Police Chief Tour of Duty

Police Commissioner Khoo Boon Hui has served Singapore as the Police Chief faithfully since 1997. However, given that the maximum length of service for our Public Sector Leadership (PSL) such as Permanent Secretary and Deputy Secretary to be 10 years, are we expecting Commissioner Khoo Boon Hui to step down soon?

The need for political competition.

Microsoft and PAP are alike in many ways. They provide what most common users/citizens need daily. They are very competent, and constantly innovate from within. They desire to have the best talents, and the best practices. They continually create value for their customers/people.

On the other hand, they are a monopolistic player in their respective spheres - software and politics. They have little credible opposition players in their respective spheres.Why is the US government suing Microsoft for antitrust behaviors then, if Microsoft is competent, and generated immense value for the US economy?

The answer is very simple.

Americans understand the need for competition. External driven competition is always more intense, always forces everyone to response better to their customers, and always provide better valued products at lower cost. History had and is constantly vindicating this phenomenon, rejecting the idea than internal driven innovation and betterment are better than external-driven ones. As many discerning consumers and businesses lament the lack of competition in the US software industry, I lament the lack of political competition in the Singapore political sphere.

The PAP, and Singapore citizens may actually benefit more if we have stronger competition in the political arena. But alas, we do not have the equivalent of the US antitrust laws for Singapore political sphere, so as to ensure that the possible growth of credible opposition parties in a one- party dominated political environment. The question is: When will substantial political competition ever take place in Singapore?

Why the People Action Party (PAP) needs the Opposition?

Let's try a thought experiment.

Imagine PAP wining all the seats in Parliament . No more opposition members in the Parliament. Convenient?

How will the international community perceived this result? Will they perceived Singapore to be a more politically stable country, or will they perceived Singapore to be more vulnerable without institutional checks and balance.

For a world that is moving towards more pluralistic governments, it seem the answer will be the latter rather than the former.

In addition, the PAP needs the Opposition to serve Singapore. More opposition members asking more substantial questions makes the government (PAP) works harder to provide the answers, and to increase disclosure, which is something that the Asian Financial Crisis taught everyone, including us.

Should we have opposition members in the Parliament?

Ultimately, you decide.

Why are Opposition members not considered credible?

Just as we did not judge the PAP as not being credible when one of its MP was found guilty of corruption charges, we should not judge all opposition candidates as being not credible from the behavior of one opposition candidate.

Many opposition candidates have good educational qualifications, but only 4 have parliamentary experiences.

Many will agree that Mr. Low and Mr. Chiam had proven to be credible opposition members, because they had the opportunity to serve and be judged by their constituencies.

To have credible opposition members, we need to provide them with a chance to determine their credibility, by voting them in Parliament after serious consideration of each candidate.

The opposition MPs may disappoint us, but our election process allows us to vote them out in 5 years time. Moreover, with PAP in power, isn’t now a time to let the opposition candidates prove their mettle in Parliament?

It is easy to lament that the opposition members are not credible, but without the opportunity, how can they be proven to be credible?

NKF disclosure standards to be of the Government.

It is distressing to hear that Mrs. Goh Chok Tong remarked that the annual compensation of S$600, 000 of the CEO is peanuts because the CEO is running a million dollar charitable organization with hundreds of millions in reserve.

If the CEO salary was indeed "peanuts", this seems to imply that the pay of the CEO is perfectly acceptable to everyone, even to the household that earns S$1000 monthly and donated to NKF.

Therefore, why doesn't the board of NKF releases the salary range of the CEO given that almost 2 out of 3 Singaporean donates to NKF. NKF is one of the very few organizations that so many Singaporean donate to.

Using the same principle, NKF disclosure policy should be like the Government, which releases the salary benchmarks of its Ministers and civil servants because the public (i.e. taxpayers) pay its wages.

It shouldn't take a costly court session paid by the donors of NKF to disclose the "peanuts" salary of the CEO.

Positive outcome from the Gomez saga

Below is a forum letter that highlighted a positive component to the debate about the Gomez saga.

The Election department official has the right to lodge a complaint to the police. The police has to investigate the complaint, and took the time to conduct a proper investigation. The public prosecutor reviewing the case stated that Mr Gomez committed an offense and recommends a punishment (i.e. warning). Mr Gomez accepted the warning and is now working in Sweden again, and continuing his party involvement in Worker's Party.

From what I seen from the video where Mr Gomez was asking for the minority candidate certificate, I can imagine the election officer will be very concerned when he is being accused of being able to provide the form. This is especially so since it was clearly communicate to him in a forceful manner by Mr Gomez that the certificate was already submitted in the presence of other witnesses. If Mr Gomez did not remember that he actually did not submit it, and there was no evidence proving it, the election officers will most probably be penalized in their civil service careers at the minimal.

Therefore, comparing this incident to a customer service complaint to a typical government department is incorrect. Accusing an election officer in an election period that the officer does not have a submitted form which would disadvantage the party and the candidate is a serious matter. Regardless whether Mr Gomez genuinely forgot that he has submitted the form or whether he intentionally choose not to submit the form, the conversation between him and the election officer would definitely caused a lot of concern for the officer involved.

Even when MM Lee, PM Lee and DPM Wong come out very strongly in public stating that Mr Gomez has the malicious intention to discredit the election system, the investigation was kept narrowly by the police and attorney general chambers to only address the complaint by the election department.

The only question which was not answered is why the election department brought the complaint officially to the police on May 6 (Polling day) when the event happened more than a few weeks ago.

Anyway, I think the judiciary and police handled this situation professionally, and it is good for Singapore political maturity and institutions moving forward.


May 16, 2006
Gomez case shows justice is very much alive

I REFER to the article, 'Gomez let off with a stern warning' (ST, May 13).

When news broke that Mr James Gomez had been hauled up by the police as he was checking in at Changi Airport to fly back to Sweden on May 7, coffee-shop gossip was abuzz with wild rumours that the People's Action Party (PAP) was once again using scare tactics against the opposition.

Fuelled by rumour-mongering, the saga soon became a game of chance. People betted heavily that Mr Gomez would eventually be charged in court and slapped with a hefty term of imprisonment. This, the gamblers believed, was because the judiciary was under the control of the executive.

So, when it was reported that he was let off with a stern warning, many punters were left poorer by a couple of hundred dollars. However, the losses incurred by punters are not relevant to the saga.

What is relevant and significant is this: it is crystal clear that, in Singapore, the executive has no clout in influencing the judiciary (Attorney-General's Chambers) to 'dance to its tune' and prosecute its opponents.

It appears to be the notion of the man in the street that justice is blind to anyone who is deemed to be an adversary of the PAP.

I trust that the knuckle-rapping meted out to Mr Gomez will change the mindsets of those who believe the PAP is authoritarian and it must always be its 'way or the highway'.

The laws of Singapore dictate that the public prosecutor is vested with absolute discretion in recommending the course of action to be taken in criminal cases.

In the Gomez case, he was certainly not absolved of any wrongdoing. The learned public prosecutor, after reviewing the evidence in the case and taking into consideration the mitigating factors, recommended to the police that a stern warning be administered to Mr Gomez.

It is therefore pertinent for local rumour-mongers, as well as foreign adversaries of Singapore, to take note that justice in Singapore is very much alive, and that Singapore's judiciary is definitely independent of the executive.

Majulah Singapura!

Lionel De Souza

Next steps for PAP moving forward – all about the swing voters

A. Implement concrete plans to win over the 10%-15% of previous PAP voters who voted for the opposition this election. Statistically speaking, if the overall vote for PAP falls below 60% at any one time with more than half of the seats contested, PAP will definitely lose seats (i.e. 2001 election, 61% of popular vote translated into 4 opposition members)

1. Younger Singaporeans (25-40) who desire more opposition members elected into Parliament

a. Coming down hard against the opposition parties such as hammering WP over the James Gomez saga after the election is a surefire way to alienate this particular group. PM Lee’s post election speech rallying Singaporeans to move forward will appeal to this group.

b. Allow more PAP MPs to be more openly critical in Parliament.

c. Leverage on non overt party channels such as the Feedback Unit to target this specific group of younger Singaporeans. Young PAP tends to attrack young Singaporeans who have a predisposition to the party already.

2. Middle class Singaporeans who are more willing to vote for more credible opposition candidates ( a more important segment in terms of number of votes than the younger Singaporean mentioned above)

a. Desire to build a first world opposition by encouraging parties like WP to recruit more credible oppositions members for the next election will result in loss of PAP votes from this segment

b. Recruiting younger Singaporeans as PAP candidates from less well-off socio-economic background, such as those living in public housing with a history of volunteer work and excellent academic and career track record may encourage this segment to continue to vote for PAP. The current perception is that many (definitely not all) of the younger PAP candidates come from higher socio-economic backgrounds that the middle and lower class cannot relate to.

The 20-30% opposition loyalists are mostly Singaporeans who have an issue to pick with the government and are mainly from the lower socio-economic strata who directly feel the adverse impact of rapid globalization.

B. Continuing to govern well as per the last 40 years will ensure at least 55-60% of popular votes unless two things happen, which in my opinion is very unlikely in the next 5 years with the leadership of the PM Lee

1. Obvious corruption in the PAP senior ranks that is not addressed

2. Internal party conflicts which is apparent to the general public

Next Steps for Worker Party moving forward – all about organization development

Strategic Next Steps

1. Retain, motivate and recruit credible candidates now in order to contest more GRC in the future. PAP has a lot of resources, but if they are contested in every ward, they will be stretched. With good people, the organization will be strengthened.

2. Focus on winning two, if not at least one GRC, while contesting for at least 5 to 7 GRCs for 2011. May need to consider strategic bets such as placing Mr. Low and Ms. Lim on a GRC slate in 2011 together, and handing over Hougang to a new WP candidate. Handing over Hougang to a new WP candidate will take a 5 year plan to do so methodically.

3. Need to think about how to move more towards the middle ground to court the swing voters without alienating the loyal opposition voters. Proposing more socio-welfare policies without too much (obvious) fiscal irresponsibility will be the key to keep the loyal opposition voters (20-30%) and to win the swing voters (20-25%). You need 51% of the voters to be elected into parliament, not 55, 60 or 75%.

Tactical next steps

4. Take note of all PAP's promises in the contested constituencies to make sure these promises are realised so WP can remind the voters in the next election if these are not executed. Five years is a long time, but only an organization that can meticulously think of the next election in detail right now will be successful given the (very) high standards set by the incumbent party.

5. Ensure learning and takeaways from this election are documented for the next election. E.g. Establish a checklist for election paperwork for every candidate in the next election; assign an administrative/logistic/paperwork executive to every GRC and SMC.

6. Expand the current website by providing at least English and Chinese versions, if not also Malay and Tamil versions too. Advertise the url as often as possible in all forms of communication to provide more information to the swing voters who are the middle class who do use the internet (especially more in 5 years time).

7. Celebrate the good showings as quickly as possible after the election as compared to 2001 because it is important to galvanize the ground troops. Results should always be framed with reference to the dismal showing in 2001, with the intention to focus on the 2011 elections. The ground troops are critical in the election. One key to the PAP success is definitely the ability to attract sincere people to help with the ground.

On a last note to both PAP and WP, as PM had said, the successful party is one who can imagine how Singapore will be in 5 years time in terms of how the demographics will be shifting, and who will be the new loyal PAP and Opposition voters and the swing voters.