Top Irony Award for Labour Day

May Day has ended without much fanfare but at least SDP has tried its very best to put up its very own May Day Rally at Hong Lim Park. I suspect attendance was pretty poor because hardly any photo shots were made on the audience. But where were the workers? Where were the people whom SDP supposed to fight for during Labour Day?

But at the very least, good effort. The respectable Uncle Chiam, at his ripe old age, has managed to come up with a decent May Day Message. Never mind if it was co-written by other people but at least SPP bothers about Workers' plight.

Ironically, Workers Party which has a literal name about workers, has not issued any May Day message. Their website was infested with Trojans for quite a couple of days and was down. Maybe the Webmaster needed to take a break on May Day holiday since there was no urgency to get it up again when the Party didn't have any May Day message to post anyway.

The name Solidarity actually originated from the labour movement or trade union in Poland back in the 1980s fighting against the Soviet puppet government for workers' rights. Eventually the Solidarity forced political change in Poland and eventually won the elections to lead a coalition government. But it seems that National Solidarity Party of Singapore didn't seem to think that it has anything to do with Workers' rights because it didn't have any May Day message either.

The most ironic happening of all was from PAP, which many perceived as the "Number One Enemy" of workers as it continues its wage suppression with its liberal foreign labour policy, to have a full May Day message. As if the irony for PAP to monopolize the union movement in Singapore isn't quite enough, its Secretary General Lee Hsien Loong's message won the best irony of the day for Labour Day.

Who would think that the party which monopolize labour unions in Singapore to warn about increasing wages for workers? Well, the reasoning of productivity is flawed because it was PAP's liberal foreign labour policy which suppresses wages while depressing productivity at the same time!

Goh Meng Seng  

Labour Day - Detrimental Effect of Rent Seeking Economy

I was thinking of taking a break from writing Labour Day message for this year but something inside me give me that urge to write on Rent-Seeking Economy. This is a topic which I have in mind for a long time since last GE2011.

What is a "Rent-Seeking Economy"? This is actually a technical economic term which any economic student would study in their university. In the simplest form, economic output (which we call GDP nowadays) is the result of the input of labour, capital and raw material. However, capital in modern days' term, is split into smaller units like funds, technology, land, and such. Whatever is produced could be termed as Value Add which could then, distributed to labour as wages, interests return for capital funding (Profits )as well as rent for land use.

Rent-Seeking behaviour may not only refer to maximizing rental return for land. It has developed into greater theory of how money was used to buy influence on government to redistribute wealth to their favor without creating new value or wealth in terms of value add via production of products and services as a whole. You may read more about Rent Seeking behaviour from Wikipedia.

Excessive Rent-seeking activities will result in the disproportionate distribution of value add to rent (land lords) vs wage (Labour) vs management (guild form of label). The label "Talent" put on management or political leaders is similar to the rent-seeking behaviour of medieval guilds. In fact, organized groups in Legal services as well as Medical practice are considered as rent-seeking organizations as well.

Rent-seeking behaviour may include legalized monopolies which exert influence on government to provide them special treatments and concessions. The recent extortion of $2Billion for bus companies and $0.9 Billion for MRT repair are examples of rent-seeking behaviour.

What has Rent-Seeking behaviour to do with Labour Day? The following is a quote from Adam Smith:

"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed upon them. He must then pay for the licence to gather them; and must give up to the landlord a portion of what his labour either collects or produces. This portion, or, what comes to the same thing, the price of this portion, constitutes the rent of land ...."

 Heavily skewed "property investment" which resulted into bubble prices and rent is a kind of rent-seeking behaviour. The only bigger value it has contributed is the initial construction phase as well as the minimum maintenance which it provides along time. 

We must recognize the fact that PAP's economic policy is ultra-capitalist in nature. It has steered towards Rent-Seeking behaviour which will seriously skewed distribution of value-add towards land lords (which are mostly under government or GLC's control). The introduction of Casino into our economy is also a rent-seeking in nature: i.e. lease land to Casino operators at very high prices, increasing rent of Hotel rooms etc but Casinos do not create "values" or "wealth" as a whole when you are just winning wealth from another person.

The end result of such rent-seeking behaviour is the continuous suppression of wages and exploitation of labour while giving excessively higher return to capital and land rent. It will end up with PAP only talking about the "ills" of increasing wages for Labour, stressing about "productivity growth" for Labour while ignoring the fact that rent has been increasing at rapid rate without corresponding "productivity growth" in them.

It will end up with PAP talking about danger of "inflation" if wages are increased for Labour while ignoring the fact that increasing rent by GLC-controlled properties would increase inflation as well. 

COE is a kind of rent-seeking tool as well. i.e. it seek rent for each vehicle's usage of road infrastructure. The erratic increase in COE would also affect inflation as well. 

Rent-seeking behaviour would favor capitalists which seek super-normal profits for their investment by suppressing wages. In the end, we will have uncontrolled input of labour from foreign countries to suppress wages so that these companies would be willing to pay slightly higher rent for land use. On the other hand, it benefits the largest land lords (which happens to be government and its GLCs) most, on the expense of suppressed wages. HDB could sell new HDB prices at record prices, GLCs like Capitaland and other REITS could charge exorbitant rents with the excuse of "higher traffic flow".... etc. One must note that they didn't create this "extra value" of higher population but rather, its the government's lax foreign labour policy which created such situation. This is also why income disparity widen so wide between the top and the bottom percentile.

We will also end up with financial system skewed towards excessive financial engineering which ended up with no real value creation but just a matter of shifting risks and wealth around. This is also how Minibond saga comes about.

Rent-seeking economy would slowly cripple real economic growth of the country, or even end up with social instability. More funds in this economy will channel into property as well as financial speculation while lesser funds are used for creating values via enterprises. REITS will continue their rent-seeking behaviour to extort unrealistic growth in their profitability through unrealistic increase in rents to retailers. This is also why we are seeing less and less smaller retailers run by smaller enterprises. 

In ancient medieval age, rent-seeking economies normally end up with farmer revolts. Most of the feudal states in ancient times were stable even though political freedom and social mobility was restricted. However, when rent-seeking activities took root and land lords started to extort exorbitant rents, income and wealth disparity started to widen to unreasonable stage. Most of the time, such rent-seeking economies would end up with farmer revolts, Kings and Emperors might just be overthrown eventually. Thus Prof Lim Chong Yah is right in saying that Singapore's gini-coefficient is reaching a dangerous state that social stability may be compromised if it continues left unchecked. Japan's decline from a economic power house is the fine example of how rent-seeking economy would destroy a country, even though Japan has went through political changes but it was still unable to walk out of economic gloom for the past decades.

There are people who have asked the valid questions, if PAP keeps insisting that productivity must grow before wages are increased for labour, then why are ministers' salaries aren't pegged to productivity growth? Most of the time, growth in top management of any companies are not pegged to productivity growth as well. One of the most effective way to detect income disparity and rent-seeking behaviour is to compare to GDP growth with wage growth over the decades. GDP as we know, is the growth in value add by the economy. If wage growth is slower than GDP, it would mean that value add has been disproportionately distributed to profits and rent as compared to wages. This is not surprising because rents for REITS could be adjusted at super high rate way above GDP growth rate. But why hasn't PAP spoken out against such high-increase in rents which further suppressed wages? The simple reason is that PAP government has vested interests in keeping rent and property prices high. i.e. it is the BIGGEST landlord in Singapore!

 In short, if workers are to depend on PAP to fight for their right share of economic growth, it is like expecting the tiger to save the deers. Unfortunately, PAP has monopolized power and influence on the Labour Unions here in Singapore. 

What we could do is to provide the necessary information and explanation on the ills of Ultra-capitalistic economic model which leads to Rent-Seeking Economy like Japan, so that more Singaporeans would understand where PAP is leading us to.  Unionists should exert more pressure and regain bargaining power in negotiating for a fairer wage for the workers. Don't be fooled by the talks on how wage will increase inflation and how wage increase should follow productivity growth. There will be little productive growth as long as PAP keeps on allowing enormous number of foreign workers into Singapore. 

Professor Lim Chong Yah has asked for a drastic increase in wages for workers of lower segment as a "shock measure". But I think this would only work if a minimum wage is imposed across the board on both local and foreign workers so that there isn't any big incentive for employers to switch to foreign workers when Singaporeans' wages are increased. 

It would be interesting if someone could get data comparison between GDP growth vs Wage increase over the decades. You will realize that how bad the situation is and how income and wealth gaps have been widen throughout the decades with PAP government siding on the wealthy and powerful due to their rent-seeking economic policies.

For this Labour Day, I would call upon all Singapore workers to take a good look at what PAP government has installed for us and what direction has it dictated for our future. Rent-seeking economy which favours the rich and powerful, making this land into the wonder lands of the world richest people will not create value for our workers. There will be little wealth created for sharing with our workers in such rent-seeking economy. We need to make sure that a fair wage is given to our workers for their honest hard work. We need to make sure that our workers have a fair share of our economic growth. We have to make sure that Singaporeans are not discouraged nor deterred by the high rent. We need to make sure that we will give PAP government enough pressure to correct the disproportionate increase in rent instead of keep suppressing our wages by means of excessive Foreign Labour inputs and ill-logic which disregard the declining share of economic fruits by our workers. 

Last but not least, Happy Labour Day to All.

Goh Meng Seng

  

Has PAP really changed...for the better or worse?

I am back in Singapore to stay for a couple of weeks. So far, I have heard quite a number of people telling me that GE2011 is good for Singapore because it seems that PAP has "changed". It no longer just talks in cold logic and brushes Singaporeans aside dispassionately etc.

 I was just about to believe such talks until I met Dennis Lim, a resident of Yishun Town. The issue he brought up was supposedly a "good issue" which turned sour for him and his neighbours.

 The story is just plain simple but yet, the PAP MP Mr Faishal of his ward with his grassroot people and HDB Lift upgrading staff have made the whole issue complicated.

 The story started with a happy beginning with Dennis Lim's block being offered Lift Upgrading (LUP). So as usual, residents were told to vote for the LUP with brochures and material given out. When you buy a property, you will depend on the floor plan to make your decision. Thus, the brochures and material given out by HDB/Town Council to the residents with regards to the LUP are important documents for reference.

 The residents as a whole voted for the LUP although the cost to each household was pretty high (a few thousands) to begin with. All were well until two residents complained about the lift landing was too close to their units' gates because they have bought the corridors from HDB. According to the residents of "the other side" of the lift landing, HDB staff called them to request their consent to move the lift landing 1 foot towards their side. Since they were told it will only be 30cm difference, they agreed to it.

 However, the dispute arose when the contractor actually shifted 2 meters instead of 1 foot. To cut the story short, obviously the residents on the other side of the lift landing became very unhappy about it. It was said that the previous MP of the ward, Mr. Ong Ah Heng did a site visit and agreed with the residents that a mistake was made but he could not do anything because piling was already done.

 The lift has been built since but the residents are still unhappy about it. They just want to get to the bottom of things on why an initial agreement of 30cm shift turned into 2 meters. Instead of getting a satisfactory answer from their new MP and HDB, they ended up with doubtful replies. Now HDB claimed that they have not made any mistakes at all and the lift was built according to the "initial plan". They now deny making any calls to get residents' consent to shift 30 cm because they insist that the lift was built according to the initial plan presented during the vote.

 This has further infuriated residents there, including Dennis Lim. The anger finally befalls upon their new MP because they felt that he has sided with HDB which apparently has demonstrated integrity problems on this issue. Well, you can't blame Singaporeans to stereotyping PAP MPs as "Yes Men", can you?

 Dennis Lim and his neighbours just want to make sure that such incident will not happen again in other LUPs exercised on other HDB flats. They couldn't possibly ask HDB to demolish the whole lift and rebuild it again. They just want transparency and accountability from HDB and its contractors. Of course, it would be nice if HDB or Town Council could make some concessions to them for making such mistakes but I don't think that is what they are really after.

 This may sound "trivial" incident at first because politically speaking, these residents may constitute to about a few votes. However, if we think deeper on the implications of the whole little saga, it is not difficult to conclude that PAP and its machinery are more interested to cover their own mistakes instead of getting to the bottom of the root cause of the problems.

 Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has taken the unprecedented courage to say sorry and apologize to Singaporeans during GE2011. Although many like me would think that it is just too little too late, but it is still better than never. But in spite of what PM has promised, it seems that the whole PAP and the machinery which it leads are still reluctant to change at all. In some sense, it even gets worse because now civil servants are going all out to cover up their own mistakes by being dishonest about the whole incident. Integrity is of utmost important, regardless of whether you are the ruling or opposition party.

 This is just a small "grassroot example" I have put up to show difficult for PAP to change itself. There are other "more obvious" issues like the self-denial mode some PAP MPs and ministers adopted with regards to bigger issues of HDB prices and such. Of course, there are also "political" issue like the denial to Dr Chee Soon Juan's application to leave the country to attend international forums and talks.

 Talking about the denial of permission for Dr Chee to travel overseas, I find it quite ironic that our justice system could even allow a criminally charged FOREIGNER (for patronizing an underage prostitute) to leave the country to get marry while a Singaporean like Dr Chee is literally put under "politically country arrest" using administrative means on his "political" bankruptcy. I am sure the possibility of Dr Chee returning to Singapore would be definitely HIGHER than those Foreigners who have been criminally charged! Well, maybe PAP misses Dr Chee so much so that they couldn't bear to live without him in this country even for a single minute!

 I guess PAP still has a long way to go before it could convince anyone that they have actually changed, socially as well as politically.

 Goh Meng Seng

后港补选的小风波

后港补选的小风波

谨贵报三月二十四日言论版游润恬之作《“工人党·美女·艺人三角战”？》，本人有以下的回应：

游小姐谈到在博客上提出三角战的“仁兄”正是本人。游小姐在文章中回避指名道姓，确实用心良苦。

老实说，写这篇博客的时候，真的没想到会“引眼球”以至“成功地重新把聚光灯转向自己”，孰料在政界和媒体上引起了热烈的讨论，我倒是无任欢迎。但是，游小姐在早报的文章中，字里行间对我人格作出莫须有的影射和批判，本人深表遗憾，也必须澄清我的立场。

首先，我在博客发表自己的看法是行使言论自由的绝对权利，从来不会以“哗众取宠”或博取见报为目的，但是我无法防止记者朋友在报导中引述我的看法，甚至断章取义，以至歪曲了我文章的原意。

我一向对自己在博客上发表的文章都非常严谨小心，尤其对政策的评论必定有所根据，推断也要符合逻辑。我在《后港补选分析》一文中，综合了已公开的资讯，并整理出以下范畴的分析：“刘程强巧妙的空城计”、“行动党的失策”、“工人党蜀中无大将”、“个人品牌战”、“三角战的危机”、“工人党不容乐观”。

我衷心希望游小姐在形容本人论点为“天马行空的假设”，以及“逻辑漏洞百出”之前，能更具体和负责任的解释她的凭据，否则对那些不了解事件来龙去脉、没有读过我博客文章的广大读者，以及笔者我皆有欠公平！我欢迎早报把我的博客文章整篇刊登，或列出博客的连结，让贵报读者亲自判断本人的评论，避免堕入以讹传讹，以偏概全的舆论陷阱。

在这里我想分享一下本人立论的基础，希望有助澄清游小姐对文章的误解。

在单选区的竞选里，尤其是补选，各个政党打的都是个人品牌战。若候选人早已在基层建立了扎实的根基，自然事半功倍。后港能成为工人党战线的桥头堡，靠的是工人党秘书长刘程强在选区中长达二十年时间的耕耘，以及他本身的政治魅力，但是这次上阵的却可能是该党去年大选东海岸集选区团队成员方荣发。

方先生在后港的知名度尚待提升，该区选民对他的认识相对有限，这是工人党必须面对的实际问题；再加上饶欣龙事件所带来的负面冲击，谁也说不准到底工人党在这次补选中的胜算有多少，而三角战又会对该党造成多大的威胁。

如果国民团结党决定参选的话，它会考虑到在后港缺乏基层基础下，就必须以高知名度的候选人来填补“先天＂的不足。派出知名度高，具亲和力的佘雪玲自然是合理的策略，美女与否应不在考量之列。以此推论，行动党派出新传媒艺人郑斌辉也是无可厚非。演员固然是他的专业，但他参与政治的热诚，以及对时事课题的关注和见解也是不能被抹杀的。

根据媒体的报导，团结党从来没有排除参加后港补选的可能性。我只是从团结党的角度推论，他们必须先为下届大选可能面对工人党在淡滨尼和马林百列选区的挑战而作出准备，而这次后港补选可被视为测试实力的前哨战。

媒体也曾报导，团结党与工人党在上届大选对谁该出战摩绵加冷区一度争持不下，最后团结党以大局为重而退出。事实上，团结党在该区耕耘已久，到了开花结果，即将收成的时候，才因反对党之间协调布局的考量，而把多年的心血拱手相让。这是个政治现实的问题，不管谁带领团结党，也必须在下届大选再次面对和解决。

至于淡滨尼和马林百列区，团结党在去年均取得超过百分之四十二选票的佳绩，只要继续耕耘，在下次大选中击败行动党绝对不是天方夜谭。如果再度面对三角战的困境，团结党该如何自处呢？

我已经在今年一月一日退出团结党，并在事前主动通知党中央。如今我是以独立政治评论员的身份，对时事课题发表我见，当中不涉及任何利益冲突。我认为，从新加坡整体民主发展的过程来看，我们必须确保国会多元化。在我国反对党萌芽茁壮的阶段，无论是执政党或任何一个反对党执意“垄断”政治平台的话，对我国民主发展是百害而无一利的。

随着新加坡政治气候的改变，积极论政已经是一种不可逆转的趋势。我将秉持从大学时代就开始以不偏不倚的原则，继续对政治、经济和民生议题发表意见，希望“不在其位，不谋其事”的说法，不会成为我论政的绊脚石。

我期望国人能继续捍卫并享有言论自由的权利，各方以开放和包容的态度，迎接百花齐放的意见平台，迈向一个理智的公民社会。我们应该鼓励社会上的知识分子挺身而出，为社会的良知发声，当面对无理责难时，更要以道德勇气逆流而上。

对于资深新闻从业员游小姐就本人文章作出有欠公道的批评，我十分失望和惋惜。

虽然我目前没有参与任何政党政治，很多时候也身在国外，但是对于生于斯，长于斯的新加坡，仍然关切无比。希望游小姐和广大的早报读者们，不要因为我过往参政的背景，而对我文章的用意作出不必要的揣测，请以开放和客观的态度去解读我的分析。


吴明盛

Mypaper: 吴明盛退出团结党 评论政治无包袱

《我报》专访国民团结当前秘书吴明盛，谈论他的政治生涯和看法。

《我报》：据说，您在去年底会员资格到期后，就已经退出国民团结党（NSP），现在是无党派的政治观察家，您为何会做出这个决定？

吴明盛：自从去年5月7日大选过后，我觉得，新加坡的政治气候变了，科技的开放让很多人顿时以为，他们现在什么都可以说，什么都可以做，这对国家未必是好的，社会的矛盾会越来越深。

现在，我们需要的是“政治教育”和建设一个理智的公民社会，可是，当你有党派背景时，很多话你就没有办法说。

现在这种政治环境，很多人都会认为自己敢怒敢言，但是，并不是敢说话就叫敢怒敢言，还要看你说话时有没有预设的立场。

退了党之后，没有党籍，没有包袱，我就是一个中间派，用这个立场看待事情和评论事情比较好，不怕连累政党。

抨击工人党　被指“反骨仔”
《我报》：日前，您在网上批评工人党的诚信问题，结果引来许多网民的抨击，您有什么感受？

吴明盛：他们说我原本是反对党人，退党后就开始抨击反对党，说我是“反骨仔”。但是，从饶欣龙事件，到毕丹星和陈硕茂的文抄公事件，以及工人党对这些事件的回应及处理方式等，我觉得，工人党应该认真看待诚信的问题。

我因为提起这个问题，被一位学者在面簿（Facebook)上除名，这件事让我觉得有点感触。我觉得，学者和知识分子要懂得分辨是非黑白，不应该护短。

我们把一个反对党扶持起来之后，不应该溺爱它，应该更严格地督促它。虽然我现在无党派，但是，我对反对党阵营还是有期望和情结，所以，对它有更高的要求是难免的。

陈硕茂对新加坡不熟悉
《我报》：去年大选，反对党出现了两位闪烁的“政治新秀”，一个是工人党的陈硕茂，一个是国民团结党的佘雪玲，您如何评价他们两位？

吴明盛：我觉得，陈硕茂有政治魅力，但是，他的问题在于他对新加坡不熟，或许他旅居国外太久，对各种政策更加不熟，所以，他在国会辩论一些政策时，很难讲出一些实质的东西来。

至于佘雪玲，她才出道，还很嫩，需要一些时间的琢磨，不过，她需要更好地约束自己，要懂得自律，不可以太轻佻的对待一些事情，尤其是在大是大非面前，要呈现出负责任的一面。

而且，要注意，不要把话说得太尽，例如：最近我在面簿上写后港补选的事，分析如果后港出现三角战，她、方荣发、郑斌辉3人出来选，会形成一个怎样的形式？

佘雪玲就马上回应说，她不会出来，因为这对刘程强是不敬的。她的话这么一说，她的党日后如果要派人，不是很尴尬吗？所以，要搞政治，有时候就不能只顾及自己的立场。

国家议题上　反对党应有主张
《我报》：您怎么看待大选后的工人党？

吴明盛：首先，在辩论部长薪金问题时，严燕松犯了逻辑上的错误，这就如同菜还没有炒熟就端上桌，这是相当出丑的一件事。

接着，又发生了饶欣龙事件，以及文抄公事件，显示工人党在政治上不够敏锐，政治智慧还不够。

工人党不能只是搞地方性基层话动
当工人党只有一个后港区的议席时，他们大可说“我们只有一个议席，能做什么呢”，那时，他们可以专注去搞基层，只需照顾自己如何争取每一张选票就可以了。

但是，现在的情况不同，他们拿下一个集选区，有6个议席，他们就不能只是搞地方性的基层活动而已。

在国家议题上，他们也必须有见解，至少要针对三两个他们所关注的议题，有深入的了解，并能提出具体的解决方案。

Over Reactions on Hougang by-election Analysis

Irresponsible Main Stream Media Ethics will enhance social contradictions

I would have to criticise the Main Stream Media here before I continue. I believe the MSM is doing a great disservice to the Nation as a whole by being inaccurate in their reporting. Misquote or quoting totally out of context of a written article which resulted in misrepresentation is totally unacceptable. Especially so when such newspaper report could evoke strong emotional reactions from Singaporeans.

PAP has always lamented that the internet is full of aggressive, "irrational" anti-PAP views but unknowingly, it is PAP's controlled (or perceived "controlled") MSM which aggravated such sentiments. I would understand that for newspapers, they have limitation on space and thus, they normally will report on the gist of things. But most of the time, they chose things which are either favourable to PAP or those which will "damage" or attempt to "damage" opposition as a whole. This unhealthy practice will further polarize the population and enhance contradictions within the society.

For a start, the title chosen by the MSM is totally out of context. It is pure sensational choice. I have spent some time to translate my whole article to show the serious misrepresentation made by Sin Ming. I am just a non-partisan political commentator and I will refrain of "TELLING" any opposition parties what to do. My job is to gather all the relevant information and come up with a logical perspective, explaining and examining all the possibilities and outcomes.

In no way have I even "SUGGESTED" what NSP will do or not do. I definitely do not speak on behalf of NSP, least for anybody else. The fact that NSP has refrained from confirming whether they will contest in Hougang by-election or not, is a clear indication that they are giving serious considerations to that option at that moment. These are public available information.

The possibility of sending Nicole Seah to contest IF NSP so decided to contest is based on the PREVIOUS paragraph stating that any contest in a SMC, especially so in a by-election, is a battle of personal branding. Since NSP does not have much ground presence in Hougang, the only option left is to field someone with high public profile. Thus Nicole Seah would be the natural choice.

If you read my analysis in proper perspective, I have repeatedly shown concerns on the possibility of 3 corner fights, not only in Hougang by-election but also in Tampines and Marine Parade GRC as well in next GE. I have said that it is better for NSP and WP to sit down and negotiate an amicable solution. I have even cautioned that NSP and Nicole Seah should think thrice and make serious consideration about contesting in Hougang by-election because there would be potential political cost if this is perceived as unjustifiable by the public. However, the MSM deliberately left out these critical parts of my analysis. The MSM has left out the more "damaging" parts on PAP's misstep. This may be explained by the limitation of space but the further omission of these critical parts is totally irresponsible and an attempt to misrepresent view, creating unnecessary emotional response from Singaporeans.

Reactions from NSP and Nicole Seah

Up to this instance, Nicole Seah has declared that she will not contest. That is a good decision for self preservation. However, she seems to over react by making further comment on anyone who has the intention to contest in Hougang would mean that he would not be "taking into consideration the work of Worker's Party MP Low Thia Kiang in retaining one of Singapore's longest-serving opposition wards." (Quoted from her response on FB).

I was puzzled about this statement. Since she is a member of NSP CEC, she must be stating the stand of NSP. However NSP Secretary General Hazel Pao in the same newspaper report, said that NSP has not decided on the issue yet. This seems to be conflicting signals from the same Party's CEC.

I believe it is Nicole Seah's over reaction which resulted in such situation. She has jumped the gun and practically closed the door hastily for her party in the rush to deny any intention of contest. Especially so when there is already public outcry against 3 corner fight. In doing so, she might have unwittingly compromised her party's strategic position.

Over reactions from Opposition members and supporters

Opposition members and supporters have over reacted even before they actually read the whole analysis. Their over reactions are unwarranted.

Even if Nicole Seah contested in Hougang, chances for WP to lose would be slim. WP has 15% points advantage. The odds for Nicole Seah to lose her deposit is still very high. Even if the vote swing is 15% and WP gets below 50%, it may not lose because it will still get the highest votes. The only exception is for PAP to field a strong candidate with high public profile. Tay Ping Hui may be one.

Most of the emotional knee jerk reactions from netizens are irrational at best. Most of the time, they did not rebut any of the points made in my article. Do they oppose the possibility of NSP contesting in Hougang by-election because they just don't like it or what? Or that they believe opposition should unite? Is opposition unity really the CORE belief of these people? If so, do they think WP is at fault when it bulldozed itself into Moulmein Kallang with a 3rd rate team, destroying the chance of the NSP's scholars of breaking through in this fertile ground? What is their stand?

Most importantly, what do they think about the possibility of WP contesting in Tampines and Marine Parade in next GE? Would they raise their voice to oppose such moves? Or are they just "PRO-WP" at all cost?

Myth and Broken Dream of Opposition Unity

Some of those who reacted strongly raised the notion of "Opposition Unity". I would like them to ask WP whether they really believe in "Opposition Unity" and would they contest in Tampines and Marine Parade for the next GE.

I feel that people are just abusing the notion of "Opposition Unity". After a decade of participation in opposition politics, I would dare to say that Opposition Unity is just a myth and a broken dream. It is just that most people don't dare to admit it. Worse of all, some would just use it like a tissue paper: when it is to their own advantage eg. like keeping people out of 3 corner in Hougang by-election, they will use it. But they will just throw it away like used tissue paper when they want to step into other people's turfs.

Mistake me not. I used to be a strong believer of Opposition Unity until last GE. Last GE changed my perspective. The earlier supporters of opposition realize that we are now emerging into "Warring States" the better it is for them. So that they won't be utterly disappointed when they realize that for next GE, there will be lots of 3 corner fights happening around them.

What are the real issues of 3 Corner Fight in Hougang by-election

When I am writing this, I read again Wanbao said that I have changed my mind about the 3 corner fight. It is yet another bad reporting without much clarifications with the writer about the context. There are a few scenarios in having a 3 Corner fight in Hougang by-election.

First case, NSP or some other party send somebody without a strong public profile while PAP sends someone without strong public profile as well. WP will still suffer a drop of percentage votes due to Yaw-gate. How big is the impact, nobody knows exactly. My feel is it may suffer about 5% to 8% vote swing in this case. These votes would most likely go to the other opposition party. PAP may not benefit from the vote swing in this case.

Neither would PAP benefit from the widen vote swing if NSP Nicole Seah contested. The expected vote swing will be something between 5% to 20% but this is not enough to make WP lose because most of these votes would go to Nicole Seah, not PAP. WP will still win, regardless of whether it gets more than 50% of votes or not.

However, if it is Tay Ping Hui vs Png Eng Huat alone (without three corner fight), there is a danger of WP losing if the vote swing is greater than 15%. All these vote swing will go to Tay PH. Thus, if there is a third party contesting (not somebody like Nicole Seah), it may just help WP to win by diverting the vote swing away from PAP's Tay PH.

This is why I say a 3 corner fight may not be a bad thing at all for WP unless the vote swing is as great as 30%, then there is a clear and present danger of losing. This scenario may only happen (please note, NOT DEFINITELY) if there is a 3 corner fight with both PAP and NSP sending candidates with very strong public profile: i.e. Nicole Seah vs Tay Ping Hui vs Png Eng Huat.

A 3 corner fight will increase WP's stress tolerance from 15% to 25%. i.e. If the impact of Yaw-gate alone is as great as 20%, WP could still win with the third party diverting the vote swing away from PAP.

This is why Wanbao should not jump into conclusion that I have changed my mind or backtrack from my earlier view. They are on different contexts.

(I have deliberately left out one very unlikely scenario where WP will lose the support of the hardcore opposition supporters in Hougang.)

The Building of Civil Society

I have a talk with friends from the media recently. The first thing that was discussed is the present state of internet situation. The consensus is that internet is dominated by lively discussions and commentaries. However, it seems that irrational rantings, flamings and trolling have become a clear trend.

Before I engaged in opposition politics back in the early 2000s, I faced a dilemma on whether to contribute my time and effort in building a civil society or to try and effect change in the political climate first. Singapore is a unique place where the political climate has curbed the development of civil activism. Civil society will involve efforts of the academia, intelligentsia and such but political activities in universities and colleges are a taboo, unlike Hong Kong, Taiwan and Korea.

Thus I finally come to the conclusion that engagement in changing the political climate via active participation in elections must come first for Singapore. True enough, with the past two General Elections, the awakening process has deepen. Active citizenry has been enhanced throughout the years. However, such development created certain problems like what we see in the internet right now. It has almost become a mob rule in the internet sphere.

Take for example, Mr. Baey has talked about the perception and pressure his son faced in school. Netizens started to attack him on that. Imagine if the same problem is raised by Mr. Chen Shao Mao. I guess we will only hear praises. That's the reality in Singapore. But this is not a healthy development for Singapore as it will deepen contradictions and increase the tensions between supporters of different camps.

This is why I have chosen to take a step back from political participation and to engage in political commentary instead. I hope to put up fair political comments. Even so, I am attacked with all sorts of name calling and speculations. My views are seen with much contempt.

I would like to reiterate this, I do not have any bad feelings about any opposition parties, not even PAP. Political parties are just platforms and different people will play different roles within. There isn't much strong emotional attachment, so to speak, be it love or hatred.

But once you take stand, you will read everything, anything with a tainted glass. The Main Stream Media has unwittingly enhanced such contradictions and divides by its reporting methods.

I only hope that the silent majority, the middle ground voters, would start to engage actively in providing views and moulding public opinions. Else, we will end up with a situation where extreme views will start to split out Nation apart causing deeper social contradictions.

Goh Meng Seng

Hougang By-election Analysis (Translated)

Looking at recent news reports and political commentary, it seems that everyone feels that Workers Party “sure win” in Hougang and PAP is just “kiasu” (afraid to lose) to not announce by-election. (This analysis was written before PM Lee announced he will call for Hougang by-election.) This is actually quite hilarious.

Low Thia Khiang’s ingenious strategic bluff

Immediately after Workers Party Secretary General Low Thia Khiang announced the expulsion of Yaw Shin Leong, he went straight away to Hougang. From the look of the news video clip, Mr Low indeed enjoys great support from the ground. However at the very end of the interview, he has revealed his own worries. He said in front of the camera, “Perhaps the Prime Minister should look at the sentiment and should not drag too long for the by-election if you get National agenda and he wants to move on… that is my advice to him.”



I have gone through these words repeatedly but felt that it is a bit unreasonable. If the Prime Minister saw that passionate support, why would he want to have by-election early? I finally realize that Low Thia Khiang was just putting up a political posturing, “challenging” the Prime Minister, look at the support WP enjoys here, if you dare, call for by-election immediately! But why would Mr Low put up such political posture to challenge the Prime Minister?

This is a strategic bluff! At that critical period, WP’s greatest fear was PAP capitalizing on the adverse situation of Yaw-gate and called for immediate by-election to launch a “sneak attack” on the totally unprepared WP. Thus Mr. Low put up a “bravado” posture to effect a strategic bluff to prevent PAP from a rapid attack. If PAP had seized the opportunity and held by-election as soon as possible, it would have seized the advantage of the situation. WP’s greatest fear was PAP attacking while it was still in disarray, especially so if PAP fixed the date of by-election among the dates of budget debate. If that happened, WP would have to face the most severe test. Low Thia Khiang might not be able to exert his personal charismatic influence fully during the by-election. (This is also why I choose to publish this article after Budget Debate.)

However, fortunately Low Thia Khiang’s strategic bluff has successfully worked on PAP!

PAP’s misstep

After all, PAP has a ready candidate in Hougang and with its grassroot foundation, there should not be any problem in turning on the electioneering machine immediately. However, it was too indecisive. On top of that, it actually shows its fear of losing by letting its MPs to argue speciously on the Constitutional rules on by-elections. It is totally irrational for a ruling party which has ruled Singapore for 50 years to be afraid of losing in a small by-election in a single seat. Even a layman could understand that this by-election will not threaten PAP’s ruling party status. Even if it loses, PAP do not suffer any additional loss in seats! This is because this seat is originally an opposition seat. PAP do not suffer any real loss if it failed to win, but it wins it would be a surprise bonus! Even if it is just reducing WP’s support by a few percentage points, it is considered as a gain! This is a win-win situation for PAP!

On the contrary, if the by-election is being dragged for a few months, won’t it allow WP to have breathing space to re-deploy itself? PAP has quite a number of military generals within its rank and I am puzzled why they couldn’t come to such simple conclusions at all, resulting in its indecisiveness and missing the prime opportunity! If PAP is to lose with a big margin in Hougang this time round, even worse than the GE2011, they really deserve it!

Lack of Talents within WP’s rank

The next question is, why WP is worried about early by-elections? The reason is simple. All along WP adopted a closed management style. It will not groom any particular potential candidate during normal time. Even during the GE, the focus will still be on the few key candidates on the main battleground. Such management style is very effective during GE whereby the centralized control will prevent big mistakes being made. This is why even after GE, voters will only have impression on a few candidates among the lot and very few of them will have made deep impression on voters. How many candidates has WP groomed with high public profile from 2006 till the eve of 2011 GE? Even for Mr. Chen Shao Mao who has joined WP for years, he only came to fame with the help of the media providing him an early exposure which eventually made him a political idol.

Such conservative management may have its merits but it creates great obstacles in grooming young potentials among the ranks for political renewal. The selection of the less known candidate Png Eng Huat to hold the helm at Hougang exposed the awkward situation of the lack of talents among its rank.

The battle of personal branding

By-elections, especially when it is a SMC by-election, is normally fought on individual’s personal branding. Although Low Thia Khiang has absolute advantage in terms of personal branding in Hougang, but after Yaw-gate, I guess Hougang voters (especially those middle ground voters) will not just vote anyone put up by WP due to WP or Low Thia Khiang’s branding assurance without much scrutiny like GE2011. Hougang voters will definitely be more demanding on all candidates. If WP thinks that it could win voters’ confidence easily just like the past, then it will end up with a rude shock on a less than expected result.

This is also the reason why WP would rather select Png Eng Huat over other younger and more prominent individuals like Koh Choong Yong to take over the helm at Hougang. Low Thia Khiang knows very well that he can’t afford to make another mistake in the selection of candidate for Hougang, else his as well as WP’s branding will be destroyed overnight! Choosing a matured candidate will be safer in this case.

Interestingly, ex-WP leader of East Coast GRC team Eric Tan, who has resigned after GE2011, is a superior choice than Png Eng Huat in terms of popularity, resume as well as seniority. But WP has chosen Gerald Giam as the NCMP instead of Eric Tan using the excuse of party renewal while breaking the unwritten rule of granting the leader of the GRC team priority of being the NCMP. This resulted in Eric Tan’s resignation. In retrospect, this is a chain of ironies. After all, WP didn’t expect to be forced into a by-election in Hougang!

The Crisis of 3 Corner Fight

After WP expelled Yaw Shin Leong, there was a couple of opposition members showing interests in Hougang by-election. I have said then that it is best for them not to take advantage of WP to go into a 3 corner fight. If these people really contest in 3 corner fight, it would not be justifiable and most probably they will suffer humiliating defeats.

However, there is one exception and that is NSP. It could affect the result of this by-election. NSP participation in the contest will add to the uncertainty of this by-election.

As the former SG of NSP, I can understand why NSP will want to contest in Hougang 3 corner fight. Of course I still hope that this could be avoided through negotiation but it seems that chances are slim for it to be resolved. It is not just about “revenge” for NSP to contest. It has its own strategic considerations. During last GE2011, WP has basically bulldozed into Moulmein-Kallang with its second or even third tier team, even if it means to have a 3 corner fight with NSP main Team B. Although NSP has bitten the bullet and avoided the 3 corner fight by withdrawing out of Moulmein Kallang, but it is believed that WP will be even bolder and bulldoze its way into Tampines and Marine Parade GRCs to go head on with NSP. This will force NSP out of the more “fertile” ground in the East. NSP may use this by-election as an advanced battle to test each other’s relative strength. Especially so when the price of this battle even if deposit was loss, is much lesser relatively.

IF NSP really decides to fight it out in Hougang’s 3 corner fight, it is possible for it to send Nicole Seah. Nicole Seah’s high public profile will maximize the impact on WP Png Eng Huat. If WP really lost Hougang due to Nicole Seah’s contest, that would be the ultimate karmic retribution. Of course personally I don’t wish to see PAP benefiting from this by capturing Hougang.

Although Nicole Seah has high public profile but she must make her contest as a justified cause else she may pay a heavy price politically. NSP has to consider carefully the pros and cons of contesting in Hougang by-election. If it so decides to send Nicole Seah to contest, I could only wish her good luck.

It isn’t Optimistic for Workers Party

Politics is unpredictable. Who would expect WP to have such big happenings within a short period of 9 months? Nobody can predict accurately what kinds of turbulence this by-election will bring. Of course many WP members and supporters are full of confidence so much so that they expect the result of this by-election will be even better than the 64% it has achieved in GE2011. However in my opinion, there are only conditions and possibility for WP’s result to fall. Whether it will lose Hougang due to a 3 corner fight will depend on whether it would lower its pride and negotiate for an amicable settlement.

Of course, the longer the by-election drags, the better it is for WP. This is because WP would need more time to allow Hougang voters to know its candidate who has a deficit on public profile. . Of course, it would be best if WP could invite Eric Tan back and contest this by-election. This will increase WP’s ability to withstand the impact of a 3 corner fight. However, this may just be my own wishful thinking.

Goh Meng Seng

P.S. I just realize I have left out a very important factor. Since this is the battle of personal branding, if PAP is smart enough, it may send TV celebrity to contest. Don’t underestimate the impact of this celebrity effect, it could well become PAP’s the most effective weapon! TV celebrity Tay Ping Hui is a well known PAP member and he has all along shown vast interests in contesting in elections. Recently he has even evoke Nationalistic sentiments to rebel against foreign students. Although these are extreme acts but nevertheless such populist acts have won him substantial support. If PAP send him to contest, this by-election would be very interesting to watch. Imagine, Nicole Seah, Tay Ping Hui and Png Eng Huat…. I believe in the end, Png Eng Huat will be totally marginalized while the by-election turns into the show down between the TV celebrity and the political rising star!

后港补选分析

综合最近的新闻报道和政治评论，后港补选似乎是工人党“包吃”，行动党“怕输”不敢宣布补选。（这篇文章是在李显龙总理宣布会在后港举行补选前写的。）其实这是啼笑皆非的现象。

刘程强巧妙的空城计

工人党秘书长刘程强先生在宣布开除饶欣龙后，便直驱后港造势。从新闻画面看来，刘先生在后港的支持度也真的很强。但是刘先生在访问最后一段，竟不慎透露了他本身的忧虑。他对着摄影机说：“如果总理有重要的国家议程的话，他应该看看这些支持者的情绪，而别等太久才补选。。。这是我的忠告。。。“



我反复咀嚼了这段说话，总觉得有点不合理。如果总理看了那么激情的场面，他为什么还要尽快补选呢？最后我才了解，原来刘程强只是在摆出政治架势，“挑战”总理，你看后港对工人党的支持度，如果敢的话，就马上补选吧！但是为何刘先生要摆出这政治架势挑战总理呢？

这就是“空城计”！工人党当时最怕的是行动党“趁势追击”，马上宣布补选而“偷袭”完全没有准备的工人党。所以刘先生就使出“虚张声势”，摆出了一个“空城计”来，防止行动党速战速决。其实，如果行动党把握时机，在最短时间里宣布补选的话，那么它就掌握了时局的优势。工人党那时候最怕的是行动党给它杀个措手不及，尤其是如果行动党把补选订在国会在辩论财政预算案期间，那么工人党将会面对严峻的考验。刘程强也许就无法在补选中发挥他个人的号召力了。(这也就是为什么我选择在国会预算案辩论完后才刊登此文.)

但是刘程强微妙的空城计终究把行动党给唬住了！

行动党的失策

行动党毕竟在后港已经有现成的候选人了，以它的基层实力，马上启动竞选机器并非难事。可惜的是，它太优柔寡断，竟然怕输到让党内议员狡辩无需补选云云，这是策略上的一大败笔！这些议员在狡辩宪法对补选的定义的同时，便凸现了堂堂一个执政了几乎50年的政党竟然对一个选区的补选如此畏惧、怕输的窘境！其实以普通人的智慧来计算，这补选又不是会威胁到行动党的执政地位的。就算是输了，行动党也没有任何而外的损失！因为这选区本来就是反对党区，输了没损失，如果赢了就是意外的收获！就算只是把工人党的支持率降低几个百分点，也算是有所获呀！这是没赔有赢的事啊！

反过来说，如今拖了几个月才决定补选，这不就让工人党有喘气的机会去重新部署吗？我其实不明白，行动党里有这么多军事将领，连这么简单的盘算都不会算，令它举棋不定错失良机！我看行动党如果这一次在后港大败，比原先在2011年大选的成绩还差的话，那也真是活该了！

工人党“蜀中无大将“

接下来的问题就是，为何工人党对尽早补选会如此担心呢？其实理由很简单。工人党的管理方式是封闭式的，平时不会刻意去栽培任何有潜能的候选人。就算是大选到来，也只集中于那么几位在主要战场的侯选人。这种管理方式能很有效的针对大选做出集权式的操纵，不大会出乱子。这也就是为什么很多时候大选过后，选民在众多候选人当中，也只对那么几位有印象，深刻印象的也就说不上了。纵观从2006年至2011年大选前夕，工人党内有多少有高知名度的候选人呢？就算是加入党多年的陈硕茂，也是在大选前由媒体为他提早曝光而造就了他那政治偶像的形象的。

这种保守的管理方式固然有它的可取之处，但也致使工人党在培养接班政治人才方面形成了重大阻碍。从工人党这次只能派知名度微弱的方荣发去坐镇后港便能得知它“蜀中无大将”的窘境了。

个人品牌战

补选，尤其是单选区的补选，往往打的是个人品牌。虽然刘程强的个人品牌在后港有绝对的优势，但是经过饶欣龙事件以后，我想后港选民（尤其是中间选民）在这次补选中不会像大选一样只靠工人党或刘程强的品牌保证而轻易投给工人党了。后港选民这次补选也一定对所有候选人有更严谨的审视，更严格的要求了。如果工人党以为能像以往一样轻易地取信于中间选民的话，那么它将可能面对意想不到的结果。

这也就是为什么工人党会选择方荣发而不是比他更有知名度又更年轻的许俊荣来坐镇后港。刘程强明白他在人选方面再也不能出差错了，要不然他和工人党的品牌将会毁于一旦！选个年级比较成熟的候选人会比较稳当一点。

有趣的是，之前被挤出局的东海岸领队陈忠恩无论知名度、履历或资历都比方荣发优异。可是工人党当时是以“自我更新”为由，改变了原有让领队成为非选区议员不成文的潜规则而推选更年轻的严燕松替之。这导致陈忠恩愤而离去。如今看来，这一连串的事故真是一种讽刺。毕竟工人党万万想不到它会被逼打一场补选吧！

三角战的危机

当饶欣荣被踢出工人党后，有几位反对党人就表明对后港补选有兴趣。我就曾经说过最好不要乘人之危去打三角战。这些人如果真的上阵打三角战的话，名不正言不顺，最后很可能会自取其辱的。

可是有一个是例外，那就是国民团结党了。它有可能左右这次补选的结果。国民团结党的参选，将会给这次补选增添变数。

身为国民团结党的前秘书长，我可以理解他们为何要到后港打三角战。当然我还是希望可以通过谈判来解决和避免三角战，但是看来这机会是渺茫的。国民团结党的参选不只是“报仇”这么简单。它有它策略上的考量。上一次大选工人党咄咄逼人，就算是派个二、三线的队伍到摩棉-加冷集选区与国民团结党的主队B打三角战，也再所不惜。虽然最后国民团结党忍辱负重退出摩棉-加冷集选区而避免了三角战，但相信在下次大选，工人党更会毫无顾忌地以强硬姿态到淡宾尼和马林百烈集选区去与国民团结党硬碰硬。这将逼使国民团结党退出东部比较“肥沃”的选区。国民团结党可能会以这次补选做为往后选战的前哨战，以试探彼此的实力。尤其是在这单选区的补选就算失去按金，代价也不会太大。

如果国民团结党真的打算到后港打三角战的话，它很有可能会派佘雪玲上阵。高知名度的佘雪玲将对工人党的方荣发造成最大的冲击。如果工人党真的是因为佘雪玲的挑战而失去后港的话，那将是因果报应的终极体现了。当然，我并不愿意看到行动党因此渔翁得利而夺回后港。

佘雪玲虽然有高知名度，但是她这一战必须出师有名，要不然她可能必须付上很大的政治代价。国民团结党必须要很小心和慎重的考虑出战后港的利与弊。一旦它决定派佘雪玲出战，我也只好祝她好运了。

工人党不容乐观

政治是难以预料的。谁会想到工人党在短短九个月里竟然会发生如此大的变化呢？到底这次后港补选会发生怎么样的动荡，没人说得准。当然，有许多工人党员和支持者都对补选信心满满，甚至认为补选成绩会比上次大选64%的成绩还要好。但是在我看来，工人党的成绩也只有往下跌的条件和可能性，至于会否因三角战导致它失去后港，那就要看它愿不愿意放下身段去谈判和解了。

当然，补选拖得越迟就对工人党更有利。因为工人党需要时间让后港选民认识它知名度不高的候选人，让他到基层去搏感情。但是时间并非在工人党掌握之中。当然，工人党如果能把陈忠恩请回来出战这次后港补选的话，那将是最好的安排了。这将增强工人党面对三角战的抵抗力。可是，这也只是我一厢情愿的想法罢了。

吴明盛

（后记：我刚想起我忽略了一个非常重要的因素。既然这补选会是个人品牌战，如果行动党够聪明的话，它也许会派出新广艺人上阵。别小看这明星效应，这很可能会变成行动党的杀手锏！艺人郑斌辉是行动党员，一向来都显得对竞选有兴趣。最近他还提起国民主义来“起义”，对抗外来学生。虽然这举动有些太偏激，但是毕竟会哗众取宠，得到不少支持的。要是行动党真的派他出战，那将会是非常有看头的补选了。试想想，佘雪玲、郑斌辉和方荣发。。。我相信到最后，方荣发将会被边缘化，补选就会变成电视明星与政治新星的对决了！）

Integrity - Fundamental Basic of Leadership

(Update: Vikram has admitted that he shouldn't use the Nigerian Scam to insinuate Chen Shao Mao. At least he has the courage to admit his mistake and upheld his integrity. This is reported in Zaobao: 把工人党议员陈硕茂对改善财政预算案的提议，和“尼日利亚骗局”作比较，挖苦对方一番。三巴旺集选区议员维凯反省后承认：太过火了。 )

More than 20 years ago, I was just an Officer Cadet in OCS. Day in day out, right from dawn till dusk, our trainers would shout at us and punish us for the slightest fault we made. I remembered very clearly that the most often used phrase was "All of you have integrity problem is it?"

In fact, several fellow cadets were kicked out of course due to "integrity problems". Integrity problems could range from telling white lies, breaking rules knowingly to outright stealing. Looking back, all those little issues are really minor and OCS might have been too strict. However, it set the expectation of every officer-to-be: Integrity is the most important virtue valued.

I would expect any persons in the positions of public service to uphold the highest integrity level. This should apply to both ruling and opposition parties MPs. Even in Hong Kong, where they are having election of the Chief Executive by a mere 1200 electorates, they were fighting on the issue of integrity.

It is really disappointing to note that in the recent months, certain events had happened and it exposed the lack of due respect to integrity in the leadership of the highest authority of law making, parliament. Integrity encompasses a whole range of issues, from Yaw-gate (saving grace for WP, Low Thia Khiang finally decided to expel him), plagiarism, intellectual dishonesty, refusing to admit glaring mistakes and use lots of lame excuses like "it is just a joke" or "it is not against the rules and law" to explain away their spoken words cum actions, to the disrespect of our written Constitution on by-election (Well, the saving grace for PAP is that PM Lee has decided to call for Hougang by-elections) etc. People just couldn't think straight and talk straight but tried every ways to twist and turn, flaunting with words and "interpretations".

If this is the First World Parliament that we are supposed to build, I would rather not have it. Contrary to some people, including my friends who thought that I am "trumpeting" about "High Moral Standards" in my expectation of our representatives in parliament, I have only asked for the very basic quality of leadership in terms of Integrity, transparency, accountability and democracy to be part of the core values of them, to be upheld and safe guarded.

I understand it is unrealistic to ask for saints to fill all the parliamentary seats but at the very least, we should have people with basic integrity and honesty to lead the country.

As for opposition party supporters who have been criticising me for being too vocal on opposition MPs, particularly WP MPs and I should cut them some slack because they are, as IPS Gillian Koh said, "rookie politicians", I have only this to say to them: I have been the Secretary General of NSP and I understand it is really difficult to attract good and upright individuals to join the opposition cause.

However, if we do not keep our "role model" opposition MPs in check and keep reminding them what qualities are expected from them, especially in the aspect of Integrity, then those good and upright people would think thrice before they want to join any opposition parties. In the end, only those who do not put emphasis on integrity will join opposition parities. Do we want that to happen?

On the other hand, the middle ground voters who are mostly better educated would feel disappointed after giving opposition parties their votes in last GE. We should not take their support for granted and be mindful that the only way to continue to get their support or even convince others in the middle ground to support opposition cause, is to give them full confidence in our opposition MPs. Integrity is part of the confidence building process.

I thought with the break through in a GRC by WP is a major step forward a more balanced democracy but I was wrong. It seems that we just have a long way to go in achieving an upright democratic development for Singapore. I hope future political players will work harder to achieve that goal, with integrity.

Goh Meng Seng

Public Transport Options

I was quite amused by Finance Minister's Budget statement for this year even though I wasn't really paying much attention to it. The spending of $1.1 billion on buses for private transport companies (providing public transport) stands up like a sore thumb among the lengthy budget statement (as usual).

I waited for some a couple of days to see whether the other opposition parties have anything to say about this one but unfortunately, I hear nothing about this from opposition parties so far (well, please update me if I am wrong) amidst some comments made by people writing to ST forum and bloggers like Lucky Tan.

PAP has started its privatization of government assets and companies in late 1980s and 1990s. Vital strategic assets like telecommunications, public utility as well as public transport companies were all "privatized" amidst the fact that the government still maintain as major shareholders of these companies. It isn't really a clear cut kind of privatization but when these companies want to raise tariffs and fares, the excuse that these are "private companies" which will have to make profits is always used to justify such moves.

Some opposition parties like Workers Party has called for the Nationalization of the public transport companies (i.e. Comfort Delgro/SBS Transit, SMRT). Other opposition party like National Solidarity Party has called for more liberalization of the public transport sector which it believes more competition will help to keep the whole system more efficient and hopefully, more cost effective for commuters. PAP government has resisted both calls.

Due to the ill-conceived explosive FT policy which jack up the population rapidly over the decade, the public transport system has come under tremendous strains. Last year major break downs of the MRT train system has set the major alarm that the train system has been overstressed. The mid-term strategy would be divert the heavy use on MRT to the bus system before it could come up with a comprehensive plan of solving the congestion in the train system. Buses operating parallel to the MRT services will be needed to provide alternative mode of transport to the train.

PAP's controversial plan of pumping $1.1 billion taxpayers' money into the bus companies to help them increase their buses (550 buses at $1.1 B = $2 million per bus! Really overpriced.) is a desperate move to help solve the congestion problem. However, it is done without much serious thought on the implications. This move will open up the can of worms for future government to justify spending public money on "private companies" as a form of subsidy. It has broken PAP's own golden rule of "market principles".

Some PAP minister has commented that by spending $1.1B to help the transport companies, it will help to "prevent fares" from increasing so that the commuters will not suffer. First of all, Singaporeans had already suffered once the public money is spent because the money comes from everybody, via taxation like GST and Income taxes. Furthermore, if the companies are to raise funds to invest in these buses, these buses would generate revenue and profits to pay up for the initial capital cost in terms of depreciation. If PAP is serious about "privatization" and adhering to market principles, it should allow these companies to function as it is. Especially so when these companies are already enjoying monopoly power and domination over the public transport sector.

For private companies, especially for public listed companies like SMRT and SBS Transit, there are numerous ways of raising funds from the financial market. They could issue bonds or issue more shares. They could borrow from banks as well. There are no lack of financial tools for them to meet their needs.

If the government is to spend over a billion on these companies, it must well nationalize these companies! Else, how could it account for the taxpayer's monies spent on private companies for them to make more money?

The other option is to liberalize the public transport industry. New investors may be interested in breaching the gap of demand and supply.

From an overall strategic view, Singapore has too many taxis per capital than Hong Kong. The main reason for such phenomenon is due to the existence of two types of Minibus system in Hong Kong which covered the needs of the middle class in providing a mode of transport which could rival taxi services.

In terms of efficient use of limited resources such as fuel and public roads, minibus proved to be the preferred system than taxi. Each Minibus could carry 16 passengers at any one time while Taxi could only carry 4. Most of the time, during peak hours, taxi normally carry 1 passenger who rush for work.

Taxi has no fixed timing and routes which make it ineffective at certain times. During certain hours, you could hardly find any taxi available due to changing shifts or taxi waiting for change in surcharge to kick in. The Dual-Minibus systems in Hong Kong provide a stable, cost effective and efficient alternative to the taxi system.

Red Top Minibus

The Red Top Minibus system provides the comfort of seating as well as flexible alighting and boarding points along the routes at a very reasonable price. The Red Top Minibus drivers could switch routes according to peak and off-peak hours. This provide stable and yet flexible adjustment to demand due to different timing.

Green Top Minibus

The Green Top Minibus system has more fixed time tables and routing as compared to the Red Top Minibus. It serves those less travelled routes or unprofitable routes well, especially those private estates at a slightly higher fare.

I believe Singapore needs to cut down on the reliance of taxi or even decrease the number of taxis by substituting it with the more cost effective and resource efficient Minibus system. The minister of transport should come up with more effective strategic plans instead of just throwing more money into private transport companies.

For a start, the population of taxi should be curbed/reduced and taxi operators should be encouraged to divert resources to run a comprehensive minibus system. This will relieve the strains on the road network as well as the train system.

I believe that the designs of bus terminals around Singapore could only cope with a certain number of long haul buses. If there is a need to increase the number of fleets drastically, the infrastructure may not cope. For the long term strategy, we may have to increase the number of bus operators to three with new infrastructure built.

LTA has spent much time studying the Hong Kong model but it seems too reluctant to come up with a comprehensive public transport plan to overhaul the present system. It is totally irresponsible for the Ministry of Transport to take the easier way out by throwing more money instead of thinking long term and the overview of the whole system.

Goh Meng Seng

WP may split if...

Workers Party may split if Yaw Shin Leong decided to challenge the expulsion decision. I seriously hope my analysis is wrong and such situation could be avoided but there is a high possibility of a split if things don't turn out right. Of course, I would expect a lot of WP members and supporters attacking me for this article but I also hope that they could read it with an open mind and maybe, it could have made them realize unity within the party is what they really need now.

Loss of Two Core members with high support within

Since last General Elections held in 2011, WP has lost two key members: Eric Tan and Yaw Shin Leong. Eric Tan resigned from the party after he felt betrayed by the party leadership when the NCMP seat was not assigned to him, who is the leader of East Coast GRC team. Yaw Shin Leong has been expelled for his refusal to answer to allegation of adultery made against him.

Both Eric Tan and Yaw Shin Leong have very STRONG support base within the party cadre. In fact, they have the highest vote of support from the cadre members during the Ordinary Party Congress among those voted into CEC (The Chairman and Secretary General posts were uncontested) back in 2010.

Both Eric Tan and Yaw SL have led GRC teams in GE2006 and naturally they would have garnered respect and support from the cadre members.

For the party to lose two of the important CEC members, who had garnered top support from the cadres, within such a short span of time would post a big challenge to the current leadership to explain convincingly on why it happens.

Political Acumen

When the Yaw-gate first brewed, I have made several comments on how it should be managed and what went wrong subsequently. However, it seems that WP members and supporters are only concerned about short term interests instead of looking at the issue on a more matured perspective.

This is a worrying sign for WP. It indicates the lack of political acumen on the party members to understand the real issues behind Yaw-gate. More importantly, they are blinded by their loyalty to the party, instead to the core values of opposition.

What is more worrying to me is that some of the WP CEC members actually voted against the motion to expel Yaw SL. (WP confirmed it is not an unanimous decision.) Any seasoned politician would realize that the longer Yaw-gate drags, the more damage would be done to WP as well as the whole opposition movement. Thus it seems that these CEC members are most probably more emotional than rational when they cast their votes of objection.

The apparent lack of political acumen among WP members and CEC members would be a source of instability.

Internal Dyanmics

Any and every political parties will have factional internal dynamics. This is a fact of politics. However, I should caution political players that excessive politicking may just backfire on everybody.

It is a worry that factions may make use of this issue to create a situation which benefits their agenda within. Especially so when members lack good political acumen to make good judgement on what should be the right and good decision for the party.

Imagine what will happen if Yaw SL decided to challenge the expulsion and request for an extra-ordinary party congress?

The cumulative effect of Eric Tan's and Yaw Shin Leong's departure cannot be under estimated. Unless there is pro-active effort from the key party leaders to manage perceptions and expectations within, WP may risk big internal struggle or even a split which will affect its overall image.

Conclusion: Unity is vital

I sincerely hope that young cadre members of WP would look at things from a macro level. It is unfortunate that Yaw SL has done something very selfish and risk creating great damage to WP. Keeping quiet is not an option under such circumstances.

WP's crisis is not over yet. PAP will drag on for the Hougang by-election with the hope that WP internal strife will break it. Unity is the most important for WP to overcome such difficult time. You should be wary of those who wants to use Yaw-gate as the main issue to attack the leadership. It is the best decision Low Thia Khiang has made, though it is made a bit late into the saga.

Goh Meng Seng

饶欣龙事件

谨新明日报二月十二日对饶欣龙事件的报导，本人觉得有必要回应。

虽然本人转载了黄亦杰的文章，但本人并没有挑战饶欣龙议员辞职的意思。本人只是觉得饶欣龙和工人党对此事件的处理不当，导致原本只牵涉饶欣龙一人的感情缺失的事演变成中间选民对反对党阵营再次失去信心。

1991年民主党和工人党虽然得到重大突破赢得四个席位，但后因民主党党争致使中间选民对反对阵营失去信心，而导致反对党二十年来都无法再次有所突破。在2011年的大选里，反对党阵营好不容易再次取得中间选民的信任，不只把六名工人党议员送进国会，大体上其他的反对党的得票率也有跳跃式的进步。但是这次饶欣龙事件，却可能使反对阵营又再次遭遇打击，被打回原型了。这是非常遗憾的事。

这次事件的重点再也不是饶欣龙是否有感情缺失了。本人相信许多人对饶欣龙到底有没有情感越轨，大家心里早都有了定夺。最重要的是，工人党以第一世界国会为战旗、透明和问责为目标、魏征的大义为道德勇气走入国会，但是当自己的议员被质疑有道德缺失时，竟然一声不吭。这种沉默的处理方法，难免令中间选民对其政治架势的质疑。轻言魏征的大义，义无反顾地进死谏，塑造敢言不畏强权的幻觉，但是到了需要大义灭亲的时候，竟然鸦雀无声。这是令人非常失望的。工人党连承认过失，坦诚道歉，乞求原谅的道德勇气都没有，怎么能轻言魏征的大义呢？以此的鸵鸟政策来对应危机，工人党怎么能说服中间选民他们真的能成为世界一级的政党呢？

工人党目前是反对党阵营的龙头老大，如果中间选民对它都失去信心的话，他们又如何会对其他反对党有信心呢？作为反对党阵营楷模的工人党，应该有面对自己议员犯错的勇气。犯错并不可怕，人非圣贤，有道德瑕疵也是人之常情的。只不过我们不能容忍的是一个政党为了政治利益而包庇严重缺失。工人党让饶欣龙在没有任何具体交代的情况下辞去中委，这是非常不透明的做法。这与工人党一至提倡办事要有透明度相左。

工人党如此处理事件的手法是让人非常失望的，相比之下，饶欣龙辞不辞掉议员之职位已经并不太重要了。我恳请工人党为了真正建设第一世界的政治体系，应该拿出道德勇气来，把事情说清楚。如果饶欣龙真有感情缺失，就应该认错，对辜负了选民的支持道歉，并且乞求原谅。本人倒觉得这比辞去议员一席更为重要。

吴明盛

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

Crisis Management Lessons For Politicians

Right from last December till now, we have witnessed how badly our government and SMRT have managed the various "crisis". In Singapore, we do not have the culture of demanding and providing timely information of all sorts. The importance of timely information is basically ignored. In general, we are not trained in managing crisis.

A domesticated news industry has lost its natural journalistic instinct in looking out for vital information and asking important questions of public interests. Investigative reporting is either discouraged or basically disallowed. Whistle blowers are quickly dealt with internally. The political culture in Singapore is more of "covering up" or providing the least information possible to the public for fear of whatever reasons. However, the New Media has changed the rule of the game.

When certain "undesirable" information is being "leaked" or reported on New Media, blogs or internet based social political websites, the authorities seem to be at a lost on how to deal with such Public Relationship problems.

Politicians from both the opposition as well as ruling parties lack the necessary Public Relationship skills to deal with all sorts of big and small crisis. Most of the time, they would hope that by remaining silent, the problems will just go away. In this internet era, this is not possible. It is an outdated PR method (ostrich mentality) which could only apply with total monopoly of information flow.

The most common quote you can hear from officials is "We do not comment on rumors". While this may apply fairly well on certain issues but it may look bad on the person in question when the rumors are basically detrimental to his or her integrity or reputation. The most common rumor circulated on internet forums is about prominent politicians having extra-marital affairs.

I have been observing Taiwan and Hong Kong politics for quite some time. I will quote a couple of interesting examples of how politicians deal with Public Relationship crisis.

In the run up to the Hong Kong Chief Executive elections, BOTH potential candidates Henry Tang Ying Yen (唐英年, commonly known as Henry Tang) and Leung Chun Ying (梁振英,commonly known as CY Leung) were rumored to have extra-marital affairs. These rumors were spreading like wild fire on the internet but no one has shown conclusive evidence just yet.

CY Leung responded to such rumor immediately to dismiss it as a lie. He even added that it would not be FAIR to the women mentioned in the rumor if he did not come up to deny it outright. He has portrayed himself as someone who is not only protecting his integrity but also protecting the reputation of the women being maligned.

For a politician to respond in such a way, he must be 100% sure that this rumor is false or at least, he must be damn sure that no one could produce any conclusive evidence of such affairs. Most likely, he did not do it and it turns public perception to his advantage. Such rumor will be viewed as malicious attempt out to discredit him.

For Henry Tang, he did the opposite. He walked up to the press, holding his wife's hand tightly and made a simple statement of admission. He didn't answer to any questions raise during the press conference but just read out his statement. He said he is sorry that his personal indiscretion has caused much trouble to many people, especially the woman involved. He refused to confirm the identity of the woman, so to protect her from further unnecessary harassment. He reiterated that the affair was in the past and his wife has forgiven him. They have moved on from that past episode. This will be his first as well as the last response he would make with regards to the extra-marital affairs.

Some may wonder why Henry Tang should offer apology and admission even though no solid evidence has been offered by anyone on the internet. When a rumor is created, there will be some people who will defend the accused politician while there will be people who will use the opportunity to bring him down.

If the politician chose not to respond or deny but eventually someone come up with some conclusive evidence, the tide will totally be turned against the politician. His supporters will feel cheated and he will lose all his support base. This is the greatest nightmare to a politician. He will lose every support, even sympathizers if he ever lied or remained silent. He will be forever labelled as a cheat, a liar and irresponsible person who does not dare to bear the brunt of his own wrong doing.

The alternative option for the politician is to admit it openly and seek forgiveness. In the process, demonstrates that he would be responsible for whatever mistakes he has made in his life while trying to protect the women involved. He will most probably retain his support base and gain more sympathizers.

Furthermore, by making a short and swift response to this rumor, it will end the media disaster. Even if there are any compromising evidence leaked in future, it will have little or no value. The media will hype about it for the admission but it will die off eventually. This is evident in Henry Tang's case. The campaign didn't get derailed into reports on slanderous affairs but rather focus on his policy options he has to offer.

It is with such considerations and advice given by his PR manager that Henry Tang finally stood up and admit. He has successfully neutralized the great amount of bad press generated by this rumor hanging like a sword above his head.

Some may argue that such extra-marital affairs are private matters and it has nothing to do with the capabilities of the politician. However, such argument may be debunked quickly because politicians hold great powers in certain aspects in managing public assets and resources. If he could cheat his own spouse, he could cheat anyone, least to say, the public. Thus, the important thing is to minimize the perception of such cheating. If a politician choose to "try his luck" and bet on others not having concrete evidence, then he will reinforce the perception of being a dishonest man if any such concrete evidence surface.

Thus, in retrospective, Henry Tang has successfully removed or minimized the impression of being a cheat or dishonest by admitting outright, apologized and gained forgiveness from his wife. He also builds up his image as a person who will take up responsibility of any wrong doing. He has successfully minimize the damage of his extra-marital affairs done to his campaign. Nobody seems to think that his extra-marital affairs would matter anymore in his bid for the Chief Executive post after his open admission.

I hope the two case studies I have provided here would enlighten some in crisis management. On the PR perspective, it is not what trouble you get into that matters most. It is about the loss of confidence of your supporters that matters most and it will be determined by how you manage your own crisis.

Of course, I would want to reiterate my personal maxim, 因果不存侥幸: Never try your luck with Karma. The best way to avoid trouble is not to plant the seed at all.

Goh Meng Seng

Stand by me

I attended the birthday celebration of Yong Vui Kong at Speakers' Corner Hong Lim Park today. I have met many friends there, both social and political activists. M Ravi has spent years in his consistent work towards the Anti-Death Penalty campaign. M Ravi has spoken so passionately about his cause ever since I first met him many many years ago when he was helping the late JBJ.

I have met up with many political activists as well, from various parties. Some of them have really paid a heavy price for their participation in opposition politics during GE2011, both on the job front as well as personal relationships. Such sacrifices are hardly appreciated by others and the mental fatigue they had suffered after the GE is affecting them tremendously. This is especially so for first time contestants whom some would fall into depression and disillusion.

I would like to dedicate this song, which was very well sang by Joshua Chiang this afternoon at Hong Lim, to all social and political activists. What couldn't break us will make us stronger ever. Take heart, we will stand by each other on this path of activism.

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