国民团结党：别遗弃任何人 国民团结党对人民行动党只对现有的战备军人表彰而对以往对我国国防和稳定做出贡献的老兵置之不理感到震惊。行动党可以轻易地说这钱不太重要。但行动党并不了解如此刻意的把老兵之置于这奖励表彰制度之外已经伤了他们的感情，而这并是那$9000的奖励可弥补的伤害。当总理宣布会对每一位战备军人付与$9000以表彰他们为国家的贡献时，很多新加坡人都为执政党能正视人们对国家的牺牲感到非常高兴。就算我们当中有一些会得到比较少的表扬金，我们也可理解这是政府对我们象征式的奖励。然而，我们万万没想到行动党会把两三代的老兵给完全忽略掉！这批四十岁以上的男性公民肯定会对如此对待感到气愤。这是不是意味着当人们因老了而再也没有“利用价值”时，这国家就会遗弃他们，对他们以往的贡献完全置之不理吗？这也暴露了行动党那种以实用主义治国的冷酷无情。不要遗弃任何人。这是军官训练营所提倡的精神，也是国民团结党所坚持的。行动党也附和这口号，但它并没真正履行它自己所提倡的信仰。国民团结党秘书长吴明盛 NSP: Leave No Man Behind Like many Singaporeans, NSP is shocked to learn that the PAP is only giving due recognition to present NSmen while ignoring those past NSmen who have contributed to the safety and stability of this country. It is easy for the ruling party to say that it is not just about the money. However, the exclusion of those NSmen in Mindef Reserve from such rewarding system has hurt their feelings more than the mere $9000 in question. When the Prime Minister mentioned about this hand out of $9000 to NSmen, many Singaporeans are happy and glad that the PAP has not forgotten of the sacrifices and contributions that Singaporeans have made towards this country. Even though some of us may not get the full amount eventually, but at least it is a token of appreciation by the government that matters. However, we do not expect the PAP to miss out a whole two or three generations of older male Singaporeans who have completed their full cycle of National Service. This leaves a bitter taste in them and it seems to indicate that once they have passed their “useful” time to the Nation, the PAP will just abandon them aside. Such move betrays the cold, clinical pragmatism of PAP rule. It also makes us wonder whether PAP will abandon all of us when we become old and incapable to contribute to the country in time to come!Leave no man behind. This is what NSP believes in as what the Officer Cadet Course would teach all leaders of SAF. This is also the mantra of PAP but it just doesn’t really practise what it preaches. Goh Meng Seng Secretary GeneralNational Solidarity Party NSP: Response to PM Lee's Nation Day Rally Speech We are glad to hear the Prime Minister addressing the various key problems that we have been raising for the past one year in his National Day Rally speech.However, at closer examination, we have the following key points to make:$60 billion for MRT infrastructure over 10 years1. Where would the government get the funding of $60B from? 2. Will the PAP government increase the GST to 10% or raise other taxes to get additional funding? Will the public transport fares increase to finance this expenditure? 3. Will the PAP government keep to the promised time frame of 10 years? The PAP government has delayed various important infrastructure projects, like the building of hospitals as well as the Downtown line, which have resulted in the increased cost of construction. Will the PAP government promise to keep to the budget of $60B instead of allowing it to balloon out of control, just like what happened to the YOG budget?Measures to keep Housing Affordable1. We are very confused by the various contradictory signals that the PAP ministers have sent within these few months:a. Late last year, Minister Mah Bow Tan claimed that housing was still affordable, and that the influx of immigrants was not a main factor causing the rise in resale prices. But now the Prime Minister has acknowledged that the influx of new immigrants has contributed to the rise in resale prices.b. When Minister Mah put up the first few measures in March 2010 to curb rising resale prices, some Singaporeans questioned the inadequacy of such measures. Minister Mah defended his ministry’s decision and said no other measures would be necessary. But just 5 months down the road, Minister Mah has introduced more drastic measures to curb property prices. c. In March 2010, Minister Mah claimed that the supply of flats was more than sufficient to meet any surge in demand. However it seems that his ministry must now go into overdrive to ramp up the supply of BTO flats. d. In March 2010, Minister Mah raised the minimum occupation period for resale flat owners who take bank loans from 1 year to 3 years. Barely a few months later, the ministry is now further pushing it up to 5 years. It seems that HDB is unable to provide any policy stability at all. e. On 26 June 2010, MM Lee said there probably isn’t any property bubble. But now, Minister Mah admits that a property bubble is in the making. 2. In December 2009, after admitting to being “caught off guard”, Minister Mah reassured us of the ministry’s ability to keep this problem of “unexpected” rise in property prices in check. Yet the contradictions as noted above clearly signal that his ministry continues to lose sight of the severity of the problem. 3. The latest drastic measures have caused unwarranted shocks to the whole system. Those who have based their purchases of HDB flats or private properties on the past policies will face great financial losses. The frequent policy changes will erode investor’s confidence in the government’s competency in dealing with such problems. 4. As long as there isn’t any fundamental change in the pricing mechanism of new HDB flats and the increasing demand of new migrants (Permanent Residents) is not effectively met by other means, we do not see how prices for both new and resale HDB flats can become affordable. NSP reiterates our stand that new HDB flats should be sold at cost price to citizens. HDB should also consider selling new flats to PR at market price so to ease the demand due to unusual increase in PR population. Immigration Policy1. We do not think that the Prime Minister understands the real problems caused by the huge influx of foreign labour on the ground. 2. PM Lee has raised the example of coffeeshop owners unable to find Singaporeans who are willing to work until 12a.m. and thus they need to employ foreign workers. But the truth is, to ask workers to work 14 hours or more in a day is an act of exploitation. The labour law should be applied equally on both local and foreign workers. We cannot allow employers to exploit foreign workers just because Singapore workers are unwilling to be exploited. 3. We also notice that there are firms putting up recruitment advertisement which discriminate against either Singapore citizens or races. The liberal FT policy that the PAP government has adopted is partly to be blamed for this discrimination of local Singapore citizens by businesses. This practice has to be stopped and NSP urges the government to set up Commission of Equal Opportunity and setting laws to outlaw discriminatory employment practices.4. PM Lee has ignored the severity of the depression of wages of both middle and lower income earners due to the influx of foreign labour. There is no mention of any concrete plans to deal with this problem.5. PM Lee may think that foreign labour will help to create jobs for Singaporeans but the reverse is also true. Many Singaporeans’ jobs have been displaced by foreign labour. The problem is so severe that engineers and managers are now becoming taxi drivers. We have invested lots of money in the education of our citizens but such displacement of jobs of foreign labour has effectively made our investment wasted. Here again, there is no mention of any concrete plans to deal with this problem by PM Lee. 6. Raising workers’ levy alone will not help much in preventing engineers and professionals being displaced by foreign labour. Raising workers’ levy will not prevent exploitation of foreign workers nor save jobs for citizens. 7. Last but not least, this liberal immigration policy has caused a serious problem of income disparity within our society. Wages of both middle and lower income earners have been depressed while some have basically lost their jobs and face underemployment or even unemployment. The widening of income gap and the diminishing of middle class are great concerns to social stability but the Prime Minister has not addressed it either.ConclusionAlthough we feel that the Prime Minister has put up a very good pre-election National Day Rally speech but we still find that the solutions that his government has provided are generally inadequate. We must bear in mind that all the problems and issues addressed by the Prime Minister are mostly the result of oversight by the various ministries under the charge of the respective ministers. All these problems are not new and have been raised by many people including NSP over the year. These problems could be long anticipated as it is the direct result of PAP government’s deliberate policy of opening the floodgates for foreign workers and migrants to come to Singapore. These “caught off guard” ministers should be responsible and made accountable for their deficiencies. We also note that the Prime Minister did not resorted to giving out goodies or red packets to citizens as a populist tactic to win support. We would be impressed if PAP decides to abandon its past undesirable election tactic and choose to contest the elections based on its policy views, ideas and plans instead. We would be even more impressed if PAP could put up the boundary report way before the impending general elections. It will open up a new era of healthy political competition and engagement for Singapore. Goh Meng SengSecretary GeneralNational Solidarity Party Avoidance of Income Disparity... Some reporter ask me what I would like to hear from PM Lee's speech and whether those key problems of Housing, Public Transport, Healthcare, floods...etc. Of course, whether PM will give out goodies.My take is this, the problems of Housing, Public Transport, Healthcare and floods are not simple issues that could be resolved within a short period of time. The fact is, mistakes and oversights have been made by various ministries with regard to the explosive growth in population due to PAP's own FT policy. Whatever he says will not take effect immediately and solve the problems in a short period of time. Thus, most probably he will avoid them.PAP is just too used to giving out goodies prior to GE since GCT time. Such "populist vote buying exercise" has been entrenched. I would be pleasantly surprised if LHL decided to go into GE without giving out goodies. That would mean Singapore politics will take a turn for a better change in which political contests are based on contest on ideas and strength, instead of pork barrel and vote buying politics. But I guess even if the LHL wanted that way, his party colleagues would not agree. They are just too used to such pork barrel and vote buying politics that they will pressure their leadership to continue doing it. Else, they will feel insecurity and not confident of holding their grounds.I would want the PM to address the vanishing middle class which result in the worsening of income disparity. When PAP MPs took the signs of engineers turning into taxi driver as a consolation, this is where the problem will explode. Retail stores targeting the middle class have suffered and withdrawn in size. This is a BAD SIGN. We will end up with two extreme polar income earners which will create social tension in the mid and long term. This situation is worsen by the influx of foreign labor which displace the middle class workers or depressing their wages.These are important issues that could not ignore. But it seems that PAP's economic discourse has always avoid this important issue altogether.Any students of economics who study Capitalist by Karl Marx would know that such income disparity will eventually result in class struggle and instability. I just hope that our Nation would face this severe problem of income disparity with an open mind and try to resolve it before it is too late.Goh Meng Seng 转载：新加坡今夜无人做梦？ 淡马锡评论作者：新加坡文献馆庚寅年农历七月初某夜，一群生话在虚无缥缈之境的新加坡白羽大仙，在各自的空中楼阁就新加坡之梦喃喃自语。一个说：新加坡是个没有梦想的社会，因为新加坡迅速发展，也变化得快，国人忙于自我鞭策，所以没有追梦的心思。一个说：新加坡人为了追求物质而产生许多现实顾虑，所以敢于追梦的人不多。一个说：一次行差踏错会毁了一生的大半积蓄，所以做个好梦只是一种奢望。一个说：天有不测风云，国家应该爱钱，因为钱可以解决问题。把时间全放在追钱，所以无暇追梦。一个说：为五斗米折腰的人，钱仅够花用，没有储蓄自然也没有追梦的的奢侈。一个说：平日无所事事的富二代，爱怎么挥霍就怎么挥霍，有了这样的梦幻生活又何需织梦？一个说：凡夫俗子生活在金钱矛盾之间，追梦只是另一个梦想罢了，所以斯人无梦。这些神仙教诲是说：新加坡凡人应该脚踏实地，循规蹈矩的工作，奇思妙想有违务实原则，会危害社会安宁，不利国家经济发展。时值新加坡45国庆之际，有人说，有了李光耀于是就有了新加坡；这是典型的新加坡痴人说梦。新加坡人的新加坡历史现实是，有了华惹之梦，有了华校学生之梦，以及有了华印职工之梦所共同滋生的反殖民运动，才历经磨难塑造了一个独立的新加坡。在这段反殖历史过程中许许多多各个民族的爱国人士，为了追求独立的理想而卖命流血的付出了沉重个人代价，这其中李光耀并非先行者，亦不是付出牺牲代价的受难者，但却是最终的利益收割者。史料上，李光耀的反殖反英事迹是相对的有限。当年的时代精神就是新加坡人争取独立之梦。如果当年的新加坡年青人没有那种强烈筑梦的意愿与能耐，或许，到了今天新加坡还是米字旗飘扬，国人高歌天佑女皇。回顾历史，培植与巩固新加坡两大经济支柱之一的本土经济体系，就是得益于南洋先驱的开荒之梦。清代末叶的鸦片战争之后，天灾人祸使到中国南方的农村经济破产，人民被迫过蕃谋生，离乡背井的先辈就是靠自力更生白手起家。无可置疑的，南洋华社的政治与经济资本就是来自这群先驱的创业致富之梦。追根究底，新加坡今天的种种成就是来自早年南洋先驱的愚公移山之梦，以及二战后，新加坡年青人的反殖民运动之梦的共同成果。饮水思源，这就是新加坡建国的根本之源。显然的，追梦是成就新加坡的不可或缺的人文精神元素。那么，何以在50年李光耀政权之后却会变成‘新加坡是个没有梦想的社会’？首先，美国梦之所以历久长青是因为美国文化核心价值观的尊重人权和民主精神，都始终受到严峻的宪法保护。在三权分立的政治体制内，个人可以海阔天空去追求与实践自已的梦想。但是，新加坡在一党专政下，宪法保障有名无实因为法规可以随时任意的修订，甚至于取消。在政权领导政府的格局下，依法执法可以轻易变质为以法凌人。自由环境激励自由思维，当社会丢失了思维空间，个人也就丢失了梦想空间。其次，美国梦扎根于西方文明的以人为本的精神。这种人文精神突破了神权与封建的政治约束。人于是有了满足欲望的梦想，经济活动就是源于人的欲望无穷。在小政府格局下，个人享有相对大的经济自由，这个流动性极大的社会空间允许个人凭着自已的天赋和勤奋去主动的力争上游。然而，按李光耀政治思维，人的劳动力只是一个生产因素，所以人只不过是一个经济数据。当人民沦为国家经济生产机器的齿轮之后，个人只能被动的依附着机器转动。在新加坡的大环境里，个人主动性是不受到鼓励的，甚至于会受到严峻惩罚，因为主动性会破坏政府制定的社会规律，就象在机器里不听使唤，不依规律运作的齿轮是要被替换掉的。当新加坡人被剥夺了生命的主动性，也就丧失了自我思考的能力，没有了思想，又何来会有欲望去编织新加坡梦？其三，美国梦除了追求金钱财富的物质文化之外，也追求科学，知识和艺木等精神文化上的超越。前不久，一名官二代说：务实新加坡人的生活目标是注重一份好工作，追求高素质的医疗和教育，以及满足于干净和安全的生话环境。在国庆晚宴上一名高官亦指出，新加坡人的人生目标应该是：好事业，舒适生话，多生育，关怀与慈善。新加坡统治阶级所弘扬的是以物质生活为主要考量的狭隘人生观。这种思维下的新加坡只会走向一个缺乏精神文明的物质社会：追求舒适生话是否就是过着神戶牛式的生活？神戶牛是生活在一个很干净，安全，舒适，关怀与医疗照料周到，以及有古典音乐为伴的优质生活环境里。狭隘的人生观带来没有实质内涵的社会行为。国庆期间有人劳师动众并浪费宝贵资源去创造可乐喷泉的世界记录。同样是虚荣心作祟，新加坡以外包伎俩去争取竞技场上的荣誉。但是，比赛的真实意义並非是为了锦标，而是鼓励个人超越自我的体能与精神界线。想当然儿，一个有精神文明的高雅社会是不会有这种沽名钓誉的不诚实社会行为。当一个政府只剩下唯有用钱去解决问题的途径，那么，这一个政府必然是已经处在黔馿技穷的困境。这种了无生机的一潭死水又如何滋生，并且激励人民去追求科学，知识和艺术等精神文化上的超越？不是吗，吹皱的一池春水才能触动心弦，撩人遐思，令人想入非非？新加坡从一个有追梦意识的先驱精神社会，演化到如今的一个没有梦想的社会。这种社会文明往后倒退发展的情况确实是一个非常可悲的景象。社会文明退化的问题事关重大；这并非是一个人的面子，或者是一个政党的荣誉，而是一个国家的未来前程。当先驱开荒的竞争精神被独裁霸权的垄断精神取代，当爱国精神被爱銭精神取代，新加坡不就己经失去了两个十分宝贵的建国人文元素？当银行业失去了谨慎与诚实的人文元素之后，霸林就是毁在爱銭的无能之手。雷曼亦是毁于爱銭的欺骗之手。危言耸听？这乃是前车之鉴。当领导的唯利是图蔚然成为上行下效的不良风气，一个栋梁不正的构筑必然是要坍塌的。还会有人关心这个病态的新加坡社会吗？新加坡的聪明人是制度下的既得利益者，他们已经生活在纸醉金迷的梦幻世界里，宛如庄周梦蝶，他们已经无法分辩真实与虚幻，再也体会不到外边的世界是什么模 样；他们对新加坡社会的病态无知无觉。对这群制度的塑造与执行者而言，新加坡社会是完美无瑕的，新加坡制度是值得他人借鉴。新加坡的奴才和他们的主子同流合污，奴性使然，他们丧失了体恤与同情弱者的慈悲之心。奴才对社会的病态未必是无知无觉，可惜的是已经麻木不仁；入鲍鱼之肆，久而不闻其臭。对这群制度的守护者而言，新加坡社会虽然未必尽善尽美，但是，新加坡制度还是值得他人借鉴。新加坡的傻子是制度的反对者与制度的受害者。他们努力的，即便受尽了惩罚的苦楚，还是坚毅的要挖掘制度的墙脚，要在制度的墙上开天窗，让外边的艳阳天驱散阴霾，让外边的清新空气冲刷乌烟瘴气。在 新加坡社会的这三种人群里，聪明人已经在春梦里醉生梦死，再也无需追梦寻梦。奴才干了为虎作伥的勾当，夜晚做的都是恶梦，也就不会有心思去追梦。或许，在 新加坡只有儍子才会去追梦导梦。他们憧憬新加坡的明天会更美好，人人都可以自由自在的表达自已的信念，凭着本身的才华去追逐与实践自已的美梦，让梦想成 真。新加坡今夜无人入梦？您呢？您有梦吗？ YOG Spending in perspective... PAP government is spending $387,000,000 for YOG which Singaporeans have shown very little interest. They even need to FORCED students to volunteer in the event while giving them TERRIBLE FOOD!On the other hand, there are many problems which the PAP is very reluctant to spend money to solve. The recent flooding needs to be solved but at an UNKNOWN cost which the PM said would be TOO HIGH. ON top of that, PAP government has refused to provide to many less privileged Singaporeans. They have refused 50% of applicants for public assistance. This $387million was spent to host 5000 athletes and officials for YOG. This means on average, S$77400 was spent for each of the 5000 guests. This could have lasted 5000 citizens who are on public assistance of $360 for almost 18years! It is time for us to re-examine the priorities of the PAP government. Why would they be willing to spend hundreds of millions on an event which very few Singaporeans are interested in while become a miser unwilling to spend in improving or helping the lives of Singaporeans at large? NSP National Day Message 2010 I used to write special posting for each National Day on my blog every year (well almost). Most of the time, the theme is about National Identity. For personal "ranting" during National Day is quite straight forward. But writing a National Day message for my political party is totally another cup of tea altogether. I have been helping my party to do the recording of our National Day Message in three languages since last year. This year, I have to do it for myself as well as my friend, Syafarin who is delivering the Malay version. Although this message is written for my party, National Solidarity Party, but it fully reflects my sentimental at this moment on what this Nation needs to change. The truth is, I have decided to join opposition politics 9 years ago basically because of my belief that I have to change the whole political system of Singapore, for the sake of my future generations. So here it is:EnglishIt has been a frustrating year for many Singaporeans. Although our GDP has grown significantly for the past quarters but the decline in the retail sector speaks volume of the kind of growth we are getting. Our purchasing power is either stagnant or unable to catch up with the inflation caused by various factors. Any GDP growth that doesn’t benefit Singaporeans in terms of higher purchasing power and quality of life is meaningless. It is at best just another justification for the ministers to increase their own pay. On the other hand, we have to ask ourselves while our Nation achieves almost 20% growth in GDP for the last quarter but have our income achieve even half of that growth?Besides, the cost of having such high GDP growth is tremendous. We are just increasing more and more foreign labour to achieve growth. This may result in suppressed wages for Singaporeans and at the same time, a more crowded place for everyone else. According to our study and research, the PAP government has consciously embarked on a very aggressive foreign workers policy to help boost the economy since 2006. However, many ministers, including the Ministers for Transport, Health and National Development are basically “Caught off Guard” by such explosive population growth.Our public transport system could no longer cope with the excessive increase of population over such short period of time. The growth in train and bus services is lagging far behind the growth of population over the years. This results in over crowded MRT trains and buses during peak hours. On top of that, the fares have increased for many of us since July, for as much as 7% or more! Our HDB flat prices are shooting off the roof. HDB failed to build enough flats to cope with the population growth. The need of paying a 30 years mortgage for a simple HDB flat is definitely not a sign of affordability.Hospital care is the most important matter of life and death. However hospital beds are in great shortage as the building of the new hospital is delayed for nearly a decade. It seems that the Ministry of Health does not plan ahead. The problem could be so acute that sometimes patients have to be left lying along the corridors of the wards! But yet, our Prime Minister has just declared that we need another 100 thousand more foreign workers! Are we supposed to endure a further deterioration of these problems?The recent floods that we have are creating doubts on the competency of the highly paid PAP government. We do not want to hear excuses from “once in 50 years”, “it is impossible to be flood free” to “it is an act of God”. When we are paying the world’s highest pay to the ministers, we expect such fundamental problems to be solved. To suffer 3 or 4 floods within a couple of months is totally unacceptable to a small island that prides itself as a modern world-class city state. All these happenings come under the charge of the world’s most expensive ministers in Singapore. We need accountability but there is none. We need proper checks and balances but there is little. Singapore needs to progress both economically as well as politically in a balanced way. We should not just aim for some huge GDP growth at all cost. We should also build a political system whereby accountability is effectively in place.It is time for us, my fellow Singaporeans, to reflect upon all these happenings during this National Day. We have to ask ourselves what kinds of living environment and quality of life we want for our children. High GDP growth no longer guarantees better quality of life but in contrary, lower our overall standard of living. We also have to ask ourselves whether we want our children to inherit a political system that is based on total dominance of power by a single ruling party, which will use every means to fix its opponents and those who hold alternative views. Do we want our children to inherit a government which only demands the highest pay in the world but shy away from accountability and responsibility?We need a change to this system and we need courage to change it. Wishing you a Happy National Day.Chinese今年是一个令很多新加坡人感到沮丧的年头。虽然我们的国内生产总值在过去几季都有显著的增长，但从零售业的衰退看来，却又完全是另一回事了。这显示我们的购买力并没有随着经济好转而增强，根本追不上通货膨胀的步伐。如果ＧＤＰ的增长没能使新加坡人受惠，没能提升我们的购买力和生活素质，那也是完全毫无意义的。这也许只能为再次提高部长们的薪金制造一个漂亮的借口。另一方面，我们要扪心自问，虽然国家的ＧＤＰ在上一季取得了约２０％增长，但我们的薪金是否有相应的提高呢？此外，要取得如此高的ＧＤＰ增长，我们所需要付出的代价是膨大的。为了促进成长，我们输入越来越多的外劳。但这会造成新加坡人的工资被压低。于此同时，我们的生活空间也因此就越来越拥挤了。根据我们的调查和研究，行动党政府从２００６年起，就刻意进行一个野心勃勃的引进外劳的计划。然而，有多位部长，包括交通、卫生和国家发展部长等，基本上却都对如此急速的爆炸性人口增长显得“措手不及”。我们的交通系统，已没能应付在短时间内过度激增的人口。这些年以来，地铁和巴士服务已远远落后于人口的增长。这也造成地铁和巴士在繁忙时间内变得非常拥挤。然而，车资的提高却对很多人造成不满。增加的幅度可高达７％，或甚至更高。我们的组屋售价有如冲天炮。建屋发展局在过去几年里，所提供的新组屋根本无法满足急速人口增长的需求。如果一间普通组屋，都须用３０年的时间才能还清房贷，那么，很明显的，这根本就不再是个“负担得起”的房屋政策。医疗设施对国人的生和死是至关重要的。但是建新医院的计划已被拖延长达１０年之久。这导致我们的医院的床位严重的不足。从这也可以看出卫生部并没有依据人口增长而实施相应的措施来应付医院床位需求的激增。情况有时可以严重到，病人必须被滞留在病房外的走廊!然而，我们的总理却宣布我们还需要多１０万个外劳！我们还能容忍这些问题继续恶化吗？最近发生的水灾，使我们质疑这超高薪的行动党政府的治国能力。我们不想再听到以“５０年一遇”、“想要完全没有水灾是不可能的”或“这是天意”等借口来推卸责任的。当我们付出全世界最高的薪金给我们的部长们时，我们便有权要求他们解决这些基本的问题。我们引以为荣的现代化、世界级小岛，竟然在短短两个月内蒙受了３至４次水患。这是我们完全无法接受的。所有的这一些事都发生在由世界最昂贵的行动党政府管理之下的新加坡。我们需要问责，但我们却没能做到；我们需要适当的制衡，但我们拥有的却很少。新加坡必要在经济和政治双领域下，取得平衡的发展。我们不应只盲目追求高经济增长，而不惜付出高昂的代价。同胞们，国庆之际，正是我们反思时候。我们应自问，我们要为新加坡创造怎样的生活环境和生活素质？高经济增长，再也不能保证我们能拥有更好的生活素质；相反的，它却会降低我们的生活水准。我们也要自问，我们是否要我们的孩子们继承由一党独大一党垄断的专制政治体系吗？继承一个只要求高薪但没有担当和问责的政府吗？我们需要改变这体系。我们更需要勇气来改变它。祝 国庆快乐！MalayTahun ini merupakan tahun yang menghampakan ramai rakyat Singapura. Meskipun GDP kita telah meningkat dengan banyaknya dalam beberapa bulan kebelakangan ini, sektor runcit yang menjunamlah yang memberi kita gambaran yang sebenar tentang pertumbuhan ekonomi kita.Kuasa membeli kita sama ada telah mendatar atau tidak dapat menampung kadar inflasi . Sebarang pertumbuhan GDP yang tidak memberi faedah kepada rakyat Singapura dari segi kuasa membeli dan mutu kehidupan yang lebih tinggi tidak bermakna sama sekali.Keadaan begini hanya memberi peluang kepada para menteri kita menaikkan lagi gaji mereka sendiri. Sebaliknya pula, kita mesti tanya pada diri kita – negeri kita telah mencapai hampir 20% pertumbuhan GDP bagi tiga bulan terakhir ini tetapi adakah pendapatan kita akan mencapai separuh daripada kadar pertumbuhan tersebut?Kita harus berbelanja lebih untuk menampung pertumbuhan GDP yang begitu tinggi. Kita terpaksa menambah lebih banyak lagi tenaga asing untuk mencapai pertumbuhan tersebut. Ini bermakna pendapatan bagi rakyat Singapura akan dicantasdan pada masa yang sama, negeri kita akan menjadi lebih sesak dengan orang asing. Menurut kajian kami, pemerintah PAP memang dengan sengajanya memulakan pengambilan tenaga kerja warga asing ini secara melampau sejak 2006 semata-matanya untuk merancakkan ekonomi. Bagaimanapun, kebanyakan menteri kita, termasuk Menteri-menteri Pengangkutan, Kesihatan dan Pembangunan Negara, telah disentakkan dengan pertumbuhan penduduk yang mendadak.Sistem pengangkutan awam kita tidak dapat lagi menampung ledakan penduduk yang keterlaluan dalam masa yang begitu singkat. Perkhidmatan MRT dan bas-bas begitu lembab dibandingkan dengan pertumbuhan penduduk yang semakin banyak kebelakangan ini. Ini membuat keadaan begitu sesak dalam MRT dan bas-bas pada waktu puncak. Untuk memburukkan keadaan lagi, Kebanyakkan di antara kita terpaksa membayar tambang yang lebih sejak bulan Julai ini, adanya sehingga mencecah lebih 7%.Harga flat-flat HDB kita sudah membumbung tinggi. HDB gagal membina flat-flat yang cukup bagi menampung pertumbuhan penduduk yang begitu pesat. Sekarang kita perlu membayar duit rumah selama 30 tahun untuk sebuah flat HDB yang biasa – ini menandakan rumah bukan lagi sesuatu yang kita mampu. Penjagaan kesihatan di hospital merupakan perkara terpenting antara hidup dan mati. Bagaimanapun, katil-katil di hospital sudah banyak berkurangan disebakan pembinaan sebuah hospital baharu tergendala selama hampir sedekad. Ini membuktikan betapa Kementerian Kesihatan tidak memandang jauh semasa membuat rancangan untuk memastikan pertambahan katil-katil hospital seiring dengan pertumbuhan penduduk yang melampau. Masalah ini menjadi begitu runcing apabila ada pesakit-pesakit yang terpaksa berbaring di tempat lalu lalang di wad-wad hospital. Nanum begitu, baru-baru ini Perdana Menteri kita mengumumkan bahawa kita memerlukan lagi 100 ribu pekerja asing! Adakah kita harus bertahan lagi dengan keadaan yang sememangnya telah begitu buruk?Banjir yang menimpa kita baru-baru ini membuat kita tertanya-tanya tentang kebolehan pemerintah PAP yang bergaji lumayan. Kita tidak mahu lagi dengar alasan-alasan seperti “hanya sekali dalam 50 tahun”, “mustahil kita tidak dilanda banjir”, dan “ini kuasa Tuhan”. Kita harapkan perkara-perkara asas sebegini dapat ditangani memandangkan kita membayar menteri-menteri kita gaji yang paling lumayan di muka bumi ni. Tetapi kita terpaksa mengharungi 3 atau 4 banjir dalam masa dua bulan dan ini amat tidak munasabah bagi sebuah pulau kecil yang mendabik dada sebagai sebuah bandar moden bertaraf dunia. Semua ini berlaku di bawah jagaan menteri-menteri termahal dunia di Singapura. Kita perlu ada pertanggungjawaban tetapi tiada langsung, Kita perlu ada mekanisme keseimbangan tetapi terlalu sedikit. Singapura perlu maju dalam kedua-dua bidang ekonomi dan politik dengan cara yang seimbang. Kita tidak harus mensasarkan pertumbuhan GDP yang besar sehinggakan mutu kehidupan kita sengsara. Kita harus ada sistem politik di mana terdapat pertanggungjawaban.Saudara-saudara dan saudari-saudari setanah air, masanya telah tiba untuk kita memikirkan tentang perkara-perkara ini sempena Hari Kebangsaan kita. Kita perlu tanya pada diri kita – suasana kehidupan yang bagaimanakah yang kita mahukan untuk Singapura. Pertumbuhan GDP yang tinggi tidak lagi menjamin mutu hidup yang lebih baik tetapi sebaliknya, merendahkan taraf kehidupan secara keseluruhan. Kita juga perlu tanya pada diri kita sama ada kita mahu anak-anak kita mewarisi sistem politik berteraskan kekuasaan mutlakdi bawah pemerintahan satu parti, yang akan menggunakan apa cara sekalipun untuk ‘kerjakan” lawan mereka dan sesiapa sahaja yang mempunyai pandangan yang berbeza. Kita perlu menukar sistem sebegini dan kita perlu berani menukarnya. Selamat menyambut Hari Kebangsaan. Dirgahayu Singapura. Japan proves MM Lee WRONG! MM Lee has claimed that no amount of Engineering could prevent floods.The Japanese has proven MM Lee WRONG.The Japanese has started to build the G-Can, termed as "Underground Temple" to rid Tokyo of floods. This massive project which cost about S$4Billion was started in 1992 and completed in 2006. You can view more photos and read the introduction of G-Can here.It has almost rid Tokyo of flooding due to typhoons and heavy rains. It is also believed that it could act as a massive underground bomb shelter. You could read about the background information of this G-Can Underground Temple here.Instead of letting GIC and Temasek Holdings losing billions of dollars in financial crisis, it will only cost us less than 10% of the total losses suffered by GIC and Temasek Holdings to engineer our way out of flooding. Tokyo is many times bigger than Singapore and I guess we should use less than the total amount of money needed for such project.The following is a video in Japanese which show what will happen if such flood control measures like G-Can is not in place:tokyo floodedUploaded by sokodoko44. - See video of the biggest web video personalities.The video is part of a Japan government report warning that as many as 3,500 people could die in the event of such flooding. Water would also quickly flow into Tokyo’s subway network, putting as many as 97 stations out of commission.Goh Meng Seng illegal hawker? My Story In the past two weeks, when my party, National Solidarity Party, went on our usual political outreach on Sundays to promote our publication North Star, we were warned for illegal hawking and our Vice President Christopher Neo was eventually summoned for this offence of "illegal hawking". I shall not deal with the details of the case here but it is pretty bizarre that political activists who make sacrifice of their time and effort to be involved in public service of politics were charged for "illegal hawking". It is pretty insulting actually. Most probably someone in National Environment Agency doesn't really know what exactly an illegal hawker is. I will illustrate what it means to be an illegal hawker here.I am born in a poor family of 10. My parents have to feed and send 8 children to school. I am proud to say that my parents have given all they have to provide these 8 children the best education that each could achieve and that include sending 1 to polytechnic, 2 to local universities and 1 overseas. They could only do that by becoming illegal hawkers. There is nothing shameful to admit that I was also an illegal hawker since I was 5 years old, helping my parents to mend our temporary "stall" or going around the flats to sell their lasi lemak, ottah kwei and bee hoon. I am the youngest and thus I have to help out in the morning before I go to school. I spent most of my holidays hawking these food "illegally". If there is anything PAP or ISD want to dig, this is the ONLY DIRT they could find about me, a young illegal hawker at the age of 5 till 11. My parents have to wake up 3am in the morning to prepare all the food for sales to the morning working crowd.They have made a name for themselves in the neighbourhood for selling the delicious nasi lemak and dumplings. Pre-orders for dumplings during the festive season were in the tens and hundreds. Well, I did receive orders from my fellow Primary School classmates quite frequently as well. They still remember my parents' nasi lemak and will mention it each and every time without fail when we have our occasional reunions!Beside helping out the sales, which trained me to be very quick in mental Maths calculation (yeah, that's why I scored full marks for my Maths in Primary school!), I have to help out with the carry of bags of chili and endure the strong smell of belachan when they prepare the chili for the nasi lemak. All 10 of us have to squeeze in a small two-room rental flat with only 1 bedroom. Life was tough but enjoyable though. I enjoyed every minute of it, especially going up that 20 storey high flats to shout out "Ottah, Ottah kwei, Nasi Lemak!" Even the avoidance of the "dee gu" (law enforce officers from NEA) was just like hide and seek or playing catching for me. My parents have tried to apply for hawker license many times but failed. They were not granted the license or any hawker stall at the market. But for survival sake, they have no choice but to become illegal hawkers to bring 8 children up and provide them with all the education they could get. If they haven't done that, there might be another 8 delinquent youngsters on the streets and eventually add on to the social problems of Singapore! It was all pure hard work and determination of earning enough money to raise 8 children with proper education that make them carry on with that label "illegal hawkers". To me, I am proud of my parents for their dedication to us, their children. "Illegal hawkers"? Who cares! When the system fails to provide the adequate means for the family to survive, then we will have to find our own ways to survive. Nobody wants to break the law unnecessarily. I do not view my parents as "law breakers" but rather survivors of the system on the fringe. They did not choose to cheat, rob or become criminals but just "illegal hawkers" to earn a living for all of us. When the survival of the family is at stake, you will have to find ways to fight the lesser evil of the law. I write this to illustrate one very important point. As far as possible, we will be law abiding citizens. But when the circumstance is such that our survival is being threaten, the only way would be playing on the fringe of the law. The situation NSP and all other opposition parties are facing due to the inappropriate enforcement of "illegal hawking" law on us is pretty similar to my story. The survival of NSP is being threaten now due to this "illegal hawking" summon. The only difference is that WE ARE NOT HAWKERS but VOLUNTEERS in Political Public Service. The law is inappropriately applied to us and it would mean that politically, NSP will face closure if its political activity of promoting its messages and publications are being curtailed. Just today, I have met an old gentleman who accused us of appearing just before elections. I explained to him that we have been selling our North Star all around Singapore for years! PAP has always sneered at opposition parties by saying we only work when elections come. That is totally untrue and PAP knows it. Be it walkabout on the ground or various press releases on policies and current issues, NSP has been pretty active doing all these.It is now NEA trying to curtail our political activism on the ground by issuing such silly summon of "illegal hawking". Choosing between becoming a totally law abiding of silly law which make us politically inactive and being an effective political party actively engaging the ground but risks being summoned as "illegal hawkers" by NEA, I would choose the later. I am not here to make NSP just a flower vase of PAP's farce pseudo Democracy. I am here to make NSP an effective party that would actively challenge and put proper checks and balances on PAP's dominance of power.This is not only about the survival of NSP or any other opposition parties alone. It is about the sustainability of the healthy political development for Singapore. If there is a small price to be paid as being insulted as "illegal hawkers" by the unreasonable PAP's rule, so be it. Goh Meng Seng Sales of NSP North Star Online We will continue to carry out our usual weekly political outreach on Sundays from this Sunday onwards.On top of that, if you are unable to see us on the ground but very curious about what kind of publication the authority doesn't want us to sell on the ground, you could purchase a copy from our NSP website at the following address:http://www.nsp.sg/catalog/9You could well purchase past copies as well from this site.I hope that every supporters on the internet would purchase one copy and give us feedback if any.Goh Meng Seng Minibond Saga in HK - Role of Democratic Pressures The following is the news in Reuters on DBS paying compensation to Minibond victims in Hong Kong:DBS Hong Kong to pay $84 mln in Lehman settlementPRESS DIGEST - Hong Kong - July 14 DBS Group Holdings Limited4:05pm GMT+0800HONG KONG | Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:13am EDTJuly 14 (Reuters) - DBS Hong Kong, a unit of Singapore's DBS Group Holdings (DBSM.SI), will pay out a combined HK$651 million ($84 million) to some buyers of Lehman Brothers constellation notes, the territory's financial regulator said on Wednesday.Customers classified by the bank as having a low to medium risk profile would receive their money returned plus interest that would have been payable had it been placed in a fixed-term deposit, Hong Kong's Securities and Futures Commission said in a statement.Investors in Singapore, Hong Kong and Indonesia who bought the product had lost their money after the U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers went under in 2008.The constellation notes are credit-linked notes related to the collapsed U.S. bank. (Reporting by Kelvin Soh; Editing by Chris Lewis)I have played a very small role in this Minibond Saga, both in Singapore and Hong Kong. But I am very glad that the Hong Kong Victims have finally get at least 60% to 70% compensation from the banks and financial institutions.This is especially an important lesson for Singaporeans to understand how TRUE DEMOCRACY could work to their advantages in times of such crisis. The Hong Kongers have put great pressures on its government to make good of a settlement for the Minibond saga. This could only be possible with the help and pressure exerted by the Pan-Democratic Legislative Councilors (equivalent to our MPs in parliament) through the various hearings conducted by the Legco. In Singapore, the government would prefer to protect the interests of the banks and financial institutions in such an ultra-capitalist manner basically because the government itself holds substantial shares in most of the local financial banks and institutions. It would be difficult for the government to be a good referee (i.e. regulator) as well as the main players (shareholders of these institutions). Naturally, the interests of investors would be compromised in the process. This situation is further worsen by the fact that there is a lack of true checks and balances in parliament. In HK's case, the Legco enforce an equivalent of "Commission of Inquiry" to get civil servants from the Finance ministry as well as chiefs of those banking institutions to be questioned thoroughly. Such pressure has finally paid off by a reasonable settlement being made by getting the institutions to compensate up to 60% to 70% to their investors. In great contrast, Singapore Minibond victims are left to their own peril. Whatever little effort the MAS puts up, the settlement is a sham which favors heavily to the financial institutions, with compensations as little as 10% only. The only consolation is that Great Eastern has willingly put up 100% compensation to its investors. But we cannot trust and depend on the magnanimous acts of these institutions. We must have a system which could balance the interests of the masses vs the capitalists. We should not have a government that will face conflict of interests in this case, to act responsibly and fairly. It is an important lesson of the Democracy for all of us. You will not realize the importance of Democracy unless you need it. New and Old Bus Fare comparisons The following is an article by "Blowing in the Wind" on the comparison of New and Old bus fares:Old and new bus fares comparedIt's not only long-distance commuters who have to pay more under the new fares in Singapore. So do many others if you compare the old fares with the new. Here's how the so-called "distance-based" new bus fares compare with the old fares, which were based on how many "stages" one travelled. I am comparing only the adult fares payable by EZ-Link cards on air-conditioned buses.Up to 3.2 km now 71 cents, earlier 69 cents (up to 4 stages)3.3 km to 4.2 km now 81 cents 4.3 km to 5.2 km now 91 cents, earlier 3.6 km to 5.6 km 91 cents (4.5 –7 stages)5.3 km to 6.2 km now $1.01 6.3 km to 7.2 km now $1.09, earlier 5.6 km to 8 km $1.11 (7-10 stages)7.3 km to 8.2 km, now $1.158.3 km to 9.2 km now $1.21, earlier 8.4 km to 10.4 km $1.21 (10.5 – 13 stages)9.3 km to 10.2 km now $1.25 10.3 km to 11.2 km now $1.2911.3 km to 12.2 km now $1.33 12.3 km to 13.2 km, now $1.37 13.3 km to 14.2 km now $1.41, earlier 10.8 km to 14.4 km $1.31 (13.5 – 18 stages)14.3 km to 15.2 km now $1.45 15.3 km to 16.2 km now $1.4916.3 km to 17.2 km now $1.53 17.3 km to 18.2 km now $1.57, earlier 14.8 km to 18.4 km $1.41 (18.5 – 23 stages)18.3 km to 19.2 km now $1.6119.2 km to 20.2 km now $1.6420.3 km to 21.2 km now $1.6721.3 km to 22.2 km now $1.7022.3 km to 23.2 km now $1.73, earlier 18.8 km to 23.2 km $1.50 (23.5 – 29 stages) 23.3 km to 24.2 km now $1.75 24.3 km to 25.2 km now $$1.77 25.3 km to 26.2 km now $1.79 26.3 km to 27.2 km now $1.80 , earlier 23.6 km to 28 km $1.60 (29.5 – 35 stages) 27.3 km to 28.2 km $1.8128.3 km to 29.2 km now $1.82, earlier 28.4 km and more $1.65 (35.5 stages or more. That was the maximum fare)You can see the fares between 29.3 km and 39 km in the chart below.39.3 km to 40.2 km now $1.93Over 40.3 km $1.94 (now the maximum fare)Both the old and new fares were taken from the SBS website when I blogged about them (When is a fare hike a fare cut?) in April when the new fares were announced. The old fares used to be based on "stages". But I could convert them to kilometres since each "stage" covered a distance of 800 metres. The new fares can be seen in a chart on the SBS website, which seems to have taken down the old fares. Here's the complete new fare chart which I also published in my earlier post.I asked in my earlier post if the Public Transport Council could please explain how two in three commuters won't have to pay more despite the fare hike.For that's what it said it found in a survey.But now the Straits Times reports more than 80 per cent of the 600 respondents in a Hardwarezone.com poll said they have to pay more since the new fares came into effect on July 3.That contradicts what the council said. A month of barring and banning - Joshua Chiang An insightful sum up of recent draconian acts of the PAP government in recent month by Mr. Joshua ChiangFirst there was the barring of former ISD detainee and 'Marxist conspirator' Vincent Cheng from speaking at a public forum organised by the NUS History Society at the National Library. (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/06/late-inclusion-an-excuse-vincent-cheng-tells-nlb/)Then there was the forum held at Fort Canning Park two weeks ago where another ex-detainee, Teo Soh Lung launched her book "Beyond The Blue Gate" about the events surrounding Operation Spectrum and her days as a detainee in Whitley Detention Centre. That, surprisingly went ahead without incident. Despite the fact that there wasn't any official outcry over the book, only one major bookstore, Kinokuniya now sells it. (Though you can purchase it from other sources here - a) Contact Rizal via cellphone: 91460944 or email: isrizal@function8.orgb) Online purchase through Ethos Books Onlinec) Select Books (Tanglin Shopping Centre)d) At Pagesetters Services Pte Ltd, 65 Ubi Crescent, #06-04 Hola Centre, Singapore 408559There are no other major bookstores in Singapore whom I know will carry titles critical of the Government, for eg. books by Chee Soon Juan. (But you will find Men In White, The Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew displayed proudly at all other major bookstores)But one book apparently got the authorities worried enough to ban its sales in Singapore, even going to the extent of asking Kinokuniya to remove it from its shelves. The book in question is Once a Jolly Hangman. It paints an extremely unflattering picture of the process in which Singapore carries out its Mandatory Death Penalty, except that, based on what the author unearthed, the process appears rather abituary. (see here - http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/07/new-book-puts-death-penalty-on-trial/)You will also be surprised that the opposition party newsletter you pay a dollar for, for the past donkey years, is actually not allowed to be sold as the political parties do not have an NEA license to 'Hawk'. (see here - http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/07/opposition-party-fined-for-selling-party-newspaper/)Now this is worrying because not only is selling the newspapers the major source of income for most oppositional parties, it is the best way in which they can disseminate their views. We know of course that dropping political pamphlets into letterboxes is wrong (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/04/that-anti-pap-flier/). Last I heard the chap who distributed the anti-PAP flier has been arrested. Getting around the lack of a hawking license to sell the party papers is not as easy as it seems because you will find all sorts of laws and legislation that are so loosely written that they can easily be used to stop you from selling anything.Which leads us to the question of why did NEA act only now, considering that opposition parties had been selling their stuff on the streets for years. I've even bought a copy of The Hatchet Man from JBJ once. Well I wouldn't presume to read the authorities' minds but you would be interested to know that most opposition parties nowadays regularly sold out their newsletters. Which means every time a party goes out to the housing estates and hawker centres, 3,000 copies of publications containing alternate views gets circulated around. It also means that there are many people sick and tired of reading the Straits Times. And finally there is the ban on Martyn See's film on Dr Lim Hock Siew in the name of mantaining confidence in the government. (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/07/breaking-news-mda-bans-sees-film-on-isa-detainee/)All in all, it is a rather oppressive month, and not because of the weather. I remember a National Day speech by PM Lee in 2006. He said, "We have to debate. If we didn't have a debate, I think we will come to the wrong conclusion." Right now my impression of 'debate' is really the joke I keep using - "Debate is de thing that you catch de fish with".------On a very separate note, my brother's maid returned to Burma for good. (Sorry i can't bring myself to call it "Myanmar" - it is the name the regime, and those who recognize the regime uses) Just the day before she left, I asked if she could get me an autographed poster of Aung San Suu Kyi. It amused her to no end. NSP Public Statement with regards to Summon issued by NEA We hereby categorically make the following open statements with regards to NEA’s action against us in our recent outreach on 4 July 2010 at Blk 137 Tamines St 11:1) We strongly believe that it is totally inappropriate to use the Environment Public Health Act to charge us for “Illegal Hawking” when we are merely promoting our party publication North Star News. There is no issue of public hygiene with regards to selling a publication. There is no applicable licence, as confirmed by NEA officer, for political parties carrying out such activity. How could we be charged for not applying a licence under the ACT when there isn’t a relevant one to start with?2) We are a legally registered political party carrying out our legitimate political outreach just like any other political parties or grassroot organizations like the Resident Committees (RC). We sell publications just like all other political parties, including PAP (in some branches) and RC which periodically send members to sell National Flags, dinner tickets, fun fare tickets etc. We are all volunteers who are providing Public Service in terms of grassroot or political activism. WE ARE NOT HAWKERS, least illegal ones, who depend on such activities to earn our individuals’ livelihood. 3) It is a total blatant INSULT to us, including all other social-political activists (from RP, WP, PAP, RC etc), who have sacrificed their free time and effort when NEA considered all of us as ILLEGAL HAWKERS.4) We are a lawful and law abiding organization but we will not ignore UNFAIR and UNREASONABLE rules and regulations. We will fight to change these rules and regulations for the betterment of Singapore.5) We will defend our Dignity as political activists in Public Service with whatever little resources we could garner.6) However, we also hope that we could first meet up with the relevant people in NEA with the authority and power to make decisions on such serious matters to resolve this issue ONCE AND FOR ALL for the benefits of ALL social political activists who are actively engaged in their respective organizations.7) With due respect to NEA as the law enforcer, we will voluntarily take a temporary break for the coming Sunday (11 July 2010) and we hope that NEA would reciprocate by meeting up with us to resolve this serious matter amicably. Goh Meng SengSecretary General of the 13th CEC 国民团结党: 针对国家环境局对我党党员发出传票的公开声明 国民团结党针对国家环境局稽查员在2010年7月4日于淡滨尼11街大牌137巴刹对我党党员发出非法贩卖传票事件在此作出如下的严正声明：1) 我们坚决的认为稽查员以环境公众卫生法令对我党党员在例行活动发出非法贩卖传票是绝对不恰当的。我党推销党报绝对不会对环境或公众卫生造成任何问题。而国家环境局在早些时候也承认他们也没有任何适当的准证能让政党申请。如果没有适当准证可供我们申请，他们又凭什么控告我们在没有申请准证情况下非法贩卖我们的党报呢？2) 我们就像任何政党、政治团体或如居民委员会的基层组织一样，是一个合法注册的政党团体，进行着合法的政治活动。我们也如这一些组织，包括一些行动党支部和居委会时不时到处售卖国旗、党报、庆典酒席门票等，到全岛各处去推广我党党报。但是我们并非小贩，更不是非法小贩，而是投入公共服务的志愿活跃份子。我们并非依赖非法贩卖物品来维持各自生计的非法小贩。3) 国家环境局把我们归类为非法小贩，不只是对我党，而是对所有牺牲自身时间和贡献于这土地的社会-政治活跃份子（包括革新党、工人党、行动党、居委会等）的莫大侮辱。4) 我们虽然是个合法和奉公守法的政党，但是我们也绝对不会对不合理的法规坐视不理。我们必定尽我们所能去争取对新加坡有利的变革。5) 我们也必定全力以赴的捍卫所有身为公共服务里的志愿社会-政治活跃份子的尊严。6) 然而，我们也希望能先与国家环境局有相关权力做出重要决定的官员举行会谈，以便能一次过圆满解决此影响深远的事件。这将有利于所有参与公共服务的政党和各个基层团体的活跃份子继续参与我国的社会与政治建设。7) 鉴于给予国家环境局作为执法者应有的尊重，我党决定自愿在这来临的星期天（2010 年7月11日）暂停我们原定的例行基层活动。我们也期许当局能以善意回应我们的要求，能与我们对此严肃的事件展开会谈以达至圆满的解决方案。国民团结党秘书长吴明盛 按车程收费新制度等于变相加价 按车程收费新制度等于变相加价国民团结党对于公共交通理事会打算在2010年7月3日实施的按车程收费新制度，表达极度失望。根据地铁公司及陆路交通管理局的公共交通网站上的资料显示，在新制度下几乎所有地铁路线的车资将会大幅增加。下表列出我们的调查结果：虽然我们无法对所有路线的新旧车资作比较，但是初步的抽样对比结果显示，在新票价制度下，国人要付更高的车资，增幅从3.75%至逾7%不等。公共交通理事会在试图说服国人的时候，提到在新制度下，大多数乘客每天将付较低的车资。理事会应停止误导国人，让他们以为多数乘客将从新票价制度下获益。理事会应将所有地铁路线的新旧车资比较，详尽和如实地全部列出，让乘客完全掌握车资的改动。事实上，我们认为任何超过2%的车资增幅是完全不可以接受的，因为依赖公共交通的低收入人士，并没有获得较大幅度的加薪。 多年来许多国人已经惯常搭乘地铁，他们并没有太多另类的交通选择，除非他们准备花更多时间搭乘不同的巴士，以接驳方式完成他们惯用的地铁路线，及在路上忍受交通阻塞的不便。拥有地铁专营权的地铁公司在新票价下大幅提升国人的车资，国民团结党坚决认为这是完全不可以接受的。另一方面，要巴士乘客在繁忙时段花更多的时间转乘短程巴士，以达到省钱的目的是不切实际的。我们相信这样的节省可能只是在新车资制度下以远程巴士与短程巴士车资比较所得出所谓“较低车资”的结果。我们相信这新制度下的“较低车资”仍然比在旧制度下的远程巴士的车资为高。公共交通理事会应该向国人展示主要车程干线服务的新旧车资的对比。我们强烈谴责公共交通理事会，实施达到变相加价目的的按车程收费新制度。 国民团结党13届中委会秘书长吴明盛 NSP Press Statement: Fare Increase in Disguise New Distance Fare System is Fare Hikes in DisguiseWe are greatly disappointed by the new fare system that the PTC intended to implement on 3rd July 2010. Our recent research on SMRT as well as LTA Public Transport websites shows that almost all the MRT fares that we have checked from different lines have increased quite substantially.Please refer to the following table for our findings: We are not able to do a complete table on the various fare comparisons for all possible rides but from our sample findings, it shows that fare increase resulted from the new Distance Fare system ranges from 3.75% to more than 7%. The PTC has not made such straight forward indications when they try to convince Singaporeans that most of them will enjoy lower fares for their daily travels on public transport. The PTC should stop misleading Singaporeans with its assertion that most Singaporeans would benefit from this new fare system. PTC should be more truthful upfront by publishing the whole matrix of comparisons between fares for MRT rides between all possible combinations. Any fare increase more than 2% in such simple straight forward MRT rides is totally unacceptable as wage increase for many of the lower wage earners who utilize public transport most do not have much increment on their wages. Many Singaporeans rely on MRT for their travelling needs and there is little alternative to MRT rides without wasting great amount of time in interchanging between buses and being trapped in traffic jams. Such enormous outrageous hike in fares is totally unacceptable for a monopoly like SMRT. On the other hand, it is impractical to expect bus commuters to waste time changing buses during peak hours just to “enjoy” any lower fares. Such “lower fares” may only be lower in comparison with the new long haul trunk services. We believe that even with such “lower fares”, it will still be higher than the old fares for long haul rides. PTC should present to Singaporeans the comparison between NEW and OLD fare structures for some main trunk services.We strongly condemn PTC for its attempt to implement such a fare system which is in fact an outrageous hike in fare in disguise. Goh Meng SengSecretary General of the 13th CEC SMRT Chief is misleading! As to what SMRT plans to do as trains seem to be maxing out their capacity, she said: 'Trains will be crowded during peak hours. The question is, how crowded?'She did not think that trains here are as packed as those in cities like Hong Kong, Taipei and Shanghai.Even at its most crowded, an SMRT train carries 1,400 passengers, she said.This is 'not crush load', where a train is carrying more passengers than the standing load it is designed to carry under normal circumstances.Crush load happens when a train carries more than 2,000 passengers.'People can board the train - it is whether they choose to,' she said.SMRT chief executive officer and president Saw Phaik Hwa in Sunday ST report "SMRT: Tighter security will not mean higher fare" has claimed that while trains may be crowded, they are not at 'crush load' and 'people can board the train - it is whether they choose to'. She used the example of Hong Kong MTR trains' ability to take in 2000 people during peak hours as compared to singapore's MRT train of 1400 people during peak hours to support her view.Ms Saw is either misleading or ignorant. HK MTR trains have EIGHT cabins. Singapore's trains have only six cabins! How could she use it as a comparison to Singapore's train system is really beyond my comprehension! On average, each HK MTR train cabin could take in about 250 people. If we use 250 people as an indicator, Singapore's train would only able to take in about 1500 during peak. This is not very far from the present situation. This calculations is perfectly relevant and reflect accurately to what we are experiencing on the ground. i.e. the trains are just too packed!I would advise Ms Saw, as the chief of SMRT, should walk out of her Ivory Tower and dependency on some blind statistics and experience herself first hand the situation on the ground. Apparently she is taking statistics from other places VERY BLINDLY without even understanding the differences involved to make up her IMAGINARY conclusions that Singapore's trains are not at "crush load"!Goh Meng SengP.S. Added information for maximum capacity for a train cabin in HK:Seats: 46 Standing: 268 Total maximum capacity is 314.According our SMRT Chief Ms Saw, Crush Load is 2000 per train with six cabin. Means, each cabin will have 333 passengers! How could that be? Caught off Guard Ministers' Ranking Mr. Tan Kin Lian did a survey on "how well ministers are doing their jobs"It seems that almost all the "Caught Off Guard" ministers have the lowest ranking, from Raymon Lim (Public Transport) to MBT (HDB).Goh Meng SengSurvey: Rating of Ministers, June 2010Based on 100 replies13 Mr KHAW Boon Wan (Health) 51.537 Mr George YEO (Foreign Affairs) 42.356 Mr TEO Chee Hean (DPM and Defence) 39.2914 Mr Tharman SHANMUGARATNAM (Finance) 38.013 Mr LEE Kuan Yew (Minister Mentor) 35.971 Mr LEE Hsien Loong (Prime Minister) 33.932 Mr GOH Chok Tong (Senior Minister) 33.424 Prof S. JAYAKUMAR (Senior Minister) 31.715 Dr NG Eng Hen (Education and Defence) 29.6410 Mr LIM Hng Kiang (Trade & Industry) 27.5521 Mr LUI Tuck Yew (Information, Comm and Arts) 26.7918 Mr K Shanmugam (Law and Home Affairs) 25.2619 Mr GAN Kim Yong (Manpower) 24.7416 Dr Vivian BALAKRISHNAN (Comm Development) 23.9820 Mrs LIM Hwee Hua (PM Office, Finance, Transport) 22.1911 Mr LIM Swee Say (PM Office) 21.4317 Mr Raymond LIM Siang Keat (Transport) 20.369 Mr LIM Boon Heng (PM Office) 17.3512 Dr YAACOB Ibrahim (Environment & Water) 17.095 Mr WONG Kan Seng (DPM and Home Affairs) 15.318 Mr MAH Bow Tan (National Development) 12.5(note: first column denotes what TKL calls "seniority") NEA under Yaacob disturbing Opposition Parties instead... We were at Bendemeer market selling our North Star this morning. Someone called up the NEA to come down and check on us. While I keep asking the two nice officers to carry out their duties to summon us and I would admit to selling our papers, they did not take action. NEA under Dr Yaacob should spend more time to check the longkang for debris instead of disturbing opposition parties...This problem about "illegal hawking" for opposition parties when they go for their ground work and sell their newspaper/newsletter must be solved once and for all.SDP has tried to apply "hawking license" to sell their papers Democrats before but application was rejected. Most likely nobody in NEA dares to grant that kind of license to opposition parties.So I would urge NEA to DO THE RIGHT THING, carry out their duties and summon all of us. We will not pay for the summon. We prefer to go to court and go to jail and let the whole world see how PAP government is set to deter opposition parties to carry out their political work on the ground.Fine all opposition party members, including Mr. Low TK for "illegal hawking". Let's settle this issue once and for all. But in spite of my constant persuasion to the officers to summon us, they have refused and walk away. I actually feel very sorry for them. Someone has sabo them and burn their weekend. Calling their office and sending them down for nothing!I will let NEA knows where we are going to conduct our "illegal hawking" next Sunday in advance and hope that they carry out their duties properly. Goh Meng Seng Press Statement on recent Floods I have been in self-imposed retreat for quite a while now. I intended to stay off my blog and the media just for a little longer but it seems that this unbearable reoccurring of floods around the island has forced me to cut short my peaceful retreat. I have issued the following Press Statement on behalf of NSP:Setup A Committee of Inquiry to look into improving drainage & weather warning systemNSP shares the frustration and disappointment of many Singaporeans whose lives have been severely disrupted by the reoccurring floods in recent days. The Ministry of Environment and Water Resources under Minister Dr. Yaacob Ibrahim has reportedly spent billions in improvement works on the various canals on this island. However it seems that the situation seems to have little, marginal improvement over the years. In 2009, when flood hit Bukit Timah, Dr. Yaacob Ibrahim has claimed that it is a once in 50 year happening. We know that this is pure exaggeration as flash floods were happening quite often in that area in the 1970s and 1980s. But since 1990s, millions, if not billions have been spent on improvement works on the Bukit Timah Canal and we would expect floods of such magnitude should be a thing of the past. On 16 June 2010, Orchard Road was flooded, causing millions of dollars of damage to private properties and businesses. The ministry under Dr. Yaacob Ibrahim has given the excuse of debris blockade. Today, floods appear again, not only in Orchard Road and Bukit Timah, but in various places around Singapore. What could be the excuse then?Back in 1999, an article in New Paper has once boasted that Orchard will never flood because of the Stamford Canal. It was said that it will take a COMBINATION of hide tide and 100mm of rainfall within an hour to flood Orchard. But since the Marina Barrage has been built, high tide should not be the main issue here anymore. Could the Marina Barrage be the main issue then?The first incidence of flooding in Bukit Timah could be excused as Act of God. The second flood in Orchard Road could be excused on the blame of debris. How about the third one? Isn’t it too much of an excuse for such floods to keep reoccurring? Could it be too much of a coincidence that such floods occur after the Marina Barrage has been built? We hope that the government would form an Independent Committee of Inquiry on this matter. This committee should consist of people who have the expertise to review the whole drainage system in Singapore. Singaporeans should deserve better accountability from the highly paid minister and civil servants instead of resigning to praying to heaven for not flooding Singapore.On top of that, we would also like to urge the authority and the Committee of Inquiry to look into the possibility of implementing a colour coded weather warning system. This is necessary to reduce the risks of people being exposed to adverse weathers like heavy rains and floods. A Red code rain weather warning would mean that young kids will not have to attend kindergarten while a Black code rain weather warning would mean that all classes in schools should stop. This should reduce the risk of young children being endangered by adverse weather. Singaporeans want the government to ACT NOW to resolve and improve the drainage as well as weather forecast systems. We hope that the PAP government would respond promptly to this call. Goh Meng SengSecretary General of the 13th CEC Dr. Goh Keng Swee - A Singapore Giant The following is an article by Corporate Observer:Dr Goh Keng Swee: A S'pore giantby admin , May 14, 2010, 1000hrsBy Loh Chee Kong cheekong@corporateobserver.com.sg SINGAPORE (May 14, 2010) - The man behind Singapore's stellar economic growth- masterminding its economic and industrial policies, among his endless list of contributions, as the republic came into its own following independence - died today at the age of 91 after a long battle with illness. Dr Goh Keng Swee (1918 - 2010)Born in Malacca, Dr Goh Keng Swee - dubbed as the "economics wizard" and an alumni of the London School of Economics - was Singapore's former Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) who also helmed the finance, defence and education ministries in his 25-year political career. One of the founding fathers of Singapore and widely seen as its economic architect, Dr Goh retired from politics in 1984 and had shied away from the public eye. From the country's early days, Dr Goh saw the economic imperative of the Singapore society - a central tenet of governance until today. Dr Goh's trenchant thinking on Singapore's economy continues to influence present-day policymakers. He once noted: "For us in Singapore, the road to greater wealth is through thrift, enterprise and hard work. The road to stability lies in prudence and foresight in prosperity, and patience and fortitude in adversity. In the swinging age of the new economies, all this sounds old fashioned and Victorian. No doubt it is, but I think it is unrealistic to expect that doctrines worked out for developed economies, when foreign trade forms a relatively small part of the GNP, would apply in their entirety to the exceptional situation that is ours." He was responsible for setting up many of Singapore's key government agencies, including the Economic Development Board and the Defence Science Organisation, and oversaw the creation of the Singapore Armed Forces and the Jurong Industrial Estate. His legacy also includes policies such as compulsory conscription for male Singaporeans above 18 years old; the Gifted Education Programme; and streaming and religious education in schools. The 1979 "Goh Report" greatly influenced the development of Singapore's education system - Dr Goh's idea of streaming, in particular, was conceptualized to provide different curriculum and rate of teaching to children of different abilities but the implementation on the ground, especially in the later years, had strayed from the vision. When Dr Goh was appointed chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Board of Commissioner of Currency in 1980, he took measures to promote Singapore as an international financial centre - making amendments to three major financial regulations: the Banking Act, the MAS Act and the Finance Companies Act. During the 1985 recession, he acted to stop the downward slide of the Singapore dollar. Another former DPM, Dr Tony Tan, paid tribute to Dr Goh in an issued statement. Dr Tan is the executive director of Government Investment Corporation of Singapore (GIC) - which was set up with Dr Goh's "pivotal" inputs and based on his "resolute belief in the need to protect and grow the hard-earned wealth of Singaporeans continues to influence the GIC community", said Dr Tan. Dr Tan added: "Today, the idea of the Sovereign Wealth Fund seems natural, but Dr Goh's focus on reserve management was rare among countries in his time. Dr Goh's farsightedness and fortitude laid the foundation for the development of GIC as stewards of Singapore's foreign reserves." Apart from having a keen mind for numbers, Dr Goh also appreciated the value of music and leisure - he set up the Singapore Symphony Orchestra and the Jurong Bird Park. Inspired by a free-flight aviary he visited in Rio de Janeiro during a World Bank Meeting, Dr Goh wanted to build the bird park in Jurong - he saw the place as more than an industrial zone - as an outlet for Singapore families to escape from the urban life. Dr Goh's prudence in maximising Singapore's limited resources was reflected in his personal life in which his legendary parsimony is well-documented. His wife had previously recounted to this writer how Dr Goh would bring soap flakes and wash his own clothes on official visits overseas. Once, when Dr Goh was hospitalised, he even chided his wife for being a "wastrel" when she took a piece of tissue paper from the box. Dr Goh, his wife said, would carefully tear a piece of tissue paper into half - keeping the other half in his pocket for later use. A BELIEVER A rabid saver himself, Dr Goh was behind the setting up of POSB Bank - which had waived the minimum sum required by other banks - to help lower income Singaporeans build up their savings. For all his penchant for hard-nosed economics, Dr Goh could never reconcile the idea of paying high salaries for public officers, including ministers. When it was announced that the British forces would withdraw from the Suez Canal in the late 1960s, Dr Goh knew it would impact the thousands of workers working in the British military bases in Singapore. He called the Accountant General into his room and told him, "We have to cut civil service pay, go and work it out, starting with me." When he was offered the post of deputy chairman of MAS following his retirement from politics, Dr Goh was offered the same pay that he was drawing as DPM. He asked to be paid half the amount. A firm believer in meritocracy, one of Dr Goh's greatest fears for Singapore is that it could become an "old boys' club". He once said: "In advanced societies, it is not so much open nepotism which is to be feared but the insidious 'old boy' type whereby no legalities (sic) are committed but in which the pinnacles of power, influence and wealth are the reserve of those born into the right families." Dr Goh added: "A system may arise in which the dominant minority... arrogate to itself not only the openings to the seats of power, but also the avenues by which individuals can fit themselves out for such positions of power. The dominant minority is thus able to point out those outside of the charmed circle just do not have the necessary qualifications to be admitted to the elite group." Following his retirement, Dr Goh would find it hard to read the newspapers or watch the news on television - knowing that he no longer had an influence on the nation's affairs. While some may see it a pity that Dr Goh had voluntarily cut short his political career and retreated from the public eye prematurely - so much so that many younger Singaporeans have not heard of him - his wife reiterated that Dr Goh never sought "money, power or glory or even to be honoured". In a booklet she published in 2008 in tribute of her husband, after she had set up the Goh Keng Swee Foundation, Mrs Goh wrote that Dr Goh "made all the contributions... for the nation and for Singaporeans". She added: "The fact that today's political leaders can go round the world to sell the Singapore success story is in itself satisfaction for him. Dr Goh himself mentioned that God has given him a reward for what he has done for Singapore. His pastor, Reverend Macolm Tan has said that his reward is in heaven." Rest in peace, Dr Goh, and thank you. A Tribute to a National Icon - Dr. Goh Keng Swee I received news about the passing of Dr. Goh Keng Swee this morning while in Hong Kong. I am very much saddened by this news. Later in the evening, a ST reporter requested a response from me, on behalf of my party. This is what I said to him:Our nation has lost a great man who has contributed tremendously to our nation building. Although we do not agree totally to some of his past policies but his spirit of socialism and public service are the source of inspiration to many of us. In mourning his death and the lost of our national icon, we would like to remind PAP of their humble democratic socialist root which was fully manifested by the late Dr. Goh Keng Swee. The PAP should reflect upon their great deviation from the socialist foundation which was upheld by Dr. Goh Keng Swee. Last but not least, our deepest condolences to the family of Dr. Goh Keng Swee.A special Tribute to Dr Goh Keng Swee for raising Singapore up from a poor country to one with strong economic foundation.I have not met Dr. Goh Keng Swee personally. My first impression of him came from my late father. Although my father was a skeptic of PAP rule, he had shown much respect to Dr. Goh Keng Swee, acknowledging him as the few, if not the only one, who was sincere and always had the interests of the people at heart. I got to know Dr. Goh Keng Swee better after I became a student of Economics in NUS. I went through pages and pages of those White Papers that he wrote during his tour of duty in many ministerial portfolios. A true blue Socialist at heart and a Visionary in his era. In 1960s when many countries were caught up with protectionism due to the rise of nationalism in the post-colonialism era, he pushed for Free Trade Port and invited foreign investments onto our shores. From the description of many others who have worked with him, he was someone who would always be very careful of spending every cent of taxpayers' money. He was also someone who would think of ways to lower cost for the benefits of Singaporeans at large. Although I did not agree with some of his policies, especially streaming and elitist grooming (Gifted) program in education but I have a lot of admiration and respect for Dr. Goh Keng Swee. He has left a legacy which is hard to be matched by anyone in modern history. He has set a high standard for people who are in Public Service, be it civil servants, ministers, politicians or otherwise. I am inspired by his socialist idealism and pragmatism which are embedded in many of his policies. It is rather sad to see how the contemporary PAP has forsaken much of the solid ideological foundation upon which our nation was created. It was only after the fading away of Dr. Goh Keng Swee from local politics that we started to hear people cynically relating PAP to Pay And Pay. From HDB, COE, Healthcare to Education, we have lost every bit of socialism in them. Cost recovery and even profit making have become the main policy direction for almost all ministries. While Singaporeans mourn the death of a great man in this Nation, I hope that everyone of us, including PAP members, should reflect upon the stray path that we have been put on since the stepping down of Dr. Goh Keng Swee. It is very unfortunate that I won't be back in time to pay my last respect to Dr. Goh. May he Rest In Peace.Goh Meng SengAfternote: I will be able to pay my last respect to Dr. Goh after all on 20 May. Sell New HDB flats at cost instead of asking citizens to sell flats for retirement We refer to the interview of Minister Mah Bow Tan entitled “Mah Bow Tan on the frontline talking about HDB prices, COV and Elections” published in Lianhe Zaobao on 8th May 2010. On behalf of National Solidarity Party, I would like to make the following response:We wish to remind Minister Mah Bow Tan that the success of HDB House Ownership scheme is built upon the sacrifices of our forefathers. Without the Land Acquisition Act which empowers and allows the ruling party to acquire almost 80% of land from our forefathers, Singapore would not be able to develop so rapidly and HDB would not be able to execute the House Ownership smoothly. This is one of the most important land reforms since independence. We could only examine the role of HDB and the pricing mechanism for new HDB flats properly under this context. In its first 20 years, HDB has fulfilled its role under this land reform plan, i.e. utilize the acquired land to build HDB flats and sell them at cheap prices or even under cost to the people, in doing so, redistribute land to the people. This is the fundamental role of HDB. Most people who had their land forcefully acquired did not protest because they knew that they were making sacrifices for the people and the Nation. This is the social contract between the people and the ruling party. The HDB flats has only a 99-year lease and it provides stability to the whole system. It ensures future generations of Singaporeans will have a roof over their heads throughout their life span. This is the basic concept of land reform, distribution and public housing policy.But now Minister Mah says, “The government cannot sell the new HDB flats at cost because this would mean that flat owners will not be able to sell it at market prices in future.” We do not understand on what basis does Minister Mah make such an assertion. Prior to 1990s, our father’s generation bought their HDB flats at cost or even under cost and now they can still sell their flats in the resale market at market prices. Isn’t this PAP’s policy? The government selling new HDB flats to Singaporeans at cost price has absolutely nothing to do with whether Singaporeans could sell off their flats in the open resale market or not. Minister Mah also says, “The House Ownership Scheme is most beneficial to Singapore because it could ultimately allow house owners to sell their flats for a profit and use it for retirement. Selling flats at cost price would not achieve such aim.” First of all, a HOME is not an “investment”. People only use properties as investment when they do not use it as a HOME. It is only when people have their second house then they could consider it as a “tool” for investment! Secondly, if Singaporeans do not need to suffer from high HDB prices and use their CPF to pay for a 30-year mortgage, they will not need to “sell flats for retirement”! Minister Mah is simply putting the cart before the horse. Thirdly, we can hardly imagine any first world country or world-class government asking their people to “sell house for retirement”! Fourthly, can Minister Mah guarantee that each and every generation of Singaporeans can sell their flats at good prices when they retire? Can such scheme work in a rapidly aging society? From the economic perspective, it is totally unsound. In a rapidly aging society, there will be more elderly people than youngsters for the next 20 to 30 years, meaning more sellers of HDB flats than buyers! How can prices be good in such a market situation?The root of the problem lies with the fact that prices of new HDB flats have outstripped income growth for the past 30 years. Our last generation paid only a 10 or 15-year mortgage for their HDB flats but now, our present and future generations will have to pay a 30-year mortgage for their new HDB flats! If they are married at 30 years old, they can only finish paying up their mortgage by 60 years old. By then, there will be little money left in their CPF. This is why they need to “sell flats for retirement”! We call upon Minister Mah and PAP to take their responsibilities as embedded in the social contract of land reform seriously and fulfill them, instead of trying to shrug it off by using all sorts of flawed reasoning and excuses. We do not expect the ruling party to meddle with the resale market but we hope that HDB could resume its original role by publishing the cost of all new HDB flats and selling them at cost price to first time Singaporean buyers.Goh Meng SengSecretary General National Solidarity Party 政府应该以成本价售新组屋而不是叫人民卖屋养老！ 谨《联合早报》于2010年5月8日刊登之“谈屋价 谈溢价 谈大选 马宝山上火线”，我代表国民团结党作以下回应：我们想提醒马宝山部长，建屋局居者有其屋计划的成功是建立在许许多多先辈们的牺牲和贡献上。如果没有土地征收法令赋予执政党权力，以超低价格向我们先辈们征收超过八成的土地，新加坡就没能发展得如此迅速，建屋局也不可能这么顺利执行居者有其屋计划。这是我国开国以来的一大重要土地改革计划。只有在这大前提下，我们才能很好的去谈建屋局的角色和制定新组屋价格的机制。建屋局在头二十年里，履行了它在这土地改革计划的任务，那就是把征收回来的土地，建好组屋以成本价或甚至成本津贴价格，把土地重新分配给广大民众。这也就是建屋局的基本职责。那一些土地被强行征收的国人，大多数也没抗议，因他们了解这是为国家广大民众利益而做出牺牲。这就是人民和执政党的社会契约。当然，组屋的地契也只有99年。这为整个体系提供了稳定性，确保世世代代的新加坡人都能拥有房屋过一辈子。这就是整个土地改革、分配和住屋政策的基本概念。马部长现在说“在售卖新组屋时，政府也不能以成本价出售，因为这意味屋主往后在售屋时也不能以市场价格销售。”我们不明白马部长的言论有何根据。我们的父辈曾经在90年代以前以低于成本价购得政府组屋，而如今他们也能够在公开市场上销售。这难道不是行动党政府的政策吗？政府以成本价出售新组屋仅是它履行那社会契约的承诺，这跟国人能不能在公开市场上销售他们的组屋根本是两码事！ 马部长还说“居者有其屋政策对新加坡最有利，因为它最终能让屋主在退休年龄时卖屋赚取利润，以房养老。以成本价售屋是无法达成这个目的。”第一， 一个家不是单纯的“投资”项目。人们只有把房地产当投资，而不是一个家。唯有人们在拥有第二间房子时，那才算是房地产投资！第二， 如果国人无须面对超高屋价而须动用公积金负担起30年的房屋贷款的话，他们也无须面对被逼“卖屋养老”了！马部长的这番话根本是本末倒置的。第三， 我们从来没有听过那一个先进国家或世界级的政府会叫他们的人民“卖屋养老”的！第四， 马部长能担保每一代人都能在退休时能把屋子卖得好价钱吗？在一个迅速老化的国家里，这“卖屋养老”的计划真的行得通？从经济学的角度来看，这种计划根本是行不通的！在一个迅速老化的社会里，在未来的二、三十年里，老年人肯定比年轻人来得多。如果依马部长的计划，每个老人都须“卖屋养老”，那么卖屋子的人（老人）肯定比买屋子的人（年轻人）多！在这种情况之下，屋子的价钱怎么能好？说穿了，问题的症结就在于新组屋的价格的升幅在过去30年里已经超过了人民的收入增长。我们父辈能以10年或15年付清他们的的房屋贷款，而如今我们却要我们的年轻一辈与下一代以30年房贷来购买组屋！如果他们30岁结婚买组屋，他们要等到60岁才能付完房贷。到时公积金里所剩无几，所以他们才需“卖屋养老”了！我们在此呼吁马宝山部长与行动党，认真看待他们应负起的社会契约责任，而不是以似是而非的论调来推卸这责任。我们不期望执政党去干预组屋的公开市场。但我们希望建屋局履行它原本的职责，公布组屋建筑价格，把新组屋以成本价售予第一次购买组屋的国人。吴明盛国民团结党秘书长启 CNA Talking Point: NCMP Scheme I was invited to give my views in the Talking Point program about the changes to the Constitutions particularly with regards to the increase in NCMPs in parliament. You could watch the exchange of views at Channel News Asia website or Youtube here. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/tp/index.htm Please Donate DIRECTLY to NSP My heartfelt thanks to many supporters who have shown their concerns to me after knowing my intention to sell my flat for NSP election campaign.Some of you wanted to donate directly to me during my walk about or at other public activities. I appreciate very much of your kindness and support but I have to decline such direct donations. It is a matter of principles that I have to keep my finance very simple and clear without any complications. I would instead urge my supporters to donate directly to NSP account. But please remember to email us your personal particulars and state the amount that you have donated to nsp-cec@yahoogroups.com after you have banked in your contributions into our party's bank accounts as follows:National Solidarity PartyUOB account at 933-341-747-9We are obliged to return or surrender a received anonymous donation (to the authority) if, by accepting the anonymous donation, our total accumulated amount of anonymous donations received for the financial year should amount to S$5,000 or more.- We are obliged to return or surrender a received donation (to the authority) if a donation originates from a non-permissible source such as:(i) Permanent Residents and foreigners;(ii) Singapore citizens who are below 21 years of age; and(iii) Unincorporated associations which include businesses, societies, trade unions, mutual benefit organisations, professional firms, charities, co-operatives, corporation soles and incorporated trusts.It is very important for you to provide us your particulars else any anonymous donations which pass the total of $5,000 in a year would be confiscated by the PAP government. Thank you very much. Goh Meng Seng May Day Message 2010 I will be attending the May Day Picnic at Hong Lim Park this evening (4pm to 6pm)and most probably, TRY to give a SHORT speech there. (Well, people always commented that I give long speeches...) Please join us for this little gathering at Hong Lim Park.Meanwhile, NSP has issued our May Day Message 2010NSP's May Day Message 2010Sat, May 01, 2010In recognition of May Day, the National Solidarity Party honours the workers of the world in general, and those in Singapore in particular for their invaluable contributions towards nation building through their strife and hard work, sometimes in demanding and non-conducive environments.Although a fundamental prerequisite of Production, labour is often taken for granted, especially by organizations with vested interest. Workers are expected to be more productive as in faster and better, yet they are also expected to be “cheaper” as well.Labour unions should be truly independent to best advance the interests of their members. They should not be beholden to the State or any political power. In Singapore, the NTUC has categorically stated that it has a “symbiotic relationship” with the ruling party PAP. It would naturally serve to help sustain PAP’s political hegemony. At times, the NTUC operates much like a sub-division of the PAP.Thus, in many sense, the NTUC has become a labour front turned political party. Its Secretary General and several other leaders are cabinet ministers, and the entire body has openly aligned itself towards a specific political identity. Under such circumstances, it inevitably loses its independence and ability to exert a better bargaining for the workers whose interests it supposed to safe guard.The PAP Government has pride itself for having formulated an unique “tripartite” relationship with the labour front and the employers federation. However this is done by pure dominance of the labour union NTUC instead of treating them as independent equals.Consequently, despite various fiscal schemes to promote productivity, Singaporean workers are often over-worked, over-regulated, under-paid and under-motivated. On the other hand, the leaders of the so-called “tripartism” are generally over-paid. Indeed, the divide between the rulers and the ruled has further expanded year after year.Perhaps, the Government could re-examine its policy paradoxes involving market versus values, local against foreign, and family versus work. The mad chase after high GDP growth regardless of cost and benefits have caused great confusion to the People. High GDP growth is fast becoming meaningless to Singaporeans when many of them are displaced by cheaper foreign workers in the process. The stagnated income level for the our lower income workers has made High GDP growth figures totally irrelevant.The union, NTUC, has not resisted any attempts by the PAP government to artificially boost GDP growth at the expense of Singaporeans by opening the flood gates to foreign workers. This is the most glaring failing of NTUC as well as the “tripartite” relationship.Nevertheless, NSP continues to share a common aspiration with the Singaporean worker in maintaining a positive outlook that livelihood would improve with the anticipated structural changes in the national political scene in the coming months. Ken SunChairman, Central-South DistrictNational Solidarity Party GRC, NCMP vs Proportionate Representation First of all, some of you may wonder if I have used the wrong phrase "proportionate representation" instead of "proportional representation". In most context in the world, people would tend to use "proportional representation" to describe the system of allocating seats to different political parties according to the percentage of votes they received in a general elections. There are quite a number of variations of such system. However, in Singapore's context, there is one more function to be met as we are a multi-racial nation. "Proportionate Representation" would mean that we could achieve racial representation proportionately via the proportional representation system. This stands in contrast to the present GRC system that we have now.I have just finished recording for CNA Talking Point program which will be aired on this coming Sunday (2 May 2010), 10pm. There are certain points which were brought up but some points missed due to the time constrains. I shall explain my stand here with regards to the Press Release I wrote about the increase of NCMP seats.I will start with the reasoning of PAP wanting to increase the number of NCMPs. It all started from one research paper done by Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) right after GE 2006. There are a few key findings and one important finding is that younger voters (P65 voters) want fair fight. They are no longer interested in pork barrel politics of HDB upgrading. They want to see more diversity of voices in parliament. Thus, you can see that PAP no longer depend on HDB upgrading as its key electioneering strategy. They want to address the higher demand of more opposition voices in parliament. Thus, they come up with this changes of increasing more NCMPs in parliament.I am not against NCMP scheme as I have already stated that NCMPs would have been legitimate members of parliament EMPOWERED by the voters if they are elected under the proportional representation system. They should be conferred the FULL POWER of voting rights in parliament, in contrast to the present NCMP scheme whereby NCMPs cannot vote in Supply bills (i.e. Budget), constitutional changes as well as no-confidence motion. The disproportionate number of opposition members in parliament as compared to the percentage of votes we get is due to the GRC system. Thus, the ROOT CAUSE is the GRC system, not the lack of NCMPs in parliament. (illustratin: for single seats, 2 out of 9 seats were won by opposition. This is about 22% of the seats. Although this is still 11% away from the national average votes, but it is much better than the GRC results whereby ZERO seats were won/allocated to opposition even though we have 33.3% of votes. Thus, the problem of dis-proportionality lies with GRC.)My view is that PAP is just trying to pacify voters that even if they vote for PAP, they could still have opposition voices in parliament without the full voting power. This is at best, populist attempt to further their agenda of political hegemony. This is the fundamental reason why I am opposing the changes even though I am neutral about NCMP scheme, because it has a motive and agenda behind it. Naturally, to solve the problem of dis-proportionality, we will have to deal with the root problem, GRC system. This is why I have proposed the proportionate representation system to be implemented on top of the GRC system. The GRC system is unsustainable and unstable in the long run. I guess when MM Lee talked about having "freak elections results", he understood the risks of the present GRC system. It doesn't need "freak elections results" to illustrate the inherent problems of the GRC system. If PAP lost 40% of the seats or GRCs, it could still form the government. However, it would have lost 40% of its top political talents in the process. Thus, even if it is to form the next government, it would mean that it will have to appoint second rated MPs from its rank to fill the cabinet minister posts. Would that result be optimal? Paying top salaries for second rated ministers? Someone pointed out to me that they could well appoint their ministers who have lost to be NMPs so that they could continue to be ministers. Wouldn't that make a mockery out of the whole political system? If we implement proportional representation on top of the GRC system, top political talents from all political parties would have been elected as long as their parties could garner the minimum required support. Even if a coalition government is to be formed as the result of this proportionate representation system, the nation could be assured that the best people from the political parties would be in place to form the government. Many people hold the view that coalition government is no good, it is weak and such. I would object to such over simplification. The most competitive country in the world, Finland, is governed by a coalition government. So does our once aspiring Switzerland. It has a coalition government which is termed as the most stable government in the world. Even country like New Zealand which only switch to proportional representation system late last century is coping with its new system. Most importantly, proportional representation will enhance the consultative process and build consensus. It will allow people to have more stake in what is taking place to their country.While some PAP MPs would say that the proportional representation system or even the NCMP scheme would allow opposition "noise makers" to get into parliament too easily, I would say many of us could not bear with the many MPs in parliament who have always agree blindly for the sake of agreeing to walk into the parliament through the GRC system as well. It is a matter of relativity and ultimately, in the long run, voters are not daft. They will vote even more carefully for those who they think would contribute positively towards the political process.I was asked on whether I will take up NCMP if I am granted one. My personal stand is, I will not take up any NCMP post in parliament if I am not granted FULL VOTING RIGHTS in parliament. Having a voice in parliament is important, but more importantly, we need to have the right and power to register our views in terms of parliamentary vote. The present system doesn't fulfill this simple but yet important criteria. NCMP Sylvia Lim is against the increase of NCMP and NMP in parliament. But she cannot vote against it because as NCMP, she is deprived of the right to vote in constitutional changes. Mr. Alvin Yeo, who have spoken against the increase for a different reason, has to vote for it eventually, according to his party whip. Well, he did qualify that he agrees with some other changes mentioned in the bill but the point is, once the party whip is applied, no PAP MPs could vote against it without repercussions. There are very instances in history that PAP has not applied its party whip during all parliamentary voting. Having said that, I would not object to any of my party colleagues to take up the NCMP posts if offered. This is because I also view NCMP as a transitional scheme towards the proportional/proportionate representation system that I am advocating. This may sound contradicting at first but this is a matter of personal preference and principles that I hold. There are some merits in taking up NCMP posts but at the end of the day, what matters is to represent those who voted for us to register our views, voice and votes in parliament. Goh Meng SengP.S. I shall talk more about the proportionate representation that I have in mind in another posting. Politics as Public Service - Just a little Sacrifice Illustration by The Sketch Times Drawing NewsWe have lost sight of the joy and excitement of public service, helping our fellow men. The joy and excitement of seeking and understanding of the joy of the miracle of living the duty and the grandeur. We have lost taste for heroic action in the service of our people. - David MarshallI didn't know the little leak of my intention of selling my flat to finance my party's election campaign would create such a hype on the internet. I didn't even tell the real reason behind my sale of my flat when I mention it to my property agent friend and an associate. But they know me long enough to second guess my real intention. Out of good intention, they make it public. I hereby send my heartfelt thanks to many of my friends and supporters for their encouraging words and support. When the going gets tough, I will get tougher. Don't worry about me as I am a survivor and I would definitely not pitch tent on the beaches to live for the rest of my life although I do like to camp outdoors once a while. I am especially touched when friends from the old days send messages to show their support. Touched because as old friends, they understand me well and have that trust and confidence in me that I would really make sacrifices for social-political causes if there is a necessity to do so. They would not believe in other people's skepticism of my move and stood firmly behind me by giving me and family the uncompromising support and comforting words. Initially, I do not wish to comment on the matter and to let it die down. But Mr. Tan Kin Lian wrote an email to me to seek clarifications. I have high respect for Mr. Tan who have selflessly stood up and fought for the Minibonds victims in 2008. Out of due respect, I made my first clarification on this matter.But the key message here is not about why I have to sell my flat to finance the party's overall strategic electoral campaigning. Definitely not about how great or silly it is for me to do that. The key messages are: Freedom is not Free and Politics is Public Service which requires just a little sacrifices from everyone.I have tried to play the issue down by persuading reporters not to write about it. The reason is simple, Politics should be Public Service and it is expected of all players, both opposition as well as ruling party politicians to make sacrifices. My little sacrifices here is dwarfed when compared to many politicians in the world, past and present. Politicians like Dr Sun Yat Sen have practically sold out everything they have just for their pursue of their political dream. Some have even laid their lives down for their political beliefs. In Singapore, the late Mr. JB Jeyaratnam has also make tremendous sacrifices by selling off his assets just to pay for his heavy political price exacted by his opponents. I do appreciate the supportive comments and responses that I am getting while I read those skeptical comments with an open heart. Both supportive and sneering comments gave me the same enlightenment somehow.It seems that Singapore has long lost the sense and spirit of Public Service. Supporters, well wishers and friends alike, are "touched" by this little mention of sacrifices basically because they have not seen such acts of willingness to make sacrifices, no matter how small it is, for the political betterment of the society. Similarly, for those skeptics who have been brought up in this materialistic environment social engineered by the PAP government for the past decades, would not believe that there would be people willing to make sacrifices in Singapore's opposition politics, which is always viewed as the "Lost Cause". I cannot stop people from being skeptics neither can I do mind control over them. But I can only tell you about what I know which has happened and still happening in opposition politics. There may be some people who are still selfish, self centred or insincere in many parts of Singapore's society, including politics. However, I can safely tell you that there are still a small group of people who have made sacrifices throughout the years and decades to sustain the effort of opposition parties. They are the unnamed heroes of opposition politics in Singapore. Some of them have passed away but hopefully there are still younger ones to pass on the spirit of public service in politics. When I was in Workers Party prior to GE 2006, I have seen many of these veterans working quietly on the ground every Sundays and on every major occasions. Most of them are unknown to the public as they have not stood for elections at all. When the elections is near, Mr. Low Thia Khiang himself has offered to sponsor my election campaign if I need it. Although I have turned down the offer as I could well afford it myself, but I appreciate his selfless dedication of wanting to groom the next generation of opposition politicians by financing them in elections. I also know that Dr. Tan Bin Seng has sponsored quite a number of candidates as well. Similar observations are made when I joined National Solidarity Party. There are veterans who have worked quietly for past years and decades, contributing to the party's cause. Sebastian Teo, the present President of NSP has also committed himself to groom and finance good potential candidates to stand for elections if necessary and if they are willing to stand. Some may look down on the little bits of contributions by these people but let me tell you a story. During Buddha's time, there was a beggar who have sold his hair for that little money to buy a small bit of oil. He intended to offer the oil to Buddha but was stopped by the monks outside the shrine because he was smelly with very untidy dressing. However, Buddha summoned him in and accepted his offer. After accepting his offer, Buddha then gave a sermon to his disciples. There were many kings, princes and rich men making huge offerings to Him but compared to what this beggar has offered, their offerings were insignificant. The beggar has given all he has to offer Him and such merits are very much bigger than those kings, princes and the rich. Thus we should not look down or belittle the every little bits of sacrifices and contributions that all these unsung heroes behind the political screens have given to Singapore. We should treasure it as our heritage of selfless spirit. These people are the pillars of Democracy. It dawns on me that as leaders of an opposition party, it is our responsibilities to keep the party going. In view of Sebastian's commitment to make money the LEAST PROBLEM for good people to step forward and contribute to the cause of political plurality, I decided to do my little part to contribute to the war chest as well. Thus the decision was made to sell my little 4 room flat to raise that funding.It is nothing much actually because I am brought up by my parents to understand the importance of society before self. My late father has taught me that politics should be about public service, to serve the people in selfless ways. The role of the government is to take care of the people's interests...etc. I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone, including myself and other opposition members that Freedom is NOT Free. Our democratic existence is built upon the many sacrifices, big and small, of many people, past and present. I was told by someone that some "interesting" people are "watching" me. These are the "elders" in the past and present political field. Frankly speaking, I am not surprised at all. Even for the elder PAP cadre members, I believe that they have contributed selflessly to their political beliefs during their youth. I also believe that they are disappointed that they could no longer see the kind of spirit of Public Service that should exist and maintain in modern days. I also believe that these old guards of yesteryears will agree with me that their PAP government should honor the social obligation of providing cheap public housing to Singaporeans as this was and should still be the democratic socialist ideal of land reform and redistribution. I believe that there are still some elder PAP cadre members who are just like Mr. Tan Kin Lian who still hold true to his own ideological belief of social and economic fairness. Mr. Tan, as an ex-PAP cadre member, has taught me one very important thing during the Minibond saga, FAIRNESS. I was told he left NTUC because he couldn't compromise his sens of FAIRNESS, in the socialist way of providing FAIR returns and insurance coverage for the NTUC policy holders, in exchange for the profit maximizing direction. I have great respect for him not only for his effort in helping the Minibond victims but also his uncompromising sacrifices made to uphold the very values he believes in. These are all little sacrifices that wouldn't be known to the public if nobody mention about them. I hope that Singaporeans should not just see my little grass in the forest without realizing that Singapore does have a tradition of people making sacrifices for the betterment of the society politically, in the name of Public Service. Goh Meng Seng