烟雾问题的根本

烟雾问题的根本

最近闹得热轰轰的烟雾问题使这几乎被遗忘的课题重新浮上桌面。在我的记忆里，这烟雾问题早在八十年代初就一直困扰着我们。八十年代有一部电视连续剧叫“雾锁南洋”非常受欢迎，每当烟雾问题一而再的出现时，国人总会无奈的用“雾锁南洋”来自嘲一番。

一转眼二十多年，我们还是弥漫在“雾锁南洋”的无奈困境里，这到底是怎么一回事呢？难道在苏哈多强人统治时代无法解决的烟雾问题真的能在这时候迎刃而解吗？

如果我们要一劳永逸的解决这烟雾问题，我们就必须严正看待这烟雾问题的根本。首先我们必须对印尼这国家有所了解。印尼是一个巨大的发展中国家。虽然它有很多天然资源，但因为长期被贪腐政权所腐蚀而导致积弱多时。苏哈多政权虽然已经倒台，但他所建立的政治体系并没有完全随着瓦解。虽然历年的政改使得中央政府不得对人民厌倦贪腐的诉求有所回应，但地方政权并没跟进政改，贪腐的情况并没有显著的改善。在这种政治情况之下，对印尼中央政府再施多大的压力也是徒然。印尼中央政府可制定任何严刑峻法惩罚烧芭者，但如果地方政府为了各种利益而没有执行这法律的意愿的话，问题也就会继续存在。在一般情况之下，地方政府为了不影响它本身的税收而不敢得罪那些拥有大片土地的大企业。这也就是为什么烟雾问题这么多年来无法解决的根本原因。

烧芭种植是印尼农业悠久的文化。为何烧芭？烧芭在一个落后贫穷国家能为农业解决两个重要的困难：

1)以最省钱的方式把大块野林迅速清除掉
2)烧芭所残留的灰烬能变成自然的肥料

当然，大型的烧芭活动会带来严重的空气污染，使我们面对烟雾问题。每一片烧芭得来的农地只能让农民耕种几年。这是因为烧芭所得来的自然肥料经过这几年的耕种后便会耗尽。这也就是为什么烟雾问题通常是每隔几年便会严重的原因。

在我们城市人来看，烧芭就是空气污染的问题所在，但对许多印尼贫穷农民来说，烧芭就是他们经济来源的重要部分之一。没有烧芭他们便会失去廉价肥沃的农地。唯一能使这些农民停止烧芭种植活动就是帮助他们找寻廉价替代的种植法，或扶助与资助他们农作的需要。

当然，那些大企业的大型烧芭活动是我无法忍受的。他们为了节省费用而导致膨大的污染社会的代价。如果印尼地方政府对这些财雄势大的污染企业束手无策的话，亚细安诸国就必须介入制裁这些污染企业，坚决的不让这些企业立足于亚细安诸国的经济体系内。

最终的问题是，我们是否有这强烈的政治意愿来执行这样大规模的制裁政策？这样的制裁政策必然会使我们蒙受巨大的经济损失。我们的社会必须决定是否为了杜绝这一些污染企业而付出这经济损失的代价。我们必须衡量广大民众的健康利益是否比这些金钱的损失还重要。我们的政府是有这能力执行这样大规模的制裁政策的。这是因为政府掌握了政联公司控制，能有效立法和执行制裁这些污染企业和它们的任何附属公司的政策。

假若我们亚细安诸国只选择每几年当烟雾弥漫时才坐下来谈谈，例行公事般的大声嚷嚷，写些无法执行的协议书的话，那我们和我们的子孙们也只好永远承受烟雾侵袭的宿命。亚细安诸国对这烟雾问题谈也谈了少有十几年，但几乎一无所得，毫无建树。为什么？根据以往亚细安诸国所达成的“协议”，似乎没有谈及如何对那些污染公司采取集体的制裁行动，也只以非常消极的态度去制订“亚细安联合消防队”的协调条款。我认为这是各国缺乏根治烟雾污染决心的表现。亚细安诸国国民应该对他们各自的政府施压，促使它们拿出道德勇气和政治决心，果断、坚决的制定真正有效的协议，集体制裁那些污染公司，捍卫我们人民拥有清洁空气的权力，保障我们人民的健康！

与此同时，亚细安诸国也应积极的为印尼贫农寻找替代种植法，扶助他们以更有效率的方法提高农作收入，鼓励他们放弃烧芭种植法。只有这样双管齐下才能全面解决我们大家被烟雾危害的根源。

吴明盛

For the benefits of English readers, I have written the following summary of this article:

If we want to solve the haze problem, we must first understand three important factors:

1) Who are those who create the haze?
2) Why did they do that?
3) How could ASEAN countries do more than talk and coming up with ineffective resolutions?

First of all, we must understand the Indonesia political reality. Although Indonesia is a huge country with numerous natural resources, it continues to be a very poor country due to corrupt management by the govt.

Even when the Suharto adminstration was dismantled, the inherent system of corrupt political struggle still largely remain intact at the ground level. The central govt may heed calls to political reform to curb corruptions but those at the local govt may not change for the better. Thus, putting pressure on the Indonesia central govt is not very useful because even if its central govt could legislate stringent laws against pollution, these laws may not be executed by the local govt basically because they may not want to antagonize the large corporates that are involved in the use of fire to clear land, as they are the main source of tax money to these local govts. This is primarily the reason of the Haze problem.

Burning the forest to clear land for agriculture is a traditional practice in Indonesia. It solves two primary important problems for those poor farmers:

1) Provide a cheap way of clearing forested areas for farming
2) After burning the forest, those ashes left behind provides as free fertilizer.

Thus to city dwellers like us, we see the haze as pollution but to the farmers, it may be the necessary process for them to get cheap fertile land. If we want them to stop doing this, we must help them to find alternative ways to get fertile land for farming. A land cleared by burning down the forest will provide the poor farmers a few years of fertile land. After this, they will start burning and clearing other forested area again. Thus, you can see that the haze problem will worsen every few years.

What I could not tolerate is those rich corporates who use the same practice to save cost. By doing so, they created huge cost of pollution to us. If we are determined to stop them from doing such thing, there must be a concerted effort from ASEAN countries to saunction these companies of pollution and their affiliated companies. They must be prevented from accessing to ASEAN economies

Yes, we may suffer economically by cutting ties with these big companies but ultimately, the question is, are we politically determined enough to protect our people from the pollutino created by these companies? If there is no strong moral courage and political will, all talks will end up useless. These talks and agreement only aims to build a ASEAN FIRE FIGHTING FORCE and I think this is a very passive moves.

Citizens of ASEAN countries should put pressures on their govt to go for such drastic moves, make it into law that it is illegal to have dealing with companies of pollution. Singapore could effectively carry out such sanctions as it controls huge GLCs, but will there be strong political will to do so? Else not, we and our future generation will be destined to suffer from such pollution forever.

To tackle the problem of the haze, there must be strong political will from ALL sides. Indonesia is a weak developing country and I do not think its weak central govt could carry out any effective measures against those powerful countries. Only a concerted effort from each and every ASEAN countries to saunction them would create enough clout to punish these companies of pollution.

And only couple with active measures to seek alternative agriculture methodologies for the poor farmers, we could solve the haze problem permanently.

This is the gist of my Chinese posting.

Goh Meng Seng

What Political System do we want to preserve?

I was "presently surprised" when I heard MM Lee Kuan Yew talking about his aim is not about preserving PAP but rather, to preserve a system that could work well for Singapore in the long run.

If I remember correctly, this is the very first time that a prominent leader of PAP has openly declared the need to construct and preserve a "good" system for Singapore, instead of going by the line that without PAP, Singapore will not survive.

However, I could not really reconcile the need to create and preserve good system with the image that PAP projects in each and every elections the critical "scare messages" that if voters voted for opposition, we will be doomed. The reason is simple; if the system is good enough, how would it end up as "doomed" if PAP loses power?

What is the "good" system we are talking about? A system that could be abused if it "falls into the wrong hands"? I find it strange that such message has been repeated again and again, suggesting that our system could just turn into a "monster" if opposition wins the election and become the government! And yet, we want to preserve such system that is so vulnerable to abuse?

This could only mean one thing, this supposedly "good" system has given too much power to whoever in power. It is only when a system gives too much power to those in the government, it could possibly become a monster that could be abused by "bad government". Is this the "good system" that we are talking about in "preserving"?

This high concentration of power in the system could be abused by anyone, opposition parties as well as PAP included. Nobody could predict or even foresee the future. Nobody could guarantee that PAP will always be filled by people of great integrity with high morals. High concentration of power will result in a very imbalance system.

I am not saying good people is not important for the government to run smoothly. However, any instituition that gives great power to a few must have a system of effective checks and balances. If a system could just be "abused" by the "wrong people" being elected into office, it means that the mechanism of checks and balances is ineffective or simply lacking.

Checks and balances could come from two or more dimensions. Within the system, it could come from the government's internal mechanism like Auditor General, CPIB, judiciary etc. It could also come from the political balance in terms of adequate representation of non-ruling parties' MPs in the parliament. If one believes that that the system will fail or even abused by some "rogue" government, it would mean that the internal governmental mechanism will fail due to some inherent weaknesses or reasons and that, the ruling party have the means to curb effective representation of opposition parties in parliament.

We need good people to be in politics, both in the ruling party as well as alternative parties. At the same time, we must create a balance system that could effect good checks on whoever in power. We should not take chance that we will always have "good government". The only way to minimize the adverse impact of having "bad government" is to have a system of good checks and balances.

It is ironic to see PAP constantly harping on how "vulnerable" Singapore's system is if the "wrong people" are voted in as government but at the same time, they wanted to "preserve" such system of great vulnerability! Personally, I agree that the present system is very vulnerable and it should be changed for better checks and balances. This could only be done when PAP is willing to curb some of the powers that it has held on now as the government. As long as PAP is unwilling to subject itself to a system that encourage effective checks and balances from non-ruling parties in parliament, the system we have now will forever remain vulnerable.

I guess it is about time that Singaporeans should start thinking about what kind of political system we want to develop and preserve for our future generation as a Nation.

Goh Meng Seng

Culture & MVs of Politics

Culture & Music Video of Politics

红花雨 (Red Flower Rain)




紅花開 紅的心 紅的好美麗 為了你 等下去 我還在這裡
人不再 錯花季 雲濃月怎明 傷了心 不離棄 落成紅花雨
花若開 若有你 花才會美麗 盼望你 回頭看 我還在這裡

記得你 那一天 紅紅的眼睛 你的臉 你身影 笑容隨你去
在一起 流眼淚 一起看星星 能有幸 能相遇 永遠不忘記
漂著雨 迎著風 雨過盼風清 你牢記 我牢記 家就在這裡

Recently there are quite a few "home produced" political Music Video posted on the net. The above is one example, taken from Taiwan Anti-Chen Xiu Bian protest rally. This is very professionally done.

I believe the music is original and specially created for the Anti-Chen Xiu Bian protest. Quite a nice piece of song.

We do have a couple of local "political MV" created by individuals on Dr. Chee's Protest Rally held on 16 Sept 2006.

SG IMF - Democracy's "愛拼才會贏" / Strive In Order To Win...



SG IMF - 1Mil$ / "一百萬" / "Ji Pa Ban" Wishes...




I would say that these two video's editing is quite good for amateur standards but the only problem is that it does not use their own original music or strong. Instead, these two videos use two Hokkien songs which may lower its impact in the internet context.

I was taught that creativity flourish best during period of "dreaming" and "romance". It does not necessarily restrict to boy-girl relationship but rather a state of mind in which one yearns for something very much although it may be almost "impossible" to get or achieve at that point of time.

Taiwanese has been through decades of "political struggle" to achieve its state of democracy and this is almost done with people who dare to dream the impossible. Just 18 years ago, nobody could even imagine Taiwan could possibly be ruled by a politial party other than KMT but it happened just one decade later.

During that period of autocratic rule, political song writers were born. Famous singer cum writer like Luo Da Yu (罗大佑) has created many famous and good political songs during that period of time.

However, after six years of DPP rule, the old dream though fulfilled, has been totally demolished with the many corruptions charges brought against the ruling party members. A new dream is born with the old one demolished. A dream that peaceful non violence protest sit in will force out the elected President Ah Bian.

Singapore used to be a land of cultural blossom during the period of 1950s till mid 1960s. During that period of struggling against colonial rule, many fantastic poems, playright had been created, especially by the Chinese educated. Many of thsee plays are either banned and their writers jailed or bannished to foriegn land because they were deemed as "communist" in nature. The only eminent writer Guo Bao Kun (郭宝琨) has passed away. And we have never seen an archive of our past cultural heritage compiled. It seems that we have all lost that piece of collective cultural memories altogether.

Even up to this day, when we try to express our political dreams via the cultural form, we have practically lost that art of articulation but have to "borrow" pop culture to do it.

I have seen some ray of hope when I read Xeno Boy blog because I find that "cultural sense" in his writing. Very articulate way in his very own style and insight. Poetic sometimes and yes, poets are we lack in our political culture.

I do see some hope when there were some individual play groups starts to venture into social-political dimension. When I was stil in Junior College, I was quite delighted in some of the plays performed by some Chinese based performing groups. But somehow, it seems that "black humour" type of movies are more popular nowadays. I have nothing against "humour" but it seems that it lacks the refine approach to cultivate or present certain idealism of human minds.

Poetry, music and plays are powerful combination in moving souls and minds. It could be thought provoking and awaken the political consciousness that has been suppressed by one reason or another.

I always believe that a Nation or society should develop in a balanced way, not neglecting any of the four pillars of composition: social, culture, politics and economics. It seems that we as a nation under the leadership of PAP, has put all emphasis on economic development while neglected the other three aspects of this society.

Within 4 decades of "development", we have transformed Singapore from a cultural centre of Southeast Asian to the cultural desert of Southeast Asian. How does that happen?

Poetry, music and plays are powerful combination in moving souls and minds. It could be thought provoking and awaken the political consciousness that has been suppressed by one reason or another. But it is precisely that these expressions could be "potentiall dangerous" to cultivate "diversity" in political thinking that they have been deliberately suppressed or marginalized. Censorship is exercised thoroughly on any kind of expression that may involved "political sensitivity". A decade ago, such censorship is quite pervasive. I am told that at present days, they have somehow relaxed in certain aspects. However, PAP has used another law to suppressed political expression or rather, creativity... i.e. the political film act.

The lack of cultural depth is obvious by simple comparison of these MVs. Both are using pop culture medium but the depth of expression is vastly different. Could we do better or cultivate the "spiritual" dimension of our people if we continue to censor political expressions? This is something we need to ponder about as a Nation.

Goh Meng Seng

Afternote: Haha.. someone responded to my article here by emailing me this link to a "local favor" MV. Although the recording of the original song by the author is not perfect but I think it is good effort anyway. ;)

IMF Meeting - A Failed Branding Exercise

IMF Meeting - A Failed Branding Exercise

Many people have asked me whether it is "worth it" for Singapore government to spend over $100 million to play host to IMF - World Bank meeting while our citizens have to suffer another round of public transport fare hike?

I think we must look at the objective of hosting the IMF meeting before we could decide whether it is worth while for us to spend such money. In my view, hosting the IMF meeting is a branding exercise for Singapore. PAP government is trying to sell Singapore as the top choice MICE i.e. a place for Meetings, conferences and exhibitions to the whole world. If the IMF meeting is successfully organized here, it will argur well for us as a Nation. Singapore does have the necessary infrastructure and efficient system to position ourselves as a place suitable for international organizations and businesses to hold their conferences here. There are great benefits and opportunities for us in the long run if we have managed this IMF meeting well. This is a strategy in line with PAP's intention of building of the Casino resorts.

Unfortunately, PAP government has tripped itself numerous times in organizing the IMF meeting. The most fearful thing for a branding exercise is bad press and public relations disaster. This is something that PAP lacks good understanding. Maybe it is due to its long entrenched position in Singapore where the local media is in its absolute control. Local media will hardly give it bad press or create a public relations disaster for the PAP government. In such a "comfortable" environment, it would be very difficult for PAP to cultivate its Public Relations skills and thus it becomes very PR unsavvy.

First of all, PAP government should not have agreed to host the IMF meeting at all in the very first place. Branding needs consistency not only in its messages but in its structure as well. IMF meeting is well known for the accompanied street protests by social activists which may turn violent at times. This is totally incompatible to PAP's political culture or tolerance. I was furiously shocked when Mr. Goh Chok Tong said a couple of years ago that we may allow foreigners to hold street protests in Singapore during this IMF meeting. This practically means that Singaporeans would have become second class citizens in their own land because the PAP government has hardly issue any permits for its citizens to hold street protests in its rule, even though our constitution and law have provided such rights to us. I have taken the trouble to write a personal email to IMF, urging them not to hold thier meeting here for this particular reason. On hindsight, I should have been more persistent. True enough, SM Goh Chok Tong did a U turn and said just a few days ago that one of the primary reason why Singapore banned those NGOs and CSOs from conducting street protests during this IMF meeting is that they could not afford the political cost of discriminating against Singaporeans.

Secondly, the constant harping on the threat of terrorism to justify its refusal to allow some of the accredited activists to attend the IMF meeting does more harm than good to the branding exercise. If the main objective of this branding exercise is to attract more international businesses to hold their conferences in Singapore, the last thing you would do is to scare them away by saying we are constantly under terrorist threats! Those intimidating barb wires and steel walls built around the venue, Suntec, is not helping at all. It sent a mixed signals to the world that they will only be safe conducting their meetings in a cage like this!

The most critical blow come from the President of World Bank himself. His remark about Singapore Government renegades on the MOU signed three years ago has created tremendous damage to the standing and the reputation of this country! Although the PAP government tries very hard to justify its actions but the enormous damage has been done. Who wants to do business in a place where even the government could breach an important MOU with a big organization like the World Bank?

I guess no amount of huge posters with smiling faces will make us look good at the end of the day. The branding exercise is a total failure and I would say that those millions spent have been wasted. What we get in return is not a good brand name but bad press and bad reputation! What we are witnessing now is a self proclaim First World Government in a First World public relations disaster! Sigh.

Goh Meng Seng

Fare hike---- fair?

Recently, Workers' Party issued a National Day message which touches on the upcoming public transport fare hike. Few days later, Comfort Delgro come up with a press statement of rebuttals.I was not really paying attention to this little piece of information until I read the Chinese version on Zao Bao today. The headline is really catchy, accusing Workers' Party of "confusing" the public.

Well, I decided to pay a little bit more attention to what it says. According to Zao Bao, Comfort Delgro stated the following points:

1) It says that we should not make use of the profits of this "global company" to "mix up" with the talk of fare hike.

2) Half of the profits of Comfort Delgro are derived from overseas operations.

3) It says that if we want to see whether it is justifiable to raise bus fare or not, we should look at the financial report of SBS Transit.

4) According to the Zao Bao report, Comfort Delgro holds 75% of SBS Transit shares.

5) It says that from the quarterly financial report of SBS Transit, its profit has dropped by 3.9%.

6) It also says that the cost of fuel has increased by 40% for the past 1 year. Fuel cost takes up about 20% of their total operating costs.

7) As for staff cost, which make up of 50% of operation cost, it has increased by 3%.

Ok, these are the "facts" raise by the newspaper report. My stand is quite clear: if Comfort Delgro owns 75% of SBS Transit, any fare increase will of course benefit Comfort Delgro most! Besides, SBS Transit could be view as a subsidiary of Comfort Delgro. Thus, to see the impact of the fare increase and the validity of allowing such increase, we must of course take a wider approach, a bigger view.

For example, we cannot say GIC is badly managed just because it makes some losses in some of its investment, right? We must look at GIC as a whole entity. Similarly, when it comes to justifying whether a fare hike is necessary, we cannot just look at one small subsidiary's financial status and then claim that oh, it suffers financial burden, so we must let them increase price; even though when its mother company is enjoying a healthy annual growth in profits. Furthermore, which business in the world has the "immunity" from making losses?

Anyway, since the newspaper report mentioned about looking at SBS Transit financial report, so curiously, I did a search on both Comfort Delgro and SBS Transit financial report:

Comfort Delgro financial report at SES website:

SBS Transit Financial report at SES website:


From point 4, it says SBS Transit quarterly profit has dropped by 3.9. Taking a closer look at the financial report, this figure refers to the quarter to quarter comparison. i.e. compare to 2nd quarter 2005, 2006 2nd quater profit has dropped by 3.9%.

Well, fine. But when we look at point 6, claiming that cost of fuel has increased by 40%, I look at the quarter to quarter comparison, it has stated clearly that cost of fuel has only increased by 27.2%! So, where does the 40% come from? Even for half yearly comparison, the increase in fuel cost is only 36%. They round it up to 40%? This puzzles me alot.

And if you read further into the report analysis, you will realise that part of the increase in fuel cost is due to the increase of bus lines during that period!

Looking further at point 7, it claims that staff cost has increased by 3%. But I look at the financial report, it is actually 3.9% from the quarter to quarter comparison.What it did not mention is that turnover has increased by 5%!

But wait, aren't we suppose to be consistent in making comparison? Quarter to Quarter comparison is not a good comparison due to seasonal factors. I prefer to take a look at the half yearly comparison. To my shock, operating profits has only decreased by 0.7% instead of 3.9%!

Let me put it simply here,

>>>>>>>>>>>>Quarterly>>>>>>>Half Yearly
Turnover>>>>>> +5.1%>>>>>>>>>>> +5.0%

Staff cost>>>> +3.9%>>>>>>>>>>>> +1.9%

Fuel cost>>>>> +27.2%>>>>>>>>>>> +36%

Ops profit>>>>> -3.9%>>>>>>>>>> -0.7%

Profit less tax>>No change>>>>>> +6.3%


We must bear in mind that the increase in fuel cost is partly due to the increase of new bus services introduced.

So now we know that they have only highlight the "higher cost" figures, but did not report on the increase of Turnover and the increase of profit less tax of 6.3%! If we look at the half yearly result, the increase in both staff and fuel cost was largely offset by the 5% increase in Turnover, resulting only a slight drop of 0.7% of operating profits.

Overall, profit less tax still enjoys a healthy 6.3% for the first half of this year!

So what do you think, should PTC allow them to increase fare?

Goh Meng Seng

GE Issue & National Day Message: Hope for the Future

(My daughter Tian Ci)


Hope for the Future

Our present is moulded by our past and we mould the future at the present. Thus, our hope for the future lies in our hands now.

I have mentioned many times that my first initial real unhappiness with PAP was "created" back in 1997 when PAP started to use HDB upgrading as a threat (stick) and a carrot to win votes. In the midst of the bubble created by PAP's "asset enhancement" policy, this was truly "effective" as it touched on the raw primitive "greed" of human beings. Everyone thought that the property prices could go up on and on. Many people want to have "free upgrading" for their flats so that they could see their property prices soar. The whole nation was drown in the property bubble fuel by unrealistic expectation derived from PAP's "asset enhancement" policy.

There are basically three issues right here:

1) PAP has started politics linked with material returns for the first time (back in 1997). This is a big pandora box as human greed has no boundary.

2) Our children will be cultivated under such a system of materialistic setting which is detrimental to the progress of our society in encouraging volunteerism, social consciousness, justice and responsibility.

3) Such tactic is morally and politically questionable. Everyone has the obligation to pay tax and the government has the obligation to take care of EVERY SINGLE SINGAPOREAN. This is the basis of a republic nation but yet, PAP has advocated that only those voters who voted for them will have privileges?

I do not wish to see my children and future generations to be brought up in a society that only teaches them materialistic pettiness with little sense of social consciousness, equality and justice. This is my hope for our future and I really hope many more Singaporeans could share the same vision so that we could send an ultra strong signal to PAP that what it is doing is terribly wrong.

I also hope that my children will not live in an environment that promote gambling in the guise of "entertainment" and that the society will not be crippled by broken families, suicides and all sorts of social problems arise from casino gambling.

My hope for our future is to have a government that takes care of its citizens well instead of counting each and every cents for whatever little things we need from them.

My hope for our future is to have a government to take care of the elderly needs regardless of their votes; upgrade their lifts to land on each floor according to the needs of the elederly instead of petty politicking.

My hope for our future is to have higher return to our CPF savings so that our retirees could enjoy their life peacefully after so many years of working, without the need to go around begging, selling tissue papers or become scavangers hunting for empty cans at night. And yes, the GIC and Temasek Holdings should help citizens to get higher returns for their CPF savings instead of just serving the government's financial needs.

My hope for our future is to have stronger parliamentary setting whereby sufficient checks and balances could be installed by having more MPs from alternative parties. Monopoly of power is unhealthy for the progress of our nation. And I hope Singaporeans should learn from the NKF saga fast and come to the consensus that the multipartisan system is the only way to ensure good governance.

My hope for our future is that every Singaporean should not be "afraid" of going to hospital when they need to, just because they fear that they could not afford to pay for the hospital bills. Despite the claim of PAP that our healthcare system is "affordable" but the truth is, healthcare cost has been rising for the past years and many people still consider the cost of healthcare is not affordable to them.

National Day is around the corner and I wish all my readers a Happy National Day. On the other hand, I also hope that all of you could spend a moment of silent reflections on what we, as a Nation and a people, hope for our future generations.

Goh Meng Seng

Mr Brown Saga

Yet, I have to defer my postings on GE 2006 as something more interesting pop up recently.... Mr. Brown has been told off by the PAP government and suspended from newspaper Today column.

This is what I wrote in Mr. Brown blog comment

Dear All,

I am really touched by the support that many of you have shown here for Mr. Brown. However, I feel very sad that there are so many Singaporeans here who are still having some fantasies about PAP government. Some even believe in PAP's constant calling for "Open Society" when we know very well in reality, this "Open Society" has deliberately "excluded" people (regardless partisan or not) who voiced against PAP.

How could people ever truly believe in the PAP's concept of "Open Society" when the GE has shown us that PAP is constantly thinking of ways to "fix" its opponents? And PAP has consistently labeled its opponents as "donkeys", "troublemakers", "people with doubtful characters" etc . Hey, what we merely did were to contest against PAP's monopoly of power!?

To some extend, Today's editors have somehow kept the fantasies of PAP's "Open Society" alive by inviting Mr. Brown as its columnist. This gives people just a little hope that PAP is serious in building an "Open Society" when they see the "bold moves" by local newspaper. I think unwittingly, PAP has thrown a big stone at its own toe. It has totally destroyed the only iconic resemblance of "Open Society", that have kept the illusion alive all this while.

Incidentally, I do not blame those editors or reporters at Today. Please don't blame them as I know most of them, who are young and idealistic, have been pushing the boundaries as far as they could. I think some of them might just quit from their jobs after this incident as their own illusion of hope for a change towards "Open Society" has been totally dispelled.

The only consolation we have here is the rapid awakening process of Singaporeans at large about the reality of PAP rule. But I guess, this is just too little, too late.

Please people! We should not have any more fantasies about PAP rule, least "Open Society" under its charge. It has happened to Catherine Lim, it now happens to Mr. Brown. Why? It is something for us to ponder about. It is basically because elections after elections, Singaporeans have voted PAP and given it total grip on power. Singaporeans have given PAP the mandate to rule as it wishes and ineviatble, those who are talking against it, would be considered as talking against those people who voted them in.

I have made "politically incorrect" comments to some of the reporters who called me when James Gomez was being detained at the Airport. I said, "Is this country worth fighting for?" Yes, I may be speaking at a time of great emotions, but this is a question that constantly rings in my mind. Are Singaporeans worth fighting for? Worth sacrificing for? Worth risking our jobs, families and life for?

Put it simply, what Mr. Brown received was just a slight slap on his wrist but this created a big hoo-haa. However, when some AP politicians got a blow by the sledgehammer, there is apparently silence among the masses, overwhelmed with fear. Yes, Singaporeans keep looking for excuses or anything that could prolong whatever little fantasies they have in PAP. They are quite forgiving towards PAP but the same could be said about AP politicians. Somehow, they believe or chose to believe in what the local media said about AP politicians.

I was told by many, Singaporeans have very short memories and we should not have any fantasies about Singaporeans being awaken and support for a more balanced political system five years later. I wish to prove them wrong but when I was standing right in front of the ballot boxes in the counting centre, looking at the votes given to PAP team, I knew, I have too many illusions and fantasies on Singaporeans for a start.

Voters have chosen to believe in the smear campaign and the carrots thrown at them instead of thinking of the bigger picture of political development.
I no longer have any illusions or fantasies on Singapore voters and I hope you should not have any on PAP.

Goh Meng Seng

HK 7.1 Parade & Protest March

HK 7.1 Parade & Protest March

I will take an exceptional break from posting my views on GE 2006 for a while to report on Hong Kong’s 7.1 unique "celebration".

I have just returned from the annual 7.1 (1st July) Procession (in Hong Kong). This is the second time that I attended the annual gathering at Victoria Park at Causeway Bay but the first time I completed the whole procession. It is quite an experience.

First of all, here are some background information:

Hong Kong was “returned” to China on 1st July 1997 on the pretext of “One Country Two System” and has become a Special Administrative Region (SAR) thereafter The Hong Kong SAR government celebrates the anniversary every year with a flag-raising ceremony and a cocktail reception for senior officials, prominent business leaders and other select guests. Usually the Mainland Central Government would also send a high-ranking official to visit Hong Kong before or on the handover anniversary day. This year some pro-Mainland organisations even organised a parade to celebrate the special day.

For the first time, the People’s Liberation Army stationed in Hong Kong participated in this celebration parade, showing off their strength and martial art. The parade this year looks like our Chingay procession with lion dance and wayang performers. It also looks like US’ July 4 Independence Parade but with a “Chinese” flavour. The organisers claim to have 50,000 participants in this year’s parade but I really doubt so. Participants were mobilized and ferried to the venue. Sumptuous lunch was even provided. The parade started in the morning and ended by 1 pm.

In strong contrast with the “Pro-Mainland” parade, the Democratic Movement Alliance organised its annual protest and procession at 3 p.m.. Due to the lack of mobilisation mechanism and resources, such event depends very much on Hong Kongers’ own initiative and will to participate. The theme for this year’s march is “Universal Suffrage for Chief Executive”. This year is special in the sense that ex-Chief Secretary for the Hong Kong SAR government who headed the then more than 180,000 civil service, Anson Chan, announced her intention to participate in the protest march in advance. She is also seen as a potential candidate for the Chief Executive. Hong Kong will hold the election of its next Chief Executive in 2007.

The present political system only allows 800 delegates to choose the Hong Kong Chief Executive every 5 years. Most of these delegates are widely viewed as Pro-Mainland individuals. According to the Hong Kong Basic Law installed by both the British and Chinese governments back in 1997, the Chief Executive will have to be elected by ALL Hong Kongers (i.e. Universal Suffrage) 10 years after the return of rule to China. However, the Communist Party of China has interpreted the Basic Law that it does not state the exact year which Universal Suffrage should be implemented as it only states “10 years after return of rule”. Thus, the Chinese authority ruled that it is up to the Chinese
Government to decide on the date for Universal Suffrage.

The estimates of the size of participants for this march range from 28,000 (by police) to 58,000 (by organisers). My own estimate: 35,000 to 45,000.

Nevertheless for this year, we see an increase in participation, most probably due to the Anson Chan effect. However, it is a far cry from the historical record of half a million people back in 2003 when SARS broke out and the Hong Kong economy was hardest hit after its return to China.

Ok, that’s all for background information.

At Victoria Park, I saw Anson Chan being surrounded by reporters and cameras. A group provided marshalling for her during the procession. Along the way, quite a number of bystanders cheered her on.

I noticed many Hong Kongers brought their children along. Some of them even had babies in strollers going for the march! As any other mass protests in Hong Kong, participants were quite representative of the population. Infants, young children below 10, teenagers, young adults, middle-aged couples, people on wheel chairs/crutches to elderly with walking sticks were all there. The weather was quite hot and humid with temperature at 32 degree Celsius.

Organisers gave out printed slogans and stickers which, I believe, were sponsored by Apply Daily newspaper. However, Hong Kongers demonstrated their creativity with lots of home made placards, banners and slogans. There was even a group of netizens dragging a big banner and beating drums!

The organiser, Democratic Movement Alliance, consists of many different groups (NGOs) and political parties. All the different groups have set up stalls along the route to solicit for donations. The march was very peaceful in nature and I did not see any police in riot gear anywhere.

One little interesting encounter occurred along the march. I saw a guy wearing a polo t-shirt with a Singapore Police Force logo on it! I walked up to him and asked him politely (in English) whether he is from Singapore. He tried to answer me in an accented Cantonese “No”, with a stern look. Then I shifted my eyes on the logo on his chest and said, “that’s from Singapore!” He mumbled something and walked off quickly! Well I was thinking to myself, maybe our Singapore Police Force has sent someone to observe the march so as to learn about crowd control for the coming September IMF meeting! If so, then they must have sent a person not that tactically smart! ;)

Anyway, what impressed me was that many young people were involved in organising this march. Many of them also participated in the march as individuals as well. Most of them in their twenties, some of them from the universities. Such activism among the youngsters is indeed a very healthy development for Hong Kong’s political development. This phenomenon stands in great contrast to the apathy generally found in Singapore youngsters. At the Final Destination, the Central Government Offices, four young people were the MCs in charge of the make shift stage.

I believe that the youngsters in any society should be the avant-garde of social-political activism and change. Young people should have idealism, courage and altruism in them to participate actively in social or political movement.
I have realized long time ago that our whole social environment, including the education system, does not encourage such spiritual altruism. We have cultivated our young people with a social mindset based on materialism.
Young people are “discouraged” from expressing themselves politically.

There are a few classic examples. When some secondary school girls started selling the cute elephant T-shirts outside Buangkok MRT station, they were told to stop. When some young bloggers expressed their frank “politically incorrect” views on the net, they were “warned” by the school’s teachers.

PAP may openly say that such political expression is perfectly ok, but they do not realize that they have created an atmosphere of anxiety and even fear among the civil service (i.e. police, teachers etc) by the way they try to “fix” opposition politicians. The inevitable long-term effect is that people, especially the young ones, will just “play safe” and step out from the political arena. Thus apathy will arise.

In Hong Kong, young children are encouraged to express their political stand or views openly without fear. They are taught from young that rallies and protest march is their civil rights but as a mature Chinese society, they do it peacefully without any violence. They are taught in schools, among other things, about what constitutes democracy, corrupt practice, local and foreign political systems etc as part of their civic education. Such civic education is essential for a progressive political democratic development. I do not know what sort of political education we have in our schools now, other than the glorification of PAP’s past achievement, but during my time we were not taught about what Democracy is all about. This is ironic because students are made to recite the National pledge on Democratic Society but nothing was taught about that. We were not taught about our political setup, electoral system and how our votes can be kept secret even with serial numbers on them.

In fact, I would say that the PAP government has deliberately “de-politicize” the citizens throughout the decades. PAP has learnt from the early days that social-political activism is mostly carried out by students. Thus it is only logical to “de-politicize” the curriculum of the schools. Thus the direct result is general apathy in our young people.

After experiencing Hong Kong’s 7.1 protest march, I worry for Singapore’s political future. Politicians need to be nurtured from young, not through some “expressway” politics of GRCs. Political talents are more than being “smart” or “elite”. The Hong Kong Chief Executive has put it very well in his 7.1 message: Political leaders should not view themselves as elitists. They should lower themselves to the level of ordinary folks and cultivate the necessary empathy so as to serve the people better.

Such Empathy could only be cultivated through social-political activism at a young age. And WE DO NOT HAVE IT IN SINGAPORE as compared to Hong Kong where Universal Suffrage has not even been enjoyed!

Goh Meng Seng

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