PAP's Elitist Entitlement Mindset and FAILED Meritocracy

Prime Minister Lee has recently lamented about "Singaporeans' entitlement mindset" but I would say that he should take a good look at himself in the mirror as well as his backyard of Elitist cronies.

Through over 50 years of autocratic rule, his party has created a whole system of pseudo Meritocratic Cronism which lacks the very fundamental principle of ACCOUNTABILITY that TRUE Meritocracy is built upon.

Those so call "High Flyer Scholars" along with the various cronies in the whole system has taken the strong foundation which our forefathers have built up, for granted. These people milk and feed upon the wealth of the system with no accountability nor shame with FULL ELITIST ENTITLEMENT mindset. They abuse the Key Performance Indicators (KPI) to the max by setting dubious standards which put up pseudo accountability system which most of the time rewards themselves with undeserving salaries and increments. Worse of all, when they indulge in doing whatever they can to meet these KPIs so that they could gain their perks and rewards, instead of doing good to Singaporeans as a whole, they have instead brought more undesirable results to the Nation as a whole.

It started right from the Top Political Leadership. When GDP growth is the single most important KPI used to judge whether the Ministers should get hefty bonuses and salary increment, we end up with the Growth At All Cost strategy which resulted worse quality of life for Singaporeans.

The same applies to many other sectors under PAP Government control. Look at SMRT. The trouble started when Saw just have that singular pursue to increase profit so that she could increase her bonuses and salaries throughout the years of her "glorious years". She went to such an extent that SMRT maintenance has been grossly compromised.

We thought that with her departure, we would get better people to run the system but we were proven wrong by PAP. They sent an Elitist PAPER GENERAL who has ZERO Corporate experience in running a train service to run the show! This elite continue to enjoy increment in his salaries while the train services continue to suffer numerous small and major breakdowns throughout the years! Yet, by using some OUT OF REALITY TOUCH KPI, he tried to justify how the train system and services have "improved"!

He has totally disregard the reality that Singaporeans have experienced on the ground and SMRT just avoid the label "breakdowns" whenever they can by putting up a false front of "delays" to mask away the reality! This is how they tried to GAME the system of KPI!

Similar thing happened to other GLCs like NOL. Another PAPER General was sent there and he continued to enjoy millions of dollars paid every year, with increments, while the company continues to bleed profusely! How? By showing that he is able to "cut cost"! But that doesn't help as the company continues to suffer great losses over the years and eventually, Temasek Holdings is going to sell it off!

It is a total shame that we are going to sell off our Nation's Flagship and key assets. NOL has special iconic value for a nation like Singapore which pride itself to be one of the busiest port in the world! But these Elites have no shame. Why? It is because they only have this Elitist Entitlement Mindset and they could just explain their GROSS incompetency away by hiding behind that KPI system.

PAP must understand that KPI should be a means to an end, to serve the people and Nation, not just a silly ploy for people to get hefty bonuses and salary increments. One may excel in ALL KPIs set but in the end, due to the methodology used in achieving these KPIs, they may create more harm than good to the Nation as a whole!

Most importantly, PAP must understand that no matter how elite you are in paper qualifications, if you do not have the necessary skill sets and knowledge of the business, you will fail! This especially true for top civil servants, government scholars and Army Paper Generals! If PAP continues to abuse the system of GLCs to feed their elitist cronies instead of assigning such important positions to people with real talents and expertise in the various fields, Singapore will be doomed with the fake Meritocracy buried under the dubious KPI system.

Goh Meng Seng

Reasons Against Million Dollar Pay for Ministers & Top Civil Servants

PAP has argued that we need to pay "MARKET RATE" in order to "attract" the TOP TALENTS to serve in the civil service and public service as Ministers. They have even argued that without such a high pay (as high as multi-milllion dollar annual salary package), we may end up with corrupt politicians like those in other places around the world. This is the MOST SELF SERVING as well as SELF DEGRADING argument I have ever heard in the political field all over the world.

But I hate to say that even though PAP's reasoning is so full of fundamental flaws in logic, nobody in opposition camp has openly disagreed with such reasoning promoted by PAP. In fact, if we look at the parliamentary debate held on reduction of Ministerial salary, the only argument put forward by both ruling and opposition parties is about how much "discount" they should cut from the existing salary package, instead of debating rigorously on the assumptions and presumptions made in justifying the horrendous high salary package the politicians are giving themselves. Even the formula of calculations provided by Workers Party is basically based on the fundamental assumptions that we need to pay comparable "Market Rates" to our Ministers! That was why they ended up with the embarrassing conclusion that their "alternative" formula is in essence, NOT MUCH DIFFERENT from PAP's existing proposal at all!

I personally feel that we need to challenge the fundamental primary premises that PAP has put up to justify for High Salary package to:

1) Attract Talents to Politics
2) Prevent Corruptions

I would propose the following fundamental premises which will require reasonable BUT not high market rates for Ministers:

1) Avoidance of Crowding out of Talents from Private Sectors
2) Avoidance of Entrenchment of Powers which will breed corrupt practices
3) Natural selection of people with the RIGHT Public Service mindset and keeping out people with wrong intent from Public Service

Giving extraordinary high salary package to Ministers and Top civil servants alike, would create the scenario whereby these individuals may feel "too comfortable" in their positions with only Money as their main motivation. This will create a situation whereby Public Service, instead of grooming talents for the whole country, ended up depriving the private sectors their fair share of talent pool.

The practice of sending "high flyer" army generals and top civil servants to Govrenment Linked Companies have generated unsatisfactory results. Even the practice of recruiting political appointees from the civil service which includes the army, are undesirable. Such practices have cultivated the complacent "Iron Rice Bowl" mindset in these scholars. Furthermore, it will enhance and prolonging the existing GROUP Thinking situation in governance. This will prevent innovative ideas and "out of the box" breakthrough in governance.

It is only desirable to only provide barely sufficient remunerations to Ministers and Top civil servants so that there would not be any incentives for them to stay in such positions for too long. This will provide the necessary upward mobility of other younger talents waiting in line so that there will be dynamic renewal process at any one time.

Ideally, any Minister should not over stay his usefulness and should step down with a maximum of 2 or 3 terms. With a much reduced salary package, I believe they will be more willing to do so. This will not only provide the necessary conducive opportunity for political self renewal but also ensure that political leadership will always be in tune and up to date with the needs and aspirations of each generations of the population. Million dollar salary package will inevitably retain deadwood Ministers which will loose touch with the ground when they are too entrenched in their ivory tower of powers.

Everybody knows Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. But I think we should add that prolonged entrenchment of Power will inevitably corrupt absolutely. Ironically, High Salary package will create the conducive conditions for people to entrench themselves in the positions of power and thus, inevitably corrupted.

PAP's argument that if their Ministers are not paid the highest in the world with horrendous amount of bonuses, they will be corrupted, is absolutely self degrading. Do they mean that if we reduce their salary drastically to $500K tomorrow, their ministers will immediately become corrupt overnight? That is absolutely rubbish. Some of them may consider to retire early, which may not be a bad thing at all because this will make ways for self renewal!

Furthermore, High Salary package may inevitably attract the WRONG kinds of talents who are more concerned about their monetary gains rather than the well being of the citizens. This is the fundamental reason why we are seeing more and more "intelligent but heartless" people in PAP's rank of ministers! Most of the KPIs are set so that they could extra the maximum amount of "surpluses" or money from the citizens, in order to determine how much bonuses they should get in return!

Setting a decent but not exorbitantly high salary package may just filter out the UNDESIRABLE materialistic and "Money Face" elements from such prestige standing of Public Service.

PAP has argued that their slate of ministers are "TALENTS" before they join and become Ministers but I would say that the Public Service as Ministers is the ultimate process that will ADD VALUE to them. When they retire from politics and join the public sectors, their exposures and experiences gained as Ministers will be highly valuable. There is one prime example that the exposures of a Ministerial post has added tremendous value in which a PRIVATE company has made great offer for his service after he retired from politics: George Yeo who has lost Aljunied GRC in 2011 GE.

Most of other former PAP ministers were only deployed to other GLCs after they retired from politics and this hardly explain nor justify why they were given million dollar ministerial salaries in the first place. Only those mediocre ones, even with such added value, will end up with mediocre jobs. 

Conclusion

There is absolutely no necessity to give exorbitantly high salary package to Top Civil servants and Ministers at all. Really smart and talented people with a heart for Public Service would view the great value in serving in these Top posts which will enhance and further their career in private sectors after they retire from these positions of powers. The enormous value of the potential network, influence and experience gained from these positions itself would be attractive enough for real talents to join Public Service in politics.

There is no necessity to provide a multi-million dollar salary package that will keep "talents" entrenched in their posts for too long as this will breed corruption of power. In order to prevent greedy people who are not contended with the much lower pay from corruptions, independent powers separated from executive manipulations from politicians should be installed. i.e. CPIB should be made INDEPENDENT from PMO with appointment of a Commissioner from the pool of retired-judges. Such separation of powers entrusted to CPIB would ensure that proper checks and balances would be installed to clamp down on potential corruptions from politicians.

The only effective safe guard from political corruptions is a system of TRUE INDEPENDENT of CPIB achieved through separation of powers, instead of feeding potential greed with more money.

Thus I would argue that we would only need to provide an adequate salary package for politicians and top civil servants to live a dignified life as leaders of the country but not a life of a million or billionaire. And contrary to PAP's assertion that only million dollar salary could attract the necessary and "Right" talents to serve, I think only a greatly reduced salary package from the current one could weed out those undesirable candidates and provide us the RIGHT persons to serve as the political leaders of the Nation.

Goh Meng Seng

Half Way Bell Check on SG Political Parties - WP Part II

It is always difficult for me to write an assessment or critique of Workers Party not only because it has apparently the largest "Internet Troopers" on New Media who would readily curse and swear at people who criticize WP but on top of that, I was once a member of its CEC.It will be a kind of internal struggle within me but since I have set to be truthful to myself and to the words I write, what have to be done, will be done accordingly. It is for the greater good of learning for our constant evolving and emerging democracy in Singapore.

It was exciting for anyone who have worked decades for a better development of democracy in Singapore to know that opposition party WP has finally "made it" to break through the stranglehold of the GRC system which was deemed as the "impenetrable fortress" of PAP heavily guarded by its ministers. I was no exception to such excitement. However, barely six to eight months right after such historical breakthrough, reality started to set in for WP.

WP fought GE2011 with a rather "sexy" slogan "Towards First World Parliament" which actually lacks philosophical and ideological depth but it works and they won. At first look, it doesn't really  matter as long as they could win seats. However, things to fall apart when parliamentary sitting starts.

What is WP's Policy Ideological Stance?

First of all, it seems WP has flip flopped on its stance on Million dollar Ministerial Salary. It tries to use some technical terms like MX-9 without a full understanding that their approach will end up similar to PAP. It is a kind of embarrassment for WP trying to show that it has "alternative" and different from PAP but ended up like a side-kick of PAP instead. I really wonder whether WP has done a thorough internal policy exploration and debate or not before it went on to parliament to present its stance.This is especially important when its new maverick MPs try to "show off" their "intelligence" by embarking on a path that result in the upheaval of present policy stance, due diligence must be made.

The most horrified thing to happen in parliament is WP's stance on 6.9 million population direction. It just gave a "discount" to PAP's 6.9 million to 5.9 million. It is another glaring attempt of WP trying to show it is different from PAP by having some pseudo "alternative" without really understanding the real issues around them. Plucking figures from the air isn't going to show much credibility on WP's policy front. Their proposal is in effect, a 15% increase from the present population figures and I wonder if they really think Singapore could cope with a further 15% increase in population or not.

Apart from all these, the most unbearable thing to see is WP going into parliament to raise municipal issues of cats, dogs and bird droppings. Have they run out of idea or policy matters to talk about in parliament?

All these could be excused, said WP apologists, because WP MPs are new to parliamentary culture and policy debates. But I would remind them that WP SG LTK has over 20 years of parliamentary experience and Sylvia Lim is not new as well. They should have provided the needed guidance to their "green colleagues".

It is also important to note that WP lacks real team building and shared core political values. Well, we can't expect much from opposition parties at this stage because most of the time, even for TEAM A of the opposition party, it is only assembled at the very last minute. Most important of all, for some odd reasons, you don't really see the WP MPs giving active support to each other in parliamentary debates. Communication and intense policy discussions among key members is a very important way to get political stance clear and everybody stick to it instead of flip flopping during public forums and parliamentary debates.

The most embarrassing contradiction and glaring fumble that exposed WP's apparent lack of Democratic ideology is the Vote Buying Saga in one of its HDB upgrading voting exercise carried out in its Aljunied Town. Lucky Draw for voting yes. Isn't this similar to PAP's strategy of vote PAP for HDB upgrading kind of pork barrel politics? Apparently WP only pays lip service to Democracy and attack PAP for vote buying just to gain votes. But when it comes to its own little management of a town, it would even go a step further by using privileged information of voters' preference (because it is not a secret ballot) to carry out its vote buying exercise!

Integrity, Transparency, Accountability and Competency

The unfortunate YSL adultery saga is the first major blow to WP. But apparently, the impact is very limited as the two by elections in Hougang and Punggol East have demonstrated that voters are unfazed  by such scandal. But up till now, due to WP's abrupt dismissal of YSL after keeping totally mum about the rumors, most Singaporeans will not know the truth at all. The truth may mean little to most people but the way WP handles this issue gives a glimpse on the opaque way WP deals with matters. It is unfortunate for an opposition party like WP who fights on the Democracy principles of Transparency and Accountability would end up tripping itself all over them. The only face-saving act was to sack YSL in double quick time when more evidence surfaced on the media to show that YSL has erred in his personal life.

Plagiarism is not acceptable in any field but apparently WP doesn't see it as a problem, even if it means suffering embarrassment when Pritam was exposed right in parliament. Apart from all these, there is also a small little drama of Secret Squirrel Saga happening right in the middle of Hougang By-elections which directly questioned WP Png Eng Huat's integrity when it shows documented WP internal CEC minutes that Png was listed as one of the potential NCMP candidate as contrary to what he has claimed. 

But these aren't the greatest evil yet. Town Council management and WP's managing agent FMSS seems to its biggest problem so far.

Town Council management used to be WP's Comparative Advantage against all other opposition parties but apparently it is loosing its plot over this field. First of all, the initial appointment of FMSS as its MA raise eyebrows. We have attacked PAP for giving out contracts and goodies to cronies but in the end, we find WP doing the same in its own backyard. So it seems that being FIrst World is to learn from PAP's First World bad practices in dealing with public contracts. But at the very least, when the Brompton bike saga blew up, PAP took actions against its errant civil servants.

WP's TC management was put in doubt for various issues:

1) For some reasons, the Independent Auditors didn't want to sign or comment on AHTC's account. This is rather unusual and we don't know why up till now. WP didn't offer any explanation at all and such opaque management style is really worrying.

2) WP blames some of its TC management problems to PAP's AIM. Although PAP's AIM saga involved politically motivated transactions, but apparently, from published documented emails, WP is supposed to have a smooth hand over since 2011. This was reiterated by WP's Sylvia Lim that there was a smooth transition. So it is quite puzzling to hear WP back tracking and blame on PAP for its own incompetency.

3) The most intriguing and disappointing happening is the Hawker Ceiling Saga. Here again, after it is apparent that there must be something wrong with FMSS management of the TC, inconvenient truths are just swept under the carpet. Accusations made against FMSS key manager insisting of additional payment was brushed aside while unsolicited quotation to the hawkers by its subcontractor was explained as "private deal"! It is really mind boggling  and when you thought LTK is going to do some serious investigation on this issue, a sudden twist happens and everything is quickly swept off and WP just pretends nothing happens. It is a typical incident that exposed doubtful integrity, non-transparent and total lack of accountability on WP's part.

4) Dubious sacking of TWO pregnant women by FMSS within a year has put serious doubts on WP's political standing. Some have argued that FMSS is not WP but we must always remember that FMSS only serves WP's AHTC and WP is the boss that employed this management agent. If the MA it employs has bad management practices that contradicts the party's political philosophy or ideology like eradicating discrimination of women, single women, pregnant women etc, then it has the political moral authority to correct FMSS. But so far, nothing heard from WP on such standing.

Despite of all these failings hitting hard at the basic fundamental core values of WP's Integrity, Transparency, Accountability and Competency, I guess most die-hard opposition supporters and WP people would still pledge their support for WP. This is a big silver lining for WP. However, there might be a small group of well educated middle ground voters who will have their confidence shaken by all these happenings. But I guess this group will be quite insignificant, taking the two by-elections into account.

Political Ground Movement & Engagement

WP remains as the only opposition party which has the most consistent political ground engagement on the front. It is a strong tradition that keeps the party moving, consolidate and provide ground activities for their activists. At the same same, it also provides an important revenue source to pay rent for the party HQ.

WP also has the advantage of controlling the TC in which provides a platform for it to organize various activities for residents, like Durian Tours etc. On top of that, they have consistent door knocking and block parties.

These are tested and proven to be effective political work that will help to fortified their gains as well as opening up new frontiers.

Intra-party Dynamics

On the surface, Mr. Low TK seems to hold a tight ship. However there are signs that all are not well.

First of all, it is the matter of ethnic balance. The departure of Sajeev and Fazli, both candidates of WP in GE2011, has shed some light of the perceived "Chinese" image of WP. Some may argue that these are just exceptional cases but that is not all. WP tried to woo "minority members" by holding some talks specially for Malays but the attendance by non-party members was pathetic. It has tried to appease the Malay community and its members by promoting some of them to cadre members. It has also "elected" more Malays and Indians into its Youth Wing CEC. But the fact still remains, its recent "helicopter co-option" of three "elite" members into its CEC has further tilted the racial balance within its top leadership.

The situation may aggravate if these members have seldom participated in any Hammer sales or door knocking. It is quite unusual for WP do a "helicopter co-option" of CEC members more than 1 year after its OPC. I remember back in the early days, they tried to co-opt a Malay lecturer but failed because the reason given was, WP should respect the will and votes of the cadres... well even when it is a good potential Malay candidate. Of course, the Malay lecturer left the party thereafter.

Apart from that, it is fascinating to observe LTK being "over-ruled" subtly in the Hawker Ceiling Saga. He has openly declared that he want to find out who asks FMSS contractor ATL to send the quotation to the hawkers. But subsequently, he retracted his stance by saying there will be no more investigation done. Although LTK has stepped down as Vice Chairman of the TC but he is still the SG of WP and member of the Board of TC. When there are issues arising from the TC which will put bad publicity and doubts on the party, he will need to step in to clear it up. Thus, it really makes me wonder whether he is still in control of the party at all when he has to do a U-turn like this publicly.

Many view the co-option of the three CEC members as "good development" but I would see it as a signal that there is intense tension within the CEC so much so that LTK has to use co-option as a means to tilt the balance to ensure stability within. But such co-option will create more quiet discontent among cadres and party activists especially so when it is perceived as "elitist" without considering the party's culture of "merits" based on participation of ground work like Hammer Sales and Door Knocking. It will disillusion them that WP is becoming too similar to PAP's management. It is not a good sign at all.

There has been long standing rumors about factional friction and even "fight" within WP but I would say that it would be foolish for anyone to rock the boat when all of them are sitting on its tip.

How is WP Performance so far?

Very disappointing. This is not just my assessment but some WP ardent supporters and even members who have put it plainly to me.

Chen Shao Mao has been "over-sold". He is the only one with "International Perspective" but he lacks depth in understanding issues in Singapore. This is why he could only go on lofty ideas but hardly any beef or insights on specific local issues. He may have well prepared speech delivered in parliament but as a lawyer, his debating skills is really agonizing. Although I don't like LKY at all but I have to agree with his observation of CSM, he is disappointing and cannot debate properly. It is a necessary but insufficient strength to recite a prepared speech properly in parliament. You need to be able to debate about it as well.

Then we have the maverick smart alec type, Pritam Singh. There is nothing wrong if you want to use somebody's else articulated points and this has been done quite frequently in parliament. But the only decent thing to do is to credit the source or raise it as "I have read this point from a blog....etc". But if you try to make it sound as your articulated point, then you lose your plot and integrity as well. Not to mention how he went on to conduct the "Vote Buying exercise" in his ward for HDB upgrading poll which is really a brutal and cruel way of diminishing the very democratic values his party is supposedly fighting for. Of course, his fumble over publicly saying that WP will be ready to be PAP's coalition partner in a post-GE2011 forum is really premature. The worst part is his role in the Ceiling Saga which he responded with that kind of smart alec attitude.

LTK is right that at present, WP is not ready to be the government yet. You may not need "elites", top lawyers or top scholars to form government but at the very least, you need people with REAL International Perspective and REAL Understanding of policy issues with indisputable integrity first before you can move forward to become ruling party. Apparently WP is very weak in this aspect. Sylvia Lim may be proficient in Legal issues while YJJ has good points in education policy, but that are about all they have. It would be very dangerous for WP to become ruling party with more of the likes of Lian and Huat. Nothing personal and nothing to do with "paper qualifications" but running ministries will need people with better ideas in policy matters. Learning from other countries is not a sin, but not knowing the issues and where to find solutions, will be devastating.

Conclusions

WP will definitely continue to win popular votes and more seats in the coming elections. Their ground political activities and engagement is superb and will allow them to gain more seats. However, that is purely not enough for a political party to win seats but unable to deliver in parliamentary debates or proper running of TC. It is just not enough to become a "social club" kind of political party where the party focus more on social gatherings and activities rather than serious policy discussions and deliberations.

Although it claims that it is not ready to be government, but it has to start somewhere, to groom itself to be a real alternative to PAP. It has to get its acts together, be it administrative running of its TC, policy debates in parliament, strengthening of their core values or just plain common sense.

Even if WP is really like what Pritam said, wanting to be a coalition partner of PAP, it will have to make sure that it has the people with necessary learning and exposures to become ministers.

What WP needs to do at the moment are:

1) Strengthen its internal political education process. It is just not enough to fill up members' time with Hammer Sales, Door Knocking and various social gatherings (temper dinners, Christmas party and such). A political party like WP will have to start political education to keep its members and activists deeply rooted in policy stance, political ideology and beliefs.

2) It must start to set its standards of good governance starting from TC management. It is totally unacceptable to allow its MA to create unnecessary political embarrassment and incidents that contradicts the party's political standing. WP must be the one which lead and guide the MA in management principles and not the other way round. It has to act as the boss of FMSS instead of allowing it to pull its nose around. Keep it under control.

3) It has to change its cultural mindset and change the perception of Malay and Indian communities if it wants to stay relevant to National political platform. Sense of Fairness and Justice is human inborn nature and you couldn't fool people all the time.

4) Integrity, Transparency, Accountability and Competency are easy slogans to shout about but definitely a heavy burden to practice. As an opposition, WP cannot lose the "Moral High Ground" by using the argument "PAP also like that" to justify its shortcomings. Worse still, learning those "legalized" but marred with all sorts of "conflict of interests" methods to run its daily business will definitely not give us any confidence at all. It has to set it straight and enforce a mechanism to get things right. Shying away from potential scandals and embarrassment by sweeping inconvenient truths under the carpet isn't going to help them grow. We are not asking WP to be filled with saints but basic integrity is a necessary ingredient to survive in Singapore politics. Just admit there is wrong if things really went wrong and promised to correct the situation. Supporters will understand and forgive people who are ready to learn the better ways but will not tolerate the lack of integrity. It is how you manage scandals and crisis that matters, not merely why they happen matters.

5) WP will have to keep its unity intact. Any signs of infighting or power struggles will definitely reduce voters' confidence tremendously. The lesson of SDP's internal struggle way back in 1990s is an important lesson for WP. While unity is important, WP cannot be run like a machine under dictatorial rule. It must learn to respect diversity of views and ideas, allowing its members, including future potential candidates to learn how to deal with public space and messaging. Curbing members' meaningful participation in internet forums, blogs and new media to express themselves of their various political and policy views will do more harm in their grooming. Instead, WP should ban or discouraged its members from involving "Internet Brigade" which aims to flame, troll or suppress critiques from commenting on its shortcomings. A political party that truly believe in Democracy and Freedom of Speech would encourage RESPONSIBLE SPEECH, discussions and discourses instead of encouraging or set up Internet Brigades to flame, troll, disrupt and suppress other people's freedom of speech.

The next step of democratic development for Singapore is to deprive PAP ABSOLUTE POWER in parliament, to cut its seats to less than two third of parliamentary seats. Thus, last but not least I hope that WP could work with all other opposition parties to achieve this aim instead of embarking on its predatory path of "I walk my own path" kind of mentality and start to prey on smaller parties by going all out for multi-corners fights to wipe them out.

WP has to realize that it has many shortcomings and it alone, may not achieve "greatness" in any sense. It will still need cooperation with other opposition parties to push on meaningful political, democratic development for Singapore.


Goh Meng Seng

Half Way Bell Check on SG Political Parties - PAP Part I

This is approximately the MID Term point of the present parliamentary term if you believe the next General Election will be held in 2015.

Before I start to write this article, there are three interesting Political News and happening in Singapore:

1) One of the most promising political star in SDP, Dr Vincent Wijeysingha has call it a quit over LGBT issues.

2) PAP has announced its latest promotion of ministers. Chan Chun Sing has been promoted while Tan Chuan Jin has unexpectedly missed out of this promotion exercise.

3) WP has announced the new co-option of three members into its CEC. One of them was a candidate in GE 2011 while the other two are relatively new "elites". One of them is a lawyer while the other is an Associate Professor lecturing in NUS.

4) For NSP, after half a year of neglect of their website (yes, no updates, not even on CEC information), they have started to act. However, some curious things I have observed. The Secretary General Hazel is missing in action for all NSP recent activities, so is her husband Tony Tan. Even for important press statement, it was issued by Nicole Seah, the second aassistant secretary, not Hazel. On the other hand, Apparently, the newly co-opted CEC member cum Head of Media Team is missing from the CEC list as well.

These are the four main political parties (sorry for the exclusion of the others, including SPP, DPP and others) that I am going to examine at this Half Way Point.

Post-LKY ERA


The context of present situations is Post-LKY ERA. What will happen or how things will develop with the final phase of POST-LKY ERA in the making? It is clear by the day that the days that Singapore will live without the physical presence of LKY will come soon. Transitions into such era or even into change of ruling power have been discussed openly and intensely recently. The fundamental questions are:

1) Will PAP break with the passing of LKY?
2) Will PAP lose power after LKY pass on?
3) How will the political landscape change with the passing of LKY?

LKY has stepped down right after GE2011 along with Goh Chok Tong. There are common whispers that he did it in order to use his last influence to clear out the main internal challenge posed by the "GCT Camp" to his son's rule. This is just like old kungfu show that the old master uses his last political breathe to save his disciple from the great opponent, killing both the master and the opponent altogether.

The recent promotion exercise is also seen as a bid to look for someone "acceptable" by the Lee camp to take over as Prime Minister once the present PM Lee steps down. Apparently, Chan Chun Sing and Heng Swee Kiat are the front runners while some people think that Lawrence Wong may be the third contender.

Many people say that Heng Swee Kiat is "intelligent" guy and he should be the PM. But I beg to differ. LKY wasn't the smartest (as compared to Dr Goh Keng Swee) among his peers back in the 1960s, neither was he the most charismatic (as compared to Lim Ching Song) but he became the PM. Leadership cannot be built upon intelligence alone. Dr Goh Keng Swee might be the smartest guy among his peers but he lacked the charisma, especially public speaking skills, to be Prime Minister. Intelligence alone is only a necessary but insufficient condition for Prime Minister-ship. As for Chan Chun Sing, I cannot imagine us, Singapore, to have a Kee Chiu General to be our Prime Minister.

In fact, I think Tan Chuan Jin, who has been left out of promotion this time round, has the few critical criteria to become the next Prime Minister. He is a "thinking" minister who can make amends to his positions from time to time to suit changes in various situations. Although it is unfortunate that he has to face a couple of crisis in these couple of years which he may not have handled exceptionally well, but from my observations, he can make necessary reflections and adjustments quite responsively instead of sticking to stagnant stance like former MND Mah BT who kept insisting on his HDB pricing strategy and policy even though many people have shown him that his HDB policy is really screwed.

But nevertheless, whoever tries to become the next Prime Minister under PAP will definitely find himself in the worst position in history. PAP is after all, a "sunset party" and what it has relied heavily upon, the total monopoly of power and assurance of winning elections on every seats have diminished. It will find itself more and more difficult to recruit talented people to join them because they can no longer fulfill their promise easily as there will no longer be a "sure win" elections even under GRC system.

In view of that, it would naturally be a regression down hill development for PAP into mediocrity as it can only attract second or even third rate candidates in subsequent GE. 

PAP: Epoch Change? 

Apart from such development, on numerous occasions, PAP leaders have reiterated that they have changed and will make efforts to revamp their various policies. Most important of all, they are saying they will listen, starting with "National Conversation".

The government controlled (yes, it is a direct physical control via Press Act, giving government management ownership and huge voting rights) SPH and Main Stream Media (MSM) have hailed PM Lee's recent policy announcements made in his National Day Rally as "Epoch" changes made but is that really so?

Well, to continue to work towards 6.9 million population is anything but Epoch change. Having just a tiny tweak to their multi-million dollar ministerial salaries to yet, multi-million dollar ministerial salaries isn't really big change at all.


All these are more like Public Relations exercise rather than any serious game changer kind of policy shifts. Look, calling their tweaks in healthcare policy as "Universal Healthcare Insurance" scheme is just a bad attempt to hoodwink Singaporeans. Giving more HDB grants doesn't change the fact that their pricing mechanism is the key primary problem of spiral prices that have made asset inflation out of tune with normal inflation and salary increments for the middle-lower class. 


The bare truth is, Singaporeans continue to face the fundamental problems caused by PAP's reckless population planning which causes runaway asset inflation, runaway healthcare cost coupled with inadequate hospital beds, break down in public transport system especially for MRT and not to mention the constant flooding due to over-urbanization and Marina Barrage which was created to cope with higher water demand.

Most importantly, apart from the horrendous 6.9m population policy, their tweaks at Housing policy, healthcare and transport policies aren't exactly anything revolutionary at all.

This is especially true for HDB housing policy. Minister Khaw BW has tried his very best to deliver his promise of delivering 13,000 flats or so for this year but what he did not realize that housing problem is a long term stablizing problem. First and foremost, we need a total revamp of the wrong concept of taking HDB flats as an "investment". HDB is a home, not an investment. Secondly, we must make sure that HDB price inflation should not be higher than income increment trend. This will need a total revamp of the pricing mechanism. Third most important point is that HDB land pricing should not be used as a forever input into our Reserves. There is absolutely no reasons to pursue an indefinite growth in Reserves.

Has PAP turned the tide?

How successful is PAP in turning adverse public opinion against it? Some people opined that although PAP didn't really make great changes in these key areas but it has managed to convince and woo middle ground skeptics. I am not so sure that the middle ground could be so easily woo over.

This is especially so when PAP's crisis management skills are rather bad. This is especially so when the HAZE broke out, they couldn't even get their logistics right to deliver the masks on time as promised. Not to say about the weather warning mechanism is totally out of date and serve no purpose in safeguarding citizens' lives. Not for the HAZE warning system, neither for heavy rain and flood warning system.


If PAP cannot get both immediate crisis management, governance and future forward looking policy direction right, I am afraid that it has started to roll down the slippery slope of mediocrity. Pure lack of competency and Vision for the future will be PAP's undoing for the next GE. PAP used to provide basic fundamental competency at daily management and administration of the various systems in Singapore. At least, train doesn't break down that often, flooding doesn't occur that often as well, neither do we have constant crunch on hospital beds as well as public buses and train. I am afraid that all these basic competency has been replaced by complacency.

PAP has never been good at crisis management. I remember during the crisis of Silk Air 185 crash incident back in 1997, the then Transport Minister Mah BT was so stressed up that he actually blew his top on reporters. Now that we have all sorts of small and big crisis from time to time, ministers just acted in a reactive manner. They are just treating problems in isolation instead of taking a more holistic approach. In Chinese, we call that "脚痛医脚，头痛医头“, literally mean when the leg pain, just treat the leg, headache, just treat the head. It seems that their ability of "Helicopter View" has crashed landed.

I suspect PAP has got its priorities all wrong right from the top. Growth at all cost is still the master guiding principle. The push for 6.9m population plan is one glaring example of such "strategic thinking".

To make matter worse for PAP, its GOLDEN MANTRA "Whiter than White" has been put in serious doubt by various incidents. Integrity and Morality are something MORE than legality. What seems to be "legal" may not mean it is done with Morality and Integrity intact. 

Apart from the many big and small scandals on TOP civil servants taking bribes, the AIM saga makes PAP looks even worse, putting doubts aimed directly at its core value of "Whiter than White". Well, some may even put Michael Palmer saga as part of this deterioration and erosion of Core Value of PAP but we should not forget what happens to WP's YSL saga as well.

The most important implication of these scandals is directed at the Core Management Principle of PAP : High Pay = Eliminate Corruptions. Well, some may view that as "legalized corruptions" but it doesn't matter now. It would also mean that alternative system or methods should be explored to upkeep a clean system.

It simply means that we can no longer depend on an authoritarian system which pays its political appointees and civil servants high pay to ensure clean governance. The CORE Values of Democracy, Separation of POWERS should be established to enhance checks and balances on the various organs of governance to enhance clean management.

Apart from that, the concept of "conflict of interests" should be instilled and boundaries of good practices should be established. Due to the authoritarian nature of PAP's rule, the concept of "conflict of interests" has never been institutionalized as part of our Rule of Law, if any. With the empowerment of Internet Era, I think increasing demands on transparency, accountability and good governance will naturally raise expectation on what constitutes "Rule of Law" and "good management practices". But it seems that both PAP and WP failed to realize or understand such a shift on popular expectations.

On the other hand, PAP seems to be confused by its own promise of "light touch" approach to public opinions expressed on the internet by throwing spanners, threats of law suits, criminal persecution etc etc on bloggers, cartoonists and activists at large. It would be seen in a very bad contrasting light whereby PAP is lax towards its own morality and integrity while exercising draconian precision attacks on little errors made by citizens. In Chinese, this amount to "宽己严人", i.e. strict towards others while lax towards its own kind.

Conclusion

If PAP is determined to regain some ground it has lost, it should seriously reflect upon itself on all these grounds:

1) Readjustment to their Philosophy and Ideology of Governance, thus really revamp their various policies towards the new philosophical or ideological directions.

2) Improve their competency at governance, including crisis management.

3) There is a serious need to rethink on the issues of Integrity, Morality, Transparency, Accountability and Good Practices. It would mean to institutionalize Separation of Powers and strengthen the Rule of Law by putting more emphasis on issues of Conflict of Interests.

4) Whether PAP likes it or not, the internet or the New Media has become the important Fourth Institution of emerging Democracy in Singapore and it will replace PAP's controlled MSM totally if PAP still have any fantasy about using MSM as its propaganda tool or mouth piece. If PAP chose to revert to its old dictatorial ways of dealing with dissenting voices, it would end up losing more seats and power even more rapidly than it could imagine. It will have to relearn Public Relationship and Media management instead of relying on obedient, compliant media, editors and reporters to save them from public embarrassment. 

Last but not least, I give PAP an E as a ruling party which failed to evolve and adapt to the new reality on the ground as well as the internet.

Goh Meng Seng

  

Two Key Factors which Corrupt Power

Power corrupts but what corrupts Power?

From ancient history to modern time, the golden truth has never changed i.e. Greed (of money) and Sex are the two key factors which will corrupt those people in the position of power.

The famous story of the warring states in ancient China where the defeated 越 state managed to corrupt the king 夫差 of its arch rival 吴 state by sending the most beautiful woman 西施 to become his concubine still lingers on in modern days. 越 state finally destroyed and captured 吴 state. It is a classic case on how sexual desires could corrupt and eventually destroy the whole country if it was left unchecked.

In modern days, woman spies are used to seduce potential targets to get vital National secrets in espionage cases unveiled. In business world as well as civil service such as police force, sex is also widely used to corrupt decision makers and law enforcement officers to get favorable treatments or tip offs.

Of course, beside sex, money is also the common form of bribery used. No government in the world, whether it is under dictatorship or democratic system, could be spared from the corruptions done through these two key factors.

The only way is to minimize the chances of corruptions by using all kinds of measures. In Singapore, PAP has argued that only high pay could keep politicians and civil servants from being tempted by money bribery. But one could argue that how could more money prevent a greedy person from being corrupt? There is no end of desires for more money for a greedy person. It is a debatable issue in governance.

PAP used to have stringent screening rules in their selection process in the search of good candidates to hold political office. It used to have zero tolerance for adultery or sexual misconduct.

Many people have argued that we should not be "moralist" and having affairs are "private matters". Some even argued that what one does in private will not hurt their official work. But the truth is, the CPIB (Corrupt Practice Investigation Bureau) has investigated two Chiefs from the SCDF and CNB recently for alleged "serious personal misconduct" which was rumored to be in connection with sexual favors offered by a woman. It was reported that even if there were no evidence of corruptions involved, both officers would be disciplined internally for serious personal misconduct. They have since been sacked from their positions.

We cannot be sure that anyone in power would be compromised if they engage in affairs or womanizing. But I have argued that human civilization progresses throughout time because we are able to make use of past experiences and data to forecast, make predictions and good judgment. If Sex and Money are two key factors which will corrupt those in power, then people who are greedy or have higher tendency to go astray in their private sex life would be considered as "high risk" individuals to be assigned positions of power.

Thus it is only logical when voters in general would not prefer people with past records of cheating to become their MPs or ministers. It is also understandable that people who are found cheating on their wives or basically womanizers are not preferred to be voted as their representatives or ministers as well. An elected representative, in Singapore's context, holds certain power and influence not only in policy making but also allocating and utilizing public resources when they are tasked to run town councils. Needless to say, any ministers would have even greater powers and privileged sensitive information which concerned National security.

It is a matter of choice in risk taking. Generally, Singapore is still a conservative society which is still pretty risk adverse. It is not only a question of morality but also a matter of practicality in political management that we generally avoid entrusting people with higher tendency of being greedy or committing adultery/womanizing to be elected into political office.

Similarly, a government should be mindful about the character of a person before appointing him to become key senior civil servants. Anybody who fails the tests on greed and sex should not be employed as key senior civil servants at all.

Goh Meng Seng

部长薪金调整 – 换汤不换药的政治秀

历时超过半年的《政治职位薪金检讨报告》昨天终于出炉，建议大幅削减总统、总理和部长薪金达28% 至53% 。这双位数字的减幅看来大刀阔斧，但是仔细研读当中的魔鬼细节后，就不难发现检讨报告只是一场换汤不换药的数字游戏。

去年大选之后，李显龙总理为了“顺应”民意，成立了政治职位薪金检讨委员会，检讨多年来被批评为过高的总理及部长薪酬，这也被普遍视为大选失利而重新笼络民心的动作。然而委员会到头来所作出的薪酬计算建议，显然是令人大失所望，因为它缺乏大胆改革薪金制度的决心。

首先，委员会建议把部长薪金基准与新加坡300万劳动人口中最高薪的48人，增加至与1000人挂钩，这种改动没有实际意义。单单把薪酬与高收入人士看齐，却忽略中层和基层人士薪金的变动，得出的结果是狭隘和有偏差的。

以2007年为例，当年我国基层人士的薪金呆滞，中产阶级的加薪幅度也不高，但是部长薪金却因为跟高薪人士挂钩而水涨船高，一口气飙升了60%！在贫富悬殊日益严重的新加坡，这种荒谬的现象更突显了薪金计算机制的不合理。

此外，委员会建议沿用花红制度，并作一些无关痛痒的小修小补，即使改革后的最高花红从以往的27.5个月降低至14.5个月，但对国人来说，这仍然是个天文数字。

在计算表现花红方面，若纯粹以总理的主观意愿来决定，而完全缺乏客观的理据，那又如何避免官官相护呢？虽然国家花红的水平是依照包括经济增长、失业率等四方面的因素而定，但是报告所设的门槛过低，根本无法准确反映政治官员对国人福祉的贡献。

再者，新加坡作为一个开放型的经济体，取得的经济增长主要是受到外围经济环境的左右，不能直接跟部长的表现扯上关系，更遑论以此作为制订花红的指标。

不过，最重要的还是身为服务国家的公职人员，竟然采用私人机构的薪酬配套，以所谓的“工作表现”来决定花红的多寡，未免偏离了公共服务人员应有的献身精神。

其实，就算不计花红在内，我国最初级部长减薪后的年收入，也大幅超越美国总统薪酬多达20万新元，并与香港特首的薪酬看齐。如果这样才能吸引人才，甚至确保高薪养廉，国人所付出的代价恐怕会是另一个“世界第一”。

诚然，检讨报告的确削减了政治官员的薪金，但是问题的症结未解，薪酬计算方法仍然不合理。我建议简化计算方法，取消花红，综合高、中、低层人士的收入作为官员基本薪金的指标，把官员和整体国民的收入全面挂钩，从而加强总理和部长对民众问责。

如果执政党天真的以为这次薪金检讨能成功化解民怨，那未免过于低估国人的政治智慧了。国民期望的是更彻底的改革，而不只是单纯的减薪。但是从执政党声明接受检讨结果来看，他们显然是缺乏政治决心去实行认真、彻底的改革了。

事实上，部长薪金过高只是民怨的其中一个诱因。多年以来，我国部长在领取世界第一高薪的当儿，却没有为自己的各种政策失误负起应有的政治责任，反而以各种理由搪塞，这才是引发民怨的真正原因。如果行动党不认真对症下药，切实执行政治问责制，相信民怨将继续累积，选民必然会在下届大选中以选票表达不满。

吴明盛

Goh Meng Seng Speech on 4 May 2011 Tampines

Year End Reflection - Role of Governemnt

The most common grouses people are making right now is, Price of Everything goes up, including ministers' pay!

What is the problem with our country? Many people ask. It is becoming a SOP (standard operating protocol) for the PAP government to raise prices all over right after election year! Public transport fares have risen TWICE amidst record profits since 2006. Public utilities, especially electricity has risen based on higher oil price in spite of the fact that our generators are mostly powered by gas. The runaway inflation is partly fueled by rising rentals which are mainly in the control of GLCs (Government linked companies) which own most of the retail spaces in Singapore.

On top of that, in spite of the relative ineffectiveness of the ERP (Electronic Road Pricing) of controlling traffic jams (its the numbers, stupid!), ERP fees has been raised again. In fact, MORE ERP gantries has been set up now. The most absurd thing about ERP is that at some roads, the time has been extended to late at night! The concept of ERP should be based on economic opportunities and not about controlling traffic jams. Traffic jams are merely the symptoms that leads to lost of economic opportunities. It is IMPOSSIBLE to totally eradicate traffic jams altogether without imposing unimaginable high ERP fees.

What difference will there be, when there are inelastic demand on road usage, to have ERP gantries set at all places, at all time vs no ERP gantries at all? Practically no difference. ERP gantries will only work if there are distinctive difference in pricing.... best at with pricing vs no pricing. For example, if I want one of the two roads that joint from point A to B which are running parallel to each other, to be free of jams, the only logical way of doing so is to put a pricing on road A, then road B will jam while road A will be relatively free of jam. Will there be any difference if we have both road A and B to be priced by ERP?

The original concept of road pricing is to stagger traffic flow according to opportunity cost concept. This is to price the road with time difference. It means that during peak hours, some business or jobs are more important than others to command a premium; i.e. for example, stock market and financial business. Those who work in these field will be willing to pay a premium to reach their office on time. This is because the opportunity cost of time is higher to them. The other jobs are less time sensitive and thus, could afford to use the road later. Thus the effective way to make sure traffic is diverted from critical peak period to off-peak period, ERP pricing should only be applied on certain time period, not all.

But LTA seems to have a weird logic in applying ERPs in Singapore. The Central Business District (CBD) has a whole day ERP applied. And now, even non economic-critical time period like evening time period, ERP is being applied! The pricing no longer adhered to the economic opportunity cost concept (opportunity cost of traffic jam to the economy) but rather, ironically, like plugging holes as and when they see jams! It is no wonder that many Singaporeans are beginning to wonder whether the ERP system is really about road pricing to reduce economic opportunity cost or just plain money squeezing machinery for the PAP government!

Of course, how could I forget to mention the increase in GST by two percentage amidst the various inflationary pressure and in contrast, the hefty increase in ministers' pay. PAP government claims that the increase in GST is to "help the poor" but up till now, we have not seen any concrete and comprehensive plans of welfare system. Ironically, there are already many cynical Singaporeans who are fast to relate the increase of GST to help increase ministers' pay as well as the top civil servants' pay! Why do they need to raise GST, in spite of the fact that the PAP government is enjoying surplus with a huge reserves backing it? In fact, I think tax collection from GST will increase even without the raise of the 2%. This is basically because of the projected increase in population size, all thanks to the open FT policy. With an increase of Foreign workers in Singapore, consumption will be expected to increase, thus, GST collection will increase accordingly. It is really a big puzzle on why the PAP government always feel that money no enough!

While singing the slogan of "increase of GST to help the poor", we are slammed with the ideas of Means Testing of healthcare policy as well as the Compulsory annuity for everyone. Now, these two monsters are in fact schemes to reduce government spending on the welfare of its citizens! It seems that the PAP government is practically saying that we are not willing to spend too much to subsidize healthcare for citizens, least, help elderly citizens to live a decent retirement life. You are all on your own! It is to me a very distinctive contradiction of PAP "sales talk" of their unpopular policies like GST!

PAP government has blamed the high oil prices for the rise in prices. PAP minister even question the opposition on whether we could "bring the oil price down". The truth is, petrol prices are controlled in Singapore and the tax imposed on diesel and petrol is pretty substantial. If the PAP government is serious about controlling inflation, the only logical thing to do is to reduce or even abolish the taxation on petrol and diesel. The PAP government could truly help to control inflation by making such moves.

What is WRONG with the PAP government, really? On one hand, they want to increase indirect taxes on the people claiming to help the people, while on the other hand, they are devising all sorts of policies that will reduce their funding to help citizens to cope with various costs of living, from daily expenses to old age financing.

PAP government has rejected "welfarism", claiming that it will bankrupt the government. Or that people will have to pay more taxes to finance welfarism. But the truth is, are we paying any lesser now? Or rather, how much lesser are we paying? There is a delicate balance between taxation and welfarism. A government is NOT a business entity. The primary role of the government is to manage the country, by collecting taxes or monies from the society and then, redistribute these monies to maintain balances within the society. Providing welfare to those less privileged or unfortunate citizens will be one of the primary role of the government. Subsidizing certain vital, critical functions of the country that serve the citizens are the role of the government. The government is not here to make money, squeeze every ounce of juice out of the people, claim credits to have surplus and then to self reward with million dollar annual salary!

Healthcare is one important aspect of citizens' general welfare. Taking care of the aged and elder is another important aspect of the government. PAP has always preached about "Asian Values" as in "Confucianism" but it seems that it is not behaving like one when it decides to leave the elderly and aged to fend for themselves by forcing them to buy compulsory annuity! Every citizens, after working for a lifetime (now, "implicitly forced" to work up to the age of 70!) has contributed to the development of the society in one way or another. It is thus, only right for the care taker of the society, the government, to take care of their needs in return when they aged! How could a self-proclaimed Confucius government not know of such simple reasoning?

It is really a horrendous sight when a government turns into a miser, money crunching machine. When a government begins to just give a token of welfare to the society while emphasizing in getting surpluses and each ministries or departments is to cut spending on the welfare of the people while giving themselves the World's TOP salaries as politicians, it is really time to rethink some of the most basic fundamental values our society holds as a people and a country.

I hate to do this but it is about time to make comparison with Hong Kong government. Hong Kong may be a capitalist city but it basically has a socialist government. Hong Kong government truly take care of its people, in a very different way. Although Hong Kong residents have to pay hefty prices to own their home due to the high land price policy, but the Hong Kong government has in return, put funds back into the society to help its citizens in various ways. Healthcare is heavily subsidized. Whatever illness you have, whatever operations you need or no matter how many blood pallets you need, you will be charged only HK$100 per day which is amount to about S$20.00 per day. You may think this will open to abuses but the truth is, private hospitals are striving in Hong Kong too. The shortage in public hospital supply will naturally force those well to do families to go to private hospitals instead. The ironic thing is, even with a higher healthcare cost we have here in Singapore's "restructured hospitals", the shortages in the supply could be quite acute as well!

Education is another area whereby the Hong Kong government has subsidized heavily. The new policy focused on kindergarten education for the less well to do families! This is to help them to break out of the vicious cycle of poverty and to even out education opportunities right from young.

The comprehensive welfare system that Hong Kong government has set up basically gives enough money and welfare help to those who could not handle the high cost of living in Hong Kong. Their help is based on per-capital basis instead of per-household basis. On top of that, every elderly residents could register and claim about HK$300 in CASH (about S$60) each month to buy fruits! It recognizes the contributions of each and every residents through such a scheme.

After having all these welfare spending on its residents, Hong Kong government did not go bankrupt. Although it wanted to impose similar GST on the economy, it has withdrawn it due to pressure of resistance from its residents. Even without GST, it has managed to accumulate substantial reserves through years of surpluses. And the best part is, Hong Kong has lower taxes than Singapore for many many years!

I would say that any direct or indirect taxes given to the Hong Kong by its residents are well spent. I mean, compare to paying tax to a government that is stingy in spending on the welfare of its citizens, would you be more willing to pay tax to a government that really spent money to take care of its people?

One part of the problem of Singapore is that PAP government is very generous when it comes to defence spending. It has spent more than 20% to 30% of its budget on military spending. This has inevitably crowd out spending on the welfare. While I would not deny the importance of defence, but it is about the balance in deciding how much is enough? Our defence spending per capital is one of the highest, if not in the world, then definitely in the region. Do we need to increase defence spending indefinitely?

The second point is that PAP government has more surpluses than we think. This is basically because it did not recognize revenue from land or assets sales as part of its budget revenue. It is a unique way of balance of payment accounting. Thus, with a "projected smaller revenue", obviously spending on the welfare of our citizens will be suppressed! This explains partly why there is exponential growth in our reserves while the people suffers higher cost of living.

It is totally absurd to have a rich, dominating government with a poor citizenry. It seems that there is no direct correlations between having a world class country and having a world class living citizens. Our "standards of living" (many people mixed up with "cost of living" but in fact, they are sometimes, inversely related) maintains at developing country status even though we have "world class paid ministers". Where is the promise of Swiss standards of living? It seems that we are fast catching up with Swiss cost of living but lacking in the standards of living!

My New Year resolution for the new year, is to hope to have an awaken citizenry in seeing clearly the mutated role of government we have here in Singapore. This could only be changed, if and only if, citizens exert pressure on the present ruling party through the ballot boxes. If we could not get this fundamental role of government right into the head of the ruling party, then we will only continue to suffer in silence under such mutated role they have now.

Happy New Year to all Singaporeans.

Goh Meng Seng

Mr. Brown has done it again!

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

Link: Mr. Brown

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

Goh Meng Seng

政治使命

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

吴明盛

NSP Press Release on Ministerial Salary Hike

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

Ministerial Salary Hike – Please Don’t Leave Workers Behind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Central Executive Council
National Solidarity Party

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goh Meng Seng