Singapore Politics

New Email

2010-09-13T00:44:00.003+08:00

Hi all

Life goes on...

Feel free to email me at the new address

For the lack of creativity in naming my email....anyway, who cares? I am still after the person who deleted my Lim Chin Siong article....

Happy National Day!

2010-08-09T21:13:00.001+08:00

Yes, I am still very much alive.....just busy like every other Singaporean.

Politics of Money - Action over Words

2007-10-13T00:24:00.000+08:00

Well, just to annouce that I am still alive. It has been such a long time that I last wrote anything. It was also the same time that I last used the "busy" excuse. Guess that is with all Singaporeans that life is a list of priority of priorities. We will just keep listing of important thing over another important thing. Are we a soul-less nation? Yes, I think so.

Before the finger starts pointing at the most usual and convenient suspect (more like convict since people's judgement is without trial), the PAP, we should think of it as human evolution. Every nation now, is and will be economic driven to ensure survival (less Myanmar).

I do read the comments posted in the last round and sure, we will always keep to the idealistic world but how many can match their actions to words?

Just weeks after I wrote the last blog, I was confronted with a situation where I can walk out of my team, which is depleted in number and moral, and join a rival for 40% more pay. Well, this team has taught me everything I know in my line, and to walk out on them is a tough call. Anyway, I sure you will not be interested in the full story. Eventually, I stayed on the same team and forgo the 40%. I am not saying I am a saint or role model. I am not and never will be.

But any Singaporean, confronted with temptations of higher pay, will you always choose the moral high ground? Easy to say yes, when you are not the one on the spot. But when every you are on the spot, make sure you do what you preech.

"He, who is without sins, cast the first stone"

2007-06-26T01:02:00.000+08:00

Politics of Money II – A Reply

I thank all comments that you’ve posted. To me, all the comments were positive and constructive, and I truly appreciate it. None of the comments were irrelevant or negative. Some prefer not to read my blog after this post, fine with me since there are plenty of “I-hate-PAP-tailored-blogs” out there. Anyway, this blog is not of the consensus of following the “mainstream netizen”.

Think this blog did serve its purpose by getting you all to speak up and throw out some ideas. In my perspectives, politics is speaking out your own ideals, ask questions, challenge the norms, challenge your own ideals and last and most importantly, finding the answer and why things are the way are on YOUR OWN. The problem with us, Asians, is that we either don’t question and allow others to dictate us or ask but are constantly too sluggish to find out our own answers. Do I have my own disagreements with PAP? Of course! But instead of listing my grumbles like many others, why don’t I challenge myself further and answer my own grumbles. Put them to the practical test and challenge them. If you do so, some of your own questions might be answered.

Back to the questions. First and foremost, did I simplify the whole issue to a one-liner, “competition of talents from the private sector”? Yes, I did. I could and I would list all the reasons, logics and statistics into 10,000 words thesis to support my claim, but who would ever bother reading it, not mentioning, commenting on it. Yes, there are more factors to consider. And your inputs are valid. Perhaps having a short and provocative article to spark the answers from you is better than me listing my thoughts and imposing them on you.

Replying to some of your questions, Marc, good point, but I have statistics to represent the contrary to yours. It is not true that Singapore has spent proportionally less on education, health care and welfare for the needy. Kai, I’ve listed the tax rates of the Scandinavian countries for your use n the previous post’s comments. And to Young Singaporean, thanks for your comments. To asiayouthmedia.com, twasher and ttg, and Kelvin Lim, I appreciate your comments and your points are well-noted.

Morals Vs Money
I guess most people oppose the statement I made about the monetary competition and the morals of a leader quote. You’ve every right to be. Maybe I am becoming like the Thrasymachus of Socrates age, a pragmatist and realist.

Year 1
Suppose everyone who reads this blog sits in an enclosed room and the LKY asked, “I’ve got confidence in your ability and for SGD50k per annum, I want you to be my minister.” I am sure at least 9/10, if not all, will say yes. Why? He thinks we are capable, we are moral and we are not in it for the money, so despite the pay, we will volunteer our service to the nation. I am sure every one of us WILL think this way. And this is the most common comment I’ve seen in the previous post, ie, moral leader should service his country and not for the pay. I agree with this totally.

Year 5
Part II and this will get more interesting. Five years down the road, you have experienced tiring but rewarding job of making a change in people’s lives. Some will appreciate, but in like every other democratic country, most will criticize you. Every week you’ve spent your time in the Meet-the-People Session answering to issues on the ground. Get scolded by a good number of them. Your family has lost their privacy (see MP Wee Siew Kim’s daughter). While you’ve spent so much time (literary a 24/7 job) planning, implementing and answering to the people, the people thinks you are nothing but a ribbon cutter at events. If you are the Minister of Health, how do you balance the cost of health care against the quality of health care? Either ways, you will be criticized by some. If you are the Minister of Transport, how do you justify the cost of transportation (which is privatized) with the quality? Similar, both ways you will have your opponents. Minister of Finance, how do you balance your budget while setting aside enough for healthcare, welfare and education, with limited taxes (one of the lowest in Asia – aside from HK)? Minister of Manpower, how to do you lower the unemployment rates? Create jobs! How do you create jobs? Get in foreign MNCs! How to you attract MNCs? Lower taxes, provide security and stability…etc! Then you will have issues with MOF, MCYS, MTI and others who will ask you on budgeting issues. All these are the battles you will face in every parliamentary session. In addition to that, your daily running of the Ministry and making key decisions. Bottomline, you’ve realized that being a Minister is not so simply. And for the SGD50k per annum, the answering the people, doing your roles, being accountable and making such public sacrifices maybe quite a stretch.

Year 6
Before you know it, the next General Election is here. Now, a MNC (let’s just say, NOL) asked you to join them for SGD1mil per annum as their CEO. Stress and accountability should be more or less the same. LKY asked, “You’ve proven yourself and I want you in my team. According to the statures, I’ll increase your salary to SGD60k per annum. Are you with me? Now, how many of the 10 do you think will stay? Some will say 10/10 but a realist might say that one term is good enough for some to call it a day, so maybe 8/10.

Let’s just say 1/10 Ministers will leave to join the private sector. Essentially, this would represent and result in a small number of “short-term” thinking Ministers in the Cabinet. As for the ills of short-term-thinking Ministers, you should be able to critically figure it out.

Year 10
Now you are the Prime Minister of Singapore, and to the cohort of moral leaders. Your Ministers are in the position of making laws, approving multi-billion to a few million dollars public contracts and running their Ministries. But because we are all moral leaders who have visited this blog and happened to say “yes” in Year 1, you are confident that they are not corrupted. In every public contract (big or small), there will be disputes on favouritism. Once in a while, there will be complaints that reach to your ear on the corruption of the civil services. Two points arises.

1) How confident are you of your Ministers of not being corrupted since the reward for corruption is much higher than easer for a (subjectively) lower-paid Minister?
2) As a member of public, how confident are you of the Minister for impartiality in the tendering of the contracts?

In such cases, if you are the Minister, I’m sure you are not corrupted. But you, the moral leader will have to face such accusations year-in year-out. To such an extent, you will think that is this all worthwhile, fighting false accusations and for your family to bear the burden with you?

May I suggest, which most of you might disagree is that, increasing the Minister’s salary 1) makes them harder to be corrupt, 2) undertake more responsibility to perform and account and 3) gives confidence to the public of his undertaking of office. Maybe you might not know of this but the implicit rule made known to the PAP Ministers is that if you corrupt, you will commit suicide. Unless you choose to be a coward and will face the humiliation that will slain your name for life. I kid you not on this. A PAP Minister once said this.

Summary
Maybe you might be thinking that I’ve seriously exaggerated the scenarios but I can assure you that every one scenario, I can name you a real life Minister living through this. Now, hope that you will just answer the following questions from the perspective that you are one of the 10 Ministers:

1) Year 1 – Will you say yes to LKY to be a Minister? How many do you think will say “yes” from the 10? (eg: 9/10)

2) Year 5 – After all the realization of work and responsibility as a Minister, will you continue? How many do you think will stay on as Minister from the 10? (eg: 9/10)

3) Year 6 – Will you accept the offer from NOL? How do you think will stay on for a second term from the 10? (eg: 9/10)

4) Year 10 – As the PM, are you absolutely confident that your Ministers are incorruptible?

5) Year 10 – If you are the Minister, how many of your peers from the 10, do you think will quit in the midst of moderate public confidence?

I would just like to hear your answers as if you are the Minister and your opinions of your fellow Ministers. The answers to these questions will be the answer to your questions. And I hope you do so with a practical and not an ideal sense. Good night and I await your interesting, and most probably opposing comments.

2007-06-21T17:12:00.000+08:00

The Politics of Money

Yes, after a long hiatus I’m finally back. Contrary to popular beliefs that I’ve given up on my ideals or that I’ve been arrested by ISD, both didn’t happen (much to the disappointment of some). The reason for the long break from posting any article was that I’ve been really busy with work and could only write this article because I took leave today. For the past months, it was quite a personal struggle to get grips over my career and my future. I was brought down to reality on how brutally realistic the working life is compared to our own utopia of morals, philosophy and politics. Yes, this sentence doesn’t make much sense to you at the moment. Hopefully, I explain it better later on.

I’m in the corporate banking line, a line which is unforgiving and sanitized of feelings. If there is one thing I learned is that loyalty doesn’t pay. Move to a bank, achieve your monetary objectives, and after three to five years, move on the other banks. Why 3-5 years time? This is because you will have enough credibility, experience and accumulate enough clienteles to sell out to other banks. Your value is the highest within this number of years. This is how the game is being played and you are expected to observe this. No one will pay you extra for doing the otherwise.

In the political science of this “world”, is that the people will plan and work with a short term horizon since they may not be here to solve the problems that might pop out only in 3-5 years time. As such, people might just focus all their efforts, rightly or wrongly, on the short term goals to achieve their targets, key performance indicators or similar. There are ethical and unethical people who will do all that they could and to sweep the problems under the carpet for enough time before they leave the bank. You can only hope that you’ve got the right man, with the right morals for the job. But in truth, it might just be a 60-40 issue that for every 10 people you hired, 6 are likely to aim for short term goals. Or you might just believe that man are born good but corrupted by society.

If you are thinking that Thrasymachus has sudden changed his blog from politics to a “daily lives – oh, another xiaxue blog”, you are wrong. Something which I have not commented on was the debate on Ministers’ pay raise. I was “off-the-market” and late in the delivery of this article as I was busy (see above, yes, a circular argument). As such, let me relate the reality of totally realistic and practical world of banking to the unreal expectation and philosophy on what a Minister should be paid.

Paying for a Philosophy King
Maybe for those who have read Plato’s Republic will understand why I’ve sub-titled this “Paying for a Philosophy King”. As Plato quoted Socrates in the book, “Until philosophers are king, or kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoners natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils, -no, nor the human race, as I believe, -and then only will this our State have a possibility of life and behold the light of day.”

In short, we all know what the ideal ruler should be, kind, intelligent, incorruptible, loving, wise, philosophical, embraces justice and equality and so on and so forth. We all want those qualities in a Singapore Minister, just that we don’t want to pay them. How Singaporean - wanting the best but at the cheapest cost, or if possible, free!

How much do you think England is willing to pay to have Lee Kwan Yew as their Prime Minister when he was aged 60? Probably, less than David Beckham but definitely more than Sven Goran Eriksson. How much do you think China is willing to pay to have Goh Chok Tong to be their Central Bank Chairman? Definitely much more than the amount of money spent on investigating on central bank corruptions. Or do you want to pay just USD300k to a Vice-President who cooks up a story to invade an oil-rich country, only to award all oil-related contracts to the his former company that stills pay him USD1m every year until his death?

The price of all the qualities you want in a politician and Minister is hard to quantify. Yes, a politician and a Minister should not serve not because of money but because of their passion to serve the people. Most people treat this as the central argument of the whole Minister’s pay debate. But this is not the crux of the issue. The issue is sustainability. Can the system, select the leaders among Singaporeans, who has the right morals and qualities without competition from the real world? I don’t think so.

You want a Minister whom has the trust of the nation and that his integrity to serve Singapore, not for a short term of 5 years, but beyond his terms and for decades. One who is forward looking, whose policies benefit not just his electoral results but the nation’s competitive future. You wouldn’t want a corporate banking-like Minister who thinks only on short term basis just to win votes and make him look good. If you think that a Minister’s role is just to attend events and cut ribbons, then that it is really naïve of you. It is really a 24/7 job, thinking and planning. There is more behind the scenes that the media doesn’t tell. Increasing the pay for the Ministers is also to up the stakes that a Minister can’t fail in his task. If we remain short-sighted, the future Ministers will too.

Not many nations will you find the governments lowing taxes to below 20% and yet having a budget surplus. We have that. We are a small nation but even a far-off country like Egypt, our name looms large. Many things that we attributed it to “Singapore” are really the works of a couple of great men who we sometimes fail to appreciate. Until we have a bad government, we may never realize how good our present one is. Without going into all the things each Minister had mentioned about the pay debate, I will only ask of you to consider the differences between reality and ideals. It is easy for an opposition to oppose the hike, but it is even easier to fail to appreciate our current government. I’ve seen a department taking a nose-dive for the worse within 6 months just by changing a single leader and the impact of a crap Minister will just extrapolates this to a greater extent in a Ministry. As such, I urge you to think objectively and be more far-sighted in your judgment.

On a side note, no, I’ve not sold my soul to the finance world. I’ve never given up and never will. I am still dreaming of my own utopia. You should too.

2007-03-08T14:16:00.000+08:00

Some Political Prophecies That Might Never Come True

After the General Election, all things political in Singapore seem to be as dry and bland as watching “Days of Our Lives” – the never-ending-bore-you-to-tears soap opera. Year 2007 seems to be a year that is politically castrated. Rather, castrated of its politics. In this land sanitized of politics, we can’t look forward to the 10-yearly affair of military coups like Thailand (before Thaksin, it was almost a 2 yearly affair), 4-yearly event when we accuse another US President of election fraud, 2-yearly schedule where George W Bush invades another country, a yearly affair when Italy changes another Prime Minister, monthly fist fights in Taiwan’s parliament or daily dose of “Down with Ah-Bian (Taiwan’s Chen Shui Bian, of course)” street protest.

Watching the political upheavals of our neighbouring and other countries made us wonder what it would be like to have a day of chaos in Singapore. It is almost unimaginable, not even in the most tempting of situations when the IMF/World Bank’s stopover during September last year. As unlikely as Dr Chee Soon Juan becoming our next PM in the next elections, you will most certainly never find me advocating protest for the sake of protest. Once, someone commented that a certain level of fuzziness and messiness would lead to creativity and economic growth. I’d both agree and disagree with that, but to go into the whole argument of that might take another 10,000 words thesis.

So, aside from the all the political pandemonium, which is almost never going to happen, what other political events can we look forward to? Here are some prophecies. Like most prophecies, these come with disclaimers that you know they have got no basis of truth. Just like old times. :)

Old Man Vs Not-So-Old Men
In 2006, we witnessed the retirement of several Ministers. Well, in Singapore, retirement is really used to the dictionary’s definition here. Retirement is often associated with older people reaching to a certain age (around 55 to 60) before voluntarily or involuntarily stop working. But in the dictionary’s definition, age is not requisite for retirement. It is just the removal or withdrawal from service, office, or business.

Most notably, former DPM Tony Tan and Transport Minister Yeo Cheow Tong “retired” before the recent GE (as correctly predicted in my previous articles months back). While Minister in PMO Lim Boon Heng and MICA Minister Lee Boon Yang are slated to retire, the signal is mixed.

On 28 May 2006, the Straits Times report that: “Labour chief Lim Boon Heng, 58, who is Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, will hand the reins of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) towards the end of this year to Mr Lim Swee Say, who is now the deputy secretary-general. PM Lee said he has agreed 'to stay on in the Cabinet until he hands over in NTUC'.” As for Lee Boon Yang, “Dr Lee, 58, had asked to retire, said Mr Lee, who persuaded him to stay on till mid-term so a successor can be groomed.”

Although we have yet to reach to mid-term, Lee Boon Yang is clearly in the “ORD” mood with most MICA issues handled by Second Minister Dr Vivian and Senior Minister of State Dr Balaji. On the other hand, Lim Boon Heng has taken on new responsibilities in heading the Ministerial Committee on Ageing Issues and deputy chairman of the People’s Association, while retaining his post as the Chairman of PAP Central Executive Committee (CEC). Do not underestimate the seemingly-nominal post of Deputy Chairman in PA and Chairman of PAP CEC. Traditionally, the post of deputy-chairman of the PA was held by high-profile ministers, such as DPM Wong Kan Seng and former Education Minister Lee Yock Suan, and is no minor post since the deputy chairman constitutionally takes charge of the grassroots. (Note: Chairman of the PA will always be the Prime Minister). Also the Chairman of the PAP CEC, an elected post for the highest number of votes by party cadres, he is supposedly the “second in power” after the party Secretary-General. Being the party chairman puts him in the likes of Deputy Prime Ministers such as Dr Tony Tan and Toh Chin Chye.

But the significant point is why there was a U-turn in his earlier announced retirement, as suggested by PM Lee? It is difficult to understand the rationale from an external view. However, we could still attempt to second-guess the PM’s thoughts.

Before elections, he would have got a mental list of the ministers to retain and those he wishes to drop. The dilemma is not whether who to retain or drop (as he should have gotten a clear idea by then) but if he should announce it at all, and if so, when to announce it. It is imperative that such announcement would not swing the electoral votes against him, if he drops a minister just before elections. As cautious as he is, he left most ministers unchanged (except for Dr Tony Tan and Lee Yock Suan, both had stepped down during the term) to head the GRCs and waited after the GE to make the decision and announcement. First to fall was the not-so-popular transport minister Yeo Cheow Tong. Together with the same announcement was the impending retirement of Lim Boon Heng and Lee Boon Yang. While Lee Boon Yang is most likely to step down as planned, Lim Boon Heng’s U-turn was for other reasons. Several possibilities arise. The PM can’t ignore the fact that he has got several “senior citizens” in his Cabinet (LKY, GCT and Jayakumar) and has to make contingency on this. Compared to these senior citizens, Boon Heng is a teenager. But I don’t think this is the reason for his retention. This leads me to my next point. Maybe there is a lack of capable junior ministers taking over him, in the eyes of PM.

Who’s Hot Who’s Not?
The most junior ministers of state (MOS), Grace Fu, Lui Tuck Yew and Lee Yi Shyan have yet to prove their worth or demonstrated to be on par with the likes of Tharman and Ng Eng Hen. The recent promotions of Koo Tsai Kee, S Iswaran and Gan Kim Yong to MOS still needed time to impress. While the female MOS such as Lim Hwee Hwa and Yu-Foo Yee Shoon have certain advantages in the push for female Cabinet ministers. However, they have yet to shine and PM is insistent that he will not promote a female MOS just because she is a female. That leaves us with the “Senior” ministers of state, Ho Peng Kee, Balaji Sadasivan and Zainul Abidin.

Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee has been in parliament since 1991, later, a minister of state in 1997 and a senior minister of state from 2001. Every Cabinet reshuffle, he seemed to be constantly overlooked and younger ministers from the 2001 cohort have leapfrogged over him, into the Cabinet. A possible and positive view of this that he is slated to take over DPM Jayakumar for the Minister of Law, since he is the most and only one qualified for that law position. However, this doesn’t seem to be happening anytime soon, especially when he is still managing a single member constituency (SMC) ward. I think I’ve mentioned this many times over that in single member constituency, MOS MPs are quite often an indication that promotion is quite unlikely.

Like Ho Peng Kee, Zainul Abidin’s career path is quite similar. Entered parliament in 1997 as the senior parliamentary secretary, promoted to MOS in 2001, and was promoted to senior minister of state last year. As a MP, he was a strong Malay leader and commands great respect amongst the community. His presence in Aljunied GRC certainly swung the votes from the Malay community over. In the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, his position was to handle the Middle East relations and to attract some investments out of the lucrative Islamic banking and finance industry to Singapore. All in all, he has demonstrated to be a good number two, but not quite a number one man. He hasn’t portrait himself to be capable of leading and defending a ministry in parliament. While he might be capable enough, he needs to demonstrate more to warrant a position in Cabinet.

Last, but certainly not the least, is Dr Balaji Sadasivan. Unlike Ho Peng Kee and Zainul, he jumped straight into office as a MOS after his first elections in 2001. While his other peers like Dr Vivian and Tharman has been promoted into Cabinet, he has not. In 2004, he was promoted to senior minister of state of health and MICA and later in MFA. Separately, I’ve already covered the career and political life of Dr Balaji in a previous article and will not be repeating it. Aside from his quiet demure, his chances of promotion seem to be the highest of the lot. But a lot will depend on how he fit into the political ideology and plans of the Prime Minister. Will he be too liberal or conservative for the Cabinet? We shall see in the coming year.

Temasek Holding’s Next Financial Statements?
After the Shin Corp disaster, it will be interesting to see how Temasek Holdings present their financial statements for the financial year. My view is that they will lump all into provisions, and state the group profits without the asset lost or income statement changes due to Shin Corp. This year, by concealing the impact in the provisions, they can hold the issue and present a credible book to the public. By next financial year, when they make the provisions material, the public would have forgotten the issue and Temasek will also have other profit generators to cover the losses.

Anyway, let’s not spoil the fun and wait for the results before commenting further.

Post-65 MPs – Egalitarians or Elitists?
You’ve seen them dance in Chingay ’07, and will have your own thoughts on their moves. But I don’t think I’m too far wrong to say that they will never get any “officer bearer” in Ministry of Sound (MOS). While it’s too early to judge or cast stones at them, they seemed to be more elitist than egalitarian. MPs are supposed to be reflective of their generation. Thus, the question is whether the P65 are reflective of their generation?

If you look at their backgrounds – eg; Christopher de Souza, a lawyer at Lee & Lee, first class honours and formerly from Raffles Junior College. Same with Hri Kumar and Michael Palmer, both lawyers. Teo Ser Luck, a tri-athletic, who rose to become the general manager of DHL Express similar to Jessica Tan at Microsoft. Dr Faisal, a career lecturer at NUS. Dr Lam Pin Min and Dr Fatimah, both doctors.

Yes, MPs are supposed to have credible backgrounds and proven track records in prominent business sectors. But I think having a group of lawyers and doctors, growing up in education fast track, don’t quite reflect the laymen’s concerns and problems. They might be excellence communicators and speech-makers, but in every speech, it must have a soul. The MP must feel for the issue and to feel the issue, they have to experience the issue. We don’t need another blue-nose aristocrat in parliament speaking in flowerily languages. There is a difference between a MP and a Minister. And far too often we have MPs falling in between the characteristics of a MP and a Minister. Ministers have every right to be “unlike” the common people and to be brilliant visionaries that sets the moral direction for the country. MPs are and have to be reflective of their generation and fight with conviction for the thoughts and feels of the people. But the problem is having people who are neither MP-like nor Minister-like. Background near a minister but can never be one, and being a MP that was never quite representative of a generation.

Like I said, the P65 group needs more time to prove themselves, and prove that they are not another academically “straight-As” MP. The reason I ask if they are elitists or egalitarians is that the social character is of this nature. The P65 never experienced the traumatic split from Malaya but was in an era of academic elitism of Lee Kuan Yew. If you scored well, you will be rewarded by having a ladder to climb upwards. Fair or unfair to say that these MPs are the ones who climbed the ladder and made it good in economic and social sense. In that view, they are the elitists who reflect their generation; rather, they reflect the cream of the crop of their generation.

Alternative way of viewing this is that they reflect, not society, but the ideological direction of the selectors (the PAP Ministers). If they land up being egalitarian or elitist, that is the way the selectors set it out to be.

In short, time will tell.

Note: By the way, I "googled" my own blog name and surprisingly found quite a few people convinced that this blog is setup by the PAP government. Rest assured that I'm not in the government, sent by the government, paid by the government, moderately look like anyone from the government, or intent to be part of the government. In summary, this blog has nothing to do with the government. Maybe I should just change the blog address to prevent any misconceptions. I'm just another ordinary blogger with too much political rumour to spread.

2007-01-11T18:34:00.000+08:00

Short Story of Three Emperors

Well, everyone is well acquainted with this blog writing on Singapore Politics (as suggested by the title of this blog…duh…). Perhaps it might be interesting to write on sometime totally not related to Singapore politics and yet, has much relevance to local politics. This is a true story about the lives of three emperors, in certain country and in certain period of history. Maybe in the end, you might be able to draw parallels with local politics but I stressed that this article has “nothing” to do with local politics. For convenience, let’s just name the first emperor to be Emperor K, the second emperor to be Emperor G and the third emperor to be Emperor Loong.

Emperor K
Emperor K was the longest reigning emperor in the country’s history. He was born and raised in an era political instability, turmoil and power struggle, brought about by decades of war and conflict. His ideology of politics was largely shaped by this period of conflict. Although he seemed destined for greatness and leadership, his path to secure the throne was not a smooth one.

In the early stage of his life, Emperor K was overshadowed by some one (let’s name him to be Official O) more influential and powerful than him. On the surface, Emperor K seems to be leader but in actual fact, Emperor K can’t function without Official O. Official O grew in support amongst the people and other officials. Many dubbed him as the “real emperor” behind the throne. However, Official O underestimated the young and crafty emperor. While appearing to be unison, Emperor K was scheming to oust Official O from power. After a fierce underground political power struggle, spread over several years, Emperor K mustered enough power to oust Official O and condemn O into the depths of prison.

With O out of sight and power, Emperor K can finally have absolute power to manage the country. As a leader, he has a good foresight in choosing and managing talented Ministers. However, the dark side of him is his authoritarian and sometimes despotic nature. He has low tolerance for inefficiency, incompetence and corruption. In the later years, he is wary of succession problems (which will be mentioned later) and distrust most people beside him.

Emperor K was accredited for many great accomplishments. From a war-torn country, he led the country into unimagined prosperity within two decades, making the country a shining beacon of economic prosperity. However, prosperity came at a price in the form of absolute obedience from his people. Anyone who steps out of line will be punished severely. The people were often reminded of the warring past and treasured the peace and prosperous times. As such, there were very few rebellions and the majority chose to remain silent and obedient.

Unlike many other rulers of his time, information of Emperor K was plenty. Emperor K wrote his own thoughts and words in his biography as records and advice to his future generations. In his biography, he portrait himself as a decisive leader never as an authoritarian, and justified his actions by the delicate and sometimes unenviable situation he was in. From his self-portray, he describes his succession dilemma in searching for someone in his mold, the strong and uncompromising. His intended successor was to be groomed from young, as he wanted his heir apparent to possess all the qualities that he has and needed to be emperor. However, the heir apparent was not the officials’ or the people’s choice to lead the country due his character flaw. Officially, the heir apparent was removed based on health reasons. Instead, an unlikely prince was crowned the Emperor G.

Emperor K’s was always remembered as the founder of the empire, although he wasn’t the first emperor of the dynasty. But nonetheless, he was praised, despite his despotic tendency, to be the best and most brilliant of emperors in the country’s history.

Emperor G
In the early reign of Emperor G, he was plagued with rumours about his succession and never really full legitimized himself until his later years. One of the many reasoning for his appointment was that Emperor K adored Prince Loong, the apparent successor to Emperor G. As it was not appropriate to skip a generation, Emperor Y was appointed as his successor to the throne. Some many, Emperor G was very much a seat-warmer emperor for Prince Loong. Prince Loong was Emperor K’s favourite as he felt that Loong's mannerism and ways was very close to his own. Despite these succession rumours, Emperor G reigned for 14 years.

When Emperor G was crowned, Prince Loong was immediated promoted to Prince of the Blood (1st Rank) or the equivalent of a deputy prime minister in the modern days. For Emperor G did not allowed the position of Crown Prince, everyone expected Prince Loong to be the successor, especially when he deputise the emperor when Emperor G was out of the capital.

Emperor G was a tough but very hard-working ruler. G continued an era of continued peace and prosperity as he cracked down on corruption, waste, and reformed financial administration. In particular, he took great focus in curbing and suppressing other writings he deemed inimical to his regime or rumours that spoke ill of him. Another major focus of his adminstration was dealing with a hostile neighbour north of his empire. But he was never able to fully resolve the matter during his reign.

Having battled the rumours of succession problems prior to his ascension, he was determined not to repeat this mistake for his future generations. Thus, he developed a unprecedented system that would allow a smooth transition and identification of the next emperor.

Emperor Loong
When Emperor Loong ascended to the throne, there was never any doubts that he was the chosen one. Since his birth, Emperor K set his sights for Loong to ascend to the throne. Emperor G was merely the “seat-warmer” for 14 years, for Loong to attain maturity and prevent any accusations of going against traditions given his young age.

Many draw parallels of Emperor Loong to Emperor K, but never to the emperor “sandwiched” between them, Emperor G. Loong was like a replica in mannerisim and thinking to K. Contrastingly, Emperor K’s character was molded through hard and tough time during his era while Loong’s character was shaped by the influence and idolation of K.

Loong harvested the fruits of K’s & G’s labour and enjoyed the economic prosperity and social stability. With his country stable and prosperous upon taking over the reins, Loong can afford to concentrate on foreign policies and used his empire’s clout to solve territory issues that Emperor G could not. During Loong’s reign, the empire was at its largest and economically most vibrant. In his early years on the throne, Loong corrected much of the stagnation and strict administrative stiffness inherited from Emperor G’s policies, injecting the country with renew vigor and energy.

Politically, Loong’s era was as strong, if not, stronger than the times of Emperor K & G. But his personal life was a different story. His life was marred by the tragic loss of his favourite empress and son. Since then, he was never same man as he was. However, later in his life, he was attracted to a younger civil servant (let’s name this person to be Official Ho). Official Ho was originally a lowly civil servant, but with the favour of Loong, Ho rose to become the controller of the empire’s wealth. Once securing the Emperor's favour and approbation, Ho enjoyed almost complete freedom of actions. At the peak of his career, Ho personally controlled most if not all of the country’s treasury. This set the beginning of the empire’s degeneration. In addition, the expensive mega-structures by Loong’s later reign exhausted the country’s wealth.

Loong’s reign was in fact longer than K’s but out of deep respect to K, he retired before exceeding K’s tenure. Later generations look to Loong with mixed feelings, as he was brilliant in his early years and careless in his older years. In the end, most would agree that his years was the “watershed” of the empire.

Any guesses on who Emperor K, Emperor G and Emperor Loong are?

2006-12-14T18:50:00.000+08:00

“The Argumentative Singaporean (Part 1)” – PAP-Bashing with Reasoning

I guess I am one blogger that never comes out with good eye-catching titles. The suggestion of having the title, “The Argumentative Singaporean”, was largely inspired by the book by Amartya Sen titled, “The Argumentative Indian”. If you are wondering if I’ve read that book, the answer is a resounding “no”. But I did catch a glimpse of the book and its synopsis. Guess this book must make its way to my shelves by this weekend! Anyway, the purpose of starting this “PAP-Bashing with Reasoning” thread is to engage any reader into a thought-process to see if our regular qualms and criticisms of PAP are justified. Just like what Amartya Sen argued, “discussions and argument are critically important for democracy and public reasoning”. The argumentative tradition, if used with deliberation and commitment, can also be extremely important in resisting social inequalities and removing poverty and deprivation. Voice is a crucial component of the pursuit of social justice.” Voting and balloting — the inventions of Athens and the ancient West — are just part of a much larger story.

Yes, this is just my little feeble attempt at assessing our own argumentative culture of voicing our grievances against the ruling. For this, let’s keep any open our mind to debates and challenges to our statements. Stand for what you believe in and argue your case. But accept the challengers’ points if they are valid and sound. I believe we are all matured and learned people who are rational enough to assess the validity of the points. The point we should also note is that when we seemingly lost the argument, we shouldn’t resort to petty mudslinging, personal insults and stubborn claiming victory, likening a “Party” familiar to us all.

Just to state my position in this episode is that I am writing a pseudo-govt’s perspective on possibly why they did that or have not done that or did that but no one knows about it. So don’t burn me at the stake or lynch me for my comments. Now, lets move on to your valued inputs and comments. From the 40-50 replies, I think there are some salient points repeated by the contributors. So let’s start with some interesting ones.

Qn: “My main beef with the PAP is that they are close-minded to criticisms. It seems like they care more about maintaining their ego and image than about real debate and feedback. PM Lee keeps claiming that he wants a more open and inclusive society, and encourages people to speak up for issues they are passionate about, but sadly does not match his rhetoric with his actions. Many examples abound, all taken from just this year alone…”

This is just one of the many comments and charges on the PAP not listening enough and slamming down hard on those who gave their piece. I think this encompasses several issues and sub-parts, 1) PAP not listening enough; 2) They closed-up whenever the criticisms get potential sever; 3) They force policies down the throat of Singaporeans regardless of the majority consensus; 4) They words do not match their actions, which is that the open and inclusive society is done at face-value; 5) They adopting an elitist and top-down action in regardless of nature of the policies or problems. While these comments are fairly common and one-sided (against the PAP, of course), I don’t think anyone or any group has adequately looked into this. It is hard to find any middle ground in this, as there is too thin a line to divide one who is in the “mainstream” criticizing the PAP and the other end of what the PAP are saying now. So bear with me in attempting to walk this thin line, as it will be likely that I’d be seen stepping more towards the PAP side (to balance the weight on the other).

In any political action, policy or comment, no party in the world can ignore the political cost involved, not even the PAP. The PAP, or any other parties, will not be immune to the political implications if they make decision regardless of the wishes of the people. One good example is the integrated resorts (IR). When it was first mooted that the PAP government will take the opinions and feedbacks of Singaporeans in deciding whether or not to have the IR, many voiced their opinions and opposition towards it. While there seem to be many opposing the IR, the PAP went ahead with it and allowed, not one, but two IRs. Again, many slammed the PAP for their “authoritarian” action. The question became not whether we should or should not have the IR but was whether the PAP made the effort to listen to the opinions of the people. Many felt that the PAP didn’t. May I just say this, “this is the true democracy at work, and in this aspect, PAP is democratic.” And I don’t mean this with any cynicism or to poke fun at PAP. This is really democracy to its true meaning.

Let’s put this into scenarios.

1) 51% (aka majority) of the people oppose to the decision to go ahead with the IR
2) 51% (aka majority) of the people agree to the decision to go ahead with the IR

If PAP chose (1), they would have suffered the serious political implications of losing a few seats during GE or the whole GE itself. Of course, you will think this is crap and the government will not lose the majority in parliament over an IR policy. But this is precisely how a democratic government should and would function. There will be a tipping point or issue that is sensitive to the median voter and threaten the position of the government. One such example of the “tipping point or issue” is the Shin Corp and Thaksin saga.

So, now we know that the issues or bitter policies that the PAP had implemented were not the tipping point issues, even the recent GST hikes. But the question is really, why then is the PAP able to make unpopular policies and still able to retain a comfortable majority in parliament? Let’s not be overly engrossed in “repressive crap” and fear of being traced and purged rubbish. We can go on and on about these conspiracy theories and have no conclusions. Frankly, to me, these crap hold little water.

From deduction, this leaves us with two other options: a) the policies that PAP implemented has the endorsement of 51% of the majority (likely the silent majority), b) net effect of the unpopular and popular policies are in favour of the PAP. Both are the side effects of the democracy or what the great John Stuart Mills called the “tyranny of the majority”. While we may not be a perfect democracy, but we are a democratic country. The point I’m driving at is not whether is the PAP right or wrong in their policies or actions and calculated move in assessing the tipping point. If there is an issue you felt strongly about, don’t be in the silent majority and grumble behind the scenes. Take your words into action. Back your words with reasoning and debate over your views. If you are wrong, take it head-on and accept the better argument. If you are right, persist and change the norms. Tilt the tide in your favour and be a change starter, not sitting there to wait for things to happen.

Make no bones about whether your views will be taken seriously. If you are serious about your views and your views are serious, people will take you seriously. We grumbled when the GST goes up or when the transport cost goes up. The government has a well-reasoned argument (don’t think you need me to state those again, but if you wishes to, I’ll be happy to do so), but have the critics got one? From the government’s perspective, it is logical and beneficial to the majority, but time and time again, people grumbled when their pockets hurt. We did what European governments failed to do, and they failed because they failed to do what we did. If we continuously fail to think beyond our self-interest and look at the net benefits, we will experience the same decline as many European countries.

I guess this thread should start many talking points and before we move on the other issues, let’s debate over this and not let this sweep conveniently under the carpet.

PAP-Bashing with Reasoning II

2006-10-31T13:42:00.000+08:00

I guess most of the entries on why you've dislike the PAP are already in. Thus, I'll take the next week or so to distil the comments into few key arguments and take it on from there. Many thanks for your "bashing with reasoning". Perhaps, after this "PAP-Bashing with Reasoning", we could start something of ex-President and lesser appreciated Founding Father of Singapore, Devan Nair. His speeches are often inspirational and maybe it would be good to start by publishing some of his speeches before commencing an article on him. Stay tuned!

PAP-Bashing with Reasoning

2006-10-16T16:53:00.000+08:00

As many of us do have our fair share of reasons for criticising the PAP, at many times these may not be as fair as we assume ourselves to be. As such, I was wondering to do it differently by having anyone who is willing to share your (well-thought) reasons for criticising the PAP, and either I'll reply to it, or I might even invite an undisclosed public official to reply to it.

If this suggestion appeals to you, may your PAP-bashing start now on this posting. But may I just add that the reasoning should be specific and not too generic that it takes a 10,000 words thesis to reply to you.

Negative example: (I hate PAP because I think they are non-democratic!)

Positive example: (I dislike the PAP for their inability to solve haze problem attributable to their weak foreign diplomacy approaches.)

Please be event or policy-specific (as the title suggest it) to demonstrate that you do have legitimate reasons for our criticism. Rest assured this will not be a Mao Tze Tung-like "Hundred Flowers Campaign". If you have fully comprehended the rules of the game, then "may the hundred flowers bloom and the hundred thoughts flourish"!

2006-09-25T14:22:00.000+08:00

IMF/World Bank – A Pseudo-Government’s Perspective

The 61st IMF/World Bank meeting has just concluded couple of days ago, in our little island. While there are much breakthrough on the IMF/World Bank policies and voting rights, I guess most Singaporeans can’t be bothered by it. Perhaps the issues that interest most is the CSO – Civil Society Organization matters and what is the government’s take on these CSOs’ protests. This is just a pseudo-government’s perspective on what was possibly the sentiment on the government. Of course, don’t take this as gospel as I am only trying to second-guess the government!

Background
Just a little background for the “uninitiated”. The IMF/World Bank meeting held in Singapore from the 11 – 20 September 2006, was the largest turnout for an overseas-held meeting. A total 23,000 delegates and 300 finance Ministers from all over the world came to this much-maligned (or deservingly named, depending on which angle you see) authoritarian state called Singapore. Policy-wise, there have been major breakthroughs with the voting reforms in the IMF and policy against corrupted third-world countries. But away from the meetings, the issue that dominated some foreign press was the Singapore’s treatment to the Civil Society Organizations (CSOs).

For the second time in the meetings' history (the first was Dubai 2003), outdoor demonstrations are outlawed due to Singapore laws banning outdoor protests and marches. Numerous appeals to the authorities to approve such protest were rejected as the government cited security reasons including potential terrorist threat. The authorities are also denying entries of accredited civil society representatives whom the police regards as "troublemakers", despite the IMF/World Bank appeals to the government to allow them to attend the meetings. Registered civil service organisations (CSO) may hold indoor demonstrations on the ground floor of Suntec Singapore outside Starbucks Coffee, within a 14 by 8 metre space boundary, but CSOs are disappointed with the arrangement. The CSO protests were supposed to start on 11 September, but the police has pushed the date to 13 September.

On 11 September, when civic activists began arriving in Singapore, 27 activists were denied entry and had to leave the country. The police explained that these people were involved in violent demonstrations, including breaking into the World Bank headquarters in Washington D.C.. These individuals claimed that they had permission from the IMF and World Bank, but the police had stated that it is the local government's decision whether or not to allow them to enter the city state. Later, the World Bank and IMF accused the Singapore government of failing to allow the protestors into the country, with Paul Wolfowitz calling it a “going-back on an explicit agreement”, saying that Singapore had signed an open-access agreement or the Memorandum of Understanding in 2003. The World Bank added that it is a “breach” of their agreement and they worked with them and also valued their role even when they disagree on their views. They were cleared by their home governments beforehand and the World Bank believed that all of them should not be excluded from the annual meetings. The organising committee told the press, they were looking into the matter at that point of time. Later condemning the restrictions as "authoritarian". At that time, the Singapore police tried to contact the individuals via the World Bank or the embassies in Singapore, to prevent them from making a wasted trip to the country.

On 15 September 2006, the Singapore government announced that they will allow 22 out of the 27 banned activists into the country after reviewing the list of activists whose entry was subject to an interview if they entered the city-state. The organising committee said it reviewed the input provided by the IMF and the World Bank earlier that morning. On an another occasion, two Filipino activists were deported back to their country on 13 September as they were not accredited by the IMF/World Bank, and could post a security and public order threat. It was after interviews and full consideration of the circumstances. 14 September, an Indian national was denied entry into the country, and has been deported by the police.

If there were ever going to be protest in Singapore, how could ever do without Dr Chee Soon Juan and gang. The self-styled “martyr for his own voice” did his protest at Hong Lim Park with more foreign press than supportors. Many apologies, but I just can’t resist any opportunities to deliver punts at him. Just a note, have you ever visited Dr Chee’s blog? The strongest advocate for freedom doesn’t even allow comments on his blogs! So much for freedom of expression. Sorry, I really have to stop this bad habit of poking fun at him, but in my defensive, I am exercising my health need for freedom of speech! =P

The Pseudo-Govt’s Perspective
So the question, really, is the Singapore government even bothered about the protest about the protest? And what is the government’s opinion in this whole saga? Well, for the true answer, you might have to ask PM Lee or members of the Cabinet. But, pseudo-government’s guess is this.

For once, the government managed to turn the public opinion in favour of them with the help of media. Why do I say that? Firstly, this is the first time in recent history that protest was an non-event in IMF/World Bank. Hardly any solid (or liquid, for that matter) object was thrown at delegates. Naturely and diplomatically, the delegates have to say that the CSOs have the right to protest and their opinions are much appreciated. Deep down, they are extremely happy that there wasn’t any trouble and flying objects thrown at them. Put your shoes into a highly-paid CEO of an international bank being invited to attend an overseas that often resulted in a traumatic experience of fearing from your own safety and protests outside your meeting area. You fear walking in the streets being haressed or scorned and for much the 10 days. Effectively, you are stuck between the hotel and the meeting area. This is the feeling of my CEO on the past IMF/World Bank meetings, and probably the same feeling for most of the delegates.

Despite whatever have been said about the barring of protest by the CSOs, the strong turnout by the delegates was testimont to the their satisfaction. This will do Singapore lots of good and enhance our reputation as a place to hold conventions and meetings. The criticism from foreign presses and journalists are irrelevant and of little concern. The common mentality of these foreign presses and journalists are that they felt it is their moral obigation to push and expand the boundaries of freedom of speech and write on news that is of interest. While they might be opinion shapers in their own sphere, it is the opinions of the delegates, those with clout to shape economic balance of the world, that matters most during these 10 days. Singapore has demonstrated their ability to curb a traditional protest and guarenteed unprecedented security to these delegates, yet rank highly in conducive investment environment. This must have a lasting impact on these delegates and bankers. To add to the sobering effect, the Thailand military coup happened just 1 day before the end of the meetings. If you are an investor thinking of where to park your millions, Singapore just became the best alternative in Southeast Asia with Thailand shoot themselves in the foot.

For Wolfowitz to “cry wolf” and calling foul on Singapore, isn’t a problem as well. I am sure, with top legal brains like DPM Jayakumar in the Cabinet, we wouldn’t be liability for any contractual breach. Even if we do, the Singapore government would have choice their words carefully to circumvent the clauses. To the public, the blame game by Wolfowitz was made too blantly even for the CSOs to buy into that argument. This has worked in our favour.

So, the foreign opinions that needed to be secured were secured. This leads me to my second point. Locally, the papers have published letters by Singaporeans speaking in support of the government against the remarks by Wolfowitz. For the government not to reply too deeply and reactively (aka Bavani-style), they actually gained more goodwill for themselves. Seemingly, the government has used this incident to good effect to gain support from the local Singaporeans. While Dr Chee tried to use this event to rally support, it didn’t work well. He landed up bunching himself with the Wolfowitz-Singapore-government-bashing gang, that happens to be “target of the month” of Singaporeans.

In summary, it is really a win-win for the Singapore government. They have won local opinions and the delgates’ opinions without bending backwards for it. Let’s just now hope that the Singapore government learnt their lessons on how to effectively manage public opinions rather than being at the receiving end of negative public opinions.

Note: After reading some of the comments, I guess most people would disagree with this article. Very rightly so. That is one reason why I stated the title as pseudo-govt's perspective. This is possibly the opinion of the government, hence, they didn't really bother much about the external noises by the foreign presses. But keep your comments coming in and all opinions are very much welcomed.

Article from BBC: Singapore welcome raises doubts

2006-09-20T09:31:00.000+08:00

Came across this article from BBC that I've found quite interesting, given the perspective of an outsider look into Singapore. Since there are also lots of pro-Singapore comments on local papers (why am I not surprised that those are published on local papers... =P), I am still trying to reconcile the true perception. Do let me know your views on this issue and the article. Should we or shouldn't we be so uptight over the "traditional" civil group protest?

Singapore welcome raises doubts

By Andrew Harding BBC News, Singapore

Sometimes the adverts can be as revealing as the front pages.

This week some of Singapore's newspapers have been teeming with new recruitment ads put in by the city's many escort agencies. They're all busily hunting for what they describe as "young, outgoing girls... in their twenties".

The apparent hiring frenzy has been triggered by the arrival of some 24,000 visitors - all coming to town this week with just one thing on their minds... the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

The front page headline in this morning's Straits Times boasts that this is the biggest turnout ever. The delegates do have some serious business to discuss here - in particular, plans to restructure the IMF's voting system to give countries like China and Mexico more clout. But for Singapore - a tiny, humid and tightly-controlled city state - the real issue is how well it looks after its guests.

Citizens are being urged to smile. To make sure the delegates respond in kind, they're being offered discounts on botox injections and other beauty treatments. An article in the New Paper urges visitors to venture out of their convention centre and discover the city's secrets, declaring that there is much more to this place than "rules, laws and squeaky clean streets".

Campaigners barred
But it is Singapore's laws which are in danger of overshadowing this week's meeting. It is illegal here for more than four people to demonstrate together outside. So what to do with the many thousands of international activists who usually congregate at such events?

A number of campaigners have already been barred from entering the country. Those who have been allowed in are being carefully chaperoned. They will be allowed to protest, but only in designated indoor areas. They are also being provided with special, soft placards to wave.

Thursday's Straits Times carries a small article - tucked deep inside the newspaper - which some might argue belongs nearer the front page. The World Bank has come to its critics' defence, accusing Singapore of breaching a formal agreement by barring 28 activists from the country. In a statement, it says: "We work with these representatives of civil societies, and we value their role - even when we disagree with what they say."

More criticism has come from one of Singapore's tiny opposition parties. In an open letter, the Democratic Party has accused the authorities of stifling dissent, behaving like despots. What is more, the party has thrown down a direct challenge, vowing to go ahead with a big outdoor protest this Saturday, and inviting all the visiting delegates to come along and see what happens.

2006-08-25T15:05:00.000+08:00

National Day Rally without "Harm"

Upon an anonymous suggestion, I’ve decided to write something and some thoughts on the National Day Rally (NDR). Since many of us are sick of the “aerial” and “ground bombardment” of post-NDRs, I should write something different about this year’s NDR. Perhaps before starting on any thoughts it might be interesting (things that I’ve found boring was interesting to the readers and vice versa, so when I say its interesting, it might be boring! Readers beware!) to have some fun facts on the NDR.

Things you didn’t get to see on national TV
1) Who was the last MP to arrive at the National Day Rally?
Mr Ong Chit Chung. The MP from Jurong GRC, Bukit Batok Division, came in the hall a whooping 5 minutes late and after PM Lee had already started his speech. It didn’t help much to be stealth when he wore a red shirt brighter than the PM’s. It was a close fight between him and the former MP, Wong Kai Yuen who came in slightly later than Ong Chit Chung. But Wong Kai Yuen lost out on this one, as he is no longer a MP. Unanimously, the award had to go to Ong Chit Chung.

2) Who was the last Minister (aside from MM Lee and PM Lee) to be seated?
Tharman Shanmugaratnam. The Minister for Education and MP from Jurong GRC (there must be something with MPs from Jurong) took his seat just before the tradition last arrival of MM Lee. However, he was one of the earliest Ministers to arrive to the University Cultural Centre and mingled with the audience during the reception before the Rally. Other early comers included Foreign Minister George Yeo and Minister Lim Swee Say. Strangely, Tharman was the last to take his seat. Perhaps he might have remembered the perpetually endless toilet queues during the “half-time” break of NDR at last year’s NDR.

3) What was most peculiar and different about this year’s Rally that no one noticed?
This one is really curved-ball and has to do with SM Goh. Traditionally, just before the start of every rally, all will be seated before MM Lee Kuan Yew enter the hall to a rousing applause by all. The past two NDRs, SM Goh entered just before MM Lee and was received by applauses from the audiences. This year’s National Day Rally, GCT entered the hall with no one applauding him despite him turning around to face the audiences, expecting an applause. He intended to wave at the audience, but given the zero response, he turned back, sat down and didn’t move until to the Rally ended. Maybe he met with tough audiences or was just a victim falling from grace. But you could sense and see his disappointment. After the Rally, GCT was with Mah Bow Tan chatting about their perception on the youth near the buffet table. From my “eavesdropping”, I believed they weren’t talking about his non-applause. ;)

4) Did former Ministers get any stick from their ex-colleagues?
Unlike last year, when David Lim (former Acting Minister for MICA) walked across the whole front row Cabinet Ministers without any eye contact and smile from both parties, this year’s former Ministers faired better. Former DPM Dr Tony Tan had a lengthy conversation with now DPM Wong Kan Seng just before the Rally started and was well-received by all Ministers and MP. Former Transport Minister Yeo Cheow Tong had some mixed reactions. He was largely ignored by some Ministers (DPM Wong Kan Seng rather focus on his mobile phone than to look at his ex-colleague) but was greeted with smiles by some others like the ever-friendly Lim Swee Say, Lee Boon Yang and Teo Chee Hean. Only Dr Balaji Sadasivan, literately and physically, bent backwards to shake Yeo Cheow Tong’s hand.

5) Who was notably absented from this year’s NDR?
MM Lee’s wife. This is probably the first National Day Rally that she didn’t attend, or maybe I just didn’t see her there. I don’t think anyone did. Usually, she will be seated on the right side centre stand of the auditorium, with her daughter, Lee Wei Ling. But no conspiracy or wild guess, please! I do have vested interest in the stock market!

6) What usually happen after National Day Rallies?
This is something good-to-know if you ever get invited to National Day Rally. Traditionally, there will be receptions (of course with food) before and after the Rally where the Ministers and MP mingled with the attendees. But there is an implicit observation that many don’t see. Grassroots and Party (PAP of course) cadres are usually invited to the rallies. And Ministers and MPs will also gather with their constituency members for discussions and chitchats. Occasionally, the Ministers will be talking among each other on work related issues or with prominent businessmen. But most of the time, they will be with their own grassroots. Before going to that, just some quick observations. Dr Vivian was seen with DPM Jayakumar, Mah Bow Tan with SM Goh and Lim Hng Kiang was with Kwek Leng Joo, the Managing Director of City Development Limited (CDL) – formerly in the running for the Marina IR with Las Vegas Sands. Now for the main course: what is the implicit message?

PM and the rest of the senior leaders will also be at the reception to mingle with the crowd. But sometimes, what is evident is that this is one of the occasions to assess how well supported are the Ministers and MPs by their grassroots. Every NDR, there are two areas for reception, the second floor and the first floor. For the MPs and Ministers to get maximum exposure, they will usually be at the floor where the PM is. Second floor is a lot quieter. But those Ministers and MPs who are not too concern over this will visit the second floor to mingle. Some spotted at the second floor includes, Foreign Minister George Yeo, Senior Minister of State Dr Balaji Sadasivan and MP Wee Siew Kim. {See Photo: PM Lee is in red shirt with back facing the camera. Can you spot the other Minister "near" him?}

The support from the grassroots can be quite an important assessment guide of the MPs, by the PM. If a MP doesn’t seem to have grassroots support for the major events, how well can he/she even connect with the rest of the constituency and the voters? Don’t need to believe my words, by if you have a chance, observe it for yourself and make the conclusion.

7) Was Thrasymachus at the National Day Rally?
If he wasn’t there, how could he write the above observations (not conclusions)? ;)

Thrasymachus’s Thoughts on the National Day Rally
This section could be potentially so boring that it could tranquilize an elephant that can read. So please beware! Lame jokes aside, I’ll not be mentioning the stuff and so-called “analysis” on the papers but just some implicit notes and punts (not the “mee siam mai harm” kind) used by the PM.

Contrary to popular belief that only the PM drafts the NDR speech, it is not the case. The whole Cabinet is involved in the process of tailoring the speech. Thus, long before the day itself, all Ministers would have already known the content but not the delivery. This year’s NDR, he highlighted several key areas to focus on, namely, population, digital age and Singapore Heartware. Through his speech, you can also see which Ministers he has more interaction with and which Ministers are not. Many people also underestimated the NDR as a platform and channel to communicate implicit messages to the people. Like in 2003, then-PM Goh Chok Tong mentioned several key Ministers that LHL should retain when he steps down. NDR remains as an important platform for the PM.

Rising Stars and Setting Sun
In the past three National Day Rally by LHL, only one Minister was mentioned in every of his speech: Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam. Each time, the comment regarding Tharman was directed on their seemingly casual conversations. Perhaps he was consulted often by the PM and might be groomed for greatness. Aside from the commonly mentioned Ministers, there are also the “punts intended”. In this year’s NDR translation from his Chinese speech, he mentioned this, “Two years ago, we introduced major policy changes to encourage couples to have more babies. So far the results have been very modest.” Two years ago, Lim Hng Kiang was the Minister-in-Charge of the birth rates policies. Punts intended? Maybe. Given the amount of budget spent on improving the birth rates, he has done quite an abysmal job. But in the first place, this task was not something that one could easily manage and be done within two years. In other words, this is quite a suicidal task.

To Make or Import?
Since Goh Chok Tong’s time as PM until LHL, birth rate policies and incentives have always been a permanent fixture in NDRs and Budget speeches. But for the PM to highlight this issue but totally not speak about birth rates policies or incentives is quite a significant deviation from the norm. First, this might signal that they have given up their continual monetary incentive efforts of improving birth rates. Second, they would rather opt for a short-term fix in getting foreign talents than to pursue a seemingly lost cause. Lastly, if both are true, then they have to resolve the tension between the foreigners and locals. The foreign talents policy has been around for sometime, but seldom mentioned in NDRs as it is potentially touchy. Phrasing in the wrong manner, may have significant consequences. But I think the PM carried it well.

The Policy “Face”
Political science lesson 201: Every policy needs a “face”. This means that for every policy, some ministers must take responsibility or take the face of it. Name any policy, and you should or must be able to find a face to it. Like Goh Chok Tong’s initiative of the CPF cuts during the economic downturn, George Yeo to FTAs, or the building of MRT to Ong Teng Cheong’s credit, are the faces of the policies. So far, Lee Hsien Loong has been elusive in doing that, rightly so. Since taking on the post of Prime Minister, he has been careful in avoiding putting his face on any policies, except the IR. I don’t think that he is trying to sidestep any responsibility or controversy but is a deliberate strategy to strengthen his hold on his leadership.

Every Prime Minister needs to step out of the shadow of his predecessor, just like GCT differentiating himself from LKY, Abdullah Badawi from Mahathir. This is no easy task. But LHL is a quick learner in this field. What some new leaders did wrong was taking an issue or policy to benchmark as “success” over the transition. When Badawi took over from Mahathir, he took himself to task of eliminating corruption in the government as his report card. And he announced this even before he has grip and control over the government. Without the good ground support, he was doomed to fail from the start and is now attacked because that was his benchmarking policy and he is the face to it. LHL has smartened from this. Instead of putting his face to the policies, he delegates the policy implementation to other Ministers once he has initiates it. An example would be the population control responsibility being with Wong Kan Seng after the NDR.

Political leaders can only be criticized or attacked in two areas, leadership and policy. Leadership can be hidden as long as your team publicly voice support for you. Policies are in the public eye and success depends also on the public eye. This, of course, is more difficult to predict or manage. Thus, unless LHL is confident that he has control over the government, with his people in place, he will be and should be “elusive” in the policy limelight. And NDR is the stage where he has to be in the policy limelight. Hence, this NDR was purposely focused on broad issues, no specific policies, general and directional at best.

The Brown Man Causing Black Faces?
Yes, the latest Mr Brown’s “mai hum feat. PM Lee” got me tickling. Maybe this is already stale news to many but maybe I could just give a little heads up on what happened behind the Brown saga from MICA’s point of view.

We all reacted strongly in the way the MICA’s Press Secretary K Bavani responded to the article. But maybe you didn’t know this but several Ministers were very upset with the Press Secretary as well. Apparently, some of the MICA Ministers (except Lee Boon Yang) and other Cabinet Ministers were not informed when the press letter was published. And many Ministers were angry with her and her badly crafted letter. Simply, she reacted too soon, too harsh and without much consideration. Considering that she was also the President of the Institute of Public Relations of Singapore, her mistake was inexcusable and was not taken too lightly. But being part of the civil service the Ministers can’t turn around and scold her in public. Unity has to be presented under every circumstance. This is the rule of thumb of the government. However, this is case of forgiven but not forgotten. Thus, if you read the statements of the Ministers after the letter was published, there was a slight disjoint in statement and tune. While seemingly supporting the Press Secretary, they tried to soften the damage done. All sang the same song with a different tune (no punt intended). Don’t be surprised if you see some changes to her position in the coming 2 years (but not within this year).

It will be interesting to see or find out if Dr Lee Boon Yang, Minister of MICA, shouldered most of the blame during the stormy Cabinet meeting. In any case, it doesn’t matter, as he will be joining Yeo Cheow Tong on retirement soon.

I was supposed to talk about the National Day Rally, but landed up talking about many other things that are not really related. As usual…

One more note:

Well, while many thought that the government "forced" TODAY papers to suspend Mr Brown, they didn't. When the editor of TODAY decided to suspend Mr Brown, out of fear of kanna knocked in the head by his boss or pure stupidity or purely to push the blame to the government, they did not inform the government or MICA. The officials only learnt about the suspension when it was published. This led many MICA Ministers even more upset as the whole would have thought that the government "forced" TODAY into doing that. You may not believed me in this, but trust my MICA source and TODAY papers friend. TODAY did a screw job on the government, well enough to think that it was the "MICA's heavy hand" in action again. I'm so sure about this statement that I double dare TODAY to sue me on this one (Ooops, sorry James Gomez, for bringing up unhappy and familiar GE2006 memories. I was well indoctrinated by the white forces during my early education.).

2006-08-13T21:34:00.000+08:00

Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong

The Benevolent Leader or The Unwilling Candidate?

I think to those who read my blog, they often have five conclusions: 1) I don’t update my blog that often (in my defense, I am rather busy and each article takes lots o f research… *eyeballs rolling*); 2) This blog seems like a FAQ for the govt and PAP (doesn’t mean that I am pro-PAP); 3) Each article is so damn lengthy (that is if you read them); 4) I wrote more on the dead than the living (or when the living becomes dead); 5) Whatever you wish to read, I’ll try to write! (*fingers crossed*)

In this article, I’ll be writing on a recent and continuing history of SM Goh Chok Tong with a slight twist. There are little doubts that he was a popular PM in comparison with his predecessor and successor. His “softer” approach and style was a breath of fresh air to many. Upon his stepping down from his premiership, there have been many articles written on his policies, his leadership and his achievements. This will not be one of them. Simply, if I do write on those standard contents, you will be better off reading the Straits Times than this lengthy blasphemy (not that Straits Times always purport the unbiased truth!).

The first lesson of observing political truths is to never treat an entity as one (btw, who am I to teach lessons of politics…Ooops). In other words, is never to stereotype or characterize the entity. What is the PAP? What characteristics does the PAP MPs or Ministers have? These questions are fallacies. Behind the scenes of unity, there may be differences in opinions, characters and ambitions. There is no PAP character or person but is just an amalgamation of diverse people and their motives. Anyway, many of policies made within the Cabinet are not unanimous. That is politics; the innate and unseen character of each participating entity. Of course, like what Lim Kim San mentioned about assessing people is that one could only briefly know the other person through observation and instinct. This is what made assessing politicians so difficult. In the public face and media spotlight, we thought we know them like friends but there are more that we don’t know than we thought we know. The resulting impact is that we place mental and perception brackets on their names, like Lee Kuan Yew (the Authoritarian), Goh Chok Tong (the Good Guy) and the Cabinet (the group of “Yes-men”) based on what the media feeds to us. This article (or blasphemy, depending on how you see it) will just add fuel for your thoughts with statements from GCT and on GCT. Ultimately, this blog can’t claim to know or speak the unspoken truth on GCT or any politicians, but just form an alternative perception track. I’ll leave you to make your own conclusions.

His Political Beginnings
In LKY’s memoirs (Chapter 41 – Passing the Baton, Pg 735), he mentioned about how he ease the way for GCT to succeed him. For those who have not read that chapter, I strongly recommend that you do. That chapter is very interesting as words are contained within words. Depending on which angle you read, you will get a different story.

First, we must know that LKY’s book was an international bestseller across many countries, and read by most leaders around the world. Second fact is that whatever he wrote in his book about GCT or LHL would be what foreign leaders read about them. In that chapter, he described GCT as “not a natural politician…tall, gangling and awkward, and spoke English with a heavy Hokkien accent.” This is not the best description for the person who is about to succeed you. LKY also described GCT as “self-conscious and without the gift of speech-making but had ability, dedication and drive, and was interested in people”. Later LKY even mentioned that he found an English women to teach GCT to speak in a more relaxed and natural way. For a person who will be Prime Minister, he still needed someone to assist him to look for a tutor? This might have pointed out that GCT wasn’t really in the “driving seat” but had an instructor beside him, constantly.

Another interesting point to the chapter was GCT not wanting move into LKY’s office. “I did not suffer any withdrawal syndrome. Chok Tong did not want to move into my old office in the Istana Annexe, which I had occupied for 20 years since I moved from City Hall, but chose to create a new office on the floor above mine.” Aside from the niceties that one might think of when he first read it, there might be more significance in that statement. Maybe LKY was literately the “power behind the throne”, or maybe it suggested how much power LKY had and wish to remind GCT about it. More importantly, what is the message that LKY wants to bring to all the leaders in the world about his deputy?

Building His Own Legitimacy
Perhaps the second lesson of politics is the word, “legitimacy”. Whether be it an organization or leader, it or he has to have some form of legitimacy. The forms of legitimacy includes: mandate from people (elections), leadership charisma (eg: Mao Tze-Dong), expert knowledge (for technocrats), military power (like in Indonesia) or economic performances. The last form of legitimacy, economic performances, is developing into the most important form for any political office. For the case of PAP, the core strength is their ability to provide economic success and is unmatched by any parties. No opposition parties came close to challenging them in that area. The trends for the past few GEs was for the oppositions to divert away from economical issues and focus on other side issues such as human rights infringements.

For leaders, they too have to build their own legitimacy and mandate as well. “Inherited” authority will not last long without legitimacy. Similarly, if a leader managed to last long (in at least a semi-democratic country), you could somewhat say that he is not riding on “inherited” authority but has some form of legitimacy (yes, I am hinted at someone).

In the case of GCT, many assumed that he was a seat-warmer, sandwiched between the Lees. In his early political years as PM, he needed to gain support from three areas, within the Cabinet, within the Party cadres and with the Singapore population. His apparent tactics was to first gain the mandate of the Singaporeans by General Elections then gradually make changes within the party and Cabinet to place the men loyal to him in key positions. Doing the opposite might anger his predecessor who still has considerably power and influence over all matters. He has seen lessons from his neighbouring counterparties and will be careful not to make the same mistakes. However, his election mandate will not come easy. Since Independence, LKY has been Singapore’s only Prime Minister. For GCT to step into his shoes and gain the confidence of the population was no easy feat.

Altered Ego in Elections
However, his first GE (1991) was setback from him and probably changed his “election personality” several degrees. In the 1991 GE, the PAP lost a record of 4 seats to the opposition, one of which was his female Senior Minister of State, Seet Ai Mee. Other wards, such as Bukit Batok, were barely won by the PAP. That election was the turning point of his “election mentality”. Since then, he has opted to be tougher during elections with his words and actions.

In the 1997 Election, he was determined to be tough on the Oppositions and would take them out by any means, previously endorsed by LKY. During the “Battle of Cheng San”, GCT gave this message,

“You decide. You choose Tang Liang Hong, Jeyeratnam, raise their status and lower the Prime Minister’s the Deputy Prime Ministers’ stature, in Singapore, internationally, that will have very serious consequences.”

“What we are now doing is to… put all the chips on the table. It is a winner-takes-all situation. MRT, LRT, Punggol 21, upgrading, estate improvement, libraries, kindergartens, better schools… all these are plans which… have put to the people.”

“We win, Cheng San will get not just the attention of Lee Yock Suan and the team. Cheng San will get the Government’s attention, my attention, Lee Hsien Loong’s attention, Tony Tan’s attention. Even in Marine Parade you don’t get such attention. So you win big or you lose big. So tomorrow, you have to decide.”

Of course, we all knew what happened to Tang Liang Hong and JBJ after that Election.

Era of Disposed Number Ones & Downfall of Twos
“cheng ye xiao he, bai ye xiao he” – He who gave you success, can bring your downfall.

If one reads the memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew, both volumes, you could sense his apprehension over several domestic issues such as Party splits (which I will mention later), succession planning, ousting of top Asian leaders and the downfalls of Number Twos. Not known to many is that the PAP suffered a Party split twice, once by the charismatic Mayor Ong Eng Guan and by the leftist, Lim Chin Siong. The latter split was devastating and almost permanently crippled the PAP. In recent history of our neighbours, UMNO suffered two party splits when Tengku Razaleigh openly challenged Mahathir in 1987 and when Anwar fell out with Dr M. These incidents, locally and abroad, remained deeply entrenched in LKY’s mind, even until today.

The world has seen plenty of examples of the difficult relationships between the leaders and their deputies. All these incidents led both LKY and GCT to rethink their own potentially precarious position. No matter what LKY said, deep down, he wanted LHL to be the Prime Minister someday. And he could only exert his influence if he is still in Cabinet. And for GCT, he knows what LKY wants from him and knows that LKY still has the ability and power to remove him should there be a need to. This is a tango that both are dancing in secret. Given their delicate relationship, it is not surprising to see GCT echoing most of LKY views and words. If you look through all the news reports on GCT, majority of his words are singing in the same tune as what LKY previously sung. In the opinions of many, GCT never really stepped out of LKY’s shadow.

Unwillingly Unseated?
Many often wondered if GCT stepped down willingly from the position of PM or was he pressed into doing so. Perhaps only three people in Singapore know the answer. But what we can do is to decipher his actions and words leading up to his stepping down. In the article on Lee Hsien Loong, I’ve mentioned this before and will do it here again. During GCT’s last National Day Rally as Prime Minister, he mentioned this:

“You may also have heard this old story about Loong. Back in 1990, Loong had a quarrel with Richard Hu. Dhanabalan sided with Richard. Loong lost his temper, reached across the table, and gave Dhanabalan a tight slap! The whole Cabinet was thrown into commotion. I then forced Loong to apologise.

I must be suffering from amnesia. I just cannot remember this incident! Now you know how creative Singaporeans are!”

GCT need not mention the Dhanabalan incident since it was already 13 years ago (from the National Day Rally). People wouldn’t remember if they weren’t reminded by him. But he still made that comment and later claimed amnesia. And for the first time in Singapore history, GCT created a three-step process to the transition of power, through endorsements from the PAP Central Executive Committee, PAP Cabinet Ministers and the PAP MPs. The words and actions of GCT during that year can be quite intriguing. But I’ll leave you to decipher that.

Can there be Three Tigers in One Mountain?
One question that no one explicitly asked was whether the system and post of Senior Minister would exist when LKY passes. The current situation, of having two former Prime Ministers in the present Cabinet (plus the present PM), is unprecedented in any part of the world. Since it currently exists, the question should really be whether it should continue to exist and will it cease to exist. There are some coffeeshop talks on this issue that before LKY passes, GCT will either step down or have his loyal men removed. (According to market talks) Given LKY sensitive nature developed during the tumultuous times (see the History of PAP) and struggle of the traumatic party split, he will leave nothing to chance. Although the possibilities of a party split or power struggle is negligible, he will not rest until that has been resolved even after his death.

Necessary Stage of Change: Uprooting the Roots
Some might find this (removing GCT or his men) objectionable or unwarranted, but there is nothing inherently wrong with that. The mistake that Abdullah Badawi (Malaysia’s current PM) made was his inability to gradually and systematically remove his predecessor’s men from the Cabinet and plant his loyal lieutenants into key positions. Now, he is facing a situation of having policies with no one loyal enough to him to implement it. With half of the Cabinet still loyal to Mahathir and a strong number two candidate in Najip, his position is vulnerable to ousting. That is the main reason for him to undertake several key Ministries (PMO, Home Affairs and Finance) himself.

For LHL’s team to be effective, it is vital and necessary for him to place his people into the key Ministries. As predicted before the GE 2006, I expected Yeo Cheow Tong, Lee Boon Yang and Lim Boon Heng to gradually step down (within one year) and it is taking shape now. Yeo Cheow Tong has stepped down, and both Lee Boon Yang and Lim Boon Heng have indicted their stepping down within a year. MPs loyal to GCT like Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Golf partner of GCT) have also stepped down. For GCT himself, he has been assigned to foreign and finance affairs issues such as Middle East Islamic finance hub and Malaysia bilateral issues. This isolates his impact on “domestic politics”, leading him away from the public eye and leaving room for LHL in the spotlight. Again, there is nothing wrong with that, all in the name of “renewal”.

Deciphering GE2006
Similarly, during the GE2006, two incidents are worth analyzing. Firstly, before the GE, GCT openly challenged the opposition parties to test Marine Parade GRC (his ward). Yes, all MPs and Ministers also challenged or stated that they welcomed opposition contest. But for GCT, it was different. He needed the contest to demonstrate that he is still more popular than LHL, something which he is sure of but required undisputable figures. If he scored well in the contest, it might prolong his career in LHL’s administration or (very remotely and speculatively) offer him a chance of a comeback (which GCT himself wouldn’t even expect or probably want). But he didn’t receive a contest and it turned out worse.

The second incident was his assignment to win back Potong Pasir and Hougang from Chiam (SDA) and Low Thia Khiang (WP). This is an astute move by LHL (possibly LKY). On the face of it, it demonstrates the new PM’s serious intent on recovering Potong Pasir and Hougang. The implicitly explicit reason is to keep the opposition leaders, Low and Chiam, busy in their own wards and negate their effects on the neighbouring GRCs, especially Aljunied GRC. But the real beneficiary of this strategy is LHL. There are four possible scenarios out of this strategy: 1) winning both Potong Pasir and Hougang back; 2) winning one of them back, like to be Potong Pasir; 3) losing both wards by lesser margins and; 4) losing both wards by larger margins.

If (1) happens, LHL will be credited for winning back the PP and Hougang but not GCT, since GCT was not able to do it when he was PM. But the government will run into lots of foreign affairs (such as democracy advocators) issues of having no oppositions in parliament (inter-parliamentary visits require oppositions as well). If (2) happens, LHL will still be credited more than GCT. If (3) happens, it shows the slight impact of GCT’s campaigning influence. Lastly, if (4) happens (which happened), it will be the worst scenario for GCT. As he mentioned during the campaign, the losses will affect his “personal prestige” and “reputation”, almost like a slap in his face. Since scenario (4) materialized, GCT doesn’t have the chip to say that he is more popular than LHL or LHL is any less popular than him. And since LHL didn’t campaign at PP and Hougang (at all), the burden of loss is solely and squarely on GCT.

Conclusions
Once again, I’ve asked more questions than provide answers. This is probably what makes a perceivably dull local politics interesting. As mentioned in the beginning, I am no pseudo-Lim Kim San and can never be and never will be. Never can I claim to speak the uncensored truth about one’s character since I don’t know him in person. What I can do is to spark some interest that allows you to question the answers you see or hear in public and make judgments of your own. Of course, we maybe wrong and must accept that we might be wrong. There is always more that we don’t know than know. This article provides only an alternative view which might be wrong, so do make your own judgment call.

2006-07-22T01:24:00.000+08:00

Tribute to Lim Kim San

Another great founding father has passed us, Mr Lim Kim San. He passed away peaceful on Thursday, 5.30 pm, at his Dalvey Road residence. The Straits Times and other major local papers have listed his many achievements in HDB, Ministry of National Development, MAS, PUB, PSA, SPH and the Council of Presidential Advisers. Deservingly so. The list of achievements can go on and on for Lim Kim San but, undoubtedly, he will always be remembered as the man who gave us shelter with the creation of the HDB. With his leadership, Singapore is one of the rare success stories of public housing. Another label that he will always be remembered by is his ability to spot talents and judge one’s character and integrity. Rather than duplicating what most papers are writing by stating his childhood, life and achievements, I’d just add in some of his comments in an interview conducted in 1996 with Melanie Chew. By his quotes, one could feel the personal touch of Lim Kim San and his unwavering commitment towards the Singapore Story.

Qn: You were strictly volunteer. You were not paid at all. (With reference to Lim Kim San joining the the PSC and HDB as a volunteer in 1959)

Lim Kim San: Yes, Although I was the Chairman of the Housing Board, I was just a volunteer. I didn’t get paid a cent. Largely because Ong Eng Guan was the Minister. I thought that if I go in there and get paid, first it is not fair because I have my own business. Secondly, if I am a paid employee, he can kick me out! If I don’t like it, I could just lump it.

I had my reservations about Ong Eng Guan. I felt he was a megalomaniac and rabble-rouser. Well, I explained my feelings about him to the Cabinet, and they scolded me! “He knows Three Kingdoms!” they said. “Can you speak Hokkien like him?” Well, my feelings were proved correct.

Qn: It must have been quite a step, to volunteer to serve in the HDB. The HDB and the building of low-cost housing was a central pillar of the PAP government. It was a huge job, a demanding job. And you took it on as a volunteer!

On reflection, I think it is a case of “fools rushing in where angels fear to tread.” But when you are young, you feel everything is possible.

But there was another reason. Have you heard of a street called Upper Nanjing Street? I went down there to look at the housing conditions for the poor. What a shocking experience it was! I have never been down to that part of Singapore. Of course, I had passed by in the car but I have never been inside the houses.

I went into a three storey shophouse with one lavatory and two bathrooms. We countered 200 tenants living there. It was so dark and damp. It was an inhuman and degrading existence. I saw for myself how really poor they were.

Underneath the staircase was a single plank. A man was lying on the plank. He had rented it. That was his home! And he was lying down covered by a blanket made in China. I paused and asked him if he was sick. “Why are you covering yourself with a thick blanket?” He replied, “I am covering myself out of respect for you. I am wearing only undershorts. My brother is wearing my pants.” They were too poor to afford clothing. In those days, there were shops which pulled clothing and shoes off the dead to sell them. “My God,” I thought to myself, “I must really help these people.”

Qn: You did not begrudge the amount of time you spent in HDB? I am sure there was sacrifice of your time and effort. Did you own business suffer?

When you are working hard and enjoying what you do, you don’t think of it. I am doing something that needs to be done and, in the process I am enjoying myself. Anyway, my own business needed very little minding. Once I don’t owe people money I don’t worry.

Qn: How did you build so quickly?

Firstly, we were never denied of funds from the government. We had a very high priority project.

Secondly, I broke the hold of the bureaucracy. The Singapore Improvement Trust worked by committees. God knows, they had ten or 15 committees, I abolished the whole lot. I said, “I’m the Committee.” There was a secretary there who would give me many reasons why things couldn’t be done. He would cite this law and that law and this Committee and that Committee. I had to get rid of him.

And in fact, if I don’t like a project and I’m pressed to do it, I form a Committee. That really slows things down and sometimes the project just dies.

We broke through all the red tape. No red tape. As I said, “I’m the Committee.”

Qn: What was your formula? What made the HDB so very successful?

In any organization that one goes into, the first few decisions are the most important. If taken correctly, they will set you on the right road. I think there were three important decisions which we made in those early days which enabled us to build 10,000 units a year.

First, we broke the hold contractors’ cartels. Secondly, we decided to do our own earthworks. There were only two companies doing earthworks, Gammons and United Engineers. So every time we asked them to do the earthworks to prepare the site, they said it would take six months. I said, “That won’t do.” We decided to do it ourselves. I had a friend who was a contractor. He later became the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Tan Teck Chwee. I asked him, “Hey, what’s the problem with earthworks? Why does it take so long?” He said, “No problem. I’ll show you how it’s done.” So he did. And then we did our own earthworks and saved valuable time. I would put that as the number two decision.

The third decision was standardization. You know, we used standardized concrete slabs. Standardization made it so much easier to design and faster to build. We also made specifications which we knew were realistic and could be achieved. Plus we made sure that contractors fulfilled the specifications. We went around, inspecting all the buildings very closely to make sure that the contractors fulfilled the specifications. We kept contractors under very close supervision. Yet we managed to keep the quality relatively high through strict supervision.

We had a good competent team, earnest, and honest. Through inexperienced, they were energetic and capable. They showed great interest in the work and by that, stimulated each other. They challenged each other.

Qn: You were a volunteer all that time?

Yes, until 1963, when I became a Minister.

Qn: So for four years you gave your time voluntarily.

Yes! I should have asked to be paid one dollar, and then I could claimed a pension. At that time these things don’t occur to you at all! In fact, I asked for a driver because I was going all over the place, driving all over Singapore. So I asked for a driver. And they said, “You are not a paid employee, you don’t get a driver.” So I had to drive myself. (Laughs)

Qn: What about the statutory boards? You served on the PSC and HDB. Then, after that, the PUB and the PSA.

Yes, I think I did my most satisfying work in the statutory boards. In the ministries you do policy-making. In the statutory boards, you really get involved in implementation. I like to get involved with detailed work. I also like to do several jobs simultaneously. I ran Ministries and statutory boards concurrently. Everyday, I would spend time with several projects. I like that. Otherwise, I would get board. I can’t sit still.

Qn: What was your major task in the PUB & PSA?

It was to build reservoirs, to make ourselves more self sufficient in water. So we would be less dependent. I built Upper Pierce, Seletar, all those reservoirs.

The PSA appointment was because of my own big mouth. I saw PSA building the World Trade Centre for 5,000 people. I thought it was not a good time or place. Well, the lifts were so inadequate, they would have taken all day to get 5,000 people to the top. So I opened my big mouth and before I knew it Prime Minister had put me there as Chairman! Well, it was as interesting post. Within one week, I had ordered 110 million dollars worth of port handling equipment. That was a lot of money in those days. Again, by listening to the experts, I discovered that we were short of handling equipment.

I also redirected the PSA back to its core business. The PSA had containerized its port thanks to Howe Yoon Chong. He was a very good man. He could really get things done. We were already the second busiest port in the world, after Hong Kong. We had overtaken Rotterdam.

One problem we had to face was our very limited cargo handling area. So we had to have computerized handling of cargo, so that we could stack containers six units high. No other port does that! But this requires very sophisticated handling systems. Each container has a computerized tag which says where it is going. The container passes through a gantry and the tag is registered. We know where each container is any time. Incidentally, we used this technology as the basis for the Automatic Road Pricing scheme.

Qn: How did you approach each statutory board? Each was so different in nature.

My job was to get the organization going, build a team, and then leave.

Qn: And you held so many positions! I can’t imagine how you managed to juggle all these jobs!

Oh, well, I probably have a grasshopper mind. It helps! The whole thing boils down to two things: understanding your objective, and man-management. Whether you are in big ministry, or statutory authority, or in Singapore Press Holdings, it is a question of man-management.

Qn: You do it so well! Do you have a policy?

My policy is roughly this: I am not a specialist at anything. Neither am I a professional. But I listen to the specialist and the professional. The electrical engineer, the quality surveyor, the architects. And they may have different points of view. I am open and I listen, and allow them to express their views and opinions.

I use my common sense to ask questions, like “How about this or that?” If they cannot agree, them I must myself decide. But most of the time, if you sit down, talk, listen and discuss, you are likely to find a solution.

But the whole thing is this: listen to people. I listen to them, and I know that this chap can be trusted, he knows his work. Then I leave him alone. He will grow! Instead of me telling him what to do. He is the man who runs the show! He will make suggestions to be to ponder, “Is it OK?” If it is OK, I say, “Proceed.”

Qn: Then you leave him to it?

I leave him! And then he will grow! If I look over his shoulder, well, who am i? I know nothing of that job.

Qn: How do you deal with mistakes?

I always tell my officers that if they do things within the agreed responsibilities, and they make an honest mistake, a genuine mistake, without any vested interest – I’ll back them up all the way. If you back your people, even when they make mistakes, they will learn from their mistakes! Furthermore, they will also learn to make decisions by themselves.

But if you pick up on their mistakes and bawl them out, they will never make another decision again. All decisions will land up on your desk and you will never build your organization.

If they make too many mistakes, however, maybe they don’t deserve the job and you should get rid of them.

Qn: What are your shortcomings as a manager? What do you feel needs improvements?

Lack of patience! But age and experience have mellowed me. Now, I listen more.

But if you are sitting at the top, you must be unpleasant sometimes. Disciplining is never pleasant. Once I called up a chap and said, “You just get out.” He said, “Why?” I said, “You didn’t do your work, that’s why.”

It has to be done. When I was in the PSC, I used to go through thousands of personnel annual reports and not find a single adverse or unsatisfactory report. It is our Eastern way. We don’t want to be unpleasant or break anyone’s rice bowl. But if you are at the top, you must have to courage to speak out when things are wrong.

I can be short tempered and impatient. If you act unreasonably or dishonestly, I will throw you out of my office! I remember a delegation came to see me to ask for tax exemptions for traders. Well, Singapore is a trading economy. Why should they be exempt? I was so fed up. I was wearing a neck collar at that time because I had injured my neck. I took the thing off and threw at them!

Qn: In the 80’s you became known as the government talent scout.

Yes

Qn: How did you learn to judge people?

I think that comes from experience. To me, it is instinctive. You listen to the chap talk and you think, “The chap is quite alright,” or “This chap, you can’t trust him.” I think all successful businessmen have that kind of instinct. You meet a chap, you make a deal. You feel you can rely on this man. He’s on the level. You can trust him. For me, it’s quite instinctive.

Sometimes I shake the guy by the hand and I feel revolted. I feel like throwing off the hand. And you look into his record, you find that, sure enough, this man has done something wrong. Have you heard of Slater Walker? I told the Cabinet to stop them from coming into Singapore. They said to me, “You have a suspicious mind!” Businessmen must have such an instinct.

Qn: Have you made bad judgments? Have you trusted people and later, found yourself wrong?

Not in a big way. Not in a big way. Because if I try out a chap I don’t give him the whole project. I watch his progress. I have some nephews who have spent many years running the business. I watch them and halfway through, I know. if they cannot handle nig things, I put them elsewhere. So it is a question of watching and observing.

It’s the same in government. You ask me, how do I find leaders? You don’t. Or rather, you cannot. You can only spot potential leaders.

First and foremost, I’ll look for an intelligent man. Secondly, I look for a man who has a social conscience. Maybe they were giver a chance to progress, for example, a scholarship.

Some of the Ministers that I interviewed felt that they must somehow repay society for the opportunity given by the government or institutions to further their studies. Some of them were very poor. They were given a chance to progress. Now, they wanted to do something in return. Of course, they may not be sincere. But you watch them to see whether they are sincere.

And I look for people with robust health. Because politics is a strenuous thing. In politics, you are under pressure every day. I don’t know what it is like now, but in our time this was the case. You must be able to take it. I have seen chaps literally going mad before my very eyes. They could not take the pressure. Yes!

But in the end, as one General has said, you will never know the man until he is in the firing line. People whom you think will stand, will run. Wait until crisis and you will know!

Qn: Is the problem that we now that we have too little crisis? You have no chance to observe people under crisis?

You need not have a full-blown crisis. You just watch them working under pressure. There are certain policies which are unpleasant to carry out. You make them do it and you can see. Can he take criticism? Can he stand up to it? Can he fight back? Nothing like trying the man on the spot. I also know many men who are very good as number two. But as number one, they fail.

Qn: Why was the Civil Service in Singapore able to function so well without the problems of corruption, red tape and bureaucracy that plague some other countries?

The civil service was something inherited from the British, and at that time the British were known for their honesty. So I think the tradition was there and it was a matter of continuing it.

Out leaders were honest. So if you have honest leaders, the civil service will be honest. If anyone is corrupt, they will get punished. But if you have corrupt leaders, the civil service will just follow suit.

Qn: So the key to getting rid of corruption is to have honest leadership.

Yes! To set the example. Yes! And anyway, now the civil services are so well paid, why would they bother being corrupt? Well, perhaps, you can’t say. Some people can have all the money in the world and they will still be corrupt.

Qn: You have an instinct, which you have derived over many years of experience. If you have to make it into a system, which someone else can apply, how would you do it?

Look for an intelligent person. Look for someone with commitment. With very good health. Someone who shows interest in things. Some people are very narrow. When you see some chap who is very interested in things, possessing an inquisitive, enquiring mind, well, he has the potential.

Mind you, these persons have potential only. You cannot pick them up straight away. They just have potential. You’ll be lucky if you can get three out of ten.

Qn: If you had stayed out of politics, would you have made more money?

I would have.

Qn: It’s been a sacrifice for you.

Well, I cannot ear more than what I eat now. I have enough. I cannot use more. I am quite happy. I don’t want to be the richest man in Singapore. I could possibly have made more money.

You know, some of my Cabinet colleagues were bitter about having to retire. No one gives up power voluntarily. Myself, I was not disappointed. What did it mean to retire? I had to carry my own bags. No one hailed me on the street. Never mind!

I look at it this way: I was given a chance to serve my country. How many people are given this chance? I was fortunate to have been a part of the team which built Singapore. I had some skill and some strength that was useful to others.

To serve your country is a privilege. It is an honour. I am very proud to be able to say, “I have served my country.”

Qn: Do you have any regrets?

No, my only regret is that I should have taken more pains with my work. I did many things in a rush. I should have taken more time to think things through. Well, even working in my rushed fashion, I did not commit many major mistakes. But if I had taken more time, and given more thought to everything, I would have done my job better.

2006-07-06T02:04:00.000+08:00

History of PAP (Part IV) – Lim Chin Siong
The Man Who Almost Became Prime Minister

“Chin Siong was introduced to me by Lee Kuan Yew. Kuan Yew came to visit me in my little office underneath the stairs and said, “Meet the future Prime Minister of Singapore!” I looked at Lim Chin Siong and I laughed. LKY said, “Don’t laugh!” He is the finest Chinese orator in Singapore and he will be our next Prime Minister!” - David Marshall

Lim Chin Siong is an elusive figure in Singapore’s history. He was a charismatic catalyst to the mass movements of the 1950s and early 1960s, and his political personality helped define an era. To Lee Kuan Yew, Lim Chin Siong was probably his greatest adversary that he respected. Lim did what LKY could not do in the 1950s: mobilize tens of thousands ethnic Chinese just by his words. Lim Chin Siong, was not recognized but is one the founding members of the PAP. His very presence in our history shaped not only our independence but also how the concept of detention without trail (by ISD) and the affiliation of the labour union (eg: NTUC) to the PAP.

Time and time again, I’ve mentioned that history is often written by victors, victors of a political dogfight and victors of unfair competition. The winners will get titles that remain across time encapsulating their distinguished successes but not their failures. The losers sometime suffer a fate worse than death, which is that their name being erased of annals. Simply, their lives and their accomplishments never existed. If one mentioned about Dr Goh Keng Swee, the title of “the architect of Singapore’s economic success” comes to mind. Similar, Lee Kuan Yew, the “founder of Modern Singapore”. But if one mentioned about Lim Chin Siong, it might be a slate of blank. At most, he is remembered as the “Communist” or the “vanquished” (mentioned in Lee’s Lieutenants). Personally, I would favour the title “the Man Who Almost Became Prime Minister” for Lim. For this article, I’ll be drawing information from “Comet in our Sky – Lim Chin Siong n History” by Tan Jing Quee (published by INSAN press Kuala Lumpur) and Melanie Chew’s interview with Lim Chin Siong himself.

The Making of the Hokkien Hero
Lim Chin Siong was born in Telok Ayer in the Hokkien heartland of Singapore’s Chinatown in 28 February 1933. Life was harsh in his early years, and had to stop school during the Japanese Occupation when he was around 9 years old. It was during this hardship that shaped his political inclinations and to be supportive to radical anti-colonial causes mashed with Chinese Nationalism.

When the war ended, Chin Siong returned to school at Pei Chun and completed his primary school education; he had lost three years and was considerably older than he would have been if not for the war. The Malayan Communist Party (MCP) had emerged from the war as an ally of the British in the prosecution of the anti-Japanese was and was accorded honours and lawful status in the political life of the country. However, in 1948, MCP’s relations deteriorated to breaking point; widespread labour demonstrations and strikes, arrested and political organization bans led to retaliation, murders and open declaration of war. The MCP was outlawed and took to the jungle to wage an armed guerilla struggle.

In 1949, Chin Siong enrolled into Catholic High School. He soon found school life there restrictive and transferred himself to Chinese High School. He was now sixteen years old and began to show interest in Chinese patriotism, national salvation and social justice, leading him to read writers like Lu Xun and Lao She. He would soon make his mark as an active student leader, espouse radical causes, and become firm friends with Fong Swee Suan, his classmate in Chinese High School.

Baptism of Politics
In 1951, they were in Junior Middle III and required to sit for an external examination, before graduating or advancing to Senior Middle School. This common external examination was a throwback to the pre-1949 Kuomintang era and precondition for access to further education in China. With the China Revolution in 1949, admission to higher education was closed in Mainland China. Hence, the retention and continuance of such common examination was an attempt by the British to limit further education to the Chinese left-wing students.

Chin Siong and Fong organized a body called, “Students Opposing The Junior Middle III Examinations, galvanizing support for boycotting the examinations. They wrote pamplets, made speeches condemning colonialism and advocated fair and equal treatment for Chinese schools and students. It was in these years, Chin Siong joined the Anti-British League (ABL). These activities eventually caught the attention of the Special Branch (British version of ISD). Chin Siong was detained for a week in August 1951 and again in October 1951 over the examination boycott. He was released, but was expelled from school, together with more than eighty students in the class of 1951.

Singapore Factory and Shop Workers Union
In 1954, an innocuous event would transform and catapult Chin Siong into greater prominence. He was elected Secretary of a small union bearing the grandiose name of Singapore Factory and Shop Workers Union (SFSWU) with a membership of barely 300 members. Within a brief period of just a year, the membership of SFSWU had expanded rapidly to more than 30,000, making it one of the most powerful trade unions in Singapore at that time.

Chin Siong would be prominent enough to attract the attention of Lee Kuan Yew and colleagues when they were looking around for grassroots leaders to form a new political Party. Chin Siong was inducted into the fortnightly discussion group in the basement of LKY’s house at Oxley Road to work out an agreement to launch the People’s Action Party (PAP).

Mountain with Two Tigers: Lee Kuan Yew & Lim Chin Siong
The newly established PAP decided to contest the elections on 2 April 1955 in four constituencies. The four were, Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar), Goh Chew Chua (Punggol-Tampines), C.V. Devan Nair (Farrer Park) and Lim Chin Siong (Bukit Timah). It was then when the beacon of Lim Chin Siong shined brighter than Lee Kuan Yew’s. James Puthucheary, who was in charge of PAP publicity for the elections recalled the first rally held in a remote Chinese village.

“Toh Chin Chye spoke first, in English! No response from the crowd. Ong Eng Guan was next, in Hokkien, but not very good. The crowd was restless. Then, Chin Siong stood up. He was brilliant and the crowd was spellbound.”

In Lee Kuan Yew’s book, The Singapore Story, he mentioned his experiences and impression of Lim Chin Siong during the election.

“One man emerged from this election as a powerful public speaker. He was young, slim, of medium height, with a soft face but a ringing voice that flowed beautifully in his native Hokkien. The girls adored him, especially those in the trade union. Apart from Chinese culture, his themes were the downtrodden workers, the wicked imperialists, the Emergency Regulations that suppressed the rights of the masses, free speech and free association. Once he got going after a cold start at the first two meetings, there was tremendous applause every time he spoke. By the end of the campaign, Lim Chin Siong was seen as a charismatic figure and a person to be reckoned with in Singapore politics and, what was of more immediate concern, within the PAP.”

LKY later describe Chin Siong’s speeches as having a “hypnotic effect” on the crowd.

Behind the Singapore’s Independence Talk’s Failure
Chin Siong was elected to his seat in the Bukit Timah constituency and entered the Legislative Assembly at the youthful age of 22 years old. At the time, the Legislative Assembly only permitted the use of English in debates. Chin Siong’s hesitant English became a safe target for red-baiting, which he handled as well as he could, but without damage to his standing among the non-Chinese speaking population. During that time, he has his colleague, Devan Nair to draft his parliamentary speeches. Having won 10 of the 25 elected seats in the 1955 Elections, David Marshall emerged as Chief Minister.

In April 1956, David Marshall led a 13 man all-party delegation to London for the scheduled constitutional talks. Lee Kuan Yew and Lim Chin Siong represented the PAP in the delegation. Despite the rhetoric of “Independence talks”, this underlying premise on the urgency to curb the left wing in Singapore, implicitly accepted as the programmatic consensus for the next phase of constitutional advance by all members of the delegation, except Lim Chin Siong. The talks eventually collapse when the British refused to compromise with the proposal of a Malayan chairman of the Defence and Security Council to oversee internal security. The British wanted control over the Internal Security. The talks collapse on this single issue.

Repression by Lim Yew Hock
The failure of the talks had major consequences on Singapore politics. David Marshall resigned and Lim Yew Hock took over, initiating a new wave of detention without trial to suspect left-wing activists. Meanwhile, 8 July 1956, Lim Chin Siong was elected to the Central Executive Committee (CEC) of the PAP with the largest number of votes, ahead of Lee Kuan Yew and Toh Chin Chye. But he was not on stage or at the photo taking as he was advised by LKY from it as he has a record of detention which might harm the Party. Months later, Lim Chin Siong and the rest have been made scapegoats for the later success independence talks with the British.

In October 1956, Lim Yew Hock ordered six persons to be arrested under banishment orders from the Chung Ching High School, with several unions being banned. The Special Branch detained Chia Ek Tian, a CEC member in PAP and Soon Loh Boon. At a rally at Happy World Stadium to celebration the anniversary of the SFSWU, Chin Siong denounced the repression. But the repression escalated further when Minister of Education Chew Swee Kee issued orders to the management committees of the Chung Ching High School and Chinese High School to expel 142 students. When the students went on strike, the Government ordered the closure of schools. At the PAP rally held at Beauty World Park, Bukit Timah, Chin Siong condemned the repression and urged support for the besieged students. Singapore was in the state of riot. 13 people died and 123 injured. All the major Middle Road trade union leaders were detained, including Lim Chin Siong, Fong Swee Suan, Devan Nair, James Puthucheary, S. Woodhull and Chen Chiaw Thor.

The arrest effectively excluded Chin Siong from participation in the PAP deliberations regarding the new rounds of constitutional talks led by Lim Yew Hock. Only Lee Kuan Yew would represent the PAP. A clause would be adopted prohibiting Chin Siong and his detained colleagues from contesting the first elections under the new constitution. The result was obvious: the popularity of Lim Yew Hock sank with each new repression, just as Lee Kuan Yew’s star continued to rise with each successive debate. Lee Kuan yew’s identification with the detained left wing leaders strengthened his own popularity and public image as champion of the dispossessed. The spotlight was on him alone, benefiting from the repression launched by Lim Yew Hock. LKY had added confidence knowing that he would be the more natural and obvious choice for the British for the mantle of power as he continued to ride the wave of the martyrdom of his detained left wing colleagues.

The Straits Times report of 5 April 1957 on the return of the conquering heroes summed up the mood of the people back home. “It was an unexpected silent crowd. There was a marked absence of the usual spontaneous shout of Merdeka.” David Marshall described the new constitution as a “fraud” and nineteen trade unions lobbied the PAP leadership to withdraw the mandate given to Lee Kuan Yew to accept the new constitution. LKY took up Marshall’s challenge in By-elections contesting based on the constitution. Marshall lost and quit politics.

Released from Detention
After assuming power, the PAP government released eight left wing leaders on 4 June 1959, after ensuring that they were excluded from participation in the parliamentary elections to the central committee. Five were appointed as political secretaries, but with little real substantial power to initiate or influence polices. More significantly, none of them were made cadre members, which meant that they would never be in any position to challenge the leadership in future party elections. When Chin Siong was released, he was only 26 years old.

Here, LKY played his political cards to perfection. Being the solicitor of the detainees, he was seen as the freer of the oppressed. Putting Chin Siong and the rest in political office, he could ride their popularity amongst the Chinese population without giving Chin Siong and the rest any power. In that, LKY would not be threatened by his popular rival, but not for long.

PAP: The Empty Shell
Soon after assuming power, the PAP government formed a ten-men secretariat of the Trade Union Congress to reorganize the labour movement. Lim Chin Siong returned to his old post as supreme of the Middle Road Unions. A duel power situation developed; while LKY faction controlled the state and the party, Chin Siong’s faction was dominant in the trade union and other mass organizations.

By mid-1961, following two humiliating defeats for the PAP at Hong Lim and Anson by-elections, it was clear that a decisive break was inevitable. LKY’s government sought a vote-of-confidence at the Legislative Assembly meeting on 20 July 1961. 13 PAP Assemblymen abstained from the vote and were promptly expelled from the party. The expelled men joined forces with the left wing trade unions to form the Barisan Socialis. In August 1961, they formed a rival party, the Barisan Sosialis, led by Dr Lee Siew Choh and Lim Chin Siong. They took 35 branch committees, 19 of the 23 organizing secretaries and an estimated 80 percent of the membership. PAP under LKY was a mere shell, according to Dr Lee.

The PAP government was on the verged of being toppled. Every session, the opposition would motion of no confidence. But across the shores, the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, Tengku Abdul Rahman, watched the events and feared that Singapore was about to become a Communist State, a “second Cuba” and a danger to Malaya. Thus, this was the start of the intense and frantic, Battle for Merger.

Tunku: LKY’s Last Dice
Barisan Sosialis held sway in Singapore but it knew that in a wider Malaysia they would be crushed. On the other hand, PAP needed Malaysia to break the Barisan’s hold on the Singapore Electorate. Thus, they enlisted Malayan Tengku and the British as allies, playing on their long standing fear of Communism.

On July 1962, the Barisan Sosialis, led by David Marshall and Dr Lee Siew Choh, appealed against the merger in the United Nations in New York. The Merger Referendum, issued in 1962, was testimony to the murkiness of the Battle. It was deliberately ambiguous. It asked voters to choose what kind of merger they wanted, not whether indeed they wished for a merger. The referendum was not to be a simple YES or NO response to the merger, but included three choices:

Option A endorse merger on terms suggested by the White Paper.
Option B distorted the Barisan Sosialis formula and threatened to disenfranchise 250,000 Singapore citizens
Option C purportedly represent the position of the Singapore Peoples Alliance, which neither it not any other political party advocated or adopted.

25% rallied to the call of Barisan and cast blank votes, objecting to the manner in which the exercise had been carried out. 71% chose Option A. With this controversial tactic, the PAP won the Battle for Merger.

Operation Coldstore: Wiping out Lim Chin Siong
Tengku then decided to clean out the Left Wing with “Operation Cold Store”. Hundreds of arrest was made and effectively decapitated the Left Wing Barisan Sosialis. Nearly the entire central executive committee of the Barisan Sosialis, including Chin Siong, was arrested. Chin Siong was just shy of thirty years old at the time of his third detention. In the decade spanning his entry into the political fray in 1954 and 1963, he had already spent more years in jail than outside.

A snap elections was called, under the protection of the Malaysian Security Council, produced a clear PAP victory. The Barisan, with most of their leaders in prison, garnered only 13 out of 51 seats. On September 1963, the PAP government had won its battle against the Left. By 1965, Singapore was kick out of the Federation after a mere 1071 days in Malaysia. As foreseen by Chin Siong, the merger was never what it was meant to be but could be just an excuse to eliminate political opponents.

End of a Great Singaporean
Chin Siong would remain in jail and suffer severe depressions, until physically broken and mentally traumatized. He announced his decision to quit politics and took off in exile in London (in 28 July 1969), his physical health ruined and his political life destroyed. He married Wong Chui Wan in London, in 1970, had two sons in his marriage. He struggled earning a living doing odd jobs and would continued to suffer bouts of depression. He never recovered. In 1979, he decided to return to Singapore and stayed in Serangoon Gardens until his death in 5 February 1996. Former political colleagues, political foes, former ministers, trade union leaders and ordinary citizens came to pay their last respects to the man who almost became Prime Minister of Singapore.

Many (former and present) leaders have condemned Lim Chin Siong as a Communist. But this was one charge that Chin Siong never acknowledged. In his words, “To brand someone as Communist at that stage was the best and most convenient way to put him in jail.” Perhaps his view on detention without trial was the most awakening,

“The fact is that all of us were detained, without trial for ages. Not knowing when we would be coming out. That, I would say is a torture. A torture. You are detained for years, until such a time that you are willing to humiliate our own integrity. Until you are humiliated publicly. So much so, when you come out, you cannot put your head up, you cannot see your friends. Alright, then they may release you. It is a very cruel torture. It is worse than in Japanese time, when with a knife, they slaughter you. One shot, you die. But this humiliation will carry on for life. It is very cruel.”

He died a broken man, 23 days short of his 63rd birthday and forgotten by Singaporeans today.

Coming Up Next:
SM Goh Chok Tong: The Willing Unseated or the Unwilling Seated?
More details in the coming future, stay tuned and keep guessing the double meaning to the subtitle.

2006-06-09T02:22:00.000+08:00

Super Seven (minus one): Report Card of Ministers

Your votes have spoken! This is the first part of the “Super Seven” Ministers article. I have to apologize for taking such a long time with my articles. For the past few days, I have been away experiencing politics, Tom Yum style. Nonetheless, here is the article and hope that it is a useful and interesting read.

After each election, some of the new candidates will be thrown into the political office. In the recent GE, Grace Fu, Lui Tuck Yew and Lee Yi Shyan were the ones who became Ministers of State. In the 2001 General Election, seven were promoted to Senior Ministers of State and Ministers of State. They are, Tharman Shanmuguratnam, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Dr Ng Eng Hen, Raymond Lim, Dr Balaji Sadasivan, Khaw Boon Wan and Cedric Foo. With the exception of Cedric Foo, who quit political office during the term, the rest of Super-seven made quite good progress. The first part will feature two of the six Ministers, Tharman and Dr Balaji.

In the past Cabinets, Singapore has seen several great Ministers who are Indians, such as the late S. Rajaratnam (DPM, SM and Foreign Minister), ex-Foreign Minister Dhanabalan and DPM Jayakumar. Following the footsteps of these giants are Tharman and Dr Balaji. Five years has passed and let’s see the major issues surrounding these Ministers.

Tharman Shanmugaratnam
Current Portfolio:
Minister for Education (MOE)
Second Minister for Finance (MOF)
Deputy Chairman of Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)

Previous Portfolios:
Senior Minister of State for MTI & MOE (Nov 2001 to July 2003
Acting Minister for Education (Aug 2003 to Aug 2004)

Previous Vocation:
Managing Director of MAS

Major Policies Introduced:
Reforms to Education System (Less Streaming, More Fuzziness)
Amendment to “Bilingualism Policies”
Promotion of Singapore as an Education Hub
Increase Number of Universities in Singapore
Promotion of Co-Curricular Activities in Schools
Social-Emotional Learning in Schools
Launching of Singapore Management University
Corporatisation of NUS & NTU
Life-sciences Education Programme
Bicultural Studies Programme
Compulsory Education Act

“Sticky” Point:
Ironically, his “stickiest” point was not during his time in politics but outside. December 1992, he was one of the five charged under the Official Secrets Act. The charges follow a 29 June 1992 Business Times article, headlined “2nd qtr: Flash estimates point to below 5pc growth” and written by correspondent Anna Teo, which said the early indications were of second-quarter growth of 4.6 to 4.8 per cent. The government later announced a growth figure of 4.7 per cent for the quarter. Tharman was charged with unlawfully communicating the flash estimate of 4.6 per cent given to him in confidence by the Department of Statistics to Mr Bhaskaran who faces three charges - receiving the information, and passing it on to Raymond Foo and BT senior correspondent Kenneth James.

The case lasted almost 16 months until March 1994 when the verdict was out. According to the AFP article dated 31 March 1994:

“The defendants are Business Times editor Patrick Daniel, 39, its technology editor Kenneth James, 46, Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) director Tharman Shanmugaratnam, 36, and Crosby Securities economists Manu Bhaskaran, 36, and Raymond Foo, 29.

The prosecution claimed Crosby's Bhaskaran saw the secret estimate in a MAS report that Shanmugaratnam carried for reference during a meeting with him on June 19, 1992.
Bhaskaran is accused of passing the estimate to his colleague Foo and to James at the Business Times.

MAS's Shanmugaratnam is charged with handling secret information in a way that endangered its secrecy. Bhaskaran, Foo, Daniel and James are charged with obtaining the classified estimate from a government source and communicating it. All five have denied the charges.”

On 31 March 1994, the verdict was out. Since the court had found “it was open to the prosecution not to accept the court's finding of no communication, but having given its consent and drafted an amended charge, it has accepted the court's finding of no communication by Shanmugaratnam to Bhaskaran”. Thus, Tharman was only fined S$1,500 (US$955) on one charge of handling secret information in such a way as to endanger its secrecy.

This incident was the talking point of the 2001 General Elections, but had no effect on the electorates at Jurong GRC. Tharman and the PAP team resoundingly defeated SDP (led by Chee Soon Juan) garnering 79.75% of the votes. It must be said that this OSA incident did traumatized him somewhat. However, he has recovered well from it and did a reasonably good job in a very unpopular Ministry (of Education). If you are interested in the full media reports of Tharman’s OSA cases, let me know via email.

Media Image:
In the media, he was always seen as the cool, calm and collected Minister. Articulated in words and responded well in dialogues and interviews. Comparatively to other new Ministers, he has gotten one of the most media spotlight.

Final Note:
Tharman meteoric rise is quite counter-intuitive. 14 years ago, he was involved in a highly-publicized criminal case and now, he is the Second Finance Minister. For people who are closed to him, would not have found it surprising. He is quite the same person as he is behind the scenes to in front of the media. He is eloquent, deep and methodical thinker, cool in the face of storm and well-liked by his followers.

Having taken over a “much-hated” Ministry, the Ministry of Education, Tharman has done quite a fair job in gradually removing the detested streaming system. To many, it seemed like a simple task for a Minister to direct the change but this is not the case in reality. While most might find it a necessary move to remove the streaming system, executing the change and not letting the public perceiving that it was a policy-gone-wrong is no simple feat. To execute it, he has to be careful not to be seen as correcting the ex-Education Ministers’ (some of them are still in Cabinet) policies. To add to the challenge, Singaporean parents are one of the world’s most difficult to satisfy bunch of people.

Despite these challenges, he has done a smooth job with relatively less troubles. I think there is room for progress for Tharman and he might take on more heavy-weight portfolios in the coming future.

Dr Balaji Sadasivan
Current Portfolio:
Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (MFA), Information, Communication and the Arts (MICA) Chairman of Committee on Ageing Issues (CAI)
Chairman of Service Improvement Unit (SIU)

Previous Portfolios:
Minister of State for Transport (Nov 2001 to August 2004)
Minister of State for Health (Nov 2001 to August 2004)
Minister of State for Environment (Nov 2001 to May 2003)
Senior Minister of State for Health (August 2004 to May 2006)

Previous Vocation:
Neurosurgeon, with external Law Degree
Before entering politics, he was the top neurosurgeon in Singapore and the only one that is recognized by the USA and Australian neuroscience boards. As full neurosurgeon in Singapore, he handles only the most serious brain surgeries but has a 100% success rate in operations.
When he was in Michigan, he was the neurosurgeon who extracts brain tissues (which has the most concentration of HIV virus) of HIV patients. Out of leisure, he also has a law degree. Unknown to many, he was a very successful entrepreneur as well. He had company that made medical surgery machines based on the global positioning to help the surgeon to make the incisions. Just when the company was about to take off and earn him millions in profit, he closed his businesses (he did not transfer it to any relatives) when became a Minister (as required by law). The pay he receives as a Minister is far less than what he earns as a neurosurgeon and director of the companies.

Major Policies Introduced:
General Election Campaigning (Podcasting and Internet Activities)
Curbing the Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease
Biological Agents and Toxin Bill
Entry into World Health Organization (WHO) Executive Member Board
Curbing Dengue Fever, Aedes Mosquitoes
Curbing Stroke Cases
Amendment to Telecommunications Act
Amendment to Broadcasting Act
Amendment to Electronic Transaction Act
Amendment to Maritime Offence Act
Amendment to Infectious Disease Act
HIV-AIDS Public Education Campaign
Bird-flu Prevention Campaign, and representative to WHO
Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Act
Security at MRT Stations
Policies for Aging Population
Eldershield Care
Reduction in Cost of Ez-link Cards

“Sticky” Point:
Perhaps one of the stickiest issues is the issue that no health Ministers ever dare to deal with: HIV. The reason that most health Ministers in any countries avoided the issue of HIV is that no country or government has ever succeeded in combating the disease. Given his background in neurosurgeon and his time in Michigan where he deals with brain tissues (most concentration of HIV virus) of HIV patients, it seemed logical for a “doctor” to deal with the issue. However, politically, this is was a landmine for any Ministers. When dealing with HIV, inevitably, you will clash into the paths of gay rights activists and other “anti-discrimination” activists.

Of course, another more recent sticky issue is the prohibition of Podcasting and certain online political advertising during the nine days of GE. I’ve given my take on the issue and would just like to stressed that no additional laws have been implemented by is just an interpretation of existing laws (such as political film acts – introduced by George Yeo and PEA). I am going to make a bold prediction that laws governing the internet political commentary will be removed before the next GE.

Media Image:
Maybe at most times, he was at the unfair receiving end of the bad media publicity. Strangely, being the Senior Minister of State of MICA, he has made no attempts to restrict any media from bad mouthing him (trust me on this one, as I have got some friends both in ST, MDA and MICA). Unlike Dr Vivian who has written to the Straits Times to correct the misinterpretation of his words, Dr Balaji has never done that.

However, as a Minister, he seemed to be too soft-spoken and doesn’t have the assertiveness of Dr Ng Eng Hen or the charm of Dr Vivian Balakrishnan.

Final Note:
Behind the public view, many would not have gathered the extent of work that Dr Balaji has put in. Singapore’s recent entry to the Executive Committee of the World Health Organization (WHO), was almost the sole work of his. This is Singapore’s first election as an Executive Board member in our 40 years of membership with the WHO. Dr Balaji’s first active involvement with the WHO was during the SARS period. He acted as a “salesman” attracting and assuring the foreign investors that Singapore is safe from the disease, a task that he accomplished with merit.

As mentioned earlier, one of his greatest achievements was to lower the HIV infection rate. Not well-publicized in the media was the fact that Dr Balaji succeeded where no other developed countries or Health Ministers had; lower the HIV infection rate. Since his implementations, the number of HIV infected patients fell by around 20%. Transmission of the disease from mother to child dropped to zero since he imposed his policies on pre-natal detection. This is quite impressive policy result by any standards. Although some would be skeptical and doubt the methodology of measure or statistic interpretation, it is confirmed by WHO that Singapore is one of the few countries that managed to engineer such change in trend. Whatever the case, this is a high risk policy that no Health Ministers are willing to handle or have the capacity to take.

As a former medical doctor and top neurosurgeon in Southeast Asia, he certainly commands a great deal of respect from the medical community. Khaw Boon Wan, the Minister of Health, often is being seen tackling issues such as health care cost, medisave and operational efficiency, but seldom on specific medical issues. Dr Balaji provides the perfect contrast to Khaw, by tackling specialized medical issues such as gerontology as a compulsory part of the health education curriculum,

Dr Balaji has been representing the Cabinet in all international forums for Bird-flu and related dialogues. Should there be an outbreak, he will be the Minister-in-Charge. His recent appointment into the Foreign Minister suits him well given his Health and MICA background.

In MICA, he is a more liberal Minister compared to Dr Lee Boon Yang, who is slated to step down. Dr Balaji is influential in bring the gradual liberalization of the media and arts scene. Prior to his entry into MICA, the Ministry took a conservative stand against all media and arts affair. After his appointment in MICA, the gradual liberalization is seen in the permitting of “Crazy Horse”, the non-implementation of the PEA (Parliamentary Election Act) on blogging and podcasting as well as the soon-to-be introduced satellite TV.

Thus, I think Dr Balaji has done a fair deal of work to earn him a promotion to a full Minister. The recent Cabinet appointments (and non-promotion of Dr Balaji) must have dented him quite a bit. My guess is that once Lim Boon Heng and Lee Boon Yang steps down, Dr Balaji should be promoted to Acting Minister within that same reshuffling.

Photos will be uploaded soon...(Strangely, I can't seem to upload Tharman's photos....)

What Next?

2006-05-30T13:51:00.000+08:00

I guess judging by the internet traffic, after the GE, it is always a lull period for bloggers and their website. I've been thinking of several topics to write on and hope that I can get some feedback on it. Here are some choices:

1) The "Super-Seven" Ministers

After the 2001 GE, seven new candidates have been thrown into office position. They are, Tharman Shanmuguratnam, Dr Balaji Sadasivan, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Raymond Lim, Khaw Boon Wan, Dr Ng Eng Hen and Cedric Foo. With the exception of Cedric Foo, the rest of them are established Ministers. This article will be like a report card, looking into ups and downs of the six Ministers and the major policies that they have introduced.

2) The Man Who Almost Became Prime Minister - Lim Chin Siong

In the history books, he was always labelled as a Communist who seeks violence by riots. However, history is written and often distorted by those who "won" and not those who made them. Lim Chin Siong was once introduced by Lee Kuan Yew to David Marshall as the "Future Prime Minister". But we all know who became the PM eventually. He was said to be charismatic Chinese leader who can mobilize a crowd by his words. The turning point came when he defected from the PAP and formed his own party, Barisan Sosialis. The PAP was just an empty shell without him and his union support. But, later during the merger with Malaya, he was cruelly jailed for years under ISA that left him in depression. This article looks at the history of the man who almost became Prime Minister, his life, his works and his credits.

3) Opposition II - Singapore Democratic Party

Earlier I wrote on the Worker's Party and their history. This article will feature SDP and their ups and downs. The infamous party split and ousting of Chiam See Tong, the founder of the SDP, and the transition to Dr Chee Soon Juan.

4) About Thrasymachus - Boring!

A shameless attempt at writing on the mystery author of this blog aka me! Writing about him can be so boring that he may never finish writing about himself due to the sleep-inducing content.

Note: Earlier, I have posted the wrong photo of Francis Seow and have mistakened Dr Francis Seow-Cheon for the former-WP Francis Seow. My deepest apologies to Dr Francis Seow-Cheon and family. The photo has been removed with immediate effect.

2006-05-21T23:57:00.000+08:00

General Election: I Swear This is the Last…

Yes, GE has long passed and everyone is filled to the brim with election news, information, gossips and stories in the past weeks. I swear this is the last article on it before I move on to something constructive (or destructive). After GE, it usually represents at least two years of the introduction of unpopular policies such as transport fare hikes, pay cuts and GSTs. As the laymen always say, the “Progressive Package is like a chicken drumstick”. “Enjoy the drumstick while you can before they take back the whole chicken.” The PAP also has an unusual ability to time the GE at the peak of the economy, just before the downturn. But economics aside, I’ll just add in some food for thoughts on the passing days, coming days and coming months.

Cabinet Reshuffling
Who is going where? Historically, the first Cabinet Reshuffling doesn’t have many surprises. This year will be no exceptions. I expect PM Lee to announce the new Cabinet either this coming week or early next week, with the swearing-in ceremony at the end of the month. But don’t bet your houses on my predictions.

In the coming Cabinet Reshuffling, there will be three interesting pointers to look out for. First, will there be any Ministers or who will be retiring? Dr Tony Tan has already stepped down before the elections, but I expect maybe one more Minister to step down. My guess is either Lim Boon Heng or Lee Boon Yang. After Lim Boon Heng transferred his (secretary-general) NTUC portfolio to Lim Swee Say, he is practically the Minister of nothing. In addition, he scored some spectacular "own-goals" by setting an 80% winning target for PM Lee's Ang Mo Kio GRC prior to the polling. However, he is the Chairman of the PAP Central Executive Committee (voted in by the Party cadres), which is a powerful position itself. Interestingly, Lim Boon Heng has never headed a Ministry in this entire political career and seemed to lost favour with the leadership. Dr Lee Boon Yang will be 60 years old next year. To many other countries, he is still relative young as a Minister, but not so in Singapore (with the exception of MM LKY). He has been always dubbed as the GCK men, together with Lim Boon Heng. During the Goh Chok Tong years (as the PM), Lee Boon Yang was put in-charge of several important Ministries such as Labour (now renamed as Ministry of Manpower) and Defence. Under LHL, both seemed to be less favoured. Thus, one of these two Ministers is likely to retire in the coming Cabinet reshuffle.

Secondly, who are the new Ministers of State and to which Ministry? PM Lee highlighted four names, Lee Yi Shyan, RADM Lui Teck Yew, Masagos Zulkifli and Grace Fu. Intuitively, RADM Lui will be the Senior Minister of State for Defence, Grace Fu to be the Minister of State for Transport, Lee Yi Shyan to be Minister of State for Trade and Industry and Masogos to be the Parliamentary Secretary. In addition, we might see some backbenchers to promote like Maliki Osman. Of course, nothing is certain.

Lastly, who will be promoted or is there any change in portfolios? For the first Cabinet reshuffling, we are unlikely to see major changes in Ministers and portfolios. Most of the Ministers will remain in their portfolio with the exception of the retiring Minister(s). Maybe one or two Senior Ministers of State might be promoted to Acting Ministers. Dr Balaji Sadasivan, Senior Minister of State for MICA and MOH, is the last of the "Super Seven" (minus Cedric Foo) to be promoted. He has done a fairly good job in Ministry of Health and MICA (I'll be writing and explaining in an article on him as well as the rest of the Super Seven in the coming weeks) and might get a chance for promotion. The other Senior Minister of State is Prof Ho Peng Kee. For the recent GE, he was contesting in Nee Soon East SMC. He is the most senior member of Cabinet contesting in a single member constituency. Traditionally, if the leaders send a Minister of State or Senior Minister of State for a single ward, it might represent several things. There is always a certain level of risk in losing when contesting in single wards. Thus, if the candidate is going to be an important member of the new Cabinet, the leaders might not want to risk him in a SMC for GE. Secondly, the grassroots workload in single constituencies is usually heavier than those in the GRCs. In doubling the workload with the appointment of a full Minister in Cabinet and taking care of the SMC, it might be too much to concentrate for one person. Thus, comparing background of Prof Ho Peng Kee and Dr Balaji, it seemed like Dr Balaji stands a higher chance of promoting to an Acting Minister. But if the retiring Minister is Jayakumar, Ho Peng Kee might be promoted to take over his Law portfolio. We will have to wait around a week to know the answers. In any case, the second Cabinet reshuffle, a year or two later, will likely to see more GCK men, such as Lee Boon Yang, Lim Boon Heng and Yeo Cheow Tong, stepping down.

Secrecy of Votes
11 May 2006, Lynn Lee from the Straits Times wrote an interesting article on “How your vote is kept secret”. The article is quite comprehensive and accurate, but maybe just to add to her good works, I’ll add in my some of my experiences as an independent counting agent.

On the casting of votes, she wrote, “Constituencies are carved up into several polling districts. There is one polling station per district. Each station handles around 2,000 to 4,000 voters. Each voter is assigned to a specific polling lane with a ballot box at the end of it. In each lane, a voter's name and registration number are called out as he receives the ballot slip. This allows the polling agents sent there by the contesting parties to confirm that he is on the list of eligible voters. At 8pm, when polling ends, each ballot box, which can contain around 1,000 votes, is sealed. Usually, ballots from four to six districts are counted in one centre.”

How do parties gauge what kind of support they get in a constituency?

The counting procedure is a mystery to many but I’ll try to give you a better view from “inside”. After 8pm, the ballot boxes are sealed in front of both the PAP and Opposition representatives. The boxes will arrive at their respective counting stations. Each counting station (eg: St Andrew’s Secondary) has several counting tables (between 3 to 6 tables) from the district. When the boxes arrived, it will be placed on the counting tables for both PAP and the Opposition member representatives (known as the “Counting Agent”) to examine the sticker seal of the Returning Officer. If the seal is torn or tampered, an inquiry will look into it. In the presence of both parties, the boxes will be opened and the votes will be poured on the table. Each table has around 5 to 6 boxes or around 5000 to 6000 votes. The votes will then be mixed around the table (aka rojaked), then subsequently arranged into orderly stacks. From each stack, the counters will place the votes in either the PAP’s or the Opposition’s tray. Counting agents from the parties are not allowed to touch the votes. For the ambiguous or rejected votes, it will be adjudicated by the Senior Presiding Officer in the presences of the Opposition and PAP representatives.

After the votes have been separated into the trays, the counting agents from PAP and Opposition can roughly gauge the results. The votes in the trays are later bundled into stacks of 100 and tied with rubber band. After the first around of counts have been made, the counters (from the same table) will swap position to recount the votes again. Depending on the Senior Presiding Officer, the votes might be counted 3-5 times. Once the votes are verified after many rounds of counting, the result of the individual counting table will be announced to the both parties’ counting agents. Each counting table is denoted by a district code (eg: AM-21 or SB-67). These district codes are available in the Register of Electors. Each district code roughly represents 10 to 12 blocks in the constituency. Based on the information from the counting agent, the parties can gauge the support from the areas.

The results are faxed over to the Election Department. If there is confirmation of no votes recount, the boxes will be sealed in front of the PAP and Opposition’s counting agents. The votes will then be transported and stored in a vault of the High Court. Only a High Court judge can order the boxes to be opened. After six months, the parties are invited to witness the journey of the boxes to the Tuas incinerator.

Many Opposition candidates such as Steve Chia and Chia Ti Lik have spoken about their confidence in the secrecy of votes. Due to the numerous times of randomizing and mixing the votes, it is virtually impossible to pin-point an individual’s vote.

Opposition made Inroads?
Many people expressed that the Oppositions, especially the Workers' Party, have made inroads into the curbing the invincibility of the PAP. I would both agree and disagree in that statement. In most GEs, one of the GRCs will be the focus of the battle where votes tend to be close. Let us look at the voting patterns and key opposition members in those GRCs.

1988 Eunos GRC, PAP vs WP (Francis Seow, Lee Siew Choh), PAP won 50.89%
1991 Eunos GRC, PAP vs WP (Lee Siew Choh, Mohd Jufrie), PAP won 52.38%
1997 Cheng San GRC, PAP vs WP (JB Jeyaratnam, Tang Liang Hong), PAP won 54.82%
2001 Jurong GRC, PAP vs SDP (Dr Chee Soon Juan) PAP won 79.75%
2006 Aljunied GRC, PAP vs WP (Sylvia Lim, James Gomez), PAP won 56.09%

With the exception of the 2001 GE, which took place under extraordinary circumstances in 9/11 terrorist attack (which might have resulted in a 15-20% vote swing), the "main GRC battle field" tide seemed to turn in favour of the PAP. One should not benchmark against the GE 2001 as the average PAP votes but across the many GEs.

However, I do think the WP made some inroads, maybe not via GE results, but in the qualities of the candidates. In the 2006 GE, WP introduced several candidates with impressive background such as Chia Ti Lik, Perry Tong and Sylvia Lim. By past history, WP never had difficulties introducing candidates with professional backgrounds but seldom have they discovered a "public-charmer", who can win votes with tacful handling of media and issues thrown by the PAP. I guess you know by now, who I am referring to: Sylvia Lim. A friend of mine once mentioned this thoughtful comment, that Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim made a perfect combination. Low Thia Khiang with his grit and fighting spirit is a perfect foil for Sylvia Lim's charisma, charming character and tactful handling of tricky legal issues such as Gomez saga. Perhaps, by next GE, Sylvia can be the next Chiam See Tong in parliament.

The Bitter Aftertaste
Many have voiced their dissatisfaction over the recent elections but could not really point to a single factor that made them felt this way. With all the hype of this election, it is quite an anti-climax when it never really lived up to its expectations. No real key issues were discussed. Oppositions failed to conquer a GRC. Gomez shot himself at his foot. PAP shot both of their feet. MM was up in his old provoking style. SM Goh failed big time at getting Potong Pasir and Hougang back. LHL is ever so elusive when commenting on key issues. Oppositions’ rallies are ever so crowded. PAP rallies are a snore. Amazingly, I’ve just described the whole 9 days of General Election with 9 sentences. To think that we have waited 5 years to listen to these 9 sentences, this is an event not worth waiting for.

But behind the scenes, it does matters a lot of LKY. Just to add your thoughts, I will provide more questions than answers. Many felt that LKY is a liability to LHL and his rule. But why did LKY do the (petty) things such as provoking Gomez to sue him and is so insistent on staying the Cabinet? Is there someone else in the Cabinet that LKY is warily about? Is this person capable of challenging LHL in the coming future, or might have enough clout to cause a party spilt? Will LKY remove this person before he retires (or pass on) from Cabinet?

2006-05-12T03:04:00.000+08:00

Two Oppositions, Two Differing Paths: Part I
Story of the Workers’ Party and Singapore Democratic Party

I’ve always received comments and criticisms for being too much of a mouth-piece of the PAP. Hopefully, this article on the Opposition parties can slant me back to the neutral centre. With the conclusion of the recent General Elections, it is fair to say that Workers’ Party seemed to have more potential to challenge the PAP compared to the rest. This article features the birth, progress and path of the party.

The Workers’ Party (WP)
The WP, formed in 1957, is the longest-surviving opposition party in Singapore. In its relatively long period, the WP has been led by tough-talking personalities who will be remembered for their roles in the political development of this country. One thing is sure when the WP is contesting: they never lack colourful politicians, such as David Marshall, Dr Lee Siew Choh, J.B. Jeyaratnam, Tang Liang Hong and, the current favourite, James Gomez, to spark the local politics. The WP can be seen in three eras: David Marshall (1957 to 1970), J.B. Jeyaratnam (1971 to 2000) and Low Thia Khiang (2001 to present)

Under “Marshall Law”
Many would remember David Marshall as the first Chief Minister; the man who failed in gaining Singapore’s independence from the British but seldom the man who founded the Workers’ Party. Lim Yew Hock, the authoritarian second Chief Minister of Singapore, was his then-deputy in the Labour Front government. Lim advised Marshall that his should establish a party as a political base to mobilize the people towards independence. The new party would later prove useful to him when he vacated the post of Chief Minister.

Marshall was quick to see his party playing a moderate, alternative role to both the left-wing PAP (under the far leftist Lim Chin Siong) and the right-wing Labour Front Government of Lim Yew Hock (who liberally used political detention to maintain his power – sounds familiar? ;) ). Marshall openly clashed with Lim on the manner of dealing with the leftists and communists – political detention. Having felt that the Trades Union Congress being a puppet of Lim Yew Hock, Marshall reiterated his view that his new party will be guided by his desire to see the trade unions flourish in a more independent role vis-à-vis the government. This special inclination towards the trade unions not only reflected in the party name, Workers’ Party, but also in the party constitution. During then (now amended), the Constitution states that of the 30 Council members elected “at least two-thirds shall be trade unionists”.

As a political party, it was not doing that well. Marshall knew that the strength of his new party was dependent on the support of the pro-Communist trade union members. In the Battle for Merger, Lee Kuan Yew charged the party of being manipulated by Fang Chuang Pi (the “Plen”) – the Communists from MCP. Chang Yuen Tong, Executive Committee member of the WP resigned when LKY showed the evidence.

In the 1958 by-elections, due to the Plen’s undertaking to LKY, pro-communist votes were swung away from the WP, resulting in humiliating defeat for Marshall. Marshall regained his parliamentary seat in 1961 – at a time when all political parties were hotly debating the issue of merger with the Malayan Federation. His main argument was to object to the PAP’s idea of Malaysia, charging the latter’s vision as “selling out” of Singapore’s interests. Marshall instead called for complete merger, with Singapore seeking equal rights for its citizens in the new federation. He further maintained that if Singapore could not negotiate for a complete merger, she should seek independence on her own. Within his own party, there were differing views between him, Secretary-General Sum Chong Heng and Chua Chin Kiat. In the end, a compromise was reached on the party position, but the uneasiness never ended.

In the 1963 General Elections, things got worse for Marshall. Not only did he lose his seat, he even lost his election deposit. Dejected, he went into political oblivion and decided to concentrate on his legal career and was later appointed as the Singapore’s Ambassador to France.

The Fire of J.B. Jeyaratnam
After Marshall’s resignation, JBJ took over. Within three days, JBJ was the Secretary-General of the Workers’ Party. The infusion of new professionals, such as lawyers, architects and unionists, boosted the party’s image to an extent that the party was confident enough to declare that they are contest in all the seats in the 1972 GE (but in the end, they didn’t contest in all seats, 8 seats returned to the PAP uncontested). JBJ had quite a credible background after serving in key appointments such as Registrar of the Supreme Court and as the First District Judge. But despite JBJ’s background and infusion of professionals in the WP, the PAP won all 65 seats with an average of 69.2% of the votes. JBJ contested in Farrer Park constituency but lost badly to the PAP, Dr Lee Chiaw Meng, gaining only 2,668 out of 12,707 votes.

The 1976 elections was no difference when the PAP won all 69 seats, the third successive clean sweep. JBJ, whose election rally at the car park in Chai Chee on the eve of voting was “packed like sardines”, performed well with 40.08% of the votes. He was the highest-scoring opposition candidate in the election.

The turning point for the WP and JBJ came in October 1981, with the resignation of the incumbent Anson MP, Devan Nair (who was appointed as the President). JBJ defeated the PAP’s Pang Kim Hin by 633 votes to break the PAP’s electoral infallibility. However, one must note that several events leading to the Anson by-election led to the PAP losing that seat. When Devan Nair left Anson to become Singapore’s third President, many of his followers were unhappy with Pang as he brought his own men into the election campaign. One prominent person belonging to the Devan Nair camp was Ong Ah Heng, branch secretary to Anson and now a present Member of Parliament. Pang, was a political lightweight, which Anson residents were unhappy that PAP sent him there instead of other prominent candidates. Whatever the events, JBJ won and PAP received a rude wakeup call.

The next election in 1984 was a bolt from the blue as the PAP saw their percentage votes dropped from 75.7% in 1980 to 62.9% in 1984. To add salt on the PAP wounds, Chiam See Tong from the Singapore Democratic Party defeated Mah Bow Tan (PAP) with a thumping 60.28% of the votes. Chiam and JBJ were the only two oppositions elected into the parliament that year.

JBJ’s time in parliament was short-lived when he was disqualified from parliament when the court found him guilty for false declaration of the WP’s accounts. By such sentence, he lost his seat in Anson. On 23 May 1987, 16 people were detained under the Internal Security Act charged for involvement in a plot to overthrow the Government, in what came to be widely known as the “Marxist conspiracy”. The ISD also arrested Patrick Seong, a lawyer who was counsel for some of the detainees. He subsequently admitted that he had encouraged them to issue the statement as a means of discrediting the government that a former Law Society president, Francis Seow, knew about it. Seow was also later picked up and only released in July 1988 after serving his jail sentence.

In the 1988 GE, WP successfully recruited Francis Seow, a former Solicitor-General, and WP competed in 32 of the 81 seats. The public and media attention was on Seow, especially when he managed to attract large crowds to rallies. Mugslinging was at his peak when Seow called Goh Chok Tong a “political eunuch in Emperor Lee’s court”. When the results came, PAP won all the seats except Potong Pasir. However, Seow did the damage in Eunos GRC, where he contested together with seasoned politician Dr Lee Siew Choh and Mohd Khalit, garnering 49.11% of the valid votes. Both Dr Lee and Seow were offered NCMP seats but Seow was disqualified – being sued by the Government for various wrongdoings, including tax evasions. That was the beginning of his smear campaign against the government which later sees him migrating to United States. He has not returned to Singapore since then and had published a book in 1994, “To Catch a Tartar” Life in Lee Kuan Yew’s Prison,” alleging that he was tortured during detention.

For the Workers’ Party itself, throughout 1990, and through its newsletter, the Hammer, the party continued to raise many issues and criticisms against the Government. Then came the snap 1991 General Elections, called upon by the new Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, barely three-and-a-half years after the previous one in 1988. The opposition camp was obviously caught off guard by the sudden announcement. However, it also caught the PAP MPs off guard and the tactic backfired. This time around, the focus was again in Eunos GRC with Jufrie Mahmood, a Workers’ Party team member leading the charge. He attacked the PAP’s Malay MPs as “a bunch of yes men” and charged the PM for resorting yet again to what it described as “scare and smear tactics” to discredit its candidates and the WP. The PAP won 77 seats but were visibly shocked to lose four seats (to Chiam See Tong (SDP), Ling How Doong (SDP), Cheo Chai Chen (SDP) and Low Thia Khiang (WP)). The WP team in Eunos GRC performed strongly when it secured 47.6% of the votes against the PAP team.

In 1997 General Elections, the Worker’s Party sprung yet another surprise and gave the PAP one of the toughest fights. It fielded a well known Chinese lawyer, Tang Liang Hong, active in the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts and a former Chairman of the Chinese High School. And the battleground was set at Cheng San GRC. According to JBJ in his book, The Hatchet Man of Singapore, he said, “When I led the team into the nomination center along with Tang Liang Hong, the PAP team, led by Lee Yock Suan, who had already registered their candidacy with the registration officer, showed their shock and dismay plainly. They had not expected me in Cheng San. They believed that I was going Kampong Glam which was then a single constituency where I had done the rounds few days before Nomination Day. This was a deliberate ploy.”

Cheng San, the mountain of peace, erupted like a volcano through the campaign period of eight days (now it is nine days). Goh Chok Tong, Lee Kuan Yew, Lee Hsien Loong and Tony Tan took charge of the campaign in Cheng San, with Lee Yock Suan relegated to the sidelines. Goh Chok Tong told the electorate that it was a battle between him and the Workers’ Party. GCT gave this message, “You decide. You choose Tang Liang Hong, Jeyeratnam, raise their status and lower the Prime Minister’s the Deputy Prime Ministers’ stature, in Singapore, internationally, that will have very serious consequences.”

“What we are now doing is to… put all the chips on the table. It is a winner-takes-all situation. MRT, LRT, Punggol 21, upgrading, estate improvement, libraries, kindergartens, better schools… all these are plans which… have put to the people.”

“We win, Cheng San will get not just the attention of Lee Yock Suan and the team. Cheng San will get the Government’s attention, my attention, Lee Hsien Loong’s attention, Tony Tan’s attention. Even in Marine Parade you don’t get such attention. So you win big or you lose big. So tomorrow, you have to decide.”

That was the message delivered by GCT. Personally, I was totally put-off by this. PAP’s other tactic was to aim their guns at Tang Liang Hong, branding him a Chinese chauvinist. Tang and accused him as a “political opportunist”. The results came and the PAP won by a close margin of 54.8%, a sharp drop of 9.3% from the 64.1% in 1991. Low Thia Khiang, again, managed to retain his seat at Hougang. After the election was over, Tang faced a barrage of legal suits for alleged defamation against the 11 PAP leaders. This episode generated tremendous media coverage both local and overseas. He fled Singapore, first to Hong Kong, then London and Johor. JBJ too did not escape from being sued for defamation for his statement during the election rally. By the time of the 2001 GE, he was no longer electorally ready. After the Elections, Low Thia Khiang, the only WP candidate to have won a seat, took over the WP leadership from Jeyaratnam.

The Low Thia Khiang era is still history in the makings. The evolution of the Workers’ Party ran from central, to leftist and now, back to central. Coming into the recent election, WP might have finally found a credible, likeable and sensible candidate in Sylvia Lim. The future of the WP, maybe bright or maybe gloom; depends on the people’s perception. Nonetheless, they represent the best hope of a credible alternative voice to the Singapore politics. I guess I should not make this into a 10,000 words essay and stop here. If you are interested in reading further on WP, the book, “Parties and Politics: A Study of Opposition Parties and the PAP in Singapore”, by Hussin Mutalib and JBJ’s “The Hatchet Man of Singapore”, would be good sources to refer to. Stories on Singapore Democratic Party will be featured in the coming weeks.

Note: Earlier, I have posted the wrong photo of Francis Seow and have mistakened Dr Francis Seow-Cheon for the former-WP Francis Seow. My deepest apologies to Dr Francis Seow-Cheon and family. The photo has been removed with immediate effect.

2006-05-05T22:55:00.000+08:00

General Elections: The PAP Perspectives
Yes, I have been notably silent over the past couple of days and only waited to the day before the polling day before writing. Busy, with work. Busy, hunting elections news from inside. Basically, I was overwhelmed with commitments, so much so that I didn’t even have time to check my emails. Following the advice of at82, I guess it is good to introduce some PAP perspectives into the blogosphere, since opposition have other "mouthpieces". There are some unanswered comments in the previous articles as well as via email. Rest assured that I will get to them as soon as time permits. Here are some issues to think about and pictures from today’s campaigning to savor.

Why Gomez-gate?
The cctv Gomez video has been broadcast over the news in “Tammy-like” frequency. His name is fast becoming the equivalent of “Mohamed Jufrie Mahmood – 1991”, “Tang Liang Hong – 1997” and “Dr Chee Soon Juan – 2001”. There is a similarity and difference in such trends.

Maybe it is known to many that the PAP’s strategy is to focus on one “rotten apple” in the basket of many to cast the entire consignment into the dumps. In the past, oppositions tends to shoot themselves in the foot by saying something silly or doing something silly to provoke retaliation. Gomez seemed to be on course for that. In fact, the “Gomez-lightning” struck twice when he failed to fill up the nomination forms properly in the 2001 elections and now the latest fiasco. Whether he is the crook or not, it doesn’t matter, for one purpose: Sylvia Lim.

The reason why PAP pointed their heavy-weight guns at Gomez was to divert the attention away from Sylvia Lim. Sylvia Lim, is one candidate that fits all description of a good and credible opposition that PAP mentioned, but with one problem; she is contesting in a GRC. PAP wouldn’t mind having her in the parliament but can’t afford to lose a GRC as well as a vital Minister in George Yeo, the modern architect of Singapore’s economic success. When the electoral boundaries map was drawn, they probably tried to tempt WP to send Sylvia Lim for a single ward in Yio Chu Kang and probably would be willing to sacrifice Seng Han Tong for her. But they didn’t bite the bait. Thus, they have to focus on a new direction and issue to ensure Aljunied remains in PAP hands. Aljunied is historically a weak ground for PAP. In 1991, PAP won the Eunos GRC (now part of Aljunied) by only 52.38% of the votes. Another part of the present-Aljunied GRC also belonged to the Cheng San GRC in 1997. PAP did not do much better in Cheng San GRC when they garnered only 54.82% of the votes. This is no doubt a shaky ground for the PAP.

However, unlike all the other elections, this one is different. The Worker’s Party now has a credible and likeable candidate in Sylvia Lim, whose actions and words are well-thought and unfaultable. In addition, the local media (so-called mouthpiece of the ruling) has an unhealthy (in the eyes of the PAP) obsession with her. Take all the Straits Times reports over the past 3 months and count the number of Sylvia Lim’s reports, pictures and coverage. The number far exceeded the total number of reports and pictures for all 17 PAP female candidates. When NUS had their forum recently with Chiam See Tong (SDA), Indranee Rajah (PAP) and Sylvia Lim (SDP), the contrast in the photos was clear. Indranee was pictured with her jaw-dropped defeated look; Chiam was photoed like a caring grandfather and Sylvia with a motherly-like beaming smile. Indeed, the PAP are worried about losing Aljunied. When the Gomez issue came, they had to pounce on it, but over-cooked it.

The PAP expected the WP to react strongly to the criticism on Gomez and hoped that WP candidates might slip their tongue because of it. They didn’t bite the bait again. Instead, Sylvia Lim put PAP on the defensive and was portrayed as the sensible heroine of the whole fiasco. In simple terms to summarize this Gomez-issue, Gomez was the bad guy (perception-wise), Sylvia Lim was the good guy (or woman) and PAP lost overall in this issue. That is one reason why the PAP decided to cut loose this issue and tell the public to move on.

Rolling-in the MM Tank
With the threat of the WP looming, MM decided to step in and tried his old tactics of provoking his political opponents. Sensibility of the WP prevailed and they didn’t bite the bait for the third time. Many expected MM to step down during this elections but he didn’t. This is significant for many reasons.

In other countries such as Europe, Party splits are common. In Malaysia, UMNO demonstrated that this is not peculiar to Asian societies. To MM, this election represents crucial importance in consolidating the transition. He will not rest until he thinks this transition is complete. Looking at all the new candidates, the person with the most Ministerial potential is RADM Lui Tuck Yew. Without a doubt, he will be groomed to be the next Defense Minister, a vital post for any government. Under MM’s constituency, he will be “nurtured” by MM to provide loyal support to PM Lee in the future. These new candidates are expected to replace the “GCT-men” such as Lim Boon Heng, Lee Boon Yang and Yeo Cheow Tong.

Cyber-cop for Blogs?
Elections have gone for 8 days. Blogs and podcasts on elections have been active yet no arrest or even a slight warning has been made. Let’s do a quick check. Singabloodypore. Checked! The Void Deck. Checked! SgRally. Checked! Yawning Bread. Checked! Seems like all the political blogs have not been touched as predicted earlier.

I don’t think I need to explain the reasons again, but my MDA friend said that they have no intentions of monitoring the blogs at all. I’ll place all my bets that the law will be revised in the next electoral term.

Secrecy of Votes?
This was a hot issue when SM Goh mentioned that upgrading will still be possible for residents in Realty Park if the votes are higher than 60%. It sparked a wildfire of questions on the secrecy of votes. So is our vote really a secret?

After tomorrow, I’ll be able to assure everyone out there what happened from the first casting of the votes to the sealing of the ballot boxes. Why would I know? Yours truly, has been invited as the external counting agent to monitor the procedure of the votes as well as the secrecy.

Just to shed some light on why one can estimate the votes for each area without knowing the identity of the voter who cast the vote. At each polling station, the PAP, oppositions and members of the public can participate as the polling agents. Each PAP as well as opposition parties are expected to send their members as polling agents to ensure that the game is played fairly. This is not as important as counting agents. Both camps will send members as counting agents when the casting is closed at 8pm tomorrow. Agents from both camps as well as invited members of public will monitor the counting of votes in each sub-district such as ITE-MacPherson or Pei-Hwa Primary School. Thus, representatives will know how their party fairs (in terms of percentage) based on these sub-polling stations without being allowed to know the identities of individual votes. Example: percentage of votes from Si Ling Secondary School will be representative of the 14 blocks in Sembawang GRC and made known to the counting agents. Subsequently, the boxes will be sealed (with wax and tape, stamped by the presiding officer) and send to the main principal counting centre (for the example of Sembawang, it is Admiralty Secondary School) to total up the votes. Thus the counting agents can and will feedback to their candidates their performance for each sub-district.

Unless there is a dispute in the results, the official wax-stamped seal of the polling box will not be broken until the burning of the votes after the stipulated months. Thus, there is no issue of personal votes being known to the political parties.

How Good is Good?
Every time a journalist’s microphone is pointed into the lips of the candidates, they are always asked about the percentage of votes they expect to win. One should not and could not expect the same high percentage during the 2001 elections. The 2001 GE took place under extraordinary circumstances (the September 11 terror attacks), which swung 10%-15% of the votes in PAP’s favour. Based on that, the average percentage of votes is expected to reset to the 65% mark. Here is my prediction of the expected target of the PAP wards from the PAP perspectives (why the PAP perspectives? Read the title of this article!) :

Aljunied GRC – 5-10% below average
Ang Mo Kio GRC – 10-15% above average
East Coast GRC – 5-10% above average
Jalan Besar GRC – 0-5% above average
Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC – 0-5% above average
Sembawang GRC – 0-5% below average
Tampiness GRC – 0-5% below average

Bukit-Panjang SMC – 8-12% above average
Chua Chu Kang SMC – 5-10% below average
Hougang SMC – WP to win by 5%
Joo Chiat SMC – 3-8% below average
MacPherson SMC – 0-5% above average
Nee Soon Central SMC – 5-10% above average
Nee Soon East SMC – 0-5% above average
Potong Pasir SMC – PAP to win by 2%
Yio Chu Kang SMC – 0-5% below average

2006-04-29T09:54:00.000+08:00

Photos of General Elections

2006-04-21T02:50:00.000+08:00

General Elections: Final Salvo

Yes, General Election is finally here. After all the media hype and build up to this coming elections, 6 May will be the decisive day where the talking will end and the people decides (subjective…). Needless to say, this GE would be significant in many ways. This will not only be the first real test to the new leadership under PM Lee Hsien Loong, but is also the longest preparation time (and warning) given to the oppositions to GE. In this coming election, maybe we would see some fireworks and sparks.

New Leadership
Obviously, the new leadership would be questioned in the coming elections. In the previous transition of leadership (from LKY to GCT, in 1991), there was a significant drop in the percentage of votes. If Lee Hsien Loong was deemed a less popular Prime Minister than Goh Chok Tong, this election will show. Another issue on everyone’s minds is whether Ang Mo Kio GRC (PM’s ward) would be contested. Perhaps, only Low Thia Khiang has the answers. But in my opinion, it would be uncontested. The oppositions have already been hard-pressed for manpower and resources. Unlikely, they are going to devote that much time and effort to tie the PM down to his ward. Moreover, the oppositions have not been visiting the blocks or markets of AMK GRC that often.

NKF Saga
Some opposition parties such as the Singapore Democratic Party (under the leadership of Dr Chee Soon Juan) have announced that they would be challenging Sembawang GRC and Khaw Boon Wan on this issue. The interesting twist is that the Board members and TT Durai have been charged in court and the case is still in progress.

The problem now arises as it is unlawful to publicly comment on a case while it is still under judgment — otherwise known as sub judice, in legalese. As mentioned by Tanjong Pagar GRC MP Indranee Rajah, on TODAY papers: "The public is always at liberty to discuss matters of public interest. However specific issues such as guilt or liability which are the subject of pending court proceedings should not be pre-judged." Mr Shashi Nathan, head of criminal department at Harry Elias Partnership, explained that general comments on the NKF saga can still be made during the run-up to the elections, although "specific references to allegations or to people involved in the case should be avoided at all times".

For example, he said, it "should be fine" for candidates to express a public opinion such as citing the old NKF as an organisation lacking good governance, transparency or accountability. Likewise, it would not be against the law for Opposition candidates to question why the Government did not take action against the NKF much earlier. While the neutrals think that the NKF trial was not timed to coincide with the GE, many would differ with that opinion.

Thus it would be interesting to see the contest at Sembawang GRC where Khaw would have to face the heckling of Dr Chee and his party. Leading up to this point, I would make this prediction…

Civil Disobedience
The laws on public rallies, campaigns and speeches on NKF-like issues have been placed on the table and made clear. Dos and do nots have been issued and to be observed. However, I am quite sure that a particular opposition member would deliberately break the law, in the name of civil disobedience. The idea is not to proclaim in the name of civil rights to prove a law unjust by deliberately breaking it, but to use this as an election tactic. This is my following prediction.

At present, the various charges he received render him ineligible to run for elections. Wherever and whenever he made public rallies, there will always policemen tailing him. Come elections, it will be the grand stage where he will plan to make a big media bang out of this issue. First, he will talk in places where he has no license to talk. Next, he will talk on issues where he is, informed by law, not to talk on. In other words, it is civil disobedience.

Police will be there to enforce the laws and give him the usual warnings to leave the place. He would obviously refuse. Just when the police arrest him, he would try to make himself the martyr of political freedom, in the presences of the foreign and local media. Next day, his party would come onto the rally and ask the public why is TT Durai still on bail, walking free (technically), while the Singaporean who spoke on that issue gets jailed. The foreign media and the political blogs would have a media blitz to support this “martyr”. His aim, to be the “single spark that started a prairie fire”, is accomplished. If his party is lucky and able to capitalize on the anger of the people, they might walk away with a GRC. And all these controversies would start on the first few days of elections so that the issues discussed during elections would be drawn to what he wants rather than being dictated by the PAP. The rest of the opposition parties would tap on to this issue and exploit this controversy to their advantage.

May I just add that I have utmost disrespect for such civil disobediences. Nonetheless, this is quite a lethal election tactic. Let’s just see how accurate is my predictions.

Casino Issues
Another tricky issue would be the casino. Granted, that the whole saga was badly managed by the PAP. What started out as a public consultative project, led to not whether would there be a casino or not, but resulted in two casinos. Previously, I’ve written on my thoughts on the casino and will not repeat it further. Some have suggested that the PAP went against the wishes of the PAP, but this is quite hard to validate. It is a case of a vocal minority versus a silent majority. Should this issue be put to referendum, casino might still get the go ahead. Nonetheless, the oppositions are likely to use this as ammunition against the PAP.

Podcasting and Political Blogging
How could this (political) blog not talked about the regulations of podcasting and political blogging? =P

Firstly, the bloggers have to understand that there have been no additional rules placed. The recent parliamentary speech on podcast and blogging was just an interpretation of the existing laws (namely PEA) in place. Perhaps, the bloggers should view this issue in two distinct periods: election and non-election period. For the 9 days period of General Elections, podcasting on political rallies, parties and advertising are disallowed. After the elections, they are free to resume. Thus, there isn’t an extreme violation of speech or internet freedom. It is just a matter of adjusting to the election period and the regulations governing it.

Secondly, a blogger should know the rationale behind the election advertising laws. Although, the law purports to provide a level playing field for both the ruling party as well as the opposition, many would felt otherwise. Without a doubt, the ruling PAP has far more resources (eg: finances, manpower) to create their own pro-PAP websites, shadow sites or blogs, compared to the oppositions. In terms of online advertising resources, they have far greater capabilities than the opposition or any individuals. If the PAP wishes to “flood” the internet with their own advertisements they have more than enough resources to do so. Thus, it is not a matter of oppression or creating unfairness to the oppositions but the rationality of the law. While they may not agree with the law, the law has to be observed and obeyed. Thus, distinguishing between agreeing/disagreeing the law and obeying the law is important.

Lastly, the nature of the internet and blogging makes the law difficult to be enforced. It was announced that if the blogs persistently propagate, promote or circulate political issues relating to Singapore, they are required to register with the MDA. However, the nature of blogs is such that blogs can easily change their web address, name or even spawn multiple blogs with similar content. Registering one blog may just lead to another 10 blogs that have exactly the same content but not being registered I am sure the authorities realized this and this could be one of the reasons why there hasn’t been any blogs (or not to my limited knowledge) asked to register with MDA. This will simply create more negative publicity for MDA, without being able to remove the content. Thus, the nature of blogs and internet may simply render it ineffective.

To sum up my lengthy opinion, I do not view this (law) as an infringement, contrary to many other bloggers’ beliefs. I do agree with the purpose of the law but in the modern era, the law is simply not enforceable and should be revised. If you are wondering whether will this blog cease “operations” during elections? The answer is no. Bottomline is that we should always blog responsibly.

By the way, did anyone say this coming Election to be boring?

Launch of PAP Manifesto

2006-04-16T13:22:00.000+08:00

The whole GE media "agitprop" is getting mundune. Whether be it turning on the television, flipping the newspapers or even drinking kopi at the hawker stalls, it is hard to avoid hearing or viewing GE news and events. In the past GEs, it was always called in short notice to give the opposition an element of surprise. This coming GE will be lengthiest preparation notice given to the oppositions. As you all know by now, yesterday was the launch of the PAP Manifesto. Without trying to add to "comment noises" or give my 2-cents worth on the manifesto, I'll just publish this interesting news report from the Business Times, dated 27 November 2001. And if you are wondering whether a Singapore Politics junkie like me was at the event, maybe some photos would ease your queries. ;)

New Ministers of State will Lose Up to $200,000 per Month in Pay

The seven new people made ministers of state will lose between $10,000 and $200,000 monthly by moving into the political jobs, according to Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong.

And, going by past records, not all will make it in their new appointments and may have to drop out after a year, he said at the People's Action Party convention on Sunday.

'The losses for the (junior ministers), the few whom I spoke to, I think four of them or so, will range from $10,000 per month to $200,000 per month,' he said.

'Now, this includes very successful specialists in the private sector earning high income ... '

Of the seven, two were top civil servants, two from the corporate sector and three medical specialists: Balaji Sadasivan, a neuro surgeon; Ng Eng Hen, a cancer surgeon; and Vivian Balakrishnan, an eye specialist. Mr Goh, who is the PAP's secretary-general, said they willingly made the sacrifice and undertook the risk. 'We hope all would succeed but going by past records, I think it would be difficult, in my one view, to expect successes everywhere and in every one of them.'

All they wanted was to be informed as soon as it was decided they are not going to make it, he said. 'In other words, if after one year we think they can't make it as minister, tell them, then they can go back to their private sector life.'

And to help the medical specialists make that return if needed, the government will arrange for them to spend one or two mornings weekly at its hospitals to keep their skills current.

'These are good people but, just in case, they are good specialists but not good in public policy making and they haven't got the political acumen, why should you cause their lives to be hurt more than necessary?' Mr Goh said.

27 November 2001
Business Times Singapore

2006-04-04T03:00:00.000+08:00

What “Elections” Mean to Me

With the hype of the General Elections circulating in our media, I wonder to myself if Singaporeans really and truly understand the meaning of elections? To the apathetic youths, the General Elections might only be a procedural formality to affirm the PAP as the legitimate government. To the polarized youths, they looked at the GE with skepticism on the fairness of the PAP and the GE. Some sections of the public believed that the voting slip is deliberately coded to trace people who voted against the PAP. Over 20,000 people voted for Oppositions (in Jurong GRC) during the last elections, and we didn’t see 20,000 people being discriminated against. I’ve friends who openly declared their preference for the Oppositions but yet, still hold high offices in the civil service and never been discriminated against. Many urban legends have sprouted and many are false. Personally, I don’t think the PAP is that vindictive nor have that many resources to track who voted against them.

Apathy of a Singaporean

The problem is that it has become a convenient excuse for the people to self-censor their political preference and using their non-participation as a smoke-screen for their apathy. Stand up for what you believe in and stop being a “closet” opposition or “closet” PAP! If there is one argument that really irks me, is when people grumble over not being able to vote when their constituency is not challenged by the oppositions. Then, they will start blaming the PAP repression, the lack of democracy, the paternalistic governance or the inability to demonstrate their political ownership due to the “unfair” electoral rules. If you seriously think that you need an alternative voice in the polls, sign up and pay the membership fees to the Oppositions so that they have more resources to work with. All it takes is for 30 Singaporeans to pool their Progress Package bounty, one for candidate to stand for elections and another 50,000 people will be able vote. Seriously, the empty talks and the groundless accusations should end and Singaporeans should start exercising their political voice. The system can only be as democracy or as autocratic if your mind permits. If you think Singapore is not democratic, you are already seeing through a biased perception lens. Far too long, Singaporeans chose to self-censor. I say, forgot about so-called PAP repression. If it existed, it is history. Political ownership is not about whining and groaning, it is about knowing your beliefs and sticking to your beliefs. We lived in one of the smallest surface area in South Asia but we are one of the richest in the world. However, in our mindless pursuit of wealth, we lost our souls. The world may be your oyster, but you only have one home, a home called Singapore.

Meaning of Elections

Do Singaporeans truly understand the word “elections”? We all ought to but never tried to. This word encapsulates 2,600 years of human trial and error, blood, sweat and even lives. Yet, we treated the “elections” with skepticism, apathy, distrustfulness and even ridicule the whole sacredness of it. If one looks through the philosophies and histories of the concept of elections, three words persist through the thousands of years, millions of minds: Equality, Justice and Happiness. It is no coincidence that the three words, Equality, Justice and Happiness appeared in our pledge, written by the late S. Rajaratnam. Raja did not simply throw in these three words into our pledge just because they are suitable words. These words are the ultimate goals of the human race that we have strived for the thousands of years. A learned man like Raja seeks through the thousands of books he read just to understand the purpose of life. What is life and what would man seek that they are so willing to forgo their lives just to pursue this end? Ultimately, every human will have to die someday. Life is not about pursing wealth, fame and fortune, but serving an end beyond itself. An end the purports equality, justice and happiness to future generations.

Demeaning Elections

Sadly, an increasing disturbing trend of elections in Singapore is equating upgrades and material wealth for representation. Such economic benefits should not be placed on the table as a stake for your votes or mine. If we do start a trend of votes equating to upgrades, MRT stations and other economic wealth, it will only dilute the idea of Singapore identity and replaced it with economic pragmatism. Should candidates or parties be chosen because they have “deeper” pockets to provide Lift Upgrades? Maybe yes, maybe no. But on any given day, I would insist that the answer is no. Regardless of your voting preference, no Singaporeans should be made less well-off in terms of assets than another just because he/she prefers the Opposition to represent his political voice.

The idea of elections is to decide the best people to lead and represent the interest of the Singaporeans for the betterment of Singapore. Elections and votes should never be on self-interest in preserving their own asset values and forsaking the idea of a better Singapore. Parties and candidates should be compared not on the “depths of their pockets” but by their abilities to represent the interest of Singaporeans and make Singapore a better place. Do not vote for the Oppositions just because they are the underdogs or that you simply want to exercise your political voice by not voting to PAP (since you think the PAP will win, by voting for them is similar to not voting – “By-Elections Effect”). Similarly, do not vote the PAP just because you want to have upgrading at your blocks. Judge them by their quality of ideas, opinions, character and sincerity. They should represent not just your own interest but must benefit Singapore as a whole. By that, we don’t need 84 President’s scholars seating in the parliament. We need Members of Parliament to serve the people, not to serve power; who know the ground, not just knowing figures, numbers and statistics.

Words to Would-be-MPs

Most, if not all, of the new PAP candidates will be elected into the parliament. Yes, many of them are corporate high-flyers that have recently “helped” out at grassroots and community events. If anyone of the new-MPs ever read this, may I just provide my 2-cents worth. Do not be blinded by the sudden fame and power. With elections nearing, you are pushed into the media limelight but do keep your head up and your feet on the ground. We don’t need opportunists in parliament that seeks power, fame and fortune. Many argued that politics is about serving power, but I would naively beg to defer. Politics is about people and serving people. In the past, we have seen new candidates promoted into Ministerial positions straight after elections, with their impressive credentials. Paper politics is vastly different from people’s politics. Some found out that they are not suited to deal with lower strata of society and quit office before the next GE. They have nothing to lose as by quitting office, they could easily step back into the corporate world or even the GLCs (Government-linked Companies) as Directors or CEOs.

Truly, I do hope that the new candidates know what they are up for and against. Being a MP or Minister is not always about the high-life, of glam and prestige. It takes lots of personal sacrifices, human relationship and energy to translate ideals to actions, actions to reality. Be a pro-Singapore MP and not a pro-PAP MP. Ideally, what is best for the country is best for the Party. But in reality, things may not be so simply. When the crunch time comes, all you need to know is whether you are born as a Singaporean or a “PAPian”.

Words to the Oppositions

“A good question is never answered. It is not a bolt to be tightened into place but a seed to be planted and to bear more seed toward the hope of greening the landscape of idea.” – John Anthony Ciardi.

Perhaps one of the major flaws of democracy is the tendency for Oppositions to oppose for the sake of opposing. However, I do have strong admiration to some opposition members for their devotion to serving the people and playing fair. These opposition MPs do seek to better outcomes and future for Singapore. For every credible and good opposition, there are the wayward ones. There are other “unelected opposition members” that rants to foreign sympathizers on how the Singapore system is undemocratic and so on. They are fighting based ideologies such as civil disobedience and liberal democracy but have nothing to show when it comes to the polls. Why is that so? Another conspiracy theory on how the voting forms are coded? Has he ever wondered why is Mahatma Gandhi able to mobilize the masses to be civil disobedient against the Colonial powers but not him?

The system did not fail him, but he failed to understand the system. Has he spend more time campaign on his ideals, protesting, jetting from seminars to seminars, countries to countries to make mockery of the Singapore system or has he sat down with the residents the write petitions for them? Perhaps, more than any other countries, Singapore and Singaporeans are mindful and pragmatic on their needs, wealth and wellbeing. If you are an ordinary layman that received help (not just financial but social and physical help) from avenues such as Meet-the-People sessions, would you vote for someone who rants about the faults of the system or someone that sat down with you to help you with your problems? Paper politics and opposition based on ideologies do not serve people but only blinds the politician with power, angst and anger. If you think that the system is unfair to you, and you go raging to foreign media and press, are you benefiting your self-interest or the interest of Singapore?

Once, in the American Presidential Elections, the candidate that was favorite to win, lost due to some dodgy inconsistency in votes and large number of spoilt votes in the last polling state. The governor of the last polling state was the brother of his rival candidates. Under such suspicious circumstances, he has every right to call for an investigation or vote recount. But he didn’t and accepted defeat. The reason is that he didn’t want to make an international mockery of the system and harm the public image of the country for his own self-interest. While you may disagree with the system, ask yourself if by going to the foreign press, are you doing Singapore’s image good or harm?

Chasing an Elusive Goal: Knowing What and Why You Chase

What is democracy? Is democracy a means to a better end or is this the end itself? Liberal thinking youths often criticize the government for their strict controls over freedom of speech and media restrain. But what is freedom of speech too? Another ends, or a means to an end? If today, the elusive “freedom of speech” has been granted to all, what is the next forbidden fruit you are going to pursue? Freedom of speech needs to purport an ultimate end, an end that is not simply explainable by criticism and the whole notion of democracy. Ultimately, the first fighters of freedom of speech and democracy are people striving for equality, justice and happiness.

Yes, no doubt that PAP will return to power on the next General Elections. But never should we take our every vote for granted and for ridicule. If you vote just based on hatred or apathy, you have betrayed your future generations and the learned men who seek Justice, Equality and Happiness. If you want the responsibility, you will first have to think beyond self-interest or even beyond the interest of your inner circles. You, determine Singapore and Singapore is just an empty shell without you. Individuals come and pass, but Singapore will live on, but how well it lives depends on your action today. Today, it might just be an Election on whom and which party becomes the government. But tomorrow, it will determine the future of the next generation. Men strived for democracy for hundreds of years just to have a stake in the nation’s future. Today, you inherited this intangible gift and it is your responsibility to exercise it with care and understanding.

Regulations on Blogging

By the way, many bloggers have expressed their concern on the recent parliamentary speech on blogging. Much of this have been sensationalized by the media such as Reuters. As long as you blog responsibly, you should not fear of any prosecution. So, don't go buying into all the "repression" arguments and folklores again. Below is the parliamentary text made by Senior Minister of State, Dr Balaji Sadasivan:

Parliament Sitting on 3 April 2006

QUESTION NO. *424 FOR ORAL ANSWER

Mr Low Thia Khiang: To ask the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts whether the Government intends to change the laws and regulations concerning the use of Internet and new technologies such as podcasts for campaigning during the General Election and, if so, what will be the main changes and when will such changes be made public.

Response from the Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts Dr Balaji Sadasivan:

Currently, there are several pieces of legislation and guidelines which cover Internet campaigning issues or which touch on such matters. These include the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA) and the Election Advertising Regulations under the PEA, and the Class Licence Scheme and the Internet Code of Practice administered by the Media Development Authority (MDA).

2. Political parties, candidates and election agents are permitted to use the Internet for election advertising based on a “positive list” of activities listed in the Election Advertising Regulations.

3. The “positive list” ensures the responsible use of the Internet during the elections. In a free-for-all Internet environment, where there are no rules, political debates could easily degenerate into an unhealthy, unreliable and dangerous discourse flush with rumours and distortions to mislead and confuse the public. The Government has always maintained that political debates should be premised on factual and objective presentation of issues and arguments. The regulations governing Internet campaigning have served well to safeguard the seriousness of the electoral process.

4. Political parties, candidates and their election agents will continue to be guided by the “positive list” in the Election Advertising Regulations in the coming general elections. Party political websites must be registered with the MDA. Failure to register is a breach of the class licence conditions.

5. Private or individual bloggers can discuss politics. However, if they persistently propagate, promote or circulate political issues relating to Singapore , they are required to register with the MDA. During the election period, these registered persons will not be permitted to provide material online that constitutes election advertising.

6. Mr Low has asked about podcasting. I take podcasting to mean the provision of an audio feed over the Internet to subscribers. As I have noted, during the election period, political parties, candidates and election agents must keep to permitted election advertising set out in the “positive list”. Podcasting does not fall within this list.

7. There are also some well-known local blogs run by private individuals who have ventured into podcasting. The content of some of these podcasts can be quite entertaining. However, the streaming of explicit political content by individuals during the election period is prohibited under the Election Advertising Regulations. A similar prohibition would apply to the videocasting, or video streaming of explicitly political content.

8. At this point, the Government has no intention to amend the legislation regulating Internet campaigning during an election. But the review of government regulations is a continual process so as to ensure that they are kept up-to-date. We recognise that in our society, people will have their diverse opinion and some will want to share their opinion. But people should not take refuge behind the anonymity of the Internet to manipulate public opinion. It is better and more responsible to engage in political debates in a factual and objective manner.

2006-03-27T14:00:00.000+08:00

General Elections: Reloaded

I guess everyone just can’t get enough of election news, information and gossips. You are either craving for more, or totally sick of it. Everyday, election speculations hog the headlines of newspapers. And in these past weeks, PAP has been quite active on the ground and in the build-up to GE. Just a short recap on the past month elections major headlines:

1 March 2006 – “Singapore PM Lee says budget not vote-buying scheme”

2 March 2006 – “Singapore Democrat Leader Charged With Contempt Of Court”

3 March 2006 – “Singapore releases electoral boundaries for next general elections”

6 March 2006 – “Opposition May Contest 52 Seats”

6 March 2006 – “Aljunied GRC MP Cynthia Phua asks PAP leadership about ward line-up”

10 March 2006 – “Opposition parties to contest 57 seats in Singapore's next general elections”

13 March 2006 – “PAP to field up to 20 new GE candidates: PM”

14 March 2006 – “Bankrupt Singapore opposition leader ordered to pay up”

15 March 2006 – “Presence of 'Uncle Yap' fuels talk of JBJ-Chee link”

20 March 2006 – “SM Goh tasked to help PAP retake opposition wards”

20 March 2006 – “Steve Chia raises stakes for himself - quit politics if he doesn't win this general election”

23 March 2006 – “PAP introduces first 3 new candidates for upcoming GE”

24 March 2006 – “PAP begins introducing 'new breed' of candidates”

25 March 2006 – “PAP to introduce second group of new candidates on Tuesday”

25 March 2006 – “An 'active supporter of self-renewal', MP Yatiman says he wants to call it a day”

26 March 2006 – “Two women high-fliers seen at ward events”

26 March 2006 – “Jaya to lead East Coast GRC team”

26 March 2006 – “Yeo Cheow Tong says he will step down if asked by PM Lee”

26 March 2006 – “Another possible new candidate for PAP seen at Tampines community event”

27 March 2006 – “Three new faces at PAP walkabouts in 2 places”

27 March 2006 – “Short of candidates? Not now, says NSP”

27 March 2006 – “Lim Hwee Hua moves to Aljunied GRC”

27 March 2006 – “SDA tests Tampines”

27 March 2006 – “Tony Tan to retire from politics – Khaw to take over Sembawang”

As usual, this blog (other than providing information) asks more questions than providing answers. Looking at the month of March, the news reports begins with the “sweeteners” from the Budget, then the introduction of new PAP candidates and most recently, the movements (retirement and reallocation) of Ministers and MPs. Perhaps any journalist reading this might be interested in taking up the following issues.

Which MPs are leaving?
Here is a mathematics question: There are 84 seats in parliament and PM Lee mentioned that they will introduce up to 20 new candidates for the coming GE. So far, only 3 MPs (Dr Tony Tan, Yatiman Yusof and Othman Haron Eusofe) have publicly announced that they will not be standing for the coming GE. Another 2 MPs (Dr Tan Cheng Bock and Dr Wang Kai Yuen) had their wards swallowed up by the GRCs are unlikely to stand. And so, my final question is which are the 15 MPs (minimum, but could be more than 15 MPs) who will step down? Of course, everyone has their own thoughts on the 15 and here is mine.

1) Lee Yock Suan
2) David Lim
3) Cedric Foo
4) Cynthia Phua
5) Tan Soo Khoon
6) Dr Ong Chit Chung
7) Dr John Chen
8) Chew Heng Ching
9) Assoc Prof Low Seow Chay
10) Yeo Guat Kwang
11) Chay Wai Chuen
12) Dr Ong Seh Hong
13) Andy Gan
14) R Ravindran
15) Leong Horn Kee

Notice that I’ve not mentioned any Minister stepping down. Reason is that usually, the PM will not drop the Minister before the elections unless he voluntarily steps down before elections. By dropping the Minister before elections, it might potential cause voting problems for the GRC (since Ministers usually heads the GRCs). After the GE is over, when the PM selects his list of Cabinet Ministers, we will know who is "in" and who is "out". If not, another Cabinet Reshuffling will take place around 1-2 years after the GE to have a renewal of Ministers. The telltale sign is when you have a strong number two anchor Minister in that same GRC. Example: Jurong GRC – Lim Boon Heng with Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Jalan Besar GRC – Dr Lee Boon Yang with Dr Yaacob Ibrahim. If a Minister “retires” there is a least another Minister to carry that GRC. But since they only retire as a Minister but not as a MP, there will not be any by-elections for that GRC. However, this is just a trend and observation. It is not conclusive.

Will we have enough Ministers?
Yes, there is no typo in that question. You might be wondering that Singapore has already more Ministers than we truly needs. Not true. Here is a list of possible Ministers retiring after the GE and reshuffling (again, it is just a prediction, not a conclusion):

1) Dr Lee Boon Yang – Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts
2) Lim Boon Heng – Minister for Prime Minister’s Office
3) Prof S Jayakumar – Deputy Prime Minister
4) Yeo Cheow Tong – Minister for Transport
5) Lee Kuan Yew – Minister Mentor (contentious)

In the present Cabinet, there are 19 full Ministers, 2 Senior Minister of States and 6 Minister of States. At present, there are 14 Ministries, not counting the PMO. After promoting the 2 Senior Minister of States (Dr Balaji Sadasivan and Prof Ho Peng Kee), we still see some vacancies (as you will have some Ministers to second certain Ministries). It is unlikely that any of the present 6 Ministers of State be promoted the full Minister, but some are likely to be promoted to Senior Ministers of State. After the GE, it would be interested to see who will deputize the Prime Minister should DPM Jayakumar retires. The candidates are likely to be George Yeo or Teo Chee Hean. Thus, we are likely to see some new PAP candidates in this election that will jump straight into office similar to GE 2001.

In GE 2001, Khaw Boon Wan, Raymond Lim, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Vivian Balakrishnan, Balaji Sadasivan, Ng Eng Hen and Cedric Foo were appointed Senior Minister of States and Minister of States after the elections. This year, we are going to see some candidates going through the same path. My bet is that you will see some candidates with military background (LG Lim Chuan Poh or Major-General Lim Kim Choon) and female candidates jump into the post of Minister of States. And other present MPs (eg: Parliamentary Secretary Dr Maliki) that have done well might be promoted as well.

Are we going to see more Ministers reallocating to other GRCs?
Yes, I think so. So far, only Khaw Boon Wan has confirmed moving to Sembawang GRC. There are some strong GRCs that would not require 2 heavy-weight Ministers in the same GRC like Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC (DPM Wong Kan Seng and Dr Ng Eng Hen) and Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC (Lim Swee Say and Dr Vivian Balakrishnan).

In other GRCs, Tharman is seconding Lim Boon Yang and Dr Yaacob Ibrahim is seconding Dr Lee Boon Yang; retirement and replacement is foreseeable. Thus, I would expect the reallocation of Dr Ng and Dr Vivian to be strategic in seconding Cabinet Ministers who are likely to step down. Maybe Dr Ng might join Hong Kah GRC to second Yeo Cheow Tong and Dr Vivian might move to Tanjong Pagar GRC or East Coast GRC.

Coming Soon: “Super Seven minus One” – Report Card of Ministers
Khaw Boon Wan and Tharman Shanmugaratnam were appointed Senior Ministers of State straight after the GE 2001, in their first year of politics. Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Raymond Lim, Dr Ng Eng Hen, Dr Balaji Sadasivan and Cedric Foo were appointed Ministers of State immediately after their first year of politics as well. With the exception of Cedric Foo, who has resigned from office, the rest of the 6 were either full Cabinet Ministers or Senior Minister of State. Since their appointment until now, what have they done and how have they performed? What were the sticky issues that they have handled not so well and how have they dealt with their public image, grassroots issues and foreign media? All that and more, in the next article.

2006-03-14T22:13:00.000+08:00

General Elections Snippets: Myth or Truth?

1) It is true that the PAP government ever discussed with the oppositions over the S$13,500 election deposit per candidate?

During the Remaking Singapore Committee chaired by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, the topic of changing the election deposit was discussed. Some opposition members were consulted, and among whom was a seasoned politician who was unable to stand for GE due to a defamation suit. In conclusion to the discussion, the opposition figured that the amount should remain the same (not lower, not higher). The reason is that lowering the deposit will lead more 3-way fights and would reduce the share of votes in the opposition camps. This might result in the opposition losing their GE deposit if their votes are lower than certain percentage. Increasing the amounts would lead to difficulties in contesting for 6-member GRCs. Thus, that senior opposition supported the figure of S$13,500.

2) It is true that video recording and uploading political rallies online (sgrally.com) are against the law?

According to the controversial Section 33 of the Films Act, the making, distribution and exhibition of "party political films", are subjected to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years. The Act further defines a "party political film" as a film;

(a) which is an advertisement made by or on behalf of any political party in Singapore or any body whose objects relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore, or any branch of such party or body; or ;

(b) which is made by any person and directed towards any political end in Singapore
Exception are, however, made for films "made solely for the purpose of reporting of current events", or informing or educating persons on the procedures and polling times of elections or referenda.

Note: One of the Minister of State (who is also a MP in a SMC) made a short video on his constituency and featured the PAP insignia, he was asked to destroy the entire batch of VCDs. Of course, he did so. This is one example which the PAP applied the law on themselves too.

However, the usage of internet as a medium for this Act is unclear. But there is an unspoken mitigation to this. Should a person upload election rallies into a blog with local domains such as “www.sgrally.blogspot.com”, the person is traceable and liable to the Films Act. However, it the website is a worldwide domain such as “www.sgrally.com” or “www.sgrally.org”, the Act is unenforceable even though it contravenes with it. The reason is that dotcoms are hosted overseas in countries such as USA, technically, it is untraceable. Even if Singapore Authorities knew who the person is, enforcing the law to him would be difficult due to the cross-judiciary with another country. Thus, this law is expected to be reviewed and possibly modified, after the elections (considering that there isn’t sufficient time to read the law in parliament from now to elections date).

3) It is true that J.B. Jeyaratnam has sufficient money to clear his bankruptcy and stand for elections?

JBJ stated that he has arranged for a court hearing session scheduled on Tuesday, 14 March 2006 (now adjourned to 28 March at the request of JBJ), to clear his bankruptcy charges. Few days ago, he announced to Straits Times that he has finally got enough money, S$600,000, to clear the bankruptcy charges as well as to stand in a 6-member ward in the coming GE. If he is true on this, it would suggest that he has at least S$681,000 to clear his debts as well as stand for a 6-member GRC (notwithstanding the money needed for campaign process). Is he calling a bluff, met a rich guy or has he struck TOTO? The question is: if he has the money, where did his new found wealth came from?

Not implying any conclusions (make your own judgment on this issue), allow me to bring you back to 12 January 2006, Raffles City Convention Centre. George Soros was in town discussing on the issue of Open Society and Its Challenges. During the forum, he mentioned that “Singapore does not qualify as an open society.” Without mentioning names, Soros referred to a local politician who he said was “in trouble in Singapore because he has been sued for libel and he's been bankrupt and would not be able to stand for parliament.” Soros is founder and chairman of the Open Society Institute, a network of philanthropic organizations active in more than 50 countries. This institute funds and promotes democratic governance and human rights activities. Apparently, on the same day of the forum, J.B. Jeyaratnam was spotted outside the convention centre selling his books. Once again, I would like to stress that it is a possibility but not a conclusion.

A lot of skeptics have doubts on whether will Singapore’s judiciary delay processing JBJ’s case or process the case at normal pace (in which is likely and normally takes weeks or months). In short, will JBJ’s case be processed in time for the Elections? From a friend in the judiciary, I gathered that if JBJ has the money to clear his bankruptcy, the judiciary is likely to expedite the case to clear it before the elections. Two reasons for this: Firstly, the judiciary has been much maligned by the foreign press and media on the treatment of opposition members. The last thing they need is a judiciary controversy to explode in their faces. This is the LHL’s first GE as the Prime Minister and would not want any controversy to say that he is fearful of challenges or win it unfairly. This leads to the second reason: So far, all the past controversies (eg: NKF, Casino) have subsided and would not want to have a judiciary controversy on JBJ to throw their plans off course. Singaporeans’ perception of fairness has increased very much over the years. Should they play the judiciary card on JBJ’s case, Singaporeans will react strongly against the PAP even though they might not support JBJ. This will lead to another NKF-like controversy and aftermath. PM and his Ministers knows this and will not be forcing out JBJ unfairly.

4) Will Prime Minister’s ward (Ang Mo Kio GRC) be contested?

Sylvia Lim, Chairman of Workers' Party, says: “The four GRCs we have named, we may not go to all the four as we are still deciding which are our priorities - that is the likely scenario.” This is in reference to Aljunied GRC, East Coast GRC, Ang Mo Kio GRC and Sembawang GRC. The Workers’ Party is adopting the wait-and-see attitude on J.B. Jeyaratnam’s bankruptcy case. Should JBJ be able to stand, his former party might encourage him to contest in Ang Mo Kio GRC. Two reasons for this:

1) JBJ did fairly well in the battle of Cheng San GRC in 1997 with 45% of the votes against PAP’s Lee Yock Suan. Considering that PAP rolled in the “big guns”, with the likes of Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chok Tong, Lee Hsien Loong and Tony Tan, JBJ still managed 44,132 votes. The Cheng San GRC of those days is absorbed mainly by Ang Mo Kio GRC and partly by Aljunied GRC as well as Pasir Ris-Ponggol GRC. Contesting in his old battleground might yield him a good number of votes.

2) JBJ is 81 years old and he knows that he doesn’t have many years left in him. This is likely to be his last chance to enter the parliament. Thus, he has to solve his inner dilemma of whether to contest in a ward (weak GRC or weak SMC) that is likely to give him a good chance of entering parliament or should he aim for the maximum publicity by challenging the PM’s GRC. Given his age, he might want to go out with a bang and challenge the son of the man who sued him. Maybe he is not so concern with entering parliament but more of generating publicity and a statement to the public and to the world. Time (meaning his age) is not on his side, he has to make the maximum impact in the shortest time. This was one of the reasons why he contested in Cheng San GRC in 1997 when, during then, most would consider it as a strong ward. Today, what better way to return to politics by keeping the PM on his toes?

5) Will Elections be held in March or April? Do the MPs and Ministers know of the date?

Many speculated that GE will be at the March school holidays but it won’t. Reason being, that the Queen Elizabeth is coming to Singapore for an official visit on 16-18 March 2006. It wouldn’t be appropriate for Singapore to be without a government during an official visit from such important dignities. Moreover, it is too taxing for the Ministers and Civil Servants to plan both activities concurrently.

3 April was slated to be next parliamentary seating. 1 May is the day where the Progress Package will be active. In other words, May will be the month where “money will be put into the people’s pockets”. The question is whether the “money in the pockets” or “waiting for money to be in the pockets” is more favourable to PAP. I would choose the latter. If you noticed, most of the Ministers are not assigned to overseas visits from late March to late-April. This is, however, not a directive from the PM, but the Ministers themselves trying not to be away too often, in case of elections being called.

It is often said that Ministers and MPs knew ahead of when the GE date will be. From my sources, this is not that case. Not even the Cabinet Ministers know of the actual date of the GE. As if one person (Minister) knew, it will spread fairly quickly to other MPs and soon, the population. Other than the Prime Minister himself, perhaps only the inner circle would know the rough date. This might include MM, SM, and the two DPMs. DPM Wong Kan Seng, is likely to be one of the first few to know of the expected date of the GE as not only is he the DPM and 1st Asst Secretary General, he is also the Chairman of the PAP HQ Executive Committee. Thus, he is the main person coordinating the logistics, equipment and stuff needed to prepare for the elections. But for the other Ministers and MP, they are kept in the dark on the dates.

Singaporegovt Make-over!

2006-03-08T11:42:00.000+08:00

As you all might have noticed, the physical outlook of this blog has changed. Unfortunately for you all, the author remains the same, aka me! Yes, it is still that same old Thrasymachus, balding and writing articles that never ends. Unlike the coming General Elections, this blog is still democratic (for the moment) and all views are welcomed. Feel free to voice your opinions on the outlook of the blog or any issues. Should you miss the old outlook, here is a screenshot to ease your "pain".

There are some outstanding comments (eg: Elfred and Amatu) which I've yet to reply to. In my defense, I've been extremely busy with some stuff. In the coming weeks, I'll be away and out of town (not away and standing for G. Elections, if you are wondering!). Nonetheless, I'll still be receiving comments that will be directed to my email. If you feel like cursing me or asking me anything, just drop a mail at singaporegovt@singapore.com. Cheers!

2006-03-04T00:20:00.000+08:00

New Elections Boundaries

5 hours ago, the Government just released the Map for the Electoral Boundaries. According to the report, the coming elections will continue to have 14 Group Representation Constituencies or GRCs. However, there will be one new GRC: Holland-Bukit Timah which replaces Holland-Bukit Panjang.

Changes have been made to Single Member Constituencies as well. The Ayer Rajah and Bukit Timah constituencies will be gone - both are wards with veteran politicians. Two new single seats have been created; they are in Yio Chu Kang and Bukit Panjang.

The total number of single wards remains at nine, as at the last election. There will be nine GRCs with five MPs and five GRCs with six MPs. East Coast is now a 5-member GRC, down from the previous 6. Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC will have 6 MPs, up from the previous 5. The total number of MPs to be returned remains at 84.

The “Battle Ground”:
Aljunied GRC has changed in boundaries. Everyone knows that Worker’s Party will contest in that GRC. FM George Yeo also announced that he will stand for that GRC. This will be the main stage for the GE battle. Previously, the candidates for the PAP were Ong Seh Hong, Cynthia Phua, Yeo Guat Kwang, George Yong-Boon Yeo and Zainul Abidin Rasheed. We would expect some new faces in place of some of the present MPs.

The Dissolved SMCs
Ayer Rajah SMC (under Dr Tan Cheng Bock), and Bukit Timah SMC (under Wong Kai Yuen) have been dissolved. Tan Cheng Bock won the last elections by the strongest percentage of 87.96% against Tan Lead Shake from DPP. Wong Kai Yuen also won the seat with a strong percentage of 77.37% against 2 other oppositions (Tan Kim Chuang – Independent, Tong Meng Chye – SDA). I think quite needless to say both Dr Tan and Wong are likely to step down for this GE.

The New SMCs
New SMCs, such as Yio Chu Kang and Bukit Panjang, have been created leaving the number of SMCs unchanged. Both Yio Chu Kang SMC and Bukit Panjang SMC, made their last GE appearance in 1988. During then, the PAP won Yio Chu Kang with 73.67% while winning Bukit Panjang by only 57.28% (3 contesting candidates). Previously, Yio Chu Kang was under Ang Mo Kio GRC, and within it, Seng Han Tong (PAP) was the MP for Yio Chu Kang Division. Bukit Panjang was a sub-division of Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC, with Mayor Dr Teo Ho Pin as their MP.

The question remains that who will be contesting in these wards, Seng Han Tong and Teo Ho Pin or new candidates? Releasing new SMCs can be a tricky issue and knowing PAP’s kiasu stance towards winning, they might rather put more established candidates over new entrants. All SMCs will be contested by the oppositions and PAP would still play safe with it. Bukit Panjang is a relative “young (in terms of age of population)” township.

As for Yio Chu Kang, the population is rather elderly but has seen several upgrading projects within the district. Apartment values of both have increased moderately over the past years and don’t have significant issues of concern. Seng Han Tong (PAP) is a Chinese-educated and Mandarin (and Hokkien) speaking candidate, who don’t really converse well in English. He might be too much of a risk if he is chosen for the SMC. Another possible candidate for this ward is Senior Minister of State Dr Balaji Sadasivan who is also under Ang Mo Kio GRC (under Cheng San). As an Indian, his strength lies in his ability to converse in Mandarin, Malay and Tamil, (of course English). He is a strong enough candidate but has no election battle experience since his GRC was a walkover. However, I don’t think PAP will risk an up-and-coming potential Cabinet Minister into an SMC (if he does contest in the SMC, likely to mean that he will not be promoted soon. Full Ministers don’t usually contest in SMC as the workload of a Minister and single ward MP is too heavy). This will be an interesting ward to keep a lookout for.

The “Shrunken”
East Coast GRC shrunk from a 6-member to a 5 member GRC. Presently, Abdullah Tarmugi, Chew Heng Ching, Lee Yock Suan, Lim Siang Keat Raymond, S Jayakumar and Tan Soo Khoon were the PAP incumbents of the ward. Uncontested in the previous elections, but is likely to see changes in this GRC. Lee Yock Suan looks certain to step down but the key question is Jayakumar. If he is there, the ward will be uncontested. If he announced his intentions to step-down, then opposition will contest. My guess is that he will stand for this coming election and step-down as DPM after 6 months to 1 year. Thus, this will be one GRC where they will have 2 Cabinet Ministers instead of one. In the case where Jayakumar steps down, there is still an anchor Minister in place.

The “Expanded”
Pasir Ris-Ponggol GRC expanded to a 6-member GRC from a 5 member GRC. The rationale is probably to dilute the effect of unhappy residents over two key issues: 1) Bad handling of Buangkok MRT’s opening, and 2) Unhappy residents over lost of value in houses at Ponggol 21. Presently, Ahmad Magad, Charles Chong, Michael Lim, Penny Low and Teo Chee Hean are the MPs for this ward. Likely, there will be a strengthening of this GRC with an additional of a Minister of State. There might be a possibility that Senior Minister of State Prof Ho Peng Kee will join this GRC. Ho Peng Kee is likely to take over the position as the Minister for Law and Home Affairs should Jayakumar retire after elections (DPM Wong Kan Seng might then take over Jayakumar’s portfolio and Ho Peng Kee will take over some portfolio from Wong Kan Seng). In doing so, contesting and serving in a SMC might be too much work for and Minister-MP. Just a hunch.

Having a 6 member team will increase the amount of election deposit. It was uncontested in the previous GE and increasing the number of MPs might act as a “deterrent” to any potential contest. But the opposition, though they have only slight hope of winning, should contest in this ward. This GRC has some outstanding issues which oppositions can capitalize on which might be useful to generate arguments during the campaign.

The “Uncontested”
The most likely uncontested wards are Tanjong Pagar GRC (led by MM Lee Kuan Yew, 6-members GRC), Marina Parade GRC (led by SM Goh Chok Tong, 6-members GRC), West Coast GRC (led by Lim Hng Kiang, 5-members GRC), Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC (led by DPM Wong Kan Seng, 5-members GRC), Holland-Bukit Timah GRC (led by Lim Swee Say and Vivian Balakrishnan, 5-member GRC), Pasir Ris-Ponggol GRC (led by Teo Chee Hean, 6-members GRC) and possibly, Ang Mo Kio GRC (led by PM Lee Hsien Loong, 5-members GRC). As for Ang Mo Kio GRC, some say that oppositions will purposely keep the “big-guns” such the Prime Minister busy and on their toes by contesting in their wards. Not to win the GRC but to distract them from moving to other wards too often. However with the GRC system in place, the opposition has not done that often.

These “uncontestations” are a conservative estimate. Should this be true, PAP will not return to power on nomination day as 38 seats are uncontested and 46 seats are contested. However, a lot depends on the resources of the opposition and their strategies. The “by-election” strategy, deployed by Chiam See Tong, was to allow the PAP to retain power during nomination day and push the message that voters can vote with the opposition since PAP is already in power and “need not require” their votes. It worked during 1991, but has not been as effective in the recent elections.

The “Contested”
All 9 SMC will be contested. The interesting battles will likely to be on Potong Pasir SMC, Hougang SMC, Chua Chu Kang SMC and Nee Soon East SMC. Potong Pasir and Hougang’s battles need not to be explained as their battle-lines are drawn and obvious to most. The interesting SMCs are Chua Chu Kang SMC (previously Steve Chia vs Low Seow Chay), where Steve Chia did reasonably well with 34.66% of the votes and Nee Soon East SMC, where Ho Peng Kee was embroiled in the Temple incident. Steve Chia still has a court case pending against him and may not be able to contest for this GE. But it would be interesting consider Chua Chu Kang was the SMC with the lowest winning margin for PAP of 65.34%.

In the last GE, Nee Soon East flared up red-hot on the electoral map because of trouble between some grassroots leaders and temple folk over procedures for Hungry Ghost Festival celebrations. At one point, bookies gave it 50-50 odds, with PAP's Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee facing off WP's Dr Poh. But Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew stepped in to smooth relations and PAP candidate Ho Peng Kee won the single seat with a solid 73.7 % of the votes. It remains to be seen if Prof Ho will still contest in this ward or others.

As for the contested GRCs, Sembawang GRC (formerly led by DPM Tony Tan), Tampines GRC (led by Mah Bow Tan), Jurong GRC (led by Lim Boon Heng and Tharman Shanmugaratnam), Jalan Besar GRC (led by Lee Boon Yang), Hong Kah GRC (led by Yeo Cheow Tong) and the highlight, Aljunied GRC (led by George Yeo), are likely to see changes of Ministers. Lee Boon Yang, Lim Boon Heng and Tony Tan are likely to step-down and possibly replaced by Dr Ng Eng Hen, Khaw Boon Wan and Dr Vivian Balakrishnan.

2006-02-27T23:24:00.000+08:00

Part III: Tribute to S. Rajaratnam
The Man Who Gave Singapore an Identity

I didn’t intent to write on S. Rajaratnam this early in the month. The original sequence was to write on the other Old Guards such as Dr Toh and Dr Goh before writing on Raja. However, I thought it is only appropriate that I write an article on Raja now, with his unfortunate passing on Thursday. The unprecedented scale of Raja’s State Funeral Service, is fitting for a man who gave Singapore an identity and a soul. Unlike many of the Old Guards who were born out of “Fire”, baptism of fire through the tumultuous years, Raja had the perfect elements of a Leader. He had the courage of steel, intellect of a sage, indomitable spirit of a lion, passion and energy of an unquenchable fire and more importantly, heart of gold.

In the past week, tributes poured out from all walks of life to Raja and the papers have covered much of his accomplishments. The original article I planned to write on him prior to this passing, cannot never be as detailed or as eloquent as the papers. Nor would my article be as emotionally moving as the eulogies given by people dear to him at the funeral service. But in the course of reading the great achievements of Raja, words can’t really described such leader who practiced what he preached and what he believes in. Ultimately, he believed in treating all humans with intrinsic value and treating each human with respect, equality and love. His infectious smile, articulated use of words and genuine character and personality made him loved by both friends and former adversaries. If Singapore can be depicted as a human, Lee Kuan Yew gave it a heart and mind, Dr Toh Chin Chye gave it a skeleton, Dr Goh Keng Swee gave it flesh and blood, but Rajaratnam gave Singapore the most important element: a soul. Indeed, he brought soul into the society and the government. In every policy that Raja was involved in, the human element was put in first priority and central to it. When many politicians landed up serving power when entering politics, his brand of politics always served people; never to power, fame or glory but just people and Singaporeans.

His contributions to ASEAN, foreign policies, domestic policies, culture and identity was well covered in the local papers. “The man who penned our pledge” and “the man who put Singapore in the world map” are apt titles for his achievements. But for many youths, they may never know or have the privilege meeting the real Rajaratnam. In the modern Singapore, many youngsters were guilty of forgetting our past and indulge in material wealth. History, is no doubt crucial, but is also and will be boring to many.

Once, someone asked me whether it will be a pity if youngsters do not understand our past. I said yes, indeed but it is not because we lack history books or educational materials of our political past. Ultimately, history itself is not “attractive”, “marketable”, “sensational” enough for the young ones to read it. History is and will be boring to most. Give them a choice of two books, Leaders of Singapore and DaVinci Code, which will they choose? I think the answer is obvious to most youth. The crux of the issue is that youths are not interested in political ownership and learning the history, more so when it is on Singapore. Simply because there are more entertaining and more fun things to do. I wouldn't say it is the PAP government’s fault for this sad societal problem but it is the mark of an economically successful country. We lacked ownership and patriotism not because there isn’t Singapore identity or that we don’t have a history. Raja and the Old Guards gave us one, just that we chose not to believe or we are blinded by the material aspect of the real world that we are Singapore Singaporeans. In this aspect, I think Raja epitomizes the term “Singapore Singaporean”.

I was very lucky to be able to meet him once at an event couple of years back. Not many 25 year olds can be as blessed as me to get this chance. I didn’t know he was Rajaratnam, but only informed that he was one of the ex-MP. He was frail, old man who needed assistance to stand and walk. Later, I informed that during then, he was struck with dementia and possibly Alzheimer’s disease which robbed him of his precious memories. But the Raja that I met, was still the friendly, courteous gentleman that many personal friends who knew him as. Inherently, he was a wonderful and kind man. I was just an usher, a young man and a stranger. But he was still courteous and thanked me and my friends for every moment we assisted him.

This article will not list his every achievements or historical moments as I originally intended it to be. But instead, for those who didn’t have the privilege of meeting him in person, this article will just focus on some excerpts from the conversations with Rajaratnam published in Melanie Chew’s Leaders of Singapore.

QN: How did you meet Mr Lee Kuan Yew?

RAJA: I was working as a journalist. He organized the Postmen’s strike. He used the civil servants, the workers, to embarrass David Marshall. And of course that upset David Marshall no end.

I didn’t know him then. I was editor and columnist for the Singapore Standard. It was a paper sponsored by Aw Boon Haw… (Raja spoke about the story of Aw Boon Haw and Lee Kong Chian)

As that time, there was Lim Yew Hock and David Marshall. David Marshall was a one-man show. He was running the thing. We never agreed, we always were clashing with him. He disagreed with our approach to politics.

But he was a colourful figure. He was like another Messiah. He had a flat in North Bridge Road, where we first encountered him. You see, we were thinking of forming a party, but we had not yet declared ourselves PAP. So David Marshall said, “Come and join me.” He respected us, not Lim Yew Hock, Ong Eng Guan and so on. So he said, “You must come and join me. I’ll lead you!”

And so he gave us a dinner, one of the most lavish dinners. He was a very generous man. There were lots of goodies to eat. Very expensive red wines! We were eating and he tried to persuade us to join his party which was called the Labour Front. And we enjoyed ourselves, took advantage of his lavish dinner, very expensive dinner, and then we started explaining very bluntly why we couldn’t join the Labour Front.

Jokingly, we said, “Because Lee Kuan Yew is a lawyer and David Marshall is also a lawyer. But a different type of lawyer.” That irritated David Marshall, and he just said, “I don’t want to talk to you people, I’m going hone.” And he stepped out, got into his car and never turned back. And we looked at each other, Kuan Yew, and myself, and said, well, since the dinner is here, let us enjoy it! Red wine was there, and we got soaked!

QN: At that point you said there was no point to join the Labour Party, and you had to start your own. Why did you have this idea?

RAJA: Because we decided that we as Singaporeans must run Singapore, not anybody else. So we fought the imperialists, who ran Singapore as a colony. At that time we were thinking of running the whole of Malaya, Malaysia, and we brought together a very odd number of people: Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Kenny Byrne, myself, Goh Keng Swee, Toh Chin Chye, Ong Pan Boon, Yong Nyuk Lin, these are the first batch of the PAP.

QN: How would you characterize Lee Kuan Yew?

RAJA: Kuan Yew was really the leader. He’s the number one. So he was leading the group as a whole. Keng Swee was more of the civil servant, and I, the ideas man. And that’s how we all got started.

QN: Have you ever disagreed with Lee Kuan Yew?

RAJA: Yes.

QN: Does everyone defer to him?

RAJA: They may defer to him, yes. But he knows at the same time that we are speaking openly. Even at the party conference, we speak openly. We are critical of him!

QN: And how does he react?

RAJA: He says, “Yes, you disagree with me. But nevertheless, I believe in what I believe.”

QN: Do you remember the start of the PAP in 1954?

RAJA: Yes! The first meeting was in Victoria Concert Hall. I was already in the Straits Times, on the editorial staff, so I could not get involved. The Straits Times was run by Englishmen, by a man called Simmons.

And there was a man called Samad who was a Malay, in Utusan Melayu. So he also a Leftist. He felt a bit uneasy that the Chinese-speaking were not included in the installation of PAP. So Samad Ismail said, “Look, I’m a Malay. But I am a Leftist, so I can join. But we need some Chinese speakers.” So we got Fong Swee Suan. He was a trade unionist. He was involved in bus strikes and so on. He was dialect speaking, Chinese speaking. Lim Chin Siong was not brought in because he was very Leftist.

QN: Did he feel that in order to win power, you had to attract the Chinese speaking masses?

RAJA: There was the belief. That was what Kuan Yew believed. He started studying his Mandarin! For he is a Baba Chinese, speaking only Malay and English. But when he went into politics he spent a lot of time learning Chinese. Ong Eng Guan was a very fluent, charismatic Hokkien speaker. Lee Kuan Yew didn’t know how to hit back. So he started studying Hokkien to hit back at Ong Eng Guan.

QN: It must have been very difficult for you as a Ceylonese Malayan. The masses in Singapore were Chinese. Did you worry about Singapore becoming a Chinese State?

RAJA: That’s why I believed in multi-racial democracy.

When you say the Chinese masses as a whole, well, they are not interested in politics. They are interested in making money. The pro-Communist Chinese were active because they had no share in the establishment. Some of them ended in jail. The chaps who were resentful of the PAP were the monied classes, the businessmen. They were frightened of the PAP! Some of them left Singapore in 1959, when we formed the government.

Some of the businessmen, you even hear of it happening now. When Keng Swee was here, the first thing he did was to build homes for the masses. Flats. No posh flats. High rise buildings. But the chaps who were making money were the bankers, businessmen. Even when I went there, they would greet me and give me garlands and so on, and then ask me for a piece of land. So Keng Swee turned it down. This land is valuable estate! And he started building high rise flats. So many Chinese, workers, shopkeepers, and so on, are all house owning, even my chauffeur. He has a flat. Everyone has a home.

QN: If we are to have a political theory to say that the strong man, the strong leader is the best form of government, then, it begs the question, how is this strong leader to be selected? And who is going to control him?

RAJA: There is a difference between me and Kuan Yew. He was not all that keen on democracy, “one man one vote.” I always believed that every one should be allowed to vote. This was an important difference. Goh Keng Swee had a different approach. He was a civil servant. We must have a very strong civil service. And we can dominate by running the civil service, and there is fair play all round.

I believe in democracy. Here, Kuan Yew and I don’t agree. He says, “You are very naïve. You don’t understand. One man, one vote won’t work.” Recently, he said there should be two votes for every educated man.

QN: This is quite a great difference. But you defer to him.

RAJA: I express my views. Every citizen has the right to vote. Lee Kuan Yew says that you cannot trust democracy. I believe you can and you must.

And Lee had this belief in IQ. Some are born with high IQ and some with low IQ. I remember once arguing with him. I said, “What is IQ based on?” I still have the book, Not In Your Genes. It makes this point: you can take the blood of any person, Chinese or Indian. Can the blood tell the IQ? No! It’s impossible. It’s not genetic.

QN: Can I ask you about Malaysia?

RAJA:
I was one of those who disagreed with Goh Keng Swee and Lee Kuan Yew. You see, we wanted a merger. At the time, Malaysia was formed. We wanted to form a common market. And one of the things we were very critical about, we didn’t want to have racial politics. In Malaysia, then was the Tengku, who was a very nice man. His politics were not that complicated. Taw Siew Sin was hostile to the idea, because he said that if the PAP gets into Malaysia, his own party the MCA will no longer be masters. But Tengku said, “Oh, let’s form,” so we had this referendum, and we won and merged with Sabah, Sarawak and the Federation of Malaya.

But as it went on, the Malays, Syed Albar and all those, were playing the Malay line, religion and so on, and there were two riots in Singapore in which chaps were slashed and killed. When these race riots started, we knew that if we carried on, Singapore is such a small island, and Communists were still active, very active. But we had riots, and Kuan Yew said, “OK, we’ll separate.”

QN: Whose idea was it to separate?

RAJA: Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Keng Swee had the idea. I disagreed. I was for merger. I said, “It doesn’t matter. Carry on.” That was where Kuan Yew and I disagreed.

QN: You wanted to try to resolve the disputes within Malaysia?

RAJA: Yes, because I believed in a multi-racial society. The Malaysians said, “get rid of the PAP.” And we separated. So we were on our own. Without resources. No Water. And Kuan Yew said. “This must work!” An independent Singapore. You must make it work. That was the reason why he was prepared to take some very tough measures.

QN: How did you feel at the time of separation?

RAJA:
Separation, to me, was the crushing of my dreams. I believed in one nation, regardless of race and religion. My dreams were shattered.

That’s why Kuan Yew came, and he scolded me. He said, “You don’t understand. We are going to run this place.” You know? And Keng Swee too. He was also strong, determined. He said, “Let’s build flats!”

To me, it was also my family. They were from Malaysia. My brother, my father, were all from Malaysia. So to me it was separation from kith and kin. It has nothing to do with race. When I was still in the Malaysian parliament, I used to go to Seremban once in every two months. I would go there, and enjoy being with my family: my father, mother, nieces, nephews and so on.

QN: You didn’t feel that you should remain in Malaysia?

RAJA: No. I would be betraying something which I believed in. I believed in multi-racial democracy. And Singapore. I could have gone back to Seremban. But to me, politics is the essences of everything. It would have been betraying my political ideals.

QN: The Old Guards seem very close. Did you all work well together?

RAJA: Yes, we worked well together right up to the time when we were getting older, and it was said, “We wanted new blood.” So that was why we got Goh Chok Tong and people like that. They came in. They were not politicians at all. Goh Chok Tong was from Neptune Orient Lines.

I had heart problems. So they had to do an operation. Lee Kuan Yew told me, “Raja, don’t strain yourself. I don’t mind you holding office, getting paid for it.” So I said, “OK, what do you want me to do?” Because I had already become Foreign Minister, traveling around, which I enjoyed very much. So he said, “Well, what do you want to call yourself?” I said, “Call me Senior Minister. Number One amongst equals.” So when he was Prime Minister, I was Senior Minister. And he followed me. So that’s how it started. We all step down in favour of others.

It also included Keng Swee. But he does not want to be subordinate. So he was in various posts, holding no office, in the Institute of East Asian Political Economy. Just like I was in Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Both of us said we wanted to be on our own.

QN: How did you pick the second generation of leaders?

RAJA: We interviewed them. It took one whole year. We spent a whole year, drilling them, questioning them, making sure that they were not opportunists.

QN: What is Lee Kuan Yew’s vision?

RAJA: He believes that he must have a team of honest people. There were one or two cases where they were not honest, and we had to get rid of them, sack them. Lee Kuan Yew is not a tyrant in that he just enjoys pushing people around! He wants to select, train new people. He knows he cannot live forever. So we are getting Goh Chok Tong and others to come in, and we are training them.

Chok Tong is an honest man. This is my assessment: “He is very sharp, a good listener, listens to the voice of the people. But he does not believe in the infallibility of the people. Unlike Lee, he smiles, even when he is angry. He has a good grasp of the problems facing Singapore. He does not believe in political dominance.”

Lee Kuan Yew is a dominant man. But Chok Tong believes in consensus. Once he’s decided, that’s it. There was little tiff between him and his son, you know. Because Lee Kuan Yew said, “If anyone stops my way, it doesn’t matter who he is, I’ll push him away.” For the first time the son was being different. And Lee Kuan Yew said, “No if anyone stands in my way I’ll just push through.” So while Lee Kuan Yew is alive, he’ll be dominant.

QN: What is his vision?

RAJA: HE knows that we can’t live forever. His dream is to leave behind a reputation. So that even when he passes away, that Singapore will remember him. That this is the man we wanted in Singapore. I don’t think that exactly what he wrote, but that is how he reflected himself, project himself.

QN: But it must be difficult for the second generation…

RAJA: Yes, I think so. Lee Kuan Yew doesn’t say it but I know. He thinks Goh Chok Tong should be trained – must be trained to be tough. Tough like Lee himself.

QN: Can one be trained to be tough? Or is it a natural trait?

RAJA: Well, he wants it. He knows that we are getting older and older, and must step down. Ong Pang Boon, Yong Nyuk Lin, Toh Chin Chye, they all stepped down. I stepped down, though I still associate with him. We may disagree. But we agree that if Goh Chok Tong doesn’t have the strong will like Kuan Yew had, he may have problems.

QN: When you observe our country, our people, is there anything which worries you?

RAJA: The big problem is that life is becoming comfortable for many Singaporeans. People are becoming used to comforts. They want cars. Many of them – Lee Boon Yang is mentioning this – want good things of life. Well I don’t blame them. This is part of what I said before, “moneytheism.” the worship of money. This will be one of the vulnerable points of the Singaporean.

QN: How can we always afford to give people the best? And is it healthy for them to have the best?

RAJA: Yes, that is a contradiction in concepts. How can we give the best, the good things of life? How do you reconcile between giving people good things and yet making them undergo hardship as a price? I have not been able to find an answer for this yet.

QN: If you can’t reconcile this, maybe then Lee Kuan Yew is correct, that you can’t have democracy.

RAJA: He may be correct. But intellectually and emotionally, I can’t accept it. But Kuan Yew is tough enough to say, “It will be that way. It must be that way.”

QN: That’s why you are the philosopher of the Old Guards?

RAJA: Lee Kuan Yew knows what I am talking about, but he doesn’t want to concede. He believes that if there are more Lee Kuan Yew’s, this place will hum.

QN: But it is difficult for others to be like him.

RAJA: That is the problem he has. That he has discussed with us, and as the result, he became Senior Minister. Not the Prime Minister. He wanted to test them, to make them go through this shock period. But not a shock where they become vulnerable. He’s like a father, trying to bring up his children, to make them strong.

QN: Do you think that the reason why all of your generation was so strong is because you had this struggle with the British, the Communists, and underwent hardship? And that is what made you Leaders. Whereas now, we don’t have any such…

RAJA: Yes, but you can’t repeat circumstances twice. You can’t. I studied in Catholic school, and got a distinction in Religious Knowledge. And I always mention this story about Moses. The chosen people were subject to the tyranny of the Egyptians. So Moses came and he said, “Israelites must be liberated.” And he took them and the first thing they did, they went into their desert, to have a golden calf, to celebrate their wealth. Moses said, “This is terrible.” And he made them wander through the desert for 10 years, made them go through the most difficult times! It was just next door! But he took them through the desert for 30 years, 40 years, to train them to be tough.

And that’s how the Israelites survived. Lee Kuan Yew wants Singaporeans to be tough. He also wants them to go through the desert. The hardship.

QN: But we live in a Garden of Eden

RAJA: That’s the problem.

Source: Melanie Chew’s Leaders of Singapore (1996). For the full text interview, please refer to the book which is available at the National Library and all major bookstore. Photos are from National Archive public domain. Not for reproduction.

Fittingly, and in memory of S. Rajaratnam, allow me to end with excerpts from MM Lee Kuan Yew’s Eulogy to Rajaratnam:

“With his passing, Singaporeans have lost a patriot, a man of deep conviction and principle. His contribution was not in bricks and mortar, or concrete and glass, but in ideas, sentiments and spirit. Everyday when the pledge is recited in our schools, our children are reminded to live up to our aspirations as Raja expressed them.”

2006-02-22T23:13:00.000+08:00

Tribute to S. Rajaratnam

1915-2006

When I was typing the article on Dr Toh Chin Chye (below), I suddenly thought about Rajaratnam. I didn't know of his passing during then but his image just flashed across my mind. I met him once about two years ago ushering at a conference. He was frail old man with the walking stick. I didn't know he was Rajaratnam, but just occured to me as a gentle old man, with a permanent smile on his face and thank us for helping him to his seat. Upon the arrival of the Ministers, he waved his flag enthusiastically. Later, learning about his great achievements he did for Singapore, it was even more admiring to know that he was such a humble and sincere man. As a Foreign Minister, he put Singapore on the world map and made ASEAN to what it is today. As a Culture Minister, the racial harmony and integration attest to his great efforts. As a Singaporean, he touched the lives of ordinary folks and constantly brought consciousness into the government.

On 25 February 1990, Mr Rajaratnam said: "Certainly all of us who went into politics believed in it that we can create a Singapore where race, religion, language does not matter. What matters is that we are one people and if you know there's a song we have. It goes something like, "We are Singapore and these are my friends." - This is why I am here tonight." The pledge we take was compose, not by Rajaratnam's words but by his heart. He truly believed in one Singapore and we should too.

2006-02-22T16:52:00.000+08:00

Part II: True Founders of Singapore
The Man Who Made PAP & The Man Who Made Singapore:
Story of Dr Toh Chin Chye and Dr Goh Keng Swee

For the past month, I was pleasantly surprised by the word of encourage and the positive feedback on the Part I: History and Founding of PAP. I thank all comments and emails that I have received and glad that you all found it interesting. History, to most students, is never as exciting when in the syllabus. In the end, history covers only winners from battles and is told by those won it. But if history has a life of its own, it might be told from a different perspective, a perspective that I hope to tell.

I was sitting in a bus yesterday, reading some printed articles on Dr Toh Chin Chye and Dr Goh Keng Swee (I’m probably the only blogger that does his “homework”) before writing this article, when I saw a secondary school girl holding a History textbook on the founding of Singapore. I wonder to myself, how different is the textbook (portraying the glorified history of PAP) and how much it differs from reality? Would the textbook ever said about the “Man Who Made PAP: Dr Toh Chin Chye” or the “Man Who Made Singapore: Dr Goh Keng Swee”? In the end, textbooks are made to be student-friendly and revolve around one leader and one story from one perspective. In rewriting this history, I hope to “popularize” history via the medium of blogs, not to increase the traffic flow of this blog but to tell a more complete history. So, I’ll do my research and lengthy readings in hopes that people would read the forgotten history of us.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: The Man Who Made PAP
“How can we say, who contributed more? Without Dr Toh holding the fort in the PAP, we might never have held the Party together.”
Lee Kuan Yew, Valedictory Dinner, 22 August 1981.

Dr Toh was the founding Chairman of the PAP in 1954. In 1959, he was the Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore and then in 1968, Minister of Science and Technology, Vice-Chancellor of the National University of Singapore, and in 1976, Minister for Health and Education. He left the Cabinet in 1980 but remained as the MP for Rochore. He was a vocal backbencher until 1988, when he retired from politics.

To many Singaporeans, either they have never heard of Dr Toh Chin Chye or only remembered his as one of the Deputy Ministers to Lee Kuan Yew. While the Party was in turmoil, Dr Toh held the PAP together. In two occasions, then-PM Lee Kuan Yew offered his resignation and Dr Toh could have chance upon it and made himself the Prime Minister. For the better good and stability of the Party and Singapore, Dr Toh rejected the proposal and threw his support behind Lee Kuan Yew. Singapore’s success is NEVER and NOT by chance or the miracles of one man. It is the sweat, blood and effort of talent men, like Dr Toh and Dr Goh, who served and toiled for Singapore not for their own fame and fortune but for Singaporeans.

Humble Beginnings of the Indomitable Fighter
Dr Toh was born in Batu Gajah, near Taiping, Perak in 1921. Like the best and brightest of his generation, he pursued his studies at Raffles College, Singapore. He was Lee Kuan Yew’s senior but they never knew each other then. Before he could further his studies overseas, the Japanese war broke out. During this period, Dr Toh first became a hawker assistant and grew potatoes and tapioca for his own survival. The Japanese Occupation changed his perspective, political outlook and was awakened to the injustice of colonial society.

While in London as a student from 1949 to 1953, he led the anti-colonial group of Malayan students known as Malayan Forum. The Forum provided a place for native nationalists to debate and to examine the future of Malaya. Before returning to Singapore, Goh Keng Swee, the then chairman of the Forum, nominated Toh to succeed him.

In his early years, he was very much a socialist and close friend of Dr Goh Keng Swee during his days in London. Together, they took up the political cause and came back to Singapore in 1953. Later, Dr Goh, Kenny Byrne and Dr Toh formed the Council for Joint Action with Lee Kuan Yew as the legal advisor. That was how LKY got involved in union politics. During then, LKY was also the legal advisor to Samad Ismail (editor of Utusan Melayu and ex-detainee), Lim Chin Siong and Devan Nair. The few of them would always meet in the “basement” of LKY’s house but with special attention from the “Special Branch” (old version of ISD), they would always be watched and risk being detained without trial. Toh did not belong to the first wave of founding members who met at LKY’s house; he was still in England when the “basement group” first met. However, after Dr Toh joined the group, it was Dr Toh who proposed the formation of an open and legal political party to champion the cause of nationalism and independence of Malaya.

Founding of PAP
“Sometimes, I wonder what would have happened to our basement group had I not pushed for it to register as a political party. What is I had not come back to Singapore? You know, in 1953, I was advised to go to USA to continue my research. If I had gone that route, would anyone have started the PAP? Would the basement crowd have remained in Kuan Yew’s house? Would it have come together at all?” – Dr Toh Chin Chye.

To avoid complications such as being arrested by the Special Branch they formed a political party and registering as a society. Initially, the “Action Party” was coined and later, they added the word “People” into it. The word “Action” reminded Dr Toh of a lightning symbol and with other suggestions thrown in; the famous logo of PAP was born.

The “Chairman”

With the formation of the PAP, Dr Toh was appointed Chairman of the Party. During the 1950s, as the Chairman of the PAP, he led the PAP during its critical internal struggles between Left and Right. In 1957, the “communist (subjective on whether they are communist or not)” have taken over the Central Executive Committee. Dr Toh, Dr Goh and LKY lost control over the party. The old party constitutions provided for an Annual Congress, where every party member could attend the meeting and speak up, as well as vote for the CEC. At the Badminton Hall, where the Annual Congress was held, the place was filled with all sorts of people: Left Wing unionist, maybe people from the Special Branch and even Devan Nair’s sister was there.

After the Congress, Dr Toh asked LKY and Ong Pang Boon to stay behind and said, “We must have a cadres system. We cannot go on admitting people as ordinary members who can overthrow the CEC just like that!” In the end, T.T. Rajah took over as Party Secretary-General and his Left Wing crowd took over the whole CEC. But after then Chief Minister Lim Yew Hock clamed down on the riots and communist, many of them were under detention under the Emergency regulations and Dr Toh and LKY took over the party. Then, they brought in the Cadres system, system which the PAP adopts even until today.

Unquestioned Loyalty to LKY
When PAP won the elections in 1959, it did not mean that Lee Kuan Yew, PAP Secretary-General would be automatically become the Prime Minister. There were two candidates for that post: Ong Eng Guan, the popular and charismatic mayor of Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew. The PAP’s CEC held a vote to pick its Prime Minister, but there was an even split and thus a deadlock. Toh, as Chairman, held the casting vote, threw his support behind LKY and broke the impasse. If Toh has voted differently, LKY would not have become PM in 1959 and the history of Singapore and Malaysia would have turned out very differently.

In 1961, PAP suffered a traumatic party split. On June 1961, Lim Chin Siong wrote to Dr Toh, demanding the release of their Left Wing political colleagues. PAP could not agree to this with their prior agreements with the British. The beginning of the split between Left and Right was the Anson By-elections on July 1961. The Left demanded “internal democracy in the PAP” and the release of all political prisoners from detention. They were refused. The Left then threw their support to the rival candidate, David Marshall and he won.

The final split came just few days later in the Legislative Assembly. Thirteen Left Wing PAP Assemblymen abstained from voting with the party line. They were dismissed from the PAP. In August 1961, they formed a rival party, the Barisan Sosialis, led by Dr Lee Siew Choh and Lim Chin Siong. They took 35 branch committees, 19 of the 23 organizing secretaries and an estimated 80 percent of the membership. PAP under LKY was a mere shell, according to Dr Lee. Both Dr Goh Keng Swee and Lee Kuan Yew were devastated and thought that it is the end of the PAP. But on man never gave up the fight as Dr Goh recalled the following conversation with Toh Chin Chye:

Toh: Why are you staring at the ceiling?
Goh: Do sit down, Chin Chye, we are all busted; the party secretaries, the PA (People’s Association), the organizing secretaries, the Work Brigade. I know the communists were organizationally much stronger than us. But I didn’t expect us smashed up like this in just a week.
Toh: I just come from Harry’s office. He was staring at the ceiling just like you did. You should snap out of this mood. The fighting has just begun. It is going to be long and nasty. But if we keep wringing our hands in anguish we are sure to lose. We should start thinking immediately of our next moves – how to rebuild the Party, rally the loyal Party members and how to carry the fight into the enemy camp.

A fight that Dr Toh would not shy away from, Dr Toh chose the most difficult of constituencies to contest and fought head on. In September 1963, he presided over the PAP’s historic election victory over the breakaway Barisan Sosialis. Rather than opting for a safer seat, Dr Toh chose to stand in Rochore constituency, a tough Chinese working-class area and a natural constituency for the Left-wing Barisan Sosialist Party. To add to his challenge, he was to face a formidable opponent, the Chairman of Barisan Sosialist, Dr Lee Siew Choh. In the hotly contested electoral battle, Dr Toh defeated the Chairman of Barisan Sosialist, Dr Lee Siew Choh, by the slimmest Election margin of just 89 votes.

Lee Kuan Yew’s Resignation
On at least two occasions, Toh Chin Chye’s name was floated as an alternative Prime Minister to LKY. In 1961, they lost two successive by-elections to Ong Eng Guan and David Marshall. On 17 July 1961, Lee Kuan Yew wrote a letter to Dr Toh, Chairman of the CEC. He wrote that the trade unions, the Middle Road Crowd wanted him to resign and they wanted Dr Toh to take over as the Prime Minister. Dr Toh read the letter to all the Cabinet Ministers and CEC members during a Cabinet meeting. All who were present were stunned. Yong Nyuk Lin asked Dr Toh, “Should we accept his resignation?” Dr Toh replied, “No,” because it will divide the government and it will appear to the people of Singapore that they are being unsteady. So they declined the resignation. Dr Toh could very well make himself as the Prime Minister, but he didn’t.

In 1964, in the aftermath of race riots in Singapore and Malaysia, LKY offered again to resign as PM in an attempt to ease the strained relations between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore. In the wake of certain extremist demands from UMNO (United Malays National Organization) to arrest LKY for the ostensible reason of preventing him from causing more political and ethnic tension within Malaysia, Dr Toh and his comrades stood by LKY. If LKY was arrested and detained without trial, Dr Toh or Dr Goh might have been the next logical choice to become PM of Singapore. Dr Toh’s support and ability to rally members behind LKY probably prevented the Malaysian government from arresting LKY.

Singapore’s Separation From Toh Chin Chye’s Perspective
By 1964 and 1965, tension between Malaysia and Singapore was mounting but both Dr Toh and S. Rajaratnam opposed the separation. Apparently, LKY anticipated Toh and Raja’s reluctance to sign the separation agreement and did not inform them of the discussion of Singapore’s secession in K.L. According to Dr Toh, LKY ensured that Rajaratnam and he did not travel together from Singapore to see him in K.L. This was a shrewd move to make sure that the men would not collude to reject separation.

In the middle of the night of 20th July 1965, LKY called Dr Toh and asked him to drive to K.L. When he was in Sri Temasek, K.L., LKY told him of the news and was later joined by Rajaratnam and Ong Pang Boon. Dr Toh stayed behind in K.L. while LKY returned to Singapore to announce to the public. LKY asked Dr Toh to attend the Malaysian Parliament the next day. It was an unenviable task to face the uproar by the members of the Malaysian Solidarity Convention (a coalition of opposition parties formed by Dr Toh to compete the Elections in Malaysia for a “Malaysian Malaysia” – equal rights regardless of ethnicity). With LKY devastated over the separation and tearing on national television (and later seek solace in Changi Villa), Dr Toh and other Minister held the fort. Opposition members demanded Dr Toh for a parliament seating but was only able to recommence on December 1965. The crucial stabilizing role that Dr Toh played after the separation could not be under-estimated.

The Iron Chancellor and Nation Builder
After Singapore’s independence in 1965, Dr Toh was DPM, Minister for Science and Technology, and Minister for Health. He chaired the Singapore Polytechnic and was Vice-Chancellor (VC) for the new University of Singapore (SU). Many had underestimated his role as the Vice Chancellor of SU. In many underdeveloped countries like Singapore, they faced the same problem of managing conflicting goals of promoting education in universities yet managing social unrest and instability caused by student leaders in these universities. Thus, Dr Toh’s appointment as VC was crucial to maintain political stability.

At SU, the VC quickly acquired a reputation of being a ruthless autocrat. This was largely due to his single-mindedness in attaining his academic reforms and furthering national goals of economic development. The amount of work which Dr Toh did, and the decisive and speedy way in which he did it, can only be described as Napoleonic. He inspected every division of the campus with an eye to efficiency and productivity. He had a strategic plan, which was to bring all the divisions he dealt with together in a totally new and spaciously adequate campus (Kent Ridge, present day NUS Campus). Dr Toh believed that, was he not autocratic, things would never get done and the university would never have been reformed.

Iron Fist against Student Riots
Despite Toh’s reputation as a tough VC, he had problems with radical students at SU. In 1974, the campus was rocked by student unrest. This took place just before Tan Wah Piow, the president of University of Singapore Students’ Union (USSU), was to appear in a district court on charges of rioting. In December that year, immigration officers accompanied by riot police conducted a pre-dawn raid at the university campus in Bukit Timah Road. They caught and deported six students who were active in the USSU.

The detentions triggered off student protests, boycott of lectures and approximately 2000 students, out of a total of 7500 enrolment, turned up for a two-hour student rally against the arrest. This was the largest student demonstration in Singapore’s history. However, Toh avoided further punitive action against the dissenters and simply allowed the protests to peter out.

Nonetheless, the contribution by Dr Toh to the tertiary education was significant and positive. He set in place a university that contributes rather than hinders Singapore’s growth. Today, the shape and success of NUS and NTU bears Dr Toh’s imprints.

No “Dumb Cow”: Dr Toh the Vocal Backbencher
After leaving the Cabinet under the LKY’s renewal and infusion of new blood policy, Dr Toh became a PAP backbencher (meaning he step down as a Minister to become only a Member of Parliament). Dr Toh was openly critical of certain public policies which he deemed to be unsound and later, became one of the most vocal and critical MP against the PAP. Many suggested that his critical stance towards the ruling party was a case of “sour grapes” from losing his position as a Minister as well as unceremonious exit but this argument was unfounded. In fact, when he was in Cabinet, LKY identified Dr Toh as a Minister who sometimes would disagree with him over the matters of principles and policies. In the old political saying, “you are where you sit” and as a backbencher, Dr Toh felt that he was no longer constrained by the principle of collective responsibility as a Cabinet Minister is expected to defend. Rather, he chose to exercise the responsibility of a backbencher to question policies that he considers faulty. He famously said, “In this last term, I hope I will be of public service and not a wallflower in the chamber of parliament of a dumb cow.”

One reason for his confidence in speaking against the government was his solid bastion in Rochore constituency. Some speculated that he might quit the PAP and run as an independent candidate (for which he stands a high chance of winning his ward), but we would never know and he would never had that chance. In 1988, Rochore Constituency disappeared from the political map after the redrawing of electoral boundaries.

Final Message to the Singaporean Youths
In a rare public interview in 1997 Radio Corporation of Singapore, Dr Toh passionately bemoaned the lack of idealism and creativity among the young and its implications for the future of Singapore. He said:

“I would say the generation of the ‘50s and ‘60s took the plunge into politics without ever calculating the costs of the risk and the benefits to be gained. They were driven by ideology. Today’s generation has no culture and averse to taking political risk. Really, an interest in politics is very necessary for the future. But I cannot blame the present generations, because they see the heavy-handed response by the government to dissenting views, even though they know that these matters involve their daily lives.

So the result is that we have produced a younger generation who are meek and therefore very calculating. They are less independent-thinking and lack in initiative. It does not bode well for the emergence of future leaders in politics and business. Robots and computers can be programmed or if you like, can be trained. But the trouble, of course, is that computers lack soul and what we need in Singapore is soul. Because it is soul that makes society.”

His words are aptly prophetic to our present society. Are we a soulless society? Maybe we are, but it is heartening to see great men like Dr Toh Chin Chye made passionate dreams for Singapore. Both in the development and building of modern Singapore, Dr Toh was instrumental in making the Singapore we know today. Dr Toh is truly one of the founders of Singapore.

If you ever had the patience to read this final sentence, you would guess that this article is too lengthy to include the story on Dr Goh Keng Swee. Thus, I would write it separately in the later weeks.

Source: Leaders of Singapore, by Melanie Chew (1996) and Lee's Lieutenants : Singapore Old Guard: by ER Lam Peng (2000) . Photos are available at National Archives, public domain. Not for reproduction.

Fewer Walkovers Better for Ruling Party?

2006-02-17T10:28:00.000+08:00

This is quite an interesting article from today's Straits Times at the Commentary section on Elections. By the way, there are some new polls out on the sidebar on the right side of the webpage. Feel free to participate in it.

"Will your constituency be contested or will there be a walkover?" This is the question on many Singaporeans' minds. Many who have never voted because their constituencies were not contested in the past are hopeful of finally being able to vote.

This is because the opposition parties have declared that they intend to contest in many wards. If you believe all they have said to the media, the picture you get is this: The major opposition parties will contest in all nine single-seat wards and at least six group representation constituencies (GRCs), possibly seven or more. They have also agreed to avoid three-cornered fights.

The Workers' Party is apparently eyeing Aljunied and East Coast, and possibly Sembawang, all GRCs. The Singapore Democratic Alliance is said to be considering at least two GRCs, including Jalan Besar. The Singapore Democratic Party said it intends to contest in at least one GRC and some single-seat wards. The Democratic Progressive Party also said it is eyeing at least one GRC 'somewhere in the east'. Add up the numbers and at least six, possibly seven or more, GRCs may be contested. The difference between six and seven is a wealth of difference.

If the opposition sticks to six five-member GRCs and the nine single-seat wards, it will field 39 candidates, which is just below half of the 84 seats under existing boundaries. That will return the People's Action Party to power on Nomination Day. If the opposition goes for one more GRC, it will contest in more than half the seats, and the PAP will not be returned to power on Nomination Day. If the opposition does indeed contest in more than half the wards available, this will be a departure from the past two general elections (GEs), when the PAP was returned to power on Nomination Day as the opposition contested fewer than half the seats.

In fact, over the past four GEs, progressively fewer seats were contested and there were more walkovers. In the past four GEs, in 1988, 1991, 1997 and 2001, the number of walkovers went up: from 11, to 41, 47 and then 55.

In GE 2006, if the opposition contests in all nine single-seat wards and at least seven GRCs, then the number of walkovers could be reduced to just below half the total number of seats, depriving the PAP of being returned to power on Nomination Day. (All this is, of course, based on the current state of constituencies. The electoral boundaries report due to be out soon will change the calculation somewhat, although the implications of contesting more than half the seats remain.)

If the opposition does contest in more than half the seats, as it has suggested it may, does it matter? And what does it mean to the PAP and the opposition? For the opposition, contesting more wards risks spreading its already thin resources, but will give its many new recruits useful exposure and experience. It could also raise the image of the opposition, signalling its coming of age and readiness to take on the Government as an alternative, rather than remain bit players on the fringe. However, the opposition will have to weigh the potential benefits of an all-out onslaught against the impact that more contests will have on the PAP.

The PAP usually performs better in GRCs than in single-seat wards. So if the opposition contests in more GRCs, the net result is likely to be a rise in the PAP's share of votes overall. Contesting more than half the seats also deprives the opposition of the so-called by-election effect strategy - the brainchild of veteran opposition MP Chiam See Tong in 1991 - which refers to the strategy of contesting fewer than half the seats and returning the PAP to power on Nomination Day.

The reasoning is that with the PAP back in government, Singapore voters will feel freer to vote for the opposition as there will be no fear that an untested opposition might inadvertently come to power. The last three GEs, which all returned the PAP to power on Nomination Day, were premised partly on that calculation. However, it is debatable if the by-election effect strategy has as much resonance today as in the 1990s. And as the results showed, the strategy did not raise the opposition's vote share. On the contrary, it went down from 39 per cent in 1991, to 35 per cent in 1997 and 25 per cent in 2001.

A younger crop of opposition strategists may prefer to go for more contest rather than less, even if this risks diluting the by-election effect. Ironically, though, more contests spell good news for the PAP. As mentioned above, it is likely to raise the percentage of the PAP's vote share. More contests will also raise the legitimacy of the PAP, which has faced criticism for the way many of its new MPs have walked into Parliament without going through an electoral contest.

In 2001, 18 out of 23 PAP candidates who became MPs did so without having to go through the polls as their constituencies were not contested. PAP veterans have indicated in past elections that they would also prefer to see more young MPs and ministers go through the 'baptism of fire' an election campaign brings. This election, many ministers anchoring GRCs have explicitly challenged the opposition to contest in their wards.

In the end, it is the opposition's call how many candidates it aims to field collectively. It will have to weigh the potential benefits of contesting in more than half the seats, against the potential advantage this may inadvertently cede to the PAP. For the opposition, the key calculation will be this. Contest in more seats for the experience and risk giving the PAP a greater share of the vote? Or contest in fewer and aim to make a dent in the PAP's vote share? It's a tough call.

There is one group, though, that will welcome more contests as a win-win proposition: voters, especially those hoping for a chance to cast their vote for the first time.

muihoong@sph.com.sg
Chua Mui Hoong alternates with guest writers in this weekly column

Elections Issues and Talks?

2006-02-09T23:18:00.000+08:00

Just came back from a Prime Minister's Dialogue Session on Community Engagement Programme at Kallang Theatre. Usually, during dialogues or speeches, I always like to observe the body language and "off-screen" moments between Ministers. Today's dialogue was attended by quite a few Ministers such as Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Vivian Balakrishnan, Yaccob Ibrahim, Wong Kan Seng, Dr Ng Eng Hen, Lee Boon Yang, Lim Hwee Hua, Gan Kim Yong, Chan Soo Sen and Zainal Abidin. I think I'll just keep the observations to myself and not make any judgements out of it.

Another issue that the press have been publishing quite often is the Elections. TODAY papers and the Straits Times have made quite a few speculations. Quite some time back, I've made my own deductions on the possible changes and movements within MPs, Ministers and GRCs. Let's wait and see if any of that is true. From the comments page of the previous articles, I guess history is one that is not that popular (though important). Anyway, feel free to suggest any articles or topics that I could share with. This is quite a busy month for me and as such, I don't think I will be able to make any lengthy post at the moment (to the relieve of any readers!). :P

Cheers!
T

2006-01-26T17:53:00.000+08:00

Part 1: History and Founding of PAP

No “Singapore Politics” will be complete without the historical perspectives of PAP and Singapore’s Independence. In the first part, I hope to bring some history that is outside of our textbooks (or propaganda, depends on how you see it), and shed light on why PAP is the PAP we know today. Younger Singaporeans, like me, may not know of the insights on the founding of PAP and the true leaders (aside from the much-publicized Lee Kuan Yew) that made us from a British outpost to a country. But hopefully, in understand our past; we can derive thoughts to prepare us for the future. This first part will provide some interesting look (hopefully) into the history of PAP from 1955 to 1965. This will also serve as a starter to 6 leaders of Singapore, Dr Toh Chin Chye, Dr Goh Keng Swee, Lim Chin Siong, Devan Nair, S Rajaratnam and Lim Kim San.

The Malayan Forum
The PAP’s origins can be traced to the Malayan Forum started by Dr Goh Keng Swee. The Forum comprised of a group of students who met in Malaya Hall, Bryanston Square, London. It united students from the Left and Right in the fight for independence of Malaya and Singapore. The Malacca-born Goh Keng Swee, who was at London School of Economics, was the first Chairman. He was succeeded by Toh Chin Chye, who was reading for doctorate in Physiology. Other members included John Eber, Lim Khean Chye, Tun Razak, Gazalie Shafie and Mohammad Sopiee, some of them became prominent in the independence of Malaya. However, the membership never exceeded 50. They considered themselves as socialism, a term that many confused with Communism, which purports to “benefit the people” according to Dr Toh Chin Chye.

Some of them, with the passion of Independence, took up the political cause and came back to Singapore in 1953. Later, Dr Goh, Kenny Byrne and Dr Toh formed the Council for Joint Action with Lee Kuan Yew as the legal advisor. That was how LKY got involved in union politics. During then, LKY was also the legal advisor to Samad Ismail (editor of Utusan Melayu and ex-detainee), Lim Chin Siong and Devan Nair. The newly returned graduates from Cambridge and London gathered fortnightly at the basement of LKY’s rambling Straits-Style bungalow in Oxley Road. It was coined as “The Underground”, suitably apt considering the risk of being arrested under Internal Security regulations that forbade such political meetings. The regulars in the meeting included LKY, Dr Toh, S. Rajaratnam, K. Byrne, Samad Ismail, Devan Nair, Kum Swee Yee, Goh Keng Swee, Chan Chiaw Thor and Lim Chin Siong.

With special attention from the “Special Branch” (old version of ISD), they would always be watched and risk being detained without trial. Thus Dr Toh suggested forming a political party and registering as a society to avoid such complications. That is how the “Action Party” was formed and later, they added the word “People” into it.

The New People’s Action Party
In the early years, recruitment amongst their English-speaking colleagues was not going well. Dr Goh Keng Swee introduced his chess partner, Dr Lee Siew Choh (later joined Barisan Socialis) and Dr Toh brought in Yong Nyuk Lin, who enjoyed a promising career in Overseas Assurance. Just a handful responded to the PAP’s Democratic Socialism, seen as dangerously Left-Wing. Thus it fell to Lim Chin Siong and his trade union colleagues: Fong Swee Suan, Devan Nair, James Puthucheary and Samad Ismail to bring in the masses: the trade unions, the workers and the Chinese school associations.

The Man Who Almost Became PM
It was a job which Lim Chin Siong did superbly. His rallies in Hokkien and Mandarin were masterful. His rallies were attended by some 40,000 people, each mesmerized by Lin Chin Siong’s oratory. “The British say you cannot stand on your own two feet,” he jeered. “Show them! Show them how you can stand!” And 40,000 people leapt up, shining with sweat, fist in the air, shouting “Merdeka!”

“You have to understand,” said Devan Nair, “the mood of the people at that time. There was bitter anti-colonialism. Massive unemployment. And to the masses, the Communist was the only heroes. Lim Chin Siong had the ground. Where the masses were concerned, Chinese trade union leaders and the Communist were the only leaders.”

Lim certainly had the respect of Lee Kuan Yew. David Marshall said, “Chin Siong was introduced to me by Lee Kuan Yew. Kuan Yew came to visit me in my little office underneath the stairs and said, “Meet the future Prime Minister of Singapore!” I looked at Lim Chin Siong and I laughed. LKY said, “Don’t laugh!” He is the finest Chinese orator in Singapore and he will be our next Prime Minister!”

David Marshall and Failure from Independence
David Marshall led the first Merdaka Mission to open negotiations with the British for Independence of Singapore. Constitutional discussions began in London in April 1956. On board, representing the PAP, were Lim Chin Siong and Lee Kuan Yew.

The mission returned in failure and their demands for independence were refused. The British felt that the Labour Front government was too weak and the Communist elements in Singapore too powerful. If there was to be independence, the British fears needed to be calmed. David Marshall resigned and Lim Yew Hock took over as Chief Minister. He had two objectives. Firstly, he had to prove to the British that Singapore was able to resist Communism. Secondly, he wanted to purge the trade unions, schools and political parties of pro-Communist and Left Wing Leaders who were beginning to threaten the rule of the moderate politicians such as himself and LKY. Thus began a series of arrests under the Public Security Ordinance. Lim Chin Siong, Devan Nair and Fong Swee Suan were some of the prominent politicians being detained. (This issue will be dealt with in further details under Lim Chin Siong and Devan Nair at Part III)

It was Lim Yew Hock who took both blame and credit for the waves of Internal Security arrest. But the PAP was undoubtedly the main beneficiary of his tough regime. Lim Yew Hock arrested five Left Wing PAP members, newly elected onto the party’s Central Executive Committee (CEC) in August 1957, delivering the PAP from what was effectively a Left Wing Coup. Shortly after, PAP introduced the “cadres system” (to be elaborated under Dr Toh Chin Chye section at Part II), which prevented any further Left Wing infiltration into the party’s inner core.

Independence from the British
The next Constitutional Mission to London in April 1958 was a success. Under the State of Singapore Act in August 1958, the colony became a self-governing state. Elections for the new 51 member Legislative Assembly were scheduled for May 1959. Lim Yew Hock was given a hero’s welcome on his return and a noisy motorcade from Kallang Airport.

The Dilemma and Shrewdness of LKY
In the run-up to 1959 elections, the PAP was in a dilemma. The Party was to be led into the elections by LKY and his Right Wong colleagues. But they needed the Left Wing leaders, who were in prison to attract the following of the masses.

“It was at that point that Kuan Yew played his political cards superbly,” remembers Devan Nair. “It was masterly. He is politically very, very shrewd. He came to the jail and told us, look, I’m not gong to stand for elections unless I am satisfied that you are really committed to the ideal of a free, democratic, socialist and non-communist Malaya. And you are committed to the policies of the PAP. So Chin Siong, Woodhull, Fong and so on, gave verbal assurances. We knew that if the PAP didn’t form the next government we would continue to be in the jug (aka jail). But if the PAP did win, in 1959 and if PAP formed the next government, then we would be released and we could start our union work again.”

“But Kuan Yew was too smart. He said, “No, put it down in writing.” And I (Devan Nair) told them, “Yes, if we are sincere, we ought to put it down in writing.” And the more important of which was The Ends and Means of Malayan Socialism”, said Devan. They all signed and committed themselves to the PAP. This enabled LKY to run for office on a platform which demanded their immediate release. The trade unions mobilized their mass muscles, putting the PAP into power by a landslide. The PAP formed the government with LKY as the Prime Minister.
Lim Chin Siong and his colleagues, released from jail amidst a flurry of doves, were tucked into obscurity as Political Secretaries in the Ministries.

Cracks and Split in PAP
As the PAP government settled into power, the uneasy union between the Left and Right continued. The first sign of trouble was Devan Nair’s resignation from the Education Ministry. “I went to Kuan Yew and told him, “Look, I meant every word of The Ends and Means of Malayan Socialism. But I am afraid that my friends are not sincere. I don’t want to be caught in a situation where I’ll be fighting with my friends. So I want to leave. I’m resigning.” He went to St Andrew’s School where he became a teacher there instead.

The next crack came when one of the most powerful members in PAP, Ong Eng Guan, the Minister of National Development and one of the three representatives on the Internal Security Council, published an attack on PAP. He accused the party leadership of being “undemocratic” and “dictatorial”. The Party responded by sacking him from the PAP and stripped of his seat in Hong Lim and all his other positions.

He defiantly stood as an Independent in the Hong Lim by-elections and gave the PAP candidate, Jek Yuen Thong, a sound beating. Ong was fluent in dialect and Mandarin; a rarity amongst the English educated. Despite the PAP sending the charismatic Lim Chin Siong to speak at the mass rally at Hong Lim, Ong Eng Guan still won.

This is not the end of the crisis for PAP. On June 1961, Lim Chin Siong wrote to Dr Toh, demanding the release of their Left Wing political colleagues. PAP could not agree to this with their prior agreements with the British. The beginning of the split between Left and Right was the Anson By-elections on July 1961. The Left demanded “internal democracy in the PAP” and the release of all political prisoners from detention. They were refused. The Left then threw their support to the rival candidate, David Marshall and he won.

The final split came just few days later in the Legislative Assembly. Thirteen Left Wing PAP Assemblymen abstained from voting with the party line. They were dismissed from the PAP. In August 1961, they formed a rival party, the Barisan Sosialis, led by Dr Lee Siew Choh and Lim Chin Siong. They took 35 branch committees, 19 of the 23 organizing secretaries and an estimated 80 percent of the membership. PAP under LKY was a mere shell, according to Dr Lee.

The Last Breathe of Hope for PAP
The Singapore government was on the verged of being toppled. Every session, the opposition would motion of no confidence. But across the shores, the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, Tengku Abdul Rahman, watched the events and feared that Singapore was about to become a Communist State, a “second Cuba” and a danger to Malaya. Thus, this was the start of the intense and frantic, Battle for Merger.

Barisan Sosialis held sway in Singapore but it knew that in a wider Malaysia they would be crushed. On the other hand, PAP needed Malaysia to break the Barisan’s hold on the Singapore Electorate. Thus, they enlisted Malayan Tengku and the British as allies, playing on their long standing fear of Communism.

On July 1962, the Barisan Sosialis, led by David Marshall and Dr Lee Siew Choh, appealed against the merger in the United Nations in New York. The Merger Referendum, issued in 1962, was testimony to the murkiness of the Battle. It was deliberately ambiguous. It asked voters to choose what kind of merger they wanted, not whether indeed they wished for a merger. All spoilt votes were to be counted as votes in favour of merger. With this controversial tactic, the PAP won the Battle for Merger.

Tengku then decided to clean out the Communism with “Operation Cold Store”. Hundreds of arrest was made and effectively decapitated the Left Wing Barisan Sosialis. A snap elections was called, under the protection of the Malaysian Security Council, produced a clear PAP victory. The Barisan, with most of their leaders in prison, garnered only 13 out of 51 seats. On September 1963, the PAP government had won its battle against the Left.

Merger and Separation of Singapore
Singapore spent 1071 days in Malaysia. Perhaps the first Singapore Leader to despair was Goh Keng Swee (more details on Part II). The integration of the economies of Malaya and Singapore was scuppered by the competitive rather than complementary nature of the two countries. Malaya refused to drop her tariff walls to admit Singapore goods and Singapore refused to abandon her free-port tax regime. Things got ugly with “mud-slinging”, a steadily rising political and racial temperature.

The independence of Singapore on the 8th August 1965 came as a total shock to most of the country. They were informed by radio and over television, by a tearful Lee Kuan Yew. He was to retire (to seek solace), in despair, to a government bungalow in Changi. Dr Toh, with his colleagues, held the fort and provided the much needed stability when LKY was no where to be seen.

Coming Soon: Part 2: Old Guards and Leaders of Singapore I
True Founders of Singapore: Dr Toh Chin Chye and Dr Goh Keng Swee

Both men were the pioneering members of PAP and Deputy Prime Ministers of Singapore. One is the founding Chairman of the PAP, the other the true architect of Singapore’s success. In the confusion of Singapore’s sudden separation with Malaysia, PM Lee Kuan Yew wept on national television and withdraws to a government bungalow in Changi. But behind the scene was the stabilizing force of Dr Toh Chin Chye made the chaos orderly. Dr Toh also played a crucial role in the development of Science and Technology in industrialization of Singapore. As for Dr Goh Keng Swee, he is widely hailed as the true architect of Singapore’s success with his visionary leadership. He was first Defense Minister and practically transformed the swarm lands of Jurong into an industrial oasis.

Source: Leaders of Singapore, by Melanie Chew (1996) and Photos from National Archives. Not for reproduction.

Note: My Email Address

2006-01-21T11:10:00.000+08:00

Dear All,

Please note that I've added my email address on the side, for all your "verbal abuse", "threats" and complaints. Just kidding, please be kind to me!

However, this email will be not checked regularly. As such, for better attention and effects, please leave your comments at the comments page (for which it will be directly reflected in my primary email box.

Cheers!
T

Coming Soon: 4-Part Series on the History and Founding of PAP & the Old Guards of Singapore

2006-01-18T16:28:00.000+08:00

The past articles of this blog focused mainly on the present and recent history of Singapore Politics, on PM Lee Hsien Loong, Third Generation Ministers and on recent Election issues. But no Singapore Politics would be complete without the history of PAP, its early founding and the tale of 6 men. As such, I will try to attempt on a new direction (more like reverse direction) in bring the past history of Singapore Politics to “blog space”. Thus this will be a 4 Part Series on the Histories and Leaders that would be featured in the coming month. Here are the synopses:

Part 1: History and the Founding of PAP
For those who have visited the PAP website, would know that they have a short concise history of the Party. As in most concise history, the details that they left behind are often the most important and interesting. Stories of their struggles, backstabbing, “politicking” and crisis made what PAP is today. This article will span from 1957 to the day of separation with Malaysia in 1965 and involved the lives of Seven Key Leaders that shaped the present day Singapore Politics. Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee, Toh Chin Chye, S Rajaratnam, Devan Nair, Lim Chin Siong and Lim Kim San. Aside from Lee Kuan Yew, who is well publicized to say the least, the 6 other leaders will be featured in separate articles.

Part 2: Old Guards and Leaders of Singapore I
True Founders of Singapore: Dr Toh Chin Chye and Dr Goh Keng Swee
Both men were the pioneering members of PAP and Deputy Prime Ministers of Singapore. One is the founding Chairman of the PAP, the other the true architect of Singapore’s success. In the confusion of Singapore’s sudden separation with Malaysia, PM Lee Kuan Yew wept on national television and withdraws to a government bungalow in Changi. But behind the scene was the stabilizing force of Dr Toh Chin Chye made the chaos orderly. Dr Toh also played a crucial role in the development of Science and Technology in industrialization of Singapore. As for Dr Goh Keng Swee, he is widely hailed as the true architect of Singapore’s success with his visionary leadership. He was first Defense Minister and practically transformed the swarm lands of Jurong into an industrial oasis.

Part 3: Old Guards and Leaders of Singapore II
Almost Prime Ministers: Lim Chin Siong and Devan Nair
Both men were said to be Communist and detained for several times for their beliefs. But if history has taken its turn, Lim Chin Siong would have become the Prime Minister of Singapore, or at least this was what Lee Kuan Yew said. Once, Lee Kuan Yew introduced Lim Chin Siong to David Marshall, “Meet the future Prime Minister of Singapore!” David Marshall laughed but LKY said, “Don’t laugh! He’s the finest Chinese orator in Singapore and he will be our next Prime Minister!” History has its own ironies with LKY himself being the PM. Devan, on the other hand, was the lifeline of PAP after the party split. Should he have joined Lim Chin Siong and not created NTUC, the power in office today would not have been the PAP. With the credit of bringing the union over to the PAP, he was later appointed President of Singapore only to unceremoniously resign from office.

Part 4: Old Guards and Leaders of Singapore III
Leaders Home and Abroad: Lim Kim San and S Rajaratnam
The HDB housing is probably one of the very rare cases of public housing gone right in the world. Where every other country failed and Singapore’s public housing succeeded due to one leader, Lim Kim San. Away from home, the Foreign Minister that steered Singapore into the Global map was S Rajaratnam. The investments we attracted, the foreign relations we built, the diplomacy that was forged when Singapore was not even on the world’s map, Rajaratnam made us a “country”. After independence, two main problems plagued Singapore: Housing and Jobs. Lim Kim San assured the housing and Rajaratnam brought in the foreign investors and made diplomacy our only defense when we do not have soldiers.

2006-01-17T12:43:00.000+08:00

Capable People Who Could be Ministers But Didn’t
Only recent examples, but there are more “gems” to be uncovered

Ho Kwon Ping
Ho Kwon Ping (53) is Executive Chairman of the Banyan Tree Group, which owns both listed and private companies engaged in the development, ownership and operation of hotels, resorts, spas, residential homes, retail galleries and other lifestyle activities in the region. Ho is also Chairman of the family-owned Wah Chang Group

In addition to his commitments with the Banyan Tree Group and Wah Chang Group, Ho is also Chairman of Singapore Management University, the third national university in Singapore; Chairman of MediaCorp, the national television and radio company; Board Director of Singapore Airlines Limited; Main Board Director of Standard Chartered Bank plc; member of the Singapore–US Business Council; member of Asia-Pacific Council, the Nature Conservancy; member of the Asia Regional Advisory Board of London Business School; member of the International Council of the Asia Society and member of the INSEAD International Council.

Prior to joining the Wah Chang Group in 1981, Ho worked as a journalist with the Far Eastern Economic Review. Ho's activist streak goes way back. He was a political radical in college, then he became a journalist. His articles for the Far Eastern Economic Review in Singapore rubbed the government the wrong way. And in 1979 he was jailed for several months under the Internal Security Act. After his release, he worked for the magazine for two more years, then decided to take over his father's commodities trading and construction company, Wah Chang/Thai Wah Group. He decided to diversify it, and settled on hotels.
His father, Ho Rih Hwa was then a prominent business and former diplomat (to Thailand).His mother was also a distinguish playwriter. Ho was educated in Tunghai University, Taiwan, Stanford University, California, and the University of Singapore. He is married to Claire Chiang and has two sons and a daughter.

Professor Tommy Koh
Professor Tommy Koh is currently Ambassador-At-Large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Chairman of the Institute of Policy Studies, National Heritage Board and Chinese Heritage Centre. He is also a Director of SingTel.

Prof Koh was the Dean of the Faculty of Law of the University of Singapore from 1971 to 1974. He was Singapore's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, New York from 1968 to 1971 (concurrently accredited as High Commissioner to Canada) and again from 1974 to 1984 (concurrently accredited as High Commissioner to Canada and Ambassador to Mexico). He was Ambassador to the United States of America from 1984 to 1990. He was President of the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea from 1980 to 1982. He was Chairman of the Preparatory Committee and the Main Committee of the UN Conference on Environment and Development from 1990 to 1992. He was the founding Chairman of the National Arts Council from 1991 to 1996, Director of the Institute of Policy Studies from 1990 to February 1997 and from December 2000 to July 2004. From February 1997 to October 2000, he served as the founding Executive Director of the Asia-Europe Foundation. He was also Singapore's Chief Negotiator for the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (2000 to 2003). He is the agent of Singapore in several legal disputes between Singapore and Malaysia. He chairs three committees for the National University of Singapore relating to law, Asian research and environmental management.

Prof Koh was appointed by the United Nations Secretary General as his Special Envoy to lead a mission to the Russian Federation, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in August/September 1993. Prof Koh was a member of three WTO dispute panels, two of which as Chairman.

Prof Koh was the Second Arthur & Frank Payne Visiting Professor at the Institute for International Studies, Stanford University, USA, for 1994/95. He is a visiting Professor at Zhejiang University. Prof Koh is on the Board of Directors of the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University. He is a member of the International Council of The Asia Society (New York) and a co-convenor of its Williamsburg Conference. He is also a member of the International Advisory Committee of the Korean Federation of Industries.

Prof Koh received a First Class Honours degree in Law from the National University of Singapore, has a Masters degree in Law from Harvard University and a post-graduate Diploma in Criminology from Cambridge University. He was conferred a full professorship in 1977. In 1984, Prof Koh was awarded an Honorary Degree of Doctor of Laws from Yale University. He has also received awards from Columbia University, Stanford University, Georgetown University, the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and Curtin University. On 22 September 2002, Prof Koh was conferred an Honorary Degree of Doctor of Laws from Monash University.

For his service to the nation, Prof Koh was awarded the Public Service Star in 1971, the Meritorious Service Medal in 1979 and the Distinguished Service Order Award in 1990. Prof Koh was appointed Commander in the Order of the Golden Ark by HRH Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands in March 1993. He received the award of the Grand Cross of the Order of Bernardo O’Higgins from the Government of Chile on 3 April 1997. He also received the 1996 Elizabeth Haub Prize from the University of Brussels and the International Council on Environmental Law on 17 April 1997. Prof Koh was awarded the 1998 Fok Ying Tung Southeast Asia Prize by the Fok Ying Tung Foundation in Hong Kong on 29 May 1998. On 22 February 2000 he was awarded the "Commander, First Class, of the Order of the Lion of Finland" by the President of Finland. On 2 May 2000, he was conferred the title of "Grand Officer in the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg" by the Prime Minister of Luxembourg. On 6 August 2001, he was conferred the rank of Officer in the Order of the Legion of Honour by the President of the French Republic. He was presented with the Peace and Commerce Award by the US Secretary of Commerce, Donald Evans, in Washington DC, on 5 May 2003. On 12 May 2004, he received the Outstanding Service Award from the National University of Singapore. His Majesty King Juan Carlos of Spain has bestowed upon Prof Koh the Encomienda of Isabel la Catolica on 24 May 2004.

He once confessed that he is “too soft” for politics as one of the main reasons for not becoming a MP or Minister. Nonetheless, he was credited for the negotiation of the USA-Singapore FTA agreements and many other diplomatic successes.

Simon Tay
Simon SC Tay LL.B Hons (National University of Singapore) LL.M (Harvard) teaches international law at the National University of Singapore. He is concurrently chairman of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs, a non-governmental think tank, that represents Singapore in the influential ASEAN-ISIS network of regional think tanks.

Since July 2002, he has been chairman of the National Environment Agency, the country's major agency for environmental protection and public health. In Fall 2003, he was a visiting professor, teaching at the Harvard Law School and Fletcher School of International Law and Diplomacy

He was selected for three terms as a Nominated Member of the Singapore Parliament (1997 - 2001) and has served to lead public consultations on Singapore in the 21st century, the national concept plan, and the Singapore Green Plan 2012. He was a Fulbright scholar (1993-94) at Harvard Law School, where he won the Laylin prize for the best thesis in international law. In Jan 2000, the World Economic Forum (Davos) named him a "global leader of tomorrow". In 2002, he was awarded an Eisenhower Fellowship, one of Singapore's first non-governmental recipients of this award.

His work on international law and policy focuses on sustainable development, peace and governance, especially in Asia and ASEAN. His scholarly publications include, Pacific Asia 2022 (2005); The Enemy Within: Combating Corruption in Asia (2003); Reinventing ASEAN (2001); Southeast Asian Fires: The Challenge for International Law and Development (1999); Preventive Diplomacy and the ASEAN Regional Forum: Principles and Possibilities (1999); Towards a Singaporean Civil Society (1998); Asian Dragons & Green Trade (1996); and Human Rights, Culture and the Singapore Example (1996).

He serves on a number of international and regional expert and eminent person panels, including the ASEAN Regional Forum register of eminent persons and experts; the APEC peer review process on trade; and the Eminent Persons Group on the ASEAN-Japan Centre. In 1999-2000, he co-chaired a review of Japan-ASEAN relations and also served to study and negotiate a free trade agreement between Japan and Singapore.

As SIIA chairman, he helps coordinate ASEAN think-tank discussions with China and, with Taiwan, and has also led bilateral dialogues with Indonesia and with Malaysia. In 1999, he was an adviser to the Singapore delegation to the WTO Ministerial meeting. In 2002, he attended the World Summit on Sustainable Development as a senior member of the Singapore delegation to the High Level session. Other international appointments relating to the environment include the China International Council on Environment and Development, and the Asia Pacific Forum on Environment and Development.

Note: Three names for the moment. But I’m sure there are plenty of “uncovered gems and talents” in Singapore that could serve the people well.

2006-01-13T16:41:00.000+08:00

Policy Implementation in Singapore
Behind the Veil of Power

“Ten different government departments concerted their efforts over ten years to achieve this. It was not just removing the muck from the rivers. The source of pollution had to be removed permanently. First, the vision of what was possible with modern engineering was crucial. Second, we had to have the courage to implement unpopular measures and the tenacity to pursue permanent solutions… To the official, who planned the operations with thoroughness and care, and to those who implemented them with tenacity and fairness, I say “Well done.””
Former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.

Singapore has gained a global reputation for effective policy implementation, even for the most unpopular of policies. Regarding policy implementation, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong once joked, “I tell you one thing we can do the Chinese cannot do. I can ban chewing gum in Singapore and make it stick. Can you do that in Tiananmen?” With little doubts, Singapore seems to be a model case study for effective implementation. The implementation of policies in Singapore has been widely regarded and assumed to be a top-down perspective approach, characterised by the hierarchical and bureaucratic process. However, contrary to public perceptions, not all policies and Ministries are implemented in a top-down approach. Even in highly bureaucratized human service organizations, policy implementation requires policy adaptation. Street-level workers, who are close to problems and the “front-line”, are likely to know what works in local environments and for particular groups.

Overview of Policy Implementation in Singapore
Singapore is a republic with a parliamentary system of government based on the Westminster System, modelled after that of United Kingdom system. This implies of Singapore as a unitary state emphasizing on political integration, centralized authority, a command operating code implemented through bureaucracy and the power of the centre to revoke decentralized power. The policies are debated in the parliament and enforced by the civil service via the 13 Ministries and 67 Statutory Boards. Similar to the British Civil Service system, the Singapore Civil Service is the permanent bureaucracy that supports the Government Ministers responsible to the Parliament in administering the policies.

To see how policies are implemented in Singapore, we will use the example of the Active Aging policies implemented by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MYCS). With reference to the diagram, the Ministry can be grouped into two spheres, Policy Planning and Policy Implementation. Policy formulation is centred at the politically appointed Ministers while policy implementation is headed by the Permanent Secretaries and other civil servants. Typically, the politician provides a broad based and general policy, like improving the employability of older workers, and civil servants implement along these lines. The implementation process is overseen by the Permanent Secretary and Deputy Secretary who will assign the task a coordinating director based to one of the 15 functions. For the example of Active Aging policies, it will be handled by the Family Development Division (FDD) and more specifically, the Family Education Department (FED). Depending on the relative importance of the policies, the FED will be allocated a certain amount of financial budget and constrained by the broad based policy guidelines.

(Click on Image to View)

The implementation can be a lengthy process as the ideas and implementation have to be negotiated and “thrown back and forth” for approval within hierarchy based financial guidelines. For some Ministries, the use S$50,000 or more, for any events or implementation has to be approved by the Deputy Secretary. Any events or implementation costing below $50,000 can be approved by either the Coordinating Director or Deputy Director of the division. Each event or implementation will be judged on their relative cost and benefits before implementation. At the end of each financial year (April 05 – May 06), the division will submit their report based on the events and policies organized, reach, outcomes and budget. With the manpower cut in all Ministries (except Mindef), most of such implementation are outsourced to various NGO groups such as Fei Yue Community Services.

Characteristics of Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approach
Implementation is a process of interactions between the setting of goals and actions geared to achieve them. Implementation can be broadly categorized into Top-down approach and Bottom-up approach. Top-down models see implementations as concern with the degree to which the actions of implementing officials and target groups coincide with the goals embodied in an authoritative decision. On the other hand, Bottom-up models lay great stress on the fact that “street-level” implementers have discretion in how they apply policies. The following table (adapted from various sources) shows the contrast between the Top-down approach and Bottom-up approach to implementation.

(Click on Image to View)

In the context of policy implementation in Singapore, the Top-down approach seems to be the more appropriate fit, especially during the 1980s and 1970s. However, in recent years, the civil service has been down-sizing and mandated a fiscal budget reduction of 2% each year (with the exception of Ministry of Defence), lead to further constraints in resources. With the limited number of civil servants and manpower, it is difficult to cater to the broad scope and demands from the public in terms of implementation and functions. As such, alternative methods to implementation, such as outsourcing of some of the Ministries’ functions, are frequently used within the bureaucracy. Increasing, implementation of policies is carried out by external non-governmental organizations and service deliverers. Thus, the Bottom-up approach seems to be realistic for some policies. To compare the approaches, we will use similar policies within the same Ministry, so that we could evaluate its relative merits and shortcomings.

How to Achieve “The Singaporean Efficiency”?
In knowing the different perspectives of the Top-Down and Bottom-up Approaches, how does the Singapore Civil Service achieved such “Singaporean Efficiency”? As seen from the two perspectives, the ideal implementation (be it whether the policy is “right” of “wrong”) is when civil servants implement according to the guidelines with minimal deviation from the instruction given by their Permanent Secretaries. As such, very often the top-down approach provides better control over the implementation than being left in the hands of the front line civil servants (Bottom-up Approach eg: Teachers, Policemen..) to interpret the “law” or instructions.

One the core method is to self-select the civil servants according to their risk behaviour. Ideally, the civil servants should not be risk-taking people that would question too much over the “rightness” and “wrongness” of the policy but implement it with minimal deviation from the policy guidelines. As such, if you look at the entry requirements of all civil services you will find a common characteristic. Compared to the private sector, the civil service is much more “paper qualification” dependent. People who enter the civil service have already a very risk-averse attitude that they are promised of a certain level of the “iron rice bowl” and level of promotion based on the fixed criteria. If the civil servant doesn’t make too risky of decisions, or question his authority that much, he is quite certain on his career path of progression. Based on the incentive schemes and wage pay structure, the input of civil servants is basically self-selecting. Thus in some sense, middle and lower levels of civil servants tends to be the less risk taking individuals that would follow commands and instructions. Thinking and questioning are pretty much left to the top-level chain of commands (your scholars and political elites).

Relative Merits and Shortcomings
The shortcomings and problems of both approaches as been well-delve into, but the research on the merits of both Top-down and Bottom-up approaches are much lacking. Intuitively, the shortcoming of one approach is the merit of another and from this standpoint we can compare the two approaches relatively.

To describe the merits and shortcomings of both models, we can use the Education Policies as an example. Ever since the 1980s, Singapore has adopted the “streaming” system to group and segment the students based on their academic results. At the age of 10, the students are streamed into three different streams based on their (Primary School Leaving Examination) PSLE results. The best students were grouped into EM1, earmarked for scholarship programmes and access to better teaching facilities and schools. The bulk of the average students will fall into EM2, while academically weak students where transferred to the bottom stream, EM3. I think the details, most people are fairly knowledgeable of it.

Contrast to the streaming policy is the “Teach Less Learn More” policy launched in 2004. This is a deliberatively vague and broad policy by the Ministry of Education. The concept of this policy is to have multiple paths for students to excel and allow the schools and teachers to have the flexibility and autonomy to teach outside the prescribed syllabuses. The details and further information for both policies are stated below:

(Click on Image to View)

The streaming policy, enforced by the Ministry of Education, resembles the Top-down approach while the “Teach Less Learn More”, policy is a Bottom-up implementation approach. From this we could see and compare the relative merits of both perspectives.

Merit 1: Control and Coordination
The Bottom-up “Teach Less Learn More” policy relies heavily on the implementation by the “service-deliverers” and “street-level bureaucrats” such as the teachers. The professionals (teachers) have a key role in ensuring the performance of a policy, which implies that policy formulation process maybe skewed by policy implementation which is dominated by professionals. Each teacher has their own perception in developing methods of teaching or “implementing government policies” and will result in outcomes which are quite different to those intended or desired by policy-makers.

On the other hand, the Top-down “Streaming” policy provides the Ministry of Education (MOE) with better control and coordination of the implementation. This reduces the variation of teachings and allows MOE to have the ability to correct or fine-tune the policy implementation, if needed. The distinction between policy formulation and policy implement allows for easer identification of problems if the policy is not effective in solving the problem. Thus the Top-down approach allows for more control and corrective action, if needed, compared to the Bottom-up approach.

Another important aspect in relations to education policies implementation approach is the relative ease of changing approaches. For the Top-down approach to change to Bottom-up approach is often easier compared to the opposite. In giving autonomy and flexibility to the schools and “street-level bureaucrats”, it will difficult to retrieve the control if there is a need to implement a Top-down approach. Such change to centralize power may encounter resistance by the street-level bureaucrats and may result in future policy failure or loss of control.

Merit 2: Individual Biasness vs Responsiveness to Needs
As one of the political scientist expressed, “A public officer has discretion wherever the effective limits on his power leave him free to make a choice among possible courses of action or inaction”. In both modes of implementation, those at the front line of policy delivery have varying bands of discretion over how they choose to exercise the rules which they are employed to apply. However for the case on the education policies in Singapore, the “streaming” system minimizes the limits of individual biasness as well as the responsiveness to needs. The “Teach Less Learn More” policy, on the other hand, creates more room for individual biasness as well as to provide better responsiveness to the needs to individual students. Depending on the formulation of the policy and problem definition, there might be a need to balance or trade-off between having individual biasness or better responsiveness to needs of voters (or subjects where the policy is imposed on).

The street-level bureaucrats who are close to the problems and clients are likely to know what works in local environments and for particular groups. This would provide better responsiveness and adaptability to the local needs.

Merit 3: Efficient Use of Resources
The Top-down “Streaming” approach allows for better projection and efficient use of resources compared to the Bottom-up approach. The resources, including financial and manpower allocation, can be pre-planned in most top-down models but would be difficult and less accurate for bottom-up approaches.

For the “Streaming” policy, schools are allocated the funds based on population and the estimation of the cost for students in each of the streams. Under this policy, schools that perform better are relocated more resources to develop their facilities. In contrast, the “Teach Less Learn More” policy has too many variables for the allocation of funds and resources. As such, they are distributed based on vague projections, resulting in some schools being under-funded while others have inefficient usage of the resources.

Merit 4: Flexibility and Innovations
One of the main merits of the Bottom-up approach is the flexibility it allows compared to the top-down approach. The “Teach Less Learn More” model allows teachers the flexibility of teaching as well as for students to learn at their own pace and the modules that they are interested in. In such environment, innovation and creativity are likely to thrive better than the rigid hierarchical structure.

Inherently, each human (students in this example) is different and special in their own ways. By having a single tracked policy to cater to multitude of personalities and characters would sometimes be ineffective or inefficient. For the example of education policies, some degree of flexibility can be conducive for innovation and learning.

Merit 5: Democracy vs Implementation of “Unpopular” Policies
Implementation is a policy/action continuum in which an interactive and negative process is taking place over time between those seeking to put policy into effect and those upon whom actions depends. Occasionally, “unpopular” measures are implemented for the good of the society. One such example in Singapore is the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP).

Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) is an electronic system of road pricing based on a pay-as-you-use principle. It is designed to be a fair system as motorists are charged when they use the road during peak hours. When it was implemented in 1999, there was much criticism from the general public due to rise in cost of owning a car. However, the fact is that the ERP proves to be an effective policy to ease the heavy traffic conditions during peak hours as well as a vital source for government revenues. Should this be left to the street-level bureaucrats to implement, the implementation might not be possible due to the self-interest of each bureaucrat. Prior to the electronic gantry to detect the vehicles passing through, traffic officers were place at the junctions to manually record the carplate numbers of cars which did not purchase entry passes to the roads. Very often, the officer will not be able to record all carplate numbers that did not purchase the entry passes due to the volume of entry. This is an ambiguous process that allows for much room for error and individual judgement.

This highlights two merits of the top-down approach: enable to implementation of difficult and unpopular policies, and more consistent interpretation of the law.

Conclusion
In reality, implementation is a process which is structured by conflicts, bargaining, negotiation and deal making. All implementation processes involved a certain degree to top-down and bottom-up approach. While it is impossible and unrealistic to assume one form of approach is better than the other we can observe the various merits and shortcomings of each perspective to better see how policies succeed or fail. And for Singapore to achieve such “Blind Efficiency” (as one Permanent Secretary calls it), it may not be an absolute boon or bane for politics in Singapore. With over 20,000 civil servants in Singapore (hardly constitutes a Single-Member Constituency (SMC)), they are the backbone and unsung players of the politics in Singapore.

By the way, sorry for this lengthy article! And note that all sources are available via public domains and nothing here that the "Official Secrecy Act" will be interested in. :P

“Anarchist”, “Anti-PAP”, “Neutral” or “PAP Butt Kisser”?

2006-01-04T01:12:00.000+08:00

In the dialogues exchange between Wolong and me (and of course the interesting dialogues between At82 and Wolong) it sparked some personal thoughts about local politics. So much so that one might (rightly) question the neutrality of this blog. The only surprised that I have was that it took quite a few months before someone did question my neutrality (as I’ve expected to be questioned much earlier).

I think this highlights one disturbing problem with local politics. Singaporeans tend to only classify fellow men (who are interested in politics) to be only either an anti-PAP (for which you supposedly sanely passionate) or you are just a PAP-butt-kisser (for which you are insanely loyal or ambitious). Neutrality is not in the dictionary of most and the convenient label for neutrality is “fickle-minded”, “fence-seating”, “indecisive”, “bo chap” or several other similar nuances. In America, you are either a Republican or a Democrat. And the system even penalizes independent voters by having you to fill up applications to declare independence from your previous vote (eg previous vote for Republicans) and reregister as an independent electorate for the next elections (otherwise if assumes you follow your previous choice should you not vote).

I’ve never believed in neutrality for neutrality sake but I believe in giving credit where credit is due. Politics should never be the case when you are either with me or against me kind of attitude. Nor is politics having a definitive right solution and a definitive wrong solution. The world is changing and no longer is the world where the truth is white (no punts intended on PAP colours!) and the wrong being black. Perhaps the world is just a shade of grey. Is it difficult to be neutral? Definitely so and I’m no exception. But I do try my best to bring a fair picture to articles and when being neutral sometimes require me to be “pro-PAP”, inevitably, I’ll be called a PAP-butt-kisser... I guess people only want to hear what they believed in. Otherwise, anything else would be non-neutral.

A crude example of politics in motion is just a stadium of people watching a soccer match. In it, there are 22 players, 2 managers and 1 referee but 50,000 people thinking differently and that they know the best method to win. The solutions often seem obvious to the 50,000 people but they wondered why the manager or the players hasn’t played to their solutions. In relations to politics? The first mistake that any political analyst can make on politics is to think that there is one true solution to each problem. Politics, by nature, is messy and never has clear cut question or answers. What maybe rational to some maybe be irrational to another. Without making this a political science article, the bottomline is that many political scientists still ponders upon whether politics should be left in the hands of a few “sage rulers” or in the hands of mass public. The jury is still out on this one, with the argument shifting from representation (democracy) vs the complexity nature of politics for laymen.

From the comments, I supposed wolong is quite into Chinese History, which I’m also a fanatic. Allow me to illustrate my point. After the unstable founding of the Republic, after the collapse of Qing Dynasty, Dr Sun Yat Sen championed the causes of Three People's Principles, which is 民族主義 "The People's Relation/Connection" or "Government of the People"): Nationalism, 民權主義 "The People's Power" or "Government by the People"): Democracy and 民生主義 "The People's Welfare/Livelihood" or "Government for the People"): this is sometimes translated as Socialism. But against the autocratic regime of Yuan Shikai, his ideal democracy and parliamentary system never took off. His abled lieutenant, Song Jiaoren was assassinated shortly after orchestrating an election victory by the KMT in March, 1913. When push comes to shove and against the warlords of the north, some KMT party members change sides. Dr Sun tried to rally a second revolution against Yuan, but the party did not respond to his call. Then, he too realized that a certain amount of control was needed in the expense of democracy. Later, he made himself Generalissimo, a title which Chiang Kai-Shek later assumes. Obviously, this is a very short and concise history that left out many details, but this drives home a point which even Dr Sun realizes. Would democracy be suitable for China now? USA seems to think so but not the CCP. Should Democracy occur in China this very moment, the western China provinces such as Tibet and pre-dominantly Muslim provinces might declare independence. Stability or instability after democracy? We wouldn’t know.

Democracy is a tool for nationhood and is a means but not an end. The fundamental assumption of democracy is that people are rational enough to make their own choices. But what is rational and does rationality differs from one and another? Yes! Why do people smoke even though they know it is bad for their health? But it is also rational to some sense is that they are maximizing their own short term happiness by smoking. Fundamentally, democracy is only a tool to bring more fairness, justice and better lives to its citizens. Sometime it works (Switzerland); sometimes it doesn’t (Philippines).

Do I think if the Singapore Parliament can do with more creditable oppositions? Yes, I think so. But the opposition member should not be elected just because it opposes for the sake of opposing. He/she has to be creditable and capable. Too much of the underdog sympathy and therefore-I-vote-for-them kind of attitude doesn’t make our society any better. But we do need check-and-balances as the Worker’s Party advocates. Personally (which maybe objective), I think PAP has used too much underhand (but legal) means of gaining unfair competition ahead of their oppositions in the past. But they can’t and I don’t think they will do that again as the perception of fairness amongst the public has increased. There are issues which I’m strongly against the PAP’s decisions. Example: Why should a legitimately elected opposition MP (eg Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang) not able to seat in the Constituency’s Citizens Consultative Committee (CCC) as the Adviser but have an PAP appointed representative (eg Sitoh Yih-Pin)?

Enough of ramblings from me and after this article, I will write on something more empirical. At82, Aljunied GRC will definitely change. Don’t be surprised that you land up being at Sembawang GRC or Pasir Ris-Punggol or even Ang Mo Kio GRC. Wolong, I did think of writing on older generation of leaders and communist Lim Chin Siong or Fong Swee Suan but probably younger readers are not used to such colourful past.

Coming Up Next: Policy Implementation in Singapore
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, “I tell you one thing we can do the Chinese cannot do. I can ban chewing gum in Singapore and make it stick. Can you do that in Tiananmen?” Traditionally, when leaders put forth a policy, Singaporeans assumed that it is implemented. Implementation has always been the strength of the PAP government but behind the veil of Ministries, what really happens and how does it get implemented?

Replies to Comments

2005-12-25T23:40:00.000+08:00

Dear All

First and foremost, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year (+/- Elections)!

Just got back from a trip to Taiwan (to smell a breath of KMT and DPP) and was quite surprised to see the number of hits for this web article jumped. There are quite few people asking on the sources of my info and the critics of the "royal couple". Let me deal with the latter first.

In reply to "Soci" on which are the sources that was criticizing Ho Ching and relationship of having her as the CEO of Temasek and her husband being the PM + Finance Minister... Aside from the blogs comments (just do a google bloog search), web-so-called-news articles (eg: ASEAN News Network) and other articles, the formal journals includes The Economist.

As some of you might know, The Economist issued an apology to PM Lee, MM Lee and Mdm Ho Ching on 9/4/2004, Vol. 372, Issue 8391. Due to copyrights issues, I can't reproduce the full articles (I believe the same apology was available on the local papers) but the apologies is based on the similar (I've amended the wordings due to the restrictions) sentences:

"LHL had appointed, or was instrumental in appointing, his wife, HC to THL, not on merit, but for corrupt nepotist motives for the advancement of the Lee family's interests;... LKY supported or condoned HC's appointment for like motives"

As for the Cable Car tragedy, The Economist (maybe they just like reporting on Singapore Politics) seconded that as well. Thus it should be reliably true.

Title: The son rises , Economist, 00130613, 7/24/2004, Vol. 372, Issue 8385:
"While in the army, he directed the dramatic rescue of passengers stranded in a disabled cable car.... His father says that he would already be prime minister were it not for misplaced concerns about nepotism."

As for the Malay in SAF problem, he was the Minister responding to that parliamentary query but was not the Defence Minister directing that policy. Rightly, he amended what was deemed wrong.

As I also said, this article maybe "pro-LHL" or unbalanced but it is based on my contacts working with him and other sources (one of which is stated on top, the rest cannot be reproduced due to restrictions). From my insignificant view, there are too many critics against LHL and too few to balance the argument. So this article is also a feeble attempt to balance some of the critics.

The source for the PM selection process is via PETIR, a PAP publication that is available via the National Library.

From a political science viewpoint, some may say too much power is concentrated on the top while others (some acadamics) say that it is the most efficient form of government (see works but Pelizzo, R., and Babados, S.,) & public adminstration. In simpler words, more representative government (eg, in Holland or Italy where you have more than 6 different parties in parliament) there is less efficient (and productivity) by the government, resulting in the government being frequently disposed in less than 400 days. The balance has to be struck between representative and power concentration. The degree of need works differently for different countries. Perhaps, our present style suits Singapore's culture, form and society. Egalitarianism may not be the way to go for a "small red dot" like us. Then again, totalitarian rule should never be tolerated even under the rule of a sage.

Feel free to voice you comments and opinions, afterall we are in a borderless world called cyberspace (until Australia and maybe MICA put a new definition to that... :P). Thanks for all the past comments and reading the previous and extremely long articles.

Cheers!
Thrasy (by the way, if you are interested in why I used this nick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrasymachus)