Mountain Climbing not for 12 year old kids!

 The Trekking at Mount Kinabalu

First and foremost, my deepest condolences to the families of the students and teacher who died from the Sabah Mount Kinabalu Earthquake. I believe those students and teachers who survived the tragedy must have suffered tremendous trauma and I hope that psychiatrists are sent to provide the necessary counseling to help them overcome their traumatic shocks and pain.

This article does not seek to pin point the fault of earthquake death to anyone. It is true that no matter if you are adult or a child, you are subjected to the same risk to death from such sudden act of nature. However, there is really much to fault MOE and the school for approving or allowing 12 year old kids to go on such "Mountain Climbing Expedition".

The common excuse given was that the Primary School has been conducting this expeditions for the past few years without incidents, so we should assume there is nothing wrong in having such expedition for 12 year old kids. This is absolutely wrong argument to deflect responsibility for both MOE and the school. It is like saying you have won a few rounds from Casino and thus, gambling in Casino is absolutely safe!

The other flawed argument is that when we walk on the street, we also face risk of being injured or killed by car or other accidents. The key thing is, you do not have a choice to face such risk in our daily life but we do have the choice whether to allow our young 12 year old kids to face unnecessary risks for such expedition!

Some people say that we do not want to cultivate kiasu kiasi (timidity and cowardice) people so we should continue to support such expedition for 12 year old kids. This is totally wrong perspective. We should not cultivate the mindset of recklessness in the bid to look for gungho (overly tough) training for our kids! We should cultivate the middle path, to take calculated risks and how to deal with risks.

What is risk? What is Risk assessment and management?

We face risk everyday, with or without knowing it. Some risks we can afford or mitigate it with some training or preparation (like teaching kids how to cross roads, take public transport, take escalator...etc). But there are some risks cannot be mitigated due to age. Eg. Driving for 12 year old.

Age may be a multiplier for risk factor. Eg. asking an 80 year old man or 12 year old kid to climb mountain as compared to 20 year old man. Why 12 year old kid is unsuitable for mountain climbing in general?

I have been active in outdoor adventurous activities in my younger days and I have brought a number of groups of students of age 17 to 18 to climb mountains. As trainer, instructor and leader of such expedition is always taxing because you know that you are responsible for more than 10 young lives. Their parents have entrusted you their lives and expect you to deliver them back, safe and stronger.

Ironically, as an adventurer, we have to be extremely paranoid when it comes to planning and putting up safety measures and contingencies. First criteria for a safe and meaningful expedition, is to have only suitable participants for the trip. They must not only be physically and medically fit, but also mentally prepared for all sorts of emergencies. As the leader of the expedition, we have to believe in Murphy's Law, what can go wrong, will go wrong.

Participants for mountain climbing expedition must also be able to take care of themselves as well as others, in times of need. They must be able to conduct first aid, search and rescue mission plus evacuation on their own. They must learn jungle survival if they are lost or stuck in the jungle for whatever reasons. Instructors and leader of the expedition are also human and unfortunate things may also happen to us; be it injury, comma, death or otherwise. The participants are expected to have the ability to save our lives as well!

On top of strenuous physical training, there are a whole list of skills for participants to learn (rope skills, jungle survival, first aid, evacuation drill, map reading, contingency drills etc etc) and those instructors are expected to know their stuffs as well. They are not just some "lobo" nannies but expected to be proficient in the various skills as well.

Thus I was surprised that 12 year old kids were allowed to take part in mountain climbing expedition to Mount Kinabalu! They would have failed the basic fundamental risk assessment of being unsuitable participants. They do not have the necessary physical and mental build to deal with any emergencies, least making evacuation plan.

There are a list of outdoor activities with different risk levels and for 12 year old kids, they should not be involved in high risk or even medium risk outdoor activities. Risk level for outdoor activities depend on quite a number of factors which include, but not limited to, the following:

1) Place of conduct. Is it under controlled environment with easy access to main evacuation routes? Isit deep in the forest, high up the mountain?

2) Terrain. Is the terrain easy or tough? Water? Height? Rocky? Thick forestation? Generally speaking, terrain with water is considered medium to high risk. A 12 year old kid may know how to swim well in a controlled environment like swimming pool but the risk factor will definitely be extremely higher when it comes to sea, with uncontrollable natural forces like under current. Physical strength will be vital for survival if the undercurrent is strong. Thus, age plays a very important role in risk assessment. Similarly, for steep mountain climbing, age will matter a lot because unlike simple flat terrain trekking, going up and down the ridges add risk of falling to death or injury. Most 12 year old kids have not developed their body fully and the risk of falling off the trail gets higher.

It may look deceivingly easy and safe, but it is not.

3) Weather. Adverse weather has different impact on people of different ages. Young kids are more prone to slip and fall during wet weather.

4) Preparedness. Are participants well trained and prepared for the activity? Are the instructors well trained to deal with emergencies and contingencies?

I do not object the idea of cultivating our young ones with outdoor activities. However, we must also select the appropriate activities for such cultivation, in accordance to the participants' physical and mental capabilities and development

Even for my Ventures and Rovers scout troop which consisted of 17 to 18 years old JC students, we start right from the basics instead of jumping right into relatively higher risk mountain climbing expedition. A progressive training process is planned, right from simple camp craft learning, rope skills, map reading, jungle survival, first aid, simple leisure camp, annual training camp, then towards training for mountain expedition...etc. This process may take up 9 months.

For the instructors, we will have to do recce of the site, meaning, we have to conduct our own climb along the route a few weeks before the actual climb. This was done no matter how familiar we were with the mountain because terrain may change drastically over short period of time.

So if anyone tell me these 12 year old kids are suitable to climb Mount Kinabalu because they have gone through some 3 months of physical training, I say you must be either kidding or insane.


This is what Mountain Climbing at Mt Kinabalu is all about

In my view, these 12 year old kids have neither the required physical and mental build, nor the necessary training to go for this mountain climbing expedition. They are only suitable for the low risk camping activity in controlled environment aka, a designated campsite.

If the idea is about "leadership training", there is no necessity to go for a mountain climbing expedition. In fact, mountain climbing does not provide much "leadership training" as compared to a properly conducted training camp in a designated campsite. It is through such training camp, with a higher level of difficulty, that we select the new generation of leaders to lead our scout troop. We do not identify or choose the new leaders through the mountain climbing expedition.

The list of outdoor activities with different degree of risk levels are as follows:

Low Risk

Camping in school compound
Camping at designated campsites on Singapore mainland
Trekking along flat and less dense forested terrain, near to road access 

Intermediate risk

Camping at campsites off Singapore mainland (outlying islands)
Camping on small hills
Trekking along slightly dense forested terrain with uphills and downhills., away from road access.

 Medium Risk

Canoeing at reservoirs
Swimming in lagoons with safety net
Camping overseas
Trekking along dense forested terrain deep in the forest
Mountain climbing of less than 500m in height take less than 2 days 1 night

Medium High Risk

Canoeing along the Coast of small islands take less than half a day 
Swimming in pools with waterfalls or rocky features
Mountain Climbing of less than 1500m not more than 3 days 2 nights

High Risk

Mountain climbing of height above 1500m taking more than 3 days 2 nights
Swimming in open sea with high waves

The dangerous Ferrata (see here about Ferrata routes) climb which the students are said to be climbing. The simplest Ferrata route includes the following:

1. Walk the Torque

This is a shorter and simpler version of the ferrata and can be completed leisurely within 2-3 hours. Length of route is only 430m. You’ll still get a taste of the ferrata and get to try out a few obstacles such as the  2 cable Monkey bridge,  Tyrolean traverse &  Balancing beam (you’ll get to do all these in the low’s peak circuit too!)

The number of days you spent in the wild will also increase your risk exponentially, mainly due to fatigue which will result in loss of focus and concentration power of the mind. Age will also matter. For example, if you put a 12 year old kid to enroll in activity which may be medium risk, the nature of risk may just shoot up to become HIGH RISK instead. Thus it is only wise for planners to choose their activities carefully in accordance to the age of participants.

I do not think 12 year old kids are ready for any activity which is in the category of medium risk or above as we need to take into consideration that due to their age, the risk factor may just increase exponentially. In my view, they are only suitable for intermediate risk and below, which may be considered as medium to medium high risk to them already.

Thus you see that to allow 12 year old kids to go for Mount Kinabalu climb is to put them on extremely high risk outdoor activity. Is it prudent for MOE to approve such activity for Primary school kids?

I seriously wonder how MOE do their risk assessment. Are they totally ignorant of the multiplying effect of risk due to young age for such outdoor activities? Are they totally ignorant of the risk involved in mountain climbing? Height and gravity can kill! Not to mention rocky mountains!  Are MOE so naive to believe fully on commercial information of tour agencies without doing their own due diligence by engaging independent expert knowledge or assessment? Are MOE so silly to believe that 12 year old kids are fit to climb mountain when SAF only enlist males for National Service at 16?

MOE has the greatest responsibility as the gate keeper of safety for any excursions conducted by schools, especially Primary Schools. It owes its responsibility to the parents who entrusted them the lives of their children. It is ironic that as an education ministry,  it doesn't understand the limitation of age and the need of progressive cultivation at all. Allowing students with unsuitable age to engage in high risk mountain climbing activity without any progressive training is totally irresponsible and unacceptable. That is totally insane.

Risk management is to mitigate or reduce risk. Even my 12 year old daughter understands that. But to send 12 year old kids to high risk mountain climbing expedition is not reducing risk but instead, increasing their risks to unacceptable level!

I hope MOE should stop all these nonsense immediately. I would grudgingly agree to let students of 16 years old to engage in intermediate mountain climbing (I started my first mountain climbing at 16 as well) but for any age below that, it is definitely a big no. Even for that age, a progressive training program should be put in place to prepare students for the climb.

For those who keep defending MOE or the school for such insanity, think twice before you do say anything silly. Would you dare to try it out yourself or send your 12 year old kids for Mount Kinablalu climb again? If yes, good luck to you. You will really need that.

Goh Meng Seng

Answers to my Detractors At Anyhowhatum Blog

Credit: Photo by SPH during GE2011

The following are the answers I have given to the critical questions posted to me by one of the my detractors, blogger at anyhowhantam.blogspot.sg

I hope these answers which I have given could address most of the common doubts and questions most people have in mind about me and People's Power Party.

1. Mr Goh you've made quite a few remarks about some aspects of the Worker's Party's style or methods. And to be blunt, some have quite a sting in them. You were of course a former member and stood on their ticket, and people assume that you left in a huff or with acrimony. Did you leave the WP on a good note or were you forced out? (Here it depends how you answer, but i'll assume it's not on very bad terms)

If you feel that some of the remarks are stinging, then you should ask yourself whether it is really relevant with good reasoning or not. If it is just some irrational ranting, then it should not be stinging, right? 

What do you expect from a politician? Do you expect him to be loyal only to their own party affiliations or to the people and Nation? Especially when there are public interests involved, do you just expect politicians just close both eyes because it involves his own party affiliations or do you expect him to stand firm and defend public interests? These are the fundamental questions we should ask ourselves and we have been unhappy about PAP MPs all this while because we feel that they are more concerned about their own party’s interests rather than ours, the voters. Similarly, when it comes to pertinent questions of competency or even integrity, should we do the same as PAP people and keep absolute silence over such issues which may implicate opposition party like WP?

I have explained in quite a number of posts on my blog, I chose to leave WP because of the mistake I have made on the internet which was conceived as damaging to WP’s image. However, this incident has also highlighted the differences I have with WP leadership over internet engagement policy. I chose to leave on my own, without pressure from anyone, because I do not want to create any disruption on WP’s progress just because of this issue.

The exit is cordial, no hard feelings.

2. If that's the case, why then do you express displeasure at the way they do things? Of course I'm not suggesting that every time you speak it's anti-WP, but people tend to remember this more. (again you batted this away - like a baseball player)

As explained in my answer to your first question, it is about Public Interests. You should observe that every comment made is all about public interests; i.e. whether public funds are used appropriately, management of TC is done appropriately, integrity of those people in public office etc.

This is why I have written into my party, People’s Power Party, the important Core Values which we believe in:, namely, Public Service, Integrity, Honesty etc etc. If you view it as “anti-WP”, then I cannot help it. As far as I am concerned, it is “Pro-People” and “Pro-Public Interests”. I could of course, like many other opposition activists, chose to keep quiet over this just in fear of losing votes from hardcore opposition supporters, but I guess that is unhealthy and opportunistic. It would mean that when something wrong happens to my own party’s management of public entities, if we ever win any seats, I will also try to do a hush hush cover up or just protect the party at all cost, instead of being transparent and accountable for whatever mistakes we have made. Do you want me to become like this?

Integrity is something easy to talk about but not so easy practice. It means that even if nobody is watching, you will not steal. Regardless of what situations, you should always be upright in your Speech, Thought and Actions. It means that regardless of who makes the mistakes, even if it is King, Queen, Emperor, own family members or own people with the same political affiliations, you should always speak up without fear or favour, bravely on what’s wrong, what’s right and what should be done or avoided.

I come into opposition politics not merely because I am “Anti-PAP” but rather, I take it as public service and for public service to work towards the welfare of the people and Nation, instead of merely taking side, irrationally and irresponsibly, with any people. My answer may disappoint a lot of hardcore opposition supporters but this is what I am, who I am. If you really do not agree with me or believe in my principles on this basic fundamental position, then you have the right not to vote for me.


3. The point is Mr Goh, no 1 faults you for speaking your mind, but the thing to remember and I'm sure you'll be the 1st to admit, the PAP are very kiasu (or even kiasi). Every small mistake the opposition make, they on it like a flash. They control every aspect of the media, and these things are made into a huge issue. The media not only reports it, they dissect it, examine it, analyse it and even offer opinions on it - unfavourable of course. So the perception is that you bear a grudge against the WP, and by doing so, you're just helping the PAP out. How would you respond to these assumptions/perceptions?

It is actually very simple to deal with such thing. If there is a problem or a mistake is made, just admit it, apologize and promise not to make the same mistake again. There is really no need to take overly defensive position. Just like YSL saga, up till now, we do not know exactly what happened. How can like that?

When it comes to management of public entity, whether we like it or not, accountability and transparency are of utmost important. When there is a question of “integrity”, then it must be addressed thoroughly. But look at how WP treated the whole issue of integrity when LTK has first promised to investigate on why the contractor has not done according to contract but went on to request additional payment from hawkers for scaffolding but later on, retracted this promise and said no investigation is needed. Do we opposition has any moral high ground left when we want to demand transparency and accountability from PAP?

PAP may be politicking to the dot by exploiting WP’s weaknesses but that is beside the point. If WP was able to handle the issue in an appropriate manner, with full transparency and accountability, I do not think PAP could win anything from such politicking.

We opposition people have been harping on PAP’s mistakes as well and New Media is no where inferior than PAP’s controlled MSM. But if you have observed very carefully, PAP has evolved from previous aloofness in treating or ignoring these attacks from New Media as “mere ranting”, to a position of taking serious actions against those “mistakes” exploded on New Media. In fact, they have taken quick reactions to some of the flaws or mistakes exposed on New Media.

My point is this, ths is fair game. Democracy is built upon the premise that Human Beings cannot be trusted with power (any form of power, be it small or big) because over time, Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely. Thus the system of Democracy is based on separation of Powers so that effective checks and balances could be installed. As for politicians involved, we should learn to understand that we should not put 100% trust on anyone of them, including me. Only through active citizenry whereby mistakes and scandals are exposed and people responsible for these are brought to shame, then we can be sure that power, in any form, is not being abused by those in public office.

As far as I am concerned, regardless of black cat, white cat or blue cat, whoever steals, is bad cat. Whichever catches the rat, is good cat. Whichever sleep on its job, is lazy cat. My loyalty only goes to the people and Nation, so to make sure that good cats are maintained in public service. If any cat has turned lazy or bad, then kick them out, no matter who they are, which party they come from.


4. Of course when you briefly quit politics, it's quite alright to speak out about what ails the opposition parties, I notice you've also not been endearing to your former party (which you led) - NSP. But now that you've formed a new party, will you hold back your fire? Unless of course you end up in a 3 horse race, where you have to show the voters there, the difference between you and whichever opposition party contests there, and also against the PAP obviously.

For people who are already in public office, we have to use higher standards to keep them on their toes. For others, we compete on strength, characters and ideas or ideals we can offer. Some people feel that as opposition party leader or member, we shall not speak ill of other opposition party for two reasons:

1) Opposition Unity
2) Self serving

But look at this from another way. Is there any concrete “Opposition Unity” in the first place? WP has declared openly that they will walk their own path. So could there be “Opposition Unity” without WP’s involvement?

Attacking PAP is not considered “self serving” but attacking on other opposition party is considered as self serving? If there is a three corner or multi-corner fights, then you are suggesting that it is alright for me to say bad things against the other opposition parties because we are in direct contest. However, if there is no direct contest, I should not say anything bad about other opposition party’s mistakes made? It is more self serving and opportunistic to choose to say bad things about those who contest against you while keeping quiet when they do not!

Let’s say PAP lost power and WP became the ruling party. So now what? Do we continue to whack PAP but defend WP’s mistakes due to inexperience all the while?

My point is simple, if your actions are dictated by your self interests as well as the elusive “opposition unity”, then you will most probably misplaced Public Interests to be inconsequential. And this is the whole point of engaging in politics, be it opposition or PAP or otherwise. You should have your heart placed at the right place:- Public Service and thus, to safeguard Public Interests.


5. Which brings me to the next question - As you know there's a core opposition vote everywhere - even 'The Slipper Man (remember him?) managed to retain his deposit in a 1 v 1 fight. But since there's only like 27 actual contests (no thanks to the GRCs), maybe the next election we might see 30 contests, finding an empty constituency is going to be hard. The fear is that 3 or 4 horse races dilute the core opposition votes, and also the crucial swing or neutral votes needed to cross the line. Your party being the newest could face a voter backlash, have you considered that?

As long as the total number of candidates from opposition does not overflow, there should not be multi-corner fights. But if there are parties which try to increase their number of candidates, then multi-corner fights are unavoidable. The fundamental problem lies with the total number of candidates, not total number of opposition parties.

If there is really going to be multi-corner fights, then it is about time for voters, especially hardcore opposition supporters, to learn to vote with a discerning mind. It will no longer about PAP vs Opposition. It is not about that superficial “branding”. If opposition supporters just vote according to superficial “branding” instead of scrutinizing the strength and weaknesses of each individual candidate put up for contest, then they are encouraging big brand party to field their candidates irresponsibly! If all opposition supporters learn to vote responsibly, with the aim to choose the GOOD people whom they could trust to bring value and contributions towards the Democratic cause, then there should not be any “dilution” of votes. Unfortunately this would mean other opposition candidates will have to lose their election deposits, so be it. In the long run, it will help to shape the political landscape; political parties should not anyhow put up candidates to contest in multi-corner fights as there is a price to pay.

As for our party PPP, it may be new but it is run by people with years of experiences and most importantly, people with their minds and hearts put in the right place for Singapore with a set of strong Core Values and Political Beliefs. My personal motive in getting back into partisan politics again is to make sure that people who have the competency, capability and most importantly, the right attitudes, core values and political beliefs to get into Public Service as opposition MPs. In short, a gatekeeper to ensure good people are fielded while keeping out those dubious ones. The rest is up to voters like you. If we lost badly, so be it. We will respect voters’ choice but the lost is not merely ours alone. But we believe opposition supporters would be wise enough to vote for the interests of the Nation, not merely for “party loyalty”. The era of “putting a donkey up and you will get my vote” should be over. We should evolve into a more discerning and sophisticated lot in order to advance for a more matured Democracy.

In short, I will do my best for the public interests of Singapore and I hope opposition voters will do the same, vote for the public interests of Singapore too.


6. Of course we all hope there could be opposition unity, but if push comes to shove, are you prepared to take the plunge and have a 3 way contest?

It is a premature hypothetical question. As far as I could, I will try to avoid 3 corner contests. But if I can’t, then I will have to assess the candidates sent by the other opposition party, whether they are really better choice than ours, objectively speaking. If they are truly people of caliber and we believe they have something to contribute to parliamentary debates, we will avoid. If not, we will stand firmly on our ground. For those parties who refuse to reveal their candidates, then it could only mean that they do not take such electoral contest seriously at all. We will ignore them and continue with our contest.


7. And what about losing your deposits, surely you'll have to consider that too? The amount here is outrageous, don't you agree?

It is too premature to assume we will lose our deposits. But if we do lose our deposits, so be it. As I have said, we will respect the choice of voters. No regrets.


8. Ok you've explained why you've come back into politics, speaking to TOC and TRE (video interview correct?) The thing I'd like to know, is why did you leave the NSP in the 1st place? I mean it's very normal for a leader to step down or face a challenge after losing a general election, but that doesn't mean he should actually quit the party. Take Ian Duncan-Smith, William Hague or Edward Heath in the UK. Conservative leaders, lost the election but remained in party as MPs. Even Tengku Razaleigh in Malaysia, he's still an MP despite losing the leadership challenge. Shouldn't you just have stepped down as leader but remained in the party? And you could still come back as a candidate under their banner for the next GE.

If you have a strong guiding principle of Public Service, then you will understand why I left and why I decided to come back now.

I joined opposition politics via WP in 2001 with two things in mind. I have told my wife to give me 15 years and I will try to achieve two fundamental goals:

1) Help opposition to Breach the First GRC fortress
2) Deprive PAP of two third majority

But this should never be at the expense of public interests; I am intolerable of issues of integrity and incompetency.

After GE2011, Hazel wanted to take over the SG post of NSP. I do not think it is a good idea for her to take over because of her lack of experience in running a political party. Running a political party is very different from running a business entity. It needs special skill sets. Besides, she was pretty new to NSP. I could have stopped her if I had contested for the SG post as well but it may create tensions even before the group of people who have just joined NSP could have the chance to integrate with the other party members.

In considering the situation back then, I was extremely happy that opposition, through WP, has finally breached PAP’s GRC fortress in Aljunied GRC. The first milestone I have set for my 15 years of participation has come to fruition. My assessment back then was that I have confidence in WP to maintain the momentum garnered from this initial success and thus, the second milestone of depriving PAP the two third majority would most probably happened in the coming GE. By the next GE, my 15 years “contract” would have expired!

Thus, after much consideration and in view of the achievement of the first milestone plus giving NSP a chance of preventing premature crack or break right after GE, I decided to take a step back and go into partisan sabbatical.

By taking a step back, I see my role as political observer and I should become non-partisan in order to put up my views as independent. It would be wonderful to be non-partisan political observer forever until I die but situation doesn’t allow me to have that luxury.


9. 1 other possibility for your new party to avoid 3 way contests is to of course join forces in a coalition with other parties like the SDA does. You could team up with say SingFirst, the DPP, even the SDA itself and all contest under 1 umbrella. Will you consider this option?

SDA platform is no longer effective without Chiam’s SPP. To create another platform of alliance will take time and it will not be possible for this round of GE. I am open to the idea for opposition parties to contest along COMMON POLICY PLATFORM instead. We find great similarities in some of the policies offered by different people or opposition parties. There are of course differences but we can put aside the differences in policy perspectives and concentrate on the common ground to put up a credible front against PAP’s current policies. I believe this is more important than forming an “Alliance of Convenience”. Naturally for parties who are wiling to collaborate on the common policy platform would not go into clash with each other.


10. If you don't mind, I would like to ask 2 questions which I slammed you for in my articles. The 1st was your leadership of the NSP in the last elections. Do you agree that you made some tactical mistakes -especially in Tampines? I have a few friends there, and they're pretty sore that you left it too late to attack Mah Bow Tan and the sky-rocketing HDB prices. You could have pulled an upset there if you focussed on it by sending an A team, or come very close, maybe even getting a NCMP seat. Do you agree you made a mistake, and will you do things differently this time and go for the jugular?

You are observing from a distance and thus, I do not blame you for your inaccurate assertions.

My attacks on MBT and HDB prices, started at least 9 months way ahead of GE. If you look at what I have written on my blog, you will realize that this is a step up deliberation on HDB issues. Timing was just right actually, to build up on public opinion just before polling day. Although it is really not easy initially to convince 85% of HDB flats owners that their flats should be cheaper, but I should say that the whole campaign on HDB has turned up well.

Even up till today, the strong consensus on HDB flat pricing is still emerging very strongly on all fronts. PAP MBT didn’t dare to hold a debate on HDB issues even I have challenged him three times over MSM!

As for the A team or not, I have already explained in my blog posts. I have offered Tony and Hazel to contest in Tampines, but they have declined. I have offered Nicole Seah to contest in Tampines, she has declined as well. I respect their decisions and I do not force people to do what they decided not to do.

It is on hindsight that people think Tampines is an “easy target”. Way before 2009, nobody hated MBT. Nobody talked about HDB issues. And MBT, as the Minister for MND, has naturally FORTIFIED Tampines with all sorts of upgrading projects. For those who live in Tampines would have noticed that right before GE2011, at every corner you turned in Tampines, you could see upgrading projects in process!

I would also remind you that for Tampines, since ever it became a GRC, opposition party contested there has never crossed 41%. PAP has gotten more than 73% in 2001 and 68% in 2006 respectively! I think it is unfair to expect my team to create a 19% vote swing from 31.5% in 2006 to win Tampines in GE2011! The average National vote swing was only 6%. And considering the fact that this result is a swing of 11.3% after a 10 year period of being under SDA which was a restrain on the development of NSP party’s branding back then, I feel that it is already a remarkable fight.

I should say that it should be clear to everybody that this Minister-Specific strategy which I have applied in GE2011 has shown results. PAP has never wanted to debate or fight on any specific policy issues during any elections. They would AVOID all policy debates or discussion AT ALL COST. They know that they would be cornered into a defensive mode if elections are fought along policy views. They will create distractions or simply ignore strong opposition challenges on any specific policy. I do not think I have made any tactical or strategic mistake here with regards to Tampines campaign, else, you and your friends won’t be feeling strongly that MBT and his team should be kicked out. And the fact is, even when MBT’s team won, MBT has been forced to relinquish his post as Minister for MND! I would say that we might not have won the whole battle, but at the very least, we have won half of the battle of getting rid of MBT as Minister!

For the coming GE, there are new issues and new strategy has been planned. It is not appropriate for me to reveal any details now as it is too premature to do so.


11. The other question is related too - your advice to Tan Kin Lian to run for the Presidency. His 5% not only lost him the deposit, but made Tony Tan President. Do you regret now advising him to run?

I do not think those (about 100K) who voted for Tan Kin Lian would have voted for Tan Chen Bock. Those who have voted for Tan Kin Lian are mostly die hard anti-PAP people who have lost their money during the mini-bond saga. Tan Chen Bock, as a PAP member back then, did nothing to help them or voice out for them. They would have either voted Tan Jee Say or simply spoilt their votes. Thus, it is rather presumptuous to assume that Kin Lian’s participation in the Presidential Elections has cost Tan Chen Bock his presidency.

On the other hand, I supported Kin Lian because he has shown that he is willing to step up to fight against injustice and unfairness during the Mini-Bond saga. Non of the other candidates have done so. In fact, some of the Mini-bond victims have gotten back some of their money because of Kin Lian’s efforts. Besides, Kin Lian was the first one to show any interests in Presidential Elections after the Mini-bond saga. He is never opportunistic in his approach and genuine in his intent to uphold social justice. I do not know much of other candidates but I know Kin Lian well in upholding the values he has put up. I believe in having a President who has strong beliefs and Core Values of honesty, integrity and fairness. If you ask me whether I will do it again to support Kin Lian as President, I will definitely do it again if Kin Lian ever wished to contest. I know Kin Lian isn’t political savvy in his projection of image but that’s also what I respect him for, being truthful to himself without much pretence on what he speaks. Elections, as I have said before, should be putting the RIGHT people, GOOD people into important position of power.


12. Of course such things made you quite unpopular with certain segments within the opposition camp. And you know lah Singaporeans, always have 'conspiracy theories' - some even say you're a PAP mole planted and encouraged to run to dilute the opposition! So are you a mole or Trojan Horse?

I do what I believe in as good for Singapore’s political aka democratic development. I do not take opportunistic view of “winning at all cost”; e.g. putting a donkey just for the sake of winning. I believe strongly in integrity, honesty, fairness and public service. I believe in helping or pushing people with GOOD characters, right attitude and hearts in the right place to serve the people into position of power. At times, I even hope that certain people should not have contested, not because of the lack of paper qualifications or any other reasons, but because I know of their character flaws or they have integrity problem. But in politics, I have to make compromises. For these strange bed fellows, I will not help them in any ways to win because I know that if they win, Singapore will be in great trouble.

At the end of the day, other people can say anything they want but my stance is pretty clear. Moles will not try to help to build opposition parties up, not only one party, but TWO opposition parties, from small ships into credible battleships in such a short span of time. Moles will not push for rebranding exercise of opposition parties, not one but TWO, with all sorts of suggestions and strategies to rebuild public confidence in opposition camp. Moles will not hit hard at the HARD SORE policy issues like HDB, which was the GREATEST POLITICAL CAPITAL of PAP which it has accumulated over 40 years! Well, I don’t think any moles would spend prolonged period of time and effort, in writing policy issues and hitting at the core of PAP’s incompetency.

I can only say, these people who really make up such conspiracy theories, should have their heads checked.


13. Ok I'll try to end it here with just a few more questions. Opposition politics is a lonely and hard road to travel, with so many pitfalls, not only does the PAP try to squeeze you and make the field very uneven, you end up having detractors (including myself) condemning you for your efforts. Do you regret it? Does your wife and family ever tell you, 'Ah Seng, sua lah, enough lah, just quit and be a private citizen?' Do you ever feel like giving up because of the hardships and lack of thanks?

I have no regrets, really. If people like you and PAP IBs ignore me, then it is clear that I am irrelevant. I do not blame you for writing bad things about me because I know you are not insider who will have privileged information to help you understand the greater whole picture. Politics isn’t simple, but it isn’t that complicated at all. Just keep your heart in the right place, do whatever you need to do with your conscience clear, then whatever other detractors say, are totally irrelevant. You cannot please everyone all the time. While I have detractors like you, but I also have strong supporters and following as well. You are my mirror to show me how people look at me. If I have free time like this, I will try to correct your wrong perception. If not, I will just leave it aside. Or I simply learn from you on how I could do better (though this is very rare). I draw strength from lots of people who have given me strong support and encouragement. People who can see exactly what I am trying to do and where I am coming from will have stronger believe in me, my strength and my team.

Every “revolutionary effort”, has always started from a small group of people, with a small group of supporters. In time to come, consistency will prove my point and consistency can only be achieved by having strong guiding beliefs, principles and a set of Core Values.

Well, for my immediate family, of course my wife and child would love to have their husband and father to spend more time with them. But they also know the importance of my political work and I am blessed to have their full support on all fronts. I am greatly indebted to them for their love and support. Most importantly, they are proud of what I have done and what I am doing as well. This is something that money cannot buy.

I have written a few articles in my blog about stories of my childhood. You should go and read it. I am not someone who will give up easily when the job isn’t done. In fact, I love challenges and fighting for social justice. And you must be mistaken. You may think that there are a lot of people who will hate me in Singapore but I am beginning to feel that you are the minority whenever I meet strangers on the streets who will wave at me, smile at me, shake my hand and even thank me and encourage me for the work I have done. It is not “thankless” to me. I felt touched by each of these encounters and this is the main reason for me to carry on fighting.




14. Assuming that you fail again - I'm not trying to put you down, but new party, 1st time of asking is quite an uphill task - just being realistic, supposing you fail again, will you keep plugging away like JBJ and Chiam have up to old age, or is there a time frame where you will hang up your boots?

When Chiam left SDP in 1997 and contested in a newly formed SPP, he won. This was because he was no stranger and he was an MP. I cannot say I am as popular as Chiam but I am confident in myself and my team. Not many people in opposition have all the relevant experiences and skills in running a party, lest running a whole election campaign proper. I am one of the very few who have hands on experiences in planning for campaign logistics as well as media management. Besides, I have a team, though small but with relevant skill sets and experiences, to help me out.

When I gave a briefing on PPP to all the founders and supporters, I have stated categorically that PPP will become the ruling party or part of ruling coalition one day. It may not happen during my lifetime but it will outlive all our founders and achieve that aim. This is because we have started it right, with the right Core Values, Political Ideologies, Philosophies and objectives all embedded in our Constitution.


15. Ok last question - national issues aside - opposition parties tend to overlook municipal issues, which are very important to voters. They want to be assured that a team can take over from the PAP and run the Town Council and their estate well. How confident are you in fulfilling this role, and do you have a team in place that can run the estate seamlessly?

Running a Town Council WAS NEVER AN ISSUE! SDP has run THREE Town Council back in early 1990s. WP has run its Hougang Twon Council for two decades! Why is it an issue now? You will really have to THINK REAL HARD, why do we have issues now when we don’t in the past?

Running Town Council is REALLY a NON ISSUE if you understand Separation of Powers to implement proper checks and balances. On top of that, you must also understand Conflict of interest and how to avoid it.

MPs’ MAIN CORE Job, is Parliamentary Debates, less of estate management. How many PAP MPs really know how to run an Estate? You just employ people with professional experiences and qualifications to do it while you are to ensure the system of management is in proper order with proper checks and balances through separation of powers. On top of that, prevent conflict of interests.

I think most of you have been misled by PAP to put all focus on TC management. This is what PAP wants you to focus on for the next GE, instead of those teething policy issues!

As for the pertinent question about whether I have a team of people who can manage the TC, yes, of course! You just need professional people with estate management experiences to run the TC, not some rocket scientist lah!

Goh Meng Seng

Point by point Response to my Skeptics on PPP

My response I have put up on TRE

I thank you for all of your comments here. Most of your questions or concerns have been answered or covered in my video interview with TOC. Please wait for the release of the video for more detailed answers.

I am also writing a Chinese article on my blog, to put up the full perspective of my thoughts and political path I have chosen.

In short replies to all the criticism here, these are my main points:

1) I have plunged into opposition politics in 2001 because I felt the urgency to do so in view of the dangerous situation of the possibility of total wipe out of opposition back then. All other people like Sylvia Lim, Yaw Shin Leong, James Gomez,Lee Wai Leng etc all felt the same. There is nothing opportunistic about it.

2) We have the aim of breaking PAP's monopoly of power by first breaching the GRC fortress and secondly, depriving PAP two third majority.

3) I left WP because of the little mistake I made and also because I felt strongly that individual member should continue to learn to deal with new media effectively. Tilik has also left WP subsequently.

4) Nevertheless I have learned all the good practices from WP and subsequently, applied and experimented these in NSP with great success.

5) After GE2011, Hazel wanted to take over NSP SG post. Although I think it is really a bad idea but I finally agreed. In view of the overall good results of GE2011 for all opposition parties with WP achieving the First goal of breaching the GRC fortress, I believed opposition could achieve the second goal of one third seats pretty quickly. Thus, I decided to take a back seat and a sabbatical from frontline politics.

6) However, it was not long before WP got into a series of problems. These have inevitably shaken confidence of the middle ground voters in opposition.

7) NSP on the other hand, has also faced internal problems, resulting in the departure of Nicole Seah and Jeannette with some others. Many NSP members wanted me to go back to NSP initially but the mismanagement of the party has caused irreversible harm which I could not mend.

8) There are other parties inviting me to join. But I do not want to disrupt their management at this point of time.

9) I have decided to return to opposition politics because there is a real danger and possibility that a regression of the initial goals might just happened.

10) Rest be assured that I won't be contesting against WP in Aljunied. I am not someone who will rob the victims in the fire, even though I am intolerable of some of the things happening there.

11) On the other hand, in view of the Post-LKY era, it is an opportunity to initiate a full political discourse on whether the current system of concentration of power is sustainable or good for Singapore's stability in the long run.

12) We also need to rethink how Singapore should be governed differently, in a more balanced way.

13) Thus People's Power Party is created for a combination of reasons in need for the continue development of Singapore's democratic process.

Goh Meng Seng

Do it Right for the People

I have written three little stories about my younger days and they may seem not to have any connections to anything but they do point to something very important and relevant to us now.

The three articles are as follows:

1) My Little Secret of My Past
2) My Wild Days
3) The Little Illegal Hawker in Politics

These articles sum up something very fundamental about me, the Core Values I hold as a person, as well as my empathy towards many people, especially towards Amos Yee.

These stories may not be unique to many of you out there, most likely sound rather familiar to many of you one way or another, and there is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of our past. We live our lives as it is, the little mischievous things we did in our young wild days and the little battles we fought along our path of growing up. These are our footprints in life, big or small.

It is sad that PAP MPs and people are trying so hard to show how "NORMAL" they are, how "poor" they were in order to strike resonance with all of us. They got it wrong there. It is NOT some SOB Stories we need to come to the conclusions that they are one of us, they are like us. It is the VALUES which they hold and the EMPATHY or rather, the lack of all these, which make us think they are truly disconnected from the whole lot of us.

Their actions now, speak louder than their SOB stories. Their inability to empathize with us is glaring in their attempt to destroy the life of a naughty boy like Amos Yee. Didn't they have a REAL LIFE of wild days during their youthful days?

To be able to appreciate idealism, strong sense of social justice and upright characters is a blessing because most people most probably would have been too "corrupted" with the reality in life to view such as "naive youthful highfalutin idealism" after they grew older.

Even for someone like PM Lee, I would expect him to have his fair share of mischievous wild days of fun with distinct rebellious nature of youth, else, I am sad to say that, he has not lived his life well at all!

Ironically, I would say those who reported police over such trivial things done by a mischievous little boy are as mischievous, if not more as Amos Yee himself. No mature and sensible adults would have taken such mischievous acts by a little boy too seriously. They seriously have misplaced self righteousness.

Serious people will fight seriously for injustice or unfair treatments or welfare of the people generally at large. Just like I protested and fought for the mischievous student who might have his life destroyed by that police report made by the disciplinary master, or just pure angry retaliation against big bullies who bullied my friend. And serious people will fight on the matter of principles to defend the rights of democracy and its processes.

In contrast, only petty people fought against and find faults with a little mischievous boy. Yet, PAP people are trying to convince us that they are just like us... Is that a mischievous attempt to make us laugh?

The little illegal hawker in politics

It seems that PAP MPs and people are starting to showcase themselves as the "ordinary poor folks" in their bid to gain trust from common voters, basically saying "we are just like you". Citing their "poor family background" is their best attempt in trying to "get connect" to Singaporeans at large, despite the fact that they are so well paid nowadays.

Well I don't think they could ever "beat me" on putting up sad stories of their poor past. Living in rental flat is really nothing but imagine if a family of 10 squeezing into a rental flat with only 1 bed room? That's how my family lived in the 1970s.

My dad was a taxi driver but his income couldn't possibly cope with the family expenses. My parents failed to get a proper hawker license after numerous N times trying. Thus, our family became the family of illegal hawkers!

I became the youngest illegal hawker in the family at the age of 5. I would help my mom and dad to set up our little road side store to sell Nasi Lemak, Kuey, Otah, Bee Hoon etc. Business started from 5.45am till 9am or even later, depending on sales. Sometimes, we have to just grab our goods and run when the "Earth Bull" (environment officers) made their rounds to try and catch us.

When I got older, I started to do my rounds with two baskets full of food to sell it at the 20 storey flat next to ours, walking through each and every floor, yelling out "Otah Otah Otah Kuey, Nasi Lemak". On lucky days, I could sell everything I brought in the two baskets! But that was hard work. However, this has prepared me for the tedious political legwork, going through the flats knocking on every door.

Even my Primary School's classmates became my customers after they have tasted my parents' Nasi Lemak! I would take orders periodically and then get my dad to send me to school along with my 10s or even 20s packets of Nasi Lemak! Up till today, my primary school friends still remembered fondly about eating that delicious Nasi Lemak which they bought from this little illegal hawker in class!

In 2010 when NEA tried to hinder NSP's political outreach of selling newspaper, they used "illegal hawking" as the charge against us. During the CEC discussion of whether to just pay the fine and move on, I put up my strongest objection to pay the fine. I was ready to fight it out in court. I gave my most angered and passionate argument in CEC that I have been an illegal hawker since young and the illegal hawking law is specifically used against people who sell food. This is to ensure that basic hygiene standards are met for food hawkers and responsibility can be extracted if anything went wrong with the food sold.

I lived my young life as illegal hawker and understand that such illegal hawking is committed out of unfortunate circumstances which is aimed to earn enough money for our livelihood, to feed the many mouths we have in our families.

However, what we do as a political party, is political grassroot work, not illegal hawking. We do not need to go illegal hawking to keep ourselves alive! Our activity is purely political activity, not mere hawking. Thus if PAP government wanted to charge us for illegal hawking, I am prepared to go to court and fight it out, knowing that we will lose but this will let the whole world know that PAP is actually run by dictator who does not believe in Democracy. It is a total farce to allow political parties to register but ban them from conducting their legitimate political activity!

I am glad we stood firm on this principle else if we really paid the fine it would mean that all opposition parties will have to stop their legitimate political activity altogether. After getting this basic fundamental principle drawn clearly, all opposition parties benefit from this saga as they will no longer get harassed by the authorities for "illegal hawking" when they go around selling their newspapers.

Sometimes I feel that as politicians, we will need to stand firm when we feel that people are treated unfairly by the State. In this case, if we were unwilling to even fight for our rights to carrying out legitimate political activities, how could we expect ourselves to fight for rights and welfare of Singaporeans at large?

#GohMengSeng

My Wild Days

When I first watched what Amos Yee said on YouTube, my first reactions were, Bo Tua Bo Shoi, no big no small, disrespectful with his barrage of vulgarity. This is even though I dislike Dictator like LKY, I still think what he has done was rude and disrespectful, crude.

But I do not feel what he has said is in any way sedition in nature.

Looking back at my younger days when I was at his age, I have my fair share of wild days. As expressed in my earlier post on my little secret of Unorthodox Hot Temper in my Primary School, strong characters and sense of Social Justice, I became more wild in River Valley.

I became the ACCIDENTAL Chairman of Student Council after the preceding Chairman was forced to resigned. On the outlook, I am the type quiet Mr Nice guy, obedient and never create trouble kind.I was Chosen by the discipline master to replace the Elected Chair and naturally, I resisted at first but accepted reluctantly eventually.

But this position didn't last long when the discipline master reported police over a case of vandalism whereby his car was scratched. He accused a student who was just disciplined by him for the crime.

I felt that was unacceptable when the police just arrested the student when there was just mere suspicion. This act would have ruined the life of this student if he would have a black mark on his record. Counselling should be the appropriate approach.

Anyway, I didn't confront the discipline master or principal directly. Just like Amos, I made use of the mass media but in a more subtle and sophisticated way.

I was a regular contributor to the young writer section of the Chinese papers Zaobao. I wrote a fictitious story which mock and insinuate the way of how the school authority handled this issue was totally unjust and inappropriate.

It was published and of course, my school's disciplinary Master wasn't that stupid and soon found out from his friend working in the papers that I was the one who wrote that article.

Eventually I resigned as the Chairman of Student Council and the rest is history.

Well, when I look back, I realize what I did back then wasn't that different from Amos, making use of the media to voice out the unhappiness of injustice. But we do not have internet nor YouTube and I wasn't rude at all, just naughty with that stink of sarcasm and mockery.

Yes, I believe most of us were wild before in our younger days. Just that time has changed and the mindset of the young ones nowadays is totally different from ours.

Who didn't have their wild days? 人不轻狂枉少年，if you Haven't been wild before, you must have wasted your youth. We just need to have that little bit of empathy towards the young people who have gone overboard in their wildness, light touch and most importantly educate and counsel them into taking the more proper path.

My Little Secret of My Past

Ok, since the PAP IBs have surfaced to show their impatience, I shall talk about this little secret of my past.

As you might have known, I come from a SAP school River Valley High but not many people know that I also come from a village Primary School which was full of gangsters. Incidentally, I just found out Lee Lilian is my junior from this Primary School!

I was usually a very quiet student indulging in my own world, thoughts and dreams. I might not be the top in class but my studies were pretty ok.

But there was another side of me and this was revealed by my FB friend. Beyond that "good student" look, I was and still am unorthodox and I have extremely hot temper back then.

The extremely strong sense of justice and fairness would invoke strong responses from my hot temper whenever injustice was uncovered.

Once, a little rascal gangster attacked a fellow friend and a prefect right after school on the street outside our school. My friend was pretty small size in body build and was hantum on the back. I raced towards the attacker and hit him back, gave chase after he tried to get away. My whole lot of prefects followed me and gave chase.

Well, naturally, the whole lot of us, almost all prefects, were called up by our discipline masters the next morning and were given a lengthy lecture, with hair being pulled and palms being hit by his ruler.... such punishment was considered "light" by any standards during that time!

But from that day onward, those little rascals from those gangster groups would stay away from us, the prefects, keeping a far distance while the leader of the pack, called for truce thereafter.

Ironically, I wasn't the head prefect but apparently, become the unorthodox leader of this group of prefects. I became the "Pai Kia" of the "Hor Kias"; "Gangster figurehead" of the "Good boys".

When I became the "accidental" Student Council Chairman in River Valley High, that great sense of "Social Justice" and Hot Headed Temper reigned again. But this time, with some sophistication. Let's leave this story for another time, another day.

This great sense of "Social Justice" has remained in me up till now, although my HOT Temper was subdued by my practice of Buddhism and meditation over the years.

But my "Cow Boy Pai Kia Ah Beng" character still has a great imprint on my characters nowadays, though mitigated with more wisdom and mindfulness. Beware if you want to provoke me; you may get that unorthodox backlash upon you if you really make me angry, although it is very difficult to achieve anger in me at my age.

New Era of Political "Ground Work"

The Birth of New China was pushed by a Medical Doctor, Sun Yat Sen. Why would a Medical Doctor give up his medical practice and went into revolution? Dr Sun said, as a Medical Doctor, he could only heal the physical body of the people, but not the sufferings of people of China and the weakness of China. Thus he gave up his medical practice and turned into revolutionist who was determined to overthrow the Qing Dynasty to form the Republic, so to revolutionize China into a modern country.

However after his success of overthrowing the Qing Dynasty, he realized that the mindset of the general public was still stuck with the feudalistic system. Simple example like people still calling "万岁" (wishing 10000 years to the Emperor) and treating him like an Emperor. In fact, President Yuan wanted to revert back to Monarchy rule and declared himself as Emperor not long after Dr Sun stepped down to allow Yuan to succeed him as the President in compromise for setting up the Republic!

This is the historical lesson we should learn from the past. Revolutions or change of government will not be sustainable if the mindset of the general public has not changed. For any political contest, the tactical moves made to win seats is just a mere means to the bigger vision. You can swing public sentiments to support your party to win seats into parliament but without a strong fundamental foundation of mindset change, such victory will be short live.

Spreading of the ideas and ideals of Republic was slow and difficult in the early years of Dr Sun's success due to the lack of information infrastructure. But in this new era, social media and internet have revolutionalized political engagement and as opposition with little resources, we should make full use of such cheap, effective and efficient media to effect change of mindsets and political landscape.

Some people look down on the work of "keyboard warriors" but it is the combination of these "keyboard warriors" which has caused a rapid change of political landscapes in many countries, including Singapore.

There are people who accused politicians like me of "not doing ground work" as in physical knocking doors but little do they know that evangelism of political ideas through social media and internet is becoming more important to effect strong, fundamental change in voters' mindset. For example, the campaign on HDB prices would not be so effective if it is not for internet and social media.

"Political ground work" has a fundamental change from just a Public Relations and Visibility exercise like shaking hands and kissing babies on the ground to more time consuming political dialogues, intellectual engagement and political evangelism on the social media and internet.

This will become more important in the years to come whereby newbies will have to prove themselves by providing more convincing political views, debates and policy deliberation on the New media as voters are getting more educated and intellectually sophisticated.

Yes, there are still a substantial group of voters, mainly elderly voters, who will not log on to internet but their children and grand children with access to information from the internet will have great influence on them. The HDB debate was the greatest example in showing the enormous influence of social media.

Social media may be easily accessible, cheap, effective and efficient but it is still very time consuming. So please don't look down on the political work people do on social media in this era. The study which shows that Social Media has become equally influential as Main Stream Media has a lot implication on such political work on internet.

The Collapse of Meritocracy and Integrity under PAP Rule

When the Ceiling Gate Saga happened, PAP Minister was pointing to the sky and gave us a lecture of INTEGRITY. Well admittedly, somebody involved in Ceiling Gate saga must have lied and there is definitely some integrity problem.

But so far, we do not know who lied as WP didn't want to investigate thoroughly on the roles of their contractors and Managing Agent. On the other hand PAP didn't pursue the matter to investigate who is lying as well.

While the lecture of Integrity is still ringing in our heads, IDA was exposed to have employed a Foreign Talent with fake academic credential. It is a very serious matter as there was precedent whereby individual Singaporean was charged and jailed for using fake academic credential to look for jobs. It is more than just integrity problem and criminal issue here because such acts have great impact on our system of meritocracy.

If such dubious acts are somehow tolerated by a Government Statutory Board like IDA, it will send a big wrong signal that CHEATING in job seeking with fake degrees from degree mills is accepted as a norm in Singapore.

In fact this is not the first time such embarrassing thing has happened in Singapore. NUS has employed a lecturer in Medicine school from India who was found to have fake academic credentials and he was exposed in USA eventually.

I have always said that how can we consider people graduating from Third World countries universities as TALENTS if their universities were mostly unheard of? In Singapore our universities have rigorous curriculum and only the top 20% or 25% of our cohort can get in. But what we are experiencing is that our graduates from our very own universities are being replaced by people from dubious unknown universities in third world countries and worse, some even with FAKE Degrees from these places!

PAP Government didn't have any proper mechanism to screen out all these cheaters before they issue them employment passes or even PRs and subsequently citizenship!

And now we know even Government Statsboards like IDA and NUS have tolerated or even defended such glaring lapses!

How can we ever trust PAP Government again im upholding the system of Meritocracy and Integrity which our little Nation is founded on? Especially so when they have flooded our country with so many foreigners to compete with our citizens for jobs and limited resources? How many of these over two million FT are actually FAKE TALENTS and cheats?

With such prevailing snobbish attitude of the Government agencies we have, I won't be surprised as much as over 30% of these foreign migrants have fake degrees because MOM which is the gate keeper, just didn't do their job properly.

Do you still want to trust PAP Government again?

Goh Meng Seng

Challenges in Post LKY-Era

Although I dislike and cannot forgive LKY for what he has done to our democratic system and I have decided not to mourn his death, but I have mixed feelings about his death. I am more worried about Singapore's survival and sustainability after his death.

First of all, the dictatorial system which he has built is not sustainable at all. It will need a "Philosophical King" to be at the helm. For any generation, the chance of having a Saint-Like "Philosophical King" is worse than playing lottery, least to have such PK to be placed at the top of the political leadership. Confucius, though highly regarded as a "Saint-like" philosopher and teacher in history, has never played any substantial political role of any big states during his era. Neither did Socrates or Plato, who had preached about the "Philosopher King" concept.


Thus, to depend on the current dictatorial system to bring us continuous stability, prosperity and most importantly, honesty in political management of the Nation, is totally irrational and unrealistic. We will need to build a full Democratic system with proper separation of powers to provide the necessary checks and balances.

The second worry on my mind is that we have lost a very important political leader who could garner respect and the necessary diplomatic network which will ensure Singapore, a small open economy state's interests, safety and stability to be guarded among the fluid and dynamic global situations.

At this moment, I cannot see anyone in PAP's current political leadership has that ability and global influence to fill the gap that LKY has left us. This may be the crucial and critical survival skill set our Nation is lacking for our survival.

Singapore's future may face a lot more uncertainties if our current political landscape doesn't change.

李光耀 - 盖棺定论 (全)

李光耀 - 盖棺定论


缘起


每一位第一次到新加坡旅游或公干的人，多多少少都会对这个弹丸小国感到惊讶。每一条道路旁都排列着整齐的遮荫树木。整洁的城市规划加上守规矩的新加坡人一定会让许多人刮目相看。尤其是，新加坡有超过八成的人都住在政府所津贴售卖的公共房屋中，而四大种族都能和谐的群居在一起。这令许多外国人都非常羡慕。这种现象多少反映了新加坡政府的管治能力。当然，这也是累积了三代领导班子的成果。


外国人一提起新加坡就会很自然即刻想起李光耀先生。无可否认，在国际政治舞台上，李光耀是一颗耀眼的明星。许多不同时代的各国政要都对这来自蕞尔小国的大人物赞不绝口。他们对他以往的政治演说和国际时事的分析，更是洗耳恭听。几乎每个政治评论员都对他能在短短几十年内能为新加坡创造经济奇迹吹捧得非常厉害。就算是中国这样的泱泱大国，都有人追捧学习李光耀治国之道。更有人夸大其词的说没有李光耀新加坡就不可能从一个“小渔村”发展成第一世界国家等等。如果仔细研究李光耀从政的一生，我们就不难发觉，就算是把新加坡街道边的一草一木，甚至说“花园城市”这个美誉都跟他划成等号，这一点都不夸张。


在这一些众多的赞誉背后，隐藏着许多对李光耀非常不客气的批评。多数的批评都围绕着他是个独裁者。他在不同时期以不同的手法残酷迫害他的政敌和异议份子。更有一些华校生会永远对李光耀在1980代关闭南洋大学和消灭华文教育的行动耿耿于怀。也有人拿他和家族在1996年购买高级私人房产时收受特别折扣来批评他。


在批评他的人当中，不乏国际媒体著名的撰稿人。而李光耀对于这一些报纸、刊物和作者都给予沉重还击。他不只控告这一些对他肆意抨击的媒体和人物诽谤，还以行政和立法权力限制这一些媒体在新加坡的销售量，更剥夺他们在新加坡发行刊物放置广告以打击他们的收益。对于国内的异议分子，除了以内安法令逮捕，没经审讯任意监禁之外，也以诽谤罪和威吓对付他们。有不少反对党分子也因此破产而失去参于国会竞选的资格。也有不少异议分子被迫流放国外。


也许多数的伟大领袖都是如此具争议性的，而李光耀也不例外。李光耀对他人的种种批评，表面上不屑一顾，但事实上，他是非常在意他这一生所留下的声誉。这可以从他在生前不断出书自传，以他的观点解说历史上许多的争议而看得出他是非常在意别人如何为他盖棺定论。


简短生平


李光耀在1923年9月16日生于一个中产土生华人（男、女俗称峇峇、娘惹。他们是早期华族移民与土生马来族或其他非华族通婚后而产生的混血后裔。他们有自己的文化特征而多数以马来语为母语。）的家庭。


李光耀是聪明绝顶的人。小时候就已经从一间普通学校转至以英语为教学语言的莱佛士书院就读。莱佛士书院是新加坡顶尖的学校而它当时只收取全马来亚150名最优秀的学生。


李光耀负笈英国剑桥留学的计划虽然因日本占领新加坡而延后了四年，但这并没阻止李光耀在菲茨威廉学院法律系以双重一等荣誉毕业。


李光耀除了聪明绝顶外，还是个务实的机会主义者。根据他自己在自传里的透露，他在日据时期，曾经在日本皇军的宣传部队“报道部”当翻译。与此同时他也在当时的黑市做买卖，甚至与朋友一起为日本皇军提供军需品和建筑工程服务。当他从所截听的盟军消息得知日军在节节败退时，他就暗地里准备逃离到马来亚的金马伦高原去避风头。但是因日军开始怀疑他而对他展开跟踪而作罢。他自述在这日据时期的经历对他政治生涯起着非常大的影响。日本人的铁腕统治让他了解到权威的重要性。他务实的态度不只让他和家人能安然的渡过艰巨的日据时期，更让他累积了一点积蓄以资助他在战争后负笈英国留学。


政治成就与过失


李光耀这种务实机会主义的人生哲学在他的政治生涯里一再展现无遗。


经历了因英国无能而战败，导致日本人残暴统治的李光耀终于领悟到新加坡必须脱离外国人统治。这促使他展开了反殖民主义的斗争。但是在1950年代的反殖民运动中，受华文教育的左派人物才是主流。务实的李光耀就联合以林清祥为首的左派成立了人民行动党。李光耀以此当上了左派工会的顾问律师，从而让他争取到巨大的政治资本。


从1950至1960年代，面对许多各地反殖民地主义的英国也被逼考虑如何在不损害自身利益的前提下，退出殖民地而让自己信任得过的人掌权自治和独立。李光耀看准了这时机，运用了高超的政治手段，一方面使英国相信在伦敦剑桥读过书的他是他们的最佳人选，而另一方面还是打着反殖民的旗帜大骂英国人“白种人”。与此同时，他利用英国人把他党内的同志，林清祥一伙人扣留起来，直到他赢得选举当了总理。


1963年，在林清祥等人脱离行动党自组社会主义阵线（社阵）后，机智的李光耀就利用与马来亚合并的契机，在马来亚首相的要求下，顺理成章的把林清祥和社阵所有的主要人物一共一百多人，全都以内部安全法令(内安法)，不经审讯的扣押起来，并且试图把责任全推到英国人和马来亚首相的身上。这时，他就把这一些人标签为“共产党恐怖分子”。


从此之后，一直到1980年代，李光耀就举着反共的旗帜，把异议分子都以“共产党恐怖分子”名义在内安法令下抓起来，任由监禁。 根据统计，在他任内总共以内安法囚禁果2600 名异议分子之多。


但是一向坚持反共的李光耀，在中国总理周恩来向他招手时，还是务实的回应了他的邀请，到中国访问了。虽然最终无法和周总理见面，但这一次破冰之旅还是为李光耀和中国历代领导层的关系展开了历史上的第一页。


在李光耀的政治生涯中，他最伟大的成就就是以务实的态度和中国建立起良好的关系而促进全东南亚的和平。他以坚定的意志，说服了邓小平副总理，中国必须停止向周边国家输出共产主义才能建设和谐的环境以便经济能共同发展起来。中国最终不止终结了对马共和泰共的资助，更在柬埔寨战争上扮演了非常重要的角色。李光耀在促成中国、东盟和美国合作，了结柬埔寨战争的事件上，起了关键性的影响力。这彻底解除了越南对东南亚地区的军事威胁，并给与东盟建立了和平稳定的有利环境。


没有李光耀高超的政治外交手腕，新加坡是不可能在同一时间取得美国和中国的基本信任以至能争取到这样显著的成果。同样的道理，李光耀以他和台湾的友好关系为海峡两岸僵持不下的关系解冻。历史性的第一次汪辜会谈能成功圆满的在新加坡举行，李光耀居功至上。这更进一步缓和了整个东亚和东南亚区域的紧张局势。


李光耀虽然在区域和国际政治舞台上有着显著的重大贡献，但他以那铁一般的手腕对付新加坡国内的异议分子却是他政治上的一大败笔。虽然许多人认为在建国的首几年，李光耀的铁腕统治提供了新加坡所需要的稳定环境来发展经济，但是他把政敌在没有经过审讯的情况下长久囚禁达32年之久是非常不人道的。这摧毁了许多人的人生和家庭。


他在1987年继续以“马克思密谋者”的罪名把22名支持和帮助反对党社运分子全都以内安法关了起来。这一举动掀起了许多争议。就连他的年轻内阁同僚都觉得不妥。这是因为在那时期，中国已经开始改革开放，不再向东南亚输出共产主义，而前苏联也脱离了冷战思维，开始逐渐瓦解。用这样的借口来打压异议分子已经没有什么说服力了。自此之后，虽然李光耀不再以内安法令来对付异议分子，但却换了个方式以诽谤罪使反对党人和异议分子破产来延续他的独裁政权。


在这一系列打压异议分子的行动中，很不幸的是，法治无可避免的被严重冲击。而在民主选举方面，李光耀的政府虽然没有舞弊，但是他运用了立法权和执政权，任意的更改选举制度和干预选区的划分而保住了他集权独裁的意图。李光耀的集权举动，也无可避免的摧毁了新加坡应有的民主基石 – 权力的分立和相互的制衡。这是他政治上的最大过失。


经济


许多人都把新加坡的经济奇迹归功于李光耀，但这是有一点言过其实。新加坡只是一个比上海小9倍的城市小岛国。持有新加坡公民权的也只有3百多万人。当初独立时，我们继承了英国殖民时代所遗留下来的良好海港和基建。新加坡是英国众多殖民地中，在远东最重要的海港。优越的地理位置和海港基建是新加坡最重要的资源。相对于当时的东南亚，甚至整个东亚，新加坡的基建和城市化程度是最好的。以人均收入来看，也是居高者。以人均收入来看，它在1965年是东南亚最高的，而在整个亚洲也只屈居于日本和香港。

（以下是两个关于新加坡的电影片段，摄于1957和1958年）






所以说李光耀从英国接手的新加坡并不是如许多人所说的“落后的小渔村”。


但在那建国初期，新加坡面对了许多严峻的问题。这包括了居住环境，经济面对内部强势工会的动荡，印尼的武装威胁，而最大的挑战是英军即将撤离的问题。英军是当时单一雇佣最多员工的机构。它也是保障新加坡免受当时苏卡诺领导的印尼政府军事敌对的威胁。


幸好就在英军迁离新加坡之际，越南战争使新加坡成为了美国的重要的补给基地。这缓解了英军撤离的影响。


在1959年刚上任的李光耀总理（自治区）也只是一名三十五岁年轻律师，对经济根本一窍不通。但很幸运的，他身旁有个智多星，吴庆瑞博士。吴庆瑞是新加坡经济发展的总工程师。他说服了李光耀降低关税，把新加坡设定为自由港。然后再着手土地改革，建廉价的公共组合房屋（组屋）以把人民从恶劣的居住环境搬迁，从而释放更多土地给与城市发展。他更发展了工业园区，设法把经济从单一依赖港口贸易转型到以制造业为首的经济体。再来就是重组教育制度，好让人民能接受更多工艺和工程系的教育，使他们更能够受雇于制造业。这种种发展，配合了世界工业的转型。在1960年代，在西方和日本的大企业开始了外包和寻找代工的经营模式。他们也因本国成本的提高而开始向国外迁移厂房。


在这世界工业的新潮流中，得益的是亚洲四小龙：韩国、台湾、香港和新加坡。新加坡之所以能有如此非凡的经济起飞，其实是依靠这工业潮流的发展。新加坡在四小龙里是最小的经济体，所以很显然的，它的经济成就也比其他四小龙地区较容易突出。


新加坡的“经济奇迹”其实是结合了天时地利人和的有利因素，而李光耀先生的贡献，其实比不上吴庆瑞博士。


但是我们不能抹杀李光耀为新加坡在国际和东亚开展投资机会的巨大功劳。尤其是在对中国的经济发展趋势的解读，他更是具有独到的远见。虽然新加坡政府在苏州工业园的投资失利，但这惨痛的经历只给李光耀上了一堂中国经商和政治文化的再教育。新加坡并没有因此对中国减少投资。


社会和文化建设


李光耀对新加坡社会建设的影响是非常深远的。他以他个人的意志和务实的考量规划了社区的发展。


李光耀除了众所周知的以严刑峻法对付不雅的反社会行为（如随地吐痰，乱丢垃圾，涂鸦等等）之外，他还以行政手段推行他所想要的城市情景。比如说，他非常喜欢园林，所以在城市规划中，绿化必定是首要考量。新加坡特别设立了国家公园局来打理全国的花草树木。所以说，当你一踏入新加坡的街道时所看到的一草一木都跟李光耀有关系。这一点也不夸张的。


他也出于务实的政治考量，以法律规定每个社区里，必须以种族比例分售组屋给国民。新加坡是由四大种族形成的。在1969年时，曾经发生过种族暴动。所以李光耀特别关注国家的种族和谐。他认为各个族群集聚在各自的传统地域将不利种族和谐的发展。这将让有心人能很容易的去煽动种族敌对情绪。如果把各族群平均的分散在不同的地方，让大家都有机会学习如何和睦共处的话，这对长期各族群的磨合将会有巨大的帮助。他这务实的做法的确让许多长期受种族暴动或冲击的国家来说，真是大开眼界。


但是在某一些社会议题上，李光耀也遭到滑铁卢。他激进强施的“两个（孩子）就够了”的人口控制政策，造成了这小国在短短的时间里，面对严峻的人口老化的问题。他的精英遗传论更在1980年代引起了巨大的反弹。这使他不得不把这两项不得人心的政策给撤了。


在教育、文化和语言政策方面，李光耀的争议性更大了。


新加坡在殖民地时代曾经是东南亚的第一个发展电影业的文化城。文化领域上，真是百花争鸣。


但在早期的政治斗争中，李光耀把许多文人和报人全都以内安法令给关了起来。这包括之后被誉为“国宝”的戏剧泰斗郭宝昆、南洋商报主笔李星可等。在李光耀的铁腕统治之下，这原本是被誉为东南亚的维也纳文化中心的土地，一时之间就变成了充满文字狱的白色恐怖国家。


加上李光耀全力打击经常批评他的华校生，导致南洋大学（南大）被逼在1980年关闭而所有华校体系的中小学都被逼转型。这是南洋一带华校生对李光耀更加敌视的原因。


这关闭南大的决定其实是与李光耀对中国的政治、经济策略有所冲突的。过了不久后，李光耀就发觉新加坡从此就非常缺乏受过华文教育的人来跟中国打交道。


与此同时，他也发现他关掉的不止是一所大学，而是消灭了整个时代海外华人的“南大精神”。南大是儒商陈六使先生发起的。他本人虽然没受过什么正统教育，但他知道民族要自强不息，就要注重教育的发展。他于是发起了建立一所以中华文化为教育重点的大学，捐出了大批土地来建设南洋第一所中文大学，南洋大学。当时马来亚的华人都纷纷响应他的号召，有钱出钱，有力出力，终于实现了建设中国海外的第一所中文大学。


这种为社群无私的奉献，就是南大精神的神髓。而也是一个对海外华人影响深远的精神。李光耀在关掉南大后，才后悔他也毁灭了这种伟大的无私精神。


很讽刺的是，李光耀过后大提以儒家思想为本的“亚洲价值观”，试图以这新论述来把自己的独裁粉饰、合理化。但是一个如此推崇儒家思想的政治家，怎么会把象征中华文化教育的南大给关了呢？


面对南大精神的毁灭，新加坡便全面的进入一个以功利主义统治和发展的时代。原本廉价的组屋的价格也逐渐被提高到与市场价格挂钩。原本享有高额津贴的医药服务，也贵得令新加坡人觉得能死不能病了。


除此之外，李光耀最失败的是摧毁了公共服务的精神。在那一些与他打天下的同僚全都退休后，他就以“高薪养廉”的理由，大肆提高新一代部长的薪金。现在新加坡的部长都享有至少新币一百多万（等于人民币5百多万）的年薪。这是世界上最高的政治薪酬，比美国总统还要高。


盖棺定论


要为李光耀先生这样具有争议性的人物作定论，的确不容易。对于一代被他迫害的左派人士，他们肯定是百感交加。


不管是他的宿敌或仰慕者，他们都不能否认他的确是个有许多缺点的伟大政治家。他在国际和东亚所做出的巨大贡献是谁也不能藐视的。但对新加坡民主基石的摧毁，也一样是铁一般的事实。


许多国家都在研究李光耀的“新加坡模式”：在独裁一党独大的统治下，也能取得巨大经济发展的模式。但是我认为，这“新加坡模式”与李光耀一样，是独一无二的。这是因为这“新加坡模式”是在独有的地缘政治和一个独有时代的世界经济发展潮流中产生的。就有如李光耀先生一样，历史上也只能只有一个李光耀。因为他是在独有的天时、地利、人和的大时代里塑造出来的杰出世纪政治领袖。


如果要真正评论李光耀，那就要看他的离世会让新加坡和国际缺少了些什么。


对于新加坡来说，它失去了一位能在国际舞台上为这小国的利益周旋的能手。李光耀在世时，是新加坡的活招牌。 因为无人不知李光耀，所以也无人不知新加坡。在这急速全球化的国际形势里，这对一个经济开放的小国是非常重要的。望眼目前新加坡国内的政治人物，没有一位能真正取代李光耀这个活招牌。


对于整个亚太地区来说，我们也失去了一位可以为各国搭起有效沟通桥梁的领袖。尤其是在两岸问题、南海争议和钓鱼台问题日益复杂，随时会擦枪走火的时局之下，这位子更显得举足轻重了。


新加坡在李光耀时代也失去了民主的基石。这是新加坡在后李时代必须严正对待的问题。李光耀所遗留下来的政治体系只能在一个相对廉洁的独裁者带领下延续运作的。后李时代会有太多变数而权力分立相互牵制的民主制度才能有效的保证这廉洁的体系可以维持下去。


在李光耀的铁腕统治下，新加坡的文化环境有太多约束而结果变成死水一潭。要使新加坡文化复兴，它就必须开放社会风气，把所有不必要的约束去除，放宽对文化活动、创作、主流媒体等等的严控。


最后，有一些在李光耀铁腕统治下所失去的东西，也许是永远都无法挽回的。他把南洋大学关闭而导致一代人所累积的南大精神能量，是永远无法重新找回的。


一个像李光耀这样杰出政治家的离世，影响的不只是本国的政治经济的前景，而也影响了整个区域的和平发展。像他这样具争议性的政治家逝世，虽然对新加坡带来了无可弥补的损失，但也带来变革的机遇。


不管我们对李光耀的功过有怎样的评价，我们都无法否认他是当代亚洲杰出的政治人物。当然，信奉民主体系的我对他的独裁以致摧毁新加坡民主基石，是无法原谅的。


吴明盛

Please Wake Up to Dawn of Post LKY Era

Dear Singaporeans,

Please wake up from the Spell of Sympathy as soon as possible. The propaganda you have been seeing and hearing for the whole last week cannot whitewash nor deny the fact that LKY has brought upon Singapore a Dictatorial rule. Don't be fooled by the mere presence of "General Elections". As I have told my Hong Kong friends, Democracy is not just about Universal Suffrage. It is about a whole system built on the basis of Separation of Powers, to effect a true system of Checks and Balances.

Besides, the GE we have in Singapore, has been tainted by the constant intervention of the Executive in terms of Gerrymandering and Pork Barrel politicking. The Power to Elect the people's representatives, must be independent and kept out of interference of the Executive ruling party.

The Judiciary as well, has been tainted by Rule by Law instead of Rule of Law. The most recent comparison of Amos vs the Young PAP member who put up sedition remarks on religious bearing is one fine example to remind us, little has changed.

We can only rebuild Real Democracy for Singapore, after we acknowledge and understand exactly what are lacking and needed to be restored after decades of dictatorial tendency inflicted by LKY's rule.

LKY's "Singapore Model" of a clean, efficient government with dictatorial rule which could bring Economic progress for us, is not sustainable in the long run. This is because his model relies heavily on "Philosopher King" concept; there must exist someone like him, who is clean and incorrigible by power, to be the dictator of the system. However, if the system fell on a corrupt person, all these attributes will be gone and the system will in fact, turn into the worst nightmare for Singapore because the system provides a tremendous concentration of powers with very little checks and balances.

Hong Kong has maintained a strict separation of powers as a Core value for their system. Although Hong Kong is not a country and they are fighting for "Universal Suffrage" for both Legislative Council and Chief Executive elections, but their system itself provides a clear cut of separation of powers. Any attempts by the Executive to interfere or exert influence on the Judiciary, ICAC, Press freedom or even Academia, will be critcised heavily. Their system of freedom of expression may sometimes look clumsy or even draggy for policy making, but it also provides the needed checks and balances which will maintain the system of clean and efficient governance. They still enjoy economic growth, though not as fast as Singapore.

LKY may be gone, but our aim of building a truly democratic system will not be made easier because his party and son, will continue to try to maintain almost monopoly of powers, with all means.

I have been debunking all those distortions of Historical facts and narratives by PAP's propaganda machinery for the past two weeks. I have received so many hate messages and some of my friends, even FEAR for my safety. They fear PAP may take revenge by many other means. They even FEAR somebody may harm me and my family physically. When I decided to attend the open live City Forum held by RTHK, they even tried to ask friends privately to help to protect me at this Open Air Forum. I really feel overwhelmed by their care.

I really appreciate their concerns and considerations made for me. But I am not afraid. I cannot be afraid nor frightened by such mental threats or subtle threats. Else the FEAR which my friends and associates are so deeply inflicted with, will perpetuate further in Post-LKY era. And yes, we will have to learn to walk out of that FEAR, even when we know, PAP will continue to use the tried method of "killing the chicken to frighten the monkeys" to instill FEAR in everyone of us.

But the pertinent question we need to ask ourselves, do we still want to continue to let them rule with FEAR? Continue to rule us with DICTATORIAL power? Rule not just us, but also our children and future generations?

We have to move on, chart our own course for Singapore, from Dictatorial rule towards Consensus Rule through Democratic system. Let's not forget, it is your interests as well as mine, to walk out of this long shadow of dictatorship of LKY which he has imposed on Singapore.

The new dawn may or may not come and it all depends on you and me. Nobody else. We have to face the reality of the fact that LKY's Model of Singapore rule, is not sustainable. Either we change or we let our Nation dies with it. People say follow LKY and you won't die. I would urge you to think carefully whether it really makes any sense to you at this very instance of Post-LKY era.

A nation ruled by Fear will not prosper with creativity and innovations. LKY's "Singapore Model" can only work if and only if, the dictator himself is like him and FULL obedience from Singaporeans must be instilled, be it via FEAR or otherwise. Can this be possible in this era of Internet with massive information flow and opinions shared through New Media and internet forums? It can only happen in places like North Korea. Not an open economy like Singapore.

We should wake up from our dream and spell in believing what LKY did 50 years ago, is still relevant to our Singapore today. In today's world of complexity, you can only use persuasion through more open political debates and consensus building process, to unite the people's view, to conclude new social order, mindset and contracts so that our little Nation can move as one People, One Nation. The use of FEAR and dictatorial rule, should be thrown into the rubbish bin because these are no longer effective means nor stable methods.

Let us start a new page for Singapore, my fellow friends, in the start of Post-LKY era. Let us do it right so that the political system can be sustainable and our Nation can outlive each and everyone of us, for many generations to come. Build the Democratic system our Nation deserves.

Goh Meng Seng

Mr. Lee Kuan Yew's Legacy: Good or Bad, Harsh Hard Truth

I am writing this because I am pretty annoyed and sick of PAP's spin doctors and people putting up bad propaganda write ups of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew.

LKY, as most of us called him, is great in his own rights but there is no need to exaggerate and worse, put up slanted and misleading historical narrations to make him look like a God. He is no God, just a man.

Even as a man who doesn't worship him like me, cannot simply ignore his contributions and achievements in various aspects. But distorting historical truth doesn't do justice to our children and future generations. Let's put things into proper perspective with critical objectivity.

Harsh Hard Truth:

As I have stated so far, LKY has greater achievements than most his PAP people and spin doctors would want to talk about but either due to ignorance or some agenda, harp on the wrong credits to LKY of "Fishing Village to First World" narration.

For those who believe or keep singing ridiculous praises of LKY getting Singapore from "Fishing Village to First World", I hope you get the fundamental facts right first. A lot have been said the myth and falsehood of Singapore being the "Fishing Village" that all these people are harping when PAP took power. Whether it is a "Fishing Village" or the most advanced port which the British left us when PAP took over, it is not really possible for LKY to be contributing much directly to our Economic growth. Even the "Miracle" of such development may be exaggerated in some sense.

Note: Singapore in 1965 was THIRD in terms of GDP per capital in Asia, behind Hong Kong and Japan, but TOP in Southeast Asia. Please refer to the data and this: 

Let's look at the hard facts. When LKY took over as PM in 1959, he was just a young 35 year old lawyer. Yes, he was extremely bright lawyer who has gotten a double star (Double First Honours) for his Law study in Cambridge, but no, he wasn't trained in Economics at all. He knew nothing about Economics and it was recorded that Dr Goh Keng Swee has a hard time convincing him about getting rid of import tariffs so to position Singapore as a Free Port, so much so that Dr Goh has to give a few books to LKY to read.

No doubt LKY was a very intelligent fast learner and picked up Economics along his path of political governance, but let me put this perspective, it is really totally impossible for anyone who has just to start learning Economics from scratch to have that ability of making an Economic Miracle out of Singapore.

Thus, rightfully so, Dr Goh and his advisers, were the ones who brought Economic development to Singapore. Coupled with the fact that Western and Japanese Industrial Economies started to go for outsourcing and subcontrating and shifting some of their productions to cheaper places like Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore (4 Asian Tigers), thus, our economy boomed.

Singapore is the smallest economy among the 4 Asian Tigers and thus, inevitably, the economic benefits and impact of such Global development will spread much faster to everyone on the island. Thus, the so call "Economy Miracle" itself is an over-exaggeration without looking at the context of the start of Globalization of the Industrial world.

Well, Singapore and LKY were really fortunate to have the most able Economist Dr Goh Keng Swee during this period which provided the necessary economic vision, direction and development which allowed us to ride on this trend of Industrial Globalization.

LKY contributed in other ways to Singapore and even the whole Asia Pacific region, through his pragmatic and opportunistic cultivation of PEACE among the various countries. From getting peace from Suharto after Suharto successfully overthrown Sukarno, convincing Tunku Abdul Rahman to a truce on racial bickering and more importantly, engagement of China to stop propagating and supporting the communist elements in SEA, getting China and US, along with SEA partners to put the war in Cambodia to a peaceful end as well as successfully getting China and Taiwan to hold the first ever official talk in Singapore and thus, raising Singapore's status in the International Political Arena.

A small country like Singapore can only thrive when there is PEACE surrounding it, not just within it. And that is the greatest contribution of LKY, not only to Singapore but to all the countries in SEA and Asia Pacific which are enjoying decades of growth under the peace which LKY has contributed tremendously in achieving.

To attribute LKY's achievements narrowly to merely Singapore's Economic development is a GROSS UNDERSTATEMENT with Ignorance.

Although I do not like LKY's dictatorial governance of Singapore which has caused much unnecessary sacrifices by many of his critics, dissidents and political opponents which in the end, destroy the tenets of Democracy as well as creating a Cultural Desert out of fear for Singapore, but as an Economist and politician, I cannot ignore his tremendous contributions in all these MORE important areas.

In my opinion, nobody else in PAP's current slate of politicians and ministers, not even PM Lee himself, could fill the gap of such important role, the opportunistic pragmatist Peace maker of Asia Pacific. This role is becoming especially more important in view of the current complicated development of South China Sea conflicting claims and the tension between Japan and China. But who in Singapore can continue to provide that function and fill the role which LKY has left vacant?

This is something more important for Singaporeans to ponder about for the future safety of Singapore, in order for us to live and grow our economy.

Having said all these, despite of LKY's achievements in this area, as a Democratic Fighter, I will still refuse to mourn the death of a dictator who has done great harm to many of his victims as well as Singapore's Democratic Development.

However I will not stop others to mourn for him and my urge to those who agree with me, not to create too much of a tension with your friends and family members due to our refuse to mourn for him.

And for those ignorant PAP spin doctors, people and LKY fans who really lack the international perspective to give proper credits to LKY, please stop distorting historical facts and narrations of our Nation's history in your attempt to "exaggerate" the greatness of LKY in the WRONG way. This will do no good and a great sin for our future generations. LKY is NOT GOD and he might have done really bad things to other people, even bad decisions, political scheming in his life, so be it. No need to try to white wash all these for LKY and the truth is, LKY was not shy to admit all these in his life, though with excuses and defence which are not acceptable to people like me. LKY is just human and we should just remember him as such, a human who is fallible to the bad ills of what power can bring to one.

Goh Meng Seng

Lee Kuan Yew - Rest In Peace

I promise I won't write NASTY letter of condolences to Prime Minister Lee, just as he did to Kenneth Jeyaretnam​ when his father JBJ passed away.

But let me share with my friends what I really think of LKY.

Whether we like it or not, Singapore was lucky to have an opportunistic pragmatist like LKY to wiggle us out of danger and animosity during the 1960s. He was a good schemer, pretender who was able to convince the British Colonist that he was the right one to run Singapore so that their interests in Far East would be protected. On the other hand, he was able to con the Leftists into fake collaboration of anti-colonial fights, gaining their trust and riding on their enormous political capital and organization to gain prominence among the largely Chinese based voters.

Whether we like it or not, that is one of the greatest political maneuver ever in Singapore political history. He could on one hand, scold the British "White Man" but at the same time, struck back door deals with them, making sure all blame went to them but yet, convince them he was the man they need!

His pragmatism has also allowed us to gain the necessary peace and breather from the animosity from Indonesia. He managed to convince Suharto that peace is what we need. On the other hand, he could well continue to convince Tunku Abdul Rahman to settle for peace and continue to supply us water, even though he has agitated him bad enough for him to ask Singapore to leave the Malaysia Federation!

His pragmatism has also made the normalization of foreign relationship with China possible, not only for Singapore but Malaysia and Indonesia as well. He could have put up his rally cry of anti- "Communist Terrorists" throughout 1960s, 1970s and even 1980s, but still he could shake hands with the leaders largest communist country in Asia who were behind the exportation of communism to SEA. He seized the opportunity to get China involved in forcing Vietnam, the only Communist Country in SEA, into peace in Cambodia and thus, removing the last threat of Communism to Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore.

On the other hand, his cultivation of warm ties with the western powers, particularly US, has allowed us to make use of their presence at our port to provide the necessary peace and stability, not only for Singapore, but also for SEA and North Asia. Singapore's role in the Vietnam War as a logistic base for the Americans in the 1960s and 1970s has provided opportunities for us to ease the pressure of the pullout of the British troops.

On the international front, his opportunistic pragmatism has allowed us to make use of the American to balance the power and provide a security net against potential Chinese expansionary threat while on the other hand, despite of his suspicions of China, continue to reap economic benefits from China's economic growth and development.

We cannot ignore all these delicate but important achievements of LKY, which have brought important benefits to us over the generations. This is even though we dislike the man who has in some point in time, get overwhelmed by the power he held.

As I have mentioned, his greatest failing is to destroy the tenets of Democracy in Singapore. He should have stopped his addiction to unnecessary harsh treatment towards dissidents and political opponents after he gained power in the 1960s. But he didn't stop but continue with his devious ways. The imprisonment of activists in 1987 under Operation Spectrum was the last embarrassment which made him realized that he could no longer use ISA in such a irresponsible way against dissidents. Nobody believe the "Marxist Conspiracy" which he tried so hard to put up because USSR was in the midst of disintegration and China, thanks to him, had stopped the support of exporting communism to the rest of Asia! This is why Operation Spectrum became the LAST ISD operation against political dissidents and opponents of LKY.

However, instead of reflecting on his insatiable desire to monopolize power, he continued persecution of his political opponents and dissidents by legal means: defamation suits and bankruptcy of his opponents. He didn't realize that such petty politicking internally is really unfitting for a Great International Politician like himself!

In his relentless pursue of such monopoly and concentration of powers, he has unwittingly destroyed the tenets of Singapore Democracy. This is the biggest failing of his political legacy. And I reiterate, we have to try to rebuild what he has destroyed, Democracy, in Post LKY Era.

For whatever good or bad deeds LKY has done for us, let us accept the man of what he was. He was a Dictator, unlike most other Dictators in past and present, has done both great good and bad for his people.

As a person who believe strongly in Democracy, I will still not mourn the Death of a Dictator. But I will remember both the good and bad deeds he has done, putting these as lessons for future.

Last but not least, I will still wish him, Rest In Peace. There is nothing more for him to do anymore. Please don't jump out of the grave even if there is any problem in Singapore. Just Rest In Peace.

Goh Meng Seng

Rebuilding what LKY has Destroyed - Democracy

The PAP IBs and LKY fans regard me as "LKY hater" but I am definitely not because I am not the victim of his ruthlessness, unlike many others who have been unjustly imprisoned and tortured by him.

I consider his greatest FAILING in his political career to be his TOTAL DESTRUCTION of the tenets of Democracy: The Separation of Powers. This bad deed, has longer implications on Singapore's development than any other bad deeds he has done during his lifetime. For his deed of treating his opponents with unnecessary harsh and inhuman means, it could be easily be forgiven by these victims if he has repented and apologized. But not so for this deed of destruction of Democratic development.

The political system which he has carefully designed, could only survive with his dream of having "Philosopher King" with massive concentration of great powers without being corrupted. That is definitely IMPOSSIBLE. It may have worked during his time but it has opened up Singapore to instant failure should a corrupt leader get into power as there is a lack of checks and balances and accountability.

We will need to re-look at the current political system to remove all the bad practices and policies which destroy the basic principle of Democracy, Separation of Power. For a start, I would like to see the following happening:

1) CPIB should be made independent of PMO, oversee by a commission led by a retired judge.

2) The appointment of judges, especially Chief Justice, should be made independent of the executive. We should not repeat the stunt of appointing someone who was only "lawyer in name" without rich experience in legal practice or justice department to become Chief Justice or even High Court judge.

3) The Executive should be banned from meddling with editorial rights of newspapers and TV stations.

4) Elections Department should be made independent of PMO as well, led by a commission. Any changes to boundaries should be transparent and open for scrutiny. The ED or the commission in charge should justify any drastic changes.

5) The ISA should be reviewed and the law should ban the use of National resources for espionage on political parties without strong justification of National security threat. ISD should only work on cases or situation which warrant their attention in terms of National Security Threats. They should not work for political missions dictated by the ruling party.

6) Conflict of interests should be minimized and declaration of such interests is important in the process of policy making as well as appointment of key personnel. The anti-corruption law should look into this.

7) Declaration of assets for political appointment holders such as Prime Ministers, Ministers, Ministers of state etc should be made transparent.

8) The Government should "get out of business" in Singapore. This is to prevent the massive conflict of interests and impact on Rule of Law in Singapore. The Government cannot subject itself as the regulator as well as the one being regulated. This has been deliberated by Eric Tan in his latest article.

9) Addition by Ken Zeng, the Prime Minister should only have two consecutive terms. Entrenchment of power will lead to the possibility of corruption of power as well.

10) Ministerial pay should be lowered further to reflect the nature of Public Service. We do not want our Ministers to stay in power for too long as well. This is to prevent them from taking this as "just another job", too comfortable to move on. The Minister pay should be pegged to the lowest 20% percentile of income, calculated with the inclusion of those WITHOUT income. It may also include a certain percentage weighted peg on the median income level.

11) Addition by Ken Zeng: Reinstatement of Jury system for certain cases as practiced prior to 1969.

These are the few things in my mind now.Please feel free to suggest any other things you think which is important as in Separation of Power alone; not just any policy issue.

Goh Meng Seng