I don’t object to the wordings but it is totally unacceptable for the Singapore Island to be covered by the flag of other nations.
It insinuates that Philippines has invaded and conquered Singapore. Why are these Filipinos so insensitive diplomatically?
Source: Goh Meng Seng and Sin Rak Sin Party
I am utterly disappointed by the Minister for Home Affairs (who is also the Minister of Law, which I always feel is totally inappropriate as it may constitute a conflict of interests but this article is not about this) Mr. Shanmugam’s statement made in parliament with regards to the case of Benjamin Lim Jun Hui.
Instead of addressing the many valid pertinent concerns raised by the public, on and off-line, he has put up a barrage of fire attacks at The Online Citizen (TOC) and the President of Law Society, Mr. Thio Shen Yi with totally irrelevant petty details of bickering.
Whether there were 4 or 5 policemen went to the school, wearing police uniforms or plain clothes are really irrelevant to the pertinent questions asked by TOC, Mr Thio and the public at large.
It is even more ridiculous for the Minister to cast doubts on TOC’s intent by raising the fact that it has reported that the Police refused to comment on the matter when approached!
For whatever reasons the police refused to comment (such as those reasons presented by the Minister himself), it should just say so when TOC asked them! A good and competent Public Relations Officer from the Police would have made simple comment like “We cannot comment on this case as internal investigation is still ongoing.” or “We cannot comment on this case as there will be Coroner Inquiry, please wait for the result of Coroner Inquiry”…etc.
The total ignore or silence from the Police is smacked of either arrogance or complete incompetency in Public Relations communication.
The Police has its own Pubic Relations officers. If the Police refused to answer to TOC’s inquiries, then the Minister cannot blame the TOC for reporting so (the truth that the police refused to comment) and the public will have their own discretion to form their own opinion.
So my dear Minister, it is the FAILURE of Police Public Relations officers in responding to the matter in timely manner that created public perception, not TOC. TOC merely reported the NO RESPONSE from the police!
It is of course the prerogative of the Police in keeping silence but it must also understand that keeping quiet will have its consequences and implications.
By the way, the Main stream media also reported 5 officers went to the school! Please lah! Why not fire at the Main stream media as well?
As for the President of Law Society, the point made was the necessity of the police making the arrest at the school! So, don’t try to divert from this pertinent question by going into the irrelevant bickering. Do you think it is appropriate or necessary for the police to send 4 or 5 police officers to the school to make the arrest?
There are more important questions raised by the public and I expect the Minister to address them, instead of using diversion tactic to dodge from these questions and public anger:
1) Does the Minister think it is RIGHT (never mind if it is legal or not) for policemen to go to school to arrest students who are just suspects of crimes?
2) Does the Minster think it is RIGHT (never mind if it is legal or not) for the police to interrogate minors without the presence of guardian or legal representative? In fact, is it right for police to deny legal representation or aid to suspects, regardless of age, during interrogation?
These are the two important issues raised by the President of Law Society and they are valid questions to be addressed fully. These questions raised does NOT constitute sub judice but it is of GREAT PUBLIC INTERESTS.
I hope the Minister could address these real issues instead of wasting time trying to divert attention to inconsequential minor details and bickering.
Oh, by the way, the poor boy was just investigated but NO OFFICIAL JUDGMENT has been made about him just yet. I do not understand why the Minister would insinuate him as “guilty” in parliament just because, according to the police interrogation, he “confessed” to the crime. His confession could be contested in court if there was really a court case but unfortunately, he won’t have that trial now. So I would urge the Minister not to put judgment on the poor dead boy in parliament even though he is also the Minister of Law, but he is not the judge nor the case has been heard.
Goh Meng Seng
Source: People’s Power Party – PPP
When I was traveling to visit a friend during the Chinese New Year period, someone called out to me, “Are you Goh Meng Seng?” I returned my greetings and thought that this was just another the usual meeting with a Singapore supporter.
But I was proven wrong. This meeting with Michael, proved to be different from others. At the very least, we spent about 20 to 30 minutes chatting on the sidewalk of the busy MRT station.
Michael told me he is an opposition supporter despite the fact that he is a civil servant. The sad thing is that he said he is preparing to migrate out of Singapore to Japan. This is not the first time I met a supporter who will tell me that they are migrating out of Singapore, to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, US etc. The last one I met before Michael was Jack at Cantonment Police Station when he was getting his certificate of good conduct from the police so to facilitate his migration!
Naturally, I asked Michael why would he and his family want to migrate to Japan? If all supporters like him were to migrate out, then who do we have left behind to give opposition their continuous support?
Michael explained that he is doing all these for his children. He has been to Japan and was impressed by their education system. They teach “VALUES” to their students, not just subjects or “living skills” like how to deal with internet and the New Media.
I was stunned by his words. I thought there are no other Singaporeans like me who would talk about “VALUES” or the lack of it in our education system. In fact, from top down, Political Leaders to civil servants and commoners, wrong values were transmitted in various subliminal messaging through the political system and pop culture. One of the reasons why I decided to step into opposition politics was due to my rejection of PAP’s vote buying exercise via using ASSET ENHANCEMENT HDB UPGRADING carrots. It is basically telling Singaporeans that your votes and soul could be sold or bought by such pork barrel politicking. I did not want my children to live under such system which cultivate such BAD VALUES. Thus, I decided that either I fight PAP to change this system or I shall resign myself to making more money and prepare myself to leave this place; for the sake of my future generations.
In fact, I have decided to let my daughter to study in Hong Kong instead of Singapore, purely because of my rejection of PAP’s indoctrination of BAD values through the education system. The massive brain washing via distorted history books and slanted National Education which mixed PAP’s propaganda into various messaging.
I do not see the day I could successfully eradicate the PAP’s system of self interests and self preservation. But at least, I tried and am still trying.
And Michael is right, our education system has stopped cultivating our shared common morals and good values with regards to Morals, Equality, Fairness, Humanity, Social Justice, Social Responsibility and Democracy. Even our National Pledge was treated just as an empty promises of the State and ruling party everyday; rightfully so because PAP has openly declared that this National Pledge is nothing and has no value at all but just a Highfalutin ideals which we should just ignore.
Our education system is more interested in Elitism, to filter out the “bright” Scholars with high IQ, never mind if he or she has any morals or core values to begin with, so that PAP could just put them into civil service and eventually into their party to serve their political monopoly.
Michael told me that many civil servants, high ranking civil servants, are looking into migration out of this place we call Singapore. I was surprised because no matter what, civil servants, especially those high ranking ones, were the ones who helped created the current system! Why are they migrating out of their own creation?
They are just here to work and meet their KPIs which may or may not give the best results that the society needs but definitely serve their own promotions and bonuses. They saw the flaws of the system in many instances but the Top down management would just discourage any dissidence towards the Elite Scholars. Thus, when their time is up, they would just leave Singapore, for the sake of their children.
Michael also told me that the stifling academic environment will not provide the kind of First World education that Singaporeans deserved. He said that he has known various foreign lecturers employed by the local universities had their contracts or tenure shorten or discontinued just because they have made unflattering remarks on local politics, PAP and its policies. The lack of academic freedom would compromise the standards of learning dependent on critical thinking.
Our education system basically discourages critical thinking while promotes conformity or group thinking. This is why Michael felt very pessimistic about the future of his children if they were to remain here in Singapore.
My little conversation with Michael has to end as I was late for my visit. But this little conversation with Michael sets me thinking on the future of Singapore.
Education is the foundation of every Nation and it involves not merely economic importance but also the cultivation of our Nation’s Soul. This Soul will determine how our society will look like, how our National Identity will be forged or disintegrate. Any political system’s effectiveness will depend on this cultivation of the Nation’s Soul, its cultural and social consensus based on the values it holds. But somehow, our Good Core Values are serious lacking while bad influences like political propaganda have been on the rise.
Without the Freedom to Think with strong cultivation of Core Values, there will only be Mind Slaves left in the country.
Goh Meng Seng
Source: People’s Power Party – PPP
Response to PAP’s change of political rules
The Prime Minister has announced a few changes to our political system, basically centered around NCMP scheme, down sizing GRC, increasing number of SMCs and rules regarding the Elected Presidency.
People’s Power Party is founded on the principles of political reform based on Separation (and Independence) of Five Powers, namely Legislative, Executive, Judiciary, Selection/appointment and Impeachment Powers.
The Elected Presidency
One important advocacy of our founding beliefs is to entrench and enhance the Elected Presidency so much so that, certain powers or government institutions should fall under the charge of the Presidential Office. We are advocating the institutions of Impeachment powers, Selection/appointment powers to come under the purview of the Elected Presidency. Namely, the Elected President should take charge of the following institutions and functions:
1) CPIB
2) Election Department
3) Public Service Commission (PSC)
4) Appointment of judges
5) Ombudsman Commission
6) Equal Opportunity Commission
7) Appointment of key office holders in Temasek Holdings and GIC
On top of that, the President should have the veto powers to block any legislation which he deems detrimental to the nation’s interests. Such veto can only be overturned by subsequent two-third approval of parliamentary votes.
Thus, the reform for the Elected Presidency could be more extensive than what the Prime Minister has proposed.
Although we welcome the proposal of putting the racial balance into consideration for the Elected Presidency, but we object to the proposed increase of power given to the Presidential Advisory Council. The appointment of the members of this Council should not be decided by the ruling party or Cabinet. It should be the sole prerogative of the Elected President to appoint his own Council. Furthermore, the Elected President is elected and empowered by Singaporeans and he should have the full power to make decisions in the interests of the Nation He should be the one who will answer to the Singaporeans who voted him, not the Advisory Council. Thus, the Advisory Council cannot overshadow the powers of the Elected Presidency.
GRC, NCMP and Proportional Representation.
We welcome the announcement of downsizing the GRC. We feel that the correct size for the GRC system should be 3 to 4 seats per GRC.
However, we do not see the necessity of having any SMC nor NCMP if our proposal of Proportional Representation is implemented.
No matter how PAP tries to package it, NCMP has little legitimacy under the current setting. They will always be considered as second class members of parliament or just simply “backdoor MPs”.
The advantages of Proportional Representation system coupled with the full GRC system will truly give Singapore’s Parliament Plural Voices while prevent the loss of Ministerial caliber members of any political party which would become the ruling party or part of a ruling coalition.
Proportional Representation system guarantees intense contest and competition of ideas and ideals whereby multi-corner fights would not be frown upon or “avoided”. It will enhance political competition and consensus building based on plural voice and representation in parliament.
The current system has tremendous flaws. Beside discouraging healthy competition and contests, it also post a danger of instability. If the ruling party lost a GRC, it may risk losing one or two of its good Ministers altogether. This will not provide the kind of political stability and continuity which we need.
The Proportional Representation system also mitigates the problem of the Tyranny of Majority Rule. It would allow individuals or groups with specific focus to contest and chance of getting into parliament to contribute to the plurality of debates. Example, if a group of Nature lovers or Green activists were to be elected into parliament, they will provide a diversity in the debates in various development plans, providing the Green Views instead of subjecting our Nation and future generations to the ills of a monolithic discourse pushed by the ruling party.
Thus, we urge the ruling party to reconsider their plans to change the political landscape to take a serious long term view on the Nation’s political stability by adopting a more comprehensive and bold stance of political reform, which is beyond party politics, to ensure that our Nation adopts the best democratic system based on the fundamentals of Separation of 5 Powers.
Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
People’s Power Party
Source: Goh Meng Seng
From Goh Meng Seng
I cannot help but wonder why people cannot see through the plain attempt of some political leaders of shifting away blame when they come up with some totally illogical and even contradicting statements.
Half truth is thrown up to mask their flaw argument.
For example, people say opposition suffered a bad swing because of small parties and we contested all seats. This is because people fear PAP losing power.
One must first look at simple facts of comparison. In 2011, all but 6 seats were contested. You mean to say that PAP won’t face the same risk of losing power in 2011 if we simply look at the total number of seats contested?
There must be something more to make voters to fear PAP losing power. There are combined factors:
1. The show of an over confident of WP and SDP winning. This can only be effected when majority of media focus has been put on them, showing the huge crowd size of their rallies and suggestive reporting of potential GREAT victory. This also means that other small parties did not hog the news space and didn’t project any negativity to voters as a whole.
2. However, the number seats of WP and SDP added up will not Cross the 50% mark. It would be irrational for voters to conclude that PAP will lose power if Both WP and SDP win all the seats they contested. Thus, it also means that in voters’ mind, other smaller parties may also win seats! If that was so, it must be the case that voters also think smaller parties have good credible candidates who could potentially win seats as well .
Now, how can people start to say that other smaller parties do not have credible candidates if that was the case?
Thus, please don’t put blame on other smaller parties. Opposition as a whole has put up a TOO STRONG showing which Ironically backfired. It was too strong overall to make people frighten of the unthinkable, PAP LOSING POWER.
Contrary to those nay sayers, opposition wasn’t weak at all and it was Precisely due to this perceived strength, voters begin to worry about PAP losing power. Period.
Source: People’s Power Party – PPP