Low Thia Khiang Lies! Hougang Town Council was not in the black

At one of the Workers' Party's recent rally, Png Eng Huat and Low Thia Khiang openly declared to their supporters that Hougang Town Council (HGTC) was in the black before they merged with Aljunied GRC. 

This is once again misleading as they took a snap-shot without declaring that they had debts to be paid. Additionally, HGTC's published financial reports show that they were in the red since 2008. In fact, their own auditors were concerned about the continued operations of HGTC.

Once again more half-truths by the Workers' Party to mislead Singaporeans. This simple animation by Citizen Sane explains the full story .... #sharethetruth #stopthe lies #stopwp

Workers' Party GE 2015 Rally Promises ....

WP GE 2015 Rally Promises: True or not? Or talk cock again ...

Been a property developer for 20 years and I also don’t think I dare to say such things.

The problem with the property market is first, it is volatile and second, because there are too many direct and blunt interventions by Government. If Low Thia Khiang can read the property cycle so accurately – he is either throwing smoke or the real Property Guru. Based on his airy explanation, I can only conclude that it is the former.

I think the only way HDB flats can be "stable" in price over the years and over property cycles is to return to a system of sell-back to HDB based on fixed valuation with discount for age of flat and remaining lease. This used to be the case. But that would mean 800,000 HDB owners today would lose the asset value that their flats fetch on the open market and which is a key part of their retirement nest-egg calculations. People who will suffer are the middle-aged to elderly people who own existing flat.

Price stabilisation over the last few years came about not from a single magic bullet like de-linking BTO pricing from resale. Stupid and irresponsible to oversimplify this. Stabilisation came about through a slew of cooling measures including shifts in HDB pricing. These measures had to be introduced incrementally to avoid overkill and avoid crashing the market which would only hurt all homeowners or more than 90% of all Singaporean households. Depressed flat prices will badly affect existing flat owners.

More important than just pricing is affordability. Whatever the price, people need to be able to afford it based on their ability to pay. This depends on their income and on the amount of grants they can obtain from HDB.

Low Thia Khiang should not prescribe medicine when he is not a doctor. He should at least do his homework before shooting off his mouth with bullshit dressed as political sound-bites.

Singapore GE2015: Misinformation on AHPETC’s Managing Agent Fees

Misinformation on AHPETC’s Managing Agent (MA) Fees

Articles have been circulating on HWZ, TOC and even Roy Ngerng’s page claiming that AHPETC’s managing agent’s (MA) fee are not high. The writers go to great lengths to show what appears to be empirical proof. While on the surface their calculation appears logical, it is fundamentally flawed.

TOC’s publication of the article is not unexpected as they are known to be the mouth piece of the Workers’ Party. And since the WP is literally on the ropes after it was made known that FMSS, their former MA, was suing AHPETC for $3.5m, they needed a distraction.

Number 1: First of all, Town Councils manage only HDB estates. Hence, using the number of electorate as the basis for deriving their average-per-constituent cost is flawed. If we were to actually compare apples to apples, the correct cost per user would show that AHPETC was still significantly higher than any of the other Town Councils.

Number 2: How can you delink management fees to determine cost. This is businessmen call salami slicing. To get an accurate cost analysis, the total cost to deliver the service must be factored in. So this is the actual cost to residents:

So nice try TOC! Once again, you have shown your creative genius in how you continually try to mislead Singaporeans.

AHPETC: Observations from a Former Town Council GM

Observations of a Former Town Council GM

Reading the news report today “AHPETC faced losses while agent’s profits jumped 300%” shocked me. Being a former General Manager (GM) of a Town Council myself, it is  quite unbelievable that the APHPETC is running into deficit and yet correspondingly, their Managing Agent, FMSS is making so much profits. In fact, anyone who has ever operated a business will know that it is impossible for services based business to earn an after-tax profit of 36%, let alone an after tax-profit of 36% after paying $1.14 million in director fees. Either the client is downright dumb and is willing to be milked, or the client is complicit. Even the Orh Luak man at the Old Airport Road market cannot earn so much.

The best that my TC ever earned in a year is 10%. But these were few and far between. A typical TC's profit margin is on average 5%. FMSS' profit margins without the benefit of scale is phenomenal by any standard. 

Like many of my friends in this industry, I had smelled a rat. Unfortunately the gang at AHPETC were tight-lipped and nothing ever slipped. Given the cash cow they were sitting-on, I now know why. Afterall, who would want to kill the goose that lay the golden egg? Now that everything is coming to light, I think it is time for me to share my thoughts ...

a. Monthly S&CC. It is impossible for a TC (or any business for that matter) not to know its monthly S&CC arrears. Anyone that can accept that it takes a complicated system to calculate this is obviously blinded to logic. AHPETC's decision to stop submitting their S&CC arrears is clearly a ruse. The form requested by MND is a simple matrix that any 1st year accounting student can fill. We should also not forget, that the Hougang TC and even AHPETC had been submitting it according to the table for several months before it suddenly became impossible for them to do it. My guess, AHPETC wanted to build the perception of Government bullying.

b. AGO Audit. When it became impossible for AHPETC to politically deny an AGO audit into their books, AHPETC switched tactics to one of hiding information. Thus when basic accounting information like starting bank balances were asked for, AHPETC blamed George Yeo. This misdirection was subsequently dismissed when AGO discovered evidence that AHPETC themselves had certified in a handing and taking over documents that all the information was provided. When this happened, AHPETC then began to blame the political environment and how no one wanted to work for AHPETC. In reality, nothing had changed. The same sub-contractors that did work for Ajunied under George Yeo, continued to do work for AHPETC. In fact, almost all of AHPETC's sub-contractors do work for both PAP-run Town Councils and AHPETC. Here, AHPETC continued to build on the perception of Government bullying but also started playing I am a victim of the circumstance card.

Despite what AHPETC or the WP tries to say, one thing is for certain. A mess existed and there is something definitely wrong at AHPETC. Given Sylvia Lim's assurances that FMSS had been providing excellent services to the residents of Aljunied, Hougang and Punggol East, I am surprised that the WP had not renewed FMSS' contract. Also, given the fantastic profits to be made, I am equally surprised that FMSS did not re-tender for the contract. Perhaps all is not well at AHPETC. All that is left for me to say is that now that the WP has decided to take over the role of running the TC themselves, it remains to be seen if Sylvia Lim will be able to sort out the mess.

My only hope is that the residents of Aljunied, Hougang and Punggol East are not made to suffer for Sylvia Lim's incompetency or whatever you want to call it.

AHPETC Financial Report - A Sinkhole in the making

AHPETC – A Sinkhole in the making?

To be honest, I was extremely, if not pleasantly, surprised that AHPETC had reported that their financial report for 2014/2015 had shown a small surplus. Thoughts of the Government fixing them came to my mind and I thought that the Workers’ Party had finally gotten their act today.

This changed this morning when I read The New Paper report that FMSS had served a letter of demand to AHPETC for the sum of $3.5 million. Straight away, any sympathy and remaining sense of faith I had in the Workers’ Party were gone.

I recalled when the issue of their account was raised in 2012, AHPETC blamed the improper hand-over by George Yeo.

Then when their lie was refuted, they then blamed the political nature of the Town Council system and claimed in Parliament that no one wanted to work for them. Once again, I was partially convinced that it was possible, but a close friend of mine working in the facilities management industry told me otherwise. In fact, he told me that many of the companies working for AHPETC were in fact serving the PAP-run Town Councils. Some reputable companies like Ban Chuan Trading & Engineering Pte Ltd, ATL Maintenance Pte Ltd, Campaign Complete Solutions Pte Ltd, Yong Aik Construction Pte Ltd, EM Services etc.

I am sure there are many more. So how can Low Thia Khiang claim in Parliament that no one wants to work for AHPETC?

Piecing information on AHPETC’s poor financial status as alluded to by the AGO and MND, now that it is confirmed that AHPETC owes FMSS $3.5 million, I cannot help but wonder how much more AHPETC owes….

God bless the residents of AHPE

SG Bumiputra

Singapore General Election 2015: Is This the First World Parliament You Want?

Title: Is This the First World Parliament You Want? 

The WP is out in full force, trying to convince Singaporeans why it would be a good idea to vote them into Parliament:

“Just by voting the few of us in during the 2011 GE, big changes have been introduced by the Government. If you vote more of us in (especially for all 28 seats), imagine how much change there will be!”

That sounds like a clever 2-for-1 deal – vote for the WP, and you get a more nervous PAP who will do more for you. Don’t worry too much about what we do – so long as we are there, the PAP will work harder.

But let’s think about this scenario: let’s say WP gets what they want and win 28 seats. Let’s say Lina Chiam reclaims Potong Pasir,  and one of the other opposition parties (we have 8 others, in case you didn’t know) wins one or more seats – maybe SDP’s Chee Soon Juan. Suddenly, everything changes – the PAP would have lost its 2/3 majority advantage.

Practically, all this would mean is that the PAP government would no longer be able to pass constitutional amendments easily, since WP has an interesting habit of abstaining from votes.

But that will not be the only change:

- Suddenly, our all-talk-no-action, we-are-just-happy-to-be-here WP MPs (remember, there will be 28 of them) will be constantly demanding more from the Men-In-White without actually suggesting any new ideas. If you don’t believe this, just go watch any of the Parliamentary sessions over the past 4 plus years. Yup, the WP MPs have been a huge disappointment.

- Instead of having more doers, and being able to draw from the wisdom of a larger pool of MPs, PM and his Cabinet will have to spend their time answering questions from WP MPs trying to score political points.

This is not just some wild conjecture – it is what some opposition members are calling for, and it is what WP is working towards. This is why they are selling their 2-for-1, PAP-does-while-WP-watches deal so hard.

I don’t know about you but I want my MP to DO things and not just be a checker. Because after all, I can check the Government. That is what the ballot box is for and frankly, there are many channels to provide feedback on policies to the Government.

What I want from my MP is someone who will come up with workable alternative suggestions that will improve my life. When we talk about opposition, that is what we are talking about. Not people who just wayang and the claim credit for things they did not do. So at the next general election, my choice will be dictated by a very simple logic: Who actually kept their promises? Who did things? Who is trying to claim the credit for others’ work? And most importantly, who do I trust? Remember, every vote counts, and we still have a choice to prevent the worst from becoming a reality. Cast your vote wisely.

What is WP's Position on Foreign Workers Quota for Singapore?

In the run-up to polling day for General Election 2015, the Workers’ Party (WP) will undoubtedly call on Singaporeans to elect them into parliament so that they can  continue to act as the check against the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP). This was the same call them made in GE 2011.

While many Singaporeans will agree that having an opposition is parliament is good, I believe that the issue is about having a  credible and responsible opposition. Failing which, the future of Singapore will be at risk. The WP has touted themselves to be a responsible opposition that does not unnecessarily challenge the Government. However, one only needs to look at their position on the quota for Foreign Workers to see that  they are a party with principles.

 

In 2012, during the Committee of Supply Debates, Low Thia Khiang was recorded to have said:

 

TIGHTEN

 

“… would the Minister of State be concerned that with the current process of restructuring in which we have a foreign worker dependency ratio, the levy plus the quota at the macro level, by using such a macro tool to tighten the supply of manpower to the industries, it would inadvertently raise the wage cost of the various industries? … my last concern … is … how sure is the Minister of State and the Government that the current approach we have taken in restructuring the economy will not lead to Singapore losing its competitive advantage, and we might end up with a stagnant economy like Japan?” Responding to a clarification by DPM Tharman, Low Thia Khiang stated that “What I meant is that we tighten it slowly rather than tighten it at one go.”

 

MAINTAIN

 

Subsequently, during the White Paper discussion in 2013, opposition proposed going for 0% growth of foreign workers. Here, Gerald Giam was recorded to have said “We should strive to keep our foreign labour force constant between now and 2002, depending on our success in growing the local labour force. It does not mean that we shut the doors to foreign workers. Instead, new work passes will be issued only to replace expiring work passes or to supplement shortfalls in the local labour force. Companies will have to find ways to hire more Singaporeans”.

 

GROW

 

Then, more recently, when Chen Show Mao was queried (in May 2014) on WP’s stand on immigration, the WP’s position is that of “orderly growth within limits”. Mr Chen Show Mao said:  " Madam Speaker, I have worked, as you know, abroad for many years in my life. And I thank foreigners – foreign governments and foreign friends – for the opportunities that I was given to work in their countries. Of course we have nothing against immigrants coming to Singapore. But we are talking about an orderly growth within limits. And, hopefully, we would have debated and agreed on it. And that is not inconsistent with what we have said on immigration and on foreign workers in Singapore. " 

 

It appears to me that either the WP has no position on politically sensitive issue of Foreign Workers in Singapore, or they are pandering to the electorate and taking a position that is popular. I believe that PM Lee Hsien Loong summed it up well when he said in parliament: "Mdm Speaker, we have to call a spade, a spade. If you have changed position, and your previous position was wrong, say so. If you hold by your position, have your guts to reaffirm it, and take the consequences. But to weasel the way, play with words, avoid the issue, and then claim to be responsible – that is what we fear can drive Singapore’s politics into the same place where many other countries have gone."

 

Singapore needs a credible and responsible opposition. I am afraid that time has proven that the Workers’ Party is not that opposition.

Singapore GE 2015: We predict WP to contest more GRCs for self-survival

Singapore General Election 2015.  When it comes to GE 2015, besides the date of the election, the next question on Singaporean's mind is whether the Worker's Party will be content to remain in Aljunied GRC, or make a bold move to contest another one or even two GRCs.

 

The WP's historic win of the Aljunied GRC in 2011 has certainly swelled its ranks with supporters and in turn a pool of potential candidates. Unfortunately, the Worker's Party is run much like a fiefdom by Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim and even the mighty international corporate lawyer Chen Show Mao has been stifled to the extent that he is non-existent.

 

According to our analysis, the Worker's Party will definitely seek to contest outside Aljunied GRC. In fact, we believe that Low Thia Khiang will be selling a grand vision of denying the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) the two-third majority in Parliament. Unfortunately, this grand vision is not driven in the interest of democracy, but self-survival.

 

While the AHPETC debacle is still pending in the Court, one thing is certain, AHPETC is near bankruptcy and the only way they can avoid it is to win another GRC and co-mingle the funds. This, in our analysis, was the same reason that Low Thia Khiang ventured outside Hougang to contest the Aljunied GRC in 2011. Back then, Low Thia Khiang was lucky. The much talked about freak election result occurred. The PAP would have comfortably retained Aljunied GRC if not for the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's now infamous statement that residents of Aljunied would live to repent their decision if they voted in the WP.

 

With AHPETC raising questions about government grants being misappropriated, over-payment of contractors and dubious dealings with their managing agent, it makes us wonder whether residents of Aljunied (and Singaporeans as a whole) still believe that the Worker's Party has the moral character and values to "co-drive" Singapore's Parliament. While Singaporeans want an alternative voice in Parliament, it is also important to have the correct alternative voice. Singapore needs an opposition that is honest and of good personal characters. We cannot afford to have an opposition that champions transparency and accountability, but refuses to be open and accountable themselves.

 

In short, we believe that the Singapore General Election 2015 will see the Worker's Party contesting a few GRCs with Low Thia Khiang himself leading the charge. Whether the Worker's Party will be able to win more GRCs, or even keep Aljunied, will depend on whether Singaporeans can see past the rhetoric and vote not only for an opposition, but vote for an opposition that is honest, proven and of good moral character to co-drive Singapore.

AHPETC Saga - Low Thia Khiang's Silence is worrying

Sylvia Lim Should Step-Down ….  

As a political observer, I cannot help but wonder what went wrong with AHPETC. A successful AHPETC would have been a big boost to the credibility of opposition parties in Singapore.

The Worker’s Party (WP) cannot be so daft as not to know that their every action would be under intense scrutiny. So why would otherwise intelligent people like Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim and Chen Show Mao create a system that is essentially illegal. Surely, they would know that it would only be a matter of time before the truth is unveiled.

I dare say that the WP won the Aljunied GRC primarily because of Low Thia Khiang. Having successfully held on to the Single Member Constituency of Hougang since 1991, and having personal built the de facto opposition party to the dominant People’s Action Party, residents of Aljunied felt they could trust Mr Low. So when Low Thia Khiang introduced his “A Team” and urged residents to make them co-drivers, residents of Aljunied voted WP believing that Mr Low and his team would deliver.

Sadly, that trust has been misplaced.

Since Sylvia Lim assumed the role of Chairman of AHPETC, things have not been as promised by Low Thia Khiang. AHPETC is in a mess. Not only financially, but also legally. Specifically …

a. statement of accounts are not only overdue, but submitted with qualifiers by AHPETC’s own auditors making the contents suspect for accuracy

b. despite promises to get AHPETC in order, nothing significant has been done 

c. there have been overpayment for services and management fees with the General Manager of AHPETC earning 3 times the salary of GMs of other Town Councils 

d. lucrative contracts have been awarded to the GM’s own company

e. government S&CC grants (in the millions) have not been properly accounted for 

f. legal requirements to transfer S&CC collected to the sinking fund has not been done

g. transfer of sinking fund to Florence Regency took place late and after threats of legal actions

h. summons to attend Court to refund residents’ S&CC fees collected

i. …. and the list goes on

Given Low Thia Khiang’s track record of managing Hougang as an MP without incident, one can safely assume that AHPETC’s financial and legal troubles is caused by Sylvia Lim – the Chairman of AHPETC. In my mind, Sylvia Lim has proven herself to be incompetent and she should step-down for the sake of all opposition parties. In fact, I would even call on Low Thia Khiang to do the right thing and push for Sylvia Lim to step-down. Residents of Aljunied voted for Sylvia Lim on the basis of Low Thia Khiang’s endorsement. It is therefore the right thing for Low Thia Khiang to take responsibility for his mistake. 

WP’s manifesto says that they are for rational, responsible and respectable politics. Let’s see if WP takes responsibility for the debacle that AHPETC has become. How the WP deals with AHPETC will demonstrate how respectable the WP and its leaders are.

AHPETC: Lawless in Aljunied or WP Laws in Aljunied?

Lawless in Aljunied: Handover issues? What handover issues?

For the past few months, we the residents in Aljunied have been asking for answers – why is the town council run so badly? The reply from AHPETC: Handover issues.

Whether in Parliament, or in their walkabouts, the answer has been the same -  the PAP didn’t handover properly – they withheld access to information. They didn’t help us as much as we wanted. Low Thia Khiang said: “No one wants to work for me!” Sylvia Lim said attempts to get information from MND and the former managing agent “did not yield answers.

But the AGO report said that the WP town council had in fact commissioned a report in the early days when they took over from the PAP team. A footnote in the AGO report said:

"Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) engaged Mazars LLP (Mazars) in July 2011 to carry out a special audit of the financial statements for the period 1 April 2011 to 31 July 2011, prepared for handover of precincts of Aljunied Town Council to AHTC, Ang Mo Kio Town Council and Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council. Mazars issued a clean audit opinion on all the financial statements."

So actually, there are NO HANDOVER ISSUES! AHTC’s own accountants gave the previous PAP team a clean bill of health. So it’s time that the AHPETC stop using the excuse of handover issues, and start answering some questions.

1. From Surplus to Deficit: How? The town council lost $4 million in 3 years. From a surplus of $3.3 million to a deficit of more than $700,000.

2. Money to friends: Why? The AHPETC pays 50% more to its managing agent than neighbouring town councils eg Tampines Town Council. Why?

3. Bullying the small guy: Who? Were the hawkers made to pay for the cleaning of their ceilings? Did the town council call the police on the shopkeepers who complained that there too many trade fairs held by the council?

So far, there have been no answers. These questions are dismissed as “baseless”, or blamed on “handover issues.” The AGO report shows the questions are not baseless. And the AGO footnote shows there are no handover issues.

Unless the AHPETC thinks they can behave outside the law, they really need to start giving some answers.

Singapore GE 2016 Prediction: The Battle for Aljunied GRC

Singapore General Elections 2016: Our Prediction ... Tan Chuan-Jin to take on Low Thia Khiang

 

In an interesting development, SG Bumiputera believes that Minister Tan Chuan-Jin maybe set to take-on Low Thia Khiang in the latter's strong-hold of Aljunied-Hougang. Fresh from his Ministerial Community Visit over the weekend, PAP activists have obtained a good sense of the ground and they feel that the Worker's Party hold on Aljunied-Hougang is shaky.

 

While Minister Tan Chuan-Jin was diplomatic in his comments that the municipal issues faced by the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Councils (AHPETC) was nothing peculiar, this is far from the truth. Many resident Chuan-Jin met during his walk-about expressed their unhappiness over the cleanliness of the estate, deteriorating infrastructure that was affecting their safety and the anger that Low Thia Khiang and his cronies were profiteering at the expense of residents.

One such example is how projects under the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) at Blocks 121 to 127, 135 to 148 & 151 to 154 Serangoon North Ave 1 & 2, which includes the upgrading of the basketball court at Block 135, Serangoon North Avenue 2 was unilaterally cut by AHPETC after they received the funds from the Government. Despite several reminds by HDB to AHPETC, AHPETC has not updated residents on the revised scope and progress of the NRP works. In short, The Worker's Party and AHPETC are deliberately creating a perception of persecution by denying residents what the Government has provided and then claiming that the Government is treating the residents of Aljunied-Hougang as 2nd class citizens.

 

Fortunately, or unfortunately, for Mr Low Thia Khiang, the PAP team at Aljunied-Hougang are fighters and they are willing to do what it takes to win the GRC back for the 45% that voted for the PAP. While opposition members have claimed that the distribution of flyers by Mr Victor Lye is illegal, many residents have told Mr Tan Chuan-Jin that they are happy that it was done. It was only because of the flyers that they now know what is going on. In fact, what is helping turn the tide in Aljunied-Hougang is the Worker's Party's own continued refusal to answer questions posed to them about AHPETC by residents - despite them stating in Parliament that they will answer to their residents.

 

At SG Bumipetra, we believe that the end of the Worker's Party control of Aljunied-Hougang is near. We predict that given Mr Tan Chuan-Jin's sincerity, if he is fielded in Aljunied GRC, it will be a close fight. But our money is on Mr Tan Chuan-Jin to win.

Low Thia Khiang Dishonors Mr Lee Kuan Yew

Today in a despicable act by the leader of the opposition in Singapore, Mr Low Thia Khiang dishonored the memory of Mr Lee Kuan Yew at the Special Parliamentary Session convened to honor him.

In addressing the House, Mr Low Thia Khiang was reported by Today to have said "success arose not just from Mr Lee's fighting spirit and tenacity but also his sincerity. The PAP's one-party rule was not the reason for transformation, he said. Many Singaporeans were sacrificed. Mr Lee did what was right, but silencing opposition has risked disconnecting Singaporeans from their own society."

There is a time for everything Mr Low. Your words were said in extremely poor taste. It was something we would expect from the likes of Han Hui Hui and Roy Ngerng, not from the defacto leader of Singapore's opposition.

Your actions and words are equivalent to someone going to a wake and spitting on the deceased. As a Singaporean I was shocked to hear you utter such words. I can only imagine the pain that PM Lee felt. Unfortunately, in Parliament, you have your Parliamentary Rights to speak. However, if you use your Parliamentary rights to deliberately hurt another human being when he is already hurting, you are a man of poor character.

I really hope that the residents of Aljunied, Hougang and Punggol East see the man that you are and vote you out.

Workers' Party of Singapore Above the Law?

During the recent budget debate, the Workers’ Party was quick to exercise their parliamentary rights to question the government on their proposed and past spending. It is ironic that just last month, in the same house, the Workers’ Party of Singapore had blatantly refused to answer questions put forth by the People’s Action Party on how Workers’ Party run Ajunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) had spent taxpayers money.

In justifying his question on needing to know how money was being spent on the new SAF Volunteer Corps (SAFVC), Low Thia Khiang argued on the concept of the need for equity in treatment. Perhaps Low Thia Khiang can reflect on his own question and ask himself why the issue of equity in treatment applies to the PAP (answering his question) and to the issue of how Volunteers are treated, but not the more fundamental issue like the need for WP to answer to Parliament?

Is this how a first world parliament operates?

The Workers’ Party is obviously out of control in their belief that they are above the law. The AHPETC issue clearly reveals the true character and values of Low Thia Khiang, Slyvia Lim and Pritam Singh. It is time Singaporeans showed the Workers’ Party that they are not above the law.

Low Thia Khiang Cries Wolf Over AHPETC

Stop Crying Wolf Mr Low Thia Khaing ....

“No one wants to work for me. That’s my problem Prime Minister!”

Your problem, Mr Low, is that you are economical with the truth.

In the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) saga, related party transactions (RPTs) that the TC has with managing agent FM Solutions and Services (FMSS) came under fire.

Workers’ Party (WP) Chief Low Thia Khiang claims that the WP faces difficulties in attracting companies as its managing agent – “No one wants for work for me. That’s my problem Prime Minister!” he cried out in Parliament.

Law Minister K Shanmugam asked Mr Low to stop playing the victim card.

Companies exist to make profits. There is no reason any SME would avoid a contract worth millions of dollars. If the conditions are feasible and profitable, why would anyone not want to put in a bid for AHPETC? It is a huge town council and promising in terms of business profitability.

And this is indeed what happened.

Vendors have served both PAP and WP town councils.

The fact is that vendors do not serve PAP or Opposition TCs exclusively -- as shown by the list of tender results here at AHPETC’s own website Tender Results

Almost all these companies do business with government agencies as well as other town councils.

The WP is not a victim. It is crying wolf. Companies do not care if your money is blue or white – as long as it is green.

So Mr Low, it is not true that nobody wants to work with you. The question is: Why did you nevertheless only want to work with FMSS when awarding the $26 million Managing Agent contract? Was it because you wanted to favor your friends?

Law Minister K Shanmugam said in Parliament you gave contracts to your friends. You did not rise to contradict him.

Till this day you have not contradicted him. It must be because you cannot deny the charge.

You favored your friends. And it is not because nobody wanted to work with you – for it is clear many SMEs are only too happy to work with AHPETC. It is because you preferred to funnel money to your friends.

More Singaporeans Are Turning Away from the Workers Party

WP IS ONLY GOOD IN RHETORIC, NOTHING ELSE!

This note was originally a post on my timeline on 14 February 2015 in response to this blog post on Petulantchild.

I reproduced the post into this note (with some refinements) to preserve my thoughts for posterity.

I identify with the above blog post totally! I didn't start out being a PAP supporter either!

The writer of the above blog may not be a PAP supporter now but I see the "eureka" moment down the road.

Most may find it hard to believe, I used to be a SDP supporter!

Back when I first started studying law back in the late 1980s, I was a diehard supporter of the SDP that Mr Chiam See Tong led as its founding Secretary-General. Exposed to the western models of democracy in the study of Constitution Law, I wanted the PAP to be checked too! Mr Chiam's approach in Parliament of focusing on issues rather than rhetorics and personal attacks appealed to me. By contrast, the approach of the then WP Secretary-General made me adverse to the WP.

I cheered for SDP in the elections in the early 1990s and was elated when SDP won 2 more seats (Bukit Gombak by Ling How Dong and Nee Soon Central by Cheo Chai Chen) in addition to Potong Pasir where Mr Chiam had always stood, using the by-election strategy. I was so proud of Mr Chiam when the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew called him the de facto leader of the opposition in Parliament.

By the time I became a lawyer in 1998, I had given up on the SDP. In just a few years from winning 3 SMCs, Mr Chiam was kicked out of SDP by his protégé, Chee Soon Juan. The petty politics within the opposition camp also became quite obvious, these folks weren't interested in the big picture. They were interested in themselves. The SDP with CSJ embraced the rhetorics and personal attacks that made me adverse to WP. I became a fence sitter, I became neither for the opposition or the PAP.

After becoming a lawyer, I started taking part in committee work in the Law Society. I figured I should play a part in improving the environment I work in. By 2003, I stood in an election for Law Society's Council and won.

As I got involved in "governance" of the Legal Profession in Council, I realised that it was not an easy job at all. You may have the best of intentions but nobody sees it. The good that you do is nullified by detractors as a matter of course and any lapses are amplified. Those who support you, do so in silence because they have more important things to do, like practise law and building a clientele. Detractors usually have an axe to grind because of self-interest and because they fail to see the larger picture of the needs of and the threats to the profession. Gradually, I came to appreciate the difficulties of running a country. I was only involved in the running a profession of 4,000, the PAP Government was running a country with a population of more than 4 million. By extrapolation, I could imagine their stresses being 1000 times more than mine as a Council member. I started to see things from the PAP's angle and saw the difficulties of running this little "red dot", the difficulties of avoiding the threats and maximising the opportunities.

I had warmed up to the PAP. So when I was asked by  Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (whom I met through volunteering with my primary school alumni association) to help her in Bukit Timah in the 2006 General Elections as a volunteer, I obliged. There was a walkover on Nomination Day. The opposition was still using Mr Chiam's by-election strategy. By now, there were 2 opposition MP, Mr Chiam who's still in Potong Pasir on his new party's ticket and Low Thia Khiang, WP's new Teochew Sec-Gen, who had taken Hougang by storm. SDP under Chee was nowhere to be found in Parliament.

After helping Mrs Yee-Foo very brief campaign in 2006, I was asked to stay back to help in Bukit Timah. I volunteered with the Grassroots and Mrs Yu-Foo's MPS. Then one day a green form with a lighting logo was pushed to me, I signed it without much hesitation. I had by then realised that there was so much being done on the ground and people were being genuinely helped.

I became a Young PAP member and later became the YP Chair in Bukit Timah. Being in YP exposed me to PAP Ministers and MPs and gave me opportunities to understand why they do what they do. I realised that they are just ordinary people who try to do things extraordinarily. They know they are not perfect but try to do the best they can for the country. I had the opportunity to give feedback and criticise them and I got to understand things from their angle. I came to understand the constraints of our country and the trade offs that are needed. I see them listening although they may not agree with what they hear.  I see them tweak and change what's no longer working and fiercely defending what works. I realise that like Council work, this was hard work and a thankless job.

I saw the PAP make the error of not giving credence to the Internet, allowing alternative sites to spread toxic rumours and responding to these only through the mainstream media. The PAP thought that as long as it ran the country well, the citizenry will vote for them. Big mistake.

Meanwhile, even after becoming a PAP member, I still held the firm belief that check and balance is necessary. By 2011, WP seems very promising as LTK started bring in the likes of Chen Show Mao but I was alarmed that the opposition had ditched Mr Chiam's by-election strategy. Mr Chiam, who was by then in poor health, was himself claiming that those in the opposition camp could be ready to be government. People were clamouring about the need for change. I was skeptical. Really? Change to what? All that Singapore enjoys today are the results of PAP policies. By no means perfect, the PAP government tries its best. PAP has a track record. Whilst I can accept that check and balances are needed, a WP (definitely not CSJ's brand of SDP) government is not something Singapore is ready for. LTK by his own admission was not ready. Ditching the by-election strategy was unsafe. This drove me to defend the PAP even more because someone else being government then was unthinkable.

The 2011 election was a watershed election. The WP won a GRC in addition to Hougang with the war cry of a "First World Parliament". But Potong Pasir was lost by not Mr Chiam but Mrs Chiam. Mrs Chiam came into Parliament as a NCMP, so did WP's Gerald Giam and Yee Jenn Jong. WP's Eric Tan left WP over this.

WP's Yaw Shin Leong MIAed over allegations of extra-marital affairs. By-election was held for Hougang, WP's Png Eng Huat got into Parliament.

PAP's Speaker, Michael Palmer resigns for the same failings as Yaw. By-election was held for Punggol East and WP's Lee Li Lian got into Parliament. 

WP now have 9 MPs in Parliament, 7 elected and 2 NCMPs. They now hold 2 SMCs and 1 GRC.

Did the check and balance, with the largest number of opposition MPs in Parliament in all of history, do some good? Yes. The PAP government was definitely put on its toes. So was the civil service. Whilst there was some changes for the better, there is also a risk of policies turning populist. Civil servants were also getting unprecedented complaints and unreasonable demands that take their attention off their normal functions.

Did the WP measure up to their "First World Parliament" war cry? They majored in rhetoric and minored on policies. They voted against PAP motion on revision of ministerial salaries and raised an alternative suggestion that came back to the same result. Much precious Parliamentary time was spent checking on the WP's running of its town council but the WP was evasive, played the victim card and gave lame excuses.

Are we ready for a WP government? Are we ready for a non-PAP government?

Michael S Chia

*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/notes/michael-s-chia/seeing-the-light-and-makin...

AHPETC AGO Report - Something is Wrong

The Auditor-General's Office (AGO) audit of AHPETC's financial records revealed some interesting facts. One of the most interesting is that the Managing Agent (MA), an employee of AHPETC, was allowed to set-up and run companies which were eventually awarded multi-million dollar contracts from AHPETC.

In quite a few instances, the AGO found evidence that the MA initiated invoices for work to be done (some without an open tender), certified that the job was completed, and then paid themselves. To those who work in any organization, this is indeed a very strange arrangement. Essentially, it means that as the MA I can defraud my employers. In this case, the "employers" being the residents of Aljunied, Hougand and Punggol East.

The AGO also found evidence that FMSI, a sole-proprietorship owned by the Secretary of AHPETC, was awarded a contract (without an open tender) that was 30% more than what the previous vendors charged. All this within months of taking over AHPETC.

While the AGO's audit report may be filled with legal and accounting jargon, what is undeniable is this ....

"You are employed as the Managing Agent for AHPETC"

"You set-up and run companies to supply AHPETC services"

"You award your own companies contracts without open tenders"

"You certify the job is done"

"You then issue and sign the cheques to pay your own company"

It does not take a genius, but something is very wrong here. And I find it hard to believe that Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang are not aware of this.

#fraud? #somethingnotright

Workers Party of Singapore - Rumours of In-fighting

The Workers Party of Singapore may be set to split .... Singapore Political watchers have long speculated that the Workers Party is splintering. Under immense pressure from their success at the Singapore GE 2011, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang have had to up their game and this means eliminating the "dead weight" who have unconditionally supported the Party since it formation and leadership under JB Jeyaretnam. Their purge has upset many so believe that the Workers Party of Singapore is becoming as elitist as the People's Action Party (PAP).



With the purge, many long time supporters of the Worker Party have abandon their Member of Parliament (MP). It is therefore not an uncommon sight these days to see Party light-weights like Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap working the ground alone. This, experienced political observers say, is a clear indication of the in-fighting that is taking place in the Workers Party.

 

Insiders close to key members within the Workers Party have also told SG Bumiputra that that the commercialization of trade fairs at the expense of hard-working Aljunied shopkeepers, and the "dirty manner" in which AHPETC is run, are adding to the rift in the party. Party Activists are beginning to doubt the character, values and intellect of their key leaders. Many Party Activists have become disillusioned and see that the Workers Party of Singapore is putting their own interest ahead of the Singaporean's that they claim to champion.

 

Singaporeans should therefore think carefully about the people they bring into parliament. Simply voting opposition as you are unhappy with the PAP is dangerous. Vote wisely!

Singapore Worker's Party - Where Honor and Integrity are Optional

A former trusted member of the Singapore Worker's Party gives our readers a special behind the scene look at the betrayal that occurs regularly within the Worker's Party. At the Worker's Party, honor and integrity are optional!

 

----------

 

By Sajeev Kamalasanan (Former member & Ex-candidate for WP, Nee Soon GRC, GE2011) article first published on Politico Singapore on 23 May 2013.

 

Since my resignation from the Workers’ Party (WP) in May 2012, I have been asked by many people on the real reason/s behind my resignation. I have also been hearing about how the other individual involved in my resignation, WP Chairman, Ms Sylvia Lim, and people related to her have been proclaiming and pleading her innocence in the events surrounding my resignation and that I was the one who had made false allegations and accusations against her and the Party in the first place. And a few other members of the Party have been cleverly playing detective in conveniently linking me with other unfortunate but unrelated incidents that happened within the Party after my resignation like Dr Poh Lee Guan’s so-called “sabotage” during the Hougang by-election.

 

On this anniversary of my resignation, I would like to clear any lingering doubts in reasonable people’s minds about my resignation, which was mainly due to the unfair and non-transparent practices adopted by the Party in the conferment of Party cadreship. I hope that my experience (and those of other ex-candidates and ex-members) will serve as a cautionary note to all WP believers and aspiring members and candidates who would like to join and support WP, on what they can expect.

 

Before I get into those details, let me first of all convey my congratulations to Mr Somasundaram (ex-candidate for Moulmein-Kallang GRC) and Mr Watson Chong (my ex-team mate and candidate for Nee Soon GRC candidate) of WP for FINALLY getting their extremely long overdue and well deserved WP cadreship. They had been very quickly conferred cadreship just two months after my resignation, just before the WP cadre meeting that was held in July 2012. The suspicious timing aside (coming right after my resignation), it is indeed an appropriate recognition for both of these ex-candidates of the 2011 General Elections, who had long been denied Party cadreship. Mr Soma, in particular (who is a Master’s degree holder and a lecturer at Temasek Polytechnic and incidentally a member of the minority community), had to wait for six long years since 2006 for his contributions to be recognised by the Party.

 

However, there had been others who had been made cadres quite quickly within months of joining the Party. My particular concern was why some ex-candidates such as myself, Mr Soma, Mr Watson Chong and Ms Angela Oon were not being given Party cadreship whereas other (non-minority) ordinary, new ordinary members and certain new ex-candidates were easily given cadreship ahead of other ex-candidates, who nevertheless had put themselves up on the very important national platform of the General Elections. While the contributions of all members are important, it is unjust to overlook the sacrifices and risks of these ex-candidates who have stepped up to be candidates of opposition parties and not recognise all of them for their sincere efforts for the Party and nation. We simply have to look back at the Tang Liang Hongs and the JBJs to understand what risks opposition candidates face in this country to run under the opposition banner. This enormous risk cannot be compared to the much smaller risk that say an ordinary member carries by helping out in WP events on an adhoc basis. It is therefore not unreasonable to confer cadreship to ex-candidates ahead of ordinary members.

 

I had brought up this matter about the unfair treatment displayed by WP’s leadership on some of its ex-candidates in the cadreship selection process (besides other issues) even before Mohd Fazli Bin Talip’s resignation in February 2012 (who also had resigned citing dissatisfaction with the cadreship selection process) and again in the leadup to my resignation from the Party in May 2012. Here is part of the email that I had sent to Ms Sylvia Lim on March 13, 2012:

“I believe there are currently 4 ex-candidates who have not been given cadreship (myself, Soma, Angela and Watson). There are perhaps compelling reasons in not offering these ex-candidates cadreship and I would like to know specifically why myself and Soma have not been offered. I understand that I may be considered new to the party even though I have been a WP member since 2006 (having just started contributing shortly before the 2011 elections) but I believe there are other such new candidates like eg. Hong Boon who is nevertheless a cadre member. When comparing Soma with Hong Boon, why is Soma, a longtime helper in Aljunied (since after 2006 elections) not offered cadreship and whereas Hong Boon who joined the party just months before election got to be a cadre member immediately after the last election?”.

As Ms Sylvia Lim and the other WP MPs were questioning the PAP government on unfairness, accountability and transparency issues in Parliament, they failed to show the same for some of their own members who had stood alongside them in the same GE2011 platform which eventually led the “A-team” to victory. Besides that, I did not get any satisfactory answers from Ms Sylvia Lim about the unfairness and unequal treatment which I was questioning her about when I met up with her privately on 4 April 2012 to discuss the matter.

 

At our meeting, she seemed to be at a loss of words and flip flopped in trying to be “understanding” about my concerns and in giving me non-answers. I expected her to tell me that she valued all of our contributions and that we, the ex-candidates, also mattered. When I asked her specifically about Mr Soma’s case, she had replied that Mr Soma did not help out or participate in any Hammer sales to be considered for cadreship. Then, I wondered why wasn’t I considered for cadreship since I quite easily meet this criteria she mentioned of participating in the Hammer sales? Besides, there were others who were new members and who had participated at Hammer sales and had been made cadres. I was also a regular helper at her weekly Serangoon Division MPS sessions and also helped organise her other Aljunied division events. But her response surprised me — “Indians tend to leave after getting cadreship”.

 

It was a silly thing to say and I wish she had not said it (the public and media picked up on the racial element, of course). As for me, upon reflection, I realised that it was essentially an admission of a truth about the sorry state of affairs about the low participation of minorities within the Party. Anyone just needs to look at the whereabouts of the past WP GE minority Indian candidates and at the general lack of active participation of minorities within the WP to ascertain this reality.

 

Yet, coming from the Chairman, I didn’t quite expect something like this to be left hanging in the air for so long. I expected words of assurance and affirmative action from Ms Sylvia Lim, which unfortunately, did not come even in the days and weeks following our meeting. I wondered why the Party would not take actions to examine itself to see if it contributed to the low level of minority participation. Slightly more than a month later, I realised that things were not going to change or improve and it was very clear to me that I was only being made use of when the Party needed me. I was not comfortable to be part of a Party that does not set transparent guidelines, standards and criteria for judging members’ worth and contributions. It was unacceptable to me on account of fairness that they could judge a member to be worthy of being a candidate of a national event, the General Elections, yet judge him or her to be unworthy of being nominated for internal Party cadreship. I then decided to take a stand and resign from the Party over my dissatisfaction with the Party’s non-transparent and unfair cadreship selection process on Mothers’ Day.

 

As for Mr Soma and Mr Watson Chong, they each very well know why they weren’t given cadreship by the Party after election. Mr Soma has now seen how things suddenly changed for him after I brought up the unfair cadreship issue of WP to light publicly. Perhaps eager to take the heat off of the Party about its alleged unfair dealings with minorities (an angle which some people were pursuing) and to increase its minority cadreship headcount, Ms Sylvia Lim had travelled all the way to Mr Soma’s workplace to break the good news to him (after Hougang by-election) about her plans to nominate him for cadreship. It was a very surprising development, considering the cold treatment Mr Soma had been receiving from the Party leaders for having earlier questioned Ms Sylvia Lim on the change of his candidacy from Aljuned GRC to Moulmein Kallang GRC in GE2011.

 

Apparently, questioning the leaders is very much frowned upon in the WP and when pressed for real answers for uncomfortable questions, the modus operandi is to say “no comment”. To date, WP leaders (Low Thia Kiang and Sylvia Lim) have been unable to answer my queries publicly and in correspondences that I have sent to them. They may find the following questions hard to answer too:

1. If a minority member is deemed to be unworthy of receiving cadreship because he or she tends to leave the Party, does that mean that no matter what he or she does to support and help the Party, all these efforts will never be good enough for him or her to become a cadre or a CEC member? Or unless he or she becomes a MP to be opted in?
2. What does a minority member need to do besides the guaranteed way of winning a general election like Pritam Singh and Faisal Manap in order to be nominated to be a cadre or a CEC member? What have been and are the KPIs for cadreship and are these subject to change or interpretation?
3. Following my resignation, new minority members of the Party had been fast tracked to cadreship status. Is the Party able to account why these new members are more deserving of cadreship over the older contributing members who had been denied cadreship? Are the new minority members being given cadreship to boost minority headcounts to make the Party books look good after I exposed the real issues happening in the Party?
4. With the very obvious imbalance in minority Indian  representation in the CEC member panel (with just Pritam Singh), will people like Mr Soma ever be considered or nominated for the CEC member position to represent the minority Indian members/community at large?

There have been other more talked about examples of real betrayal and unfairness within the Party which I encountered during my time with WP. One of which involved the WP veteran, Mr Eric Tan, the former WP Treasurer and heavyweight team leader of East Coast GRC team. Mr Eric Tan had resigned from WP immediately after the 2011 General Elections, over the NCMP seat in Parliament, which was given to Mr Gerald Giam. In the leadup to GE2011, the Secretary General, Mr Low Thia Kiang, had in fact agreed to support Mr Eric Tan for the NCMP seat should the Party be offered an NCMP seat by the government. However, after election, Mr Low changed his tune and a “secret ballot” was introduced to decide on who would get the NCMP seat.

 

I personally felt that it was an unfair treatment towards Mr Eric Tan for the Party to call for a “secret ballot” system to select the NCMP from the best losing East Coast GRC team (consisting of 5 members) rather than to appoint him, the team leader, to the NCMP seat. Mr Eric Tan was the most senior and experienced member in that team, with a successful background and track record of being the top 100 bankers in Singapore and furthermore the Party had enough faith in him to appoint him to be the leader of a GRC team in national elections. Mr Eric Tan is also to be credited for reeling in MP Chen Show Mao and NCMP Yee Jenn Jong into WP as candidates for the GE2011. More importantly, he was one of the 5 brains (besides Low TK, Sylvia Lim, Jane Leong and Ng Swee Bee), a key person in the WP election committee to deliberate on the 2011 General Election strategy and who approved the selection of the candidates based on WP’s so called “3C2P” (credibility, capability, character, passion and public spiritedness) for each constituency in the elections. Under his leadership, his team pulled in the second highest GRC votes for WP.

 

I understand and do appreciate the notion that all members in the team played their respective roles and contributed to the final result but it is not unreasonable to first and foremost recognise and credit the leader of a team for a job well done. This happens in the real world all the time. So, unless, if Mr Eric Tan had rejected the NCMP offer, only then it would have been fair to conduct a ballot to decide from the remaining 4 team members on who would get the NCMP seat (and not just the 3 selected members for the secret ballot; and how were they selected anyway?). If a good team leader like Mr Eric Tan, can be brushed aside and sidelined by the “secret ballot” system or in the name of WP’s new “renewal process” (which, ironically, we did not see come into play in the Hougang by-election candidate selection), it is quite clearly telling about how the Party values individuals and how the system/goal posts can change at different times and in the process sideline members who had stepped up and helped the Party to become a credible and strong opposition Party after GE2011. A valid question would be — Is the “renewal process” being used as a tool or excuse to perhaps get rid of older experienced and perhaps more outspoken members with a vision from the Party? If so, it is a shame if talented and capable members are being unfairly denied the opportunity to contribute further because others in the Party may be uncomfortable that these capable members may perhaps one day outshine them.

 

Another WP veteran, Dr Poh Lee Guan’s case, intrigued me. Many have accused him of intentionally planning to sabotage WP during the Hougang by-election (days after my resignation from the Party). I however have my doubts. Why would someone like Dr Poh (who had sacrificed his well paying job and high profile career, like Mr Eric Tan, in the private sector) for WP back in those days where there was a lot of risks involved in opposition politics here, do so? He has stood for three consecutive elections (2 SMC & 1 GRC wards) under the WP banner, spent more than a decade of his life serving and funding WP from his retrenchment money, and had served in key roles in WP as Hougang SMC Town Councillor and Asst Secretary General of WP. It seems incredible that he would want to sabotage the very Party which he helped to bring up to where it is now. At best, his good intentions of being a spare tyre for the Hougang by election as a backup candidate were misconstrued as attempts to willfully bring down or embarrass the Party.

 

Dr Poh had of course failed to inform WP leaders of his plans but why just blame Dr Poh for using his intelligence and street smarts to put himself up as a backup plan (the PAP apparently had backup candidates and the WP didn’t)? Why didn’t any of the two WP leaders or any CEC members try to call or message him to find out what or why he was doing so? I had heard that there had been some friction between Dr Poh and the party leaders from even before GE2011, which some members were aware of, and perhaps this may have contributed to the complete breakdown of communication between the Party and Dr Poh during this critical time.

 

I had come to know about the friction during the campaigning period of GE2011 as his fellow Nee Soon GRC team member. Back then, I was concerned that the problems may affect our Nee Soon GRC campaigning and I had written an email to the two WP leaders and former MP Yaw Shin Leong on the rumours and accusations that had been made up against Dr Poh by some loyal Party members during the election time. Subsequently, I had responded to Mr Yaw’s follow up queries to find out more about this matter (the two WP leaders had been silent). For a veteran member and for someone who had contributed substantially to the Party all these years, I felt that Dr Poh had more than enough mitigating factors that should have been taken into consideration when deciding on his future with the Party. The decision to expel him at once was overly harsh. A stern warning for his actions or a demotion to regular membership status could have sufficed.

 

fter my resignation, I had been called all kinds of names like sourgrapes, traitor, etc. by total strangers who do not even know about the internal politics/workings/circumstances/issues within the WP which caused me and other members before me like Mr Eric Tan, Mr Mohd Fazli, and others to resign. And when people like us resign from the Party over betrayal, unfairness or even stand up for our rights, we suddenly become or are made to look like the trouble makers to the public and in WP supporters’ eyes. It is indeed very easy (but not very clever) for outsiders to pass judgment on such matters and I took it in my stride as I know that I need not dignify the comments, opinions, speculations or assumptions of people who had absolutely no clue or idea about what they are talking about (unless they are some ex-WP member/s or more).

 

At the crux of the matter was the issue of fairness. All ex-members of the opposition parties are humans, after all, and it is not unreasonable to expect transparency and fairness from your peers and colleagues in the Party, a party which I and many others before me believed in. There has never been a need for me to make any allegations or accusations against anyone in the Party leadership position for no valid reason or without any proof which I can show to prove that my claims are indeed genuine.

 

n fact, I could have just ignored (like some others) or turn a blind eye to all the injustice, unfairness, etc. shown to the members who had helped the Party to succeed or just hang around for another opportunity to be a candidate at the next GE (just for the publicity and limelight). Or I could have waited for Ms Sylvia Lim’s so-called “secret plans” which she had told me she had for me to materialise, something which I feel was offered to silence me from asking the Party leaders too many questions about the unfairness issues involving the other members in the Party.

 

In the months following my resignation, there have been some sudden noteworthy and interesting developments within the WP. For some reason, there’s an increased visibility by Party members at multiracial events and an increased propensity to be photographed with members of the minority community. This can be clearly seen by comparing the photos taken at WP events, both before and after the Hougang by-election.

 

In June 2012, a couple of members from the Party’s Youth Wing posted on their Facebook rather surprising and embarrassing confessions/admissions that they were attending Indian and Malay weddings/functions for the first time in their lives with other Party members. This is really sad and it shows how isolated and far back the Party’s future generation appears to be after a year of winning a GRC. I certainly hope that other youth members in the Party have not been living under a rock like these people appear to have in their 30-odd years of existence in this very multiracial country. It is indeed surprising and worrying that the strongest opposition party/brand in Singapore has within its folds members who actually lack meaningful interaction with people from other communities and faiths.

 

Recently, in response to press queries about the poor attendance of minorities at a WP dialogue-cum-tea session to try to engage the minorities, Ms Sylvia Lim was quoted as saying that the numbers of minorities participating in WP is quite strangely very “subjective” (whatever that means). I was not surprised about the poor attendance by the minorities as I had been informed by some active Indian minority members in the Party that they had not even been invited to the event. Ironically, my wife who had also resigned at the time of my resignation from the WP had been invited! Maybe other non-members or ex-members had been invited too. So, perhaps what Ms Sylvia Lim meant by her “subjective” comment is that one can be considered to be a member if the Party needs his/her opinion or help at a given time but  at other times is not considered a member if the Party doesn’t need this person’s opinion or help. This probably explains why not all minority members were invited to the event, perhaps only those that will provide agreeable views were selected to be invited. This selective and dispensable view of a person’s membership and status within the Party probably also explains why and how ex-members like myself, Dr Poh, Mr Mohamed Fazli, Mr Eric Tan and many others who quietly resigned before us (which the public does not know about) had found themselves in situations of unfairness in the Party. I certainly hope that Singaporeans will not become dispensable digits like these ex-members should WP form the government one day.

 

Nevertheless, with all these sudden developments in the one year after my resignation, I feel vindicated that my past efforts in writing many emails, giving feedback and suggestions and posing straightforward questions to the WP leaders about issues (mainly to Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Low Thia Khiang and the former MP, Mr Yaw Shin Leong), were not exactly wasted. Some change appears to be happening but unfortunately, the timing so soon after my resignation does make me wonder if the change from within the Party is genuine and if it will be sustained for the betterment of the Party’s road ahead before the next GE2016.

 

I believe that the media scrutiny following my resignation spurred the Party to fast track the cadreship of those certain ex-candidates (which I had been asking about before my resignation) and of some  Party members belonging to the minority community. If so, these new inductees need not feel smug about the “recognition” that the Party has now suddenly accorded them with cadreship. It’s also nice to see some new “wannabe candidates” and members instantly benefitting from my resignation and from my speaking out about my experiences with the Party.

 

I believe that my experience and insights about the Party will serve as a cautionary tale for others on what they may encounter in the future. A mark of a great leader is the ability to empathize and put himself or herself in the shoes of others before making any moves or decisions that will affect others. It does not bode well for the country to elect any leaders that may tolerate or turn a blind eye to injustice and unfairness issues involving its own members. Just imagine the consequences if such behaviour is replicated on a national basis to affect Singaporeans’ lives. Hope that this will also make all Singaporeans think about the importance of choosing wisely the people who are truly voicing the voters’ concerns and on the real issues to improve our lives and our future (other than a strong party brand).