I have formally informed the President and Secretary General of National Solidarity Party in September 2011 that I will let my party membership lapse by the end of the year.
I have joined NSP in 2007 and led the party as Secretary General from February 2010 till June 2011. It is my honor to work closely with the people in NSP to achieve the BEST electoral results ever since the inception of the party more than two decades ago. Regrettably, we did not win any seats but I believe we have built a stronger foundation for the party to set its footing right for next General Elections.
The baton was passed to Hazel Poa and I believe the party will progress steadily under her leadership. The party is under good hands with the hearts at the right place and the sincerity to serve Singaporeans.
Personally, I guess it is time for me to move on to another journey of uncharted waters. Many of my friends and close associates thought that I am quitting politics for good but no, this is not so. The fact that once you have politics in your blood, you will have to live with it for the rest of the life. There are other things which are equally important to contribute towards the political democratic development of Singapore other than joining a party. Some of these things need us to be non-partisan in order to be effective.
To my supporters and friends, rest assured that I will continue to work for Democracy in Singapore in other ways for the moment. Some plans have been drawn out but will only be announced later on when things are firm.
For the mean time, as demonstrated in this blog, I have always been keen in making policy comparisons between Singapore and other places, particularly Honk Kong. I will continue my study and observations between policies applied in different places around the world and look out for the better alternatives for Singapore.
Last but not least, I would like to wish NSP all the best in its future political engagement and hope it will gain electoral success for the next GE.
Goh Meng Seng
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Software of Open Society - Learning from HK
I have been observing Hong Kong for quite a number of years due to my frequent visits there.
There are a lot of things which I do not feel good about Hong Kong but there are many things which I feel that we should learn from this vibrant city.
Hong Kong has various districts, just like Singapore with different GRCs and SMCs. Within these districts, there are also similar "community centres" but these are not controlled by any partisan organizations financed by taxpayers' money with "symbiotic relationship" with the ruling party. They don't organize "political activities" like getting people to attend political party's rallies.
These district community centres are pretty well equipped. Some have very decent concert halls or performance halls for cultural activities. This is unlike our Singapore's community centres which are filled with "multi-purpose halls" with very bad audio system and acoustic structures. These concert halls or performance halls are definitely no "white elephants". Many LOCAL cultural groups rented these halls at very low price and put up various performances, from Chinese Wayang Opera, Chinese Dance, Western Ballet Dance, Chinese Orchestra to plays and even special film shows etc.
Hong Kong is preparing to build a huge Cultural Centre at West Kowloon and it is not merely for "International Performances" like our Singapore Durian Esplanade. They will have some main Hong Kong cultural groups like Hong Kong Dance Troupe and such to be permanently stationed there. They are confident that this huge Cultural Centre will be filled with local performances because they have cultivated a substantial mass of cultural performing groups and participants.
Although there are quite a number of small district cultural centres in Hong Kong, but it seems that all halls are fully booked all year round. Even the libraries are available for rent for people to put up artistic exhibitions like calligraphy and such.
Many people have mistakenly labelled Hong Kong as "cultural desert" but I think if you look at the cultural events put up by local groups, you will think otherwise. Such booming vibrancy in the cultural setting could only happen not only with the hardware infrastructural support by the government but also depends on maintaining a truly open society with the core value of respecting the freedom of expression by the people.
Such respect of human dignity was extended to other segments of the society. The radio station of Hong Kong has various programs catered for different segment of the society. There is a weekly radio program specially catered for Prison inmates for them and their family members to write in or dedicate songs to each other. They also have a special program on Sunday morning for foreign maids for them to call in or dedicate Indonesian or Filipino songs since that is their weekly off day. Of course, they will have an Indonesian and Filipino as their co-hosts!
Cultivation of the software of an Open Society doesn't depend only on the big infrastructure investment by the Government. It also depends on the willingness of the people and government to uphold the critical core values on the freedom of expression. It depends on catering to the needs to small cultural groups, not only on the finances but also the availability of opportunities for them to put up their performances.
I have watched Drama Box performing at grassroot level in open air stages at various places in Singapore. I find it quite refreshing and but it seems that it has faced excessive censorship from MITA from time to time. Even that, they have continued their excellent work with limited resources and constrains imposed by govenrment censorship.
In Hong Kong, there are many such small local performance groups who are actively involved in putting up local performances at grassroot level. I hardly hear any censorship issues imposed on them at all.
Many people have said that Hong Kongers are very "practical people" but it seems that even under such capitalist system, there are many more people who have the passion to pursue their cultural dreams. So, what about Singapore? What has happened to Singapore which was once the Venice of SEA back in the 50s? It is really something for us to ponder about.
Goh Meng Seng
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Reply from ICA
Apparently ICA has the view that as long as you are a "minor", you can hold dual citizenships up to 21 years old.
I have written the following reply to ICA:
Dear Mr. Wee,
Thank you for your reply.
However, I need further clarification on the following clause under our Constitution:
(2) A person born outside Singapore shall not be a citizen of Singapore by descent by virtue of clause (1) unless —
(a) his birth is registered in the prescribed manner at the Registry of Citizens or at a diplomatic or consular mission of Singapore within one year, or such longer period as the Government permits, after its occurrence; and
(b) he would not acquire the citizenship of the country in which he was born by reason of his birth in that country where —
(i) in the case of a person born before the date of commencement of section 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 2004, his father is a citizen of Singapore by registration at the time of his birth; or
(ii) in the case of a person born on or after the date of commencement of section 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 2004, either his father or mother is a citizen of Singapore by registration at the time of his birth.
By 2(B), the children SHOULD NOT become citizen of Singapore by descent IF they acquire the citizenship of the country of their birth.
It would basically mean that those who are born outside Singapore who have acquired citizenship at the place of birth by Right of Abode are actually BANNED from acquiring Singapore citizenship. That is why I am puzzled ICA deems it is alright for any minor to have dual citizenship up to 21 years old when the Singapore Constitution has specifically denied the right of such application in the above clause.
Goh Meng Seng
ICA Feedback/526564
Dear Mr Goh,
Please refer to your enquiry on 5 Sep 2011.
2 Under the Constitution of Singapore, Singapore citizens are not allowed to possess dual nationalities. The exception to this is when a person is a minor. Such a person is allowed to hold dual citizenship (typically citizenships by descent and by birth) until the age of 21 when he/she is then required to make a decision on which citizenship he/she wishes to retain. If he or she fails to make a decision on the choice of citizenship, the Government will initiate action to deprive him/her of the Singapore citizenship.
3 Thank you.
Yours Sincerely,
Wee Yew Boon
Senior Customer Relations Executive
for COMMISSIONER
IMMIGRATION & CHECKPOINTS AUTHORITY
I have written the following reply to ICA:
Dear Mr. Wee,
Thank you for your reply.
However, I need further clarification on the following clause under our Constitution:
(2) A person born outside Singapore shall not be a citizen of Singapore by descent by virtue of clause (1) unless —
(a) his birth is registered in the prescribed manner at the Registry of Citizens or at a diplomatic or consular mission of Singapore within one year, or such longer period as the Government permits, after its occurrence; and
(b) he would not acquire the citizenship of the country in which he was born by reason of his birth in that country where —
(i) in the case of a person born before the date of commencement of section 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 2004, his father is a citizen of Singapore by registration at the time of his birth; or
(ii) in the case of a person born on or after the date of commencement of section 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 2004, either his father or mother is a citizen of Singapore by registration at the time of his birth.
By 2(B), the children SHOULD NOT become citizen of Singapore by descent IF they acquire the citizenship of the country of their birth.
It would basically mean that those who are born outside Singapore who have acquired citizenship at the place of birth by Right of Abode are actually BANNED from acquiring Singapore citizenship. That is why I am puzzled ICA deems it is alright for any minor to have dual citizenship up to 21 years old when the Singapore Constitution has specifically denied the right of such application in the above clause.
Goh Meng Seng
ICA Feedback/526564
Dear Mr Goh,
Please refer to your enquiry on 5 Sep 2011.
2 Under the Constitution of Singapore, Singapore citizens are not allowed to possess dual nationalities. The exception to this is when a person is a minor. Such a person is allowed to hold dual citizenship (typically citizenships by descent and by birth) until the age of 21 when he/she is then required to make a decision on which citizenship he/she wishes to retain. If he or she fails to make a decision on the choice of citizenship, the Government will initiate action to deprive him/her of the Singapore citizenship.
3 Thank you.
Yours Sincerely,
Wee Yew Boon
Senior Customer Relations Executive
for COMMISSIONER
IMMIGRATION & CHECKPOINTS AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
香港復建居屋 – 從住屋和土地策略性資源說起
香港從2003年群起反對董建華八萬五住屋政策到如今民意180度轉變成支持復建居屋的過程，其實都只是隨市場住屋價格波動而起舞．值得一提的是，已宣布競選特首的梁振英由始至终都堅持建居屋政策．梁先生如此擇善固執必有他的政策考量．
土地是有限量的策略性資源．尤其是在一個如香港的小城市般的地區，土地的規劃和運用就顯得特別重要了．香港人口是不斷在增長，但是土地除了少許填土的實質增長外，根本無法跟人口同步增長．如果沒有適當的規劃而任由市場來決定土地的運用的話，必定會出現嚴重的偏差．
自由市場經濟理論在處理有限資源分配時都提倡由自由市場來定價，以便資源得到‘最高效率’的分配．但是土地的擁有權通常是被政府和少數地主壟斷的．這是違反了自由市場經濟理論的定義．再說土地和住屋是關係密切的，因為如果沒有土地就無法建造屋子了．而住屋又是人民衣食住行最基本生存需求之一．所以為了應付人們的住屋的基本要求，土地和房子的價錢必須能讓普羅大眾負擔得起．
但是由於土地的供應量是有限而且是沒法長期增加的，這就使土地和黃金一樣變得有投資價值的資源．當土地和房屋變成了投資的工具了以後，價格便會被人為的操縱炒賣而脫離了原本實際價值的因素．香港的房子除了被有錢人炒賣外，近年來也引來了許多內地人來炒賣．這會使需求量大于香港本土的真正需求，以致供應失衡．這也會使土地房屋價格走勢脫離了基本通貨膨脹．到最後，多數港人的長期薪金增長就會大大落後于房產價格的增長．
如果單以自由市場來支配土地以致住屋的分配的話，這房產因投資與投機炒賣的價格走向和滿足人民基本房屋需求的政策方針就會產生嚴重的矛盾．如果政府沒妥善處理這矛盾的話，我們很有可能就會陷入像古時封建地主制的極端貧富懸殊狀況而產生社會動盪．
目前香港政府提供了公屋給大約40%香港人以便解決他們的住屋問題．但，這是不是最佳的方法呢？再說，由于房屋的價格因港人和大陸人的炒賣而致使越來越多的年輕的香港中產階級沒法置业，這會導致中產階級的沒落、遲婚、生育率下跌等等的長遠的社會問題．這些中產人士並不符合居住公屋的條件，但也沒能力買房子．如果沒有任何機制去解決這問題的話，中產階級的崩潰將會是遲早的事．這將對社會帶來嚴重的後果與動盪．
政府在維持龐大的公屋群時將會承受巨大的社會資源成本．政府除了承擔了用來建造公屋的土地成本外，還必須承擔建築和長期維修的成本．每建一座公屋，政府就必須先拿出錢來付建築費．公屋是以超低價格出租給底階層的港人．如果能幫助至少40%里的一半的公屋家庭和那些年輕中產港人以低成本價買到居屋的話，政府便實際上大大的減少了維持公屋所承受的社會資源成本和中產階級以致社會所面對危機．
香港社會必須取得一個‘安居樂業’的共識：一個家並非是投資或投機的工具．香港人也必須意識到如果房產價格高到需要以超過25年甚至40年的房屋貸款才能擁有棲身之所的話，那麼他們就不是‘有產階級’而是變成‘房奴階級’了．
房地產投機並不會給港人增加財富而是把下一代的房貸奴役變成了這一代的錢財而已．這等與是隔代掠奪．當然，現在的直接受益者便是大地產商們．
土地雖然是有限資源，具備了投資或投機工具的條件，但是土地和房屋也是政府重要的策略性資源．政府必須以謹慎的方法去分配這策略性資源以達到穩定社會和促進經濟健全發展的目的．如果人們沒法‘安居’，那怎麼能樂業呢？經濟生產力也必定受影響．
香港政府也必須認識到只有它才能解決房產價格因投資炒買的升幅超越普通市民薪金的增長所引起的社會矛盾．只有復建居屋才能解決這矛盾，並且達到平衡土地這策略性資源的分配和縮小貧富懸殊的問題．
至於土地和房屋這策略性資源是否應該讓人，尤其是非香港人炒買，那就是題外話了．
吳明盛
土地是有限量的策略性資源．尤其是在一個如香港的小城市般的地區，土地的規劃和運用就顯得特別重要了．香港人口是不斷在增長，但是土地除了少許填土的實質增長外，根本無法跟人口同步增長．如果沒有適當的規劃而任由市場來決定土地的運用的話，必定會出現嚴重的偏差．
自由市場經濟理論在處理有限資源分配時都提倡由自由市場來定價，以便資源得到‘最高效率’的分配．但是土地的擁有權通常是被政府和少數地主壟斷的．這是違反了自由市場經濟理論的定義．再說土地和住屋是關係密切的，因為如果沒有土地就無法建造屋子了．而住屋又是人民衣食住行最基本生存需求之一．所以為了應付人們的住屋的基本要求，土地和房子的價錢必須能讓普羅大眾負擔得起．
但是由於土地的供應量是有限而且是沒法長期增加的，這就使土地和黃金一樣變得有投資價值的資源．當土地和房屋變成了投資的工具了以後，價格便會被人為的操縱炒賣而脫離了原本實際價值的因素．香港的房子除了被有錢人炒賣外，近年來也引來了許多內地人來炒賣．這會使需求量大于香港本土的真正需求，以致供應失衡．這也會使土地房屋價格走勢脫離了基本通貨膨脹．到最後，多數港人的長期薪金增長就會大大落後于房產價格的增長．
如果單以自由市場來支配土地以致住屋的分配的話，這房產因投資與投機炒賣的價格走向和滿足人民基本房屋需求的政策方針就會產生嚴重的矛盾．如果政府沒妥善處理這矛盾的話，我們很有可能就會陷入像古時封建地主制的極端貧富懸殊狀況而產生社會動盪．
目前香港政府提供了公屋給大約40%香港人以便解決他們的住屋問題．但，這是不是最佳的方法呢？再說，由于房屋的價格因港人和大陸人的炒賣而致使越來越多的年輕的香港中產階級沒法置业，這會導致中產階級的沒落、遲婚、生育率下跌等等的長遠的社會問題．這些中產人士並不符合居住公屋的條件，但也沒能力買房子．如果沒有任何機制去解決這問題的話，中產階級的崩潰將會是遲早的事．這將對社會帶來嚴重的後果與動盪．
政府在維持龐大的公屋群時將會承受巨大的社會資源成本．政府除了承擔了用來建造公屋的土地成本外，還必須承擔建築和長期維修的成本．每建一座公屋，政府就必須先拿出錢來付建築費．公屋是以超低價格出租給底階層的港人．如果能幫助至少40%里的一半的公屋家庭和那些年輕中產港人以低成本價買到居屋的話，政府便實際上大大的減少了維持公屋所承受的社會資源成本和中產階級以致社會所面對危機．
香港社會必須取得一個‘安居樂業’的共識：一個家並非是投資或投機的工具．香港人也必須意識到如果房產價格高到需要以超過25年甚至40年的房屋貸款才能擁有棲身之所的話，那麼他們就不是‘有產階級’而是變成‘房奴階級’了．
房地產投機並不會給港人增加財富而是把下一代的房貸奴役變成了這一代的錢財而已．這等與是隔代掠奪．當然，現在的直接受益者便是大地產商們．
土地雖然是有限資源，具備了投資或投機工具的條件，但是土地和房屋也是政府重要的策略性資源．政府必須以謹慎的方法去分配這策略性資源以達到穩定社會和促進經濟健全發展的目的．如果人們沒法‘安居’，那怎麼能樂業呢？經濟生產力也必定受影響．
香港政府也必須認識到只有它才能解決房產價格因投資炒買的升幅超越普通市民薪金的增長所引起的社會矛盾．只有復建居屋才能解決這矛盾，並且達到平衡土地這策略性資源的分配和縮小貧富懸殊的問題．
至於土地和房屋這策略性資源是否應該讓人，尤其是非香港人炒買，那就是題外話了．
吳明盛
Monday, September 05, 2011
Queries to Singapore Immigration & Checkpoint Authority (ICA)
In view of Dr Yaacoob's own revelation that his children will hold dual citizenship up till 18 years old by virtue of the fact that his wife is an American citizen, I have sent in the following queries to ICA:
I have a few questions to ask:
1) Does Singapore allow any citizens to hold multiple citizenship?
2) Is it a chargeable crime for anyone to hold dual or multiple citizenship?
2) Is there any age limit for anyone to hold multiple citizenship?
3) If a child is granted two citizenship (including Singapore citizenship) by virtue of his parents' citizenship status, could he rightfully retain both citizenship at the same time?
4) What is the penalty for holding dual citizenship?
5) Does the Immigration department has the right to revoke the Singapore citizenship of those who are found or caught to have dual or multiple citizenship?
Thank you.
Best Regards,
Goh Meng Seng
After note:
Someone says I should read the Constitution carefully and so I did just that.
Please read the Constitution properly:
(2) A person born outside Singapore shall not be a citizen of Singapore by descent by virtue of clause (1) unless —
(a) his birth is registered in the prescribed manner at the Registry of Citizens or at a diplomatic or consular mission of Singapore within one year, or such longer period as the Government permits, after its occurrence; and
(b) he would not acquire the citizenship of the country in which he was born by reason of his birth in that country where —
(i) in the case of a person born before the date of commencement of section 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 2004, his father is a citizen of Singapore by registration at the time of his birth; or
(ii) in the case of a person born on or after the date of commencement of section 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 2004, either his father or mother is a citizen of Singapore by registration at the time of his birth.
By 2(B), the children SHOULD NOT become citizen of Singapore by descent IF they acquire the citizenship of the country of their birth.
This is assuming that they were born in America.
If they are born in Singapore, it makes me wonder why their parents apply American citizenship for their children.
I have a few questions to ask:
1) Does Singapore allow any citizens to hold multiple citizenship?
2) Is it a chargeable crime for anyone to hold dual or multiple citizenship?
2) Is there any age limit for anyone to hold multiple citizenship?
3) If a child is granted two citizenship (including Singapore citizenship) by virtue of his parents' citizenship status, could he rightfully retain both citizenship at the same time?
4) What is the penalty for holding dual citizenship?
5) Does the Immigration department has the right to revoke the Singapore citizenship of those who are found or caught to have dual or multiple citizenship?
Thank you.
Best Regards,
Goh Meng Seng
After note:
Someone says I should read the Constitution carefully and so I did just that.
Please read the Constitution properly:
(2) A person born outside Singapore shall not be a citizen of Singapore by descent by virtue of clause (1) unless —
(a) his birth is registered in the prescribed manner at the Registry of Citizens or at a diplomatic or consular mission of Singapore within one year, or such longer period as the Government permits, after its occurrence; and
(b) he would not acquire the citizenship of the country in which he was born by reason of his birth in that country where —
(i) in the case of a person born before the date of commencement of section 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 2004, his father is a citizen of Singapore by registration at the time of his birth; or
(ii) in the case of a person born on or after the date of commencement of section 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 2004, either his father or mother is a citizen of Singapore by registration at the time of his birth.
By 2(B), the children SHOULD NOT become citizen of Singapore by descent IF they acquire the citizenship of the country of their birth.
This is assuming that they were born in America.
If they are born in Singapore, it makes me wonder why their parents apply American citizenship for their children.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Rally Speech in Support of Tan Kin Lian (English)
This is the actual English Speech I gave at the rally.
Rally Speech in Support of Tan Kin Lian (Chinese)
大家晚上好！
本来是六年一次的总统选举却让我们等了足足十八年。所以大家手中的那一票就显得更重要，更宝贵了。如果一个不小心投错了，那就有可能要多等一个十八年或更久了。
这次总统大选非常精彩，互联网上和咖啡店里都充满了形形色色的谣言绘声绘影的诋损各个总统候选人。有些说陈如斯怎么的工作表现不好，陈钦亮为了某种原因而离开职总英康保险等等。我恳请大家别轻易相信这些充满政治目的的谣言。我本身在今年大选中也是这些没名没姓的造谣者的受害者。他们说我搞婚外情，说我去澳门胡搞。幸好我太太听了笑到肚子痛！因为我们有深厚的感情，去澳门是我带着我太太和女儿去度假！有人更以为“无风不起浪”，但是我要告诉大家，这是有心人在兴风作浪！
我们要批评任何候选人，必须有真凭实据，不要躲在网际网络里任意胡扯。做人要光明磊落。我接下来就认真的点评其他总统候选人，都以真凭实据为依据，让大家知道为什么我不选择支持他们而是支持陈钦亮先生。
先谈谈陈庆炎博士吧。有三个最重要的理由不能选他：
１）陈庆炎博士曾经是ＰＡＰ的核心党员，担任过副总理。我们需要的是一位能独立于执政党的总统，而不是一位凡是都唯唯诺诺的总统。
２）陈庆炎博士也是ＧＩＣ的主席。他曾夸自己对金融投资非常了解，但是就在２００８年，他领导的ＧＩＣ做出了非常高风险的投资决定，买了一大堆面临危机的银行股。在这一些投资遭受巨额亏损以后，他还夸下海口说，如果有机会，他还是会继续做这一些具高风险的投资！姑且不论这些投资到最后会怎么样。我想问的是，对于国家的储备金，我们是否应该拿来做具高风险的投资？如果他是拿自己的钱来这样玩股票，我当然没有异议，但是这是国家的钱啊！如果他当上总统的话，他是否还是赞成ＧＩＣ和淡马锡如此冒险投资？如果当年他在ＧＩＣ所做的投资决定蒙受巨额亏损的话，身为总统，他会自我批评吗？这就存在着利益冲突！
３）第三点，也就是闹得沸沸扬扬的他儿子当兵被视为受到特别待遇的问题。国防部已经极力澄清他儿子并没有受到特别待遇，信不信由你，反正ＰＡＰ人都信了！姑且相信陈庆炎博士在当国防部长时并没有指示属下批准让他儿子享有１２年延期服役，但是我要问的是，他为什么没有避嫌，指示属下别批准如此不可思议的优待？反观台湾以前的国防部长郝柏村为了防止部队特别优待他儿子，现任台北市长郝龙斌，特地叫他儿子别在入伍表格里放他的名字！最后，郝龙斌在正常，没有受特别待遇的情况下完成他的国民服役！相比之下，郝柏村的做法就非常周到，令人心服口服！反观ＰＡＰ却怕全世界人不知道哪个孩子有背景，大搞什么黑马白马的标签！
我对陈清木医生原本比较陌生，但最近他批评陈钦亮承诺捐出至少一半总统薪金是在收买选票，而他很有原则，不认同这种做法。你们说说看，捐钱出来做慈善算是收买选票吗？我要慎重的对陈清木说，ＰＡＰ在１９９７年开始以组屋翻新为竞选伎俩，那才是真正收买选票！但是陈清木却还是继续在ＰＡＰ旗下竞选议员，那时候，他的原则跑到哪里去了？他对这样的收买选票的卑劣行径竟然认同！
讲到陈如斯，我的心就会很沉重。我和他都是海南人，也是反对党员。更有海南人同胞指责我背叛族群，不去支持陈如斯反而是支持陈钦亮。本人必须声明，我先自己当成新加坡人，然后才是海南人，反对党人等等。我必须以国家的利益为前提来做出政治抉择。陈如斯将会是个很好的反对党议员，但我不认为他是一位能够给新加坡政局带来稳定的总统。如果下一次大选他要我为他站台演讲，或甚至和他搭档选议员的话，我都很乐意考虑帮忙。但是如果他说他是最“中立”，当总统的最好人选，我就不敢苟同。
我想他搞错了什么是中立和什么是对立。他站的立场是与ＰＡＰ对立的。一个曾经在反对党旗帜下参加大选的人，如果不是与执政党对立，那是什么？从这几天的选举情况来看，我们不难发觉不管陈如斯如何努力，他骨子里还是堂堂正正的反对党人的思维！
新加坡需要怎么样的总统呢？总统应该是超越政治的。只有完完全全政治独立的候选人才能真正处事时没有政治动机或包袱。比如说，如果陈如斯做总统时对ＰＡＰ做出批评的话，不管他是否真是出于中肯的好意与否，肯定会有一大批人会认为他有政治动机的。同样的批评如果是由陈钦亮总统提出，没有人会有这样的想法的！
虽然人人都说总统应是超越政治，但是目前我们四位总统后选人当中，除了陈钦亮以外，其他三位都是有参加过大选的政治人物。我当初主动劝说陈钦亮出来选总统的其中一大理由就是为了有一位政治独立总统。
大家应该都会很强烈的感受到，这几年来我们的生活都更吃力了。因为什么没东西都在起价。而一般老百姓，工友们的薪水都没有跟着物价的步伐提高。在这里我要告诉大家：这一切都更陈钦亮没有关系。物品价格不断猛涨是因为有人联手起来炒地皮房产。这个结果是房屋地产都大幅度涨了价。你们的房子也涨价了。但你们能够卖掉屋子吗？那你们住哪里？你们都被骗了。但骗你们的不是陈钦亮先生。产业价格涨了，各行各业的租金也就一直在追这股涨风。物品的供应商能够不起价吗？商家们，小贩们的来货都起价了。他们能不起吗？这不是因为陈钦亮到小贩中心吃饭，吃面造成的。
你们搭地铁，搭巴士，陈钦亮先生也有搭地铁，巴士。但是让你们做地铁“沙丁”人不是因为陈钦亮去搭而造成的。而是和炒地产同一伙的。过去一段时间乌节路和一些地方经常淹水。这也和陈钦亮先生没有关系。是排水系统出了问题。最近的COE飙升也不是陈钦亮先生去炒的。他更没有教你们忘恩负义，把年老的父母送去新山的安老院。恐怖分子的头目Mas Selamat逃脱不是陈钦亮放他走的。
你们再看看陈钦亮先生在职总英康保险合作社任职时的时候管理一百万新加坡人，一百七十亿储蓄时，他有没有学一些自认很能干的人那样，拿去玩雷曼兄弟的迷你债券吗？你们投保的钱有没有被他输掉？那你们再看看我们的淡马锡控股和政府投资公司一共输掉了我们多少的血汗钱。我没有正确的数据所以不要猜测。但是你们应该知道那是一笔天文数字。所以你们要认清谁和这些有关系。陈钦亮先生不但没有输掉你们的储蓄，他还承诺如果仲选为总统，会捐出最少一半的薪金来推广教育慈善。这已证明了他不是为了总统薪金而出来竞选总统。
所以如果你们投选陈钦亮先生，我肯定你们不需要后悔六年，也不需要忏悔六年。这次的总统选举根据宪法，是超越政治的。但是有些重要的政治人物却违反自己订下的法规，以他的官职公开介入了这场选举，到处号召民间社团组织支持某一个候选人。大家应该想想看，你们能够支持他们认可的人吗？而真正要需要忏悔的是这一些人。
吴明盛
本来是六年一次的总统选举却让我们等了足足十八年。所以大家手中的那一票就显得更重要，更宝贵了。如果一个不小心投错了，那就有可能要多等一个十八年或更久了。
这次总统大选非常精彩，互联网上和咖啡店里都充满了形形色色的谣言绘声绘影的诋损各个总统候选人。有些说陈如斯怎么的工作表现不好，陈钦亮为了某种原因而离开职总英康保险等等。我恳请大家别轻易相信这些充满政治目的的谣言。我本身在今年大选中也是这些没名没姓的造谣者的受害者。他们说我搞婚外情，说我去澳门胡搞。幸好我太太听了笑到肚子痛！因为我们有深厚的感情，去澳门是我带着我太太和女儿去度假！有人更以为“无风不起浪”，但是我要告诉大家，这是有心人在兴风作浪！
我们要批评任何候选人，必须有真凭实据，不要躲在网际网络里任意胡扯。做人要光明磊落。我接下来就认真的点评其他总统候选人，都以真凭实据为依据，让大家知道为什么我不选择支持他们而是支持陈钦亮先生。
先谈谈陈庆炎博士吧。有三个最重要的理由不能选他：
１）陈庆炎博士曾经是ＰＡＰ的核心党员，担任过副总理。我们需要的是一位能独立于执政党的总统，而不是一位凡是都唯唯诺诺的总统。
２）陈庆炎博士也是ＧＩＣ的主席。他曾夸自己对金融投资非常了解，但是就在２００８年，他领导的ＧＩＣ做出了非常高风险的投资决定，买了一大堆面临危机的银行股。在这一些投资遭受巨额亏损以后，他还夸下海口说，如果有机会，他还是会继续做这一些具高风险的投资！姑且不论这些投资到最后会怎么样。我想问的是，对于国家的储备金，我们是否应该拿来做具高风险的投资？如果他是拿自己的钱来这样玩股票，我当然没有异议，但是这是国家的钱啊！如果他当上总统的话，他是否还是赞成ＧＩＣ和淡马锡如此冒险投资？如果当年他在ＧＩＣ所做的投资决定蒙受巨额亏损的话，身为总统，他会自我批评吗？这就存在着利益冲突！
３）第三点，也就是闹得沸沸扬扬的他儿子当兵被视为受到特别待遇的问题。国防部已经极力澄清他儿子并没有受到特别待遇，信不信由你，反正ＰＡＰ人都信了！姑且相信陈庆炎博士在当国防部长时并没有指示属下批准让他儿子享有１２年延期服役，但是我要问的是，他为什么没有避嫌，指示属下别批准如此不可思议的优待？反观台湾以前的国防部长郝柏村为了防止部队特别优待他儿子，现任台北市长郝龙斌，特地叫他儿子别在入伍表格里放他的名字！最后，郝龙斌在正常，没有受特别待遇的情况下完成他的国民服役！相比之下，郝柏村的做法就非常周到，令人心服口服！反观ＰＡＰ却怕全世界人不知道哪个孩子有背景，大搞什么黑马白马的标签！
我对陈清木医生原本比较陌生，但最近他批评陈钦亮承诺捐出至少一半总统薪金是在收买选票，而他很有原则，不认同这种做法。你们说说看，捐钱出来做慈善算是收买选票吗？我要慎重的对陈清木说，ＰＡＰ在１９９７年开始以组屋翻新为竞选伎俩，那才是真正收买选票！但是陈清木却还是继续在ＰＡＰ旗下竞选议员，那时候，他的原则跑到哪里去了？他对这样的收买选票的卑劣行径竟然认同！
讲到陈如斯，我的心就会很沉重。我和他都是海南人，也是反对党员。更有海南人同胞指责我背叛族群，不去支持陈如斯反而是支持陈钦亮。本人必须声明，我先自己当成新加坡人，然后才是海南人，反对党人等等。我必须以国家的利益为前提来做出政治抉择。陈如斯将会是个很好的反对党议员，但我不认为他是一位能够给新加坡政局带来稳定的总统。如果下一次大选他要我为他站台演讲，或甚至和他搭档选议员的话，我都很乐意考虑帮忙。但是如果他说他是最“中立”，当总统的最好人选，我就不敢苟同。
我想他搞错了什么是中立和什么是对立。他站的立场是与ＰＡＰ对立的。一个曾经在反对党旗帜下参加大选的人，如果不是与执政党对立，那是什么？从这几天的选举情况来看，我们不难发觉不管陈如斯如何努力，他骨子里还是堂堂正正的反对党人的思维！
新加坡需要怎么样的总统呢？总统应该是超越政治的。只有完完全全政治独立的候选人才能真正处事时没有政治动机或包袱。比如说，如果陈如斯做总统时对ＰＡＰ做出批评的话，不管他是否真是出于中肯的好意与否，肯定会有一大批人会认为他有政治动机的。同样的批评如果是由陈钦亮总统提出，没有人会有这样的想法的！
虽然人人都说总统应是超越政治，但是目前我们四位总统后选人当中，除了陈钦亮以外，其他三位都是有参加过大选的政治人物。我当初主动劝说陈钦亮出来选总统的其中一大理由就是为了有一位政治独立总统。
大家应该都会很强烈的感受到，这几年来我们的生活都更吃力了。因为什么没东西都在起价。而一般老百姓，工友们的薪水都没有跟着物价的步伐提高。在这里我要告诉大家：这一切都更陈钦亮没有关系。物品价格不断猛涨是因为有人联手起来炒地皮房产。这个结果是房屋地产都大幅度涨了价。你们的房子也涨价了。但你们能够卖掉屋子吗？那你们住哪里？你们都被骗了。但骗你们的不是陈钦亮先生。产业价格涨了，各行各业的租金也就一直在追这股涨风。物品的供应商能够不起价吗？商家们，小贩们的来货都起价了。他们能不起吗？这不是因为陈钦亮到小贩中心吃饭，吃面造成的。
你们搭地铁，搭巴士，陈钦亮先生也有搭地铁，巴士。但是让你们做地铁“沙丁”人不是因为陈钦亮去搭而造成的。而是和炒地产同一伙的。过去一段时间乌节路和一些地方经常淹水。这也和陈钦亮先生没有关系。是排水系统出了问题。最近的COE飙升也不是陈钦亮先生去炒的。他更没有教你们忘恩负义，把年老的父母送去新山的安老院。恐怖分子的头目Mas Selamat逃脱不是陈钦亮放他走的。
你们再看看陈钦亮先生在职总英康保险合作社任职时的时候管理一百万新加坡人，一百七十亿储蓄时，他有没有学一些自认很能干的人那样，拿去玩雷曼兄弟的迷你债券吗？你们投保的钱有没有被他输掉？那你们再看看我们的淡马锡控股和政府投资公司一共输掉了我们多少的血汗钱。我没有正确的数据所以不要猜测。但是你们应该知道那是一笔天文数字。所以你们要认清谁和这些有关系。陈钦亮先生不但没有输掉你们的储蓄，他还承诺如果仲选为总统，会捐出最少一半的薪金来推广教育慈善。这已证明了他不是为了总统薪金而出来竞选总统。
所以如果你们投选陈钦亮先生，我肯定你们不需要后悔六年，也不需要忏悔六年。这次的总统选举根据宪法，是超越政治的。但是有些重要的政治人物却违反自己订下的法规，以他的官职公开介入了这场选举，到处号召民间社团组织支持某一个候选人。大家应该想想看，你们能够支持他们认可的人吗？而真正要需要忏悔的是这一些人。
吴明盛
Saturday, July 09, 2011
Tan Kin Lian for Presidency
The Certificates of Eligibility have been issued to the Four Tans and now it seems that there is a high possibility of a Four Corner fight.
The approval of Mr. Tan Jee Say has put up quite a bit of interesting points. With due respect to Jee Say, his ability to get the Certificate of Eligibility has opened up a whole new dimension to the Elected Presidency, not only for this one but for future President Elections, i.e. if there are still any in future. According to some information, the paid up capital of Jee Say's company was $1million, far shortfall of the expected $100million. This would mean that many bosses of fund management companies would be able to qualify for Presidency in future.
The Four Corner fight scenario we are having right now may be the worst case scenario but not totally unexpected. As an Opposition Member, many of my friends would expect me to support fellow opposition member who has quit from his party to run for Presidency. However, I still prefer Mr. Tan Kin Lian as our President but this is nothing personal towards Mr. Tan Jee Say. It is just a matter of perspective.
All four candidates have been qualified by the "three wise men" to be men of good character and integrity. However, there are still major differences between them.
The Elected Presidency system was set up by PAP back in the late 1980s when there was perceived massive anti-PAP sentiment. PAP has lost two seats by 1984 and they were planning for the eventuality of what will happen if PAP suffers a "freak election result" and lost power. As explained earlier, they have thought of having a Elected President, supposedly "Pro-PAP", as the last line of defence and platform to handicap the non-PAP government. PAP has been talking about Presidency is not the second power centre... yes, it is not supposed to be when PAP is in power. But if PAP loses power, it will become PAP's second power centre and base for retaking power!
I do not want to see that happening. Political Neutrality is the fundamental pre-requisite for a Truly Independent President. It is not coincident that the most remembered and loved Presidents of the past are all politically neutral in many ways, be it President Sheares or President Wee. President Ong was an unexpected one who acted very independently inspite of his close ties with PAP.
If I do not want to see PAP making use of the Elected Presidency as the platform to enhance their political agenda of retaking power, I would not want to see opposition linked Presidency to do likewise. At this moment, only Tan Kin Lian could be considered as the most Independent candidate in terms of Political Neutrality.
All other three candidates have just quit their party membership just before their announcement of contesting for Presidential Elections. (Tan Kin Lian has quit years ago.) All the other candidates have contested in General Elections before and two of them have political appointments as MP or Minister.
With due respect to Tan Jee Say, if he becomes the President, all his moves would be viewed with contempt by core PAP supporters. If he criticise the PAP government, rightfully or wrongfully, there will always be lingering doubts on whether his criticism is embedded with political agenda or not. This will be the setting for endless political bickering. The same criticism that comes from Tan Kin Lian would not suffer such perceptions.
Some of the candidates have talked about the Presidency as the figure head of unifying Singaporeans. But I really doubt they truly understand what that means.
If either Tony Tan or Tan Jee Say wins and become President, would the core anti-PAP voters and core PAP supporters be happy with the corresponding results? Would they really willing to unite under either of them? But if Tan Kin Lian is the President, even though these opposition supporters or pap supporters may not have voted him, they would find him an acceptable person to become the President.
This is why, in the interest of the Nation, I would rather support Tan Kin Lian instead of Tan Jee Say. Both may perform the same role of checks and balances but Tan Jee Say has the political baggage which may turn the Elected Presidency into the platform which PAP would want to use for politicking in future if they lost power. On top of that, Tan Kin Lian would be in the better position of performing the role of unifying Singaporeans due his political neutrality.
Goh Meng Seng
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Political Sabbatical
I am stepping down from Secretary General of National Solidarity Party from today onwards.
It has been an exciting 1 year and 4 months of leading NSP as SG in its preparation and contesting in the last General Elections. There are "crisis" like NEA summon which I have to manage. But I am glad that we have managed it very well by NOT paying up the fines, else the impact would be unimaginable... can you imagine ALL opposition parties being banned from selling our publications and newspapers during our weekly regular outreach? It was a TOUGH but RIGHT decision and judgement made. A very important lesson and experience for all of us.
I have mixed feelings about the GE results NSP has achieved during my tenure as SG. It is the BEST electoral result that NSP has achieved since its inception but it is still not up to my expectation of winning seats in parliament. This is one of the small regret I have so far.
I will NOT be contesting for a seat in the NSP Central Executive Committee as well. I will go into Partisan Political Sabbatical for at least 2 years. I feel that as the outgoing Secretary General, I should refrain from staying in the CEC so that I would not be seen as undermining the authority of the New SG under any circumstances. But for the time being, I will still stay as a Congress member of NSP.
I will leave behind a stronger and better platform for my successor as well as Singaporeans who wish to contribute to the opposition movement to work on.
10 years in politics is a very tiring process. There is one saying, 1 year in politics is just like 10 years in life. It is very true indeed. But looking back at my initial motivations to get into partisan politics, I guess the two key missions I have set out to achieve, have been accomplished; though they might not be directly achieved by me.
The first mission is to break the hegemony of PAP power by breaching the first GRC. I believe that once the first GRC falls into opposition hands, there will be rapid changes which will create a more balanced system. This has been accomplished by Workers Party in GE2011.
The second mission is to bring justice to my generation of people who are so adversely affected by the so called "Asset Enhancement Scheme" created by the Goh Chok Tong administration. I feel that NSP has provided a good platform for me to elaborate on the ills of such irresponsible scheme which promotes GREED in the guise of "asset enhancement" but in actual fact, will cause great wealth disparity across generations. GE2011 is a very special event which allowed me to elaborate on the ills of the insane Asset Enhancement Scheme which was coupled of false sense of affordability of HDB flats propagated by the PAP.
Thus I should safely say that if I have to quit politics altogether now, I will gladly do so PROUDLY. I could finally tell my children and grandchildren wonder stories about my political involvement in Singapore in future!
However, the biggest regret I have during my tenure of SG is the death of my eldest brother in the tour of duty of helping me out during GE2011. His death has provided much grief as well as inspiration for me during this period.
What will I be doing during this Political Sabbatical period?
In the coming couple of months, I will try to help Mr. Tan Kin Lian out in his Presidential Campaign as much as possible. This will be just another small effort on my part to try and institutionalize REAL checks and balances in our political system.
I could be looking into getting myself involved in various international NGOs where I could further practice and enhance the Core Values of Democracy, Social Justice and Human Rights. I am currently looking into the World Problems of Refugees.
I could also be looking into more business opportunities else where so to earn more money to provide enough financial support for my late brother's family.
I could even be setting up a think tank with some other people who are interested in providing non-partisan policy views.
Whichever the case, I think it is about time to take stock of my future directions now. This timely Political Sabbatical will provide me the necessary breather to do just that.
Someone may ask me whether I will be back to stand for the next GE. Honestly, I have no answer to that now. It will depend on situations there and then.
But for my readers of this blog, I will still write periodically about my various thoughts whenever I have the inspiration to do so. Especially so for the coming couple of months, I will be writing more on the Presidential Elections.
I wish to thank all my supporters for all these years. Some of you have been truly great to me.
Last but not least, I also wish to thank my colleagues in NSP who have given me the support and opportunity to serve and lead the party for the past year.
Goh Meng Seng
It has been an exciting 1 year and 4 months of leading NSP as SG in its preparation and contesting in the last General Elections. There are "crisis" like NEA summon which I have to manage. But I am glad that we have managed it very well by NOT paying up the fines, else the impact would be unimaginable... can you imagine ALL opposition parties being banned from selling our publications and newspapers during our weekly regular outreach? It was a TOUGH but RIGHT decision and judgement made. A very important lesson and experience for all of us.
I have mixed feelings about the GE results NSP has achieved during my tenure as SG. It is the BEST electoral result that NSP has achieved since its inception but it is still not up to my expectation of winning seats in parliament. This is one of the small regret I have so far.
I will NOT be contesting for a seat in the NSP Central Executive Committee as well. I will go into Partisan Political Sabbatical for at least 2 years. I feel that as the outgoing Secretary General, I should refrain from staying in the CEC so that I would not be seen as undermining the authority of the New SG under any circumstances. But for the time being, I will still stay as a Congress member of NSP.
I will leave behind a stronger and better platform for my successor as well as Singaporeans who wish to contribute to the opposition movement to work on.
10 years in politics is a very tiring process. There is one saying, 1 year in politics is just like 10 years in life. It is very true indeed. But looking back at my initial motivations to get into partisan politics, I guess the two key missions I have set out to achieve, have been accomplished; though they might not be directly achieved by me.
The first mission is to break the hegemony of PAP power by breaching the first GRC. I believe that once the first GRC falls into opposition hands, there will be rapid changes which will create a more balanced system. This has been accomplished by Workers Party in GE2011.
The second mission is to bring justice to my generation of people who are so adversely affected by the so called "Asset Enhancement Scheme" created by the Goh Chok Tong administration. I feel that NSP has provided a good platform for me to elaborate on the ills of such irresponsible scheme which promotes GREED in the guise of "asset enhancement" but in actual fact, will cause great wealth disparity across generations. GE2011 is a very special event which allowed me to elaborate on the ills of the insane Asset Enhancement Scheme which was coupled of false sense of affordability of HDB flats propagated by the PAP.
Thus I should safely say that if I have to quit politics altogether now, I will gladly do so PROUDLY. I could finally tell my children and grandchildren wonder stories about my political involvement in Singapore in future!
However, the biggest regret I have during my tenure of SG is the death of my eldest brother in the tour of duty of helping me out during GE2011. His death has provided much grief as well as inspiration for me during this period.
What will I be doing during this Political Sabbatical period?
In the coming couple of months, I will try to help Mr. Tan Kin Lian out in his Presidential Campaign as much as possible. This will be just another small effort on my part to try and institutionalize REAL checks and balances in our political system.
I could be looking into getting myself involved in various international NGOs where I could further practice and enhance the Core Values of Democracy, Social Justice and Human Rights. I am currently looking into the World Problems of Refugees.
I could also be looking into more business opportunities else where so to earn more money to provide enough financial support for my late brother's family.
I could even be setting up a think tank with some other people who are interested in providing non-partisan policy views.
Whichever the case, I think it is about time to take stock of my future directions now. This timely Political Sabbatical will provide me the necessary breather to do just that.
Someone may ask me whether I will be back to stand for the next GE. Honestly, I have no answer to that now. It will depend on situations there and then.
But for my readers of this blog, I will still write periodically about my various thoughts whenever I have the inspiration to do so. Especially so for the coming couple of months, I will be writing more on the Presidential Elections.
I wish to thank all my supporters for all these years. Some of you have been truly great to me.
Last but not least, I also wish to thank my colleagues in NSP who have given me the support and opportunity to serve and lead the party for the past year.
Goh Meng Seng
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Elected Presidency - Why Tan Kin Lian?
In my previous post, I have stated PAP's intentions when they first set up the Elected Presidency system. I have also stated that back in 2008, I decided to turn the table around and try to beat PAP at their own game and rules. That is why I approached Mr. Tan Kin Lian.
But why Tan Kin Lian?
I have known Kin Lian through his writing to the ST Forum as well as his blog. Though I do not agree 100% with what he has said (eg. his stand on Casino) but through his writing, he is always positive about things, even when he disagreed with certain policies or views. He would always try to suggest alternative solutions etc. He also appears to be quite FAIR in his comments and approaches.
Most importantly, I get to know Kin Lian much better through a mutual friend. An unassuming person who judge people on their performance and abilities, not merely on their education certificates and family background. These were just some of the information I gathered before I met him.
I finally met him over a drink to talk about the need to have a truly independent minded Elected President so that the separation of powers coupled with checks and balances within our political system could be enhanced. He agreed in principle of such needs but he said he wasn't ready to consider candidacy for Elected President. However, he put up his views on how PAP has changed over time and the very core values (eg. Public Service) which are so valuable have been eroded.
Even thugh he wasn't ready to stand as candidate, but he mentioned that if he ever stand and become President one day, he will donate off a big portion of the salary of the President to charity. This is because he feels that the salary of the President is just too excessive as this is basically Public Service. Although I may not have "achieved" my initial aim but I am glad to have met Kin Lian and have a friend like him.
As an opposition member, it is naturally for me to hold certain views which will have a tendency of bias against PAP. Most of the time, Kin Lian is able to balance it up with his Fair deliberations. I have learned the value of Fairness through Kin Lian in my various subsequent meetings with him.
When the Minibond saga exploded, many people wrote to Kin Lian to complain about how the structured financial products have been sold to them. Subsequently, Kin Lian decided to hold protest rallies at Hong Lim Park to help Minibond victims to gain access to Fidrac. He has also held meetings and discussions with lawyers to explore various legal options.
Kin Lian subsequently found out that there were quite a large number of victims who could only understand Chinese. After failing to secure help from his PAP friends, he finally approached me. That is how I get myself involved in the whole Minibond saga.
After much research into the various financial structured products, we are convinced that there is no way layman on the streets could understand these products well before committing their investment. We also believe that the banks and financial institutions should not put up these products for retail banking and MAS should not have approved such move. Massive mis-selling of such products is possible because we believe that even those promoters at the front counters did not really understand Minibonds fully. All signs of mis-representation and mis-selling were all there but most Minibond victims did not get a Fair treatment and Justice.
Kin Lian has tried his very best to uphold his values of Fairness by getting involved in the Minibond Saga. It proved to be a long drawn battle which died off because Fair Justice cannot be obtained within our system without committing hefty cost. Unlike Hong Kong whereby the pressure put up by the opposition parties in their Legislative Council has paid off and most investors were able to recover more than 70% or even 90% of their losses. In Singapore, those who are successful in recovering substantial part of their investment are very limited.
By then, I was told Kin Lian has resigned from PAP. Kin Lian, in return for my help in the Minibond Saga, promised to speak on my Rally Stage if I stood for elections. He kept his promise in GE2011.
I have written this lengthy essay on how I meet Mr Tan Kin Lian and what happens in between just to show readers why Tan Kin Lian is a person who can be trusted to perform the critical role of Elected President. He has not only spoken dearly about the core values which he believes in but when the need arises, he will stand up to the challenge to uphold his values of Fairness and Public Service. His courage to stand up for justice to the Minibond victims and even risk clashing with his ex-PAP colleague, Mr. Goh Chok Tong who was then the Chairman of MAS (Kin Lian has served as his branch secretary before) is commendable.
We need a President with the MORAL Courage to stand up for Justice, Fairness and the welfare of the people. This Moral Courage must be huge enough to overcome fear and even barriers of personal relationships. By standing to lead and help the Minibond victims in time of needs and desperation, Kin Lian has demonstrated the kind of public spirit needed in a caring President.
To put it simply, NONE of the MPs in parliament have stepped forward to help the Minibond victims. Even though some of the town councils which were run by PAP MPs were hit by Minibond and lost millions, they just kept quiet and mention the losses in such a "matter of fact" way that gave people the impression that it is just a SMALL MATTER to lose just that millions.
Some people have viewed all his doings in contempt. They would say he did all these because he was planning to run for President all along. As one of the persons who have tried to persuade Kin Lian to run for Presidency, I must categorically refute such unfounded accusations and insinuations. He just tried his best to help out when he saw the unfairness Minibond victims faced.
He wasn't even thinking of running for General Election as opposition candidate, least Presidency. The only reason why he spoke at my Tampines Rally to campaign for me is basically to fulfill his promise made earlier on. I initiated it by calling him up to request his presence and support.
Kin Lian may be strongly opinionated at times but he is prepared to change his views if he is being convinced otherwise. The prime example is the views he held against Dr Chee Soon Juan. Initially, he has bad impression of Dr Chee just like most Singaporeans. But after having close contacts and observing Dr Chee for sometime, he realizes that Dr Chee isn't that "evil person" that the PAP and Press made out of him. He has since openly made an apology to Dr. Chee for his past views.
Having said all these, Kin Lian is definitely not a Saint. He will have some shortcomings just like anybody else. But most importantly, in my opinion, after all the contacts I have made with him, I feel that he has the necessary qualities to be a good and effective President in performing the role of safeguarding our reserves. Someone who is fair minded but yet has the moral courage to stand up against all odds to ask the necessary and difficult questions. Up to the point of risking his own personal friendship with his ex-PAP colleagues, in safeguarding the interests of the People and the Nation.
Thus, my personal support of Mr. Tan Kin Lian in this Presidential Election.
Goh Meng Seng
But why Tan Kin Lian?
I have known Kin Lian through his writing to the ST Forum as well as his blog. Though I do not agree 100% with what he has said (eg. his stand on Casino) but through his writing, he is always positive about things, even when he disagreed with certain policies or views. He would always try to suggest alternative solutions etc. He also appears to be quite FAIR in his comments and approaches.
Most importantly, I get to know Kin Lian much better through a mutual friend. An unassuming person who judge people on their performance and abilities, not merely on their education certificates and family background. These were just some of the information I gathered before I met him.
I finally met him over a drink to talk about the need to have a truly independent minded Elected President so that the separation of powers coupled with checks and balances within our political system could be enhanced. He agreed in principle of such needs but he said he wasn't ready to consider candidacy for Elected President. However, he put up his views on how PAP has changed over time and the very core values (eg. Public Service) which are so valuable have been eroded.
Even thugh he wasn't ready to stand as candidate, but he mentioned that if he ever stand and become President one day, he will donate off a big portion of the salary of the President to charity. This is because he feels that the salary of the President is just too excessive as this is basically Public Service. Although I may not have "achieved" my initial aim but I am glad to have met Kin Lian and have a friend like him.
As an opposition member, it is naturally for me to hold certain views which will have a tendency of bias against PAP. Most of the time, Kin Lian is able to balance it up with his Fair deliberations. I have learned the value of Fairness through Kin Lian in my various subsequent meetings with him.
When the Minibond saga exploded, many people wrote to Kin Lian to complain about how the structured financial products have been sold to them. Subsequently, Kin Lian decided to hold protest rallies at Hong Lim Park to help Minibond victims to gain access to Fidrac. He has also held meetings and discussions with lawyers to explore various legal options.
Kin Lian subsequently found out that there were quite a large number of victims who could only understand Chinese. After failing to secure help from his PAP friends, he finally approached me. That is how I get myself involved in the whole Minibond saga.
After much research into the various financial structured products, we are convinced that there is no way layman on the streets could understand these products well before committing their investment. We also believe that the banks and financial institutions should not put up these products for retail banking and MAS should not have approved such move. Massive mis-selling of such products is possible because we believe that even those promoters at the front counters did not really understand Minibonds fully. All signs of mis-representation and mis-selling were all there but most Minibond victims did not get a Fair treatment and Justice.
Kin Lian has tried his very best to uphold his values of Fairness by getting involved in the Minibond Saga. It proved to be a long drawn battle which died off because Fair Justice cannot be obtained within our system without committing hefty cost. Unlike Hong Kong whereby the pressure put up by the opposition parties in their Legislative Council has paid off and most investors were able to recover more than 70% or even 90% of their losses. In Singapore, those who are successful in recovering substantial part of their investment are very limited.
By then, I was told Kin Lian has resigned from PAP. Kin Lian, in return for my help in the Minibond Saga, promised to speak on my Rally Stage if I stood for elections. He kept his promise in GE2011.
I have written this lengthy essay on how I meet Mr Tan Kin Lian and what happens in between just to show readers why Tan Kin Lian is a person who can be trusted to perform the critical role of Elected President. He has not only spoken dearly about the core values which he believes in but when the need arises, he will stand up to the challenge to uphold his values of Fairness and Public Service. His courage to stand up for justice to the Minibond victims and even risk clashing with his ex-PAP colleague, Mr. Goh Chok Tong who was then the Chairman of MAS (Kin Lian has served as his branch secretary before) is commendable.
We need a President with the MORAL Courage to stand up for Justice, Fairness and the welfare of the people. This Moral Courage must be huge enough to overcome fear and even barriers of personal relationships. By standing to lead and help the Minibond victims in time of needs and desperation, Kin Lian has demonstrated the kind of public spirit needed in a caring President.
To put it simply, NONE of the MPs in parliament have stepped forward to help the Minibond victims. Even though some of the town councils which were run by PAP MPs were hit by Minibond and lost millions, they just kept quiet and mention the losses in such a "matter of fact" way that gave people the impression that it is just a SMALL MATTER to lose just that millions.
Some people have viewed all his doings in contempt. They would say he did all these because he was planning to run for President all along. As one of the persons who have tried to persuade Kin Lian to run for Presidency, I must categorically refute such unfounded accusations and insinuations. He just tried his best to help out when he saw the unfairness Minibond victims faced.
He wasn't even thinking of running for General Election as opposition candidate, least Presidency. The only reason why he spoke at my Tampines Rally to campaign for me is basically to fulfill his promise made earlier on. I initiated it by calling him up to request his presence and support.
Kin Lian may be strongly opinionated at times but he is prepared to change his views if he is being convinced otherwise. The prime example is the views he held against Dr Chee Soon Juan. Initially, he has bad impression of Dr Chee just like most Singaporeans. But after having close contacts and observing Dr Chee for sometime, he realizes that Dr Chee isn't that "evil person" that the PAP and Press made out of him. He has since openly made an apology to Dr. Chee for his past views.
Having said all these, Kin Lian is definitely not a Saint. He will have some shortcomings just like anybody else. But most importantly, in my opinion, after all the contacts I have made with him, I feel that he has the necessary qualities to be a good and effective President in performing the role of safeguarding our reserves. Someone who is fair minded but yet has the moral courage to stand up against all odds to ask the necessary and difficult questions. Up to the point of risking his own personal friendship with his ex-PAP colleagues, in safeguarding the interests of the People and the Nation.
Thus, my personal support of Mr. Tan Kin Lian in this Presidential Election.
Goh Meng Seng
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Elected Presidency - What Kind of President?
By now, most people who follow the news of the pending Presidential election closely would know my support for Mr. Tan Kin Lian to contest for Presidency.
My endorsement of Mr. Tan Kin Lian as President comes a long way but before I explain why I support Kin Lian, let me address some of the views which have been made by various people, including past and present Ministers on the role of the Elected Presidency.
The gist of the messages from the PAP ministers is that the Elected President has limited power and His Excellency could only act as the custodian of the reserves with some limited veto power. He cannot comment or influence the investment directions of any reserves, may not even question the accountability of various people and organizations who may make huge losses of the reserves they are in charge of. His role is only restricted to preventing the government of the day to spend the reserves when he deems fit.
One could easily see the biggest irony here. The President does not have the power to direct investment decisions nor extract accountability from those who are appointed to invest the reserves, when they make huge losses to the reserves. However, he has the power to prevent ELECTED GOVERNMENT of the day from spending the reserves!
As for the appointment of key appointment holders, the President must appoint key appointment holders ACCORDING to the advice of the Cabinet and the Presidential Council whose members are basically, appointed by the Cabinet. Interestingly, the PAP leaders have said several times that if there is a "rogue government" voted in, presumably not PAP, the President could help to prevent it from making various key appointment so to preserve the integrity of the system. This is in fact a contradictory motive and power distribution.
Basically it means, if PAP is in power, the President will have to listen to it and his power will be curbed. But the PAP has also planned for the day when it loses power, then it could make use of the President to curb the power of the "rogue government" or even cripples it totally. Why? This is because the President will be there to protect the PAP appointed individuals on the key positions from being removed by this "rogue government". Yes, this includes the Chairman of GIC.
This is the kind of system PAP has designed for Singapore; or rather, for its own self interests. PAP leaders have once said, if opposition is to form the government consecutively for two terms, Singapore will be finished. Actually what they meant was that for the first term, PAP could still try to cripple the rouge government but by the second term, this rogue government would have people who will be qualified to be President and the system would actually deprive PAP from making a come back to be the ruling party again. It is PAP which is going to be finished, to be exact.
This is really a kind of irony, really. It is just like the GRC system. It will be very advantageous to PAP as long as no opposition party is good enough to win any GRC. But once a GRC is lost, it will become the biggest nightmare to PAP's hegemony of power or it might become the beginning of the end of PAP's ruling status.
Similarly, the Elected Presidency will only be good as long as no "non-establishment" individual could win it. They may not be the cute little puppet that PAP wants him to be. PAP thought that as long it is in power, this will not happen. But the late President Ong Teng Cheong has proven to be too inconvenient for it to handle.
The incoherence of the Elected President system arises because of the conflicting aims of PAP's intention under different scenarios and situations. i.e. they just want to have the cake and eat it. By right, if the Elected President has so limited power, PAP should not be too concerned about losing the post to someone whom it may not endorse. However, PAP cannot disarm the power of the Elected President totally because it may end up compromising the original idea of using it as a means to cripple the rogue government. It is really a Catch 22 situation. Thus the best outcome is to continue to make sure that only the people PAP endorse will become the President.
Logically, as an opposition member, I should be opposing this Elected Presidency system. Any rules or system designed with the intention of protecting PAP's interests will have to be opposed.
However, I have second thought back in 2008. I would want to beat PAP at their own games with their own rules. I would rather to take this opportunity to turn this around so that some real checks and balances could start right now, via the Elected President.
PAP wanted a President who is preferably performing mostly ceremonial roles and not exercising any real influence or power of checks and balances on them. i.e. A President who will just sit there and not say anything which could embarrass the PAP. The President may have no real executive powers, but it doesn't mean that he could not make timely comments on issues which will affect the people in various ways. An Elected President should not be robbed of his voice, his freedom of speech with respect to the welfare of the people.
Thus, what kinds of people should we be looking for to be our President? I always tell people around me, we should not be looking for a SAINT to be our President. There is hardly any SAINT around here in Singapore, least one who could qualify as a Presidential candidate with such materialistic criteria and measures. Maybe we may have a monk or pastor or any other religious leaders who are saint-like but most probably they won't be CEO of some companies with $100 million paid up capital, least a politician.
We should be looking for a person who have an independent mind, FAIR, HONEST and most importantly has the moral courage to speak up for the people. The moral courage to stand up and question the government of the day if there are problems with the reserves or otherwise.
There are a lot of nice people around but nice people may not be the right people to perform the role of the Elected President.
Goh Meng Seng
P.S. I will write about why I find Mr. Tan Kin Lian the right person to be our President in my next post.
My endorsement of Mr. Tan Kin Lian as President comes a long way but before I explain why I support Kin Lian, let me address some of the views which have been made by various people, including past and present Ministers on the role of the Elected Presidency.
The gist of the messages from the PAP ministers is that the Elected President has limited power and His Excellency could only act as the custodian of the reserves with some limited veto power. He cannot comment or influence the investment directions of any reserves, may not even question the accountability of various people and organizations who may make huge losses of the reserves they are in charge of. His role is only restricted to preventing the government of the day to spend the reserves when he deems fit.
One could easily see the biggest irony here. The President does not have the power to direct investment decisions nor extract accountability from those who are appointed to invest the reserves, when they make huge losses to the reserves. However, he has the power to prevent ELECTED GOVERNMENT of the day from spending the reserves!
As for the appointment of key appointment holders, the President must appoint key appointment holders ACCORDING to the advice of the Cabinet and the Presidential Council whose members are basically, appointed by the Cabinet. Interestingly, the PAP leaders have said several times that if there is a "rogue government" voted in, presumably not PAP, the President could help to prevent it from making various key appointment so to preserve the integrity of the system. This is in fact a contradictory motive and power distribution.
Basically it means, if PAP is in power, the President will have to listen to it and his power will be curbed. But the PAP has also planned for the day when it loses power, then it could make use of the President to curb the power of the "rogue government" or even cripples it totally. Why? This is because the President will be there to protect the PAP appointed individuals on the key positions from being removed by this "rogue government". Yes, this includes the Chairman of GIC.
This is the kind of system PAP has designed for Singapore; or rather, for its own self interests. PAP leaders have once said, if opposition is to form the government consecutively for two terms, Singapore will be finished. Actually what they meant was that for the first term, PAP could still try to cripple the rouge government but by the second term, this rogue government would have people who will be qualified to be President and the system would actually deprive PAP from making a come back to be the ruling party again. It is PAP which is going to be finished, to be exact.
This is really a kind of irony, really. It is just like the GRC system. It will be very advantageous to PAP as long as no opposition party is good enough to win any GRC. But once a GRC is lost, it will become the biggest nightmare to PAP's hegemony of power or it might become the beginning of the end of PAP's ruling status.
Similarly, the Elected Presidency will only be good as long as no "non-establishment" individual could win it. They may not be the cute little puppet that PAP wants him to be. PAP thought that as long it is in power, this will not happen. But the late President Ong Teng Cheong has proven to be too inconvenient for it to handle.
The incoherence of the Elected President system arises because of the conflicting aims of PAP's intention under different scenarios and situations. i.e. they just want to have the cake and eat it. By right, if the Elected President has so limited power, PAP should not be too concerned about losing the post to someone whom it may not endorse. However, PAP cannot disarm the power of the Elected President totally because it may end up compromising the original idea of using it as a means to cripple the rogue government. It is really a Catch 22 situation. Thus the best outcome is to continue to make sure that only the people PAP endorse will become the President.
Logically, as an opposition member, I should be opposing this Elected Presidency system. Any rules or system designed with the intention of protecting PAP's interests will have to be opposed.
However, I have second thought back in 2008. I would want to beat PAP at their own games with their own rules. I would rather to take this opportunity to turn this around so that some real checks and balances could start right now, via the Elected President.
PAP wanted a President who is preferably performing mostly ceremonial roles and not exercising any real influence or power of checks and balances on them. i.e. A President who will just sit there and not say anything which could embarrass the PAP. The President may have no real executive powers, but it doesn't mean that he could not make timely comments on issues which will affect the people in various ways. An Elected President should not be robbed of his voice, his freedom of speech with respect to the welfare of the people.
Thus, what kinds of people should we be looking for to be our President? I always tell people around me, we should not be looking for a SAINT to be our President. There is hardly any SAINT around here in Singapore, least one who could qualify as a Presidential candidate with such materialistic criteria and measures. Maybe we may have a monk or pastor or any other religious leaders who are saint-like but most probably they won't be CEO of some companies with $100 million paid up capital, least a politician.
We should be looking for a person who have an independent mind, FAIR, HONEST and most importantly has the moral courage to speak up for the people. The moral courage to stand up and question the government of the day if there are problems with the reserves or otherwise.
There are a lot of nice people around but nice people may not be the right people to perform the role of the Elected President.
Goh Meng Seng
P.S. I will write about why I find Mr. Tan Kin Lian the right person to be our President in my next post.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Rule of Law - Justice and Equality
All of us remember how "efficient" the police was when they reacted to the police report filed against James Gomez by the Elections Department over that "criminal intimidation" charges. This happened in 2006, right after the General Elections.
Even Opposition MP Mr. Low Thia Khiang was interviewed within days after James Gomez was prevented from leaving the country and brought back to Cantonment Police Headquarters for investigations.
Fast forward to 2011. New electoral rules were added by the ruling party, People's Action Party (PAP). Particularly, the cooling off period ruling was implemented, initially perceived by many to give PAP the advantage. However, what we have witnessed is a series of possible breach of these rules by PAP itself.
We have seen how grassroot leaders sending out SMS messages to its network of members to mobilize them to go out all force on cooling off day to talk to people on the ground, trying to canvass votes for PAP.
We have seen how PAP's own candidate breaching the rule and indirectly admitting to the act when she tries to put the blame on someone else.
We have residents from various constituencies complaining about PAP's foot soldiers and contractors distributing pamphlets, booklets, flyers and even PAP's party publication Petir during cooling off day. Some of these acts happened in the wee hours of cooling off day! PAP's response to reporters' enquiries were that Petir was printed before cooling off day! Here again, they have indirectly admitted that such acts were committed during cooling off day but the excuse given was that the publication distributed was printed before hand. It seems that even PAP members don't really know nor understand about the cooling off day's rule. But wait, isn't these rules written and implemented by PAP itself?
Some Singaporeans have reported police about the breaching of these rules by PAP. Notably, the police report filed on the breach of the rules by Tin Pei Ling's FB administrator (well, we don't even know if she has nominated an administrator or not) was done on 12 May 2011. The case was allocated to an Investigation Officer from the Commercial Crime Division (well,they don't have Political Crime Division). It has been almost two weeks but nothing has been heard of. Well, at the very least, there isn't any report on MP Tin being interviewed by any police officer.
I was a bit puzzled on the deterioration of the police's efficiency after these 5 years. Back in 2006, a speedy investigation was carried out right after GE. But now, after two weeks, there is still no news about any investigation being launched.
I could empathize with the police department which was tasked to investigate this case as well as other cases involving PAP's breach of electoral laws. But I believe, as civil servants, these policeman would carry out their duties without fear or favor.
It is obvious to many people, especially those who are active on Social Network on the internet, that a law has been breached. There are also public records of what Ms Tin has said which could well be submitted as evidence on such breach of law. The comments on her FB was deleted after 20 minutes but that doesn't change the fact that the law has been breached. In fact, strictly speaking, it could be viewed as a deliberate effort to destroy critical evidence. Luckily (or unluckily?), a screen shot of this evidence was recorded in public domain as well. I believe that the with all these evidences available on public domain, it should not be a very difficult case to investigate at all.
NSP has lodged a complaint to Elections Department on polling day with regards to two breaches of law by PAP. The Elections Department has brushed off the complaint by asking us to make police reports. At that point of time, I found it pretty absurd that the Elections Department didn't react to the breach of electoral laws which they were supposed to enforce. I would expect them to make the police report instead. I decided not to report police at that point of time because the issue might be painted into a case of petty politicking.
However, now that police reports have been made by the members of public, we should follow up with these cases to make sure that the Rule of Law applies. These cases will also become the first precedences of such breaches of the cooling-off day rule and it is important for us to see how such rules can be enforced.
If we want to build a Democratic Society based on Justice and Equality (National Pledge), we must make sure that the Rule of Law is applied across the board.
I have absolutely nothing against Ms Tin personally. Unfortunately, it is in the Nation's interests to make sure that the law (set by PAP itself) is being enforced fairly. Ms Tin just happened to be implicated in one of these cases.
I hope that the police could act on this case with the same efficiency that they have shown in 2006 against James Gomez. Whether the police will take action or the AG chambers will press charges, the authorities should at least give us a reasonable explanation on whatever actions they intend to take. Such actions will form the basis of precedent case for future enforcement of the Cooling Off Day rule.
Goh Meng Seng
Even Opposition MP Mr. Low Thia Khiang was interviewed within days after James Gomez was prevented from leaving the country and brought back to Cantonment Police Headquarters for investigations.
Fast forward to 2011. New electoral rules were added by the ruling party, People's Action Party (PAP). Particularly, the cooling off period ruling was implemented, initially perceived by many to give PAP the advantage. However, what we have witnessed is a series of possible breach of these rules by PAP itself.
We have seen how grassroot leaders sending out SMS messages to its network of members to mobilize them to go out all force on cooling off day to talk to people on the ground, trying to canvass votes for PAP.
We have seen how PAP's own candidate breaching the rule and indirectly admitting to the act when she tries to put the blame on someone else.
We have residents from various constituencies complaining about PAP's foot soldiers and contractors distributing pamphlets, booklets, flyers and even PAP's party publication Petir during cooling off day. Some of these acts happened in the wee hours of cooling off day! PAP's response to reporters' enquiries were that Petir was printed before cooling off day! Here again, they have indirectly admitted that such acts were committed during cooling off day but the excuse given was that the publication distributed was printed before hand. It seems that even PAP members don't really know nor understand about the cooling off day's rule. But wait, isn't these rules written and implemented by PAP itself?
Some Singaporeans have reported police about the breaching of these rules by PAP. Notably, the police report filed on the breach of the rules by Tin Pei Ling's FB administrator (well, we don't even know if she has nominated an administrator or not) was done on 12 May 2011. The case was allocated to an Investigation Officer from the Commercial Crime Division (well,they don't have Political Crime Division). It has been almost two weeks but nothing has been heard of. Well, at the very least, there isn't any report on MP Tin being interviewed by any police officer.
I was a bit puzzled on the deterioration of the police's efficiency after these 5 years. Back in 2006, a speedy investigation was carried out right after GE. But now, after two weeks, there is still no news about any investigation being launched.
I could empathize with the police department which was tasked to investigate this case as well as other cases involving PAP's breach of electoral laws. But I believe, as civil servants, these policeman would carry out their duties without fear or favor.
It is obvious to many people, especially those who are active on Social Network on the internet, that a law has been breached. There are also public records of what Ms Tin has said which could well be submitted as evidence on such breach of law. The comments on her FB was deleted after 20 minutes but that doesn't change the fact that the law has been breached. In fact, strictly speaking, it could be viewed as a deliberate effort to destroy critical evidence. Luckily (or unluckily?), a screen shot of this evidence was recorded in public domain as well. I believe that the with all these evidences available on public domain, it should not be a very difficult case to investigate at all.
NSP has lodged a complaint to Elections Department on polling day with regards to two breaches of law by PAP. The Elections Department has brushed off the complaint by asking us to make police reports. At that point of time, I found it pretty absurd that the Elections Department didn't react to the breach of electoral laws which they were supposed to enforce. I would expect them to make the police report instead. I decided not to report police at that point of time because the issue might be painted into a case of petty politicking.
However, now that police reports have been made by the members of public, we should follow up with these cases to make sure that the Rule of Law applies. These cases will also become the first precedences of such breaches of the cooling-off day rule and it is important for us to see how such rules can be enforced.
If we want to build a Democratic Society based on Justice and Equality (National Pledge), we must make sure that the Rule of Law is applied across the board.
I have absolutely nothing against Ms Tin personally. Unfortunately, it is in the Nation's interests to make sure that the law (set by PAP itself) is being enforced fairly. Ms Tin just happened to be implicated in one of these cases.
I hope that the police could act on this case with the same efficiency that they have shown in 2006 against James Gomez. Whether the police will take action or the AG chambers will press charges, the authorities should at least give us a reasonable explanation on whatever actions they intend to take. Such actions will form the basis of precedent case for future enforcement of the Cooling Off Day rule.
Goh Meng Seng
Monday, May 23, 2011
Nicole Seah's fund raising
Dear All,
Thank you for all the concerns raised here. I apologize for the great confusion and anxiety caused by this episode.
Under the Political Donation Act, it is LEGAL for candidates to solicit donations under their names. Thus what Nicole has done is legal. The main concern is why personal bank account has been used instead of Party bank account. First of all, Nicole is soliciting funds for her candidacy in Marine Parade. She is also trying to get funding for her whole Marine Parade Team. Thus, it would be technically tedious for us to differentiate between funding meant for Marine Parade Team if donations are made to the Party bank account. Besides, financial reporting for the Party will be very complex if every Teams or individual candidates utilize the Party bank account for their fund raising activities.
I believe that those who have donated to Nicole or any other opposition members would have full confidence and trust in them to utilize the funds solely for the GE only. Having said that, I also understand the demand for transparency from the public on the fund raised. Rest be assured that due diligence will be carried out by the whole Marine Parade Team since the fund raised is intended to defray the cost of its election campaign.
As I have mentioned before to the press, young people are using the New Media more often and it will become a trend for them to utilize New Media for their political work and engagement which will include soliciting political donations. It is unfortunate that this present issue was blown out of proportion due to the utilization of the New Media. On hindsight, it could have been managed better.
Nevertheless, I have full confidence in Nicole and her Marine Parade Team in managing public funding properly. The stakeholders who have contributed money to their funds have the right to know how the funds have been utilized. This is a matter of transparency. This can be done by sending them the details via emails.
However, I think it is totally inappropriate for the members of public to insinuate corrupt practices, intent or misconduct with regards to this issue. It would be unfair to Nicole and her team to suggest that because they have acted within the legal limits. Unless there is any proof of misappropriation of funds, I think such slander is totally unwarranted. I hope the members of public should refrain from making such insinuations.
I think that this issue would be a good public education process for both politicians as well as Singaporeans. Singaporeans may not be used to politicians soliciting funds under their names but this is perfectly legal for candidates to do so, just as any other democratic countries in the world (US, Europe countries etc). On the other hand, politicians have to be mindful about perceptions of the public as well as the transparency of the whole fund raising exercise.
To conclude, I hope that Singaporeans could bear with us while we move on to a more open society. It is perfectly healthy for Singaporeans to raise their concerns on transparency and accountability when such public donations are involved. But I hope that my explanations and clarifications here could address their concerns adequately.
Yours Sincerely ,
Goh Meng Seng
Thank you for all the concerns raised here. I apologize for the great confusion and anxiety caused by this episode.
Under the Political Donation Act, it is LEGAL for candidates to solicit donations under their names. Thus what Nicole has done is legal. The main concern is why personal bank account has been used instead of Party bank account. First of all, Nicole is soliciting funds for her candidacy in Marine Parade. She is also trying to get funding for her whole Marine Parade Team. Thus, it would be technically tedious for us to differentiate between funding meant for Marine Parade Team if donations are made to the Party bank account. Besides, financial reporting for the Party will be very complex if every Teams or individual candidates utilize the Party bank account for their fund raising activities.
I believe that those who have donated to Nicole or any other opposition members would have full confidence and trust in them to utilize the funds solely for the GE only. Having said that, I also understand the demand for transparency from the public on the fund raised. Rest be assured that due diligence will be carried out by the whole Marine Parade Team since the fund raised is intended to defray the cost of its election campaign.
As I have mentioned before to the press, young people are using the New Media more often and it will become a trend for them to utilize New Media for their political work and engagement which will include soliciting political donations. It is unfortunate that this present issue was blown out of proportion due to the utilization of the New Media. On hindsight, it could have been managed better.
Nevertheless, I have full confidence in Nicole and her Marine Parade Team in managing public funding properly. The stakeholders who have contributed money to their funds have the right to know how the funds have been utilized. This is a matter of transparency. This can be done by sending them the details via emails.
However, I think it is totally inappropriate for the members of public to insinuate corrupt practices, intent or misconduct with regards to this issue. It would be unfair to Nicole and her team to suggest that because they have acted within the legal limits. Unless there is any proof of misappropriation of funds, I think such slander is totally unwarranted. I hope the members of public should refrain from making such insinuations.
I think that this issue would be a good public education process for both politicians as well as Singaporeans. Singaporeans may not be used to politicians soliciting funds under their names but this is perfectly legal for candidates to do so, just as any other democratic countries in the world (US, Europe countries etc). On the other hand, politicians have to be mindful about perceptions of the public as well as the transparency of the whole fund raising exercise.
To conclude, I hope that Singaporeans could bear with us while we move on to a more open society. It is perfectly healthy for Singaporeans to raise their concerns on transparency and accountability when such public donations are involved. But I hope that my explanations and clarifications here could address their concerns adequately.
Yours Sincerely ,
Goh Meng Seng
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
PAP lost their BIGGEST GAMBLE
The People's Action Party lost its first battle after 15 years of monopoly of power since independence in 1981 Anson by-election. Mr. JB Jeyaratnam has dented PAP's strong hold of power back then. In 1984 General Elections, PAP lost two seats in total: Mr. JBJ retained his Anson seat while Mr. Chiam See Tong won Potong Pasir beating Mah Bow Tan hands down with a respectable 60% of valid votes.
Ever since then, PAP was worried about losing more seats in the years to come. They squeezed every drops of brain juice they have, from suggesting some people may have two votes instead of one to tweaking the electoral system. Eventually, they came up with this BRILLIANT idea of GRC. Basically, the GRC system literally up the stakes for every electoral contest.
They have succeeded in preventing losing more seats in 1988 GE with a close shave of winning Eunos GRC with Workers Party's Team losing by merely 1%. Predictably, they are so dependent and addicted to the GRC system that they subsequently increased the size from 3 to 4 and eventually created the giant 6 man GRCs. It basically up the stake further just like a gambler who thinks he will sure win all.
Of course, PAP has very thick skin to ignore all logical criticism of its "kiasuism" (mentality of being afraid to lose). At one point of time, the Prime Minister even proudly joke openly about Singaporeans being "Kiasu" (afraid to lose), "Kiasi" (afraid to die) "Kiabo" (afraid of wife). However, ironically PAP has become like a gambling addict who keep increasing its stake in electoral contests.
It is indeed a paradox. While PAP is afraid to lose, it thought that it could prevent losing by increasing the stake for all. The most ironic argument I heard during this GE 2011 is that PAP has actually accuse Workers Party of making things difficult for Aljunied voters by "forcing them to make difficult choice". It could even be interpreted that WP is "holding voters at ransom" by fielding Mr. Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim together in Aljunied GRC.
It is PAP who is trying to hold Singaporeans at ransom by setting up the GRC system. Not only did it try to use HDB upgrading as the carrot ransom, it also uses subtle threats of depriving voters funding for various services. The ultimate ransom is the argument that the Nation will lose two ministers plus one Speaker of Parliament along with one potential ministerial candidate.
But wait, isn't this PAP's own doing? It tries to gamble big by putting TWO ministers in Aljunied GRC. In fact, it is gambling away its "ministerial talents" by putting ministers in each and every GRCs! It just thinks that Singaporeans will not "sacrifice" its ministers and thus those who contest along with these ministers will have a safe passage way to parliament.
PAP's high stake gambling habits has cost it dearly. If you think the cost of this gambling is merely two or three ministers, think again. The implications of this lost in Aljunied GRC is much wider and deeper.
First of all, which PAP minister would be willing to risk their million dollar pay to contest in Aljunied GRC next round in the bid to win it back? Even George Yeo and Lim Hwee Hwa have bowed out of the game! Would it mean that once a GRC is lost, PAP will never be able to win it back again?
Secondly, after this defeat, how could PAP convince "high flyers" to quit their jobs like BG or superscale civil service positions to join them and promise them a safe passage way to become ministers? There is no longer SAFE Passage to parliament. BG Tan should understand this very well!
Thirdly, even the recruitment of backbenchers for PAP will face problem! No more hiding behind heavy weights so to walk into parliament safely!
Last but not least, there are several GRCs in "danger zones" which opposition parties have achieved more than 40%. These include East Coast GRC, Bishan Toa Payoh GRC, Marine Parade GRC, Tampines GRC, Moulmein Kallang GRC and Nee Soon GRC. There are two GRCs which are near 40%: Holland Bukit Timah GRC and Choa Chu Kang GRC.
It basically means that PAP will be fire fighting in all these places next round and I do not think it has enough ministers to have two ministers fielded in each of these GRCs. If PAP is not careful enough, it may face the possibility of losing more ministers.
It will be double whammy for PAP. On one hand, it will not be able to attract and convince talents to join its rank while on the other hand, it will keep losing ministerial talents.
PAP will do the same thing they did in the mid-1980s: think of some genius way to prevent the tide of losing more. They may try to raise the stake again (well, maybe turn Singapore into only 5 GRCs, North South East West and Central GRCs) or implement the one man two votes system for people who reach certain age. Else the only option is to go for some kind proportional representation.
Implementing proportional representation system may see PAP's percentage of seats dropping in parliament but it will help to prevent any further loss of ministers.
It seems that the implementation of proportional representation system would benefit Singapore. It will make sure that our parliament will maintain diversity of views for better debates on policy issues and at the same time, secure enough ministerial candidates to serve the nation.
The PAP has lost big time for GE 2011 and I hope that it will wake up in time to carry out the necessary electoral reforms to embrace diversity and cater to Singaporeans' urge of having more opposition voices in parliament.
Goh Meng Seng
Ever since then, PAP was worried about losing more seats in the years to come. They squeezed every drops of brain juice they have, from suggesting some people may have two votes instead of one to tweaking the electoral system. Eventually, they came up with this BRILLIANT idea of GRC. Basically, the GRC system literally up the stakes for every electoral contest.
They have succeeded in preventing losing more seats in 1988 GE with a close shave of winning Eunos GRC with Workers Party's Team losing by merely 1%. Predictably, they are so dependent and addicted to the GRC system that they subsequently increased the size from 3 to 4 and eventually created the giant 6 man GRCs. It basically up the stake further just like a gambler who thinks he will sure win all.
Of course, PAP has very thick skin to ignore all logical criticism of its "kiasuism" (mentality of being afraid to lose). At one point of time, the Prime Minister even proudly joke openly about Singaporeans being "Kiasu" (afraid to lose), "Kiasi" (afraid to die) "Kiabo" (afraid of wife). However, ironically PAP has become like a gambling addict who keep increasing its stake in electoral contests.
It is indeed a paradox. While PAP is afraid to lose, it thought that it could prevent losing by increasing the stake for all. The most ironic argument I heard during this GE 2011 is that PAP has actually accuse Workers Party of making things difficult for Aljunied voters by "forcing them to make difficult choice". It could even be interpreted that WP is "holding voters at ransom" by fielding Mr. Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim together in Aljunied GRC.
It is PAP who is trying to hold Singaporeans at ransom by setting up the GRC system. Not only did it try to use HDB upgrading as the carrot ransom, it also uses subtle threats of depriving voters funding for various services. The ultimate ransom is the argument that the Nation will lose two ministers plus one Speaker of Parliament along with one potential ministerial candidate.
But wait, isn't this PAP's own doing? It tries to gamble big by putting TWO ministers in Aljunied GRC. In fact, it is gambling away its "ministerial talents" by putting ministers in each and every GRCs! It just thinks that Singaporeans will not "sacrifice" its ministers and thus those who contest along with these ministers will have a safe passage way to parliament.
PAP's high stake gambling habits has cost it dearly. If you think the cost of this gambling is merely two or three ministers, think again. The implications of this lost in Aljunied GRC is much wider and deeper.
First of all, which PAP minister would be willing to risk their million dollar pay to contest in Aljunied GRC next round in the bid to win it back? Even George Yeo and Lim Hwee Hwa have bowed out of the game! Would it mean that once a GRC is lost, PAP will never be able to win it back again?
Secondly, after this defeat, how could PAP convince "high flyers" to quit their jobs like BG or superscale civil service positions to join them and promise them a safe passage way to become ministers? There is no longer SAFE Passage to parliament. BG Tan should understand this very well!
Thirdly, even the recruitment of backbenchers for PAP will face problem! No more hiding behind heavy weights so to walk into parliament safely!
Last but not least, there are several GRCs in "danger zones" which opposition parties have achieved more than 40%. These include East Coast GRC, Bishan Toa Payoh GRC, Marine Parade GRC, Tampines GRC, Moulmein Kallang GRC and Nee Soon GRC. There are two GRCs which are near 40%: Holland Bukit Timah GRC and Choa Chu Kang GRC.
It basically means that PAP will be fire fighting in all these places next round and I do not think it has enough ministers to have two ministers fielded in each of these GRCs. If PAP is not careful enough, it may face the possibility of losing more ministers.
It will be double whammy for PAP. On one hand, it will not be able to attract and convince talents to join its rank while on the other hand, it will keep losing ministerial talents.
PAP will do the same thing they did in the mid-1980s: think of some genius way to prevent the tide of losing more. They may try to raise the stake again (well, maybe turn Singapore into only 5 GRCs, North South East West and Central GRCs) or implement the one man two votes system for people who reach certain age. Else the only option is to go for some kind proportional representation.
Implementing proportional representation system may see PAP's percentage of seats dropping in parliament but it will help to prevent any further loss of ministers.
It seems that the implementation of proportional representation system would benefit Singapore. It will make sure that our parliament will maintain diversity of views for better debates on policy issues and at the same time, secure enough ministerial candidates to serve the nation.
The PAP has lost big time for GE 2011 and I hope that it will wake up in time to carry out the necessary electoral reforms to embrace diversity and cater to Singaporeans' urge of having more opposition voices in parliament.
Goh Meng Seng
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Reflections on GE 2011
Many people tend to believe that Internet, New Media or Social Media have played the critical role in GE2011 but I think otherwise. Among the highest scoring teams, most of them enjoyed significant spotlight by the main stream media.
Workers Party (WP) is the biggest winner in terms of media coverage. Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)also enjoys significant media coverage on their two main GRC teams. As for NSP, the best performing team, Marine Parade Team, enjoys the most media coverage as well.
Many people have talked about the strategic failure of NSP Tampines Team. To put on record, NSP Tampines Team is quite a decent team with passionate people on board. Nevertheless, there are many factors to make a team win. My failure to convince people like Tony Tan, Hazel Poa or even Nicole Seah to join the Tampines Team has cost us a lost opportunity of punching through.
There are many other factors which will determine the results:
The Ground
1) Class Types: In comparison, Tampines is definitely a hard ground in terms of housing types. 32% of flats are 5 room and above, presumably middle class. This is the highest percentage among all other GRCs. From GE 2006 and further confirmation in this GE 2011, surprisingly those who lives in landed properties are more supportive of opposition as a whole.
2) Pass electoral records: Tampines result in GE 2006 was only slightly more than 30%. Tampines is a fortress and doesn't have any changes to its boundaries. Though we do not have fair comparison of Marine Parade, but Marine Parade has the worse ground. Prior to nomination day, my estimate is for NSP to get about 35% to 40%. This is based on past electoral records of Braddel Heights (48%, Sin Kek Tong time), Eunos-Ubi (49%, Francis Seow's time) and the swollen ground from Chai Chee, part of Joo Chiat. On top of that, better ground like Mountbatten was cut out.
The People
3) Demographics & Race composition: Tampines has a pretty high percentage of Malay as well as young voters. The swing in Malay and young votes have actually helped us to get much better result, though falling short of a win.
4) Candidates play an important part in winning votes. Apparently Nicole Seah has managed to win quite a substantial number of votes in Marine Parade. Uncle Chiam also played an important role in getting votes for both Potong Pasir and Bishan Toa Payoh. Needless to say, WP's three stars, Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim and Chen Show Mao are the pillars of WP's branding which helped to raise the votes and profiles of all other teams and candidates. As mentioned, the failure to convince Tony and Hazel to join my Tampines Team has cost us dearly.
5) Opponent's profile is also an important factor to determine whether we could get better results or even a win. Minister Mah and Tin PL are just two prime examples.
The Issues
6) Marine Parade has issues in Joo Chiat area as well as local issues in other places. Tampines has less local issues but national issue like high HDB Housing prices was the main thrust.
Party Branding
7) Apparently Party Branding plays a very important role in WP's campaign while NSP has to depend on other factors which I have mentioned above.
Failure of Minister-Specific Strategy?
Contrary to news report, I think the Minister-Specific Strategy has worked, though not to its fuller extend. Both Tampines and Marine Parade teams have applied minister-specific strategy and they have yielded better results as compared to other NSP teams.
However issue-based minister-specific strategy is just necessary but insufficient strategy for parties without STRONG branding to win the elections.
Although overall NSP has done better than the National Vote swing of 6% (we have gotten about 8% against the setting of 31% in GE 2006) but anything falling short of a win is still regrettable.
Goh Meng Seng
Workers Party (WP) is the biggest winner in terms of media coverage. Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)also enjoys significant media coverage on their two main GRC teams. As for NSP, the best performing team, Marine Parade Team, enjoys the most media coverage as well.
Many people have talked about the strategic failure of NSP Tampines Team. To put on record, NSP Tampines Team is quite a decent team with passionate people on board. Nevertheless, there are many factors to make a team win. My failure to convince people like Tony Tan, Hazel Poa or even Nicole Seah to join the Tampines Team has cost us a lost opportunity of punching through.
There are many other factors which will determine the results:
The Ground
1) Class Types: In comparison, Tampines is definitely a hard ground in terms of housing types. 32% of flats are 5 room and above, presumably middle class. This is the highest percentage among all other GRCs. From GE 2006 and further confirmation in this GE 2011, surprisingly those who lives in landed properties are more supportive of opposition as a whole.
2) Pass electoral records: Tampines result in GE 2006 was only slightly more than 30%. Tampines is a fortress and doesn't have any changes to its boundaries. Though we do not have fair comparison of Marine Parade, but Marine Parade has the worse ground. Prior to nomination day, my estimate is for NSP to get about 35% to 40%. This is based on past electoral records of Braddel Heights (48%, Sin Kek Tong time), Eunos-Ubi (49%, Francis Seow's time) and the swollen ground from Chai Chee, part of Joo Chiat. On top of that, better ground like Mountbatten was cut out.
The People
3) Demographics & Race composition: Tampines has a pretty high percentage of Malay as well as young voters. The swing in Malay and young votes have actually helped us to get much better result, though falling short of a win.
4) Candidates play an important part in winning votes. Apparently Nicole Seah has managed to win quite a substantial number of votes in Marine Parade. Uncle Chiam also played an important role in getting votes for both Potong Pasir and Bishan Toa Payoh. Needless to say, WP's three stars, Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim and Chen Show Mao are the pillars of WP's branding which helped to raise the votes and profiles of all other teams and candidates. As mentioned, the failure to convince Tony and Hazel to join my Tampines Team has cost us dearly.
5) Opponent's profile is also an important factor to determine whether we could get better results or even a win. Minister Mah and Tin PL are just two prime examples.
The Issues
6) Marine Parade has issues in Joo Chiat area as well as local issues in other places. Tampines has less local issues but national issue like high HDB Housing prices was the main thrust.
Party Branding
7) Apparently Party Branding plays a very important role in WP's campaign while NSP has to depend on other factors which I have mentioned above.
Failure of Minister-Specific Strategy?
Contrary to news report, I think the Minister-Specific Strategy has worked, though not to its fuller extend. Both Tampines and Marine Parade teams have applied minister-specific strategy and they have yielded better results as compared to other NSP teams.
However issue-based minister-specific strategy is just necessary but insufficient strategy for parties without STRONG branding to win the elections.
Although overall NSP has done better than the National Vote swing of 6% (we have gotten about 8% against the setting of 31% in GE 2006) but anything falling short of a win is still regrettable.
Goh Meng Seng
Thursday, May 05, 2011
Response to Mah Bow Tan
I am very disappointed with Mr. Mah Bow Tan's "rebuttal" on the Housing Issues.
First of all, he has chosen to do so at the very last rally while refusing to take up the challenge of having a Live TV Debate. I could understand why because his so call rebuttals cannot hold water at all.
First of all, we are not saying that Singaporeans cannot use their CPF money to buy HDB flats. We are just saying with a 30 year mortgage, there will be little money left for retirement! It seems that Mr. Mah Bow Tan either chooses to side step this problem or deliberately mislead voters about our manifesto.
Secondly, he claims that our flats sold at Cost Plus will have to be sold at the same amount and all units will look the same. This is the most uncreative way of thinking and rebuttals. We could still build very different flats with different costings but yet, selling at Cost Plus. Yes, the sales price will be different but still, it is Cost Price system.
Thirdly, he still insists that such flats cannot increase in value. I do not understand how he come to that conclusion since the resale market will still be there.
I am totally disappointed with such rebuttals as I was expecting something much better. Anyway, it is up for Voters of Tampines to decide.
Goh Meng Seng
First of all, he has chosen to do so at the very last rally while refusing to take up the challenge of having a Live TV Debate. I could understand why because his so call rebuttals cannot hold water at all.
First of all, we are not saying that Singaporeans cannot use their CPF money to buy HDB flats. We are just saying with a 30 year mortgage, there will be little money left for retirement! It seems that Mr. Mah Bow Tan either chooses to side step this problem or deliberately mislead voters about our manifesto.
Secondly, he claims that our flats sold at Cost Plus will have to be sold at the same amount and all units will look the same. This is the most uncreative way of thinking and rebuttals. We could still build very different flats with different costings but yet, selling at Cost Plus. Yes, the sales price will be different but still, it is Cost Price system.
Thirdly, he still insists that such flats cannot increase in value. I do not understand how he come to that conclusion since the resale market will still be there.
I am totally disappointed with such rebuttals as I was expecting something much better. Anyway, it is up for Voters of Tampines to decide.
Goh Meng Seng
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
