WP's Managing Agent's issue

[DEDEER]

5% Advisor aka Goh Meng Seng.

So 'brilliant'? Why aren't you in parliament then?

Breakdown of Tan Kin Lian's 5% Presidential Election vote :

1) Party Branding : 1 %
2) Ground Work he did : 2%
3) His personality and charisma : 0%
4) Quality of competitors : -1%
5) TKL Policies : 2%
6) Local Ground Issues : 1%
7) Protest votes against PAP : 3%
8) Sympathy votes for TKL : 2%
9) Votes gained/lost because of association with Goh Meng Seng branding : -5%

Overall results : 5%

Conclusion : TKL would have still lost his deposit but he will not look like an utter moron if he did not use Goh Meng Seng as his PE advisor.

 

[scroobal]

Yes, thats what WMM said and I agreed with him in post 16.

If we really want to avoid what people call "cronyism", get estate management out of political parties' hands. Estate management itself is a business and a bunch of companies working together.

It becomes worse when town councils are political (according to KBW) where it changes hands between partisan players, and what happens? Companies will also divide themselves into camps. If you use the companies in your camp and this become "cronyism", any party so long that it has a seat in parliament and hence a TC to manage can easily have that label stuck to them.

The whole issue of AIMS and FMSS began with the system, but the system began with the PAP and not the WP. That we should remember. We can stop all these if PAP brings estate management back to HDB. WP has no power to do that.

 

[scroobal]

I agree but you will surprised that many Singaporeans genuinely believe that the MP's role is to manage the TC and keep the place clean. They actually think it is the primary role.

I would say go for broke, and call Khaw's bluff to pass the rule. In a battle of brinksmanship, the PAP stands to lose because the stakes are higher.

By doing so, WP will have the moral authority to reinforce the argument to the people of Singapore that partisan politicking in TCs and HDB estates should be a thing of the past, and pass the buck of managing the estates back to the HDB and the govt. This will blunt their weapon in blocking future Opposition's development and advantage. At the same time, it will clean up the system. WP must not let PAP get away with this one.

 

[metalmickey]

What the PAP has always been keen to avoid is a situation where the HDB manages the estate in an opposition ward, then when things go wrong, or if there is any perceived difference in standards in the management, it's used as a tool to whack the PAP / govt. To be sure, in the past the PAP has gone down the path of "no upgrading for you if you're in an opposition ward". So they ensured that the relationship between municipal services (HDB or whatever fucking govt body in charge of this stuff) and opposition parties are antagonistic.

If you view it that way then there is a certain logic to "OK, you won this ward, you look after it yourself". I mean in our constitution so many things are conflated. Why must it be the case that our cabinet is drawn exclusively from the legislative body? Isn't the executive separate from the legislative? So by extension, they also conflate the municipal running of the HDB estates with the legislative body.

By right, all these things should be done by the mayors. Maybe we should have elected mayors. But then again, it will come back to the same old story, if an opposition party member wins a mayoral election, it's WP running a town council all over again.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Town Council management for elected MPs is poisoned sweetener for political parties, especially opposition parties. The temptation of money politics will be very high for many and it is there where many people will fail and fall.

We have witnessed political parties using TC management to "buy support" for various projects... be it local upgrading projects or national pork barrel politicking. Such system is open and subjected to abuses and development of cronyism. This is especially so when the running of TC is put into absolute control of one party.

In other places, Town Councilors are elected and people from different political spectrum, be it independent or partisan, will effect a balance of checks and scrutiny to the running and spending of the municipal. Such system will be more stable and effect true democracy.

I will advocate the change of the present system into a two tier system. MPs elected should spend more time in policy and law making while town councilors are elected separately.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[scroobal]

No issues with elected Mayors and elected town councillors as nearly all 1st World countries both on Westminster and US sides do this.

The MP focus and efforts in the legislative chamber and in the arena of making law and seeking accountability should not be crippled by the burden of managing or running TCs. The only country that does it is Singapore. Its ridiculous.

But we know that it was PAP's of screwing their political rivals and has nothing to do with serving the people.

By right, all these things should be done by the mayors. Maybe we should have elected mayors. But then again, it will come back to the same old story, if an opposition party member wins a mayoral election, it's WP running a town council all over again.

 

[scroobal]

You make it out as it is your idea. It has been the construct all over the World and in Singapore until the PAP changed the rules of the game.

No fault of the WP. When you were a member of WP and a political candidate twice and for 2 different parties you were contesting under this construct. Cannot recall you making this an issue. As Sec Gen of NSP you could have had this in your manifesto.

Town Council management for elected MPs is poisoned sweetener for political parties, especially opposition parties. The temptation of money politics will be very high for many and it is there where many people will fail and fall.

We have witnessed political parties using TC management to "buy support" for various projects... be it local upgrading projects or national pork barrel politicking. Such system is open and subjected to abuses and development of cronyism. This is especially so when the running of TC is put into absolute control of one party.

In other places, Town Councilors are elected and people from different political spectrum, be it independent or partisan, will effect a balance of checks and scrutiny to the running and spending of the municipal. Such system will be more stable and effect true democracy.

I will advocate the change of the present system into a two tier system. MPs elected should spend more time in policy and law making while town councilors are elected separately.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[scroobal]

The PAP never expected that Chiam could make TC management an art form. I remember GCT used to insinuate that there was something wrong with the Potong Pasir's accounts and questioned how they can do lift upgrading cheaply. You could see why the PAP wanted to elected MPs to run TCs. It was a clear attempt to undermine the opposition MPs.

No part of an MPs role should carry an execution function. The exception is when they party holds a majority and needs to form govt. Even then its the Civil Service thats executes. An MP running a TC does not have the benefit of the civil service.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Well, maybe you have missed what I have said or written before while some of my stalkers and detractors have paid more attention to what I have written or said; I did say it should not be the responsibility of MPs to run the TC.

I have even mentioned the two tier systems before, if I am not wrong, on CNA Talking point prior to last GE.

Nevertheless, you are right, this is nothing new, really. Most democracy has dual system and I have always acknowledged that. I have raised Hong Kong District Council and Legco as example as well. I have written on my blog about this.

Goh Meng Seng

You make it out as it is your idea. It has been the construct all over the World and in Singapore until the PAP changed the rules of the game.

No fault of the WP. When you were a member of WP and a political candidate twice and for 2 different parties you were contesting under this construct. Cannot recall you making this an issue. As Sec Gen of NSP you could have had this in your manifesto.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

This is an opportune time to re-look our political system whether it has desirable effects or not. The AIM issue has brought up quite alot of issues of potential conflict of interests and the root is TC management.

When I raise issue on TC management by political parties, people don't really understand the implications and some, my detractors, would mock at me. But the situation now has shown what can go wrong in TC management, will go wrong. Well, it is about time to review the whole political system.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[OverTheCounter]

This is an opportune time to re-look our political system whether it has desirable effects or not. The AIM issue has brought up quite alot of issues of potential conflict of interests and the root is TC management.

When I raise issue on TC management by political parties, people don't really understand the implications and some, my detractors, would mock at me. But the situation now has shown what can go wrong in TC management, will go wrong. Well, it is about time to review the whole political system.

Goh Meng Seng

Meng Seng,

The ruling party can still screw up residents anyway when they vote in the opposition even if the TC management is not in the hands of the elected MP. They can terminate bus routes, slow down rubbish collection (assuming TC management is under HDB), use the flat and lift upgrading carrot.

What are your thoughts?

The TC management has one advantage to residents. It forces the MP to have a direct stake in their immediate welfare - and not just concentrating on policy making, which many aspiring politicians unfortunately play at a very abstract level. I don't want an MP that just look at the big picture, come up with some ivory towered ideas, and then ask for my vote. What is his stake in my local needs?

Your point about dual elected system is interested, but is SG too small for such a system? Again, your thoughts pls.

 

[tanwahp]

It has been the construct all over the World and in Singapore until the PAP changed the rules of the game.

The PAP changed the rules such that with the present system, the party with majority of seats will run majority of the towns. In the old system it can become parliament vs city council. Two power bases, something PAP doesn't want.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Last time, PAP can get away with lots of things but in today's internet era, I guess they better think twice about doing all these stupid things.

Goh Meng Seng

Meng Seng,

The ruling party can still screw up residents anyway when they vote in the opposition even if the TC management is not in the hands of the elected MP. They can terminate bus routes, slow down rubbish collection (assuming TC management is under HDB), use the flat and lift upgrading carrot.

What are your thoughts?

The TC management has one advantage to residents. It forces the MP to have a direct stake in their immediate welfare - and not just concentrating on policy making, which many aspiring politicians unfortunately play at a very abstract level. I don't want an MP that just look at the big picture, come up with some ivory towered ideas, and then ask for my vote. What is his stake in my local needs?

Your point about dual elected system is interested, but is SG too small for such a system? Again, your thoughts pls.

 

[scroobal]

It was not only having control over TCs it is to deter quality opposition candidates from contesting especially the cerebral ones. It is already a daunting thought of being an MP in Parliament but imagine running a TC. If Chiam and LTK did not ably demonstrate via PP and Hougang what they could do, we will continue to struggle with bringing in quality candidates.

The PAP changed the rules such that with the present system, the party with majority of seats will run majority of the towns. In the old system it can become parliament vs city council. Two power bases, something PAP doesn't want.

 

[tanwahp]

The TC management has one advantage to residents. It forces the MP to have a direct stake in their immediate welfare - and not just concentrating on policy making, which many aspiring politicians unfortunately play at a very abstract level. I don't want an MP that just look at the big picture, come up with some ivory towered ideas, and then ask for my vote. What is his stake in my local needs?

The important thing omitted here is ground walks. Other than policy writing and speaking in parliament, the MP has a choice of visiting the ground everyday, knocking on doors, sit with residents at hawker centres and ask for their views, which may be used when he formulates policies and speeches. That is also a lot of work compared to town council management.

The MP does not run the day to day operations and knows nuts about pavement repairs, so where TCs are concerned they don't actually do much.

 

[OverTheCounter]

Last time, PAP can get away with lots of things but in today's internet era, I guess they better think twice about doing all these stupid things.

Goh Meng Seng

What about those airy fairy politicians asking to vote you in based on some airy fairy ideas?

I need to see some concreteness in a candidate before i give him/her my vote

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Politics is always an ongoing process, one success doesn't mean anything because he can always be voted out later.

There will be another elections to elect a group of councilors to run the TC. They will check themselves instead of allowing the monopoly of control. I don't like monopoly of power in all aspects because it breeds abuses and complacency.

You can still do your ground work or walks even when you are not running the TC. Nobody can stop you from knocking doors or selling papers in markets. This is what opposition parties doing right now.

Nobody will have perfect mechanism of choosing the right law makers but to make town council management as a gauge of whether one is a good law maker is really irrelevant. Law making and estate management have very little in common. You don't judge a person's maths skills by looking at his english marks, do you?

Goh Meng Seng

What about those airy fairy politicians asking to vote you in based on some airy fairy ideas?

I need to see some concreteness in a candidate before i give him/her my vote

 

[tanwahp]

It was not only having control over TCs it is to deter quality opposition candidates from contesting especially the cerebral ones. It is already a daunting thought of being an MP in Parliament but imagine running a TC. If Chiam and LTK did not ably demonstrate via PP and Hougang what they could do, we will continue to struggle with bringing in quality candidates.

However, Chiam's party failed in 2 out of the 3 places they won. As for WP, whether they get elected in Aljunied and Punggol East remains to be seen. If they were voted out, it could mean that the TC became their impediment instead, or it could be because of something else.

Getting good candidates depend on the political culture and how the opposition leaders run their parties. It has less to do with TCs. Hence I am for closing TCs and having estate management out of their hands.

I also find the idea of elected city management unworkable. Even it if works, it is more suited for semi-rural towns rather than an urban landscape like Singapore. Managing the construction infrastructure with the past city council concept will still be unworkable today. That is why in Malaysia, the 3 Federal Territories of KL, Putrajaya and Labuan do not have an assembly.

 

[scroobal]

Not Chiam, Chee had taken over. I am talking about PP where Chiam had control.

Elected councils are no different to elected committees that you find in a social club, golf club, association, Air Rifle club. They provide necessary governance and ensure that the aspirations of the members are carried out. It no different to the Management Committee made up of residents of a Condo who engage an MA.

But I do agree that HDB should run the joint and allow residents to form association to further their agenda and help HDB understand their needs.

However, Chiam's party failed in 2 out of the 3 places they won. As for WP, whether they get elected in Aljunied and Punggol East remains to be seen. If they were voted out, it could mean that the TC became their impediment instead, or it could be because of something else.

Getting good candidates depend on the political culture and how the opposition leaders run their parties. It has less to do with TCs. Hence I am for closing TCs and having estate management out of their hands.

I also find the idea of elected city management unworkable. Even it if works, it is more suited for semi-rural towns rather than an urban landscape like Singapore. Managing the construction infrastructure with the past city council concept will still be unworkable today. That is why in Malaysia, the 3 Federal Territories of KL, Putrajaya and Labuan do not have an assembly.

 

[metalmickey]

In other places, Town Councilors are elected and people from different political spectrum, be it independent or partisan, will effect a balance of checks and scrutiny to the running and spending of the municipal. Such system will be more stable and effect true democracy.

I will advocate the change of the present system into a two tier system. MPs elected should spend more time in policy and law making while town councilors are elected separately.

Goh Meng Seng

Apparently you didn't read my earlier point. It doesn't matter if you're going to separate out the national legislative assembly from the municipal councils. The partisan politics will still come into play. PAP and WP or whoever will still fight for the

The way that corruption works is - well people hate it but it's not so easy to get rid of it. Suppose you had a lot of guys who busted their guts for the WP. (Or they felt that they did). What if they outlived their use? They're not going to go away quietly. You might have a Sajeev who lends his name and lends credence to people who want to attack the WP. Or you have Goh Meng Seng who gives unsolicited feedback at any given opportunity. You can pay them to shut up, which is where all the corruption starts. All this shit happens because there is no formal structure to reward people for the time and effort they have put into your cause.

Or you can always do it Lee Kuan Yew style, which is "shut the fuck up or I will fucking kill you".

Democracy can enact a system of checks and balances. Whether this system is effective is another matter. One guarantee is that it will be messy. There's a lot of mudslinging going on now, and after this I don't think a lot of people are going to say "the WP should speak up more in parliament". "Today in Parliament" will no longer be a TV program you want to watch when you are suffering from insomnia.