Unrealistic Expectations from PAP or Singaporeans?

The following is from a FB friend ...

What people think of LHL. Honestly speaking, this man had gone cuckoo.

*An excellent piece written by Gerard Ong*_
~~~~~~
Elgin Toh, The Straits Times Deputy Political Editor said in his commentary on Aug 20, our PM has turned into one of those savvy financial advisers who dispense valuable tips on how to save money on daily expenses at his Rally speech on 19 Aug.

These tips included, being more mindful of water and electricity usage, watching data usage, tapping wireless@SG when available, not using expensive brands in your household and looking for economical options at new hawker centres.

Really Elgin? Our PM a savvy financial advisor? Then my late grandma who brought me up must have been an A grade financial advisor as well. She constantly lectured me why I should not waste electricity & water, switch on appliances unnecessarily, buy branded stuff and expensive food. I think she only had a primary school education before the war.

I remember as a young officer in the army some of my cohort used to nick name some of our senior commanders as “five & ten cents” officers because they emphasised on the small stuff instead of focusing on the big picture which everyone knew was more important and relevant.

I hope our PM reads the yearly stats on the world’s most expensive cities and realises that Singapore has been named the most expensive city in the world for the past few years.

Perhaps a man of his status may not realise it as like Tun Mahathir who said recently that when he was PM he did not need much money. This was because where ever he went things were paid by organisations or people around him. So he does not understand why people (he was jibing UMNO ministers) need so much money.

I wonder if our PM has stepped into an NTUC FairPrice supermarket to compare prices of nonbranded household goods or a wet market to know prices of meat, poultry and fish.

The prices are high not because the sellers are profiteering but because everything in Singapore is highly priced or taxed which tinkles down and wallops the consumer. If the price of vehicles, fuel and rent are high, the prices of deliverable goods go up in price. You don’t need to be an economics graduate to know that.

In 1978, I bought a good second-hand car for S$1,500. My five room Normanton Park apartment cost S$37,000 and came with a swimming pool and tennis courts. Today a five-room flat in far flung Punggol cost S$400,000 and you will have to wait two to four years for it.

These prices do not reflect the interest payments which bring up the overall price of the flat considerably. I am not even talking of resale flats as prices of such apartments are insane when you compare them with property prices in fully developed countries.

There will be people who will compare us with Hong Kong and say we are better off. Well they could compare us with a village in the far north of Thailand and say we are better off as we have electricity and piped-in gas. Such comparisons are futile as we are talking about our cost of living and how it affects the middle-income earners and those living on their wits end in Singapore.

It is the big-ticket prices in Singapore that have raised the cost of living for all of us. Why are houses and flats so expensive. It is primarily because land sales have been priced high and developers upping their prices and profits.

Let us not forget with every property sales transaction, a tax is levied which brings up the cost of the purchase. Primarily the major portion of our income goes into paying of mortgages.

Why are goods so expensive? You don’t need a finance degree to figure it out. High cost of property + high rentals + high cost of vehicles and taxes + high costs of services + salaries (with CPF) + worker levies = high overall cost

At the end of the day, the rich and high performing ministers and bureaucrats with their humongous salaries will not feel the pinch when we talk about the high cost of living in Singapore.

Unless you are Edwin Tong who told Goh Chok Tong that if he took up a post as a Minister of State, he may not be able to take care of his family, mother and father-in-law with his $500k yearly salary!

TOTD: SMRT: The Instant Failure of Privatization

Thought of the Day - SMRT: The Instant Failure of Privatization

In Economics study, there is always a debate over the pros and cons of "Privatization" of companies providing public goods like public transport.

Companies providing public goods are natural monopolies because they need economies of scale. But the downside is, it tends to be inefficient if it is under government administration. However, this may not be always true.

Natural monopolies are preferred to be under government control because this will prevent them from "exercising their monopolistic power" to "overcharged" and gain abnormal profits through maximization of profits pricing strategy.

Even when natural monopolies are turned into private companies, they will be heavily regulated due to the enormous monopoly power over pricing. This is in the interests of the public.

However, there are other issues when you try to achieve "efficiency" via privatization a monopoly like SMRT. When it becomes a private company, it will shift its priorities from providing reliable public service to making good returns to its private shareholders to sustain its stock market value.

SMRT's privatization exercise in 2000 is a typical example of how such shift of priorities will harm public interests.

After its privatization and public listing on SGX in 2000, SMRT appointed Saw, a lady from DFS and with only skill set in retail to become its CEO. The motive is simple. They wanted to MAXIMIZE profits from the vast potentials of the properties it owns under its MRT stations.

But Saw went beyond extending the retail space in MRT stations. As a person without any Engineering skillsets but with vested interests in getting hefty bonuses by increasing profitability and cutting costs, she started to cut the "Cost Centers" of SMRT operations. Obviously, the Maintenance Division is considered as a huge cost center that doesn't generate sales nor revenue but costly to SMRT!

Just like any ignorant money smelling face, she thought she could cut down expenses in Maintenance by replacing "expensive" but experienced engineers and technicians with "Foreign Talents" who have only some paper qualifications (oh, never mind if these paper certificates are fake or not) but extremely cheap at a fraction of the experienced staffs. All thanks to PAP government opening the Floodgate to "Foreign Talents" so that SMRT could capitalize on this fully!

She thought she could just ignore the need of upgrading or replacement of critical assets of the rail system so to boost the profits of SMRT further!

Well, in the short run, SMRT did "extremely well" in giving out good dividends to shareholders. Dividends jumped more than 5 folds after 2002 in some years.

However, it is just obvious and common sense that such management of a company which is heavily depended on good engineering to keep the CORE business running smoothly cannot be sustainable. Eventually, the rail system broke down. This is also partly due to the "overloading" problem due to the extensive influx of foreigners which inflated our population up to 5 million and beyond!

The MRT system was designed and built for a capacity of 3 million. It is supposed to have 8 cabins (like the Hong Kong MTR) in order to cope with a 5-8 million population.

While it is possible to mitigate the problem of overloading by building extensive by-routing rail network like the NW line, Circle lines and Downtown lines, but the stress on the main line NS and EW lines are still extremely heavy. Furthermore, the increase of the number of lines and stations would also mean the need to expand the maintenance division extensively!

How could SMRT keep the growth of expenditure on its maintenance division comparatively low while the number of lines and stations keep increasing in such a speed? You need time to train and get new engineers and technicians to familiarize with the job scope!

The proportion of money spent in maintenance as compared to Hong Kong MTR is extremely low. Do they really want us to believe that SMRT engineers are magicians or superman and women who could do wonders?

The entire system ended up in the current sorry state just because PAP screws it up with its Money-face-cronyism management strategy. They just anyhow send in someone who know nuts about running an effective and efficient rail system to become CEO just because she might be great in squeezing every penny out of SMRT!

And the most ridiculous thing is that they made the SAME mistake of sending in a replacement from the army who also knows nuts about running a rail system and hope that he could clean up the mess the previous idiot has done!!!???

What is worse than putting people who are totally clueless about the job scope to run an important rail company? And both just took in their own KAKIs from the same UNRELATED industry who similarly, CLUELESS and lack of the relevant skill set and in-depth technical knowledge of rail system to run the departments!

Instead of headhunting people with REAL Experience in running a rail system, we ended up with these mulit-million dollar parasites who are clueless of running a rail system!

This is how Privatization of such an important public goods provider cum monopoly ended up so wrong. I guess this will enter into World Wide Economic and Management Text Books!

On the side note, PAP has always treated GLCs as their "dumping ground" for their "scholars" who have expired their usefulness in SAF or civil service. Maybe it is time for us to rethink whether the extensive Scholar system we have right now, especially the SAF scholarship system, is still useful or relevant. We cannot just dump them anyhow into GLCs which they lack the skillsets and experience to work in!

Goh Meng Seng

Oxley Temple Saga: Lessons on Separation of Powers And Good Governance

WARNING: This is going to be a "LONG BORING POST" if you are not interested in learning more about what is "Conflict of Interest" or "Separation of Powers". 

In this post, I am not interested on the Oxley House  itself but what came out from the whole saga; especially on the issue "Abuse of Power" and such.

Mr. Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling had made serious accusations of "Abuse of Power", among other things. PM Lee Hsien Loong claims that he has "answered" all these allegations in parliament and concluded that these are "baseless".

Many Singaporeans seem to be "convinced" that these are "baseless allegations" and even our opposition MPs in parliament seemed to think that these are just "calculated allegations" (sic) without much substance or substantial evidences made to undermine the Prime Minister. (Anyway, I do not think it is the job of opposition to defend the Prime Minister himself.)

From recent events in the appointment of Deputy Attorney General, Attorney General to this Oxley Temple Saga, it is clear that Singaporeans didn't really see any problems with the massive potential conflicts of interests as well as the breach of the simple rule of Separation of Powers. I personally feel that this is the main weakness of Singapore. Singaporeans lack a clear understanding of the importance of Separation of Powers and what constitutes "Conflicts of Interests". It is also apparent that even our opposition MPs have weak understanding or even lack of understanding of Separation of Powers and Conflicts of Interests; else they won't be found or criticized for the lack of proper handling of potential "conflicts of interests" in the management of their Town Councils. They have tried to make a case of Conflicts of Interests in parliament against the appointment of Hri Kumar and Lucian Wong as Deputy AG and AG but it wasn't forceful nor "convincing" at all. And it is not surprising that they did not see the case made out by PM Lee's siblings as convincing and important enough to call for investigations of any sort, but pass these allegations off as "baseless" or "lack substantial evidence" and conclude these as "calculated accusation to undermine the PM". They even gave the PM "benefit of doubts" over these issues!

Let me go through the various issues one by one, giving a contrast by putting up examples from Hong Kong. Why Hong Kong? Well, both Singapore and Hong Kong adopted the Common Laws as the basis of our legal systems. It is comparable in many sense.

Inappropriate Appointment of AG and DGA

It is a fact that the appointed AG Lucian Wong was PM Lee's personal lawyer as stated by LHY and LWL. It is a fact that the appointed Hri Kumar was a PAP MP. PM Lee tried to brush away the accusation of him appointing his own personal lawyer as AG as non-issue because he opines that Lucian has "provided good service" to him!

Now some people pointed out there is "Conflict of Interests" but didn't know exactly how interests could be "conflicted". This is why PAP could get away with such blatant act.

There are actually TWO GREAT Problems here, instead of One. Conflict of Interests is only one of the problems. The other is the breach of the Democratic Principle of Separation of Powers.

Let me give you an example and you will see clearly why there is a potential conflict of interests here.

If you are the Director of a Stats Board or department in the civil service. You made the recommendation of a lawyer as the legal advisor of the department, without declaring that he is your personal lawyer, would that be permissible? Obviously not.

In the world of good governance in public sector, all related interests must be declared before the decisions for any position or any contract is offered. Else that would be considered as a breach of proper procedures and the omission of such declaration of interests or relationship would be considered an attempt to hide critical information and will automatically trigger criminal investigation procedures.(Remember the NEA Brompton Bike case?)

Why would that be considered as "Conflict of Interest" in the first place? Well, as long as there is a relationship (close relationship) or business dealings between the Director and the lawyer, there will be a possibility of transfer of tangible or intangible interests which may be suspected to result in the favorable decision to appoint or give the contract to the lawyer. For example, hefty discounts or even "Free Service" provided to the Director for his personal matters and in return, the Director decides to appoint him as legal adviser to the department. These possible events may not have happened but as long as there is such possibility, the relationship must be declared. i.e. If there is nothing to hide, you should declare such relationship.

Now, regardless of whether there is any "favors" transacted between the PM and his lawyer, which means, we do not need to prove there is such transactions of goodwill or favors, PM should declare such interests or relationship when he proposed and made decision to appoint him as the office holder of Attorney General.

The question now is, did PM Lee make such declaration in the process of appointing Lucien Wong as AG?

I believe that after the Hotel Property saga which PM Lee was implicated, PM Lee should now be extremely careful to accept any "discount" or even "free" service from anyone, but still, in the system of good governance, such potential conflict of interests should be dealt with proper declaration in the process of selection and appointment. This is especially so when there is no indication that PM has recused himself from this decision of AG appointment.

Thus, what Opposition MPs in parliament should ask is, did PM Lee declare this critical potential conflict of interests in the process of appointment? He did not mention it nor make proper declaration of such relationship when the previous parliamentary sitting had a debate on the appointment of Lucien Wong as the AG! 

The second aspect of such appointment of Lucien Wong as AG, together with Hri Kumar as DAG, is the breach of the Democratic Principle of Separation of Powers.

In People's Power Party's concept of Separation of Powers, there are Five Powers. This is more stringent requirement but even for the normal concept of Separation of Powers which involves mainly Three powers or maybe even the forth state of Freedom of Press, it is important to note that the Executive, Judiciary and Legislative powers should observe a strict separation to effect Independent functioning of these institutions of the Democratic system, without fear nor favour.

AG office is an important part of the Judiciary system and it must not only act Independently but also SEEN to be Independent of the Executive and Legislative arm.

The appointment of Lucien Wong as the AG has breached the rule of independence of the AGO from the Head of the Executive Arm, i.e. PMO! The appointment of Hri Kumar as DAG, who was ex-PAP MP (or what we call legislative member) is also a breach of the rule of independence of the AGO from BOTH the Executive arm as well as the Legislative arm! (PM is effective the leader of the ruling party PAP which dominates the parliament, the legislative arm).

Thus in any way we look at it, these appointments are totally inappropriate and smack of effecting a non-Democratic rule because the basic principle of Separation of Powers has been seriously breached!

Thus, the important question we should ask is, do we still want Singapore to be a developed Democracy or just regress into a system of authoritarian or dictatorship whereby Separation of Powers is basically non-existent? 

In Hong Kong, such situation will never happen, especially for appointments of important positions in the Judiciary system, be it AG or Chief Justice.

Even for positions which are less sensitive like Board of Directors of university, if the Chief Executive appoints people who have direct relations with him, the whole society will criticize such moves. It has happened before during CY Leong's term. But as this doesn't breach the Principle of Separation of Powers (Board of University is not part of the 3 powers) and such appointees are WELL KNOWN to be politically connected to the CE and no obvious transactions of service nor interests, no further actions were taken.


Obtaining Official source of Information for Private Use

LHY and LWL had accused PM Lee of obtaining the Deed of Gift via his official capacity as Prime Minister and (passed it to his lawyer) used it against them.

PM Lee had explained that as one of the inheritor of LKY's assets, he has the "right to know" or have the Deed of Gift.

However, whether the PM has the "right" to the Deed of Gift or not, is PRIVATE matters between him and his siblings. This is purely a PRIVATE matter.

To make use of his official capacity of PM to get the deed, which Minister Lawrence Wong has confirmed that LHL received the Deed via his official capacity as PM, and pass it to his PRIVATE lawyer to settle his private matters with his siblings, is already a breach of procedure and official protocol.

I believe there are laws governing the proper use of information obtained in official capacity as we have seen in recent cases, police officer was charged for accessing information in their official capacity but pass these information to his friends for their private use.

Any information obtained by any civil servants or political appointees in their official capacity, should only be used for official business instead of private matters! That's the basic protocol of any good governance for the civil service!

The evidence provided by LHY and LWL had clearly shown that LHL's PRIVATE Lawyer has indicated that LHL has passed the Deed of Gift to the law firm while Minister Lawrence Wong has confirmed LHL received the Deed via his Official capacity of PM. This is a clear breach of protocol.

The proper way for LHL to get the Deed of Gift to settle his private matter is to ask his lawyer to write in on behalf of HIS OWN CAPACITY as one of the inheritors of LKY's estate to get the Deed from National Heritage Board.

Having the right to the Deed doesn't mean that you can use the wrong channel or your official capacity as Prime Minister to get the Deed for your private use.

Thus, it is very disappointing to note that Opposition MPs didn't make this point clearly in parliament in objection to his flimsy and unconvincing defence.

In Hong Kong, there were cases of politicians or political appointees being charged and imprisoned for misusing information obtained in official capacity for private use. There is a clear cut line in maintaining good governance.
 

The "Secret Ministerial Committee"

Whether the Ministerial Committee is "secret" or not, or whether PM Lee recuse himself from this Ministerial Committee or not, does not clear the fact that such arrangement of having "direct subordinates" to meddle or investigate into the DIRECT Boss' matters is a total upheaval of hierarchical ethics! And obviously, it is a messy conflict of interests in itself!

We only have superior conducting investigation into subordinates' matters but direct subordinates investing and meddle in superior's matters is really hardly heard of! This is also a clear breach of Separation of Powers!

Besides the declared members of this Ministerial Committee are neither history experts nor heritage preservation experts! Thus on what basis or merits do they have to convene such a committee to determine the "options" for the Oxley house in terms of heritage preservation?

LHY and LWL had accused the committee of focusing on the attacks on the legitimacy of LKY's Last Will instead of the Options. And unwittingly, PM Lee has put up the summary of his Statutory Declaration which confirms that his main submission to the Ministerial Committee is all about putting doubts on the validity of LKY's Last Will.

How could anyone come to the conclusion that LHY and LWL have put up "baseless" allegation in this case? 

The proper place to question the validity of the Last Will is to challenge the probate of the Last Will in court. If PM Lee is reluctant to go to court for fear of tarnishing his father's good name, then why would he bring it up to his subordinates in this Ministerial Committee?

The proper way of dealing with determining the OPTIONS is to call in REAL INDEPENDENT EXPERTS from the academic field to look into it instead of the ministers! Why isn't this so? 

Thus the pertinent question should be asked in parliament is that why isn't an independent penal of experts set up instead of the Ministerial Committee which is bound to breach basic hierarchical ethics tainted with conflict of interests? 

In Hong Kong, when they are looking into heritage preservation of any buildings or landmarks or sites, they will convene an independent penal filled with REAL experts in the respective fields, instead of Ministers. Just simple as that.



Inappropriate Use of PMO Official Authority 

This is the MOST Ridiculous part of the whole saga. The Prime Minister Office  is neither the official owner of ANYTHING from the Estate of LKY although Lee Hsien Loong the son, is one of the inheritor. And Ho Ching, PM Lee's wife, has no official appointment in PMO but yet, she can be listed as the person for contact representing PMO to give away something that doesn't even belong to PMO!

And our dear Prime Minister just brush it off by saying that they were just excited to find something of "historical significance" to give it to NHB for its exhibition, without prior informing his own siblings! How could this be a convincing explanation of such lack of clear differentiation between what is Official and Private?

LHY and LWL had provided the clear documented evidence of such blatant misuse of official capacity in this case but yet, people are saying that they didn't provide "enough" evidence for this?

In Singapore, even if the Prime Minister wanted to sue anybody for defamation or anything, he cannot use the letter head of the Prime Minister Officer (PMO) or his title as Prime Minister! This is a clear cut between Official business vs Private matters.

Thus, apparently, the Prime Minster has totally ignored BASIC Official protocols and blurred the lines between his Official political appointment with his private matters! The PMO doesn't own any thing from the estate of LKY and it should not be used to process any things obtained from the LKY estate!

In Hong Kong, Donald Tsang who was former Chief Executive and Finance minister of Hong Kong, was chided for using official letterhead of his office to write to government departments to request for information and help for his private matters. This is a big taboo in Hong Kong.

Conclusion

Good Governance and Separation of Powers are inseparable.  All civil servants are expected to have a clear concept of "Official Capacity" vs "Private Matters" and what will possibly constitute conflict of interests. More so for top civil servants as well as political appointees like Ministers and Prime Minister. On top of that, the only why to avoid conflict of interests is to maintain proper Separation of Powers.

Conflict of Interest does not mean there must be real wrong doing of any sort but by virtue of POSSIBLE undue influence based on any close relationship of any kind, one must declare such potential conflicts.

Beside the consideration of Conflict of Interest, the OVERALL system of Separation of Powers must be maintained.

PM Lee clearly lacks the strong sense of "Separation of Powers" and most important of all, has blurred all lines between what is Official business vs Private matters. There is a CLEAR consistency demonstrated in all the issues brought up by PM Lee's siblings that suggests that PM Lee himself lacks clarity in differentiating what is "Official" vs "Private" matters.

He is setting a terrible example for the whole civil service and I have serious doubt that with such aptitude and attitude, he couldn't possibly maintain Good Governance without any concept of Separation of Powers and avoidance of conflict of interests.

If such things happen in Hong Kong, such evidence along with the self-admissions made by either the Ministers or the Chief Executive himself would be serious enough to trigger or warrant an immediate thorough investigation, either by an independent commission convened by the Legco or any appropriate authority, like ICAC.  But just too bad, this is Singapore which doesn't follow such strict and stringent rules set upon the civil service as well as political appointees.

For the Prime Minister to brush it aside by saying "no evidence" at all and to state that he himself will ask for investigation if there is evidence, is just totally unconvincing and ironically, lack of the very principle of Separation of Powers and avoidance of conflict of interests! It is not for him to decide whether there is enough evidence thrown against himself! It is should come under an independent panel to decide on that!

Separation of Powers and avoidance of conflict of interests must not only be maintained but must also be SEEN to be maintained. There are laws and mechanisms available within the system to make things transparent and these should be strictly followed. Sad to say, the TOP boss, the Prime Minister himself, is now seen to breach every important part of this system. 

The Prime Minister doesn't deserve any "benefit of doubts" because it is totally unacceptable to let any DOUBT on his own conduct and management to exist and linger in the minds of Singaporeans. All doubts should be cleared and none should left lingering. Else I would regard that as a sign of unfit for the top public office.

Thus, I maintain my call for Lee Hsien Loong to resign as Prime Minister for the sake of Singapore.

Goh Meng Seng

TOTD: Respect LKY's Last Wish

Thought of the Day - Respect LKY's Last Wish

As an opposition politician, I am apparently not a fan of LKY for all my adult life, for reasons I have already expounded during his death in 2015.

However, if he truly wished not to have his old house to be made into a memorial monument for himself because he did not want to become the idol of hero worshiping in spite of all those high praises (regardless whether worthy or not) of his achievements for Singapore, then at least this formidable opponent whom I do not like, earns my respect for this last decision.

It is shocking to me that the current PAP government under his very own son's leadership, has seek all means and ways to go against his last wish. If what Lee Wei Ling had said in her latest combined statement with her other brother, Lee Hsien Yang, is true, then I would say this is a FEARFULLY DISHONORABLE act from our government.

PAP and its Prime Minister had been screaming "Rule of Law" high and low in recent months over all things but I would say, to use all legislative means to DISHONOR the last wish of their very own "Hero", Mr Lee Kuan Yew, is neither a good example of "Rule of Law" nor Rule of Morals. Do they not want LKY to Rest In Peace?

LKY has not only stated once in his life that he did not want any monument for himself and has stated clearly in his last memoir that he wanted the old house to be demolished after his death.

Why is that so difficult to grant the very person whom so many Singaporeans adore and respect, his very last wish?

As far as the house is concerned, this is a Private house belonging to LKY and now, his estate and immediate family after his death. Though PM Lee has stated that this is "private family dispute" over the house, but why should his government be meddling in this private matter of the house?

PM Lee is totally incoherent here. Once his government decided to exert power to determine the future of the Private House of the Lee family, it will no longer be a private matter but a public matter.

Why would he set up a Ministerial Committee to determine the fate of this Private house? To determine a dead man's will? There isn't a need to. LKY had repeated expressed in no uncertain terms that he did not want any monument to be set up for him after his death. Isn't that clear enough? Thus, I would say that although I am not prevail to all the insider's details, I have to agree with Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang that the government under PM Lee is abusing its power to force or influence the outcome of a purely Private matters of the Lee family.

This is especially so when the three siblings had just signed an agreement on how to deal with house but yet, PM Lee set up this Ministerial Committee to re-look into the matter again. Why would that be so? It is no wonder both Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang felt betrayed and anyone in their position will naturally think that their brother has abused his political power to get what he want. Most importantly, how could they ever trust him again with this political maneuver?

This saga has sent chill deep down into my spine. Imagine:

If PAP government could even dishonor their very own founder, LKY in such manner, who else would they respect? Definitely not small potatoes like us in the street.

If what Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling said is true, even they felt uncomfortable by their brother's use of national machinery to monitor them up to the level of making them feel overwhelmingly intimidated and wanting to migrate out of Singapore, what else could we expect for those of us who are powerless but brave enough to stand up as opposition members?

If the PAP government even dare to use their administrative and legislative powers to forcefully take over a private house in such manner, with so much disrespect to the one they claimed they adored, loved and worshiped, there is no other people's private property they would not dare to take forcefully if they fancy!

If even the member(s) of the most powerful and influential Lee family would say openly that the Singapore's Main Stream Media is controlled by the government and the 154th ranking given to them by international organization is somewhat justified, how else could we as a nation trust the MSM?

If even the members of the Lee family felt that there is basically no proper separation of powers and a total lack of checks and balances of the power that be, why should we still trying to make believe that this is a meaningful democracy at all?

The latest public statement made by both Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang is highly provocative and even up to the point of potentially defamatory if all these assertions are untrue. Apart from the accusation of abuse of power, there are other serious accusation. This is especially so on the part of indirectly accusing Ho Ching of instructing senior civil servants when she holds no political office and has no power to do so. There is also mention of PM Lee obtaining official document (Deed of Gift) from one of his ministry and passing it to his own lawyer. (The last time such thing happened was in the 1997 defamation case against Tang Liang Hong.)

All these are serious accusations made by two prominent public figures from the distinguished family in Singapore and they cannot be ignored or brushed away lightly.

Goh Meng Seng

TOTD: The Paradigm Shift Which PAP missed

Thought of the Day - The Paradigm Shift Which PAP missed

When I read about how Singapore propaganda machine tried to justify Singapore's diplomatic stance by saying that Singapore "has not changed", I nearly choked.

The Global Power structure has gone through a critical Paradigm shift and the Diplomatic dynamics has also gone through a Paradigm shift but yet, PAP government still singing self-praise about "We have not changed"?

Didn't they realize this may be their Greatest Problem in Diplomacy?

Diplomacy is about getting the Best deal out of the Global situation for the welfare and benefits for our country. Najib knows this, so does Duterte but not our PM Lee and his bunch of inept colleagues.

Our Core Interests in the South China Sea saga is NOT about judging who is right or wrong, nor who should have what claims. All countries around the world will have their own territorial claims and nobody could really change their stance or mind, lest a Little Red Dot like Singapore! And this is not ordinary country we are dealing with but an economic as well as military giant in the making!

Our main Core Interest is only to keep SCS a safe passage way for our trading port to function effectively and it is about maintaining PEACE instead of escalating conflicts which may result in potential war. Besides, we are NOT even one of the claimants in this SCS saga!

PAP government has got it ALL Wrong. We may not like what China is doing but our aim is to maintain status quo of Peace at SCS, not about banging our heads against the evolving giant in this region.

And we have over 100 billions invested in China but yet, this silly bunch of White Ministers actually think they could get away with agitating China without getting hurt?

Someone keep pestering me to say what's my plan or how would I handle such situation. I would say that my only interest is to keep Singapore prosperous out of any situation. We should not take side but maintain our position that it is for EVERYONE's interest to keep Peace at SCS. No matter what happens, how the situation develops, we should always maintain PEACE within the region, especially at SCS.

To ask people to subject to some "international settlement" when one side didn't agree to bring it to International Court in the first place, is UTTERLY NAIVE and silly. International Law and judgement passed is one thing but could it be ENFORCED? The Americans have been ruled against in international court before but they just ignored them and what could the other countries do about it? An International judgement which is not enforceable is as good as toilet paper!

That's the reality of International politics and diplomacy.

Goh Meng Seng

TOTD - SAF Waste Basket of Talents

Thought of the Day - SAF Waste Basket of Talents

Have you noticed Singapore has produced quite a number of Generals every few years which will take up various positions in GLCs, Statutory Boards and such in the past?

For a small army which has NEVER fought a major war before to chunk out so many Paper Generals is rather amazing! If we were to count the "General - Army personnel" ratio, I bet we will be one of the HIGHEST in the world!

No wonder our Defence Budget is so high because we have to pay so many Generals as well as all other Colonels supporting them.

PAP government has followed its past traditions of giving out SAF scholarships and President Scholarships to the Top A Level students every year.

Yes, our Elitist PAP also select people based on A Level grades and you will be assured of good life ahead if your A Level results are one of the Best. PAP's flawed and extremely Elitist Meritocracy is determined solely by A Level grades which a 18 or 19 year old kids could get!

A friend of mine lamented in private chat over this.

In Economic theory, this is "crowding effect" of talents with bias tendency. And this is detrimental to the growth of our economy and private enterprises.

These Scholar-Paper-Generals (SPG) wasted more of their time in army for 20 over years before they were asked to leave and chuck into some GLCs or statutory boards. They have totally ZERO real life corporate experience but just helicopter into high position to lead any organizations assigned to them. Those who have been working in these organizations, amassing great amount of experience in the field, were passed from such promotions. I wonder how these people would feel, having a totally "Clueless Idiot" in the field to lead and tell them what to do! eg. The latest SPG former navy chief jumping into MOE to become Perm Sect.. Hey, he is totally clueless about Education!

The worst part is to have these SPGs to parachute into such important positions such as "Permanent Secretary" which has become rather "impermanent" nowadays! Every 2-3 years, Perm Sect will change. How could they have garnered enough experience and contribute to the Ministries adequately? In the past, we used to say, even if you put an idiot as a Minister or Minister of State, the Perm Sect will be able to run the show. But in the end, our Perm Sects are now totally lack of experience and "Half Barrel Filed"! it will be left to the mid-high level Directors of the Ministries to run the show! It will be extremely unstable and chaotic for these Ministries and definitely the sustainability of the whole system will be in question.

I do not expect a Perm Sect to stay in that position for more than 2 decades but definitely not this type of "touch and go" situation!

Short tenure for Perm Sect will create a serious problem. These people will only aim for SHORT TERM VISIBLE results but ignore LONG TERM beneficial planning! Just like the NOL saga! Selling assets off will of course create "huge value" for the government in the short term but what is the long term strategic implications?

Worse of all, the new Ministers may not even be well verse in their own Ministries as many of them have been "Merry Go Round" rotating among the Ministries... how could they possibly be contributing to the LONG TERM planning for the Ministries and Singapore as a whole with such short term tenure? It is seriously a situation of "the clueless leading the blind".

SAF has become a Waste Basket for "Talents". The current practice of SPG Elitism should be reviewed because it has proven to be detrimental to the development and growth of a Nation's economy by crowding out talents from private sectors as well as making them invalid to the corporate world after decades of "Yes Man" molding. We are starting to see the great harm that such system is doing to us now.

Goh Meng Seng

TOTD: "Racial Chauvinists", Religion, Humanity & Balance

Thought of the Day - "Racial Chauvinists", Religion, Humanity & Balance

This is going to be a "political incorrect" and sensitive topic but it sets me thinking for quite a long while.

What will happen when a "perceived" Chinese Chauvinist meets a "labeled" Malay Chauvinist?

A good friend of mine, a Malay, told me that his friend "warned" him about me being "Chinese Chauvinist" and wanted him to "stay away" from me. My friend replied "I am also a Malay Chauvinist, so what?"

Simple Labels are thrown around in politics as a means of divide and rule. I get this "Chinese Chauvinist" label ever since my first electoral contest in Aljunied GRC under WP because I played the role as "Chinese Anchor" by making more speeches in Mandarin during elections rallies. My SAP school background has also been played up to justify this label of "Chinese Chauvinist". But as far as I am concerned, technically speaking, I am not truly a Chinese educated person. I always tell others I am "half Chinese-educated" because SAP schools aren't really "Chinese Education" at all.

Yesterday at the Water Protest, I met a veteran Malay political activist/politician who has been labeled as "Malay Chauvinist" by PAP during one of the hotly contested elections. Guess what happens? Did the "fight" between the two "Chauvinist" figures occur? Nope.

He said to me that he has been following my various postings and find that I have been very fair in writing towards the Malays/Muslims issues.

Deep down in my heart, I regard everyone as a Human Beings first (unless you want to be a dog of some kind...) before you are racially or religiously classified. We have the same color of blood running in our veins. As human beings, we should have the same understanding of Humanity.

I just told him that sometimes, for some "sensitive Malay/Mulsim" issues or perspectives, it is better for Chinese or non-Malay/Muslim to speak up for them, else PAP people would use the opportunity to put labels on those Malays/Muslims who dare to utter those words. We are humans and Singaporeans, we look after and speak up for each other. Don't ever allow PAP to use "divide and rule" on us anymore.

PAP has always emphasized on the FEAR of racial disharmony and what not. It has always proclaimed that we need "racial balance" and it has always been playing the racial card whenever it suits their agenda. The Elected Presidency and GRC system the most prominent examples. Of course, at the same time, it will disallow others from "playing racial politics".

The curious thing is this. While PAP played the racial card well and regularly, it has always shy away from the topic of "religious balance" in politics. Religious political perspective is more sensitive than racial politics to PAP. The last opposition politician who touched on this "most sensitive" topic of "religious balance" in PAP government, got hammered and chased out of Singapore. This is none other than Mr Tang Liang Hong. He had two labels thrown at him, not one. "Anti-Christian Chinese Chauvinist". That was the exact label.

Despite the fact that Mr Tang can speak Fluent Malay and learned Indian Dance, the "Chinese Chauvinist" label was put on him.Yet some Singaporeans actually buy PAP's story! Just because he is really "Chinese educated" and also speak fluent Mandarin. The "Anti-Christian" label was put on him just because he mentioned about the imbalance of religious mix within the Cabinet in one of the dialogue sessions.

He had just poked at the sensitivity of PAP government, which was and still is factually correct.

Religion is of course, a sensitive and emotional issue. Some people could lose their sensibility and even human logical mind when discussing religious topic. Especially in politics, it makes people irrational, ignoring all other issues but focusing solely on their own religious beliefs.

I have met several people of such mindset in my FB. When it comes to the issue of "Israel", it seems that some people just went bonkus. They were "known" to be "opposition supporters" but when I try to make sense of the happening in Israel as an issue of atrocities against humanity, they will somewhat justify that as "Palestine is the God's promised land to Jews". Well, for people like me who do not believe in Abrahamic faiths, this is really a non-issue. The real issue of the day is that sufferings to humanity are happening in Palestine due to Israel's unreasonable doings.

At the end of the day, they would end up with "I will not vote for you" just because I am "against Israel"!

I raise this point to illustrate how religious faiths could greatly affect one's rational thinking and we should NOT pretend that such things don't happen. I would say that beside racial balance, religious balance in politics is an important key issue for Singapore as well. This is especially so when the Abrahamic faiths followers are somewhat affected by the tensions created in the Middle East.

Every religions will have its extremist factions. They might be the minority but their twisted teaching may affect a lot more people unknowingly. Even Buddhism has its fair share of cults created over the decades and centuries.

In Singapore's context, we have to eradicate and prevent such extremism from evolving in ALL religions in Singapore. And the best way to effect such preventive measures is to have a good balance of representation of people with different religious beliefs in parliament as well as the Cabinet. The religious moderates should dominate the political sphere, in prevention of any extremism from any religious faith from hijacking the platform.

However, comparatively, Buddhists and Taoists are rather inactive in the political sphere. Somehow, among the Buddhist community, there is a subtle inherent discouragement of political engagement or involvement due to our religious belief. Most of the Buddhists would just take a detached attitude towards politics. Their religious faith is personal and do not see the need or importance of political involvement.

Even more so for the "elites" in the Buddhist community. They view politics as "dirty" and it would hinder their own practice of mindfulness, gaining merits so that they could be reincarnated or reborn into better realms or even attaining Nirvana.

This is why in Singapore, even though the Buddhist/Taoist community is the largest among the various religions, we are "under-represented" in the political sphere.

But I think otherwise. Buddhists could well be the balancing force in Singapore politics when the tension between the Abrahamic faiths could well spill over from Middle East.

The reason why I could put up a FAIR position on the issue of Islam, Malay and Israel is not because I am Chinese but rather, I am a Buddhist and not bounded by the Abrahamic-faith mindset. I see things as it is, in modern context and I am not bounded by whatever past historical religious happenings in the Middle East.

Having said that, I personally feel that Catholics are generally more moderate in nature. They have a better understanding that Islam, has similar roots to their faith. It is a curious point because the Crusades and Jihads have been fought bitterly between the Muslims and Catholics centuries ago. But they have evolved.

I had a Catholic friend who said that Catholic encourages fasting for one month prior to Easter or Good Friday. They will fast for a meal a day and the money saved from this meal, they will donate out to charity. Doesn't that sound familiar? The only difference is that Muslims and Catholics chose to fast on different months but both believe that fasting is essential in keeping mindfulness about the cleansing of their body and mind.

Sometimes many people ask me to give up opposition politics altogether. Well, I will give up eventually and hopefully soon. Like all good Buddhists, I would like to have my last years of my life spent in seclusion and private practice to attain enlightenment. It would be a great blessing if I could become a monk in this life. But for the time being, I will have to continue to play my role and duty to my country.

Hopefully when the time is up, I shall know by Divine intervention. :)


Goh Meng Seng

TOTD: PAP's Poison to the Sick Economy

Thought of the Day - PAP's Poison to the Sick Economy

I didn't comment much about the current budget debate now but I look on with much nauseating disbelief with what PAP is doing right now.

It actually reminds me of what happened in 1981 and 1984, when the economic downturn and crisis was imminent but PAP government back then continued to increase cost to the people and businesses. It did cost PAP two seats in parliament but apparently that wasn't bad enough for PAP to learn its lesson.

Most importantly, the economy dipped much worse than expected due to PAP's totally senseless economic policies melted out through its yearly budgets.

70% of Singaporeans have to take responsibility for the current senseless doings of PAP government. They had given PAP such a strong mandate that PAP literally has the total blank cheque to sign on.

We are going to face a serious structural economic downturn in the coming months but what did PAP do? It just adds on the burden of Singaporeans and businesses by raising various costs. Water, as the most basic necessity for human beings, is slated to raise 30% within two years! But PAP's MPs and Ministers, with totally naive and sometimes, idiotic senseless humor, expects Singaporeans' pay to increase in such economic difficult situation while goods and services should not increase in prices!

The water pricing, along with electricity tariff, are the two basic fundamentals for both human beings and businesses. It would be totally naive to believe PAP's rhetoric that each household only pay $18 more on average for water when other goods and services, especially food and beverages, will increase in prices as well!

Right from 2015 "PAP VICTORIOUS 70% mandate", PAP had increased almost everything possible. Mark my word, GST would be the next golden goose they will aim at.

Singapore has already one of the most expensive water pricing in the world while its raw water cost from JB is kept fixed at such a low level. Hong Kong which bought raw water from China, had paid a higher price as compared to Singapore but in the end, Singapore's portable treated water price is more than 5 times more expensive than Hong Kong! Hong Kong is definitely not a "low cost" city but why did Singapore's water price so much higher? There are many reasons but I shall not deal with it here. In fact, the real cost of raw water from JB which Singapore bought, had DECREASED due to depreciated Malaysian Ringgit! Basically, Singapore has allowed cost to escalate without much control.

The introduction of Carbon tax at this instance, will add oil to the fire we have. Not only electricity tariff will go up but all cost will shoot up in no time!

Most people have realized PAP's CFE report is nothing but just old wine in new bottle. These are not some magic pills to address our current and future economic development. But the current acts of PAP increasing so much costs to livelihood in Singapore, is definitely a poison to our ailing economy, which our dear PM refused to acknowledge its sick status.

It is a common knowledge that PAP will want to increase prices and milk Singaporeans for whatever they can milk at the mid term of their 5 year rule so that Singaporeans could slowly forget such pain by the time when elections come in another 2 or 3 years time. They will throw goodies and candies just before the next GE just to appease all voters. They thought the current "bitter pills" would be OK for Singaporeans to swallow but they are wrong. These are really POISON they are feeding Singaporeans, without any good sense of judgement of the current economic situation!

The current Finance Minister, who had just recovered from his "stroke", may not be thinking proper. It is unbelievable for him to come up with such poisons for Singapore at this stage. Finance Minister Heng Swee Kiat should resign if his proposed massive increment in prices, indirect taxes and cost burden to Singaporeans and business finally killed us in the upcoming economic storm.

On top of that, PM Lee should also take assumed responsibility for allowing such bad budget to be passed in parliament.

Goh Meng Seng

Shameless Blatant Glorification of Japanese Invasion and Occupation by PAP

Yaccoob said the name Syonan wasn't used to glorify Japanese Invasion and Occupation. Does he really understand what Syonan means in the full context in the first place?

There is a slight mis-translation in lingo context. Most English translation puts it as "Light of the South" but this is not the wholesome context. In Chinese and Japanese context, "Light" means "Pride"... for example, if a person had won the Olympic Medal and he comes from a school, then the school will say "我校之光", simple English translation means "the light of my school" but in essence, in this context, it basically means he is "the pride of my school"! Look at it in the wholesome context, he has brought SHINE to our school.

Thus, Syonan is basically a term used by the Japan to mean This the the Glorious Pride of Japanese Empire! So how can Yaccoob comes to the conclusion that by using this name for the Memorial, he is not GLORIFYING the Japanese Invasion and Occupation?

Secondly, I get even more FUMED by the photo below:

It says "Syonan Gallery : War and its LEGACIES"

Now, WHOSE LEGACIES are we talking about here? Syonan, the Japanese Glorious Legacies? Atrocities like raping, torture, sufferings, massacred and killings... all these are "LEGACIES"? Isn't this glorifying the Japanese Glorious Victorious Invasion and Occupation?

Goh Meng Seng

TOTD: PAP Government's Idiocy in Naming WWII Memorial

Thought of the Day

I really find the PAP government exceptionally DISTASTEFUL even in choosing a name for a memorial exhibition gallery of World War II. Maybe they need to spend another half a million dollar on "Consultant Fee" to some crony company to review the disgraceful and disrespect name of Syonan Gallery.

It is inexcusable for PAP to make such low level brainless mistake in choosing such a name! Maybe the "Power that be" had not suffered that much under Japanese Occupation, which in fact, made a little fortune during that period of time, that made them totally insensitive to the pain and scars of those families who had suffered greatly under Japanese Occupation.

The Japanese Occupation forces in China called China as "Cheena" (支那）or Sick Man of Asia（东亚病夫） , can you imagine if the Chinese start to have memorial gallery named as "Cheena Gallery" or "Sick Man of Asia Gallery"? You will definitely have riot in China if this is to happen!

Unbelievably, I actually saw some opposition leader visiting this Memorial of Shame and Disgrace during its opening! I would have boycotted such disgraceful memorial gallery altogether!

Make no mistake about it. Those PRC or Korean tourists would definitely look down on Singaporeans and regard as some shameless idiots who could actually use such name for a memorial hall of Japanese Occupation!

Goh Meng Seng

P.S.

Some Singaporeans are ignorant of what "Syonan" or "昭南(岛)" means in the context of Japanese Invasion and Occupation. That is excusable because most Singaporeans no longer have strong Chinese learning or know Japanese language.

But for the Historians and PAP politicians who put up that Syonan Memorial, this is inexcusable.

Syonan literally means the Glory Light in the South. In the context of Japanese invasion and occupation, it glorified the Japanese victorious invasion and occupation, bringing the Japanese "Imperial Sun or Light" to the Southern part of Asia.

Thus, by putting the memorial hall as "Syonan Memorial", it literally means "Glory Light in the South Memorial"! Isn't PAP government putting remembrance of the Glory of Japanese Occupation? Isn't this a bloody insult to those who had suffered and killed by the Japanese Imperial army during World War II!

This is why I find it extremely distasteful and disgusting for PAP government to put such name to the Memorial Hall!

People’s Power Party (PPP) Response Committee on the Future Economy Report

For Immediate Release:

People’s Power Party (PPP) Response Committee on the Future Economy Report

We refer to the Committee on the Future Economy report. 

There is nothing exceptionally new from the report apart from recognizing International Trade and Relations as an important integral component of our Economic Success.

International Trade Treaties

People’s Power Party would like to reiterate our stance that whatever Trade Agreement or Treaties signed by the PAP must put Singaporean workers’ interests as the uncompromising first priority.

Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) has been very focused on securing trade agreements for its economic sustainability in an increasingly globalised world. 

Nonetheless, trade deals had more often came along with some trade-offs. One nagging opportunity cost has been the unemployment of locals.

In recent years and decade, we have seen PAP government having negotiated and signed Free Trade Agreements without much public consultation, debate or engagement. These FTAs include CECA signed with India which had basically opened up the flood gate for Indian PMETs to get jobs and stay in Singapore without much control. This has inevitably displaced quite a number of Singapore workers. In return, CECA mainly benefited large corporations like Temasek Holdings and GLCs to invest in India without substantial job creation for Singaporeans. 

We have also seen PAP government negotiated the now-failed TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) in secrecy without any public consultation. Only big MNCs were involved in the negotiation without the involvement and participation of our Labour Union or any other political parties or civil society groups. 

The failure of the TPP may mean a loss of opportunity for Singapore’s businesses.

However, we are more concerned about the need for transparency of any negotiation or signing of such trade pact . 

The failure of TPP coupled with the shocking “Brexit” of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, presented starkly to Singaporeans sudden moves against agendas that they have been herded towards.

Coming out of these shocking episodes is the clamour for transparency. The peoples of those nations wanted their voices to be heard and they have done so. The citizens of the US and UK have signaled that they want to be involved in decision-making that involves their lives and affects their nations. They want to know the details and not just be told. 

It would only be wise for the Singapore government to be open for a constructive dialogue that discusses the costs and benefits of all trade pacts including the TPP. 

PPP would like to suggest a public forum in which Singaporeans would be able to discuss any future negotiation of Free Trade Agreement with the Singapore government directly. This is especially important when FTA in present context is no longer just about demolishing trade barriers but involve more other aspects such as free mobility of labour, legal aspects of commerce and trade etc.

International Relations

We have seen how PAP’s missteps in handling international relationship had caused much upheaval, tension and unnecessary pressure to Singapore businesses in China. 

PPP would like to remind PAP that it no longer enjoys the protection of political goodwill and respect that Mr Lee Kuan Yew had garnered and it should tread carefully in the world politics, especially when it comes to the politics of big countries with huge economic clout. 

Singapore has survived and prosper throughout the decades with the help of great diplomacy in building bridges, making friends and creating political stability in our immediate region of existence. We have survived the uncertainty due to Confrontation, Vietnam war, Korean war, Cambodia war and the uncertainties due to the cross strait ties between China and Taiwan. We have managed to turn past enemies and threats into friends. We should not create unnecessary tensions in our region which is critical to our survival and prosperity. 

Apart from Globalization and Free Trade, Diplomacy of Peace is one of the most important survival strategy for an open economy like Singapore. It is worrying to witness how the current PAP government handle International Relationship and Diplomacy which will eventually affect our economic well being as a whole. 

We can only hope that the current mindsets of those involved in PAP government’s dangerous diplomatic stunts could be replaced with more humility and wisdom. 

Soft Power of Cultural Essence and Organic Industrial Growth

While we are not against the PAP government spending money on upgrading the skills of Singapore workers, but we observe throughout the decade, such programs had minimum value add to Singaporeans when our workers are not protected adequately from the displacement due to the influx of foreign PMETs. 

We also observe that PAP government has finally given up spotting “successful industry” to bet on after experiencing mediocre results from past bet on Bio-Tech industry. PAP government had led us in chasing rainbows one after another in the past decades but in the end, many Singaporeans of past generations eventually found that their skills are fast becoming obsolete when PAP tried to focus on other industries. 

We have serious doubt of such economic strategy. We would like to stress that most productive and useful innovations are derived from organic industries instead of learning something totally new and trying to compete with other countries which are already experts in this field. 

Singapore should identify its own Organic Growth Industries: those industries which we have comparative and competitive advantages. Innovations should be developed from these Organic Growth Industries to increase productivity. Else, we would be chasing Rainbows again like a headless chicken in the fast changing world of technology.

While technology is important in today’s economy, we should not lose sight of the Soft Power of Cultural Essence. We observe that there is a lack of utilization of Cultural strength in our local businesses and industries. 

There is a lack of in-depth exploration of the huge economic potential of our rich cultural heritage. Although we have a few good local brands that go regional and international, but compared to other countries we are still lacking behind. It shows that we have not put in enough efforts to help local companies in making use of our Cultural strength to enhance our international brand status.

Our cultural heritage could also provide us an advantage in enhancing our role in economic connectivity with our regional neighbours. But the apparent lack of general knowledge of our neighbouring countries has become a hindrance in making us an effective hub for the region. 

Increasing Business Cost vs Productivity Growth and Wage

DPM Tharman had put up a grand strategy to increase yearly productivity growth by 3% back in 2011. It seems that it has become an empty promise again. 

There are a few reasons why our Productivity Growth has been extremely low in recent decades. The high cost of doing business in Singapore has forced businesses to look for cheaper labour from foreign sources. This high business cost is basically due to the high rental which was basically controlled by GLCs and government agencies. Apart from that, indirect taxes such as COE on commercial vehicles has also taken a toll on businesses, especially business start-ups. 

Instead, PAP had addressed these issues by opening up the floodgate for cheap foreign labour which inevitably affect local wages and even displacement of local workers creating underemployment. Such move will inevitably reduce productivity growth as well as wages. 

The only way to ensure that Singapore continues to grow with high productivity growth is to prevent a Rent-Seeking Economy to develop. Rental and indirect taxes should be controlled so that more resources could be put into developing local human resources as well as business development.

Unfortunately, the CFE report did not touch on these important issues at all. 

Business Connectivity and Market Intelligence

There is generally a weak support of Market Intelligence and Research provided to local SMEs to help them in reaching out to the various matured as well as emerging markets in the region and the world. 

While the GLCs enjoy the support from the various government statutory boards in providing the necessary help in getting connected to the world and obtaining market intelligence of target markets, SMEs lack a comprehensive approach in obtaining such information and network.

If networking and connectivity are crucial for our local economic success, we would expect the PAP government to put more resources into building up resource centre and network of trade offices that focus on providing relevant information to local SMEs. 

Conclusion

We hope that this CFE report is not just another old wine in new bottle effort by the PAP government.

Sivakumaran s/o D Y Chellappa

Vice Chairman c/o Head of Policy Research

For CEC of People’s Power Party

TOTD: The Parasites of Elitist Cronism

Thought of the Day - The Parasites of Elitist Cronism

GLCs or Government Linked companies used to be the PRIDE of Singaporeans where many Singaporeans would like to work for them. We always thought that being "government linked", they are big and supposed to protect Singapore's and Singaporeans' interests, including those Singaporeans who work for them. And indeed, in the past, these GLCs set the high standards of employment, in terms of pay as well as benefits, in Singapore's labour market.

But now, we suddenly find more and more of these GLCs are actually in suspect of breaching the labour law or good HR and employment practices. Some even bully their lowly educated employees to take advantage of them, by deducting their over time hours consistently without giving any good reasons and making them working excessive overtime hours, much more than the 73 hours over time per month allowed by labour law.

Worse still, these entities play with figures manipulated the pay structure in their employment contract as contrast to their advertised salary. They set extremely low basic pay so that whatever overtime pay you claim would be based on a low pay structure. Furthermore, they will set unreasonable conditions to milk the employees, basically inhumane to take away the "monthly allowance" if the employees take Medical leave or annual leave in the month which were legitimately protected as entitlement under the labour law!

Basically such employment terms are MODERN SLAVERY to the max and it is really unimaginable that all these bad practices are actually coming from our once glorious GLCs!

And now, we have another GLC trying to disguise massive retrenchment as some "sacking of under performers" in the bid to avoid paying retrenchment compensation!

What is wrong with all these GLCs? Well, to me, this is the inevitable result of a government that runs on Ultra-capitalism mindset. The top management will only care about their own fat pay cheque and to meet all KPI (Key Performance Indicators) so that they could get more salary increment to their million dollar pay as well as asking for bigger "performance bonus". But these KPI or "performance" don't really add value to the company nor the economy as a whole. These are all based on exploitative unethical enslaving employment practices rather than real value add to the company.

This is the reality of PAP's entrenched rule of over 50 years. They have lost sight of their moral compass in running the country after all these years and ended up with a bunch of elitist cronies who are turning into parasites of the whole system. Instead of adding real value to the companies, people and country as a whole, they are only interested in feeding on the blood and sweat of the people.

When they screw up a GLC and cannot turn it around, they would just do lelong sale of valuable assets to show unreal "profitability and value", cut cost by cutting jobs to continue justify their big fat pay and eventually sell off the whole company to foreign ownership just to wash off their hands of the inconvenient truth of their failure! Well, never mind if that is an National iconic company!

This is the sad state of affairs in Singaporeans, run by a group of unethical, heartless and soul-less, undeserving and overpaid elitist cronies groomed by PAP's rule!


Goh Meng Seng

TOTD: The Failure of PAP's Scholar-System

Thought of the Day

No matter how smart, intelligent or brilliant you were in your teens, scoring As and A stars in your exams, once you are being "anointed" with the label "scholars", you may just find yourself entrenched and kept in a environment which will not be conducive to your proper development of mental and social faculties.

That label of "scholars" along with the mindset of "Natural Aristocracy" will destroy your common sense and empathy towards the people you were supposed to lead.

It has proven in history, the best leaders come not from the group of "elites" but rather the intelligent people from the streets.

In our Singapore's system, the PAP government tries very hard to "monopolize" all the talents we have in our system by installing the elitist streaming in our education system. They will give scholarships to those identified "early talents" and bond them to civil service or statutory boards. It is one way to monopolize talents and keep them for PAP's selection so to prolong its monopolistic rule over Singapore.

However, just look at the numerous scholar-Generals, or rather, what we call "Paper Generals" we have today.

These scholars were holed up in SAF and lack the exposure of the "REAL WORLD" out there. They have wasted their time in SAF without exposures to the REAL world outside their war gaming computers. Their administration of the SAF is based on simple top-down military command hierarchy without the need of more sophisticated management skills.

Thus, it is no wonder that when they were treated like some Elitist Gods and sent to the various GLCs or statutory boards, they screwed up badly. No matter how intelligent or smart you are, as long as you are not groomed in a proper way, in the most appropriate way but only the SAF way, you will be made redundant and useless outside of SAF in the end, regardless of your rank. This is the sad state of affairs for Singapore. We have wasted so much money and most importantly, these "once potential talents" by keeping them in the worse place for development, so much so that they are causing harm to our whole country as a whole.

These Paper General cannot survive beyond SAF. Even when they were posted to the GLCs and private entities, they expected to be in top management positions, even though they have no REAL WORLD Corporate experience whatsoever, and know NUTs about running the companies, worse, the country! However, they have this "Scholar-Entitlement" mindset. They were "helicopter" into such positions and eventually, they would find that they cannot manage such corporate unless they get their own KAKIs from SAF who knows the exact "military style" of management! This is exactly what happened in SMRT and PAP leadership!

I would not mind if these "retired" Paper Generals were willing to start from middle management to learn the corporate way and work their way up but no, they were expected to be able to "plug and play" which is quite ridiculous! It can only happen in Singapore because PAP government has created a web of GLCs to allocate these paper generals nice management positions to stroke their ego of "natural aristocracy"!

Singapore will definitely decline in the coming decades basically because SAF or the civil service is not exactly the best or right place to nurture our talents for running corporations and the country.

And all these, are the wrong doings and mismanagement by PAP.

Goh Meng Seng

Politicians and Good Governance

We all know Good Governance cannot be taken for granted. Beside having a good, competent, clean, effective and efficient civil service, we also need politicians to become the political leaders who will lead and give the right directions for the civil service and country to move forward.

On the surface, we demand high morality, competent, knowledgeable, not only intelligent but WISE people with a certain level of empathy to be our political leaders. Even with such political leadership, we still need a system of institutions designed with a clear separation of powers so that REAL Democratic Checks and Balances could be effected.

One of the strong narrative of PAP which has ruled Singapore over 50 years, is its ability to find good, clean, competent people with high morality to become its MPs and Ministers. They claim to have high standards when it comes to selection of their candidates for each and every General Elections. They would immediately remove any MP or Minister once character flaws or other critical flaws were found in their slate of candidates.

In maintaining their "Whiter than White" narrative, they have removed two MPs, one of them who was the Speaker of Parliament, immediately after they were found to have extra-marital affairs.

However, morality is more than having indiscretion in their personal relationship. For example, would you consider people who abuse their workers or domestic helpers immoral? Would you consider a person using all means to get other people into trouble just because he doesn't like them, as immoral? Or someone who helps a big bad guy to bully others who are from the vulnerable groups, knowing that he is really the bad guy but did it for money's sake, as immoral?

Immoral issues may not be "illegal" but it just doesn't appear to be just or right to our own conscience. You can do things in all legitimate way but lacks the morality conscience.

In politics, it is simply not easy to find anyone with unrighteous mind, morally principled and yet, competent and effective. Thus, most of the time, political parties including PAP, may just compromise on the quality on the morality of the person they chose.

Lawyers are presumably the "Natural" candidates to become Politicians because the most important role of a politician is law-making. And lawyers are presumed to be people who have high values in upholding justice, social justice or otherwise, and should be highly principled when it come Human Rights and Civil Rights issues. They are normally seen to be fighters and defenders of Justice, Rule of Law, Human Rights and of course SOCIAL Justice. And lawyers are supposed to have the necessary oratory skills which politicians depended heavily upon to win votes.

Thus, in modern history of politics, there were lots of lawyers who become politicians, some become GREAT politicians like Gandhi. In Singapore's context, we also have numerous politicians both in PAP and opposition camp, who are lawyers. 

However, not ALL lawyers are "good" lawyers with conscience.Some would defend the crooks, rich and powerful for their wrong doings or even help these people to bully other people, just for the extremely high fees these people would pay them.

But we would expect lawyers who chose to become politicians to walk the righteous path of defending the weak, fighting the unjust and upholding the justice, including social justice, without fear nor favor.

It would be pretty challenging for lawyer-politician to strike that delicate balance between their profession and their political work. There are "political incorrect" cases which they should avoid even if they are monetarily rewarding.

Despite of the general cynicism of lawyers are most of the time "liars", they will have to be mindful that they do not lie or do anything which may be legitimate but morally wrong or against basic human conscience.

Avoiding controversial case is normally the first rule that lawyer-politician should adhere to. However we have witnessed PAP lawyer-MPs sometimes get themselves into controversial cases. It is true that by the spirit of justice, even crooks have their rights to legal representation. But sometimes it is the manner which the lawyer conduct their defence that would reflect badly for themselves. Furthermore, as a politician who is supposed to uphold social justice, helping the weak and vulnerable, it would NOT augur well if the lawyer-politician chose to defend crooks to avoid punishment from law for their bad deeds.

 My late brother David, had the chance to study law and become lawyer while he was young. But he declined the offer and forgo his opportunity to university education because he felt that if he became a lawyer, he might have do something against his own good conscience in future. Of course, he didn't choose to become politician either but that shows the kind of dilemma a morally upright person like my late brother may have about legal practice.

This should be even more so for those lawyer-politician because you cannot promise Good Governance when you are sly, dirty and use unethical methods to help crooks to get away from justice or simply bully others. The inherent contradictions are just too glaring to ignore.

So far, I have not heard or seen PAP setting up a Code of Conscience and Moral Conduct to its MPs which may link to their professional jobs outside politics. And after witnessing some of the things they do in their professional life, it makes me wonder how "Good Governance" could be achieved by PAP with the bunch of people it has.



Goh Meng Seng

PPP Press Statement: Defective Trains from China – More than what meets the eyes.

Defective Trains from China – More than what meets the eyes.

People’s Power Party is shocked to read all the various reports that have come in with regards to the 26 defective trains out of 35 trains which SMRT and LTA have purchased from the consortium comprised of Japanese company Kawasaki Heavy Industries Rolling Stock Company and CSR Sifang Locomotive & Rolling Stock Company Ltd.

We demand answers for the following concerns which involved public safety and interest from LTA and SMRT:

1)      According to the report by Hong Kong Factwire, SMRT has suspected that the massive breakdown in December 2011 was caused by these new trains delivered from China. That was the reason why progressive payment from SMRT was slowed down and the subcontractors suffered cashflow problem. It was also said that SMRT has reduced the frequency of the schedule of these new trains from China after that incident in December 2011. We demand a response from SMRT on the validity of this report and if so, why it was not raised in the committee of inquiry which was held to find out the root cause of the breakdown then?

2)      LTA has admitted that structural cracks have been found in these new trains since 2013. We demand an explanation from LTA and SMRT why would they continue to order more trains from the consortium in 2014 and subsequently in 2015, amounting to a total of over 100 trains, after they have found an unusually high defective rate of 74% out of the first batch of 35?

3)      According to records of court proceeding launched in China with regards to the labour dispute between CSR Sifang and its former employee in 2013, the former employee has stated in the affidavit that CSR Sifang has deliberately fabricated test data results and reports in 2010. Was SMRT and LTA aware of such accusations? Did SMRT and LTA send their own engineers or independent Quality Control personnel to perform or audit the various tests? Did SMRT and LTA carry out any due diligence on quality checks before these trains were shipped to Singapore?

4)      It was also reported that these trains offered by the Kawasaki – Sifang consortium was not of the lowest bid. The lowest bid was offered by a Korean company. The pertinent question is why would SMRT and LTA chose to buy from the Kawasaki Sifang consortium which was more expensive but provided sub-standard quality products? Did SMRT and LTA do any due diligence on their quality test statistics before deciding to buy from this consortium? 

5)      74% defective rate is totally unacceptable by any standards. Did SMRT and LTA punish the supplier and consortium by any means? Was there any performance bond submitted by the Consortium in the first place?

6)      In view of the fact that there are several doubts and accusation of fabrication of vital quality test results with higher bidding price coupled with poor quality products, PPP urge the Corruption Practice Investigation Bureau to start a thorough investigation into the procurement process as this involved hundreds of million dollars of public money. 

7)      Concurrently, an independent Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry consisting of opposition MPs and external independent experts should be convened to investigate the SMRT and LTA should be stopped from procuring any trains from this Consortium before the findings of the COI has completed. Ministry of Transport and LTA have opined that the cracks found are not “safety critical”. However, we find their assertion lacks credibility and we should no longer believe in PAP government’s “ownself check ownself” model of governance. The COI should determine whether there is any negligence or dereliction of duties by the various parties in the procurement process and whether public safety has been compromised by these defective trains. 

8)      Last but not least, as a public listed company, SMRT should be censured for trying to hide such vital information of the defective trains from the general public. Transparency and accountability are two key important factors in upholding public confidence in a company like SMRT which is providing vital public transportation service. It is totally unacceptable for institutions like Singapore General Hospital or SMRT which provides critical vital public services to continue to operate in such an opaque and irresponsible manner. We demand accountability from the respective leadership for such mismanagement of public services.

Goh Meng Seng

Secretary General

For CEC