WP's Path away From Opposition Unity

This may sound surprising to many opposition supporters but it is from the horse mouth. Mr Low Thia Khiang has said it in the Punggol East rally that WP has chosen to walk its own path when he tried to explained why WP didn't go into talk with other opposition parties with regard to candidacy for this by-election.

This basically means that from WP's perspective, opposition unity doesn't exist at all or they will not work towards opposition unity. That explains why WP was too eager to go into 3 corner fights in Moulmein Kallang and Punggol East back in GE2011 instead of consolidating its forces to contest in Marine Parade which is right in its backyard.

Many people have attacked me during the hustling back in GE2011 right up till now for criticising WP, putting up fantasies and imaginary Sour Grape and Bitter Gourd theories but I don't really blame them because they are ignorant of the finer details of opposition politics. They accused me of destroying opposition unity when I reasoned that WP was the one that is unreasonable in its insistence to create potential 3 corner fights. They even accused me as "PAP mole" when I suggested that other opposition parties would have to test out the relative strength to WP by contesting in Hougang By-election. It is an important strategic move to prepare themselves because make no mistakes about it, WP will definitely go into massive 3 corner fights in the next GE.

I have been a member of Workers Party from 2001 till 2006 and I have quit after the GE2006. The main reason that triggered my resignation has been explained in this blog before. We have a good contest in GE2006 and logically, any aspiring politicians like me, Chia Tilik, James Gomez etc, won't want to quit for no good reasons. There are various factors affecting our individual decisions but mine was pretty straight forward.

However, I must said that I felt disillusioned after GE2006. Right after GE2006, Mr Low has wanted to draw a clear line between SDP and WP. He wanted to denounce Non-Violence Action movement that was carried out by SDP as well. I believe the trigger of such thought came from SDP's contest in Sembawang GRC which WP has claimed but did not plan to contest anyway. There are of course other issues as well. I have opposed vigorously against such propositions at that time.

I reasoned that if WP was to do that back then, we may agitate hardcore SDP supporters. It will just take 2% or 3% off WP and that may just make a decisive difference between a win or lose in any contest in future elections. I also reasoned that Non-Violence Action should not be denounced totally by any political party like WP. This is basically because there will always be a great possibility that PAP may enact or use whatever administrative rules to curb opposition party's activities. I have put up the example of NEA using the illegal hawking rule to curb our selling of party newspaper Hammer. From time to time, we have met NEA officers giving warnings to opposition party activists for selling our newspapers on the streets. What happens if NEA is to come down hard and apply this rule harshly? Are we going to just obey and stop all political activity? NVA may be the only option left if such situation arises.

Indeed, such situation did arise prior to GE2011 when I took over the SG post of NSP. While NSP continued to sell its newspaper North Star in defiance of NEA summons, WP stopped for the whole month. If it is not for NSP's continuous pressure and refusal to pay up for the summon, all opposition parties like WP won't be carrying out their weekly newspaper sales until now! If NSP was to pay up the fines and admitted we were in the wrong, we would expect NEA to apply the rules and summons all across the board on all political parties! Unfortunately, during the tough deadlock with NEA, WP CEC member has openly accused and blamed NSP of "dragging them into the mud". It seems that WP does not realize that it is on the same boat with all other opposition parties instead of on the same boat with PAP, which it has suggested lately.

On the other hand, as I understand WP as a key member, WP has always blown the trumpet of two party system, especially after a good GE2006, which I always have reservations with. To work towards the two party system, it would mean that WP will have to thumb down all other opposition parties as well... or even destroy them with 3 or multi-corner fights and such. This is an undesirable direction and detrimental to democratic movement and development for Singapore.

The progressive aims for freedom activists is first to breach the obstacle of winning the first GRC, then to slice down PAP's monopoly of power by winning at least one third of the parliamentary seats so to deprive PAP the absolute power to amend the Constitution as the way it likes. Whether the system evolves into two party system should be of the last concerns.  But apparently, WP doesn't see it this way.

Thus when WP insisted on contesting in Moulmein Kallang back in GE2011, I knew it wasn't just the simple reason of training their new young candidates. The reasoning of geographical proximity was even more outright ridiculous and unconvincing because Marine Parade would be the best choice for WP as it is sitting right next to Aljunied and East Coast GRCs! It is obvious to me that it is a ploy to trigger a 3 corner fight, with the aim to undermine NSP's growth or even destroy NSP totally.

It was very difficult to explain to many people but I took pain to persuade the scholars, Tony and Hazel, to pull out of Moulmein Kallang at the very last minute for self-preservation. I told them that it was their first election contest and they should not risk destroying their future political career by taking this unnecessary risk. The rest is history.

I cannot agree with WP and Low's strategic perspective in choosing this path of disunity. This is absolutely nothing personal but rather, a very technical difference in opinion on how to bring democratic development to Singapore. Different parties may have different problems but to even suggest that only WP is successful while other parties will only disappoint Singaporeans is much too arrogant to begin with.

For the better or the worse, people and parties change over time. I am proud to say that NSP has evolved stronger after GE2011 and so did SDP, thanks to the participation of new generation of professionals. WP is not the only party that has evolved stronger and it is obvious that other parties have enjoyed the same vote swing in constituencies where their new promising blood has contested.

I believe all these good people who are non-WP members, have great potentials to play an important role in Singapore's democratic development. Mr Low should not write them off that easily. Contrary to his assertions, these new blood have brought promise and hope, not shame or disappointment, to opposition movement as a whole.

Mr Low should leave his political historical baggage down and start to look at the whole environment and situation in a more positive way. If you want to talk about disappointing voters in the past, WP was also guilty of it in the past as well, with mass resignations, lawsuits, scandals (Yawgate is just a year ago) and such. WP's new image only comes about with the injection of new blood right after 2001. Thus, I do not think it is right for Mr Low to imply that others have brought disappointment to voters but not WP. Nevertheless, what had happened in the past, has passed. All parties now are having a fresh start with new generation of politicians joining them.

I just hope that WP will not stray away from the unity of opposition aim in bringing democratic development to Singapore by focusing in cutting down PAP's monopoly of power and enforcing democratic reforms to our political system. Obviously, the advocate of two party system is definitely tainted with self interests. We should focus on winning one third of the seats first an it doesn't necessarily mean that only WP could do it alone.

But I believe, all these are wishful thinking of mine. Premature 3 corner fights will become the norm in next and future GEs. So be it.

However, it would be total hypocrisy for WP people to criticise or scold and whine about other parties of being "spoilers" if WP itself doesn't believe in opposition unity in the first place. Let fair contest takes place but voters must be even more discerning in making their choice in such contests. Opposition supporters should not be confused from now on. They should not vote blindly but instead, should spend more time in assessing the performance, strength and weaknesses of each candidates instead of just vote according to party loyalty.

Opposition politics will never be the same again after Mr Low Thia Khiang's rally speech tonight. I believe that it is basically a public confirmation of distinct departure of WP from the rest of the opposition parties. Maybe Mr. Low feels that with 8 MPs in parliament, it is an opportune time for WP to take flight and establish itself as in the same league as PAP....on the same boat as PAP.  But one thing Mr Low must realize, the only thing could stay constant, is impermanence and this knife will cut both ways.

Goh Meng Seng

AIM, mis-AIM & Punggol By-Election

I have refrained from writing about AIM saga here on my blog officially because of a few reasons. First of all, I feel that both parties, are guilty of politicking without really account to what is the REAL COST to the residents of Aljunied GRC. PAP didn't come clean on how much it has cost for all the PAP TCs back in 2003 in developing the estate management software in the first place. WP didn't come clean on why they initiated the development of the new software and how much they have spent in doing so.

PAP has used AIM as a political vehicle to do politicking in the event of a loss of any constituency controlled by them. Although it is not clear whether they have actually did it explicitly right after losing Aljunied TC (we will never know if a conversation transpired between both parties might have hinted anything of this sort) but apparently there is absolutely no reason for TCs to sell the software to PAP owned AIM and it is obvious that AIM bought the software out of political considerations rather than commercial value. Of course, this is obviously a serious breach of conflict of interest and residents' interest was compromised in very sense. PAP's explanation is totally unconvincing at all and this has been dealt with many bloggers and writers already. I shall not repeat here.

As for WP, it didn't raise the red flag of such blatant conflict of interests until its competency of running the Town Council was put into question and doubt by the Town Council report. In fact, WP has gone on the record to say that the handover was smoothly done. I cannot see how AIM saga, which has been resolved back in Sept 2011 could have affected WP's performance in the whole year of 2012 or how it could delay the auditor's report until now. Apparently, this is just smokescreen of excuse for the below par performance.

Sylvia Lim has filed a motion in parliament to debate about "Safe Guarding Public the Interests in Town Council Management" and PM Lee immediately called for an inquiry by HDB into this matter.

Thereafter, PM Lee called for snap By-election in Punggol East and immediately, Sylvia Lim withdrew her motion, giving the excuse of wanting to wait for the Inquiry to be completed.

Such adverse politicking between the two parties is rather sickening to me. Many of you may not really understand the whole process here, thus I will dissect what the whole matter is all about.

The whole issue of this AIM saga has developed from the small little bickering between the two parties, PAP and WP, into something more important. If such things happen in Hong Kong, there would be an uproar of public opinion over it, on both parties. The issue is MORE THAN AIM itself. It is about REAL Potential Conflict of Interests in management of public entities and the government.

It has happened in places like Taiwan before, whereby the ruling party, has sold public enterprises or assets at dirt cheap prices to companies owned by people related to the party or directly to the party itself. The potential threat of corrupt practices is REAL if such things are not kept in check with transparency and accountability.

However, conflict of interests may not just stop at the party level. What does conflict of interests mean? A political party selling a software developed using by public money to a company it owns? A public entity giving contracts to companies owned by immediate family members or relatives of those running or managing that public entity...is that considered as conflict of interests ? Or even worse, these public entities giving business contracts to companies owned by the very people who manage or running that public entity.... is that considered as conflict of interests ?

Conflict of interests MAY NOT be illegal or criminal in nature as long as bidding processes are done with proper documentation. However the question is, is it politically ethical or correct?

In my view, Sylvia Lim was just too bold to file that motion to be debated on Monday. This is because ultimately, the debate will be focused on how to define Conflict of interests. She has forgotten that WP has been involved in running HGTC for all this while. When you are in charge of a TC for over 20 years, it is difficult to guarantee that you will have no issues of Conflict of Interests at all, regardless of whether or not there are conscious effort in avoiding it. Thus, PAP may just pull out some examples of conflict of interests that happened in WP controlled TC in the past and that would make WP look extremely and extraordinarily bad politically. Unless Sylvia Lim is 100% sure that there isn't any visible or underlying conflict of interests in EACH AND EVERY DEALINGS, CONTRACTS ISSUED etc, she is basically opening up a dangerous front for her own party!

People assume opposition like WP would be angels and above board of everything but is that really the case? For eg, since they attacked on vote buying in HDB upgrading pork barrel politicking but ended up they have done similar act of vote buying when they have that little power in hand, i.e. Lucky Draw for Voting for HDB upgrading. Such thing won't be made known to us if there is no whistle blower.

In the case of town council management, conflict of interests may not be "illegal" though politically not right. PAP has all sorts of conflict of interests and we now know that AIM is one of them but we expect opposition parties not to do such things. If one day, you found out such conflict of interests also happen in opposition parties, how would you think? It would be a total disaster on the political front, not only for WP but for the whole opposition movement.

Apparently, PM Lee took that golden opportunity to immediately draw a clear line from AIM and call for an independent inquiry. It would be unimaginable to call for a By Election immediately if he felt that the parliamentary debate on Monday on the proposed Motion by Sylvia is going to hurt PAP badly. That would be disastrous for PAP's campaign in Punggol but why did he call for the BE? I don't think the PM is that stupid after all and we should not underestimate our Prime Minister. There is no coincidence that he did the both things almost at the same once Sylvia filed that motion. It shows that he is prepared to go for scorched earth, to spill it all!

I believe that the PAP is prepared to go all out to debate on Sylvia Lim's motion and they must have something up their sleeves, they are so confident that they are willing to put Punggol By Election at stake. I guess they should have sensed the unusual courage and boldness of the predictable conservative PAP, thus finally realized that it is not a good idea after all to file that motion. Thus, just like playing the poker game, they blink and withdrew the motion. This is the whole politicking process all about.

This may not be the end of the issue if PAP decide to carry on and ask their own MPs to file the same motion on Monday.

I have long proposed not to have TC managed by MPs. You can read about the rationale here at New Asia Republic and the original write up.  A MP should focus on parliamentary and law making. This should be their core business that voters voted them while taxpayers pay them to do. They should not be expected to run the TC. Else, we will end up with these messy situation of AIM saga and all sorts of politicking that would undermine the effectiveness of the MPs in doing their core business.

As for my views about the impending By-Election in Punggol East, I shall talk about it in my next few postings, if I have the time to write.

Goh Meng Seng

Snap Punggol East By-Elections?

There are several news report going on with regards to the possibility of a snap by-elections (BE) at Punggol East. Singapolitics has reported about it just before noon today, anticipation of the writ to be issued this afternoon.

I have said before that it is best for PAP to call a snap poll because this is their turf and opposition parties would be caught off guard. The best window of opportunity is supposedly to be last month (December 2012) whereby WP was still busy with their performance rehearsals and no other opposition parties are ready.

I thought the BE would have to be postponed till May or June after the window closed and the fact that AIM saga is burning hotter than ever. It would not be advisable to hold any elections when there are controversial issues like AIM saga that could well, become the hottest attack topic for the BE. AIM saga pointed directly to the potential conflict of interests in PAP's dealings and it may extend to other areas. PAP has not come clean on how many companies of such nature it has in its control,

I have not written anything about the AIM saga because I think this saga is more than what it is supposed to be about.

Anyway, situation has changed and if PAP really decided to go into a snap BE now, it would mean a few things.

1) The economic outlook for Singapore is going to take a dip very soon.
2) They are afraid that the AIM saga will deepen and may blow up into their face if there are netizens who managed to dig up more companies controlled by PAP that are involved in business with public entities.
3) They want to catch opposition parties off guard.
4) PAP may have something important on WP's AHTC management issues to attack them.

Well, whether there will be a snap poll at Punggol East, we will know very soon. The first rumored date is Writ issued today, 16 Jan is the nomination day, 26 Jan polling day.

The second possible date before Chinese New Year and Budget is next week writ, 23 Nomination and 2 Feb polling day.

There are leads that say that PAP has procured materials for their posters and civil servants have been mobilized. Stay tuned!

Goh Meng Seng

Afternote: The Writ for By-elections at Punggol East has been issued at 4 pm today. As predicted, nomination day is 16 Jan, polling day is 26 Jan 2012.

The Dummy guide to avoiding AimED fire in Singapore’s DMZ (Defamation Means Lawsuit Zone)

It has now become apparent to all and sundry that hazards, booby traps and land mines abound in the DMZ for well known bloggers , commentators and keyboard warriors great and small. The rules governing defamation in Singapore and what defines defamation are to put it mildly a lot stricter and the politicians more hypersensitive over both allegations and innuendo of actual or perceived wrongdoing. The art of getting one’s points across, whilst avoiding AIMed fire or a threat of lawsuit and or a demand for apology will involve an understanding of word play, ground rules and creativity.

Having getting used to Hong Kong’s high level of freedom, both in speech and expression, the recent legal actions against various bloggers and politicians alike, really sound ridiculous to me. Well, if you were to tell any Hong Kongers that these people could well get into legal troubles by such circumstances, they would have WOW in disbelief. It is rather strange that both Hong Kong and Singapore have adopted the Commonwealth law system but ended up with very different level of tolerance of free expressions on politics, issues and matters of public interests. While I hope that we as citizens should push for a reform in the Defamation Law in Singapore to include Comments on issues of public interests to be included as a legitimate defence against defamation suit, I would also want to share with bloggers at large on how not to step on these bombs for the time being.

Historically from Tang Liang Hong onwards, the mere innuendo or allegation of individual criminal wrong doing has been enough to warrant an actual law suit. On a lesser note, JBJ was sent to the Parliamentary Special Privilege Committee to be censured when he suggested in parliament that CPIB should investigate the HPL saga of giving the Lee family hefty discounts. The defence since then has been to shift from allegations of individual criminal conduct to suggestions to some degree of improper behaviour on the part of the organization to which the individual heads. It has been interesting to note that the PM specifically referred to himself as one of the “individuals” and thus aggrieved and within his right to suffer damage from defamation. The rule of thumb is that allegations of any form should be directed primarily at the Party, and or the PAP.

“The PAP likes to cast itself as the party of scrupulous integrity. On this matter they have a lot to answer for or they will be seen as the opposite foul and dirty, this is not a case which can be dismissed as the mistake of one lone PAP person. The moves they made involve nearly all the PAP MPs in the town council across the board. “


At this juncture one should be aware that the substance of the allegation is a matter of care just as much as to whom the allegation to which it is directed. The substance of the legal letter of demand from Drew and Naiper has made clear that senior political figures in Singapore are sensitive even to allegations of the “possibility” of criminal conduct. The roots of this can be seen in the case against TLH where the mere appearance of an allegation of criminal conduct was enough to constitute defamation in a court of law.

The danger for commentators is that allegations about the possibility of criminal conduct are treated similarly by politicians as allegations about the innuendo of criminal conduct. Unless any one particular commentator has the where withal to withstand extended court cases, what is fair comment or not and whether allegations about “possible” criminal conduct represents defamation before the law can never be decided because it has never been brought before the courts.

In short the answer lies as Alex has done in his articles in raising and critiquing the answers given, calling for investigations and clarifications but resisting all temptation at raising any allegation of criminal wrong doing.


In short the PAP might have made a mistake made disingenuous comments, have not been forthcoming, the town councils might not have followed its own procurement rules, there exists substantive conflicts of interest, Teo Ho Pin has been economical with the truth and less than forth coming on some issues, but that is currently the only way to stay out of the DMZ.


It may not be good to Singapore’s well being in maintaining proper checks and balances politically to have such stringent rules or laws on defamation law but we will have to live with it for the moment. Until the time that we press our MPs in parliament to change the defamation law to include comments which may even suggest impropriety or wrong doings, be it criminal or otherwise, but have legitimate and reasonable deductions on the matters and issues of public interests to become legitimate defence, we will have to live with that. Yes, such defamation law really make us look silly like a dinosaur in the world, especially those practice common laws, but what to do?


My point is that it is only good to have such reform on the Defamation Law, both for citizens, politicians from PAP and opposition likewise. Once this reform is done, there is no need for PAP MPs or ministers to jump up and down with a letter of demand every time a blogger wrote something unwittingly suggesting some criminal wrong doing. They could just politely write to the blogger to clarify and ask that their clarification to be published. There will be no pressure for the politicians to jump into legal action just to show that they are above board. On the other hand, it is quite impossible for anyone to raise the red flag if there is truly wrong doings, be it criminal or otherwise, if such Defamation law is to stay.


One must understand that to lose in a Defamation law is not equating to say that what has been uttered is necessarily falsehood. It is just the case that what has been uttered cannot be proven to be true. TT Durai has successfully sued a couple of individuals for defamation when he was heading NKF, even though, on hindsight, now we know what these individuals have alleged was true! It is only when TT Durai tried to sue SPH but SPH happened to be able to prove what they have published was true, and then TT Durai just fell from the top. But in order to prove anything on such wrong doings will need quite a lot of resources like SPH has. Thus, the investigation should be left to be done by the professional institutions and I believe, this is the best way to clear the names of those people alleged to have done wrong, instead of going through defamation suit that may not be conclusive on whether one is right or wrong at all, as in the case of TT Durai.


On the other note of Dr Vincent Wijeysingha of SDP issuing an apology to Minister Tan Chuan Jin, it is a common mistake people made on asserting someone is dishonest or lying when what he said contradicted the “truth”. This is wrong even when what he has said is contrary to what is known as truth. To assert someone “lying” or “dishonest” means that you have assumed him of KNOWING the TRUTH but chose to say otherwise. That is an attack on his integrity of deliberately telling lies. There could be a case whereby, he is saying is NOT TRUE because he DOESN'T KNOW the TRUTH in the first place. Thus, one could assert what someone has said is NOT true, but NOT jump into conclusion that he is “lying” or “dishonest”.


My simple conclusion is that for the time being, bloggers and politicians alike, should thread very carefully by not suggesting any criminal wrong doing even though there are obvious reasons to come to that conclusions. People with a clear mind would come to that conclusion themselves. At the same time, we should push for a total reform on our Defamation Law to allow comments on issues of public interests immune to defamation law suits. Time has changed and from the recent development, we know that people of high positions could do wrong…. from sex scandals to corruptions. People may know certain information but not enough to prove conclusive on the truth. Such investigation should best be left to professional institution to carry out.


On the side note, Separation of Powers is also an important reform we should push for. The current set up of high concentration of powers is unhealthy for real democracy to prevail. It is only when there is a real Separation of Powers, like what Hong Kong has, whatever findings by the law enforcement unit will be highly respected and not disputed. This is so for Hong Kong whereby the ICAC is highly independent, under the purview of a retired judge or equivalent, instead of the political office. Whatever findings from ICAC will be highly regarded and very few would dispute that.


I may not see all these reforms on Defamation Law and Separation of Powers in my life time but I believe such reforms are necessary if we are to progress democratically.

Goh Meng Seng


Co-writer M.Y.

Insist on Meritocracy, Reject Mediocrity

Wan Bao has always been quite supportive of Workers Party (WP) all this while and it is exceptional for it to be so. This could be seen from the reports on WP since the Hougang By-Elections held earlier on. It is indeed rare to have a mainstream newspaper to be so supportive of an opposition party under Singapore’s unique political consrtruct. 


However, it should not be biased by its support to WP so much so that it would go that extra mile to use reports with twisted angle to attack those who have very different stance from it! (I am of course referring to myself!)

Just like the report shown above, it uses a very definite tone to assert that “majority of netizens feel that there is sourness written between the lines”; it would be totally misleading to those who don’t really know the fact at al! Well, I have checked through this comment posted on my FB and I have found there are over 20 FB friends agreed with my comments and have clicked “Like” while there are just only a handful of those usual suspects of hardcore WP people raising disagreement. How could that be considered as “majority”? Maybe the Chief Editor of Wan Bao should help the reporter to get a new pair of spectacles or that send the reporter to a couple of Statistics classes! Such gross misreporting could damage Wan Bao’s credibility and reputation (that is, if there is any left)!

Well, I am a straight talker and will not try to beat around the bushes. Some feel that this is REAL while more feels that this is just “ignorant” or even “idiocy”; this is just a matter of perspectives. Nevertheless, many people feel that as “politician”, it is better to be “slick”and have a “glib toungue”, must be more “politically correct”. However, isn’t that asking politicians to hide their real thoughts and replace them with sweet talking?  I don’t concur to such hypocritical pretence!

As for my comment, that is serious matter. There are a lot of people disappointed with WP’s performance since last General Elections. Even the so call “political observer” whom Wan Bao interviewed has to settle with the assessment of “WP’s performance is so so”. That is basically just a civil way (politically correctly smooth) of saying “mediocre”.  It is a fact that there isn’t much commendable performance. 

Right from the start, Chen Show Mao has conceded to PAP to become the great fearless Wei Zheng who will speak the truth, in all honesty with their criticisms. That basically means that PAP has become the Emperor while WP becomes the loyal court officials. There is basically nothing wrong to concede to the victor as it is a common practice in ancient history. But Wei Zheng is one who will speak up fearlessly (well, isn’t that as ignorant and idiotic as I do? LOL!) of the truth and facts and isn’t one of the fearful silent coward. However, just after one year plus, why has our Wei Zheng become the silent one on the policy front?
 

WP walks into parliament with the slogan of “Towards First World Parliament” but once in parliament, why are they bringing up such inconsequential questions on cats, dogs and bird droppings? Is it true that there isn’t any other important National issue to be brought up in parliament for debate? Why didn’t they bring up the issue of AIM in parliament earlier on?

Even for that “sure score” issue of ministerial salary debate, WP has screwed up so badly that it was mercilessly mocked by PAP. Not to mention about being exposed of plagiarism right in parliament. My little criticism of WP in my FB is really nothing compared to be shamed in the hall of parliamentary debate. How embarrassing! 

Just when we thought the worst is over, WP exploded with the Yaw Shin Leong scandal. The ultimate shame lies in how clueless WP was in handling such scandal. It has dragged the scandal for nearly a month before it was forced to tearfully sacrificed YSL. Apparently this has put a lot of doubt on the crisis management ability of WP. After the dust settled, we thought we could just close the chapter with a by-election. However, the WP candidate’s credibility was again put to doubt by a leaked minutes of its CEC meeting. Finally, the by-election has a happy ending with the magnanimous support of Hougang voters. But just as we thought all the storms have passed, residents under WP’s wards exposed that WP has used lucky draw to buy votes in support of HDB upgrading! This is the greatest ironic blow to opposition as a whole as we have been attacking PAP of using HDB upgrading to buy votes during elections! This is simply the pot calling the kettle black!
   
Our hearts are bleeding with all these missteps of WP! All these mediocre performance has absolutely nothing to do with the lack of confidence. I have thought through rigorously but I just couldn’t figure out how “confidence” (or the lack of it), as mentioned by the political observer, has to do with WP’s mediocre performance. However, I would say some of the incidents have to do with the over confidence, complacency and arrogance.

It is unimaginable that within such a short period of one and a half year’s time, WP has been making such fumbles in such high frequency and how is WP going to survive for the next 3 to 4 years before the next GE! Confidence can never solve these fundamental problems!

It is inexplicable for the Wan Boa’s political observer to assert that we should give WP one more seat so that they will have the confidence to perform better! This is really absurd! When did we become a country that abandon the core principle of meritocracy while rewarding mediocre performance?  We should insist on meritocracy and reject mediocrity.


If we lose this insistence on meritocracy, Singapore would definitely and eventually end up with a political slimy mud filled with mediocrity instead of becoming “First World” class!
If WP chose to contest the by-election due short term political interests considerations, before it rectifies, consolidate and make adjustment to its present team of MPs, even if it managed to win another seat, it will face the greater risk of having further mediocre impact that would cause even more blunders. This is especially so when it is obvious from Hougang By-election that WP is pretty dry on its talent pool now.
 
WP should stop and reflect upon itself, bides its time in re-consolidation and take stock of its weaknesses before it starts afresh again. Only in doing so, it would be able to meet the high expectations of its supporters to accomplish and fulfill its mission of creating the “First World Parliament”.

Nothing is absolute in this world. More may not be good. We should have quality MPs instead of just quantity. If the slate of MPs are still lacking in quality, it should just give them closed door training to perfection. WP should get its house in order first before it moves forward to win any other seats. In short, it is best for WP to give it a pass for this by-election.

Goh Meng Seng

Afternote: There are two interesting comments from private friends to me

1) If what WP lacks is confidence, then there is no need to reward it with another seat to boast confidence but instead, just send them to those expensive Motivational Talks available in the world!

2) If we are to extend the Wan Bao political observer's advice to commercial world, then companies will need to give those mediocre employees a big pay rise in order to boast their confidence to perform better!

选贤与能，拒绝平庸

晚报一向来都是工人党的忠实支持者，这的确很难得。这可从后港补选到现在晚报对工人党的报道可以看得出来。毕竟在新加坡的政治环境下还能有个主流媒体的报章如此拥护一个反对党，实在是得来不易啊！

可是支持归支持，可别以过分扭曲的角度去报道和打击站在不同立场的人士哦！（那当然是指我啦！）

就有如以上这篇报道，非常断定的说“多数网民认为字里行间酸溜溜”，不知情的人可要被误导了！因为我翻查了这面簿的留言，竟然发现有超过二十几位网友赞成我的说法而按了“赞”，而对我言论不满的人也只不过是那几位工人党超忠实的死硬支持者，屈指可数，这又这么算是“多数”呢？也许晚报主编应该给这记者重新配戴新眼镜了，或送去上几堂统计数学课吧！这样有缺事实的报道，可大可小，但对贵报的信誉（如有的话）可能会造成不必要的损害啊！

我这人是有话直说，不会拐弯抹角。有人认为这样才不失真，但有更多人认为这是“无知”，甚至是认为是“白痴“的也大有人在，真是见仁见智。当然，许多人都认为做为”政治人物“，就应该圆滑一点，应该”政治正确“一点。可是那不是叫搞政治的人物都要隐藏真心，而说些讨好人的假话吗？我可不认同这种虚情假意啊！

 说到我的言论重点，这可是重要话题了。有许多人对工人党从上次大选至今的表现都感失望，就连晚报所采访的”政治观察家“也说”表现平平“。其实说穿了，这只是客套话（政治正确的圆滑）。什么是”表现平平“呢？那就是表现平庸了。工人党的表现乏善可陈，这是众人有目共睹的事实。陈硕茂从一开始就俯首称臣的说要做大无畏的”魏征“，那么皇帝肯定是行动党了。这也算不了什么的，胜者为王，败者为寇是自古真言平常事。但是魏征是大无畏，讲真话，说实事的人（是不是有点像我这样无知，白痴的人一样呢？一笑！），而且绝对不会畏首畏尾的不敢吭声的懦夫。但是怎么才过了一年有多，我们的魏征竟然成为了政策沉默的魏征了呢？

 工人党打着”第一世界国会“的旗号进入国会，但在国会里尽问些芝麻绿豆的小事，如猫狗和小鸟粪便的问题，难道真的在也没有国家议题可陈上国会大厅议论了吗？为何没尽早把AIM这样损害选民利益的政治手段提上议会大堂？

就算是能拿高分的部长薪金辩论工人党也搞到一团糟，还被行动党真正在国会大堂狠狠的”酸“ （冷嘲热讽）了一顿。工人党议员在国会大堂上被揭发是文抄公这事不提也罢了。我这在面簿的网络小空间小小”酸“工人党并没什么大不了的，但在所谓的”第一世界国会“大堂上被对手大肆羞辱一番，情何以堪啊！当我们认为最坏的过去了，工人党竟然闹出了婚外情丑闻。这丑闻是丑在工人党一开始就不懂得如何去处理善后！拖拖拉拉的被丑闻纠缠了几乎整整一个月才以孔明挥泪斩马谡方式了结了。这危急处理能力真是叫人怀疑！当尘埃落定后，我们以为可以补选了事，但就在补选期间，候选人竟然被泄露的议会记录质疑在电视访问中所说不实！补选终于在后港人的宽容下圆满结束。也就在我们以为从此会风平浪静时，又被居民爆出工人党在管辖区内以幸运抽奖为利诱，收买对翻新支持的选票！这对于反对党一向抨击执政党以组屋翻新来收买选票是一种多么大的讽刺和打击啊！简直变成了小巫见大巫了！

工人党这种种的一切，是多么令人痛心啊！这一些平庸的表现，跟所谓的“信心”一点关系也没有。 我左思右想，怎么也想不出与”晚报政治观察家“所说的”信心“有任何关系，倒是想到也许有些事是跟工人党太过自信，自满和自大有关吧。我很难想象在这短短的一年半载里头，工人党竟然会失误频频，那么接下来的三、四年到底要怎么过啊！这不是多点信心就能解决的问题！

更令人费解的是，晚报的政治观察家竟然说要给工人党多赢一个议席，那么就更会有信心表现了！这真是似是而非的谬论！曾何几时我们已经抛弃了选贤与能的核心价值观而拥抱了奖赏平庸的道路呢？我们应该坚持选贤与能，拒绝平庸才对啊！

如果失去这份坚持，到最后新加坡的政治肯定不会成为”第一世界级“而将会沦为平庸无能的第九流混沌污潭了！

如果工人党为短暂的政治利益，在现有的团队还没调整和整顿好就参选的话，就算是真的给它赢得多一个议席，那也只会增加平庸误事的风险。这尤其是，很显然的，从后港补选工人党所推出的后选人看来，已经凸现了它蜀中无大将的窘境了。

工人党如今应该闭门思过，韬光养晦，重新整顿一下队伍，重新出发，才能不负众望的兑现它的政治使命和承诺。

事事无绝对，不是每一样事情必须多就是最好的。议员贵精不贵多。 如果既有的议员还未精，那就得先闭门练兵了。这时候让贤是为上策。

吴明盛

后记：我这篇文章，肯定会引来非议，但是眼看工人党如此的表现，真是痛心疾首。爱之深，痛之切。

SMRT - The Ugly Truth of Ultra-Capitalism

 This is derived from a blog post from Transitional Eternity. 

 It has confirmed my suspicion all along that the workers and drivers in SMRT have been short-changed by the management/Directors by allocating vastly disproportionate sharing of the increase in profits over the years. Director has increased their own fees by a whopping 970% over 11 years while the workers and drivers were given a mere 67% increment. These are derived from the costings found in the annual reports. 

 We have been talking about RISING Income gap or disparity all these while and PAP government just act blur when their own GLCs under their charge are practicing such blatant Ultra-Capitalism of exploitation and unfair distribution of earnings. 

Such practice of Ultra-Capitalism is totally unacceptable and unsustainable. It will be a key of social dis-stabilizer in the mid to long term.

Fruits of earnings of any cooperation should be fairly distributed among the workers, management/directors and the capitalists/investors. The percentage of increment should not vary too much else the income gap or disparity will be widen substantially over time. If this is not kept in check, the whole system may just collapse and chaos may reign. 

Goh Meng Seng

Mr Lui Tuck Yew, the money is over here 

Dear Mr Lui recognizes the need of a pay rise for our bus drivers, has asked commuters last Friday where “where is that money coming from”[Here] after two weeks of deliberate hibernation and expects commuters to pay for the persistent mistakes of SMRT’s poorly-maintained train tracks and exploitation of foreign labour at the expense of wage depression for local workers. His first appearance and golden words came after the dust for the SMRT bus drivers’ strike saga has settled.  

I spent my Saturday afternoon scouting for possible sources of that “money” that our transport minister Lui Tuck Yew demanded. And easily found the pool of money in:

(1) The Directors’ Fees

Steady growth in directors’ fees between 2002 to 2012 and 2007 is the exceptional year which sees a 0.26 million drop in directors’ fees. There are certainly more years of upward growth in directors’ fees than in SMRT’s net profits. By 2012, directors’ fees have grown to a whopping 970% in a span of 11 years.

Contrasting the generosity of SMRT on its directors, the growth of staff costs (excluding directors) is a mere 67%. While directors have seen their fees increased in several folds in the last decade, staff below the directorial level who constitutes the bulk of SMRT’s labour force and where a big majority of these people are directly involved in SMRT’s daily core business, sees little growth in their income.

Not belittling the role of SMRT directors play, however, staff who operate SMRT’s business are neither of negligible importance either. Without these people, directors will be deemed redundant! It is no surprise to see SMRT’s deliberate maneuver of low wages for its operational staff to drive away Singaporean workers and thus, giving way to the excuse of seeking overseas labour at a cheaper price.

When we compare directors’ fees with staff costs, it is not difficult to notice that the percentage growth in the former outruns the latter. Directors’ fees grow at a double digit rate for most years except for 2006, 2007 and 2011, indicting an above-inflation rate of growth for this group with a greater absolute amount than the wages of the majority of non-directorial staff. A 10% increase of a $60 000 fees would result in $12 000 in absolute terms.

Between 2004 and 2005 and 2008 itself, non-directorial staff sustained an actual fall in costs despite SMRT operating at a positive gain in those years. The percentage rise in staff costs ranges between 2.5% to 42.5% and a double digit growth occurred only in 2003 (42.5%) and 2012 (11.6%), where the rest of the decade, staff costs are either at a negative growth or growing less than 7% single digit rate on the average, which if inflation rate is factored in, the real growth is minimal.

Suggestion:

1 million dollars to come off directly from the directors’ fees towards the bus drivers’ increment fund as a compensation for the persistently poor performance of both train and bus services since 2011 and the inconvenience caused to commuters. As SMRT employs approximately 2000 bus drivers [Here], about 30% of its total staff are employed in thebus sector (SMRT Annual Report 2011), one million dollars would bring about an average of $500 p.a. extra.

Total number of employees in SMRT group

(2) In SMRT’s Net Profts

This is one area which private company SMRT could consider dipping into for raising bus drivers’ salaries.

Since 2002, SMRT has sustained consecutive years of positive gains. By 2011, it generated a 2.8 fold of net profits compared to 2002 and even during a weakening net profit in 2012, there is still a 2.1 fold gain as compared to the 56.8 million in 2002.

There were three less better years in SMRT’s overall net profits growth for the period between 2002 and 2012, namely 2006, 2011 and 2012 but respectively years of net profits still clinches 2 times more than 2002’s net profit.

Total net profits’ accumulation comes to a figure of 1.3 billion dollars in the last 11 years alone, 23.6 times of that of 2002’s net profit figure. However, on paying its staff (excluding directors), SMRT has spent a total of 2.5 billion in the last decade, a mere 13.9 times than that of 2002’s. Net profit growth easily outstripped the growth of staff costs, baring the strong reluctance of profit sharing with its non-directorial staff who does the actual work in generating revenue.

SMRT may be successful in expanding its sources of alternative revenues beyond its core business—public transport itself. However, it would be myopic to neglect its core business without which will cause a severe dent in its alternative sources of revenues. 

As much as SMRT’s claim of its accountability [Here] towards its shareholders (the government being the largest shareholder in this case as Temasek Holdings owns a 54% stake in SMRT), however, it has more to account to the commuters for the facts that SMRT’s infrastructure comes from the public funds, as well as the transport fundallocated to the transport providers comes from the public’s purse strings.

Suggestion:

Dip into the pool of funds reserved for SMRT’s shareholders. As the largest shareholder, the government has the obligation in restoring the confidence of the public and its citizens of the promise of Singaporeans First by: 

1) securing well-paid jobs for locals (pay foreign drivers the same wage as local bus drivers to reduce the unfair reliance of foreign cheap labour) 

2) stop fleecing local commuters for profiteering. 

Mr Lui should allocate at least 4 million dollars from the pool of net profits which SMRT has amassed in the last decade. That meagre amount will not dent the 1.3 billion pool but will bring more quality living for its frontline workers and will also help to transfer the expense of SMRT's mistakes from the commuters. 

After all, our government works for the welfare of the people and isdistinctly different from those corrupted nations which milk its people to the last drop.

SMRT Strike - The National Interest Perspective

Photo: TOC

I was waiting for the various opposition parties like SDP, WP and NSP to issue statements with regards to this SMRT saga but after 48 hours of this incident, none of them have issued any press statement.

The irony is that Workers Party seems to be disinterested in labour issues like this one, least about protecting workers' right regardless of race, sex or nationality. National Solidarity Party is no longer interested to stand in solidarity with the workers' right to point out the flaws of the inadequate labour law we have in Singapore. Most surprisingly of all, the most vocal Singapore Democratic Party which has fought so hard on human rights and democratic issues has been unusually silent when human rights of the drivers were violated when they were forced to have medical check up against their will. 

Most likely, they thought that this is all about foreign workers and have nothing to do with Singaporeans. Furthermore, it is obvious that the PRC drivers were right in claiming unfair and discriminating wage treatment but partisan politicians fear that by acknowledging this simple fact, they may agitate their supporters. This is especially so when anti-FT policy and xenophobia is running all time high in Singapore.

Thus, it is "politically savvy" to stay away from this hot potato! It is quite disappointing indeed.

We Singaporeans do not like strikes or industrial actions, especially those that could cause great inconvenience to us. This applies to a strike in the public transport system like the one we have in SMRT. There are rules and laws to be followed. Many Singaporeans have expressed their anger on why these PRC drivers who went on strike didn't get locked up and charged in court. Apparently, the PAP government is reacting to this pressure now.

While we want preserve our rule of law and our good image as a "stable country with harmonious industrial relationship" in order to attract foreign investors, we must also understand the bigger picture and the implications behind this industrial relationship hiccup. 

Now, take a good look at the above data sheet derived from SMRT on the wages it set for its drivers. What's wrong with it?

It classifies wages according to Nationality. The simple fact that SMRT has classified wages according to Nationality is in itself a discriminating act. It is totally unacceptable.

I have talked about the lack of Anti-discrimination Employment law in Singapore since many years ago. Places like Hong Kong has set up Equal Opportunity Commission to look into complains of discriminating employment practices. In spite of having Anti-discriminating concept written in Singapore's Constitution (Article 12), there is nothing written in our Employment Act that uphold this spirit of Constitution at all. It just stays as a "Highfalutin" idea.

This SMRT strike has put Singapore in a very bad spotlight internationally. It exposes Singapore as a place that condones discrimination in employment. It is in our National interest to right this wrong and opposition parties should be pushing for anti-discrimination employment law! We do not want to be seen as a place that condones modern slavery, do we?

Some Singaporeans may cry foul and argue that why should we treat foreigners equally in employment in Singapore? Why should we give them equal or fair wages?

It is in the interests of our workers to uphold equal and fair wages for foreign workers. PAP and businesses have claimed that they only turn to employing foreign workers because they can't find local Singaporeans to take up the jobs. But is this true?

When you allow businesses to use lower wages to employ foreign workers, just like the case in SMRT, inevitably you will be encouraging them to displace local Singaporeans as much as the FT quota allows! The reason for them to employ foreign workers have changed; it is not due to the difficulties in finding Singaporeans to employ but rather, they are substituting the more expensive Singaporeans to reduce cost!

If we have anti-discrimination law that dictates that everybody will have to be paid on equal terms, then the cost of employment of foreign workers will be higher than employing Singaporeans when government levies are taken into account. This will discourage companies from employing foreign workers indiscriminately just to replace Singaporeans for the sake of cost cutting. Companies will only turn to foreign workers when it is totally necessary because it would incur higher cost. This will align us to the concept of letting companies to employ foreigners if only if they cannot find Singaporeans to do the job.

Thus, insisting equal wage terms for foreign workers will in fact protect Singaporeans from being displaced. This will cut down our over reliance on foreign workers which could become a vital factor in unstablizing our social structure.

So far, both SMRT and PAP government have mismanaged the SMRT Strike quite badly. Apparently they don't understand the PRC's culture well enough. Strikes in China are very common nowadays and they should not be ignorant about that. Unlike Singaporeans, they will fight for their rights when there is a perception of unfairness. Furthermore, PRCs are very Nationalistic in nature.

Well, from the observation of how the PRCs reacted to the DiaoYu Dao dispute, you will see that they will go all out on Nationalistic sentiments. The new Chinese leadership has tried very hard not to be seen as weaklings when it comes to sovereignty issue. Japan is a large country and it may be forgiven for not able to resolve the matter easily.

However, if the PRCs are to be seen as being discriminated and bullied by a little red dot like Singapore, the new Chinese leadership will face even greater pressure and obstacles in establishing  its legitimacy. How would it react?

If the PAP government is to use its usual hard ball political methodology to deal with the PRC drivers in SMRT who went into strike, it would be seen as a "persecution " over discriminating practices. Even if the Chinese leadership does not want to do anything about it, what do you think the common citizens in China would do or react? When Nationality is involved in discrimination, it will no longer be our "internal issue".

It is not in our National interests to endanger the lives of thousands of Singaporeans who are working and doing business in China over some disgraceful discriminating acts of a GLC like SMRT. I have no problem in making sacrifices to defend our land and sovereignty but it would be very silly for us to make sacrifices for the disgraceful discriminating acts of a company which exploited the FT policy for its own benefits.

Some may argue that these PRC drivers should go according to their contracts but when a contract defies good nature practices, breaches natural justice and fairness, it should be viewed as invalid.

On the other hand, SMRT has forced these PRC drivers to be medically examined even though they may have provided Medical Certificates to apply for medical leaves. Such act is unacceptable and has created unnecessary doubts on the professionalism of those doctors who have issued the medical certificates in the first place! Such move has further damaged Singapore's international image and has unnecessarily put our medical doctors on international trial.

SMRT and the authorities should back track, resolve the issue with proper tact. The only way the government could resolve this issue is to handle it FAIRLY and JUSTLY. 

For a start, the government should denounce SMRT's disgraceful discriminating practices and order it to right the wrongs. It could even take a step further to declare that it will look into enacting anti-discrimination laws to protect the rights of workers. It should also review its FT policy as well. On the other hand, it could issue a formal warning or reprimand to the PRC drivers and set up a union or mechanism for them to utilize in future similar event. 

Even if the government chose to charge these PRC drivers in court, the negative impact would be significantly reduced because the SMRT has been dealt with for its discriminating practices. Charging these PRC drivers without addressing the perceived wrongs of discrimination by SMRT would put Singapore in a very bad light internationally and may even ignite anti-Singapore sentiments in China which could put our citizens at risk there. 

SMRT and the PAP government are only concerned about the damages this strike would do to them as in compromising their authority. They should look at the bigger picture on the international impact of this strike. It has far more implications on the good image and reputation of Singapore as a modern country internationally. 

We should not be viewed as country that condones unfair and discriminating practices of exploiting nature. We should not let this saga damages our medical doctors' international standing as well. We have suffered enough as a Nation from the various mishandling of this strike and we should demand PAP government to right the very wrong, the root of the whole problem by enacting Anti-Discrimination laws in our employment act. 

Goh Meng Seng

After Note: Two opposition parties have finally put up their views through press releases on this matter:

Finally the Opposition parties have issued statements regarding the unprecedented strike by SMRT employees.

Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) - http://yoursdp.org/news/time_to_reinstate_workers_rights/2012-11-28-5471

National Solidarity Party (NSP) - http://nsp.sg/2012/11/28/national-solidarity-partys-statement-on-the-strike-at-smrt/

Singapore People's Party (SPP) - http://www.spp.org.sg/spp-statement-on-the-recent-smrt-bus-strike/

Workers Party Issued their statement at last on 30 Nov 2012

http://wp.sg/2012/11/wp-statement-on-bus-drivers-strike-smrt-must-address-workers-grievances-better/

HDB Housing Policy Revisit

Recently SDP has launched and introduced its Housing Policy Paper. While I applaud SDP's effort to work on such policy paper, I would have to make it clear that its proposal doesn't make sense to me.

Some may think that what SDP has proposed is "similar" to mine when it uses "cost plus" (minus land cost) pricing mechanism but this is not true at all. I did make reference to "cost plus" pricing during last General Elections but I did not elaborate on the finer details because that was intentionally left for the debate with Mr Mah Bow Tan that I have challenged him to attend. Of course he has side stepped and the rest is history.

Let me revisit the issue of Housing policy, the last piece of puzzle that I have not put up during last GE.

Land Acquisition Act & Obligations of Government

To understand the issue of public housing fully, we must first go back to history to understand the first conceived architectural structure of Land Reform plus Land Re-distribution that pioneers like Dr Goh Keng Swee has set up.

The understanding of the issue of public housing in Singapore would not be complete without understanding the combined effort of Land Acquisition Act and HDB set up.

During the early days of Nation building, massive amount of land was owned by individuals and companies due to the past economic model of having rubber plantations and such. It created a situation that there was an imbalance distribution of limited land resources for housing the growing population as well as modern development. Modern city planning would not be possible without acquiring land from these land lords. But for the government of the day, PAP, to acquire massive parcels of land at market prices, would mean asserting a great pressure on government finances. Thus Land Acquisition Act was enacted to facilitate the land redistribution and modern city planning. It allows the government to acquire land at dirt cheap prices. However, with such power comes the obligations for the government to provide cheap public housing for the masses. This is the unwritten social contract that comes with the empowerment of Land Acquisition Act.

Some may think that the obligation of the government only applies to housing the people at that time but this is totally mistaken. The 99 lease implemented on HDB flats is one of the ways for the government to recycle the land for future generations' use. Technically speaking, any government at any time in history, present or future, would have the obligation to provide such basic needs of housing to the citizens. This is especially important for a land scarce island state which is facing the impact of globalization.

The Land Acquisition Act is not meant solely for the government to earn extraordinary profits (in the form of accumulating reserves) on the expense of the various land lords, big or small. It is meant for land reform and land redistribution to the masses. That is why I am so angry when Mr. Mah talked about "raiding the reserves" if we were to sell HDB cheap to our citizens. He doesn't understand the balance between of the power and obligations of the government implied by the Land Acquisition Act.

Globalization & its impact on Citizens' Housing Needs

This is one of the major topic I am supposed to talk about in the coming talk I am going to give at Hong Kong City University. (The talk will take place on 12 Nov 2012)

Free Market economic principles dictate that we will only have real Free Market if and only if we have free mobility of labour, free mobility of capital,  free flow of information and free flow of goods and services. Most of the time, globalization aims to achieve all these.

However, such concepts may have detrimental impact on our citizens. Land supply is more or less LIMITED in Singapore and we can't possibly increase TOTAL land supply indefinitely by land reclamation. It means that supply of land and thus, properties, would be limited as a whole. On the other hand, we could possibly, technically speaking, have UNLIMITED supply of liquidity if we open our doors for foreigners to come in and speculate on our properties. Housing is first, a basic needs to our citizens. But due to the nature of limited supply of properties, they are always viewed as "store of value" or "investment" that could provide extraordinary returns. This is especially true for small city states like Singapore where land is scarce. However, property speculation would be bad for local residents. Speculative investment in properties could only push up prices, rentals and eventually overall inflation to the whole economy without productive contributions other than initial building and construction activities in the economy.

Such speculative transactions in property are devastating to local residents' well being, unlike speculation on the stock markets or scarce commodities like gold or coffee beans.  Price fluctuation or inflation on gold hardly affect the majority of the population, especially the lower income segment of the society. For commodities like coffee beans and such, its impact is limited because supply of coffee beans can be increased in the long run. For oil prices, it may have impact on the population but that is another issue for another day.

The Main Issue of Contemporary Public Housing Policy

When you have theoretically unlimited foreign funds (due to globalization) chasing after limited land resources where housing is the basic needs of the local residents, you will have teething problems here. The main issue is how policy makers could shield local residents or citizens from the adverse impact of globalization in terms of the basic housing needs. To go even further, how to turn the adverse impact of Globalization in terms of property inflation into something that the local residents or citizens could benefit from?

PAP's initial land redistribution plan via Land Acquisition Act and HDB policy of cheap, affordable housing would be a perfect wealth redistribution effort if it is not for its greed in exploiting more profits or money from the system. The "Asset Enhancement Scheme" pushed by PAP since 1990s is in effect, an attempt to enhance government's coffers and transferring the burden to the future generations. At the same time, exploited as a means to buy votes from Singaporeans. I would consider such act as irresponsible and in effect, breaching the social contract embedded in the Land Acquisition Act, dishonouring its obligations to take care of the citizens' most basic needs of housing.

PAP government has not only cut back rental flats for citizens (ironically, at the same time, supplying more rental flats for foreign workers) but it has exploited the HDB flat ownership scheme to beef up its coffers in terms of higher land cost. It has even gone into overdrive by limiting supply of new HDB to exploit its monopoly power to such a stage that it would push up the HDB housing prices in a short span of a few years . Coupled with its liberal FT policy, granting record number of  PRs and new citizens, it pushes HDB prices to record high. In return, through the pricing mechanism that linked to the market, it benefits from higher prices for new HDB flats it sold even though cost of construction and building these flats have barely increased over time.


This is the fundamental reason why I have advocated to have cost-plus pricing mechanism in the very first place, to prevent the government, any government of any time, to exploit the system, the monopoly power it held as the biggest supply of housing flats.

Aim of Policy Options: Protecting Citizens from Adverse Impact of Globalization

Whatever policy options we proposed, we must address the fundamental ills of globalization but to make a balance by not crashing the whole market totally. We must also try to allow our citizens to ride on the benefits of globalization at the same time, if possible. We must be cautious that our policy may end up creating a class of citizens who might be trapped in the poverty cycle unintentionally.

There are some people who view that we should ban PRs from buying HDB flats, even from resale markets. This is NOT a feasible policy option. PRs make up 20% to 30% of HDB resale market and if we are to ban them from it, it will result in a devastating crash of the market and the value of citizens' HDB flats. It will affect those who have bought resale HDB flats very badly.

Some people may have a very simplistic, overly simplistic, policy recommendation of increasing the grants for first time buyers. This may sound good but it doesn't solve the main problem of the extraordinary HIGH property inflation rate (i.e. the rate of growth in prices) embedded in the present pricing mechanism due to the linkages to the resale market prices. The resale market prices were adversely affected by Globalization, the free inflow of foreigners who become PRs and brought with them, excess liquidity into the market.

The NOM HDB option proposed by SDP may look good at first instance but if we take a second look and second thought, it is actually not a good policy option. Although it has addressed the ills of pricing mechanism linking to the resale market pricing by proposing the cost-plus, minus land cost structure, but the restrictions applied on these NOM flats would mean that Singaporeans who owned these flats will be left out in the long run and would not be able to upgrade themselves if their NOM HDB could only be sold back to HDB at LOWER prices than they have bought! They could not even rent out their flats to increase income!

They are not paying for a flat that they "own" but prepaying their rents to HDB! This option is worse than renting from HDB on a monthly basis because they would not be able to save as much money as they could when they have to fork out more money (as compared to those who rent) each month to pay their mortgages. This will create a poverty trap unintentionally for these NOM flat "owners".

Creation of the Parallel Market Segment

SDP is trying to create a parallel Market Segment but the restrictions imposed, would mean that Singaporeans will never benefit from the capital gains brought upon by globalization.

There is nothing wrong for the government to allow citizens to benefit from capital gains because, if you remember what the first part of this article says, the land reform or redistribution effected by Land Acquisition Act is basically aimed at that: redistribution of land and wealth to the masses, using the government as the medium.

We have inherited a good system in HDB from our forefathers like Dr Goh Keng Swee because it could be used to create a parallel market segment that shields our citizens from the adverse impact of Globalization by selling very much cheaper flats to them at cost-plus while at the same time, whenever they need, they could cash out on the resale market.

And due to the 99 year lease, this could technically be repeated indefinitely for future generations of Singaporeans! More importantly, we cannot stop globalization and the fact is, we will be stuck with a substantial number of PRs and foreign workers on our land as well.

We must also think strategically on how to house all of them on this tiny little island. If we are to prevent Citizens from selling or renting their flats to these PRs and foreigners via SDP's NOM scheme, we may end up with lots of problems later on. It is impractical to impose such restrictions on a national wide strategy. We must well allow our citizens to have the option to sell their first flats to these PRs, earn from the capital gain, and go back to buy from HDB again for a new flat that would also be cost-plus but include land cost as well. This would be a win-win situation for the nation as well as the individual citizens.

Ironically, it was Hong Kong that have a more advanced housing policy. Under its Housing Ownership Scheme (HOS), the government will sell its flats to Hong Kongers who have lower income (classified as Green Card category) at cost plus minus land cost. For those who have rented flats from the government, they could convert their rental flat into their ownership by paying that at a discount, under cost-plus minus land cost (CPMLC). Those HOS flats owners, could sell their flats on the open market under Green Card Category. If those having higher income level (classified as White Card Category) wanted to buy these flats from the resale market, they will have to pay the additional land cost to the government.

CY Leung's administration is now thinking of changing the rules so to allow the White Card category to buy new HOS flats directly from the government at higher price (cost plus with land cost).

The unfortunate thing that happened for the HOS scheme in the past is that the Hong Kong government back in 2003 was forced to stop this scheme due to the pressures of property developers, legislators and the public (who own private properties) at large. It is good to see that the Hong Kong government under CY Leung is now reactivating the HOS scheme in a more aggressive way.

So far, in my opinion, the scheme adopted by the Hong Kong government is the more appropriate one, targeting at those who really need help in getting housing and allowing them to hook up with the housing inflation eventually. At the same time, such policy option will not create a big unnecessary burden on the government of the day.

In SDP's proposal, it allows present HDB flat owners to "convert" to NOM and forcing the government to pay up hefty price premium to these owners, This will create a potentially huge financial burden on the government finances unnecessarily.

I would instead, adopt the Hong Kong's model with a slight modification. If the HOS flats under Green Card Scheme is sold on the resale market at over 100% or 150% more than the initial price of purchase (i.e. 200% or 250% of initial price paid), the seller will have to capital gain tax on the additional excess price. This will curb excessive property inflation and act as an automatic cooling measures.

The Necessity of strengthening Rental Flats scheme

Having written so much on home ownership scheme, we must not overlook the needs of those families who may not be able to afford to purchase or continue their mortgage payment for their HDB flats. This is part of the obligations of the government under the Land Acquisition Act.

In Singapore, when we talk about rental flat scheme, it always brings to mind those one room (basically no bedroom) flats. This is not necessarily so. If HDB could provide 2 room or even 3 room flat for rent to foreigners, I don't see why they shouldn't provide similar size rooms for rent to our own citizens to fulfil their needs..

Young couples who cannot afford to buy HDB flats even with that cost-plus-minus-land-cost scheme at first instance, should be given the option to rent the flats cheaply with necessary size (cater for family planning and needs) while with the future option of buying these rental flats later on with further discounts taking the rent they have paid so far into considerations. These rental flats could exist even within the new HDB flats that are sold. As such, it will not create gutter cluster and provide good housing options for young couples.

Conclusion

My housing policy proposal may not be the perfect one but it covers several important concepts and direction.

First, it is an important obligation for the government to provide the citizens their necessary basic housing needs. The land acquisition act could bring capital gains to the government when it sold land for commercial use or to private property developers but it should not make extraordinary profits out of the citizens because it was meant to be a land-wealth redistribution scheme in the first place.

Secondly, the policy option should shield local citizens from the adverse impact from globalization. This could only be done by de-linking the pricing mechanism of the new HDB flats for first time buyers from the resale market which is filled with excess liquidity brought by foreigners or PRs.

Thirdly, the creation of a parallel market segment that could be linked to resale market segment again for the citizens to benefit from the excess liquidity brought by globalization when they sold their flats there. There is nothing wrong for the government to allow citizens to benefit from capital gains. After selling their flats, they could buy from HDB again but at higher price that include land cost this time. This would be truly the idea of "second bite of the cherry".

Forth, this policy option will also help to mitigate and cater to the needs of the growing population due to globalization. By allowing citizens to sell their flats in the resale market and buy from HDB again, it will help to increase the housing supply to cater to the growth in PR population.

Last but not least, by providing the intermediate rental scheme to young couples, we will promote early family planning and minimize the hassle of relocation for these young families when they could well afford to pay for their own flats. By locating these rental flats within the sold flats, we will not create the unnecessary class awareness among citizens. The young families would be more willing to convert their rental flats into ownership in such environment and would minimize the wastage of resources in building cluster of rental flats that would become vacant when tenants upgrade.

Goh Meng Seng