Human Organ Transplant Act

Human Organs Transplant Act

Just for Info, if you want to opt out from HOTA, please visit this website or get this form.

The recent uproar over how a “declared brain dead” but breathing patient's organs being forcefully removed from his body under the Human Organs Transplant Act (HOTA) has significant impact on various areas. One of my friends rang me up to express his unhappiness over the methods used in enforcing this law. Although he is not totally against HOTA but he feels that there is a total lack of tact and empathy from the hospital in enforcing it.

I have been pondering over this issue for the past few weeks, not only on the way the patient's immediate family members are being treated in the whole process but also on the merits and the philosophical MORAL grounds of HOTA.

I guess nobody could argue with the fundamental aim of HOTA in saving lives by providing the framework whereby organ transplants could be done legally. However, it is important to examine on how the law is being drafted.

While human organs trading is prohibited in Singapore, HOTA allows the state (government's proxies such as hospitals etc) to harvest human organs from certain dead persons which includes persons who died in accidents or those declared brain dead. The most important clause in HOTA is that it allows the state to harvest these organs if the dead did not sign any documents that indicates his objections while he was alive.

There are a few issues which I would like to highlight:

1)When HOTA allows the state to harvest organs from persons who are declared brain dead, then it would mean that those doctors must be 100% sure that the patient is indeed brain dead. But as far as we know, there are instances whereby persons who were declared brain dead “revived” themselves after a certain period of time. Thus, it is impossible for anyone to be 100% sure that a person lying in coma is indeed brain dead.


2)It is the state's responsibilities to educate the public on the necessity of supporting Human Organ transplants by means of donating their organs when they are dead. The clause in HOTA allows the state to harvest human organs without the need of direct consent from the dead or his immediate family members. This will naturally mean that the state no longer need to carry out the necessary educational program to cultivate the people in believing in the merits of human organs transplant.


3)Silence means consent? This is a moral issue. Many people are ignorant of HOTA and the requirement of their documented dissent before they could “opt out” from such scheme. I think in many instances, PAP government has taken things for granted. It has chosen to take the easier way out by using “opt out” schemes for various things. But when it comes to HOTA, it does not merely involve money but human organs, emotions and personal religious beliefs as well. Could the state come up with a law that says if the one did not “opt out”, the state could use his body for drug experiments when he is admitted into hospital! The state could further come up with laws that dictates that if one did not “opt out”, the state could forcefully take blood from people if the needs arise (especially so for those with rare blood groups)!


4)The most fundamental question is this, do your dead body belong to the state after you are dead? If not, then why does the state empowers itself the right to do whatever they want to your body after you are dead? If so, then why the state did not take up the responsibility in conducting the necessary funerals and cremation of the dead bodies? Instead, it just takes whatever it wants from the body and then dump it back to the immediate family members!


5)If saving lives is the primary concern of the state in enforcing HOTA, then my question is this: citizens have already done their part in “donating” their organs to save lives, will the state provide the necessary organ transplant surgery for those who need these organs FREE OF CHARGE? This would mean that whether you are rich or poor, you will have the equal chance of receiving organ transplant without the need to pay the hefty fees for such transplant to take place.


6)If the state is not going to sponsor FREE organ transplant surgery, then it would mean that only those rich individuals who could afford the expensive surgery will get the organs. The problem is, rich or poor, if you did not “opt out” of the scheme, your organs are “liable” for harvesting when you are dead. Is this a “FAIR” system?


7)Who will benefit from the “donation” of the organs if the surgery is not free? Those who need the organ transplant as well as the hospital and doctors that are doing the transplants. The ultimate question is this, if we do not allow people to trade their organs for money, but in the end, this law conveniently allows some other people to benefits indirectly from such “donation”!


8)Those who drafted this law really lack empathy. They have made various assumptions about death and take those family members for granted. This is especially so when there is a asymmetric of knowledge between doctors and layman on what constitutes “brain dead”. For the patient's immediate members, it would be difficult to convince them that a breathing patient is indeed “dead”. Thus, the conflicts arise from the recent case is within really expectation. It is really unimaginable that a self proclaimed world class government could draft a law that lacks simple empathy and sensitivity to the citizens.


9)On the other hand, I really wonder how could those hospital staff and policemen could enforce such law right in front of those grieving relatives! How could the law makers expect hospital staff and policemen to enforce such a law on breathing brain dead patients?

My reflection on HOTA is that this government lacks empathy in governance. We should always remind ourselves that we are dealing with human beings, not just mere digits. You could use cold logic to deal with digits but we should use empathy to deal with human beings.

Most of the time, it would be too simplistic to think in such “cold rationale”:

Brain dead= dead = alright to harvest human organs.

The truth is, there are numerous “miracle revival” of supposedly, scientifically “brain dead” individuals in this world. Thus “brain dead” is actually not “definite death” but just a “probable”
death. i.e. High probability that the patient is dead.

Besides, it is just not about whether the patient is truly dead or not, but rather, whether the family members could accept the death in view of a breathing body. We are after all, dealing with human beings, not some robots.

HOTA is merely one of the many examples whereby this self proclaimed “World Class Government” uses “cold logic” to deal with human beings..i.e. Citizens. Everything could be “digitized” and “explain away” without the need of using human empathy. This also explains why many Singaporeans are unhappy of what PAP does (including minister pay rise, GST rise etc) but they are unable to “logically” rebuke PAP's policies. It is just a matter of empathy.

Goh Meng Seng

"Why no queries?"

I read the following report from Straits Time:

ST March 10, 2007
Vivian to opposition MPs: Why no queries?

THE opposition came under fire yesterday from the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS).

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, on the last day of the Committee of Supply debate on his ministry, lamented that none of the three opposition members in the House had filed questions for him.

Dr Balakrishnan said he had been looking forward to their queries.

Instead, he was grilled by his own party members, who had asked very 'probing questions'.

In response, Non-Constituency MP and Workers' Party chairman Sylvia Lim said: 'I'm just going to repeat what I told the minister in the lift earlier. There are still four more years.'

One may get the impression that three AP MPs are not "doing their job" of keeping the PAP government in check. But the truth is, PAP controlled parliament has implemented the rule that each MPs will only have a total of 20 minutes of time for the whole Supply Committee Debate (debate on each of the ministries). 20 minutes for 10 ministries!

If Vivian wants a better comparison, then please tell us have all the PAP MPs use up their 20 minutes quota? I believe the WP MPs have used up all their total of 40 minutes quota! In every budget debate I know, WP MP has not enough time to cover all topics and ministries basically due to this quota. Thus, the only way is to prioritize their questioning. If PAP sincerely want AP MPs to ask more questions, then please do away with the time quota! Else the only way is to urge Singaporeans to vote in more AP MPs!

Goh Meng Seng

Announcement

I have decided to accept the invitation extended to me by the National Solidarity Party (NSP) to be co-opted into their Central Executive Committee. My appointment as NSP CEC member starts from today. I thank the NSP CEC for their show of trust and confidence in me.

In accordance to what I have planned in embarking on the project of cultivating future political talents for Singapore, I will be going into the next phase of preparation. Hope that this program will kick off as scheduled.

Goh Meng Seng

News from 93.8 Live

This is what was broadcast in 93.8 Live:

Former Workers Party member announces plans to groom future political activists


A former senior member of the Workers Party has announced plans to groom future political activists.

Mr Goh Meng Seng, who quit WP over a posting he made on the Internet last November, is forming a group that will be under the ambit of a non-government organisation.

The group is aimed at aimed at cultivating young talent for future General Elections.

Members will be exposed to media and speech training, and be versed in political education and the running of a political campaign.

Speaking to 938LIVE, Mr Goh, who has since joined the National Solidarity Party, said opposition parties here need to have a systematic way to renew its leadership.

"Our aim is actually to build up the political system towards a more balanced system with more checks and balance and more political participation, so we actually have a systematic way of grooming future political leaders. It's not only for opposition, it's non-partisan in that sense."

The group is in its planning stage and is likely to be up later this year.

Mr Goh hopes to groom 84 candidates to fill all the contested seats in future elections.

The 37 year old will also work with NSP in developing the training programme.

Generally speaking, it is a very accurate report on my interview without much distortions.

I have chosen to break this news to 93.8Live exclusively basically because I think the broadcast journalist has shown sincerity. Furthermore, there will be less tendency of distortion due to the fact that they need to broadcast the original sound bites.

Goh Meng Seng

Project on Cultivating Political Talents

After a long retreat from active political participation on the ground, I have reformulated the direction that I should move for the next 5 years.

I have just given an exclusive interview to 93.8 Live about this project. I will be joining Think Centre as well as NSP to embark on this project of cultivating a critical mass of political talents for Singapore. This is in line with my vision of developing a progressive democratic political system for Singapore. This could only be done when there is more balance within the present political system and without the necessary political competition, this could not be achieved.

The mid-term aim is to cultivate and groom enough candidates to contest in all 84 seats as a whole. The long term aim is to build up a feasible model that political renewal could be achieved at all levels in a continuous, sustainable way.

The programs that I intended to start with Think Centre is as follows:

1) Media Training I : Rally Speech Training (Scripting & Speech Delivery)
2) Media Training II : How to Conduct Media Interview
3) Media Training III : How to Conduct Press Conference
4) Media Training IV : Branding Strategy
5) Media Training V : The Tricks Camera Can Do
6) Media Training VI : The Strategy for New Media
7) Political Education I : Political History of Singapore
8) Political Education II : The Electoral System in Singapore
9) Political Education III : Political Ideologies
10) Political Education IV : Political Systems
11) Political Education V : Overview of Singapore's Political Development
12) Political Education VI : Political - Economic Structure of Singapore
13) Political Education VII: Legal Perspectives of Politics in Singapore
14) Electoral Campaigning I : Pre-Election Preparations
15) Electoral Campaigning II : Overview of Campaigning (include logistics aspects)
16) Electoral Campaigning III: Election Agents, Polling Agents & Counting Agents
17) Electoral Campaigning IV : Candidates & Election Strategies
18) Electoral Campaigning V : Post Election Management

The above are the basic skeletons of what I intended to do. They are not fixed yet and subject to changes. Most probably Guest speakers or trainers will be invited to conduct these sessions which will be in a form of interactive learning and experience sharing.

Goh Meng Seng

GST Hike: We are Taxed for LIFE

After the budget was announced, I read the Chinese newspaper, Zaobao and I see what I expected: Front page flashed with reports on how good the budget is for the "poor".

The focal point is naturally of course on the amount of money poor people will get from the government OVER A PERIOD OF 5 YEARS. Nothing was mentioned about the "NEW POOR", neither was there a comparison made about pre-GST hike vs post-GST hike, how much each income group will be taxed or rather, how much more they will pay as taxes.

Instead, I have found an interesting post in Sammyboy forum on the net amount of taxes each income group will pay pre as well as post GST hike, accompanied by the reduced in income tax rate. No prize for guessing who will pay more after the increase in GST accompanied by the reduction in income tax. As long as your percentage of income are spent in local economy is HIGH, you will be affected more by the GST hike. On the other hand, as long as you did not reach the income bracket that allows you to enjoy the tax cut, you will not enjoy a bit on the benefits of income tax cut. The worst case is that you cannot enjoy the income tax cut but most of your income are spent in local economy, you will find that the amount of taxes you pay will increase tremendously in percentage terms. This normally happens to the middle class income earners and it means a bigger middle class squeeze.

While the really poor will get some sweets from the government and the rich and wealthy corporates enjoys income tax cuts, who will pay for the goodies given to the poor and the "savings" that is given to the rich and corporates? Someone will have to pay for this, surely! Of course, it will be the New Poor, middle class Singaporeans.

When I take a closer look at the so call "goodies" handled out by the government, it seems that they have tried very hard to make it look "impressive". $1000 over 5 years means only $200 per year. And most of these goodies go into CPF.

Now the problem is this, if the money is put into CPF, it is difficult for you to enjoy real benefits in terms on the freedom of usage of these monies. Furthermore, nobody really knows (hey, even PAP ministers don't even know or plan for GST hikes, how could we know? ;)) whether there will be more GST hikes in future or not. The longer the money is kept in CPF, the more likelihood that it will face higher GST in future when you take it out to spend them. This means that the purchasing power of the $100 given to you now may not worth $100 in future if GST continues to hike in future! Even when you are old and retired from working life, you cannot escape the claws of GST until the day you die! You thought that you could forget about paying income tax to the government when you are unemployed or retired? Nope, that will not be the case. Even when you are dead, your family will have to pay GST for your coffin as well as your funeral!

The sad fact is that once you are born in Singapore and remains in Singapore, from the very first day of your birth, you are taxed until you die, through GST. When your parents buys diapers for you, they will be taxed. When they buy milk powder for you, they are taxed. So, how do that add up to the little goodies that the government are giving to you for ONLY THE NEXT FIVE YEARS while you will have to continue to pay the 7% GST for the rest of your life?

This is what policy packaging is all about. In order to divert the attention of the true bitterness of the GST hike, they will try to make stories out of the goodies they are giving out now and hope that you will forget the blunt truth that you will be taxed a higher GST for the rest of your life. Let's concentrate on what you are going to get in the short term first, never mind the long term pain that you will be facing in future.

If Singaporeans cannot see through such smoke screen of goodies to get the single most important message that GST is about Life Long taxation regardless of whether you are alive, dead, rich or poor, then the middle class will face a bigger squeeze ultimately.

Goh Meng Seng

Second Dawn of Post-LKY Era

One may wonder why I term this as "Second" dawn of Post-LKY Era if he or she has not gone through the exciting period of late 1980s and early 1990s.

When Mr. Goh Chok Tong took over the PM post from Mr. Lee Kuan Yew back in 1989, there is an "underground current" of excitement that things would be very different. This is especially so within the circle of professionals and intellects. They have become more vocal and assertive, though in a very cautious way. This is especially so when Mr. Goh has promised a more open society and different style of governance from his predecessor.

What is so significant about Post-LKY era in the very first place? Mr. Lee has summed it up quite effectively himself that if nobody fear him, his existence would be meaningless. He is an icon of FEAR as well as Respect. During his iron fist rule of Singapore, Singapore has achieved good economic growth but in expense of a more balanced development in the political system. This is the social contract that our forefathers has signed with the ruling party PAP led by Mr. lee Kuan Yew. Civil liberty was curbed and the brutal usage of the fearful Internal Security Act to detain political opponents was tolerated by Singaporeans in view of good economic progress for everyone. The early 1980s' economic slow down/downturn and the closure of Nantah University has created a subtle popular awakening to the reality that PAP's leadership is not perfect. There was a rise in demand by the voters in wanting to have an alternative voice in parliament. This is translated into rising votes for opposition parties and eventually, Mr. JBJ's win in Anson by-elections.

PAP's use of ISD against the poly student social activists in 1988 which it eventually termed as "Marxist Plot", has created a quiet backlash within the Catholic community. I believe that PAP finally realized the great potential political cost of its iron fist rule when it experienced shocking reduced support in 1988 as well as 1991 General Elections. This is the last major use of ISD against political opponents apart from anti-terrorism detention.

When Mr. Goh CT took over as Prime Minister, many thought that the eagle iron fist rule of LKY era has met its final end. There was a sudden boom in social-political activity. Some of the intellects and professionals have become cautiously more vocal and some, even stepped forward to create NGOs like Socratic Circle, The Round Table, Think Center etc. The National Solidarity Party slate of candidates in 1991 was quite impressive, filled with people of good paper qualifications.

But the Catherine Lim's saga was the turning point. The circle of intellects and professionals finally realized that the promised land of Open Society is not that open after all. Some of those intellects or professionals who dared to heed Mr. Goh CT's advice (to Catherine Lim) to step into the partisan political front have bruised noses all over. i.e. Prime examples are Dr. Chee Soon Chuan and Mr. Tang Liang Hong. Socratic Circle and Round Table finally wound up. Some of the members of these NGOs have been co-opted by PAP in the end. I guess the intellects and professionals are totally disappointed with the political climate and believe that PAP is not that open yet for fair political competition as well as alternative intellectual debates and discourse. The expectation of a more open society with a more open political climate in the perceived of post-LKY era has fast become a disillusion to many. This is the end of the disillusioned First dawn of post-LKY era.

However, in early 2000, a small group of people which included James Gomez, the founder of Think Center, quit Think Center to step into the political front. The crisis that WP and all other opposition parties faced in GE 2001 in terms of possible end of active political contests in view of the lack of new faces has led to some intellects to join the opposition camp, namely the Workers' Party. This is a fresh air of renewal for the opposition as a whole.

But I hope that this renewal process will not end here. The REAL post-LKY era will only come with the end of Mr. Lee KY's active political participation. Mr. Lee Kuan Yew will have at most 5 years to go in active political participation, despite his willingness to stand again in the next General Elections. He may have a strong mental will to carry on his political career indefinitely but he is only human. Whether his physical health at the high age of 80 plus would allow him to fight on is really a big question mark.

Frankly speaking, there are challenges and opportunities on both sides, the opposition as well as PAP. The big challenge for PAP to function effectively as a political party and ruling party in post-LKY era will be critical. I have doubts that the present political system could function well in post-LKY era. For a small nation like ours, it is important for us to make sure our political system is sustainable in the long run. The NKF saga is a good example of how the whole system could collapse if it is solely dependent on a few strong individuals with a lack of internal as well as external checks and balances. The NKF saga also demonstrated that the idea of cultivating honest leadership by means of high salary has its potential pitfalls. If future leaders of PAP in the post-LKY era are corrupt, how could the present political system survive? This could only be achieved politically with a balance of power within the parliamentary system.

Many political observers have this quiet expectation of a break up of PAP in post-LKY era. And they actually hope that by a split in PAP, it could create real balancing forces in the political system. I am pessimistic about such hope. It may turn out to be another disillusion.

What we lack is a pool of political talents for the opposition which ideally should act as a check to the ruling party and if it is needed, took over power from the ruling party. This is the one of the biggest challenge for opposition parties. It seems that there is no systematic way of cultivation and grooming for the future political leaders within the opposition party framework.

Many have the wrong concept that what we need are only people with good paper qualifications. The NSP model has proven that even with a pool of candidates of high paper qualifications, it is not a guarantee to electoral success! A life long learning mindset must be cultivated among these potential political talents. Even if you are a professor, a doctor or a lawyer, you will need to learn or re-learn what politics is all about before you could effectively play the role of a successful politician!

I have met quite a few individuals with good paper qualifications to express their willingness to stand as a candidate in the last General Elections. But they are not willing to commit time or effort on the ground at all. They thought that their "bargaining power" is that they have a good paper qualification or have a very successful career. I appreciate their willingness to take the risk and step forward but sorry to say that it would be totally naive to believe that politics is merely about paper qualifications. There are a lot of things to learn and equip oneself in preparation for a successful election campaign. The voters of today are more sophisticated and they are more demanding.

To send people with good paper qualifications/intellects or even professionals to stand as a candidate without any cultivation of political experiences is just like sending a new fresh recruits to war without teaching them how to shoot their rifles effectively! Most politicians or "politician wannabe" have egos, this is especially so for those intellects and professionals. Sometimes, this will become their greatest enemy as their ego prevent them from learning the necessary skills that will lead them to victory.

I expect to see a lot more of these intellects and professionals wanting to participate in the next coming elections when the second dawn of post-LKY era is more eminent. However, my worry is that these potential future leaders of Singapore politics may have the wrong perception of what it takes to be an effective politician. I have met some people of good potential but they even state categorically that they will not "show their cards" too early and they thought that is being politically wise!

On the other hand, my worry is that opposition parties are not prepared to meet the challenges of the post-LKY era. As far as I can see, there is no systematic mechanism in grooming and cultivation. There must be a good internal program in the party so to provide a systematic approach to educate its members on all necessary political skills and knowledge.

Opposition parties have always suffered the lack of good political talents in their renewal process. So far, opposition politics is mostly individual-driven rather than system-driven. The situation is worsen by the lack of strong structure within the parties to allow an effective grooming of new future political stars. Political education is important in this aspect.

The last concern I have for Singapore is that with many of the intellects and professionals working overseas, there will be less desires of this circle of people to participate in Singapore politics. This will spell trouble for Singapore in the long run.

Goh Meng Seng

PAP's Internet Offensive

Saturday February 3, 1:09 PM
S'pore's PAP rebuts online critics anonymously--daily


SINGAPORE, Feb 3 (Reuters) - Members of Singapore's long-ruling People's Action Party (PAP) are posting anonymous messages in Internet forums and blogs to rebut online criticism of the party, a leading daily reported on Saturday.
The postings were an initiative driven by two sub-committees under the PAP's "new media" committee chaired by Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen, the pro-government Straits Times said, citing unnamed sources.

A government spokeswoman contacted on Saturday declined to comment.

The two sub-committees, made up of politicians and some technology-savvy party activists, were formed after the May 2006 general election, the Straits Times said. The PAP's share of the vote slid to 66.6 percent last year, from 75.3 percent at the previous election in 2001.

The panels had been set up to express the PAP's views online where there were few pro-establishment voices, the newspaper said, quoting a member of parliament who heads one sub-committee.

"The identity is not important. It is the message that is important," Baey Yam Keng was quoted as saying.

The Straits Times quoted Baey as saying that the messages were only effective if they were not "too obvious" lest they resemble "propaganda".

A PAP activist involved in posting the anonymous messages was quoted as saying that he tracked popular blogs and forums to "see if there is anything we can clarify" on controversial issues such as the impending hike in the goods and services tax.

The PAP, which has ruled Singapore since independence in 1965, has been criticised by human rights groups such as Amnesty International in the past for its curbs on freedom of expression.

Party leaders say tight regulation of public debate and the media in the city-state is necessary to maintain law and order.

The above Reuters article is derived from Straits Time article below:

Feb 3, 2007
PAP moves to counter criticism of party, Govt in cyberspace

By Li Xueying

THE People's Action Party (PAP) is mounting a quiet counter-insurgency against its online critics.

It has members going into Internet forums and blogs to rebut anti-establishment views and putting up postings anonymously.

Sources told The Straits Times the initiative is driven by two sub-committees of the PAP's 'new media' committee chaired by Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen.

One sub-committee, co-headed by Minister of State (Education) Lui Tuck Yew and Hong Kah GRC MP Zaqy Mohamad, strategises the campaign.

The other is led by Tanjong Pagar GRC MP Baey Yam Keng and Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC MP Josephine Teo. Called the 'new media capabilities group', it executes the strategies.

Both were set up after last year's General Election. Aside from politicians, some 20 IT-savvy party activists are also involved.

When contacted, Mr Baey declined to give details of the group's activities, but he outlined the broad principles of the initiative.

It was necessary for the PAP to have a voice in cyberspace as there were few in the online community who were pro-establishment, he said.

As such, the committees aim to 'observe how new media is developing and see how we can use the new media as part of the overall media landscape', he added.

'How do we facilitate views that are pro-party and propagate them through the Internet?'

The approach reflects comments by Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui at the PAP's party conference in December. He called on younger activists to put up views 'to moderate the vitriol and balance the skewed comments' on the Internet.

But this can only work if activists are not 'too obvious' about it, Mr Baey said yesterday. Otherwise it comes across as 'propaganda'.

'The identity is not important. It is the message that is important,' he added.

One activist who is involved said that when posting comments on online forums and the feedback boxes of blogs, he does not identify himself as a PAP member.

He tracks popular blogs and forums to 'see if there is anything we can clarify' on hot-button topics such as the impending hike in the Goods and Services Tax.

But he added: 'We don't rebut everything. Sometimes, what is said is fair enough, and we send the feedback on to the committee.'

This latest initiative comes on top of a blog site with posts by 12 MPs born after Singapore's Independence in 1965.

It recognises that more younger Singaporeans are relying on the new media as a main source of information.

An Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) study conducted last year found that younger and better-educated Singaporeans relied on information from the Internet when shaping their voting choices at the last GE.

Among the opposition parties, members and supporters of the Workers' Party, in particular, post regularly on forums online.

But IPS senior research fellow Tan Tarn How wonders about the effectiveness of the PAP's campaign.

He said Internet users who post on forums such as Sammyboy tend not to be interested in 'intellectual debate' and so will not be persuaded by PAP activists anyway.

As for more serious-minded bloggers, he said the views that the activists may put out are already available in the mainstream media.

xueying@sph.com.sg

You may want to read Mr. Wang Says So and Xeno Boy articles on this topic. There is also a good analysis on why PAP "leaks" the "secret" operations here.

I share similar sentiments with Mr. Wang on this particular report. I am very surprised that the ST article was allowed to published.

First of all, to reveal such "secret strategy" is disastrous to PAP's internet image! Hey, c'mon, as the largest and powerful ruling party that has dominated Singapore's political scene, its members do not dare to identify themselves as PAP members when communicating with other Singaporeans on the internet platform? Are they ashame or too afraid to be identified with PAP or what?

But on second thought, I think PAP has found out that their "secret covert operations" may be too slow and ineffective in covering the whole internet sphere, thus, to "leak" this information in a hopeful bid to create fear in bloggers and internet writers.

Personally, I am proud of my past association with WP even when it was just a political party on the development path. What are the PAP members afraid of by openly declaring their association with PAP? What's the matter with them? Aren't they proud of their own party which has contributed much to Singapore's progress for the last 5 decades?

As all of you could observe from the many "anonymous" comments recorded here on my blog for the past few months, one would now really put serious doubts on whether they are really "PAP's internet fighters"! ;) How many of these comments come from them, I really wonder!

I have hoped that one day, this PAP's secret internet offensive will be revealed to the public and thus, insisted to keep the comment column open to anonymous posters. Interesting enough, after I declare my intention of capturing all those possible agents' vicious attacks on me so that the whole world will know about it, there is a dramatic decrease in such anonymous comments!

If you read those comments in my blog, you will know why PAP wanted their internet fighters to stay anonymous. Many of the remarks are even defamatory in nature!

As a matter of fact, I have long suspected that PAP has started to carry out its "internet management" plan as far back as July 2006 when I had a meeting with a few WP members and associates. The successful application of internet by WP back in GE 2006 as well as the active engagement of WP members 2 years prior to GE 2006 has made PAP rethink about the possible impact of the new media. Prior to GE 2006, PAP has taken the view that the new media, internet, will have little impact on the political front even though that it has been dominated by anti-PAP sentiments for a almost a decade. But apparently GE 2006 has changed their mind.

The sudden increase of aggressive comments posted on my blog as well as forums right after GE 2006 is an interesting indicator of how PAP's internet fighters work. They may be very clumsy but they may be effective in a sense that I might have possibly become one of their trophy!

Well, life still goes on in the internet sphere with or without PAP internet fighters. But I guess now most people will be more skeptical when they see "Pro-PAP" or "Anti-Opposition" postings on the net... the question will always be on our mind "Hey, is this from the PAP internet fighters?" ;)

Goh Meng Seng

NSP Departure from SDA-- Study the Press reports

I would highly recommend a political commentary provided by Burning Republic State although I disagree with the author's point of view that SDA will face problem after NSP departure. Although this blog has only a few articles, but it has provided very insightful articles right from May 2006.

The following is the full press release by NSP dated 18 Jan at its website:

Press Release - Re-positioning of the NSP
Thu, Jan 18, 2007
A vote was conducted on the 18th January 2007 at the National Solidarity Party (NSP) party office to appraise the inclination of the party insofar as our continual membership in the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) is concerned.

This voting exercise constituted an important part of the continuous half-yearly internal periodic review of our party. The review process serves to improve our operational performance, strengthen the collective party resolve on crucial issues, and to focus the party on achieving its common goals.

After an open-minded and objective process, the majority had opted for the position of an amicable parting from the SDA.

The party took the view that the autonomy will harmonise our party’s aspiration to grow with our quest to explore new possibilities through wider latitude to manoeuvre, re-engineer, and rebuild the NSP.

The respect for collectiveness within a big grouping like the SDA which comprises members with different priorities can produce complexities in coordination, leading to less than optimal operational efficiency. We hence seek to re-prioritise our position, from one of integral teamwork by virtue of the status of component member of SDA, to one of external strategic partnership with the SDA by collaborating on future activities.

Contrary to the popular misguided speculation on Mr Chiam’s poor leadership and lethargy in the development of the Opposition, we would like to emphasise that the tireless statesman has performed a commendable feat of cementing the alliance over the years into a respectable political force which saw it underwent 2 successive General Elections with ever improving percentage of public support.

Mr Chiam is also widely acknowledged as one of the most successful Opposition figures in Singapore, deserving inarguably a place in the history of our nation. The public accolades heaped upon Mr Chiam are a testimonial to his merited symbol as an exemplary beacon for the institution of Democracy in Singapore.

The NSP has the utmost respect for the Chairman of SDA.

Moving forward, the NSP will strive to contribute significantly to the overall objective of the Opposition to contest in every electoral ward, so as to offer voters credible alternatives to the incumbent PAP.

We welcome the inclusion of anyone with moral standing and sincere passion for advancing the social, economic, and political demands of a maturing nation.

Despite the cordial parting, the NSP is confident of future joint engagements with both SDA and Mr Chiam. We will continue to strengthen the bedrock of mutual trust and understanding between the Opposition parties so as to build a true society for all.


Central Executive Council
National Solidarity Party

The press release is well written in such that it gives the reason on why it leaves SDA, clear the speculation of "unhappiness" of Mr. Chiam's leadership and stated its commitment to grow and provide more choices to Singaporeans.

The most positive point in NSP's press release is its commitment of working towards the "overall opposition objective" to contest in all electoral wards in future elections so to provide credible choice to incumbent PAP.


The following is a report from Straits Time:

Jan 19, 2007
NSP leaves Chiam's 4-party alliance

A LEADING opposition party in the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) headed by Mr Chiam See Tong is quitting the group.

The National Solidarity Party (NSP) is leaving the four-party grouping because it wants 'more space to develop', said its president Sebastian Teo.

He insisted it was not Mr Chiam's leadership that drove the party away.

'The point is that we have to stand on our own feet,'' Mr Teo told reporters after a three-hour meeting with 11 of his party leaders.

In a statement released after the meeting, the party said the majority had voted for an 'amicable parting' from the six-year-old alliance, which was formed in 2001 for opposition parties to contest the general election as a united force.

Mr Chiam, who is chairman of the SDA and MP for Potong Pasir, could not be reached for comment.

Besides the NSP, the SDA is made up of Mr Chiam's Singapore People's Party (SPP), Singapore Justice Party (SJP) and Singapore Malay National Organisation (PKMS). At the last General Election, the NSP, formed in 1987, fielded 12 out of the 20 SDA candidates.

Yesterday, the NSP statement also dismissed talk that its departure was prompted by Mr Chiam's poor leadership and 'lethargy in the development of the opposition'.

It was fulsome in its praise of Mr Chiam, calling him a tireless statesman who moulded the alliance into a respectable political force, and an exemplary beacon for the institution of democracy in Singapore.

'The NSP has the utmost respect for the chairman of SDA,' it added.

The statement also said that by being on its own, the party will have more room to 'manoeuvre, re-engineer and rebuild' for growth.

It said that it was less efficient to be in the alliance, noting that 'a big grouping like the SDA, which comprises members with different priorities, can produce complexities in coordination.''

However, it declared that it will continue to work with the SDA in future activities.

Talks of a split was discussed officially by SDA leaders on Tuesday.

Mr Sin Kek Tong, chairman of SPP, said leaders of all the four parties were present.

'We all tried to convince them (NSP) to stay on, but they were quite firm about parting ways,' he said.

'I believe it will be much harder for NSP to succeed on its own,'' he added, noting that it lacked a brand name or a recognisable leader.

But that had not deterred SPP member Elvin Ong from defecting to the NSP. Mr Ong contested in Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC in the May 6 General Election last year.

NSP is also not without its problems. One of its council members, Mr Martin Lee, quit late last year to join the Workers' Party.

NSP, in its statement, said it intends to contest in every electoral ward in future elections 'to offer voters credible alternatives to the incumbent PAP'.

When asked whether the party is concerned that it is now weaker without Mr Chiam, Mr Teo said: 'Are you saying you need an MP to produce another MP? The point is we have to stand on our own feet.''

sueann@sph.com.sg

kenkwek@sph.com.sg

Well, in my view, this is a fair report though at the last part of the report, it tries to suggest that there were "problems" of both SPP and NSP losing members. The only regret is that it omitted the positive point of NSP's direction. As a political observer, I will be very curious why NSP make such moves and there must something more to leaving SDA. Most probably it has planned something else for its future path. To leave an alliance like this is not a small matter for NSP. Thus from a professional journalist's point of view, one would be very interested in "what is NSP up to?" "What's its next moves?" etc.

The following is the report from Today:

Seeking 'room to manoeuvre', NSP leaves SDA
Loh Chee Kong and Derrick A Paulo
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

IT'S official: The National Solidarity Party (NSP) is leaving the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA).
.
During a three-hour meeting of the NSP's 12-member Central Executive Committee at its Jalan Besar headquarters last night, the majority voted for what it called an "amicable parting from the SDA".
.
In a statement issued after the meeting, the NSP said the voting exercise was part of its half-yearly internal review to "improve operational performance"— and rebutted the "popular misguided speculation" that the split was due to SDA founder Chiam See Tong's (picture) poor leadership.
.
Paying tribute to Mr Chiam as a "tireless statesman" who had cemented the Opposition alliance into a "respectable political force", the NSP said it had "the utmost respect" for him. It was also confident of a future "external strategic partnership" with the alliance and Mr Chiam.
.
As to why it left the alliance, the NSP — which has failed to win any seats in Parliament since it was formed in 1987 — said it felt that autonomy would allow it to explore new possibilities "through wider latitude to manoeuvre, reengineer and rebuild the NSP".
.
It added: "The respect for collectiveness within a big grouping like the SDA, which comprises members with different priorities, can produce complexities in coordination leading to less than optimal operational efficiency."
.
In response to the media's queries, NSP president Sebastian Teo said in "one or two years", they would be able to tell if this was the right decision or not.
.
But asked if losing Mr Chiam's popular clout would hurt the party's chances, Mr Teo retorted: "Do we need an MP to produce another MP?"
.
The SDA was founded in 2001 by Mr Chiam. In last May's General Election, the NSP fielded 12 out of the 20 candidates put up by the alliance.
.
But ripples of discontent surfaced soon after Polling Day, and talk of the NSP breaking away from the four-party alliance gathered momentum in the last few months following a revamp of the party's leadership.
.
The new leadership wants to build up its membership base so that it can field at least 20 candidates at the next General Election, due by 2011.
.
The split will have no legal bearing on Mr Chiam's Potong Pasir seat, which he won under the SDA banner.
Loh Chee Kong and Derrick A Paulo
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

The news report from Today is similarly fair in its initial part though it has added "unsubstantiated" claim of NSP being unhappy or existence of "discontent" of Mr. Chiam's leadership of SDA despite of the fact that NSP has rebutted such speculations.

Could you imagine reporters reporting on GST increase from PM Lee's speech stating that the GST increase is to "help" the poor but after stating this, write something contrary to PM Lee's stand? ;) This will never happen if reporters or editors are reporting on PAP's stand or statements but it just happens to Opposition! ;)


The report of Chiam's respond to NSP's departure in Today:

SDA much saddened by NSP's breakaway: Chiam
Loh Chee Kong
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

The National Solidarity Party's (NSP) decision on Thursday night to break away has "caused widespread sadness" in the five-year-old alliance, said Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) founder and chairman Chiam See Tong.
.
In a statement issued on Friday, he said SDA "has no major differences" with NSP and "wishes to continue to work closely" with it. As SDA was "built on a framework of democratic principles", Mr Chiam reiterated that it would not meddle in its component party's affairs, including any decision to leave.
.
The 71-year-old Potong Pasir MP also regretted that the decision came "at a time when SDA has gained public recognition and made substantial progress".
.
In response, NSP president Sebastian Teo, 57, told Today: "It was a difficult decision … Our first consideration was whether (the move) would jeopardise Mr Chiam's position personally. We also considered the feelings of the other component parties and whether there would be any side effects to them." He believes that leaving SDA will even improve mutual cooperation, with "more flexibility in working things out".
.
Said Mr Teo: "We are still on good terms. We are all working in the same direction. But sometimes we just have to take our own approach to develop."
.
NSP will unveil its latest plans after "settling down".
Loh Chee Kong
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

Now, in my opinion, this is the most factual, straight forward report of Mr. Chiam's response to NSP's departure. No more negative "speculations" or statements of contradictions put in the report.


The WORST report come from ZaoBao:

国民团结党脱离 民主联盟面临瓦解

国民团结党前天宣布脱离新加坡民主联盟，使这个依赖它提供资源，以它为支柱的反对党联盟面临瓦解的危机。

　　团结党是仅次于工人党的第二大反对党，其中央执行委员会是在星期四于党总部投票通过脱离民主联盟的决议。据知它星期二同民联其他三个成员党新加坡人民党、马来民族机构和新加坡正义党代表开会时，已表达了去意。

　　人民党、马来民族机构和正义党都是小政党，党员人数不多，向来都依赖最大成员团结党所提供的资源；团结党的离开，使只剩下三个小政党组成的民联受到致命的打击。

　　民联在2001年7月于团结党的积极推动下成立，而人民党秘书长詹时中在受邀出任民联主席时，即已获得保证，可横跨两个大选年（即2001年和去年），稳坐主席的位子，不会受到挑战。

　　然而这项保证已在去年五月大选后失效。之后便不时传出团结党无法说服詹时中改革民联，为它引进新血，使双方之间的裂痕加深的消息。

　　据知，国民团结党加入民主联盟，主要想借助波东巴西区议员詹时中作为反对党领袖的号召力，提高它在大选中的胜算。

然而，它在两次大选都无法取得显著的高得票率，只凭前秘书长谢镜丰在2001年大选中取得一个非选区议员议席。

　　团结党中委会在前天发出的文告中强调脱离民联是为了“自力更生及重建团结党”，并指出民联的四个成员党目标各有不同，协调起来非常复杂，降低了整体的效率。

詹时中“拖延改革”是主因？

　　文告虽然也赞扬詹时中的领导能力，否认团结党的出走同这位领导人有关，但有反对党人士透露，团结党决定脱离，詹时中“不断拖延改革，领导方向不明”是主因；另外，它也考虑到詹时中已经72岁，下次大选时将达到77岁高龄，不可能继续以他作为号召力。

针对团结党决定脱离民联，人民党主席沈克栋在受访时表示一点也不惊讶，但对多年战友决定分道扬镳，还是感到有些失望。　　

　　至于团结党表示即使离开了民联，依然会和它建立战略伙伴关系，沈克栋说：“话是这么说，但实际情况还不知道。大家分开后，不可能再回到从前的关系。他们（团结党）也算是处理得漂亮，算是好来好散。我和他们认识多年，已从政治伙伴变成朋友。但他们和詹时中的关系相信不是这样。”

　　沈克栋认为即使詹时中日后卸下民联主席的职位，人民党也不会舍弃民联，并表示会继续推举人选领导民联，在必要的时候和工人党合作，甚至把领导权让给它。　　

　　“以新加坡的政治情况来看，两三个反对党还可以生存，四五个就没必要了。工人党办得不错，我不介意和他们合作。但我讲可以，詹时中会说可以吗？” 　　

　　据知人民党这些年来也出现内部纠纷，沈克栋有意引进更多新血，却频频遭到党秘书长詹时中的拒绝。

　　最近因党选纠纷而闹上法庭的马来民族机构则表示无暇理会团结党脱离之事，其主席勃汉受访时说，他为团结党脱离民联感到惋惜。

　　他说，如果让他决定，马来民族机构将会继续留在民联，但基于党内领导层出现争议，他因此无法保证未来将发生什么事。

I have taken pain to post the original NSP's press release and most of the relevant newspaper reports on this whole issue to demonstrate one simple point, views could be "engineered" by newspaper reports.

This is especially so in the ZaoBao's report. Despite the fact that NSP has reiterated in its press release that its departure from SDA is NOT due to any unhappiness over Mr. Chiam's leadership, the ZaoBao's report still puts the whole report in a very negative angle of "opposition faces disintegration" and suggest NSP left because it is unhappy of Mr. Chiam in reforming SDA! Worst of all, it put up "undisclosed" source of information to suggest that this is the "truth"!

PAP has once said that newspaper is supposed to report facts and not go into "investigative journalism" but it seems that the whole report in ZaoBao is full of "suggestive" opinion based on "unknown" or "undisclosed" sources of information mixed with one single interview with Mr. Sin KT. It gives people the impression that what it stated initially from "undisclosed" source of information is true! I doubt they will dare to repeat such reporting technique on PAP's political news!

There is one important discrepancy between the English papers' reports and ZaoBao's report: i.e. The positive information of NSP's aim of continuing its effort to field as many candidates as possible in the next election so that Singaporeans would have a choice next time round. Besides, none of the English newspapers have suggested that SDA will face disintegration but ZaoBao put it as its headline!

Most important of all, by the look at the NSP's press release and Mr. Chiam's respond to NSP's departure, both have clearly indicated that it is indeed an amicable departure of NSP but ZaoBao seems to take the opportunity to paint a bad light on Mr. Chiam's leadership.

The overall impression created on opposition as a whole is disunity, facing great crisis and Mr. Chiam is adverse to reform. Is this the real impression that whole saga projected? ;)

Goh Meng Seng

ICT & Defence Budget

First of all, I must thank all of those who have come forward to shake my hands during the ICT period. I know some of you visited my blog quite often and I thank you for all your support.

Although it may just be a little handshake or just a short phrase of encouragement, but it means alot to us, people who are walking on the thin line on the political front. Your little gesture will leave a lasting impression and become a long lasting source of motivation for me to carry on my political work. Thank you.

Although this recent ICT I have is a short one (low key) which involves only range, but it has given me much food for thought. Shooting skill is the most basic skill of any soldier. Thus it is important for the army to provide adequate training to all its soldiers in shooting.

I must say I am impressed by the vast improvement in the accommodation that the Army has provided in the new training centre. The bunk is spacious and the bed is comfortable. In terms of infrastructure wise, the Army has come a long way in improving the basic necessities for NSmen who come back for training.

Unfortunately, while the Army spent money in improving such accommodation and buying high end world class weapons like the Leopard Tanks, it has neglected the most basic need for a soldier; the range that provide the ground to train soldiers with the basic skill of shooting.

Before the range, we are given the opportunity to go through a simulated range, IMT. This was widely publicised as a high tech approach to train shooting skill. However, to our dismay, the program that was provided by the IMT is outdated.

Our battalion was supposed to have range at one single location initially. But due to the breakdown of one part of the facility, half of the battalion has to be moved to somewhere else. This is definitely not good to keep the integrity of the whole battalion intact.

When the range started, there were problems with the facilities. Range has to be stopped intermittantly just to rectify the problems. I was told that similar problems occur in the other range as well! Time was wasted in waiting for such problems to be rectified.

After the range, during the post mortem for the ICT, we have raised the problems we faced during range and it seems that this is not a new problem at all. We were told that G6 Army has been informed of such problems before but apparently no improvement has been made. As for the program for the IMT, we were told that it will cost millions to change the program.

I was quite angry to receive such answers although I know it is not within the powers of the trainers to make amends to such situation. Huge amount of money is spent by Mindef to recall its NSmen back every year for training. Yet, Mindef does not feel that it is a waste of money if the facilities for training of critical skills like shooting is not maintained properly or up to date in order to achieve the necessary standards? I mean if you spend millions each year to get NSmen back for training but training objectives are compromised just because of ill maintained training facilities, isn't a waste of money and NSmen's precious time?

Defence Budget takes a huge pie off the annual government budget every year. It is the largest single item in the annual budget. While it is important for us to buy new high tech equipment, but I think training facilities for our NSmen is of equal importance as well.

Shooting is the most basic skills of a soldier and it should deserve a better maintained training facilities than what we have now. Imagine if we ever being called up for war, the very first thing that we do is to get our men equipped and zero their weapons. If our range is not well maintained, the readiness of our men will be greatly compromised. We could have all the most advanced equipment we could get in the world but if our soldiers cannot shoot straight, all will be lost!

Goh Meng Seng

"Breakway members?

Yes, this is about ST reporting again!

I quote the following from ST Insight published today:

Another issue to watch is the state of the opposition.

The Workers' Party marks its 50th anniversary this November. Says WP chairman Sylvia Lim: 'We are certainly celebrating, because now at least we see our party seems to be making some progress in terms of renewal and it's a momentum we want to keep up. We are proud we've reached this stage.'

But if the opposition movement is to grow, veteran opposition leader Chiam See Tong of the Singapore Democratic Alliance believes the various parties must cooperate and unite.

'Singaporeans have often complained that the opposition is not even able to keep its own house in order,' he says. 'So we must avoid the in-fighting that plagued us in the past because that will set us back another few years.'

Breakaway members from the WP may set up a new party. Mr Goh Meng Seng, who stood for the WP in Aljunied GRC at the 2006 polls, told Insight the name 'Democratic Labour Front' has been tossed about. The party, if formed, would be more liberal than the WP but less confrontational than the Singapore Democratic Party, he said.

The reporter, Peh, called me for a telephone interview three days ago. As usual, my first reaction is "What story are you going to write this time?" Sure enough, he says he is writing something about the upcoming events for the new year.

He asked a few questions:

1) Are you going to form a new party?
2) Will you consider to rejoin Workers' Party?
3) Has NSP President, Sebastine, asked you to join them?

Looking at the questions asked, one would not suspect that anything sinister would occur. I replied him accordingly:

1) Well, I have not decided yet but it is a possibility (what would the name of the new party be? Is it going to be "Democratic Labour Front"?) I will not reveal first but I have tossed with this name... (Is "Democratic Labour Front" be the best name for the new party?) Well, among those listed in the Sammyboy poll, yes but I have some other better names in mind but I am not going to tell you. (Have you consulted Mr. Low about forming the new party?) I think I should decide my own destiny (Will the creation of the new party create concerns among WP members?) I don't think they should be concerned at all because like what I have said, the pie is big enough for another new party and I am not going to poach from WP. Besides, when I resigned from WP, it is just an individual's decision. In fact, I believe that if the new party is formed, it should have common interests with WP and they will work together closely. (how would the new party positions itself?) If the new party is formed, it should be more liberal than WP but not as confrontational as SDP.

2)Well, it is very unlikely for me to rejoin WP but I will keep that option open. It depends on whether WP needs my service or not but I believe with its growth right now, they should not have problems in grooming more people.

3) I shall not comment on this as it involves a third party. You should ask Sebastian himself.

The above may not be an exact record of what transpired but they are what I have remembered.

Well, my point is this, I have indicated that there are common interests involved and WP should not view the creation of the new party (if it really happens) in a negative way. This is definitely not a "breakaway faction" or anything like that.

Thus, I am really amazed that the Insight report puts Mr. Chiam's comment along side with my interview, the possibility of forming a new party to create an impression that such act of creating a new party is "disunity". This is especially so when it uses the word "breakaway member" right after Mr. Chiam talks about the ills of "in fighting"! But the truth is, I have indicated that even if I am going to form a new party, it will most probably work hand in hand with WP as we share common interests!

I find it quite intriguing in such "misreporting"; not in terms of misquoting my words, but using parts of the interview in a way to misrepresent the whole gist of the interview...i.e. in effect, quote out of context!

What is more interesting is this; Mr. Chiam should not be concerned about people like me forming a new party because his view of opposition unity is that all opposition parties should unite. Besides he was talking about "in fighting" which is obviously not the case in my resignation. In fact, I think Mr. Chiam is more concerned about NSP leaving SDA than anything else.

This is a subtle way of creating certain impression by piecing up different interviews in a way to create an overall impression of "disunity" of opposition and to demonstrate that if I ever form a new party, it would be considered as "breakaway" factions of WP!

Admittedly, the reporters are becoming more sophisticated in the way of creating misleading impression. If the three paragraphs are read separately without using the word "breakaway member", then they sound perfectly alright. But by putting them together, then there is a subtle underlining message in between! They are saying subtly that although WP is making some progress, but it may face problems with "in fighting" and "breakaway member" like me trying to form a new party is an example of such "disunity". This is a gross misrepresentation of the truth! My resignation from WP is never an issue of "in fighting". Besides, I am definitely not a "breakaway member" that could break WP or create disunity among WP.

I could foresee that it will become more challenging now to deal with local reporters. ;)

Goh Meng Seng

Singaporeans First or PAP Government First?

Finally, after so much "shouting" and criticism (My first post on this topic is "A Singapore without Singaporeans") of PAP government's Foreign Workers' policy, PAP government has decided to do something about it.

However, when I read about what PAP government intended to do, my first reaction is "Again?"! PAP government is world first in policy packaging as well as calculative. A Casino Resort that comes with great potential social ills is packaged as an Integrated Resort full of economic benefits and jobs. Well, I will revisit the Casino issue in my next post.

PAP government says that in order to make Singaporeans feel more privileged, PAP government will INCREASE fees paid (cutting subsidies and incentives) by Permanent Residents and Foreigners, instead of lowering fees for Singaporeans! Well, this is actually a "good policy", one stone kill two birds! It will save money for the PAP government and at the same time make Singaporeans "feel good" that the PRs and foreigners are paying more than them!

My question is this, if it is really Singaporeans First, then it must be a policy that BENEFITS Singaporeans in terms of lower ABSOLUTE payment but no, to the PAP government, it is only about saving money for the government coffers! If it is really Singaporeans First policy, all the savings from such cut of subsidies and incentives to PRs and foreigners should be transferred as benefits to Singaporeans!

Thus, in my view, these cuts in subsidies and incentives to PRs and foreigners, are PAP Government First policy, not Singaporeans First policies as the only beneficiary of these policies is the PAP government, not Singaporeans.

Goh Meng Seng

The Online Citizen - Moderation vs Freedom

A new initiative is being taken up by some political concerned citizens in Singapore to start a new website accompanied by a forum. This website, The Online Citizen, has been planned with the idea of putting up an alternative credible information/ discussion website for Singaporeans who are politically concerned and aware. The discussion forum is moderated to weed out those flamers (like those you see in my blog's comment section on every posting) and irresponsible posters. However, I was told that rational, sensible and critical comments will still be allowed. There is a fine thin but distinctive line between flaming and critical comments.

Yes, most of us do not like to be moderated but when you read those comments by my detractors in my blog, you will have a good idea why it is a necessity to exercise moderation in order to prevent these agents from trying to discredit these internet forums or websites by putting up flames and graffiti. This seems to be the new strategy of "managing" the internet nowadays!

Personally, I don't really mind these agents from such malicious act as I want the whole world to know that's how politics are being carried out in Singapore. Besides, they could only put up such nonsensical comments in the comment section which did not do much harm to my blog. Besides, we must learn the most important thing about freedom of speech or anything.... it will always come with a little "price" that there will be a minority who will try to put dirt on such freedom.

But for a forum like The Online Citizen, these agents/ detractors/ "internet sub-managers" could just hijack the whole forum and try very hard to discredit the forum altogether. Their aim is, of course, to deprive Singaporean netters a good place to have healthy discussions and discourses.

All the best to The Online Citizen and I hope there will more of such initiatives to come from citizens of Singapore. We could only wear these "internet managers" down by having more and more independent discussion forums.

Goh Meng Seng

Shin Corp's bad news

The following is taken from Today newspaper, published on 14 Dec 2006 edition:

Shin Corp TV unit loses appeal ITV, a Thai television network indirectly controlled by Temasek Holdings, was ordered yesterday to pay unspecified fines and fees to the Thai government.

The company will negotiate the exact amount of the payment with the government after the Supreme Administrative Court yesterday upheld a ruling that revoked ITV’s right to reduced concession fees, Judge Chanchai Sawangsagdi said.

The Thai government is seeking as much as 94 billion baht ($4.2 billion) in fees and fines. The government raised its proposed fine and retroactive fees from 76 billion baht calculated in June by adding interest, Judge Chanchai said.

The ruling brings the focus back to Temasek whose stake in Thailand, where its purchase of a stake in ITV’s parent Shin Corp, is under investigation. In May, the administrative Court nullified the 2004 arbitration ruling that had reduced ITV’s annual licence fees to 230 million baht from at least 1 billion baht, or 44 per cent of its revenue as stipulated in its original contract with the government.

The arbitration ruling also had allowed ITV to increase entertainment programmes to 50 per cent of air time from 30 per cent and to air such programmes during prime time. ITV, which has about 1.2 billion baht of cash, may be forced into bankruptcy should the company be required to pay the full amount of the claim. ITV officials weren’t available for comment, its spokesperson said.

ITV shares plunged 25 per cent to 2.1 baht in Bangkok yesterday, their biggest drop since May 9 and the lowest since they started trading on the Stock Exchange of Thailand in March 2002. The shares have slumped 78 per cent since May 9, when
a court revoked ITV’s right to discounts on its concession fees. “We have no comment on this matter,” Temasek spokeswoman Serena Khoo said yesterday. Bangkok-based ITV has a 30-year concession to operate the only network out of the six in Thailand that is not owned by the government or the military.

The broadcaster became profitable for the first time in 2004 after four years of losses, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. ITV posted record profit of 679.1 million baht in 2005. The company had cash and cash equivalents of 1.2 billion
baht as of Sept 30, according to its most recent financial statement.

Temasek led a group of investors that bought more than 96 per cent of Shin Corp, ITV’s parent, between January and March from investors including the family of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
— AGENCIES

The following from Chinese Zaobao news 15 Dec 2006:

达信家族卖给淡马锡控股
泰国私营电视台 限45天内付43亿罚款

（曼谷综合电）泰国政府昨日下令，按照法庭前日裁决，泰国唯一私营的iTV电视台必须支付比原来高出许多的执照费，另加几十倍的罚款，共须缴付1000亿泰铢（约43亿7117万新元）。这意味，和前首相达信有关联的iTV可能面临破产。
　　iTV原是泰国电信巨擘臣那越集团的子公司，达信家族今年初把臣那越股权卖给新加坡淡马锡控股之后，iTV已归淡马锡控股控制。

　　不过，据路透社报道，iTV也有可能得到军人政变领袖救助而获得新生。

　　泰国军事政变的领袖之一，空军总司令差立上将前日向记者说，iTV应当成为独立广播电台，而不应像达信时代那样被利用来宣传政策。差立说：“我个人希望iTV能转变成为像英国广播电台（BBC）那样的最佳新闻机构，而不隶属任何集团或家族。”　

　　由于最高行政法院昨前维持中央行政法庭的原判，iTV必须遵守和首相公署签署的原来合约，每年缴付10亿泰铢（4372万新元）执照费，并且把新闻节目和娱乐节目的比例，从一度特准的50:50，调回到70:30。

　　在2004年，iTV通过仲裁方式，获准支付每年仅2亿3000万泰铢（1005万新元）的执照费，并获准把能吸引更多广告费的娱乐节目的比例提高到50％。

　　首相公署常任秘书朱拉育在记者会上说：“iTV须在45天内，支付22.1亿泰铢的执照费，另支付977.6亿泰铢罚款。若它在45天内付不出，政府将给予第二个宽限期。但再付不出，就表示iTV违约。”

iTV可能宣告破产

　　iTV的资产总值只有37亿泰铢，市场预料它会破宣告破产。此外，若iTV违约，首相公署就可撤回执照，iTV就须停止营业了。

　　智库泰国发展研究所的研究员颂吉说，淡马锡可能会把iTV出售给另一家公司或泰国政府，不过，要寻找投资者将是难事，因执照费太高，电视台很难赚钱。
iTV股价前日在法庭宣判后跌了25％，昨日继续下跌30％，闭市价只有1.47泰铢。

But something strange happens this morning. I was told that on the 10am news on the Chinese radio, the fine imposed on iTV was reported but this piece of news was withdrawn from the subsequent 11am and 12pm radio news!

It is understandable for the Chinese news media to be slightly slow in reporting on international news as reported in English international wired news services as translation needs time. However to withdraw news within an hour from the radio media is just too obvious that either self censorship is in place or that there are interference from "up there"!

Furthermore, if we compare the news written in Today and Zaobao, we will find that Zaobao has actually tried very hard to "soften" the news by giving a possible "hope" that the Thai military will intervene and "save" iTV from bankruptcy! It seems that Zaoboa has a subtle message that it is "political" reason that iTV landed itself in such situation by reporting the military strongman's comment that iTV should not be used as a political tool for anybody. In fact, if we look at the way Zaobao reported the news, it is obvious that it is trying to relate the problem of iTV with Thaksin. Right from the title itself and throughout the news report, it is always the fault of being related to Thaksin!

But what intrigues me was that the court case against iTV was actually started during Thaksin's administration! The first ruling was given in May where the court action was taken way before that, by the Prime Minister Office (while Thaksin was still in power) back then! This is one puzzle that was never touched on in local news report.

There is of course, no mention of "accountability" here. Compare these local news report to Asia Times commentary, I think local news media really has a long way to go!

Goh Meng Seng

Shooting Stars?

I was talking to someone and he mentioned that I am just like a "shooting star". I gave him a big smile and say that he will be very disappointed if he is going to spend time watching the sky for this little shooting star!

On second thought, I think his view is very common among many Singaporeans who are more aware of Singapore's politics. There are quite a number of "shooting stars" in opposition politics. Even PAP has quite a number of "shooting stars", especially those "one term MP". However, there are some misconceptions here. Some veteran politicians might have chosen to work on the background after their first appearance as a candidate for a particular political party. In fact I have known quite a number of past WP candidates who are still with WP after they retire from frontline politics. Some of the them are still active in one way or another.

Personally, I have unfinished business in the political process. I may or may not participate in the next GE as a candidate but rest assure that I would definitely be working on the background to support and help out anyone who needed help in the political process.

Many options are opened now for me and I am keeping them open for the moment. I was contemplating of writting a book on Election Campaigning in Singapore so that I could share whatever experience I have garnered in GE 2006 with other potential contenders in future or even present alternative parties' members. Election Campaigning needs to be planned quite a few years in advance, right from the strategic considerations to how to conduct systematic political activism on the ground, designing the stage, preparing the venue for press conferences/rallies, conducting various seminars and training for potential candidates, logistics and manpower planning, roles of election and counting agents etc etc. It would be a good book for anyone who wants to contest in an election, especially those who plans to stand as an independent candidate.

The only problem is that I do not have the necessary skills and experience in writing a book! Besides, such technical book on political participation may not sell well in Singapore! ;)

The next best thing I could do is to help other political parties in their preparation for the next GE.

Whatever my plans will be for the coming years, I am very sure that I will still be politically active in one way or another. Who knows, I may start my very own NGO/ think tank or political party one day! ;)

Goh Meng Seng

Where to buy Days of Being Wild

After much long wait, finally we have a list of book stores that carries the book:


Kinokuniya
• Books Actually at Telok Ayer Street

• Borders Books at Wheelock Place

• Kinokuniya at Liang Court and Ngee Ann City

• Page One at Vivo City

• Select Books at Tanglin Shopping Centre


online purchase & enquiries:
http://www.ethosbooks.com.sg/order_Wild/order-invite.html.

The price of the book is S$22 before GST.

Goh Meng Seng

Days of Being Wild

Finally the first book on General Elections in Singapore is out! This is a coffee table book which includes photographs taken during the May GE in 2006. It is written from a layman's points of view about how opposition parties, particularly Workers' Party, fight their electoral battles. Many interviews and quotations were taken from supporters, WP volunteers as well as WP candidates on how they feel about GE 2006.

The author, Dana Lam, is a fantastic writer. Once I got hold of this book, I could not put it down as the writer has managed to write in a way that will make you want to finish it in one go. There are as much information about Singapore elections in the past as well as how WP conducted its GE 2006.

The only disappointment, to me personally, is that it has too few photographs printed in it. I have submitted significant number of photographs to the publisher but I think it is due to huge cost of printing full colour photos that limited the inclusion of these photographs in the final print.

The major problem now is that you could not really get the book from any major bookstores at this moment. I don't really know the reason but I think for "politically sensitive" book like this one (well, LKY memoirs do not have such problems!), it may or may not appear on the shelves of the major bookstores in Singapore at the end of the day!

I hope WP will start selling this great book at their weekly open house (every Monday except public holidays) or by any other means if the major bookstores refuse to put this book on their shelves.

This book will add an important chapter in our historical records where history is told from the layman's perspective. It would be a great shame to Singapore if this book is "technically banned" in Singapore due to reservations from bookstores in Singapore. This is definitely not a good sign of "Open Singapore".

Goh Meng Seng

Shin Corp a "Good Buy"?

Quite a number of articles have been written on the Shin Corp deal and on the amount of money that Temasek Holdings has lost "on paper". Singapore Elections and Yawning Bread have written on the deal as early as March 2006.

However, one fundamental question still remains: was Shin Corp really a "good buy" in the very first place? Readers may want to understand Shin Corp better by visiting its website on the subsidiaries that it holds.

According to the press release issued by Temasek Holdings on 23 Jan 2006, Temasek Holdings has paid THB 49.25 for each share of Shin Corp. If we take a look at the historical data of Shin Corp's price, right from 11 Jan 2002 till now, this price tag of THB 49.25 is the highest price ever paid for one Shin Corp's share.

Purely from the commercial point of view, Shin Corp is a good company to buy in to, though the price is just too steep.

Shin Corp is a profitable company which owns strategic assets that matters to a Nation. It is similar to Singtel which holds strategic communication assets. As it weilds control on strategic assets and thus, monopoly power over the Thai market, the potential revenue and profit for this company would have been great.

However, isn't this deal "too good to be true"?

In Singapore's context, when we first "privatised" Singtel, Singapore Government only offered 25% of Singtel shares to the public. There are certain restrictions on foreign ownership on Singtel shares as well. Thus, it is intriguing to me why would Temasek Holdings consider that it is "politically safe" to buy out Shin Corp?

Well, of course there is a certain assurance in the deal when the seller was related to the country's Prime Minister himself. However, with the development in Thai politics at that moment, it would make anyone "nervous" about getting involved with Thaksin family.

Thaksin was heavily bombarded by his opponents prior to the April elections on corruptions charges and abuse of power to benefit his family related businesses. But this is not the most important root of trouble for Thaksin.

In Thailand's history, the Thai King is a well respected political figure, though constituitionally, he holds no "parliamentary power". But it is not difficult to understand from the past political history of Thailand, military coups are common and most of them needed the blessings of the Thai King before it could be considered as "successful".

The trouble of Thaksin is not about his political opponents' attacks on him but rather his rough edges with the Thai King. As early as at the end of 2001, there was visible unhappiness of the Thai King of the way Thaksin handled the Thai economics and politics. Subsequently, the Thai King has specifically lectured Thaksin over his intolerance of criticisms from his political opponents as well as the free press in Thailand.

These are the significant signs of the instability of Thaksin adminsteration. When the Prime Minister of Thailand no longer has the endorsement from the Thai King, it will be a matter of time he would be forced to resign. Thaksin is not the first one to face such fate and he will not be the last one also. This is the unique political culture of Thailand which Temasek Holdings may lack the understanding.

Thus, for any politically savvy investors, when Thaksin family put Shin Corp up for sale, it was an obvious move of "cashing out". It is just a deal "too good to be true".

What is disturbing to me is that if one realises that Thaksin family was cashing out, in a hurry, why would one agree to pay the highest price ever for Shin Corp's share? Especially so when the total amount of the deal is so enormous that it would not be easy for Thaksin family to find any buyer with so much cash in such a short notice. Thus, from the commercial perspective, this should be the buyers' market and obviously, it makes no sense for the buyer to pay too high a price for such a deal which involves great political risks.

No doubt that if Thaksin managed to overcome his political barriers, Shin Corp may prove to be a very good buy. His adminstration would not question the legitimacy of Temasek Holding's total control of Shin Corp. Shin Corp would continue to enjoy concessions from the Thaksin adminstration.... etc. But in view of his political standing at that point in time, developed right from 2002 to end of 2005, one would realise that his adminstration was standing on thin ice.

In short, this is a "risky buy" instead of a "good buy". If Temasek Holdings has done its homework, it would come to the same conclusion as well. Not that it is going to be really a "bad buy" (well, basically nobody has 100% hindsight) from the commercial perspective, but for a government investment arm, is it wise to take such high risks at all?

Singapore PAP government has always put emphasis on "political stability" so to attract foreign investment. It is so obsesses with the term "political stability" so much so that it would always "warn" voters that if voters voted in more opposition memebrs into parliament, it will send "the wrong signals" to foreign investors and they would not invest in us. But it makes us wonder why its investment arms like Temasek Holdings would do exactly the opposite of what it preaches, investing in a country that is a potential political hotspot like Thailand? Well, for private companies, they are accountable for their risky choices but in government investment arms, who will be accountable for such risky decisions?

Goh Meng Seng

News Flash: Salim's Press release

Salim has issued a press statement to Straits Time with regards to the inaccurate report about him buying the Cheng Tng for Dr. Chee and his comrades during the IMF protest:

From Salim's blog:

PRESS STATEMENT: Clarification to The Sunday Times Report

Hi all, I've already issued a press statement to the local media, specifically to the Sunday Times. Here's the statement:

Dear Editor,

I refer to your newspaper report, "What's the story?", dated 12 November 2006.

The article stated that," But Mr Abdul Salim, a WP candidate in Ang Mo kio GRC during the May General Election, did more than just look. Along with some other young WP members, he bought some cold cheng tng for Dr Chee and comrades..." I wish to clarify that there is one factual error in this paragraph. I did not buy the cold cheng tng for Dr Chee and his comrades.

Although i was present at Hong Lim Park as an observer and a concerned citizen to bear witness to the protest carried out by Dr Chee and his comrades, but at no time did I buy any cheng tng for them. Your inaccurate report has caused tremendous confusion and unnecessary distress to my supporters, party colleagues and family members.

I am dissappointed that your reporters did not check the facts with me, no matter how minor it is, before publishing them. Small inaccurate details like this could create false impression and mislead your readers. It may also discredit your newspaper as a reliable source of information to Singaporeans at large. I hope that your reporters could be more factually responsible in their writing in future so as to avoid such harm to both your newspaper as well as the people concerned in your articles.

Yours Sincerely,

Abdul Salim Harun

My press statement will also be put up at the WP Youth Wing Website shortly.

Next Article: Is Shin Corp a "Good Buy"?

This is just a preview of my next article about Temasek's venture into Thailand's Shin Corp which has caused much "haze" over our foreign relationship with the new Thailand Government.

Of course, it is may be on hindsight that many analysts will start saying that Shin Corp has become a lemon but the truth is, there are enough information about the nature of the deal prior to transactions that will create considerable doubt over the whole saga. I will try to examine why the deal turn sour and what possibly went wrong in the decision making process.

Goh Meng Seng

GST mystery

One of the Sammyboy forummer pointed out one discrepency of my earlier article on GST. The 5% GST in Singapore generated only $3.6 billion instead of the optimum theoretical $7 billion from our GDP of $150billion.

I double checked on Ministry of Finance website and I have found some interesting fact: the difference in tax base between Income/Corporate tax and GST is only 26%. And the fact that the effectiveness of GST is only half of what it should be, it may mean that the tax itself will be more regressive than initially thought. This is due to the fact that only the rich corporates and individuals could avoid spending in Singapore or save more. Although we have forced savings as in CPF, but most people spent part or even all of their CPF on housing and healthcare.

The following is my reply to the forummer:


Dear thisalsocan,

I have searched for the budget 2006 figures and I got the figures from the following link:

Ministry of Finance 2006 Budget Highlights

It seems strange to me that by simple calcuation, the tax base for both GST and Income Tax only differ by 26%. i.e. Income & Corporate Tax: for each 1% generate $556 million, 1% GST generate $702 million.

This could mean that GST is only half "efficiency" than it is supposed to be. i.e. the value add tax only manage to tax on half of the GDP instead of the whole.

This may be due to a few facts mainly: forced saving in terms of CPF (some part of CPF may be spent in terms of healthcare or housing) and also huge savings by corporates and rich families which may be transferred overseas. i.e. as long as they don't consume in Singapore, they are not taxed by GST.

What does this mean? GST is more regressive than we first thought! For most of the families earning less, they would spend most of their income with little savings. Even for their CPF, they may have to spend on housing and healthcare. Thus, the 50% of GDP that manage to "escape" GST taxation would come mostly from wealthy corporates and families.

Goh Meng Seng

GE Questions Finally Answered: Fare & GST UP!

GE Questions Finally Answered: Fare & GST UP!

Updates: Please note that the figures on GST collection is theoretical value. The actual value (from Ministry of Finance Budget 2006 figures) for GST collection per 1% is $702 million while for Income/Corporate Tax per 1% is $556 million. The tax base for GST is not as wide as I first thought. I have written another article on this little "mystery" posted in this blog.

During the May General Elections, I have asked the ruling party, PAP, to come clean with their plans for Singapore. The two main questions I have asked are:

1) Is the PAP government going to allow public transport fare increase?
2) Is the PAP government going to increase GST to 7%?

The local press did not publish my direct questions to PAP and PAP have chosen to keep silent on these questions but instead, they are more interested to continue harping on the James Gomez saga during the elections.

It is only 6 months after the May GE that I finally got my answers. The answers are Yes and Yes. I am very puzzled that if PAP is so confident that Singaporeans will support its intention to allow public transport fare hikes and GST to be increased to 7%, why didn't they say so during the May GE?

Unfortunately for Singaporeans, they have to make voting decisions with incomplete information. But I guess this is not the end yet. I believe that GST will be raised further to 10%. Why? PAP government wants to lower income tax from 20% to 16%. In thier calculations, this could only be achieved by increasing GST further by at least 3 percentage point.

I believe by now, most people will know that GST in itself, is a regressive tax. In essence, it is "robbing the poor to help the rich". It taxes on the poor so that the (income) tax on the rich could be reduced. From the news report, it is interesting to derive one simple fact: the tax base for GST is twice as big as Income tax. It means that for Income Tax, only the top 50% of income earners will be taxed. Let see how this could be derived:

It is said that for every 1% of Income tax, it equates to $700million tax revenue. Singapore's GDP is about $150 to $160 Billions. Government spending is about $20 to $30 Billions. Thus, for 1% income tax to derive $700million, its tax base must be about $70 billions.

As for GST, it is supposed to be value added tax, thus its tax base is the whole of GDP. This will mean that 1% of GST does not equate to 1% Income Tax. That means, in the simplest case when 1% of income tax is reduced, only roughly half a percentage increase in GST would be needed to cover the lost in tax revenue.

It will also mean that a 2% increase in GST will increase government revenue roughly by $3 billion. My question is this, is PAP going to spend $3 billion in welfare schemes since it claims that the increase in GST is to help finance social safety net?

Besides, PAP government has openly said that they do not believe in a "permanent" comprehensive welfare scheme but an increase in GST will definitely increase their tax revenue permanently! I am really puzzled by PAP's latest "selling point". PAP has never worked on the basis of direct financing; eg. road tax, ERP and COE revenues are not directly used in development of road networks and such. There is never a direct link in revenue to spending. All revenues collected will be pooled and redistribute accordingly. Thus it is a bit strange to me that PAP has in fact claimed that they will increase GST to finance the social safety network which is not a "permanent" system in their governing concept. In fact, if I could remember correctly, the highest government spending lies in Defence. Spending on welfare schemes hardly reach the billion mark! So what are they going to do with the potential increase of $3 billion of GST revenue? How many percentage of this increase will go to welfare scheme?

The reasoning that offset package will be in place to offset the increase of GST. But my question is, offset for how long? One year? Two year? GST will apply EACH AND EVERY YEAR, forever if it continued to be applied, not just one year! I really don't know how many Singaporeans will buy their reasoning of "offsetting" but don't they get tired of their stale marketing technique for so many years?

The most disturbing thing is that, since income gap has been widen throughout the years, is it right to further widen the income gap by taxing more (GST) on the poor and perhaps, reduce the income tax on the rich?

The most comical thing is for PAP to make comparisons with other welfare states' GST tax rate! Yes, they pay high tax but their welfare schemes are intensive and comprehensive. It seems to me that PAP government wants the best of both worlds... high GST tax rate but low welfare schemes!

Even for a capitalist city like Hong Kong, has its own side of welfarism which is more comprehensive and "permanent" than PAP's. The Hong Kong government has just announced that it will sponsor each child that goes to kindergarten HK$13000 (about $2600) every year. Out of this amount, HK$3000 is for the kindergarten to spend on their teachers' development while HK$10000 will offset the child's school fees. It would practically mean that each child will only need to pay a very neglible amount of a couple of hundred HK dollars each month for their kindergarten education. This scheme is set to solve the unequal opportunity available for those poorer families that could not afford to send their children to kindergarten and at the same time, encourage Hong Kongers to have more babies by reducing the cost of upbringing a child. Beside this scheme, Hong Kong's most impressive systems are their healthcare subsidies and unemployment benefits.

Granted that HK manages to save on defence spending but the fact still remains that it has one of the lowest rate of tax in Asia: 16%. Of course the welfare spending will create burden on its government's financial health but I think people would not mind to pay a little bit more tax when they know most of their taxes are spent on the benefits and welfare of its people. Thus, even though many Hong Kongers resisted their government's plan to implement GST, personally I am not really against the idea basically because I know the Hong Kong government really takes care of its people. It is just a matter of how much GST should be implemented.

But in Singapore's context, I do not think the PAP government is that generous in helping our citizens. They are more interested in the amount of surplus they could accumulate and how to win elections by utilizing government funds in providing HDB upgrading. In fact, when PAP government keeps promising hundreds of millions of dollars of upgrading programmes (in total, at least $2billions) during the elections time, it has never mentioned about how these upgrading programmes could be financed.

Given that the PAP government has not come up with any concrete plans on a more comprehensive welfare scheme or mention any increase in healthcare subsidies, I do not think it is justifiable for PAP to increase GST to 7% by giving such vague link to social safety net. PAP, please show us the beef and we will decide whether to buy your argument or not!

Goh Meng Seng