Impact of Population & Immigration policy

Workers Party NCMP Sylvia Lim has raised a very important point in her speech in parliament. She was questioning the aggressive population policy of jacking up the population size to 6.5 million targeted by the PAP government. Could our social infrastructure cope with such aggressive increase in population?

As far as we know, Singaporeans' birth rate is dropping beyond self-replacement level. So how do we do magic by increasing our population by more than 50% when we could not even replace ourselves? The only way to achieve such aggressive population policy is to open the floodgate wide to allow foreigners to come in, work, get permanent residence or even citizenship.

To cope with such aggressive population policy, there are few areas of concerns:

Jobs & Economy

Although the influx of foreign workers could create internal demands on local services, but Singapore is basically an economy that depends very much on foreign investment and trade. Could our economy creates enough jobs for these foreign workers? If not, then the next question is, would our citizens be replaced by cheaper foreign substitutes?

Health Care

The pressure and stress on our health care system is already showing signs of collapse. To aggravate the problem, the PAP government is pushing for "medical tourism" and this would only worsen the pressure on the local health care system. Those government "restructured hospitals" are encouraged to earn more money from these "medical tourists". But what's the priority and focus here? Government "restructured hospitals" should serve the interests of local citizens first. If there is no excess capacity, why should these hospitals engaged in these lucrative "business" of taking in medical tourists?

On the other hand, PAP government government is reluctant in building new hospitals. It took nine years for it to build a hospital in the North, after much pressure from electoral campaigning. The West side, which house the heavy industrial parks, is still lacking a decent hospital.

When the supply of health care services like hospital is kept stagnant, with an increase in population and extra demand caused by the promotion "medical tourists", the rise in health care cost is inevitable. And we are seeing shortages of hospital beds and blood quite frequently in recent years.

Education

Education is the pillar of Singapore's progress. This is especially so when we are a small country that depends very much on human resources. And it is only logical that the quality of life of Singaporeans could only be improved if the education level of Singaporeans at large is improved.

From a historical perspective, those countries that put consistent focus in education excel well for their citizens and economy. Finland, Germany, Japan etc. So much so that many others try to emulate them. eg. Hong Kong is targeting 60% of their student cohort to get post-secondary education, even go to the extend of introducing "associate degree" and pushing for more institutions to provide higher diploma and degree courses.

In contrast, our PAP government is giving more places and scholarship for foreigners/ permanent residents to get into our universities! The argument that MTI of USA has 40% foreign students is absolutely flawed. There are hundred of universities or colleges in USA that provide tertiary education for Americans and they could afford to have a few colleges that could have high percentage of foreign students. But in Singapore, we only have 4 universities and we are giving 20% of our TOTAL university places to foreigners? Hong Kong has a population of 7 million to 7.5 million and they have 12 universities now and still trying to increase the numbers. So how many universities should we have to cater for a population of 6.5 million that provides at least 20% of places to foreigners?

Public Transport

We are facing a stress on our bus and train services right now. During peak hours, these basic public transport system are packed with people. Off-peak hours, frequency of buses and trains are pretty much lower.

Hong Kong is a good example for us to examine as its population is about 7 million. At that population level, its train consists of 8 cabins instead of 6 (that we used here in Singapore). However, its frequency of train services is pretty much higher, regardless of peak or off peak hour, compared to Singapore. During peak hour, its frequency could be as fast as 30 seconds to 1 minute per train. Off peak hour, average waiting time will not last more than 3.5 minutes.

Looking back at our train system, are we ready to cater to a population of 6.5 million? 6 cabin-train system is definitely insufficient to cater to a population of 6.5 million! If we are to increase the number cabins, it may need massive modifications to our existing rail and stations infrastructure!

Housing, Property & Space

I do not know whether our housing policy could possibly cater to a population of 6.5 million with about 40% or 50% foreigners. this is basically because there will be bigger fluctuations in demand while supply is sticky. The recent spike in housing prices and rental is a testimony of such demand fluctuation in play. Housing supply normally lacks behind demand changes basically due to time lag of realization of supply to cope with demand structure.

The situation is worsen by the fact that there are a lot of foreign funds speculating on local housing prices. These funds are fluid and could be withdrew easily. This impact on the quality of Singaporeans at large is yet to be seen. But the crash of 1997 is a good indication of the massive wealth impact on local Singaporeans. Many people who bought a house to stay back then, including me, are caught in the crash and become negative asset holders, even though we are not speculators!

Conclusion

The ultimate question is this: ARE WE TRULY READY for such aggressive population & immigration policy? There are two aspects:

1) Are we investing enough in our infrastructure to cater for such a population boom?
2) Are we having enough laws and regulations to protect our own citizens from the negative impact of waves of foreign influx?

This is something for all of us to think about.

Goh Meng Seng

Hong Kong Protest March

Yes, this is again the annual celebration of the return of Hong Kong SAR to People's Republic of China. In fact, this year is one of the more important celebrations as it is the 10th Anniversary of the establishment of Hong Kong SAR.

This is also marked by the annual huge protest march organized by the Democratic Alliance of Hong Kong. There are various themes and agenda on the table for this year's protest march but the main theme is still pressing for Democratic changes to the electoral process of the Chief Executive (CE). They are still pressing for Universal Suffrage for the election of the (CE) instead of the electing the CE via the 800 delegates mostly appointed by the Beijing Government.



I have attended the past two years' protest march and I am glad I have the opportunity to attend my third this year. This is a very good exercise for me to feel first hand how "Asian people" could conduct peaceful political gathering and protest march in Asian cities. It also reminds me that in a supposedly "materialistic" Asian cosmopolitan city like Hong Kong, it is still possible to have active participation by its largely middle class residents in such social-political movement. It also enhances my belief that such political-social protest march is not necessarily a source of "instability" but rather, a show of maturity of modern civilization. In fact, even Hong Kong Government is even proud to present this as an "achievement" or heritage of open society to the world in many of their publications. This years' official publication that commemorates the formation of the Hong Kong SAR has put up a big photo of the legendary half a million protest march held in 2003 as an illustration of the kind of freedom that Hong Kongers enjoy under the law.

The following photograph is a powerful demonstration of the political maturity of the Hong Kong society in spite of the fact that it is just a city under the rule of the communist China.



On the background is the big billboard that was constructed for the celebration that has just taken place in the morning where there were a parade of lion dance, dragon dance, performance etc. The protest march is carried out in the afternoon using the same location, Victoria Park, as the starting point.

On the very same day, there are other celebrations like Parachuting show by the Chinese army, people queuing up to see the two new pandas given to Hong Kong SAR, a 23 minute show of fireworks in the evening...etc. But it seems that there are not much of a conflict between participating in the various celebration events and participating in the protest march. I guess it is in fact they have taken the annual protest march as a kind of celebrating the establishment of Hong Kong SAR as well.

On second thought, I think they have not equated going on the street to protest as something "non-patriotic". In fact, there are articles by the protesters that argue that joining the protest march is a show of patriotism or love of Hong Kong. It does not mean that patriotism could only be demonstrated by those joining in those events of celebration.



In fact, the relevant authorities like the police, St John Ambulance etc has been actively engaged with the organizers to make sure that the whole march could be completed successfully without any major incidents. Negotiations were carried on the time that is needed for the whole protest march, weeks prior to the actual day. For a relative new (10 years) establishment like the Hong Kong SAR, it seems that the SAR government are more open to such democratic freedom of expression than Singapore which has declared independence for more than 4 decades.

The Hong Kong society is truly inclusive and tolerant of diverse ideas and freedom of expressions. Although the main theme of the whole protest march is focus on Hong Kong specific domestic political demands like Universal Suffrage, but it also allows voices of the minority activists such as the foreign maids from Indonesia (see photo below).




Most Indonesian maids in Hong Kong could speak Cantonese and they are more conscious of their rights in Hong Kong. In fact, I could say that they are more politically aware and organized than their counterparts in other places. They are demanding fair treatment, higher minimum pay, more off days...etc. But they also show support for the Democratic fighters in Hong Kong as we can see from the following photo, Indonesians standing on the road side, waving their flags and shouting "Ka Yiao" which means "press on".



There are also different groups of people with their own agenda. Some of the more organized ones normally voice their displeasure over some municipal issues like protesting the building of fish market right under their flats or protesting the unfair acquirement of their properties for redevelopment etc. The following photograph shows one of the more organized group of people protesting of the land acquisition of their properties for redevelopment.



Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) also participate actively in the whole march setting up booths along the marching route, using loud hailers to voice out their concerns. What catches my eyes is the participation of undergraduates from the Hong Kong University's Student Union. They have even published a booklet with collection of essays specially for this protest march.



This is an important observation as it would mean that the spirit of political activism has been successfully passed on to the future generations. In fact, it will become one of the core values of Hong Kong society and its "elites".

One of the basic core values of Hong Kongers is demonstrated during the march:- Creativity. Smaller NGOs with limited resources will use more creative means to attract attention of Hong Kongers to their messages. Some will dance with their messages written on the wooden clips held in their hands (Chinese writing means "Independence of Media").



Some will mimic the traditional dragon dance with white cloth signifying "White Terror" with a banner written "Stability above everything" (note: this is the infamous phrase spoken by the Chinese leaders in the past) pasted on its mouth. They chant a rhyme in Cantonese that means "White Terror celebrating the return of HK to China". Not only that, they have a drumming team accompanying them too!









Of course, there are also those more "traditional" ways of expression by means of simple creativity.



Creativity is also shown in the entrepreneur spirit of Hong Kongers during the march. Who says protest march will definitely be bad for business? The following 7 Eleven staffs have shown extraordinary initiative by capitalizing on the crowds that are brought about by the march itself!



I did not finish the march this year but it is quite a refreshing experience. Every year I have different inspiration from my participation in the march. To think of it, it is quite a sad irony in fact.

My own country, also an Asian city, has constitutions that guarantee our rights to peaceful gatherings but the ruling party uses its administrative power to deny any other political parties to hold political gatherings, least protests or demonstrations except political rallies during election periods. The reasons given, ironically, is in essence, similar to the Chinese Communist Party "Stability above everything else".

We pale in comparison with Hong Kong when it comes to political openness and activism. The right to peaceful demonstration is not merely a process itself. It involves a lot of other implications in terms of identities, grooming of activists, raising political-social consciousness and it even has the power to create common shared values and social cohesion.

Demonstration of differing views or political ideals are not necessary divisive. It may be a demonstration of views that is contrary to the government's stand but it also allows the society to listen to views of the NGOs and those of marginal, minority groups. In the whole process, it will raise awareness that there are certain issues or concerns that the mainstream politicians or press may not touch on for various reasons.

The right to demonstration and the willingness for the ruling party to allow demonstration of differing views is the ultimate yardstick of "openness" of the whole system. There are of course possibilities of rowdy happenings during demonstration but I think if WP could hold political rallies that attract tens of thousands of participants that could come and disperse peacefully and orderly, I do not think Singaporeans are "trouble makers" at all.

Singaporeans are after all, like Hong Kongers, mostly middle class citizens who are mostly well educated. Although there are "racial sensitivity" involves but I think throughout the decades of Nation Building, multi-racism has become one of our key core values. Mutual respect is built upon such shared values. And I believe we could stand the test of radicalism and we could self-regulate extremism.

Alas, I do not think I could see any changes in my lifetime because we are all entrenched in the bogey man fear. Fear is one of the fundamental "core values" of Singapore and it is explicitly expressed by PAP itself "Kia Si, Kia Su, Kia Bo" (fear of death, fear of losing, fear of wife) and of course, "Kia Zhen Hu" (fear of government). PAP understands this very well and their reasoning is always capitalizing on this FEAR... FEAR of riots, instability, withdrawal of foreign investments...etc.. if we allow demonstrations!

One army officer has explicitly told me this, opposition cannot make progress in political contests basically FEAR itself is one of our core values. This is also why Singaporeans generally lack entrepreneurship and the courage to take risks. Well, I will leave this to my coming articles on Core Values.

Goh Meng Seng

团结党积极招募党员 打造“自力更生”形象 -- Zao Bao

News report on Chinese newspapers ZaoBao, 18 June 2007 on NSP's transformation

团结党积极招募党员 打造“自力更生”形象

● 游润恬

　　每逢星期天，如果你到一些热闹的组屋区邻里中心走动，也许就会见到身穿橙色汗衫的一群人在那里走动。他们都是国民团结党的党员。

　　这个反对党自今年一月脱离新加坡民主联盟之后，便积极招募新党员及打造“自力更生”的新形象，还在三个月前招揽了工人党前中委吴明盛。

　　党主席张培源接受本报访问时说：“自从加入民联后，我们已有两次大选没突出自己的身份。现在我们脱离了民联，首要任务就是加强同民众的联系，让他们重新认识我们。”

　　这个政党论党员规模，实力仅次于工人党，但是始终没能建立起鲜明的形象。因此，它决定在党员于周末访问新镇邻里时高举本身的旗帜，而建立自身“品牌”的计划就是从党员访问选民时的穿着着手。

　　张培源说，从两个月前开始，党员走访选区时都一律穿上橙色短袖汗衫。

　　吴明盛如今已是团结党的中委，所肩负的责任是对外宣传，目标自然是打响党的招牌。

　　他受访时说，团结党最近也革新了党报，换了新的名称及设计。旧名称《团结报》（NSP News），现已由《国民之声》（North Star）取代。

　　据最新一期的《国民之声》所刊登的一篇文章解释，党报取新的英文名称“North Star”（北极星），就是要以这颗从地球上能看到的最耀眼的星星来代表团结党，并且以它在天上的固定位置来显示团结党可以为人们寻找方向。

　　文章指出，团结党的标志就是方向盘里常见的北极星图形，带有“为新加坡的政治发展提供所须的指示灯及方向”的意义，并以此象征我国政坛可以有更多元的声音和制衡机制，人民也应该有更多的参与。

　　团结党招募党员的工作也取得一定的成绩。据张培源透露，单是今年二月份就吸收了五名党员。当询及最新的进展时，他不愿透露详情，只是说：“我们正在同另外几个人洽谈，也有一些已离开我们的前党员可能会重新归队。”

考虑到东西部 设地区联络点

　　这个政党今年初把总部从牛车水迁到惹兰勿刹。在积极招募党员之际，它也准备扩大活动范围。

　　张培源透露目前正考虑在东部和西部各设一些“地区联络点”。它是委派居住在这些地区的党员担任这些联络点的基层联络人，不一定是租用地方设立党支部。

North Star - Transformation of NSP

The National Solidarity Party has finally relaunched its party organ, renamed "North Star" instead of "NSP Newsletter". NSP has not only changed the name of its newsletter, we have also given it a brand new professional look.

This is part of the ongoing effort by NSP in trying to embark on a massive transformation of its political platform. I am proud to be part of this effort of transformation. In the months to come, there will be more changes, major as well as minor ones, to be made to the whole party platform. The following is one of the article published on the first issue of North Star:

North Star – Polaris of Singapore's Political Development

National Solidarity Party has come to a new phase in its effort of renewal. Under the new leadership and management of a relatively younger group of leaders, it has embarked on a series of reform, restructure and repositioning of the party.

We are relaunching NSP Newsletter as North Star to signify a major milestone of change in our party's development. Why North Star?

The best known star that one could possibly identify from Earth is Polaris, which is commonly known as the North Star. Its position will hardly shift according to the change of seasons. As such, it has been the most important star since ancient time that human beings have depended on for their navigation through land as well as sea during the night. It is the guiding light for those in darkness for centuries.

Our party's logo is actually the Polaris which appears in compasses. It symbolizes our commitment to provide the necessary guiding light and direction for Singapore's political development, from an era of total darkness towards a brighter future. Two decades ago, when NSP was inaugurated, Singapore was immersed in an era of total political darkness.

The People's Action Party has entrenched its monopoly of power for decades and it has used every means to protect its strong grip over its power. In comparison with the active participation of social-political activists of the 1950s as well as 1960s, the deafening silence of such political activism in the 1970s and 1980s was a sign of political regression. In spite of strong economic growth and development, our social, cultural as well as political developments were totally neglected.

It was under such circumstances, the National Solidarity Party was born. We have the aspiration of playing a constructive role in rebuilding our political system towards a more balanced, democratic and matured system that is truly inclusive in nature. We believe that a monopoly of power by a ruling party is unhealthy for the Nation in the long run. We believe that there must be checks and balances installed in the whole political system in order to safe guard the citizens' welfare and interests at all times. We believe that there should be more diversity of voices and cultivation of more citizenry participation in our nation building effort instead of being dictated by the ruling party alone.

What we have observed throughout the two decades is that the ruling party, People's Action Party, is not totally open to criticisms. It has used its dominance in parliament to implement changes to the constitution of Singapore to further entrench its monopoly of power. PAP has admitted that without the GRC system, it will not be able to prevent some of its seats from losing to the opposition. It has admitted that only with the GRC system, its new candidates will be able to get into parliament with the help of its heavy weight ministers. It has also used its dominance to redraw electoral boundaries to its maximum advantages. It has even used HDB upgrading as a form of pork barrel politics to win votes during elections., openly warning voters that their flats will not be upgraded if they do not vote for PAP during the election.

PAP has evolved from the iron fist, strong hand tactic authoritarianism to the seemingly “softer”, sophisticated technical authoritarianism. Such technique has successfully allowed the ruling party to sell unpopular policies such as the GST, increased pricing of HDB flats etc. However, this is still nothing lesser than a monopoly of power play.

In our view, all these political development under PAP's monopoly of power are not in the right direction towards a more open, mature and inclusive political system for Singapore. The initial aspiration of our party founders twenty years ago are still very much valid today. NSP should continue to play the role of the Polaris of Singapore's political development amidst the prolonged darkness of political monopoly of power.

We sincerely hope with the support of Singaporeans, our party could continue our long quest towards a better Singapore with a stronger entrenchment of democracy instead of the entrenchment of authoritarian rule. We also hope that with our North Star shining and guiding our political spirit of true democracy, Singapore will enjoy a progressive development in our political system whereby each and every Singaporean's welfare and interests will be taken care of.

If you are interested in getting a copy of the North Star, please get it from our weekly walkabout for $2.00 per copy.

Goh Meng Seng

The UNPUBLISH NSP Press Release

Well, the title says it all! The local English papers did not carry the following NSP press release even though the Chinese Zaobao did put up a column at the bottom on one of its page.


Press Release - Responsibility and Social Repercussions of Escape of Ex-NKF Chairman Escape

Wed, Jun 06, 2007

The National Solidarity Party (NSP) shares the frustration of the public over the NKF issue which has dragged on for more than a year. The high public expectation in extracting justice ended in the incredible jaw-dropping development where Richard Yong, a key player in the NKF saga, fluidly escaped the gazes of the authorities, and fled Singapore while owing a huge sum of public money to NKF whilst being declared a bankrupt.

We are outraged over how “a matter of hours” of lapse by the authorities has practically brought down 4 decades of efforts in cultivating a public spirit of spontaneous charity. The social repercussions from a collapse of public trust in institutions meant to safeguard their social interests are simply immeasurable.

It is a total disaster when a defaulter of public funds slips through the tight law-enforcement net without undergoing the due punishment. Every such ‘success’ story emboldens more law-breakers to test the authorities, and impose further duress on the security of the nation.

The repulsive event further deteriorates what remaining sense of generosity there was in Singaporeans when the NKF incident first came to light. It also inevitably erodes public confidence in the ability of the relevant authorities to execute their duties diligently and responsibly.

The lapse is all the more lamentable considering that the defaulter had a few months earlier divested his private properties for a personal gain of $7.5million, and attempted to dodge the authorities by not reporting his whereabouts. Despite the cues, the authorities had not taken tighter precautions.

The frivolous approach of the authorities is inexplicable, considering how the authorities have the track record of freezing assets of defendants in sensitive legal cases even before their convictions.

The incident has made a complete mockery of the nation’s proclamation of good governance, further strengthening the case for the need of checks and balances, and more transparency in matters of grave social concerns.

On behalf of the indignant public, the NSP would like to know what measures the authorities are going to take to satisfactorily remedy the situation, and recoup the public’s hard-earned money donated through an innocent sense of trust. The authorities owe the public a thorough and convincing explanation for the “extraordinary” oversight.

Until the necessary justice is administered, public cynicism will gain in strength to threaten the precarious social coherence. Together with Singaporeans, the NSP is keen to see an acceptable closure to the saga, and nothing less will do.


Central Executive Council
National Solidarity Party

Coming next --- CORE VALUES

I have been away for weeks in May to serve my country--- reservist training. Yes, this is the second time I have been called up for reservist training this year but I have no problem with that. I have been asked to "volunteer" for a third time this year but still considering about that. (Note: under the law, any NSmen could not be called up for more than 40 days in a year for reservist training unless he volunteers himself to do so.)

During this period of reservist training, lots of things happen:

1) Our soldiers died in the Taiwan air planes crash

2) NETS announces rate hike

3) Richard Yong, ex-NKF Chairman who is the key player in the charity's scandal reportedly "disappeared" right after he was declared a bankrupt

4) Mr. JB Jeyeratnam gets discharged from bankruptcy and announces plans to form the new political party Democratic Reform Party

All these happen during my reservist training period. I do have things to write about all these happenings but alas, most of the time I was too tired during this period.

I have an opportunity to question one of the most relevant officer involves in manpower about the compensation of those who died in the tour of NS duty. This is after reading what was reported in online news about our Defence Minister making remarks about "being realistic" in the compensations for the dead soldiers. Frankly speaking, I am very pissed off by such insensitive remarks and I think Singaporeans should tell the ministers to be "realistic" about their annual salary too!

Yes, no amount of money would be enough to compensate the loss of life; the loss of the love ones. However, it has bigger implications than the amount of money paid off. It affects morale of the men and women serving the country. I could really imagine how my men would say to me in future in camp training, "Sir, be realistic lah, if we work too hard, too siow on (on the ball), if something happens to us, the Defence Ministry will just tell us or our family members to be 'realistic' about compensation! Who will take care of our families? Better play safe, take it easy and not too seriously..."

As for the NETS rate hike, it is the most unbelievable "reasons" I have read so far! Well, I will leave it to the people to judge whether such reasons are justifiable or not. But it does bring back a subtle point I have been telling my course mates that as an economic trained individual, I HATE MONOPOLIES, be it in economics or politics. If we really have no choice but to be stuck with natural monopolies, then they must be regulated.

As for the "prolonged" NKF saga, what many people feared has finally come true: one of the key player of the scandal has fled the country after being ordered by the court to pay legal compensation amount to a million to NKF. The funny thing is this, since Richard Yong has sold his properties for $7.5 million, by right he would have the money to pay NKF the $1 million. He chose not to pay and wait to be declared bankrupt. And yet, he did a last minute stunt of fleeing the country on the day he is being declared bankrupt? It is so dramatic! Anyway, NSP has just released a press statement on this incredible incident.

Finally one good news. Long time political veteran fighter Mr. JB Jeyaratnam has been discharged from bankruptcy. He has announced plans to start a new party, called Democratic Reform Party. Congratulations to JBJ and his comrades!

This will roughly sums up the main issues happening during my period of reservist training. This period of time is also a good time for me to take leave from my political involvement for a while, so to have more time for reflecting on some more important issues. It just happens that the course I have attended during this period provided me with great amount of inspirations.

I will sum up my learnings and new insights in my next article, "CORE VALUES". This one will be an important piece of writing of the year.

Goh Meng Seng

Crutch Mentality Of Public Transport

Latest: One supporter has made a podcast out of this article. All thanks to him/her! ;)

PAP government has taken every fine measures to prevent "crutch mentality" from developing among our citizens. Any tiny suggestion of "welfarism" is considered as a big taboo.

However, we have been witnessing public transport companies raising fares every now and then and this is done with the blessings of the government. Ever since public transport companies are being "privatized", the reasoning is always the same; these companies must make money. It seems to me that only transport companies are "blessed" in such a way that a profit will be guaranteed no matter what. Of course, the easiest way for a public transport company to make money is to raise fares. If cost went up, raise fare to cover the short fall. Never mind if the companies themselves lack efficiency or lack creativity in making money from other means.

I have put up an article on fare hike before and here again, I am going to show why we should not let transport companies to persistently ask for fare increases.

The two most important aspects of a public transport companies are:

1) Serving the masses
2) Provide convenience

These are the responsibilities as well as the means that the companies could make money from. However, if a public transport company only think of making money out of charging fare alone, then it will fail miserably. It should learn about what "cross subsidies" can do to boost bottom line.

If a public transport company only thinks about making money out of charging fare, then it will inevitably end up in a vicious cycle of losing commuters and thus ridership, forced to increase fare. There is nothing mysterious about this. One way to make more profit is to squeeze cost. This means that to increase the number of trips a commuter needs to take, reduce competition, reduce frequency of services, increase fare....etc.

This is partly why we end up with an interesting situation here whereby the cost of car is so expensive but yet, Singaporeans are still prefer to have a car of their own. This is basically because public transport has become so inconvenience and unbearable.

I have learnt from the HK public transport model that the main profit is generated from sources other than the fare itself. Due to the competitive environment, bus companies in HK have to provide efficient system of bus services. This would mean an increase in costing but they could cross subsidize it by having more advertising income. If you look at our buses on the road or the trains, you will realize that advertising space is not fully utilized.

If you walk into the HK's MTR station, you will realize that every space possible for advertisement will not be left empty. Every space available for shops that provide convenience is not spared. The trains will have digital board running with news updates and advertisement. Every MTR stations or bus terminals are linked closely with some residential flats. The newer MTR stations are built together with shopping malls as well as residential flats on top or just linked next door. Some projects are done by the train company in cooperation with other property developers. It means that train stations are integrated with residential projects to provide maximum convenience. In return, the train company earn a cut from development as well as property maintenance. By doing so, it will retain higher ridership and in the end, higher profits from advertisement.

Have you seen any MRT station in Singapore which is integrated with residential projects? Could you find a shopping mall with residential flats on top standing next right to a MRT station? There are residential flats with as many as 20 flats of 30 storey high sitting next to a MTR station in HK! This is one of the fundamental reason why Hong Kongers prefer to take public transport instead of driving their own cars. And by doing so, the train company get to hold on to a strong demand of commuters by virtue of convenience. On the other hand, by virtue of the massive commuters it has, it could command a good return from advertising because its effective and efficient in reaching out to consumers.

If we look at the design of our town planning, it seems that most people need to take feeder bus service before they could reach a train station or the bus terminal. It not only inconvenience commuters but also added cost to them. In the long run, with such time consuming, costly as well as inconvenient system, people who could afford a car will give up on public transport.

In Singapore, it is a total dismay in such strategic thinking. When the development of Ang Mo Kio Hub was given to Singapore Labour Foundation, it was first planned to have residential cum office on top. However, for some reasons, the idea was scrapped. Now, if the project is given to either MRT or SBS Transit, the outcome would be very different. These transport companies could earn rents from the shopping mall as well as the offices, at the same time, earn from the sales of those residential flats on top. Why not? But no. No shopping mall projects or condominium projects near any MRT stations or bus terminals were given to the transport companies! Why is the case?

If the transport companies were given priority in developing the shopping malls and condominium or residential projects surrounding it, it could better incorporate linkages to these projects. Furthermore, it would rationalize according to its priorities and business model. Alternatively, city planning in Singapore towns must be revamped. It means that land near the transportation nodal points must be marked out as residential cum shopping malls. The overall strategic thinking of both the transport providers and city planners must change in Singapore.

I would say that local public transport companies should be more aggressive and creative in making money instead of waiting for the approval of fare hikes. Instead of strengthening their means to create value, they have been diminishing their value in the name of "cost cutting". Frequency of their services have been lowered. In the long run, ridership will fall. If we aim to accommodate 6.5 million people, how can this go on like this?

The demand of regular fare hike is a crutch mentality in the making. There are really many other ways that public transport companies in Singapore could make profits, not just from fare but from their strength in convenience and the masses they command. If we continue to allow other GLCs or SLF to develop prime areas in towns instead of the transport companies, how could there possibly be full utilization of resources and cross subsidies to public transportation companies?

In comparison, our public transport companies have not fully capitalize on advertising revenue as compared to their Hong Kong counterparts. Instead they have put more time in thinking of ways to maximize profits by means of creating more demand on services via re-routing and feeder bus services. However, this inconvenience commuters and will result in loss of ridership in the long run.

While our government always self proclaim to be "World Class" that command "World Top Salaries", I think they should do better than increasing public transport fare hikes every now and then. It is time to evaluate efficiencies of public transport companies in terms of generating other revenues rather than over depending on revenues from fares alone. Most importantly, stop the crutch mentality of public transport companies depending on increasing fare hikes to increase profits. Please think out of the box!

Goh Meng Seng

Singapore Political Comics

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Nationhood-- what will bind us & what went wrong?

Yes I know I have promised to write the article on whether we should let local transport companies to continue to depend on Public Transport Fare Hike or not but recently there are good discussions going on about Nationhood, patriotism, emigration and stuffs like that.

A good article could be found at this blog named "Chasing Idle Dreams".

There is also an open letter by an ex-journalist posted on The Online Citizen

There is also an article on Today:

Not a recipe to win hearts over
More intrinsic appeal needed to woo overseas locals back

Siew Kum Hong

I WENT to Singapore Day in New York a couple of weeks back. I was there for work, was with a Singaporean friend living in the city who wanted to go, and eventually found myself in Central Park on a bright, sunny Saturday.

The event was undoubtedly a success. The hawkers were a big hit, with some queues taking up to two hours. Still, some Singaporeans I spoke to had reservations, even as they enjoyed the food.

Some queried the registration requirement and amount of information requested, and wondered if the Government is using the event as an excuse to gather data on overseas Singaporeans. Others found the tone of the event — which included National Day songs belted out by homegrown entertainers — off-putting, as it reminded them why they had left Singapore in the first place.

While I applaud the idea of Singapore Day, I think these views are nevertheless valuable and interesting. There was a certain fuzziness around what the event sought to do, but I doubt it was a sinister effort to track overseas Singaporeans, a theory I find borders on paranoia.

Was it a disguised attempt at getting Singaporeans to come home? If so, it needs to be more sophisticated in its approach. The performance of the National Day songs came across as being over-the-top and contrived.

A Singaporean who liked the idea of re-connecting with her country was turned off by the hardsell and rolled her eyes at the brochures on integrating returning Singaporeans' kids into our education system. I also met more than one gay Singaporean, who, regardless of however much he or she enjoyed the event, were all convinced that they would never return home.

I prefer to take the Government at face value and think that the event served to refresh connections with overseas Singaporeans, to remind and update them about Singapore.

However, I also noticed certain unflattering aspects. There were no activities for kids. The American husband of another Singaporean noted the irony of flying in Singaporean bands that sounded exactly like many other bands in New York. (The highlight for me was the getai skit from Royston Tan's upcoming film 881.) There was a lack of recycling bins despite the number of Yeo's-sponsored canned drinks being guzzled down.

And, as pointed out by another Singaporean, it was a "typically Singaporean" event, with a singular emphasis on food.

I was bothered by this display of food as the overarching — and apparently sole — factor that unifies Singaporeans. (And I am at least as greedy as the next food-loving Singaporean.) The identification of eatables as being at the core of "Singaporeanness" betrays a certain pragmatic consumerism and materialism. If being Singaporean is so intimately tied to something extrinsic, what will happen when it is gone?

Singapore Day hinted at the troubling answer. The crowds thinned considerably as the stalls ran out of food. Few stayed for the entertainment flown in from home. Fewer paid any attention to the displays and booths touting the developments at home and that of overseas Singaporeans. In fact, there was a lack of interest in anything other than the food — and when the food was gone, there was little interest in anything at the event at all.

Food can be replicated, even if it is difficult to do so authentically. New York-based movie director and foodie Colin Goh said all the local fare at Singapore Day was available in New York except for the chwee kueh. That was the first item to run out.

The sad truth is that while food is the easiest and surest way to tie Singaporeans' minds to Singapore, it is a tie that does not bind tightly, if at all. We would do well to develop and emphasise other ties that are far more intangible and emotional — and hence tighter and less easily displaced and replaced.

This will require greater subtlety, creativity and resources. Perhaps Singapore could be "recreated" through miniature replicas of familiar landmarks. Instead of including rubber bands in goodie bags with instructions on how to play "zero point", a zero-point competition could be held for children and adults. Another suggestion I heard was to have people register for a Friendster-type social networking service, to tease out connections between people.

The aim of events such as Singapore Day should be to engage people's hearts and minds, not just their stomachs. Otherwise, overseas Singaporeans may flock to future Singapore Days, but the events will not deepen or strengthen their links with Singapore.

The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel, commenting in his personal capacity.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/186635.asp

I have touched on this topic before under my first few articles A Singapore without Singaporeans back in 2005.

But after reading all these articles, I feel that I need to put down my thoughts after meeting some young undergraduates as well as watching the "banned" interview by Martyn See.

This is what I wrote:

What will bind a people or even a Nation?

In our persistent pursuit of economic success, which is the basis of PAP's monopoly of power, we have forgotten all about the other pillars of the Nation, mainly culture. Food culture is merely one small of the whole spectrum. Have we developed our unique culture?

Well, to some extend, one could say that our "unique culture" is mostly about negative aspects: Kiasuism, Kiasism and the government will say, Singlish is not a desirable sub culture language.

Singapore used to be the cultural centre of Southeast Asia back in the pre-WWII, 50s and 60s. This development is in tune with a more liberal political settings where hundreds of flowers blossom. You could even read about great debates between newspapers, not merely politicians.

Choirs, writers, song writers, plays, painters... etc. you name it you have it. Singapore, though economically speaking not top of the world, but it is the Paris of SEA in terms of the richness of its cultural development.

After the misadventure of "Malaysian Malaysia", everything seems to change overnight. We have traded our cultural development and political rights for the economic miracle. The era of "White Terror" came right after that and lasted throughout the 1970s. "White Terror"? What "White Terror"? Some young undergraduates have asked me recently. If one is to write something critical or just a little bit similar to the leftist or communist literature, you will be call up for tea in ISD or even locked up. This is one singular political tool that has stiffen cultural development and even up to now, we still could hear of censorship on political interviews and films. A generation or two have been lost in this era of cultural whitewash.

White Terror era is also the dark ages of social-political activism. When young, socially conscious students or activists organize themselves to fight against the social injustice that they saw in the society, it will be quickly termed as "leftist" or even "communist" elements and thus, ISD will step in. How could you cultivate a generation of passionate citizenry by clamping down on all social-political activism? We could not possibly groom a generation of citizens that are passionate about society with such closed minded administration. Up till now, a simple protest be it in persons or using cardboard White Elephants are still being scorn off.

The fact that our young "elites" lacks such understanding or knowledge of Singapore's social-political-cultural dark ages is quite alarming. Why? A nation or a people has to know and learn their history well in order accumulate wisdom and cultural upbringing in not repeating mistakes of the past. But under one party domination, this is just too "inconvenient"! A simple interview with an ex-political detainee is deemed as "undermining confidence" in the present administration!

When a nation that loses its cultural development, loses its soul. And naturally, how could a tree without deep roots grows higher? Least binding its branches?

In the 1980s, PAP realized that something has to be done and thus we have the "new initiative" of big bang National Day celebrations with all those "Count on Me Singapore" songs. Thus, it is not surprising that they actually used these songs in the New York event. That is, pathetically and sadly, our only "cultural heritage" that could be "remembered" as a people.

Here today, due to the fact that this nation and its people has not really learned about ills of the past history of "White Terror", has repeated its persistent scorn at "sub culture" like Mr. Brown's hard hitting humorous podcast, censored plays and films of social-political nature. We can't post political videocast nor podcast... not ven the simple use of music and songs are not allowed in political rallies during general elections! This is how "open" we are!

Will there be hope in Singapore? To cultivate active citizenry and thus, passionate loyalty to the country, not to the dominant party? When will history not become "inconvenience" or "undermine confidence" of present government so that our future generations could have the courage to face our history, good or bad, together as a people and a nation? The answer is so obvious.

Goh Meng Seng

NSP Press Release - Labour Day Message 2007

The National Solidarity Party (NSP) stands in solidarity with the workers in Singapore. We are strongly of the view that each and every Singapore workers has contributed tremendously and significantly to the building of this nation. We lament however the lack of sincere treatment by the PAP government towards the hands which toiled to keep Singapore afloat.

The clearest testimony of that affront is illustrated in the PAP government’s unabashed claim that the nation owes its billions in GDP to the “extraordinary” leadership of the PAP, and as such the PAP must necessarily be compensated with “extraordinary” escalating wages. While the GDP of Singapore has grown over the years, the salaries of many Singapore workers have proportionately stagnated, seen tokenish improvement, or sadly even regressed.

Singapore workers have been mercilessly pounded by salvoes of undignified government measures such as non-negotiable hikes in GST, property tax, utility charges, public transport fares, postage cost, medical fees, education costs, and even PAP town councils fees. The PAP government does not pause for an empathising moment from inflicting punishing measures on the workers.

We are painfully concerned that many workers are now unable to accumulate sufficient savings to contemplate a decent retirement at old age, or to meet their medical expenditures. We are equally disturbed that the PAP’s more liberal policy on foreign workers has seen a collapse in salary floor for the lower-income workers. This trend is now rapidly infecting the middle-income workers caught in a hard squeeze of facing cheaper foreign competition and higher cost of living while receiving lesser state subsidies.

It is all the more deplorable that the PAP government now decides to prescribe the “bitter medicine” of urging workers to “work for as long as he can”, and to completely forgo the concept of retirement. It is also painful to see workers, especially those who have lost their jobs through the sordid government policies, literally begging for an increase in state assistance, only to be seen as a liability by the PAP government who wastes no time dismissing the pleas as one stemming from a “crutch mentality”.

The NSP is disappointed that Singapore workers are unable to enjoy the fruit of their 40-years of labour, needing to practically ‘work to their graves’. And to aggravate matters, the workers’ unions in Singapore have evolved from one amplifying the muffled cries of concerns of the workers, to one serving as a mere communication-bridge to disseminate and persuade workers to accept debatable government labour policies.

Nevertheless, the NSP is optimistic that Singapore workers will be steadfast in their quest to seek a fairer alternative for themselves and their future generations. We are hopeful that the Singapore workers will one day regain the sense of respectability and purpose that is enshrined in the original spirit of Labour Day.

We wish all Singapore workers peace and hope.


Central Executive Council
National Solidarity Party

My next article....

My Next Article will be on Public Transport. We are expecting another round of Public Transport fare hike and I will examine whether our public transport companies are developing a "crutch mentality" in demanding fare hike every now and then. :)

My article will mostly base on my understanding of the Hong Kong transport companies, including their train companies.

Goh Meng Seng

Finland has "Mediocre Govt"?

I wanted to rebut MM Lee's comment in parliament during the debate on Ministerial pay hike on the Nordic countries having "mediocre" governments when their government leaders are paid less than Singapore's "WORLD CLASS TOP PAY" political appointment holders. But it seems that it would be more appropriate to let those from the Nordic countries to rebut him straight out.

I have a special interest in Finland's economic development as well as its education system when I started off my research on "Thinking Economy" or what is commonly known as "Innovative Economy". Finland's success in turning its economy around after suffering huge unemployment and recession after the fall of USSR is well documented. There is no reason for Singapore's leaders not aware of such prominent modern economic miracle.

Finland's education system is one of the most broad based and sophisticated. Finnish have one of the highest education level in the world and this has transformed its economy from "knowledge base" economy to one that is driven by "social-technological innovations". They are already few steps ahead of Singapore in terms of strategic economic development. This fast economic development pace is driven by a well represented, multi-partisan government that values democratic political-social consensus.

It is really unimaginable to hear MM Lee trying to justify a hefty pay rise for our already "WORLD CLASS TOP PAY" ministers by running down countries like Finland! The truth is, even our WORLD CLASS TOP PAY ministers are visiting Finland to learn from them with regards to the re-designing our local education system!

Anyway, this is an article taken from mrbiao.com
.

Danish citizen responds to MM Lee’s “mediocre government” comment

April 23rd, 2007 by mrbiao

Today, I received an interesting comment from a reader all the way from Denmark. Here is his well-researched and insightful response, reproduced in full.

————————————–

I read with interest Mentor Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s remark in Singapore’s Parliament that Denmark, Finland and Switzerland can afford mediocrity in the remuneration of their ministers.

I shall restrict my observations to Denmark and Finland.

These 2 Nordic countries reward their leaders, in both the private and public sectors, somewhat less handsomely than Singapore. Despite this, I would suggest that both countries’ governments are by no means mediocre, and neither have they evinced any indication of being able to afford it.

Finland has managed to weather the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 90s, a market for 20% of its exports, in no small part due to its successful transformation from a resource-based to a knowledge-based economy. Its leading multinational, Nokia, is the market leader in the mobile telecommunications industry, with a global market share of 36% in the manufacture of mobile phones (Q42006) and revenues of €41.121 billion (2006). While most of the credit for this success story can be attributed to the Finnish private sector, Finland’s government had a significant role to play in creating the optimal framework for the flourishing of the technology sector. From the mid 1960s onwards, there were special efforts to expand higher education, with a law on higher education passed in 1966, the result being that Finns are some of the most well-educated people in the world.

The Finnish government was also instrumental in pushing for the promotion of GSM as the European mobile telephony standard, based on the Nordic countries’ experience of NMT, an earlier, pan-Nordic standard. The early adoption of GSM in Finland provided the platform for Nokia’s global breakthrough. Decades before the global liberalization of telecommunications markets in the 1990s, Finland’s telecoms market had already been liberalized, and thus had possibly the world’s most competitive market for telecom operators and equipment makers. Credit for this is in no small part due to the role of the Finnish government. Finland devotes a higher percentage of its GNP to research and development than most countries, and the role of the government has been critical, especially in the early 90s, where public-funded research increased despite recession.

In the case of Denmark, the government made the decision in the 1970s to intensify research into renewable energy. Important research was carried out at Risoe, the government research centre, into wind energy. It took political courage to subsidize feeder tariffs for wind turbine-produced electricity. That decision has paid off handsomely. Today, Danish-based companies have a global market share of ca. 50% in the manufacture of wind turbines, an industry with global annual growth rates of 30%, and estimated revenues of €10 billion (2006, est.). Indeed Denmark’s Vestas has recently set up engineering and research facilities in Singapore.

In more general terms, I would submit that both countries’ systems and governments are not mediocre, and are like Singapore’s, acutely aware of not being able to afford it. Rather than Europe being there to catch Finland and Denmark should they falter, both countries have been net contributors to the European Union budget since their accession. Mediocrity is not a hallmark of either society either. In the last 30 years, both countries, despite their small populations, have produced individuals who have won Olympic gold medals, Oscars and Nobel Prizes. They have produced New Economy pioneers, for example Finland’s Linus Torvalds, the creater of Linux (an open-source operating system and competitor to Microsoft’s Windows) and Denmark’s Janus Friis, co-founder of Skype (a peer-to-peer telephony application).

In conclusion, both countries’ positions as globally competitive economies and high-achieving societies have been attained against the backdrop of low corruption levels, and high levels of trust between citizens and government, and seemingly despite high taxes and comprehensive welfare states. This has not required stratospheric levels of remuneration of government leaders and officials.

Mr. Gregory Glen
Holstebro, Denmark

Mr. Brown has done it again!

Hahaha... Mr. Brown has done it again! The Bak Chor Mee man is back to talk about Ministerial Pay Hike! Hilarious.

Link: Mr. Brown

If after listening to this podcast you decide to send a strong message to PAP ministers, you could sign the online petition against Ministerial pay hike here.

Goh Meng Seng

政治使命

Before going into the lengthy and serious article, let's have some laugh by watching the video... all thanks to The Online Citizen



最近闹得议论腾腾的部长加薪渐渐落幕了，但今天拜读了早报庄永康先生的大作“开路人的道德感召力”(二007年四月十五日，第十七版早报)后，我感受良多。

虽然整篇文章只用部长加薪作话头，但可以从他描述越南的政治状况里看到他笔锋直指行动党部长加薪所触及的政治道德问题。这种“含蓄”的“软中带硬的力量”的确令人钦佩。这令我想起不久前有网民问我的一句话，“你是政客还是政治家？”。

何谓政客？又何谓政治家？对我来说，政客就有如古代在权力走廊川流不息的说客(又叫食客)，只为名利奔跑、献策。他们“从政”的目的，不是为着什么伟大政治理想，很多时候也只是为糊口或拿点赏钱。有许多更是滥竽充数，不学无术的读书人，眼里除了“黄金屋”也就没有其它，更不用说什么“无私的奉献”了！但是当时的贵族为了巩固自己的政治势力，大都愿意付出重金养了一大批食客，原因无他，就是宁可聘请错人，把庸才当人才，也不肯让政治对手聘请到真正的人才，以威胁自己的政治地位！这就是用钱垄断“人才”的计谋！但这也助长了庸才混水摸鱼的形势。要怎么从一堆参差庸才的食客里选出真正的“人才”，那得靠各“主子”的慧眼了。但就算是选出真正的“人才”，这一些人归根究底还不算是一流的“政治家”。

真正的政治家就大有所不同。政治家有他们的理想和执著。他们能为了理想，不惜一切，甚至牺牲自己的性命和幸福也在所不惜。他们往往在追随者的心目中都有崇高的精神领袖的地位。他们也往往以身作则，以无私的奉献感召身边的所有人为着政治的信念而奋斗。他们凭着坚强的毅力为那时代的政治使命而奋斗。但是，不是所有的政治家都能成功。有一些更是一败涂地。只有少数成功者才会有人记得。这就是政治现实的残酷。

政治家大都是产生于他们那一代人对政治的诉求与渴望而汇生出的政治使命感。如果没有对现实环境不满而拥有强烈的使命感和勇气去追求变革，政治家就无法拥有坚固的精神支柱与信念去开垦充满烂泥沼泽的政治荒野。如果没有梦想，政治家就无法去创造出对未来的憧憬来激励追随者，让他们在面对种种困难时永不言放弃。但政治家也不能永远沉迷于自己的幻想之中。他也必须面对现实生活残酷的一面。他也必须为三餐温饱的问题烦恼。他也必须面对政治上许许多多的现实问题而做出抉择和取舍。终究每一个人都必须为自己、家人、社会和国家负起应有的责任。但有一点是非常肯定的是，政治家绝对不会被金钱所收买。这是因为他们都是以精神为粮食、理念为根本，如果他们的灵魂能被金钱所收买，他们的生命就没有什么意义了。对他们来说，这比死还难受。他们宁愿死也不会出卖自己的灵魂。历史上许多“失败”政治家，就算在政治斗争中失势甚至阵亡，他们也不会出卖自己的信念和灵魂。

如果一个政治人物只会去计较自己薪金是否是比得上全国最高的前几位的话，那很肯定的是，他只把他的政治地位看成是一份“工作”而已，并不是什么伟大事业。这些所谓的“人才”也只不过是“技术人才”，称不上是“政治家”。一个普通中等收入工人的年薪是大约两万元而部长的一百多万的年薪就等于一个小市民50年的薪金！这也就是说部长一年的薪金就等于小市民一辈子所能赚取的薪水！一个真正的政治家绝对不会再为这样优厚的薪酬而叫屈，嚷嚷着要再加薪！

政治家需要环境来培育的。难道我们现今社会真的无法培育出新一代的政治家吗？纵然我们长期被强行灌输功利主义的价值观，甚至大选时也被执政党利用物质上的利弊来威迫利诱选民，我还是相信在许许多多新加坡人当中存在着一些不畏权势，不为利诱所收买的人。上一次大选至少证明了有33。3% 的新加坡人就有这种骨气，深明大义的认知。

一个健全的社会体制必须依靠真正有意愿为大众服务的政治家带领，才能走向光明的前程。如果要使整个体制持续百年，我们就不能单靠一些只有高薪才能养廉、只有高薪才肯为国家社会服务的“人才”！我们真正需要的是有远景、有理想、有魄力更有政治使命感召的政治家，而不只是“技术官僚”！

现今的社会之所以会产生唯利是图的现象，知识分子和所谓的“政治人才”都只在乎薪金够不够高而失去了“先天下之忧而忧，后天下之乐而乐”的情操，是有原由的。执政党在长达50年的政治垄断之下，忽略了人文的培养和刻意的鼓励人民追求物质上的满足而减少政治的参与，甚至说服国民给予执政党几乎100%的权利垄断。久而久之，国人就逐渐的对政治服务失去兴趣，反而只着重于物质上的追求，忽略了精神上更高层次的探索。这也就是为什么理应带有“为国服务”的政治职位也需要以数百万、比普通市民多出50甚至100倍的年薪才能“吸引”到“人才”来担当！一个国家社会的知识分子和精英本应是国家的栋梁，但到头来也只为百万薪金所动，而不是以“当仁不让”的政治使命、精神去负起政治领袖的职责，这正是新加坡的悲哀。

我时常警惕自己，千万不要忘了为何而战，为何而踏出这一步，去淌这政治浊水。纵然我算不上是什么伟大的政治家，但至少我很清楚自己的政治使命，那就是打破行动党的政治垄断，建设一个更平衡的民主机制。最重要的是，千万别让自己变成一个平庸，没有政治信念的政客。这将是一条很艰辛的政治道路。

吴明盛

NSP Press Release on Ministerial Salary Hike

Finally, the National Solidarity Party has issued a press release in response to PAP government's intention to increase ministers' pay. ;)

Ministerial Salary Hike – Please Don’t Leave Workers Behind

The NSP shares the people’s displeasure over the latest campaign by the PAP government to justify salary hike for the civil servants. The government should not think that the common people would not understand the implication that the hike will invariably translate to even higher salaries for the Ministers. Such an assumption would be highly insulting to the people.

The NSP does not disagree with the fundamental principle that career civil servants should receive just rewards for their useful contributions to the public. However, as officeholders elected by the public, it is wrong for Ministers to demand salaries far higher than the non-elective state employees. Furthermore, it is inadmissible to rigidly peg Ministerial salary benchmarks to the highest earners in the private sector instead of pegging to the Ministers’ measurable performance.

Even without more salary increment, the Ministers are by no means short-changed. Ministers (as well as Parliamentary Secretaries and Speakers of the House) are eligible for pension after 8-years of service in their respective offices. Ministers also continue to draw a ministerial salary even as they are cashing in their pension. And with a salary that would effortlessly qualify them for the small exclusive segment of multi-millionaires of the country for which there are less than 2%, there is little reasons for Ministers to think they are underpaid.

The Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Lim Swee Say recently commented that pay hike for Ministers will benefit workers. Regrettably, he did not clarify that the pay hike will mainly contribute to the widening of the gap between the median wage (the wage below which 50% of the workers are earning) and the average wage, a figure skewed higher by having more high-earners. Moreover, workers have to brave hikes in GST, public transport, electricity, and postal services, while Ministers ‘weather’ a hike in their salary. The NSP believes that the formula for Ministerial salary must factor in the wage disparity between the low and high earners, as well as the structural unemployment rate. We further believe that the formula must be made transparent to the public.

The NSP further questions the logic of Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amy Khor that other countries with low reported salaries for their Ministers would not have a good, clean, and efficient government. We believe the availability of examples like Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland (which the Singapore government had wanted to emulate) exposes the flawed argument that the progress of a country depends on highly-paid Ministers who demand ever more.

Ultimately, we will like to remind the PAP government that the money to fund the salary hike does not descend from the heavens, and will unavoidably result in higher taxes, fees, charges, and levies for the common people, if the country’s reserves are not to be compromised.

In conclusion, the NSP is unconvinced that inflationary salary increment for Ministers is justified. It is morally abhorrent for the PAP government to attempt to misguide the nation into believing that the value of the highest elected public offices of a country is measured principally by the amount of remuneration that is paid to the Ministers. We do not welcome the development where the Singapore government is increasingly opined by the public as ‘political mercenaries’.

We believe that the disquiet from the ordinary citizens warrants the matter to be put to a national referendum. The PAP Ministers should also candidly state to Singapore voters during all future General Elections the price of their service which the nation is expected to pay (if they are elected), so as to accord voters the opportunity to fairly assess their choices.

The NSP respects the frequent proclamation by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong that his government will “leave no one behind”. But with another Ministerial salary hike, almost everyone will be left far behind.

Central Executive Council
National Solidarity Party

Is Ministers' Pay Hike Reasonable? -- Benchmarking Ministers' Pay

Is Ministers' Pay Hike Reasonable? -- Benchmarking Ministers' Pay

(You could sign the online petition against Ministers' Pay hike here)


So the spin is out in full force, trying to justify the impending ministers' pay hike. Expectedly, the civil servants' pay is being used as a collateral in PAP's argument for its ministers' pay hike.

There are a lot of emotional out burst from the middle class that protested against such obscene amount of “suggested” pay hike. The more likely result would be that PAP will just say that they are not going to implement a “full pay hike according to the benchmark” that they have set for themselves, but maybe half or even less of it. Even so, we must first examine whether pay hike is justifiable. If we want to do so, we must examine carefully the logic of the benchmark that they set.

As we know, in the private sector, remunerations are determined by performance and it is never about “how much a person could earn” from other companies. i.e. It is never about “opportunity cost” of individuals' value but rather, the value or performance the individuals could contribute to the company.

Thus, the benchmark that PAP government has set for themselves have laid on the wrong fundamental premise. If they want to be like the private sector, then they should benchmark their salary according to the private sector's standard of benchmarking and not the amount of the money that they are giving.

For the record, ministers are entitled to pensions after they have served 8 years and above 55 years old. In fact, according to PM Lee in one of the parliamentary sitting, there are ministers who are drawing a pension as well as a salary at the same time. Do we have any private companies here in Singapore that give pension as well as salary at the same time to their employees?

PAP has argued that they need to “attract talents” thus need to benchmark their ministers' pay to private sectors. This logic is flawed for the following reasons:

1)When a private firm employed their talents, they have set it clear the remuneration packages. But PAP Ministers were elected without telling voters how much they will cost taxpayers! No private firm will allow their CEOs to raise their remuneration package AFTER they are employed! They can't just say, hey, the other firm is offering their CEO XXX amount of salary, you should do the same. PAP should tell voters how much their ministers will cost voters during elections so that the voters will decide whether to “employ” them by voting them in.


2)Private firms benchmark their leaders according to their performances, so PAP government should do likewise.


3)By benchmarking ministers' pay according to the top earners, then it would mean that as long as PAP government could make sure the top income earners could get more each year, their own ministers' pay will increase accordingly. This is illogical as the government should take care of the interests and welfare of MOST Singaporeans and the ministers' should be benchmarked according to the interests of the majority of Singaporeans instead of the few top income earners.


4)We will end up with a situation that when income disparity widen, ministers' pay will continue to rise even though the average workers' income is stagnant or worse, regress over time. This is totally absurd and unacceptable.


5)Great politicians are recognised and respected for their visions, leadership and sacrifices to the common good, definitely not for hefty million dollar pay. No matter how small our nation is, if we could not cultivate such public spirit of serving, I do not think our Nation will last very long in time to come.


6)PAP government always wanted to claim that they are “First World Government”, it should only be logical for them to benchmark their ministers' pay to “First World Governments” around the world. Many people have shown that other ministers around the world do not need the kind of million dollar annual salary of our government to run a country with more people and higher GDP. Some have even achieved first in economic efficiency as well as competitiveness. It would simply mean that the “productivity” of our ministers will definitely lose out to these truly “First World Governments”! PAP government has always complained about “high wage cost” of workers and that wage increase should not be more than productivity growth. Why isn't ministers' pay benchmarked against GDP growth instead? Or overall productivity growth of the nation? Double standards?


7)The list of top income earners will change from time to time. It means that those in private sectors may face risk of pay cut or will earn less in the year. But the irony is that the ministers' pay will not go downwards together with the individuals who are listed as top income earners in any one year. They will always compare to those earning more, not lesser! This is inherently counter intuitive. Which jobs in the world will guarantee you that you will always be the top income earners in your country?

So, the next question is, how should the ministers' pay benchmarked? What is a reasonable benchmark in view of the job nature of the ministers?

In order to answer this question, we should first determine what is the primary role of the government? It is to take care of the interests and welfare of the citizens. Thus, in my view, ministers' pay should be pecked closely to indicators of the majority of citizens, instead of the privileged few.

From the statistical point of view, the median income should be the indicator that represents the income that most workers earn. Instead of using the mean or the higher percentile of income earners as an indicator for benchmarking, the median income should be used instead. (The Gini coefficient which means income distribution/income gap is based on the difference between median and mean income. If the Mean (average) income is very much greater than the Median income (income at the 50th percentile), it means that the income gap has worsen.)

The aim of the state is also to ensure that the economy could produce enough jobs for citizens. The most undesirable situation would be citizens being trapped in prolonged structural unemployment. Thus I think it is only logical to include the rate of structural unemployment into the calculation of ministers' pay.

Of course, the last criteria should be ministers' pay rise should not be above Total Factors Productivity (TFP) growth rate. This will only be consistent to the treatment to normal workers on the ground.

My suggestion here of benchmarking of ministers to “performance” may not be exhaustive in nature but the fundamental idea is that we should benchmark their salaries to their performance as leaders of the country instead of what other people are getting in private sectors.

Goh Meng Seng

Human Organ Transplant Act

Human Organs Transplant Act

Just for Info, if you want to opt out from HOTA, please visit this website or get this form.

The recent uproar over how a “declared brain dead” but breathing patient's organs being forcefully removed from his body under the Human Organs Transplant Act (HOTA) has significant impact on various areas. One of my friends rang me up to express his unhappiness over the methods used in enforcing this law. Although he is not totally against HOTA but he feels that there is a total lack of tact and empathy from the hospital in enforcing it.

I have been pondering over this issue for the past few weeks, not only on the way the patient's immediate family members are being treated in the whole process but also on the merits and the philosophical MORAL grounds of HOTA.

I guess nobody could argue with the fundamental aim of HOTA in saving lives by providing the framework whereby organ transplants could be done legally. However, it is important to examine on how the law is being drafted.

While human organs trading is prohibited in Singapore, HOTA allows the state (government's proxies such as hospitals etc) to harvest human organs from certain dead persons which includes persons who died in accidents or those declared brain dead. The most important clause in HOTA is that it allows the state to harvest these organs if the dead did not sign any documents that indicates his objections while he was alive.

There are a few issues which I would like to highlight:

1)When HOTA allows the state to harvest organs from persons who are declared brain dead, then it would mean that those doctors must be 100% sure that the patient is indeed brain dead. But as far as we know, there are instances whereby persons who were declared brain dead “revived” themselves after a certain period of time. Thus, it is impossible for anyone to be 100% sure that a person lying in coma is indeed brain dead.


2)It is the state's responsibilities to educate the public on the necessity of supporting Human Organ transplants by means of donating their organs when they are dead. The clause in HOTA allows the state to harvest human organs without the need of direct consent from the dead or his immediate family members. This will naturally mean that the state no longer need to carry out the necessary educational program to cultivate the people in believing in the merits of human organs transplant.


3)Silence means consent? This is a moral issue. Many people are ignorant of HOTA and the requirement of their documented dissent before they could “opt out” from such scheme. I think in many instances, PAP government has taken things for granted. It has chosen to take the easier way out by using “opt out” schemes for various things. But when it comes to HOTA, it does not merely involve money but human organs, emotions and personal religious beliefs as well. Could the state come up with a law that says if the one did not “opt out”, the state could use his body for drug experiments when he is admitted into hospital! The state could further come up with laws that dictates that if one did not “opt out”, the state could forcefully take blood from people if the needs arise (especially so for those with rare blood groups)!


4)The most fundamental question is this, do your dead body belong to the state after you are dead? If not, then why does the state empowers itself the right to do whatever they want to your body after you are dead? If so, then why the state did not take up the responsibility in conducting the necessary funerals and cremation of the dead bodies? Instead, it just takes whatever it wants from the body and then dump it back to the immediate family members!


5)If saving lives is the primary concern of the state in enforcing HOTA, then my question is this: citizens have already done their part in “donating” their organs to save lives, will the state provide the necessary organ transplant surgery for those who need these organs FREE OF CHARGE? This would mean that whether you are rich or poor, you will have the equal chance of receiving organ transplant without the need to pay the hefty fees for such transplant to take place.


6)If the state is not going to sponsor FREE organ transplant surgery, then it would mean that only those rich individuals who could afford the expensive surgery will get the organs. The problem is, rich or poor, if you did not “opt out” of the scheme, your organs are “liable” for harvesting when you are dead. Is this a “FAIR” system?


7)Who will benefit from the “donation” of the organs if the surgery is not free? Those who need the organ transplant as well as the hospital and doctors that are doing the transplants. The ultimate question is this, if we do not allow people to trade their organs for money, but in the end, this law conveniently allows some other people to benefits indirectly from such “donation”!


8)Those who drafted this law really lack empathy. They have made various assumptions about death and take those family members for granted. This is especially so when there is a asymmetric of knowledge between doctors and layman on what constitutes “brain dead”. For the patient's immediate members, it would be difficult to convince them that a breathing patient is indeed “dead”. Thus, the conflicts arise from the recent case is within really expectation. It is really unimaginable that a self proclaimed world class government could draft a law that lacks simple empathy and sensitivity to the citizens.


9)On the other hand, I really wonder how could those hospital staff and policemen could enforce such law right in front of those grieving relatives! How could the law makers expect hospital staff and policemen to enforce such a law on breathing brain dead patients?

My reflection on HOTA is that this government lacks empathy in governance. We should always remind ourselves that we are dealing with human beings, not just mere digits. You could use cold logic to deal with digits but we should use empathy to deal with human beings.

Most of the time, it would be too simplistic to think in such “cold rationale”:

Brain dead= dead = alright to harvest human organs.

The truth is, there are numerous “miracle revival” of supposedly, scientifically “brain dead” individuals in this world. Thus “brain dead” is actually not “definite death” but just a “probable”
death. i.e. High probability that the patient is dead.

Besides, it is just not about whether the patient is truly dead or not, but rather, whether the family members could accept the death in view of a breathing body. We are after all, dealing with human beings, not some robots.

HOTA is merely one of the many examples whereby this self proclaimed “World Class Government” uses “cold logic” to deal with human beings..i.e. Citizens. Everything could be “digitized” and “explain away” without the need of using human empathy. This also explains why many Singaporeans are unhappy of what PAP does (including minister pay rise, GST rise etc) but they are unable to “logically” rebuke PAP's policies. It is just a matter of empathy.

Goh Meng Seng

"Why no queries?"

I read the following report from Straits Time:

ST March 10, 2007
Vivian to opposition MPs: Why no queries?

THE opposition came under fire yesterday from the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS).

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, on the last day of the Committee of Supply debate on his ministry, lamented that none of the three opposition members in the House had filed questions for him.

Dr Balakrishnan said he had been looking forward to their queries.

Instead, he was grilled by his own party members, who had asked very 'probing questions'.

In response, Non-Constituency MP and Workers' Party chairman Sylvia Lim said: 'I'm just going to repeat what I told the minister in the lift earlier. There are still four more years.'

One may get the impression that three AP MPs are not "doing their job" of keeping the PAP government in check. But the truth is, PAP controlled parliament has implemented the rule that each MPs will only have a total of 20 minutes of time for the whole Supply Committee Debate (debate on each of the ministries). 20 minutes for 10 ministries!

If Vivian wants a better comparison, then please tell us have all the PAP MPs use up their 20 minutes quota? I believe the WP MPs have used up all their total of 40 minutes quota! In every budget debate I know, WP MP has not enough time to cover all topics and ministries basically due to this quota. Thus, the only way is to prioritize their questioning. If PAP sincerely want AP MPs to ask more questions, then please do away with the time quota! Else the only way is to urge Singaporeans to vote in more AP MPs!

Goh Meng Seng

Announcement

I have decided to accept the invitation extended to me by the National Solidarity Party (NSP) to be co-opted into their Central Executive Committee. My appointment as NSP CEC member starts from today. I thank the NSP CEC for their show of trust and confidence in me.

In accordance to what I have planned in embarking on the project of cultivating future political talents for Singapore, I will be going into the next phase of preparation. Hope that this program will kick off as scheduled.

Goh Meng Seng

News from 93.8 Live

This is what was broadcast in 93.8 Live:

Former Workers Party member announces plans to groom future political activists


A former senior member of the Workers Party has announced plans to groom future political activists.

Mr Goh Meng Seng, who quit WP over a posting he made on the Internet last November, is forming a group that will be under the ambit of a non-government organisation.

The group is aimed at aimed at cultivating young talent for future General Elections.

Members will be exposed to media and speech training, and be versed in political education and the running of a political campaign.

Speaking to 938LIVE, Mr Goh, who has since joined the National Solidarity Party, said opposition parties here need to have a systematic way to renew its leadership.

"Our aim is actually to build up the political system towards a more balanced system with more checks and balance and more political participation, so we actually have a systematic way of grooming future political leaders. It's not only for opposition, it's non-partisan in that sense."

The group is in its planning stage and is likely to be up later this year.

Mr Goh hopes to groom 84 candidates to fill all the contested seats in future elections.

The 37 year old will also work with NSP in developing the training programme.

Generally speaking, it is a very accurate report on my interview without much distortions.

I have chosen to break this news to 93.8Live exclusively basically because I think the broadcast journalist has shown sincerity. Furthermore, there will be less tendency of distortion due to the fact that they need to broadcast the original sound bites.

Goh Meng Seng

Project on Cultivating Political Talents

After a long retreat from active political participation on the ground, I have reformulated the direction that I should move for the next 5 years.

I have just given an exclusive interview to 93.8 Live about this project. I will be joining Think Centre as well as NSP to embark on this project of cultivating a critical mass of political talents for Singapore. This is in line with my vision of developing a progressive democratic political system for Singapore. This could only be done when there is more balance within the present political system and without the necessary political competition, this could not be achieved.

The mid-term aim is to cultivate and groom enough candidates to contest in all 84 seats as a whole. The long term aim is to build up a feasible model that political renewal could be achieved at all levels in a continuous, sustainable way.

The programs that I intended to start with Think Centre is as follows:

1) Media Training I : Rally Speech Training (Scripting & Speech Delivery)
2) Media Training II : How to Conduct Media Interview
3) Media Training III : How to Conduct Press Conference
4) Media Training IV : Branding Strategy
5) Media Training V : The Tricks Camera Can Do
6) Media Training VI : The Strategy for New Media
7) Political Education I : Political History of Singapore
8) Political Education II : The Electoral System in Singapore
9) Political Education III : Political Ideologies
10) Political Education IV : Political Systems
11) Political Education V : Overview of Singapore's Political Development
12) Political Education VI : Political - Economic Structure of Singapore
13) Political Education VII: Legal Perspectives of Politics in Singapore
14) Electoral Campaigning I : Pre-Election Preparations
15) Electoral Campaigning II : Overview of Campaigning (include logistics aspects)
16) Electoral Campaigning III: Election Agents, Polling Agents & Counting Agents
17) Electoral Campaigning IV : Candidates & Election Strategies
18) Electoral Campaigning V : Post Election Management

The above are the basic skeletons of what I intended to do. They are not fixed yet and subject to changes. Most probably Guest speakers or trainers will be invited to conduct these sessions which will be in a form of interactive learning and experience sharing.

Goh Meng Seng