By Fang Shihan
Longtime opposition stalwart, Mr Goh Meng Seng (picture right, middle), is no stranger to Singapore’s politics. Having just been elected Secretary-General of the National Solidarity Party (NSP), the former Worker’s Party politician is decidedly confident.
“The PAP is ultra capitalist!” he says. “They think that running a country is like running a company… but in a country, surplus and deficit is not the same as profit and loss… [they have] no moral bearing in a political sense.”
Effectively bilingual, the owner of a small business in Ang Mo Kio and part-time translator switches between the two languages with ease during the interview. He also sees this as an asset should he come up against Mr Mah Bow Tan in Tampines GRC in the upcoming elections.
Views on the current political system
An economist by nature, Mr Goh compares the political system to a marketplace. He feels that the opposition must be the spurs in the PAP’s hinds to make the PAP more competitive.
Only by challenging the PAP’s power status will the PAP ‘up’ its competitiveness. This, he clarifies, is not the same as asking for welfare, which merely functions as a stopgap measure. Quite often, systemic faults are the cause of unemployment, preventing people who want to have an opportunity to work from lifting themselves out of poverty.
Drawing an analogy with the public transport system, which he derides as inadequate and not competitive, he says, “If you had a total monopoly of power, there is no incentive to do better…. There is no urgency or need for those in authority to heed your demand.”
Aside from the opposition, there needs to be participation from the people in order to get a more responsive and caring governance. A multi-pronged approach with the media, the social worker and politician as equal partners negotiating with the state would make for the ideal political system. Opposition leaders, he explains, are needed as political leverage to threaten the ruling party with the danger of losing voters.
“If Singapore wants to set the best deal for government, it needs [political] opposition in contestation for power.”
Another paradigm-shifting party?
Mr Goh says that the political system must change to serve the new electorate. Unlike the previous generation which was willing to sacrifice political freedoms for economic growth, the post-65 voters do not feel beholden to the PAP. The fact that the ageing Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew is largely responsible for holding the integrity of the ruling party together , and that post-65 voters will form more than 50% of the electorate in the next elections, there is an imperative to think about Singapore’s political future in the post-LKY phase.
According to Mr Goh, these post-65 voters are more educated and want to see political debate. More importantly, they wish to see substance in the political process.
The NSP, he says, “may be small, but it has a role [to play] to be the agent of change.”
The NSP, Mr Goh says, will be very open about its political strategy, something never seen before in Singapore. In line with the post-65 electorate that wishes to see more political debate and substance in the political process, the NSP will not wait for the 9-day campaigning period to begin educating voters on its vision for Singapore.
“Voters cannot make a good assessment within 9 days,” he reasons.
What NSP will be pushing for
Mr Goh declares that the NSP is planning to contest in Tampines GRC with its Malay candidate at the fore. There has never been a Malay MP from the opposition, which has led to a myth that only Malay PAP MPs can take care of the community’s welfare.
The NSP’s minister-policy centered strategy will see the NSP targeting Mr Mah Bow Tan, questioning him on the HDB policies which have led to rocketing flat prices. “Look deeper into the problem,” Mr Goh explains. “It is not just asset devaluation. We must ask: Is the minister doing his job?”
He will also be pushing for a minimum wage policy. Attacking the latest ESC (Economic Strategies Committee) report, which proposed levies for foreign workers, he says that this will only escalate the existing price war between lower-skilled local and foreign workers.
There is an imbalance of supply and demand in the labour market, driven by unlimited supply from foreign workers, he explains. These workers are therefore bound to be exploited through wage suppression as their wages are driven down by price competition.
Singaporeans are even worse off, he continues, as unlike their foreign counterparts who are able to rent rooms at $160/mth fromgovernment agencies, they instead have to pay a mortgage for their flat. Even if they were to rent a flat, a subsidized 2 room rental flat costs between $205 – $275/mth for second timers, if the gross household income lies between $801-$1500. Foreign workers also enjoy an effective lower cost of living, as their families are overseas.
“The burden is shifted to the foreign workers who have to settle for even lower wages. Levies don’t make sense without minimum wage,” he insists.
He thus proposes a limitation of supply by quota, together with minimum wage, to level out the competition platform. When asked if this would make locals uncompetitive, he responds that there needs to be a distinction between labour competitiveness and labour exploitation.
“A minister has to fall” in the process of change
The PAP came about through a people’s power movement, he says. But now, because there is no fear of competition, it has become a monarchy, building its palace and walls and shutting themselves off from the people. Citing the recent TOC feature on homeless people in Singapore, he asks if the MCYS knew about the homeless. And if they did, were they too busy to do anything about it? This, he says, has led to a situation of disaffection.
The ruling party should not think of how to maintain a monopoly, he urges. For example, the electoral system is structured such that a minister would be removed if the opposition won a GRC.
“Imagine if you lose a good minister because of the system that has been built. Is that good for the nation?”
He has no doubts that the PAP would still be dominant. However, this would mean that, upon losing a GRC, the PAP would still be in power, but with inferior stock.
The NSP believes in proportional representation, he says, for the sustainability and stability of the political system. A more dynamic model that reflects the wishes of the people is needed, instead of one that is designed to perpetuate a monopoly. However, he muses, change will only come in view of a reluctant monopoly of power – a minister must fall in the process.
_____________________________________________________
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
no no we need cartoon people liked my views … without him how do we know pap government people are moroon? because with him around..a kachangputeh partime printer merchant can outperformed better than a pap MP….
Mr Goh the last election I voted for you when stand under WP ticket.
If you come again rest assured my vote is still reserved for you.
Wish best of luck to you please carry on what you do Singapore really need a change.
i have bad feeling about opposition optimism capturing more seats this coming election let alone a GRC. i am throwing cold water. singapore could only take a step when time permit. what most of us are disgusted is the monopoly of the the famiLEE not the PAP as a whole.
so let the non famiLEE PAP elite take the first cue to put our sad story right. we are still feeling the PAINs of LKY even though the old man had “handover”power to 2 PMs.(it is more than almost 20 long years)
poor goh chok tong and lee hsien loong , singaporeans see you 2 nothing leh. SO do something for the good of stupid singaporean.. mr GOH
change the system run by the famiLEE
Hi aurvandi, if you hear what wong kan seng said yesterday, although not the total
reason but part of their rationale for the immigraton policy is to compensate for the
declining birth rate. Thus there is a need to examine whether their assumption is valid
and whether other policies might be more effective.
Let us examine the problem now:
From the figures of 19900 given yesterday for new citizens + 59500 the number of PR
granted, we must question if such a large increase is really justified?. Immigration alone do not solve the problem since these immigrants themselve would also grow old and would contribute to the old age dependency ratio. The governement need to do a comprehensive study on the actual number needed instead of just using simple subtraction of 60000-37000 that is reported in the newspaper today. There are some studies that show that excessive immigrants beyond a certain number are not as effective in reducing the problem of an ageing society when compared to other pro-natalist policies that emphasized more on social and economical obstacles faced by the younger workers.
Moreover, the assumption by the PAP that increased immigrants would lead to increased
living standards are too controversial since the evidence in the literature suggested
that immigrant have either small positive effect, neutral effects or negative effects
depending on the country and circumstances. Moreover, any negative social costs have
clearly been ignored by the government previously.
For many of the developed countries, immigration is only part of a comprehensive method
to stabilize the population and reduce the increase in the old age dependency ratio.
The reasons why i think that trying to solve our declining birth rate is just as important as some of the issues you highlighted are as follows:
1)The government have only focused on the direct economic causes while neglecting the
indirect opportunity costs, social and biological aspects of the problem.(Bonggarts
2008) Moreover, little effort have been used in reducing or eliminating tempo effects
(postponing of childbearing). Some of the indirect economic costs hightlighted in the
study (Bonggarts 2008) that are relevant to singapore are: rising price of real estate and employment uncertainty.
2)The failure of the various familiy friendly policies formulated by the government to
increase the fertility could possiibly be traced to young people not execising their
rights and the persistence of a society that is still not family friendly in both
working life and social life. A qualitative study of the failure in Solvenia of family
policies (Rajgelj 2007)showed that there is a perceived incompatibility of looking after
a child with the culture of ‘long working hours’demanded by employers. Some of the real
or preceived strong impediments to execising their rights include insecure future, fears
of losing a job or being sanctioned in the workplace. Any government should realise that
people might not be sufficiently motivated by money alone to use any existing policies.
Addressing the reasons for the discrimination of potential parents is an important step
towards the reconcilization of family life and work.
3)Addressing these obstactes in a holistic manner is necessary to ensure success in
raising the TFR. We might need to shift our emphasis on a pure economical approach to
running the country to include aspects of a “social investment paradiam”. Studying the
successes of the French and Scandivian models might prove useful. Some of the possible
ways have also been highlighted excellently by Mr Tan Kin Lian on his articles on social
democracy.
Hence, moving forward, i agree with aurvandi that some of the 5 billion could have been
put into solving real problems faced by young and old people today. The problems that
you mentioned about the public infrastructure are in fact complementary to the obstaces
faced in having a child.
Hi moderator can you delete the former reply and this one . i give a revised reply in another reply. thanks
Hi aurvandi, if you hear what wong kan seng said yesterday, although not the total reason but part of their rationale for the immigraton policy is to compensate for the declining birth rate. Thus there is a need to examine whether their assumption is valid and whether other policies might be more effective. Let us examine the problem now:
From the figures of 19900 given yesterday for new citizens + 59500 the number of PR granted, we must question if such a large increase is really justified?. Immigration alone do not solve the problem since these immigrants themselves would also grow old and would contribute to the old age dependency ratio. The government need to do a comprehensive study on the actual number needed instead of just using simple subtraction of 60000-37000 that is reported in the newspaper today. There are some studies that show that excessive immigrants beyond a certain number are not as effective in reducing the problem of an ageing society when compared to other pro-natalist policies that emphasized more on social and economical obstacles faced by the younger workers.
Moreover, the assumption by the PAP that increased immigrants would lead to increased living standards are too controversial since the evidence in the literature suggested that immigrant have either small positive effect, neutral effects or negative effects depending on the country and circumstances. Moreover, any negative social costs have clearly been ignored by the government previously.
For many of the developed countries, immigration is only part of a comprehensive method to stabilize the population and reduce the increase in the old age dependency ratio. The reasons why i think that trying to solve our declining birth rate is just as important as some of the issues you highlighted are as follows:
1) The government have only focused on the direct economic causes while neglecting the indirect opportunity costs, social and biological aspects of the problem.(Bonggarts 2008) Moreover, little effort have been used in reducing or eliminating tempo effects (postponing of childbearing). Some of the indirect economic costs hightlighted in the study (Bonggarts 2008) that are relevant to singapore are: rising price of real estate and employment uncertainty.
2)The failure of the various familiy friendly policies formulated by the government to increase the fertility could possiibly be traced to young people not execising their rights and the persistence of a society that is still not family friendly in both working life and social life. A qualitative study of the failure in Solvenia of family policies (Rajgelj 2007) showed that there is a perceived incompatibility of looking after a child with the culture of ‘long working hours’demanded by employers. Some of the real or preceived strong impediments to execising their rights include insecure future, fears of losing a job or being sanctioned in the workplace. Any government should realise that people might not be sufficiently motivated by money alone to use any existing policies. Addressing the reasons for the discrimination of potential parents is an important step towards the reconciliation of family life and work.
3)Addressing these obstacles in a holistic manner is necessary to ensure success in raising the TFR. We might need to shift our emphasis on a pure economical approach to running the country to include aspects of a “social investment paradiam”. Studying the successes of the French and Scandivian models might prove useful. Some of the possible ways have also been highlighted excellently by Mr Tan Kin Lian on his articles on social democracy.
Hence, moving forward, i agree with aurvandi that some of the 5 billion could have been put into solving real problems faced by young and old people today. The problems that you mentioned about the public infrastructure are in fact complementary to the obstacles faced in having a child.
Government only needs to do one thing and i believe many Singaporeans will start to bear more children…..
*Provide comprehensive social security net for our future generations.*
(p.s. What Minimum Sum la, Baby Bonus la, CPF Life la, ,,,, these are all junks! Still can’t believe these schemes actually came from our scholars team)
mon
Mar 5, 2010 7:16
according to My views, Tampinese flats will fall in price by 50%,
————————————————————————————–
I did not say that if GMS won, Tampines flats would fall in price by 50%.
I meant to say if he did win Tampines GRC against Mah Bow Tan, all HDB flats in Singapore would fall in price by at least 50%.
The MM felt your HDB flats would be of no value if Mah Bow Tan lost, but I don’t quite agree with that because there bound to be some scrap value.
nonsense
Mar 5, 2010 14:23
{ Are you that saying only emperors, CEOs,white elephants can qualify to run Singapore?.
Given your brain dead illogic, the likes of Nelson Mandela or Aung San Suu Kyi should both just roll over since they are obviously no match for the wealth and power and usurped “experience” of the ruling dictators in their country then and now respectively.
—————————————————————————————————–
Would you get a trishaw-rider or road-sweeper to be the nation’s minister? The answer must be no.
On your point of Aung San Suu Kyi, may I remind you that she can’t even get herself eligible to stand for an election; lets forget about hoping she has the ability to manage a country.
This forum is not quite user-friendly. I had made significant contributions on several of the topics discussed here and naturally I would like to know whether there is any one I have not convinced. However, I have difficulties recalling or finding those topics which I had previously shared my views. Is there a way to find them? Hopefully these topics have not been deleted just because my views were embarrassing to some members of the opposition parties.
Dear GMS, look once again, your Tampines strategy still produces rippling effects for the benefit of Singaporeans, MBT has again made announcements to benefit singaporeans once again! hahahahaha. This is better than you any minority opposition vote in parliament , look with Sylia in Parliament, she could not even bring on this effect, or even if you were elected in Parliament, it would be futile too. But by putting Tampines under seige before the elections, all this is happening! and the opposition does not need to fight too hard to convince some daft singaporeans to vote for them either cos the end result of getting into parliament now seems to be way less important than the pure announcement of the opposition fielding a candidate in a GRC where issues remain unaddressed to Singaporeans. Its seems that the PAP is not daft to IGNORE this threat and therefore has responded week after week to placate the voting citizens. hahahahahahahahahaha.
HDB extends Second Concessionary Loan to more flat buyers
By Hoe Yeen Nie, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 05 March 2010 1847 hrs
SINGAPORE: HDB resale flat owners must occupy their flats for at least three years before they can sell them. The move is to further curb speculation in the HDB resale market.
But the board’s also extending help to genuine buyers by revising its second concessionary loan policy.
An HDB flat is meant for residents to live in not for short-term profit. It’s a message that housing authorities have repeatedly stressed in recent months.
And now, the government is acting further to keep speculators out.
From Friday, if you buy a non-subsidised resale flat without taking a CPF grant, you can only sell it after three years.
With this change, HDB said demand in the resale market will more accurately reflect the interest of genuine buyers.
Also with effect from Friday, if you buy a non-subsidised resale flat, without taking a CPF grant, you can only sell it after three years.
Previously, such buyers on an HDB loan have a minimum occupation period of two and a half years.
For those on bank loans, it’s one year.
All households can now apply for a second mortgage loan from the housing board for their next flat.
This excludes those who have disposed of their private properties.
But under new rules, they can only keep S$25,000 or half of cash proceeds, whichever is higher.
So for instance, a couple sells their existing flat first, and gets S$80,000 in cash and S$60,000 in CPF refund.
To pay for their next HDB flat, they will use half of their cash, or S$40,000, and the entire CPF refund.
In turn, HDB will grant them a loan that is S$100,000 less and the couple keeps S$40,000 in cash.
If the couple buys another flat before selling their existing one, the HDB will give them a loan based on commercial rates.
They will also have to draw down on their CPF balance.
Once they sell their old flat, say after six months, they have to redeem this loan using part of their cash proceeds and the CPF refund.
Interest on the HDB loan will then revert to concessionary rates.
Previously, only those moving to bigger flats were eligible for the loan.
But authorities said this may have driven some to upgrade even though they cannot afford it.
National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan said: “The changes to the second concessionary loan will help Singaporeans right-size to a home that they can sustain over the long term. It will help homebuyers manage their finances for their flat purchase upstream, and avoid financial difficulties downstream.”
The minister also urged buyers to choose within their means. – CNA/vm
James Neo
The issue of raising the TFR is like productivity – been trying for years with no positive results.
It is unfortunate but the political culture in the PAP is such that if it is something with no advantage to their personal careers, Ministers and MPs will siam getting involved.
Everyone only wants to be involved in the glam, high profile porfolios where sucesss is guarantued.
For this reason, there hasn’t really been a serious attempt to resolve this problem. Being a realist, I suspect that there never will. Immigration will continue to be used as the tool to “top-up” the population. The PAP has never been interested in what happens to Singaporeans. They are ony concerned about Singapore. In their strange brand of nationallism, everything is OK as long as GDP goes up and there are large budget reserves. What happens to Singaporeans is actually quite beside the point.
there isn’t a big budget surplus.
if there is, there will be a persistent increase in reserve which is not the case.
//My Views
//I had made significant contributions on several of the topics discussed here and naturally I would like to know whether there is any one I have not convinced.
self servicing praises again.
//I did not say that if GMS won, Tampines flats would fall in price by 50%.
//I meant to say if he did win Tampines GRC against Mah Bow Tan, all HDB flats in Singapore would fall in price by at least 50%.
//The MM felt your HDB flats would be of no value if Mah Bow Tan lost, but I don’t quite agree with that because there bound to be some scrap value.
MBT lost to Chiam many years ago and Chiam’s ward is as expensive as ever.
Listening to an old man who lost the equivalent wealth of the ex richest man in S’pore over 1 year, is a sign of inanity.
that’s why nobody agrees with you here.
// My views
Thanks for your enthusiasm in current affairs. You have the right to voice your views here. Gather from your comments I guess you are quite a young chap. And young people are generally impatient, gullible & naive in the beginning.
Casting a vote is far more important than voicing personal views in the forum. I hope you continue to share with TOC members your views with an open mind, and at the same time, analyse objectively what other people have to share in this forum.
Take care.
Hi aurvandil, knowing that such process often takes decades for the success to bear fruit, it is true that the PAP might not have the long term vision and political courage.
However, i believe that any opposition that have the real vision to replace the government should and are not as constrained as the incumbent to put this long term interest into their portfolio of change even if playing only a small part at present due to their limitation.
The social reforms needed to create an environment that can raise the TFR can also be part of their objective to increase the ‘real’ standard of living of both the middle and lower class. Let us just hope that real change can occur through either more discussion or through our vote themselves and we can progress into some form of social democracy that are suitable for Singapore. I will stop delving into this topic for now and thanks for reading my long-winded replies.
My Views Mar 6, 2010 3:21
“On your point of Aung San Suu Kyi, may I remind you that she can’t even get herself eligible to stand for an election; lets forget about hoping she has the ability to manage a country.”
————
Clearly you are mentally unsound, cunning and attention seeking. ASSK was unjustifiably imprisoned as she posed a threat to the dictator junta even after she democratically won the GE in a landslide. You are posting trash to generate feedbacks to feed your lonely existence. Either you are mole planted here to stir reactions or you are a loser.
My Views Mar 6, 2010 3:21
“On your point of Aung San Suu Kyi, may I remind you that she can’t even get herself eligible to stand for an election; lets forget about hoping she has the ability to manage a country.”
————
Clearly you are mentally unsound, cunning and attention seeking. ASSK was unjustifiably imprisoned as she posed a threat to the dictator junta even after she democratically won the GE in a landslide. You are posting trash to generate feedbacks to feed your lonely existence. Either you are mole planted here to stir reactions or you are a loser, both ways you are a retard and a sorry excuse for a human being.
The short answer is , as to why No Minister will fall, the PEOPLE . The people is where talent come from. the talent pool. Talents exist small numbers but sufficient to form an Alternative Team. I have no doubt about it. Precisely this pool of people may not want to join opposition team for the benefit of the country in the long term. so , this is the short answer.
the longer answer is :
1. the Opposition leaders again FAIL to PERSUADE talents to join them. If they continue to manage to fail, NO MINISTERS will FALL. Guaranteed. Thus, we can see who is responsible for the success or failure in this aspect. Great leaders, truely great leaders, who also have Gift of the Gap , possess the power of Persuation.
2. the Voters may again DENY opposition candidates a seat, consciously. Of course, when you vote, you do it consciously. you are responsible for your voting decision.
I not sure what to expect in the next 5 years if no change. I really cannot imagine. Like never before in my life. I feel Hopeless, Helpless and Voiceless. I may be forced by circumstances to make a tough decision.
Hi CMS ,
Thank you for the minister specific strategy, now everyday got kumpung story coming out from MBT very good leh heheh.
This is what I mean by opposition representation without having to depend on the 66% to cross over to elect opposition.
Very good lei!
Happens once in 4 years .
http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/image/20100306/b11.jpg
National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan recounting his childhood years growing up in various housing types. ‘When I was young, I lived in various places with my mother, who was a domestic servant. I lost my father when I was three years old, so we moved around a lot.
We stayed in a kampung in Lorong Ah Soo, which today has HDB flats and is in Cynthia Phua’s (MP for Aljunied GRC) constituency. Every time I visit the flats there, I still remember where the kampung house was. Then we moved to a shophouse in High Street. My mum was working for a High Street merchant at that time. Today, that is where the MTI (Ministry of Trade and Industry) and MOF (Ministry of Finance) are (in The Treasury building).
Then we moved to a room in Bugis Street. Today, it is Bugis Junction. There were 10 of us living in that room. We had one bed which slept five. It was raised so that another five could sleep underneath. Then, I moved to Kim Keat Avenue with my aunt – eight of us in a three-room flat, sharing one toilet and bathroom, while my mother stayed in a one-room rental flat in Whampoa Road.
Later, we upgraded to a four-room flat in Toa Payoh.
That is a typical Singapore story for my generation. Start in a modest flat, work hard, accumulate savings, and upgrade over time. Then, if you need to, rightsize to a smaller flat.’ National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan recounting his childhood years growing up in various housing types.
Oh by the way. please do catch MBT on talking point trying to justify why he should still be Minister and hoping to get our votes. Because LKY basically told him , li si li eh tai chee, (you die your problem) .
Talk big is cheap.
Action pls NSP.
A Tan,
yalor, ppl ask Goh Meng Seng to help handicap guy, he tok abt Mother Teresa.
ppl even gave Goh Meng Seng suggestions and he act blurr.
- @To – Mr Goh Meng Seng n TOC Admin [from My2centsWorth] Mar 3, 2010 16:31
- @To : Goh Meng Seng n Moe Gan Thai Mar 5, 2010 11:11
GOH MENG SENG,
Show Singaporeans, you better than MBT by helping this Clementi Ave 5, handicap guy on wheelchair n prob many others,
SINCE YOU GOING TO ‘KNOCK’ MBT OUT’.
MBT cant right his own ministry wrong doing,
GOH MENG SENG, show Singapore you can, advice already given to you.
———-
Quote-
A Tan Mar 7, 2010 14:40
Talk big is cheap Action pls NSP
———-
Treedee
Singaporeans CANNOT and MUST NOT use standardized logic to vote for PAP anymore. The old man has very successfully and cunt-lee-ly honed a template to perfection of legal jibber jabber to keep everything controlled under his rules and regulations.
Of course the MIW has all the useless “scholars, cream of tarts..etc” but ask yourselves, where did they apply their so called talents on? Not for the welfare of Singapore. Not for challenging unjust policies. No. They sold their souls to echo and suckup. It’s a known public fact.
What use is one who marries a billionaire but treats you like a slave over one who marries a kind and loving “slave” spouse who treats you like a billionaire. No brainer.
Those who still find “excuses” to vote for PAP are simply cowards. It’s the biggest con in history to believe that getting these MIW dictators OUT will plunge Singapore into recession. It’s like saying that Cinderella will suffer immensely if her stepmother dies.
Zzzz…remember, not all “mothers” are created equal. Some stepmothers only have one thing on their minds-you DEAD!
Put a monkey, pig, dog, cat or the 7 dwarfs in opposition, I will vote for them. I wanna see how much fireworks the old M&M chocolate will stir up when he sends his toy army soldiers to arrest all the anti-MIW voters.
A minister (MM) has already fallen to massive heart attack last night at 9.34pm. Change is already taking place.
James Tan Mar 7, 2010 16:24: “A minister (MM) has already fallen to massive heart attack last night at 9.34pm. Change is already taking place.”
Your sources?
a credible and good ( growth potential ) opposition party should have these characteristics
1) A well organized foot soldier troop
2) An alternative policies – as wide coverage as possible
3) A vision of next 10 years, some outline is still good
(2) + (3) needs think tank and grass root
4) A party agenda that attacts 30s to 40s professionals, they can be even working in stat board — History shows that without office experince, no political party can offer substances, infact this is why PAP used absurdly high salary to lock up their monopoly in ccivil services. ( Simply see Sg have more than 23 military generals with a regular force of 40,000 ).
5) Do scout on the new citizens, the China and India new citizens are not as obendient as the true blue Singaporean, they can be a source of credibe opposition.
6) make regular rebuff to PAP MPs’ empty talk in Parliament, SPH won’t report that.
7) Target weak PAP MP in a GRC, check on their performance in Parliament as well as attendance
8) Do not go radical, swing voters always determine outcome of an election.
9) Stop party cross-over, join a party and stay loyal and do not give PAP a chance to divide and conquer.
You can help to continue the list ….
Count on….
If MBT loses in Tampinese, according to LKY, people should sell their flats at 50%.
Now if rent is 1500 a month for a 4 room flat, then annual rental is 18K.
Price before MBT loses for a 4 room flat is 400K. So, after the fall in price, 4 room hdb flat there should cost 200K. That means it will take approximately 10 years to recoup the initial investment.
So the moral of the story: please keep your cash now and wait till MBT loses. Then buy at 50% and rent the flat out. You will make a wind fall.
When the population was 4 million, those flat cost 300K.
If you will have to wait until population fall till 3 million before the price is at 200K.
BTW, is anyone now surprise why LKY cock up GIC investments in China, Citi and UBS?
I think he is senile.
@mon Mar 7, 2010 20:50
JUST ANOTHER WRONG FORCAST.
Another ‘few billion bucks’ honest mistake.
@googoo Mar 6, 2010 8:00
It’s another HDB scheme to make money.
ok Mr Mah is working so hard now, CMS please let go Tampines at some point in time and move your troops to another GRC to attack! and then when policies change , then you move and soon , you have changed singapore without getting into parliament, you are the hero lah.
@googoo Mar 7, 2010 14:32
It’s a poor attempt by MBT to boost his image.
He born poor, but now he in the ‘Elite league’, he not doing much to ensure the homeless/poor even have a rental HDB flat to stay in.
He has forgotten what it’s like to be poor.
“HDB flats will lose 50% of its value if MahBT lose his Tampines seat” according to LKY
By same logic, if
Raymond Lim loss Transport Minister post — cars value half
Tharman loss his finance minister post ——— our s$ value 5o% less
Yaccob loss environmental ———— water and utilities resources evaporate by half
George Yeo loss foreign mnistry ——– loss half our international friends
Teo CH loss defence —————— our army strength half overnight
Wong kam seng loss —————– just half the number of Deputy PMs, most least loss to us
MOM minister loss ———– hopefully come true, then foreign workers half, we’ll be happy
the list is not exhaustive
I personally want the whole cabinets loss ———- we’ll save millions(maybe billions) over a election term
The only impression I have of Goh Meng Seng is that he said something like he will vote for PAP
Why did Goh Meng Seng leave the Workers’ Party? He owes the public a full explanation.
nonsense
Mar 6, 2010 14:21
Clearly you are mentally unsound, cunning and attention seeking. ASSK was unjustifiably imprisoned as she posed a threat to the dictator junta even after she democratically won the GE in a landslide. You are posting trash to generate feedbacks to feed your lonely existence. Either you are mole planted here to stir reactions or you are a loser, both ways you are a retard and a sorry excuse for a human being.
———————————————————————————————————-
Cool down, take a deep breathe and think about it.
Justified or unjustified, the fact remains that Aung San Suu Kyi is unable to get herself out of ‘prison’. She has to be out of ‘prison’ before she could manage her country. But she does not have that ability, and her supporters are not able to get her out too.
And since the combined efforts of herself, her party, her supporters and the public could not even achieve the very basis task of getting her out of home-imprisonment, what can you expect her to achieve in the role of governing her country?
The SM had a valid point – Aung San Suu Kyi is part of the problem; she thinks she is the government.
nonsense
Mar 6, 2010 14:21
Clearly you are mentally unsound, cunning and attention seeking. ASSK was unjustifiably imprisoned as she posed a threat to the dictator junta even after she democratically won the GE in a landslide. You are posting trash to generate feedbacks to feed your lonely existence. Either you are mole planted here to stir reactions or you are a loser, both ways you are a retard and a sorry excuse for a human being.
Cool down, take a deep breath and think about it.
Justified or unjustified is not the point, the fact remains that Aung San Suu Kyi is not able to get herself out of the “prison”; neither could her supporters, members of public and even with the help of United Nation.
Getting herself out of home-imprisonment is just the first step and the most basic task she has to do before she could even try her hands on managing her country. However, after all these years, with the combined efforts of herself, her party, supporters and public, she can’t even get herself out. And you expect her to have the ability to run a country? Don’t joke!
The SM had once made a valid point (well, he is a seasoned politician and prime minister after all) – Aung San Suu Kyi is part of the problem, she thinks she is the government.
WHY TOC LIKE ‘REACH’ NOWADAYS, STONWALL PPL POSTINGS?
WHY TOC LIKE ‘REACH’ NOWADAYS, STONE-WALL PPL POSTING?
CAN POST WHAT I TRY TO POST SINCE YEST, TO GSM.
Dear MR GOH MENG SENG of NSP,
Mar 8, 2010 18:39
Dear MR GOH MENG SENG of NSP,
It’s a missed opportunity for you, NSP and the opposition in general, if you ‘NATO’ on the below.
Good suggestions for you and NSP to ‘knock’ your opponent few steps down the ladder.
——-
Quote -
@Talk is Cheap, NSP GOH MENG SENG Mar 7, 2010 15:28
……….. GOH MENG SENG,
Show Singaporeans, you better than MBT by helping this Clementi Ave 5, handicap guy on wheelchair n prob many others,
SINCE YOU GOING TO ‘KNOCK’ MBT OUT’.
MBT cant right his own ministry wrong doing,
GOH MENG SENG, show Singapore you can, advice already given to you………
Treedee*
There are many blocks with these configuration in other estates and most of them have a new main entrance open from their main hall/balcony that leads to the new lifts. I wonder why these were not done, maybe the town council do not have enough money after loosing alot in lebman brothers mini-bonds.
@hoddioo,
I think you have mistaken. I have and will never vote for PAP in my life as long as it remains as a self serving political party out to monopolize power. You must have been referring to someone else.
Singapore needs diversity and balance of power politically.
Goh Meng Seng
ok GMS, time for some new action, why don’t you now go for Lim Hwee Hua’s GRC and watch changes before our very eyes just like how MBT changes his stance in a month. Again we may get LKY who will say “if you do this GIC and Temasek will lose 50%! so don’t be daft”. think if we go on like this we’ll lose 100% since now Temasek is issuing 1B bonds. I have never seen a rich man borrow money from a bank.
Mr. Goh MS is Singaporean magic wane. He can just show his intention in any GRC, a minister will be affected. So go to Tanjong Pagar, I dare you Mr. Goh …………………
We have at least 50% less FEAR!!
Long live the magic wane
@spirited-centred - Mar 9, 2010 17:36
ya , been mentioned b4 that AMK, Bedok, Aljunied and Jurong East has similar designed HDB flats where LUP and lift stops at all floors BUT HDB cant do it it Clementi Ave 5.
GOH MENG SENG,
U ‘targetting’ MBT or ‘supporting’ MBT.
To googoo,
GMS, time for some new action, why don’t you now go for Lim Hwee Hua’s GRC and watch changes before our very eyes just like how MBT changes his stance in a month.
>> In my opinion, GMS first and last priority is to compete against MBT. Period. Get yourself into the Parliment… don’t be distracted by the success you achieved so far… MBT panics as this has never happened before and he knows he screwed up big time. But he will settled down and get back into the game. With the resources behind him and the “edge/advantage” he has due to the election system, he can easily stage a comeback.
GOH MENG SENG,
U ACTING BLURR IZIT.
GUESS U ONE OF THOSE THAT DONT HELP THE NEEDY, THE POOR n THE HANDICAP?
A FEW SUGGESTIONS BEEN GIVEN TO YOU. GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION MBT ABOUT THE CLEMENTI AVE 5 LUP SCREW-UP
GOH MENG SENG,
How many poor, needy, n handicap ppl in the 50K votes that u lost in Tampines GRC??????
I guess must be many.
Treedee*
For the Clementi case, the project has already completed, so its difficult for any third party to intervene and change that. Only the residents of Clementi can change that by voting the MP out during the next election and the new MP can call for an interim upgrading to add the additional new door entrance that leads to the lifts.