Richard Wan decided to show himself at some “face-off” with TOC and almost immediately got slapped with two lawyers’ letters threatening defamation suits for libellous content on TRE.

One has to wonder, why mess with an operating model that works?

Temasek Review was always a cowboy town where anybody could shoot his mouth off about the PAP and its excesses. Indeed, the editorials were usually more malicious than posters’ comments.

Temasek Review had run-in’s with Temasek Holdings several times, but they played hard to get because the website owners were not only overseas, but also anonymous shadowy figures.

So PAP and other establishment figures could never get their hands on them to seek redress. The nearest they got was Dr Joseph Ong, who supposedly founded Temasek Review, but they could not show that he was still running Temasek Review.

It worked well for Temasek Review. They were able to provide netizens the forbidden fruit, they could do what TOC could not, they had high readership, and they were able to earn advertising revenue off the anti-PAP sentiments.

But now Richard Wan has blown his own cover and thus the lawyers’ letters have started.

One has to ask, is it worth it? Now Richard has to watch every single comment, vet every single editorial—knowing full well that if he doesn’t, he could be sued to bankruptcy.

He never had to do that.

In return, what will he (or TRE) get? More ad revenue? More readership? More time to play golf? No, non, no!

What a stupid move by Richard Wan!

Those who decry the recent lawyers’ letters from PM Lee, his brother Lee Hsien Yang and Law Minister Shanmugam as a reversal of the Govt’s “light touch” to Internet regulation are also very confused people.

First, Hsien Yang is not in the Govt (and not even in the PAP), and PM Lee and Minister Shanmugam are threatening to sue in their own names, not on behalf of the Cabinet or the Govt of Singapore.
Second, the “light touch” promised by the Govt refers to the way MDA and IDA propose to regulate Internet content and service providers. In other words, instead of building a great firewall as China has done for example, they’ve used voluntary codes of conduct (eg for internet email advertising).

Third, and most important, lawsuits are NOT regulatory actions of a Govt agency, so there is no basis to relate them to the “light touch” promised by the Govt.

Fourth, PAP leaders have never said they would have a “light touch” toward libel. They’ve always maintained that they will vigorously challenge any unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, misconduct, corruption, etc.

But the PAP leaders are also being very stupid in using early 20th century tactics in an online age.

You can force people to retract unsubstantiated allegations, but you also show yourself to be intolerant, oversensitive and vindictive. People find it hard to accept that you are a victim who has been hurt by libel and not a bully demanding compensastion. By demanding that people shut up and retract their allegations, instead of addressing the root cause of these allegations openly, PAP leaders cannot really win over the people.

Why do some people allege that Ho Ching was not appointed on merit, for instance? There must be a reason. Is it just PAP’s political enemies out to spread false allegations? Or is it because the situation itself is hard for most people to swallow?

If people hold on to a belief—however false—that such GLC appointments are not made on merit, it will backfire on you in every election, even if people can’t talk about it.

The issue is therefore not about getting redress for your reputation or even being able to maintain your moral authority to hold political office.

It really is about whether Singaporeans believe in the Singapore system of how GLC’s appoints its top executives, and how it affects PAP’s election chances.

Are lawsuits the best way to deal with this issue?

Apparently many people still think so, and thus they’ve made comments like, “As long as his [affair] does not affect his ability to serve Hougang residents, he should be allowed to continue as MP” and “Why do we expect MP’s to be angels, they are humans with human failings too“, etc.

These people still don’t get it: Yaw was not sacked because of his affair.

Yaw was sacked because he was intransigent, recalcitrant and evasive in the face of direct questions.

Yaw was sacked because WP campaigned on a platform of First World Parliament, with transparency and accountability as its key pillars. Specifically, Yaw was sacked because he refused to be transparent in the face of direct questions.

I personally think Yaw could have kept his seat if he’d done a Jack Neo. If he had called a national press conference to admit his affair and apologize to his wife publicly, preferably with tears in his eyes, he could have got away with it. Especially if his wife would sit by him and support him, and especially if he would explain that he had been seeking counselling when the affair was leaked.

I think people would then say, ok the guy is human, his willingness to seek counselling shows his sincerity, we can accept that. Yaw’s position would even be bolstered if voters are quoted on TV praising his courage in coming forward and expressing their support.

If he’d done all that, he would have seized the initiative, and WP would be seen as the unreasonable one if they still sacked him. In fact, he coud even have come back as an independent in the by-election if that had happened!

Instead, Yaw chose a loser’s “no comment” strategy.

When your party stands for transparency and accountability, how can you say “no comment” to a direct question? Either you confirm or you deny, or if you believe that the question is irrelevant, you convince voters that the question is indeed irrelevant and therefore does not deserve answer.

Apparently Yaw even refused to answer questions from members of his own party, the people who surely have a right to know because they could be dragged down with him. Given this, it became clear that Yaw refused to stand for transparency and accountability, and thus giving the party no choice but to use its nuclear weapon.

They had to do so because otherwise the party’s commitment to transparency and accountability would be mocked at the next election.

I have never seen a politician as stupid as Yaw. Not Bill Clinton, not Tony Blair, not John Edwards, not even John Ensign.

To flee the country because of an alleged affair? To forever shut himself from any gainful employment or business dealings in Singapore? To give up almost $1M in MP allowances (over a 5-year term) because of a woman or women?

All because of a woman or women?

How stupid can Yaw be?

Dr Sun_Yat-sen, President of the Republic of China, 1911-1912

Second only to armed uprisings, that was what Sun Yat Sen spent the bulk of his time on when he fought to bring down the Qing Dynasty to found a new republic of China.

Dr Sun is acknowledged by all Chinese to be the father of modern China. In 1911, after more than 15 years of struggle and over 10 failed bloody uprisings, he finally succeeded in overthrowing the last dynasty, and became the first President of the Republic of China.

While he was more of a revolutionary than a brilliant politician, how he succeeded in bringing down the Qing dynasty still provides many pertinent lessons for Singapore’s “opposition” parties.

First, Dr Sun recognised that a revolution cannot succeed without money. His uprisings needed lots of money for arms and supplies, which he bought from Japan and Taiwan. He needed money to pay for passage for overseas Chinese to reach China to join the uprisings, and he also needed money to help failed revolutionaries escape China.

In short, money was the life blood of the revolution, and he travelled all over Asia– and even to the United States– to raise funds for the revolution. In fact, he was still fundraising in the United States when the 1911 revolution succeeded in toppling the Qing Govt!

Timeline of the 1911 Revolution. Note the numerous failed uprisings

Second, he sold a compelling vision to all Chinese, one of unity and dignity. His memorable sales pitch was 民族 (nationhood), 民權 (citizen’s rights) and 民生 (welfare)– something every Chinese could remember, believe in and rally around.

Third, he founded a network of overseas branches of his 同盟会 (United League) throughout Asia, led by leaders he handpicked, so that they could continue fundraising efforts and recruitment long after his visits. These 同盟会 not only provided funds and men for uprisings, but also helped receive those who had to flee China in the wake of failed uprisings, by helping them resettle in Southeast Asia.

Fourth, he conducted an effective propaganda campaign by publishing his own Chinese newspapers through 同盟会 so that overseas Chinese were not only informed of developments in China, but could be swayed and persuaded to support the cause. His newspapers not only carried critical commentary of the Qing Govt, but also political cartoons mocking the Qing govt. This was to reach out to the Chinese labourers and others who were not educated.

Revolutionary newspaper published by Dr Sun's movement with not only critical commentary but also political cartoons mocking the Qing Govt.

Fifth, Sun made friends with everyone he could. He successfully merged many small bands of revolutionaries into a large movement. He had allies among the Japanese, British, Americans and Taiwanese, who not only helped him escape the assassins sent by the Qing govt, but also facilitated his travels in Southeast Asia at a time when he was banned from visiting some countries. Sun even worked with the Triads in one of his early uprisings!

What Singapore “Opposition” Parties can learn from Sun

1. Fundraising is key to politics. That’s where politicians like Nicole Seah don’t get it. One does not run for election on a shoestring budget using just one’s own $$ and subsequently ask the public for funds to cover one’s expenses, with a promise to publish a statement of accounts and to give up any “excess” donations.

Political donations are not about reimbursing an unsuccessful candidate’s expenses. People donated to Sun because they believed in his cause– to set up a new Republic of China. They didn’t ask him to publish a statement of accounts stating how their donations were used. They donated because they wanted the revolution to succeed. Ordinary Chinese– peasants, labourers, coolies– donated their hard-earned savings because they believed in the cause.

In fact, by only asking for donations after an election, a candidate is basically asking others to pay for the price of his failure. Why should people pay for your failure?

The purpose of political donations is to build up a war chest so that one can fight for victory. People donate to you because they believe in you, and they want you to win. To ask people to donate to you after you’ve lost makes no sense. To ask people only for money to reimburse your expenses makes no sense.

2. You need a strong sales pitch. You probably can’t use 民族 民權 民生 any more, but you got to come up with something memorable, believable and compelling. “First World Parliament” is not a bad start. Other parties have to come up with something equally catchy.

One thing I can say for sure: Dr Sun did not say that he wanted to be a “check and balance” to the Qing Govt. That is not a vision to rally voters around.

3. You need presence in the local communities. That’s why PAP has branches all over Singapore. As the photo below shows, political parties have a presence even in the most remote village in Cambodia. Name me one “opposition” party that has presence at more than one location in Singapore.

Politics in Cambodia: Even in the remotest villages, one can find political party branches. In contrast, apart from PAP, no other parties maintain branches across Singapore.

The reason they don’t have more than one branch? You guess it– $$$. Actually it’s more than that. Sun Yat Sen didn’t fund the headquarters of all the 同盟会 throughout Southeast Asia by himself. It was Sun’s generous allies, who included businessmen and leaders of local Chinese communities, that usually provided the premises.

4. You need effective marketing. Yes, the Govt controls the media but parties have unlimited reign on the Internet. Are they making full use of it? In this respect, I’d say SDP has the best online presence, while SDA, SPP, etc have the worst. The Singaporean people are just out there, craving to learn about you and your party, to see whether you have anything to worthwhile to say to them. If you have nothing of value to say to them, why should they vote for you?

5. Merge for Victory Dr Sun was not the only one who wanted to overthrow the Qing govt. His greatest achievement was his ability to merge a number of revolutionary groups into a unified movement. As mentioned, he was even willing to ally with the Triads, and when warlord Yuan Shi Kai seized power after 1911, Sun also joined forces with the Communist Party of China to fight for a unified China.

In short, he was willing to do almost anything and work with anyone to achieve his goal of a unified China.

Compared to this our “opposition” parties squabbles just seem so petty, and their inability to unite to fight the PAP seem so pathetic.

Epilogue

As I said earlier, he was a good revolutionary but not a brilliant politician. He could not control the warlords, and he had to give up his President position in 1912 to Yuan Shi Kai, just a few months after after the revolution. He again tried to reunify the country through force, even allying with the Soviets and the Communist Party, but he died in 1925 with this dream unachieved.

Nevertheless, Dr Sun is still revered by all Chinese and his ability to rally an entire people to support a cause provides strong lessons for “opposition” political parties in Singapore.

Dr Sun visited Singapore several times and stayed at Wan Qing Yuan near Balestier. Among his supporters was Lim Nee Soon (he of Nee Soon/Yishun Road fame).

Gerald Giam? He notably appeared in the press conference announcing Yaw’s expulsion alongside the chairman and secretary general. That is a clear signal of his rising status within the party. But should WP give up an NCMP seat, even if Gerald wins? It’s not at all clear whether the Govt is obliged to give WP another NCMP seat should Gerald become a fully-elected MP.

Glenda Han? She would win some votes, but she has no presence in Hougang.

JJ? His performance in Parliament hasn’t been outstanding to date.

Angela Oon? Don’t think she’s electable now.

John Yam? Possibly. He’s bilingual, mature and distinguished. Would make a pillar of the community. So why didn’t WP feature him at the press conference?

And PAP. Who would they field? The guy whom Yaw defeated? Or someone who will quickly resign from the Civil Service just to take part in this election?

We haven’t had a by-election since 1981, when JBJ was elected. Will the other parties want to jump in? Kenneth J? Nicole Seah? Or maybe Desmond SDA wants to repay WP a favour? Maybe Tan Jee Say or Tan Kin Lian want to try their luck again?

The ball is really round.

Most Singaporeans seem to think the Budget debate is a chance to beg Ah Gong (ie the Finance Minister) to give them money to support their pet causes– anything from the arts to the green movement– while businesses will lobby for tax incentives and handouts. Already AWARE has asked for money to support women’s causes, while SME’s have lobbied for handouts.

I expect both PAP and WP MP’s to propose $100 “cuts” so they can get their 10 mins of airtime to make impassioned speeches on the plight of businesses, consumers, retirees, single mothers, NSmen, etc in an effort to move Ah Gong to grant their wishes.

While these pleas are important, such pleas do not a Budget debate make.

Let’s be clear. First and foremost, the Govt is coming to Parliament for approval of its spending plans for the next fiscal year. The purpose of a Budget debate should be to ask, why is the Govt proposing to spend these amounts? How can we justify this spending?

Why do we spend so many billions on defense? Why do we need these weapon systems that the Govt is proposing? What cheaper alternatives are there? Do we need such a large army? Etc.

Ditto for other ministries. Why do we need to spend all these money? Are there any big black holes in the budget we need the govt to explain?

And for the civil service as a whole: do we need such a large civil service? Why do we have so many stat boards? Each one of them has a CEO, deputy CEO, a whole management team and board of directors, and a full complement of functions– HR, Finance, IT, etc. That’s a lot of costs they have to recover from the public. Why can’t we fold some of them together?

These are the kinds of questions that should be asked, that the Govt should be challenged on and be made to answer.

In fact, in other countries, spending plans will be vigorously challenged, and the Budget will not be passed until the Govt accommodates Parliament’s demands for changes (eg cuts in certain ministries, more tax breaks, reduced deficit, more spending in certain areas (eg healthcare, education) etc).

In other words, a Budget debate is really a time to examine and control the cost of Govt, and not just a pleading session with Ah Gong.

Money is finite, demands are not. When MP’s ask for more tax breaks, more grants, more subsidies, etc. they have to propose cuts to spending in other areas, not just ask Ah Gong to give and give. What’s the point of making impassioned pleas to Ah Gong if MP’s are not willing to cut significant amounts from Defence, Foreign Affairs, or other ministries? In fact, not proposing such cuts reduces MP’s pleas to mere showmanship. Because you are not using your power, as an MP and as a Parliament, to direct the Govt to fulfill your voter’s wishes. Instead, you are just hoping Santa Claus will grant your wishes.

In my view, that’s not what we elect MP’s to do for us, and thus you’ve not really done your duty in debating the Budget.

No doubt the Opposition is in no position to block the Budget or force changes at this point in time. They may also not have the resources to comprehensively examine the Budgets of every Ministry and to be able to debate intelligently on each line item.

But it can make a start by selecting one or two ministries and questioning their spending plans thoroughly, and thus signal to Govt that it will up its game. Hopefully, this will lay the groundwork for future opposition mp’s so that when the Opposition is a force to be reckoned with in future, no Budget will be passed until every single $$ is properly justified.

1. The note describes juicy details of Alex’s confrontations, altercations and rejections with SPP, SDA, NSP, WP, SDP and RP in his desperation to run in GE 2011. But nowhere does it describe his concern for residents of Ang Mo Kio, nowhere does it show he cares about them and wants to help them, nowhere does it talk about any grassroots work or community work that he has done for them.

The result: Alex got 30% of the vote, ie the “ugly” opposition supporters only.

In other words, the majority of voters are quite discerning– they know when a politician is serious and genuinely wants to help them, and when the guy just has an axe to grind.

The lesson to be learnt is– being anti-PAP is not enough, wanting to speak up for Singaporeans is not enough. If you really want to be elected, you must be sincere, you must care about residents, you must spend time with them, you must do groundwork years in advance.

Else, don’t bother running for election. You are wasting your time and the voters’.

2. Alex is a very very angry young man. Most of his “blogging” life seems to have been spent on flaming the PAP, fighting running battles with PAP supporters.

Such a shame, the waste of energy. Instead of directing the energy towards developing himself as a public speaker, to understanding how politics works, to doing community work to raise his profile within his target constituency, etc he chose to engage in flame wars with YPAP.

The lesson to learn is– winning flame wars gain you nothing. Posting the most number of anti-PAP remarks (under different monikers) gains you nothing. Being able to play cat and mouse with YPAP supporters bent on deleting your posts gains you nothing. It is much better to spend time developing yourself as a politician.

3. He describes his last-minute decision to run in Ang Mo Kio and being subsequently played out by RP, which resulted in him having to raise $96,000 online almost overnight to get the election deposit. He also describes how his campaign was under-manned, under-planned and underwhelming.

What I find amazing is that he was able to raise the deposit at all. That has to go down as a record.

Notwithstanding this, what is the point of running an ill-prepared and under-planned campaign? All the money, all the blood sweat and tears– for what?

In the US candidates raise money well in advance of their campaigns. They start asking for donations, putting their campaign staff together two years before the election. In fact, the party sometimes looks at how much a candidate has raised to decide whether they should even enter him in their nomination race. Because they know political campaigning is a serious business. It requires serious planning, serious money, serious effort and commitment.

Singapore politicians have to learn this. They have to learn that political campaigns cannot be run on a shoestring budget. They have to understand that one seeks donations BEFORE an election, not AFTER an election. They have to understand that donations are NOT just for the purpose of funding election deposits, but they are meant to fund an entire campaign.

A Note To Alex (If He Reads This)

I admire your guts at willing to stand up against the PAP. I also admire your ability to raise so much money so quickly and put together an election campaign so quickly. But one does not get into politics and stand for election just because one is full of anger and really hates the PAP.

I would suggest that you spend the next four years understanding what politics is really about, what the purpose of politics is, what you really need to do to get elected. I hope you will be able to change and improve yourself in these four years, that you can find a party whose philosophy you understand and believe in, and you can change from an angry young man to a serious politician.

• That the PAP <> Govt and Govt <> PAP. In other words, these two terms are not equivalent, they are not synonyms and Singaporeans should not use them as such.
• That parties other than PAP are not just “opposition” parties, forever condemned to a life in Opposition. Just because the PAP is bigger and more powerful than all the other parties combined does not give it the right to call itself a “ruling” party and others “opposition” parties.
• That ALL political parties, PAP and others, are equal before the law and equal before the electorate in that they have the same right to contest elections, the same right to canvass for votes, and the same right to form a government if they receive a majority of the votes. It is not the PAP’s birthright to form the Govt and it is not the fate of all the other parties to be in opposition forever.
• That Singaporeans stop using such terms as “opposition government”. That is an oxymoron. If WP wins a majority of the seats, we will have a WP govt. If a coalition of WP, SDP and NSP wins a majority of the seats, we will have a coalition govt. There is no such thing as an “opposition govt”. By definition, when you are in power, you will no longer be in opposition.
• There is no such thing as “constructive” or “destructive” opposition. There is also no such thing as “opposing for the sake of opposing”. This is the wool the PAP has pulled over voters’ eyes.

I hope the articles on this site will help advance political understanding in Singapore. Despite the fact that we’ve lived under a PAP Government for the last 50 years, I’m hopeful that I will see a non-PAP government in my lifetime. I hope the following selection, my top 10 out of the 100 articles I’ve written so far, will help you in this regard.

1. Top 10 Misconceptions about Singapore Politics: Part I, Part II and Part III
2. There is no role for Opposition in Singapore
3. The Party Political Broadcast I would like to hear
4. 10 things wrong with the “opposition” in Singapore (Part I and Part II)
5. There’s No Point Having An Election If Half The Opposing Candidates Are Loonies
6. They Don’t Understand Political Donations
7. $35,0000… And That’s All She Wrote
8. Abolish ISA? How Badly Do You Want It?
9. Are you “pro-opposition”? Or are you really rooting for PAP to change?
10. Opposition: The Good, The Bad And The Ugly

Some people have said I’m foolish to think that the PAP will ever be removed from power, that I “talk cock”. Well, they laughed at Edison when he tried to invent a light bulb. They also laughed when people said man could walk on the moon.

I hope so-called opposition politicians understand that the aim of politics is not to celebrate 25 years as an “opposition” MP, or to promote their constituency as a “beacon” of the opposition in Singapore. You can bet David Cameron didn’t celebrate 10 years of being the Leader of the Opposition.

No matter whether PAP can be removed from power, I think it’s better to fight to be the next Govt than to believe that one is condemned to a life in opposition for the next 50 years.

It’s really comical to see PAP MP’s try to defend high Minister pay by saying things like, “Obama makes US$7.5M in book sales. Or Clinton has made so much $$$ since he left office from speaking engagements.”

What politicians in other countries do once they leave office is not your business, ok? Even serial killers can get book deals and film rights in those countries! How can this be used to defend how much PAP wants to pay ministers? And to put it bluntly, didn’t Lee Kuan Yew write books too? SR Nathan? How much did they make? Should we claw back their books sales from their salaries? What about the amounts PAP Ministers can get after they leave office when they are appointed as board directors and corporate advisors? Shouldn’t we take that into account too?

How lame can you get, PAP?

But the debates in Parliament seem to have missed the point completely. What they seem to have forgotten is that voters aren’t personally affected by how much Ministers are paid. In other words, whether Ministers are paid $1M or $3M, the change in impact on our taxes is marginal. Nor do voters care how much PAP Ministers or even ex-US Presidents make from book sales, speaking engagements, company directorships, etc.

What voters care about is whether their lives are better, AS A RESULT OF YOUR MILLION-DOLLAR SALARIES.

The reason voters are pissed off is because their lives have not got better. And to add insult to inury, PAP Ministers gives all kinds of excuses. “Once in 50-year event”, “Learning Experience”, “Honest Mistake. Let’s Move On”, “It cannot be helped”, “30-year HDB mortgages are affordable”, etc.

They are pissed off because PAP Ministers are not man enough to resign, to take the accountability that comes about with the post.

Now PM Lee says that ministers should be accountable, whatever the pay, but “Singaporeans must evaluate ministers fairly”, and “they cannot expect ministers to never make mistakes.”

But he added exits are “delicate matters” and “must be handled with dignity and decorously”. Mr Lee said it must not “be turned into a public spectacle, lest it deters even more good people from entering politics”.

Notice that the word “resign” does not appear in PM Lee’s vocabulary. While PM Lee promised to sack negligent or dishonest ministers, I would even go further than that: prosecution is on the cards, especially if it involves criminal negligence or dishonesty. But that’s not the key issue that pisses people off.

The key point is, if your ministers and your government didn’t make people’s lives better, you do not deserve the pay you asked for. If your ministers made serious mistakes, you should just fire them if they didn’t offer their resignation already.

Companies in the private sector do it all the time. That’s why people leave to pursue “personal interests” or “spend more time with their family”. Does that deter people from entering the private sector? So why should it deter people from wanting to become PAP ministers?

Let me be very clear. Justifying high pay is very simple. You don’t need to bring up Obama’s book sales or his use of Air Force One.

You want high pay, you must guarantee good results. If you give mediocre results– give us our money back. And if you screw up, be man enough to resign, and have another more competent person take over.

That’s the way to justify your pay.

The Minister Pay Series

1. Eat That, Gerard Ee
2. The End For The Opposition
3. Where Ee and PAP Failed
4. Why PAP Needs High Minister Salaries
5. Are PAP Ministers Man Enough?

But few critics understand why PAP wants– no, needs– to pay ministers high salaries.

The reason is simple. PAP needs high minister salaries for its political system to survive.

Think about how a normal political system in a democratic country is supposed to work.

Parties are supposed to contest elections, form majorities (by coalition if necessary) and then appoint ministers from whomever are elected MP’s. Parties are not supposed to shoo-in ministers even before the first vote is cast.

In fact, in most countries, politicians are career politicians, they spend a whole life in politics and they become ministers only after several terms as MP. Meaning they work their way from the ground up, they understand the people’s issues very well.

PAP’s system is totally different.

At every General Election, it introduces new candidates from both the public and private sector with office-holder “potential” and gets them elected via GRC’s, then quickly appoints them as ministers.

That’s why PAP put in this system of high ministerial pay, because it wants to parachute high-flyers straight in, but these high-flyers won’t come unless it is financially worthwhile for them.

Think about it: if you’re earning $3-5m a year as a banker, doctor, perm-sec, BG, etc., would you want to leave your high-paying job to join the PAP if the pay is less than $1m? If you didn’t have a guarantee that you will not only be elected, but that you would be given a minister post, would you quit your high-flying high-paying civil service job just weeks before the Election, to join the party and stand on a PAP ticket?

So PAP needs this system of high ministerial pay, because they have turned the political system on its back. Instead of grooming a set of career politicians, PAP just keeps parachuting high-flyers from nowhere into office.

Singaporeans have to ask themselves: is this the right kind of political system? Is this what we really want? Ministers who have no feeling, no empathy with the people, who are basically just headhunted to do a job. Or do we want a system where ministers work their way from MP’s, where they earn their stripes.

If you understand this, you will see why PAP cannot pay ministers less than $1m.

I am personally not in favor of such a system, where the elites from nowhere just come swooping in as ministers.

I prefer a system of career politicians where people make a career choice to become MP’s right from the start of their careers, and become ministers only after they have earned their stripes.

Such a system demands people who are serious about politics. Like those who choose to be firemen, social workers or soldiers, such a commitment to politics cannot be driven by money, but by passion and desire to serve.

I don’t care if that means Vivian B or Ng Eng Hen will quit and return to the private sector. I’m not looking for people who want to make millions and billions. 

I want people like Show Mao who understand that there is more to life than making money. There is the element of social service, national service and patriotic duty.

I want people who are willing to dedicate themselves to politics right from the start, not complain about the sacrifices they had to make to enter politics. This necessarily means that they have no private sector career option to compare to, and thus no basis for saying I should be paid as much as a top lawyer, banker or heart surgeon.

Parliament will be debating a system of ministerial pay that hopefully will survive the fall of the PAP. High ministerial pay is designed to support PAP’s system of parachuting top private/public sector earners into power. Once the PAP falls, hopefully that system will fall with them. We will then hopefully have MP’s who will have worked their way from the ground up who will be humble and hardworking ministers. Once that happens, it will not be appropriate to pay ministers millions a year.

Singaporeans must make a choice. I believe the practice of parachuting is wrong. It is precisely because this practice is wrong, that it creates the wrong kind of politics and assumes PAP can continue to parachute such people at every election, that this whole ministerial pay concept must be stopped.

The Minister Pay Series

1. Eat That, Gerard Ee
2. The End For The Opposition
3. Where Ee and PAP Failed
4. Why PAP Needs High Minister Salaries
5. Are PAP Ministers Man Enough?

One week after the release of the Ee report, the majority of Singaporeans polled apparently still find the revised salaries too high.

How did that happen?

First, the Ee committee seemed to have carried out its work in secret. Ee gave no public progress updates, no interim findings, he held no public hearings, nobody even knew when he was going to complete his work. It was so bad the press had to query him, whereupon he said he would complete it by 30 Dec but refused to give any details, saying it’s up to the Prime Minister to release whatever recommendations he has made.

Meaning a matter of top public interest is totally confidential, and he doesn’t want to share anything with the public.

One has to wonder– why all this secrecy? Yes, pay is a sensitive matter, but this is a matter of great public interest, and there should be full transparency about the process.

In the US, when the Congress appoints a committee to investigate a matter, there will be full public hearings, and everything is placed on the public record.

Why didn’t Ee do that?

Of course, Ee does not have the power to subpoena witnesses to appear before his committee, unlike US Congressional committees. But don’t you think that, if he had held public hearings, anyone he invited would have come unhesitatingly?

If all feedback and views from the invitees are published in full in the public record, then there would be no grand surprise when the final report is released, no unexpected complaints that the amounts are still too high.

While Ee consulted a variety of “experts”, disappointingly Ee did not specifically solicit feedback from opposition political parties or even their elected MP’s and NCMP’s.

Think about it: this is an election issue, this is one reason why 40% of voters turned against you, this is the very reason you called for a review committee, yet you fail to consult the key constituents and their elected representatives who have been calling for your pay to be cut.

Can there be a greater blunder?

The PAP also has to shoulder its share of the blame for the non-acceptance of the Ee report. Apparently PM Lee briefed his own party’s MP’s– and not the Parliament as a whole– before the report was made public.

In fact, according to the Today report, “PAP MPs said while they were given an update on the recommendations, they did not get the hard copies of the report. One MP confirmed that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and most of the Cabinet Ministers were present at the meeting.

It is understood that Mr Lee and Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, who is Minister in Charge of the Civil Service gave the MPs insights into the recommendations put forth by the committee.”

In the US they would never do this. Whenever the President wants to push something big through the Senate and Congress, the first thing he will do is call in the Senate Minority Leader and Congressional Leaders, as well as the leaders of his own party, to brief them and sound them out.

It is not just because the Opposition in the US is strong.

It is common sense.

It is simply because you are proposing something to satisfy your critics, thus the first thing to do is to see whether your critics can be satisfied by your proposals.

That is the reason why you call them in, why you brief them first.

If they are satisfied, you can safely go ahead with your proposals. If not, at least you know why they are still not satisfied, and you can either modify your proposals accordingly or else think of the points you want to make to counter their key objections.

So the PM wasted his time and energy briefing his own MP’s. They are not the ones who objected to his salary. It’a the opposition who are objecting to his salary.

But instead of presenting his proposals to the Leader of the Opposition, instead of soliciting the Opposition’s views and likely points of dissatisfaction, he chooses to hold a briefing for his own party MP’s, none of whom objected to his salary to begin with.

I don’t think I would pay $1 to such a man who can make such a fundamental political mistake, much less $2.2M.

It is clear that, by only briefing PAP MP’s and not the entire Parliament, the Govt is asking its MP’s to sell the report to their voters, and the Govt wants to rally its MP’s behind the report.

It is clear that this Govt has no intention to forge a “bipartisan” approach to any major issue, that it intends to push forth only on party lines.

Hence any expectations of a “new normal” in Singapore politics is fantasy.

The Minister Pay Series

1. Eat That, Gerard Ee
2. The End For The Opposition
3. Where Ee and PAP Failed
4. Why PAP Needs High Minister Salaries
5. Are PAP Ministers Man Enough?