundamental of our Nation's existence, the Constitution, isn't exactly written with much Democratic principles in mind.

Goh Meng Seng

Hougang resident's by-election application dismissed by High Court Judge
Updated 03:25 PM Aug 01, 2012
SINGAPORE - A High Court Judge has dismissed a Hougang resident's application to declare that the Prime Minister does not have "unfettered discretion" over whether and when to call a by-election.

Madam Vellama Marie Muthu had also applied for a mandatory order for the by-election to be called in Hougang within three months or a reasonable time, after the seat was vacated.

Mdm Vellama, 42, a part-time cleaner, had filed her application on March 2, following the sacking of former Member of Parliament Yaw Shin Leong from the Workers' Party on Feb 15.

In his judgment released today, Justice Philip Pillai noted there was no requirement in the Constitution to call elections to fill elected Member vacancies. There being no such requirement, there arises no prescribed time within which such elections must be called, he added.

Under the Constitution, to call or not to call an election to fill an elected Member vacancy is a decision to be made by the Prime Minister, said Justice Pillai. Should the Prime Minister decide to call an election to fill an elected Member vacancy, he has a discretion as to when to call it, he added.

The Parliamentary Elections Act merely provides the mechanism to hold such an election should the Prime Minister decide to call one, said Justice Pillai. In the event that the Prime Minister decides to call an election to fill an elected Member vacancy, section 24 of the Parliamentary Elections Act requires that the President issue writs under the public seal to the Returning Officer to convene such election to supply vacancies caused by death, resignation or otherwise. "In so doing, the President is obliged to act in accordance with Article 21 of the Constitution," he added.

从六四烛光晚会看新加坡第一世界政治发展

今晚带着家人一同到香港维多利亚公园出席了第二十三届六四烛光晚会。小女是第一次参与这每年一度的民主政治活动，意义非常。小女还小，可能还不完全知道六四到底是怎么一回事，但我想身为父亲的也只能尽量提早让她接触民主活动，希望能从中潜移默化的让民主精神薪火相传。

长久以来，许多经历过六四运动和浩劫的学运份子都赞誉香港为“中国的良心”。这的确一点也不夸张。八九运动时，香港的学生会和工会都声援北京的学运，甚至出钱出力，运送物资到北京支援那些学生。当六四屠城发生后，香港的民运人士也出钱出力，甚至是黑社会组织，也出手帮助北京的学运领袖逃亡，营救他们。这就是当年著名的“黄雀行动”。事后的每一年，司徒华创建的支联会（香港市民支援爱国民主运动联合会）便每逢六月四日就组织六四烛光晚会，悼念六四死难者和为他们向中国共产党声讨公道，要求平反六四。

但话又说回来，如果没有六四国殇，在香港这片充满功利的资本主义城市里，我想也很难唤起民主意识和对民主正义的渴望。因六四，香港成为了中国的良心，但六四国殇也唤起了香港的民主政治意识。香港从八九年六四事件后，就马不停蹄的对民主发展推进，逐渐的形成了自由、民主、社会正义、廉洁为香港共识，使之成为它的核心价值。

这种自由民主的核心价值也逐渐成为香港的政治体系的推进的动力。虽然香港只是中国的附属城市，但在这一国两制的局限下，香港不只是中国的良心，而已成为中国民主发展的典范。第一世界的议会，需要第一世界的政治发展作为后盾。而第一世界的政治发展必须先向不合理、不合社会正义的事情说不。维护公正与公平的社会次序是第一世界政治体系的首要任务。

回头看看新加坡的政治发展史，在一党专政之下，充满了多少不公的事件，多少政治人物和社运份子被无理的监禁，但是我们的社会对这一切的不公，似乎是视而不见，更妄论为他们追求“平反”途径，讨回公道。也许被无理监禁比不上六四那种惨烈屠杀那么震撼人心，但是追根究底，这些还是国家不光彩、缺乏公义的事件。

就拿最近发生的事情来看，我们难免会对新加坡的第一世界民主进程感到灰心。最近在八七年被行动党扣了“马克思主义颠覆份子”而以国安法令（ISA）被监禁的社运人士在芳林公园举行了反ISA集会，并且申诉了行动党政府对他们不公平的对待，甚至有不人道的虐待。这有点像要求平反的意味。今年，我原本想与往常一样的参与这集会而安排了回新加坡的行程，但是很遗憾的是，组织单位因后港补选的因素而必须延迟举办这集会，致使我没能参与。但是从报道得知，参与人数比以往的多，有四百多人。虽说这比不上香港１８万人的六四烛光晚会，但可说是大有进步。

然而，新加坡的这个集会参与的人数多寡还不是个大问题。问题是，和香港的集会相比，新加坡的头等的政治人物的缺席就十分耐人寻味了。只有新加坡民主党和国民团结党的党要参与了这次集会。人民党也在不同场合声援了这个集会。反而是倡导世界第一国会的工人党，并没有任何重量级人物出现或发表任何声援文告。难道他们是认为伸张社会正义不是建立世界第一国会所需要的吗？况且工人党历史上，也有好几位被行动党以ＩＳＡ无理监禁过的党员，有一些还是现在资深的老党员。最赫赫有名的便是在１９８８年代表工人党友诺集选区的候选人萧天寿！况且有一些在１９８７年被扣上“马克思主义颠覆份子”而被无理监禁的社运份子也曾在被捕前，帮了工人党办好“铁锤报”！

从工人党在后港补选后针对媒体炮轰他们对工人党报道不公来看，工人党应该还是对公正和平等还是有所坚持的。但是工人党党要在反ＩＳＡ的集会中缺席，的确让人感到费解。毕竟身为新加坡第一大反对党，而在党纲中也明确的写着反对ＩＳＡ恶法的工人党，从任何角度看来，都理所当然的支持这项反ＩＳＡ活动的。

第一世界的国会必须由第一世界的政治发展来推动形成的。第一世界的政治发展必须由人们和政治领导人去维护自由民主和社会公义。自由民主和社会公义不是理所当然的存在，而必须由我们一同去争取和积极维护。尤其是在一党专政的体制里，当权者是不会自动自发的维护民众的民主自由的权益。看看我们四周围，马来西亚政府在重大政治与群众压力下，已经废除了ＩＳＡ恶法，然而我们还是一点进展也没有。归根就底，也就是因为新加坡民众和举足轻重的反对党议员没有积极地去对执政党施加压力争取废除违反人权的恶法ＩＳＡ。

也许是新加坡选民对反对党发出了这样的讯息：人权、自由民主和ＩＳＡ问题都不重要，不会为反对党带来选票。这也就导致有一些反对党认为无须去为人权问题“浪费时间和精力”。

我也必须承认，十多年前，我也接收了这样的讯息而觉得谈人权、自由民主和ＩＳＡ恶法并非选民所重视的。因而在我早期从政时，的确忽略了这些议题的重要性。在选举中，要赢得选票就得谈些民生课题才行。这是所谓的“政治现实”。但是自从接触了年复一年的香港六四烛光晚会，亲身参加了好几回了以后，便有了不同的体会。每一次的参与，就仿佛是身历其境似的，都会有不同的体验，但也带来了同样的泪水。

我想起了一位“落难太子党”的经历。他的父亲曾经是中国共产党的政要，但是在六四事件中“站错了边”而导致被中共抓了起来。他就亲眼目睹了公安如何无理的把他的父亲带走，也没对他和家人交待被关在哪里，犯了什么罪等。他之前不懂什么是人权，也只有在父亲被无理、无法的抓走监禁后，才意识到人权的重要性！难道新加坡人和政党党员必须亲身经历过这样的事情后才知道人权的重要性吗？





今年的香港六四烛光晚会不只再次创造了历史新高的出席率，也给我更好的政治体会。漫长２３年的坚持是不容易的。尤其是在支连会的灵魂人物，创办人司徒华去世后还能延续的薪火相传，这的确是难能可贵。在现场我看到了许许多多的９０后的年轻人为民主高举手中的蜡烛，实在令我深思：新加坡的政治发展，实在是缺乏了像这对人权、自由民主的有效政治教育过程。也许，工人党在人权集会的缺席也真的没错。缺少了这样有震撼力的政治教育过程，也难怪国人对人权、自由民主的认知薄弱和不注重。而社会主流的政治意识还是主要围绕着民生问题。没有人会再去理会以往的政治迫害是否应得到平反：那不是可以填饱肚子的问题！

但这一切也意味着，我们所期待的“第一世界的国会”和“第一世界的政治”体系，肯定是遥遥无期了。

吴明盛

Hougang By-election: The Finale on the Battle of Hearts and Minds

Both PAP and WP have concluded their Election Rallies and interesting enough, both are battling for the HEARTS now. Both sides talk about HEARTs, bottom of my heart, touch the hearts... etc.

Watching the WP rally tonight reminds me of GE2006. The emotions ran high. The tears and sweat...

WP has successfully arouse the emotions of the voters again. Although I would say that the speeches by a few people could have been better and the points are really sounding very pale. It seems that WP's think tank was unable to come up with new angles, new issues and new rally slogans except that "Huat Ah".

To win an elections, it depends very much on the middle ground swing voters. WP has managed to secure the support of its hardcore supporters in Hougang in spite of the various problems it faced right from the start of this by-election... from the resignation of its Nee Soon Indian candidate Sajeev, the mysterious double singer of Dr Poh Lee Guan to the unfortunate Secret Squirrel leaking document to discredit Png Eng Huat etc, these hardcore supporters will not be swayed.

But emotions aside, my mind tells me that WP's Png Eng Huat is really inferior in many counts when compared to Desmond Choo. As an opposition member, we carry the flag of democracy and voice of the people into parliament. We must make sure that every MPs in the parliament counts in the battle for the rights and welfare of the people. There is no luxury like PAP which has over 80 MPs and they could afford a few MPs who cannot speak, debate and talk well in parliament. As my last posting has indicated, Png Eng Huat is really not ready to be an EFFECTIVE MP in parliament by the assessment of his performance during this BE.

But emotionally, I still hope that WP could win Hougang. Yes, I know, I have declared independence and not supposed to help any parties to win this election and I have stuck to this until tonight.

I have walked and worked the ground in Hougang many donkey years ago, prior to GE2006. I have emotional attachment of how we have done every little possible things to help the residents there, in spite of the lack of critical resources. We sweat with determination to over come all odds to achieve our aims. We helped to write parliamentary speeches and engaged in policy issue discussions to strengthen our MP's voice in parliament. Sometimes the debate on key issues could drag on over midnight. Hougang may not be the BEST constituency in Singapore in terms of infrastructure but we tried out very best to enhance all the heartware.

These are the experiences that one would not forget easily. Even for former WP members like Eric Tan, in spite of feeling betrayed and disenchanted with the party for whatever reasons, our hearts will hold true to the days we have spent in building and developing the party throughout the years. No one would want to destroy the work and foundation which he has contributed in building. Thus, I could understand why Eric, in spite of his disgruntled heart, has chosen to step forward to speak up for Png Eng Huat in all truthfulness.

I may be different because I have chosen a more long winded path. I may sound cynical and mean in my critiques of WP and its MPs, but ultimately, for a true blue fighter who believe in democratic development for Singapore, we will always stand in solidarity when the beating comes. My critiques of Workers Party and its MPs come at a cost to me but I don't really mind. I always believe that every parties, politically, will need to be checked and balanced. If they really take my critiques in proper light, I hope that they will benefit from it.

I have said before in my Facebook, I may just spoil my vote if the candidate from the opposition party really could not make it. But the truth is, I didn't spoil my vote in GE2011 when the opposition party team contesting in my Ang Mo Kio GRC was just so weak. I voted for them and that is heart over mind, really. Voting is never a rational decision for hardcore opposition supporters like me.

Thus, in retrospect, even though with all honesty, I find Png Eng Huat much inferior than Desmond Choo in many aspects, if I were to be Hougang voter, I would still vote for the sake of democracy development, the opposition party Workers Party.

For the middle ground voters in Hougang reading my post, I just hope that you could give democratic development a chance and vote for Workers Party. Yes, you have seen the true strength of WP candidate Png Eng Huat here which I have made unreserved criticisms on his bearing and weaknesses, but ultimately, Democracy needs the process to groom opposition members over time. Nobody is a born leader or politician. I believe that Png Eng Huat, after this tough battle, he would accelerate through the learning curve and hopefully, he would become a seasoned politician in time to come. I also hope that Workers Party would be humbled and recognize the fact that they alone, may not be strong enough to fight the battle against the mighty PAP machinery.

The arrogance of WP members and strategy is less than desirable. They have been overwhelmed by their success in GE2011 and unfortunately, become the prisoners of their own success. As I have said before, the success of GE2011 should belong to each and everyone who have played their parts in the GE2011 and not WP alone. Without the effort of other opposition parties raising various issues, WP could not make that critical WOW impact. This BE has demonstrated very clearly the lack of new policy issues and focus when WP is being left alone to do the battle. The issues raised in BE has been recycled again and again until they are very stale. WP must understand that their success in GE2011 is not solely due to their own effort or branding but rather, they have rode on the waves created by many other opposition parties in the build up towards the GE.

On the other hand, I hope WP could do some reflections on why there are so much internal problems and unhappiness within. I do not believe the series of events are the result of some high level conspiracy which Low TK seems to suggest at tonight's rally. I believe these things happen because there are disillusioned members who are unhappy with the management of the party by the leadership. Low TK has put it quite well that for our Nation, we need a government who is just and fair. However, this may also apply to running a party as well. I sincerely hope that Low TK and his CEC members should review and reflect upon whether the management style has been fair and just to others.

All these problems WP is facing, may just be the process of growing pain. As Low TK has rightly put, even PAP has gone through such painful growth process in its initial years. But I sincerely hope that Low TK would also realize the importance of the coordinated efforts of other opposition parties as well.

Last but not least, once again, for the middle ground voters in Hougang who are reading my blog, I sincerely hope that you can give Democracy a chance, vote WP.

Goh Meng Seng

Hougang By-Election: The Fist Fights

Disclaimer: If you have taken side, please don't take my writing too seriously else you risk detrimental effects to your health due to irritation and frustration. I am independent observer and do not take side. If my writing seems to be a skewed against one party, that is because they have done pretty badly during this By-Hougang. Just my personal opinion and don't you get overly worked up over it. I will not be responsible for any heart attacks or any other health complications due to readers' over-reaction from reading my post.

This Hougang by-election is pretty interesting and we do not have by-elections that often.

Both WP and PAP are using the same election strategy to date. They want their candidates to preserve their image and not get into ugly fist fights while their party "heavy weights" will do the dirty job for them. Their candidates will continue to say this will be a good clean contest while their party elders would just throw punches all over the place. Someone has pointed out, fighting through "proxies" are common tactic.

First, Mr Low Thia Khiang pulled his solid punches at Desmond Choo during WP's first rally. He said Desmond Choo "used taxpayers' money to paste it on his face", meaning, Desmond has used public money for the various programs which he runs in Hougang.

Desmond Choo responded in a cool and mild way, saying that these funds are raised from other sources, not from government coffers.WP didn't follow up with any further attacks thereafter.

When it ws PAP's turn to hold its first rally, DPM Teo didn't hold back his punches as well. He insinuated that Png was not the "best man" WP has put up because he wasn't even considered good enough for the NCMP position by WP in last GE2011.

Personally I find this as a non issue but Png, in defence of his status, replied right in front of the TV camera that he wasn't interested in NCMP seat at all and has "took out his name from the ballot" for consideration of NCMP. That sound really altruistic and solid stand until that elusive "Secret Squirrel" leaked the minutes of that CEC meeting which decides who is to become NCMP for WP.

Subsequently Png tried to explain that he didn't mean literally taking his name out of the ballot but just that he wasn't interested in the NCMP post in the first place. He said he has told the Party leaders and his team mates about his disinterest. Eric Tan has come out to ascertain that Png did told him that he is not interested in the NCMP post. Kudos to Eric because his testimony would lend the strongest support to Png's account, taking into account the fact that Eric left WP disgruntled because he felt betrayed.

Mr Low Thia Khiang has gone on record to support Png and personally guaranteed Png is a man of integrity. He has accused Secret Squirrel has made this calculative move in the "weak attempt" to damage Png and WP.

However, DPM Teo has continued his missile attacks on Png's integrity by noting that Mr Low has in fact confirmed that Png was dishonest because he was indeed deemed unsuitable to become NCMP by the party when he only garnered one vote in that ballot.

Now what do we have here? Putting aside about who is right who is wrong, Just look at the way both candidates handle the punches thrown at them. Desmond Choo has responded in a very appropriate way, using the soft approach, even close to making people crying that how hard he has worked on raising the funds for his projects and programs. This left WP speechless.

On the other hand, Png got himself entangled in the issue of doubts cast on his integrity and honesty. Someone asked me how would I respond if I am Png, the following is my reply:

Apparently, Png has made the grave mistake of replying to TCH. It wasn't an issue at all. He should have answered, it doesn't really matter whether PAP DPM Teo thinks whether he is the best candidate for Hougang. It is up for the Hougang voters to decide between him and Desmond Choo, who is the better candidate to serve Hougang. WP has nominated me to contest and PAP has nominated Desmond Choo. I won't comment on whether Desmond Choo is PAP's BEST candidate, whatever it means to DPM Teo. But let Hougang voters decide.

Such simple answer could just parry off the attack.

But since he has made the fatal mistake, he could have backtrack in proper manner. Just apologize for the mistake made in his response given to CNA. It is unwise to blame CNA for misrepresentation because it is all recorded on video. Honesty is the best policy now. Just apologize for making a mistake and say that after checking with the minutes of the meeting, he realized that he didn't raise the issue of not wanting to be NCMP during that ballot. Say sorry that he has remembered wrongly but he did indicate to so and so that he is not interested in NCMP. He has even spoken against NCMP scheme in rallies blah blah. But he cannot stop CEC members from giving him that vote of confidence to be NCMP.

That would end the saga. He was given the chance to make clarification but he screwed up again by being ambiguous. It gives readers the feeling that he was not forthcoming with his explanation. There is nothing wrong in making a mistake in your statement if you admit it outright. Don't try to explain it away when the words you used is indisputably clear. That will look very bad on you. Just admit that mistake and move on.

This come to my point. Whether or not Png is the best candidate nominated by WP, it seems that he is not ready to become MP just yet. He has ample time to think of a response to DPM Teo's attack but he failed quite badly. If he genuinely misrepresented his own thoughts during that CNA interview, it just shows that he isn't sharp and careful enough to say what he means, to mean what he says. If he could not even represent his himself effectively in such simple matter, how could voters expect him to represent their voice in parliament?

His second chance to clarify the issue went bad as well, if not WORSE. As I have stated, it will make one looks very very bad to try and explain ambiguity from words spoken in such an indisputable manner. He has risked his own credibility here. I have heard the voice recording of this little "press conference" outside HGTC. He fumbled.

If he cannot respond effectively to counter-attacks after one night preparation for it, could we expect him to debate effectively in parliament?

I don't know how well Desmond Choo is in terms of debating skills but at the very least, so far, he didn't expose his weakness in this aspect.

I hate to say this but really, Png does not seem to be ready to be MP in parliament, not because of all the doubts cast on his integrity and honesty, but rather, his inability to handle pressure, media and attacks from his opponents. He may be a good grassroot person, doing welfare work on the ground but when it comes to politics, it means more than social welfare work.

Goh Meng Seng