My interview with Mr Goh Meng Seng
(Secretary-General, National Solidarity Party), 15 October 2010
(Please note: The 2011 General
Election was held on 7 May 2011.)
By Dr Kieran James (University of Fiji)
Introduction: This previously unpublished interview is probably the longest one GMS did during his time as SG of NSP. What is remarkable is that the same topics are still so relevant today - PAP pork-barrelling, Malay issues, foreign talent, minimum wage, internet activism, and the race-card. The interview is also interesting because it gives us what the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek termed an "Alternative history". This reminds us that the current world is always just one of many and is based on decisions taken in the past. This interview gives insight into how NSP might have progressed had GMS stayed on as SG. Given that the party has done little of note since he left and is starved of vision and identity once more, GMS's worthwhile ideas (such as the Malay Bureau) perhaps should have been given the chance to prove themselves over a longer time-horizon...[by Kieran James, 10 January 2014].
Kieran James: Explain the events in your
life that caused you to become an opposition supporter.
Goh Meng Seng: My father is a political
party member so from young we read Chinese newspapers together, he is not
educated but he can read. The socialist perspective of his generation was
mentioned. In uni days, 1991, the main battle involved SDP; there was a lot of
discussion on electronic bulletin board and on campus discussion about how
great SDP rallies were. Newspapers did not give full picture about what was
going on on the ground. I attended my first rally, 1991 election SDP Potong
Pasir, and then I realized the media was being totally unfair in its reporting.
I did small reports on rallies; I was involved in citizen reporting, NUS electronic
bulletin boards; these
were my first political activism. There was this bulletin news group that
evolved into Social Culture Singapore;
you can still find it on Google.
KJ: Just out of interest, what did you
study at university?
GMS: I had been studying economics. At
NUS when you study economics in honours year you will do a lot of analysis on local politics, for example for foreign talent policy; we were already discussing it back then. I
was critical of many policies of the Goh Chok Tong era such as GST, COE, and
asset enhancement programme. I totally disagreed as a young man. So my study
educated me from a policy perspective. In 1997 the GCT administration started
pork-barrelling politics. I continued my political reporting with some
anonymous people who said they were interested. In 1997 I voted for Tang Liang
Hong; I voted in Cheng San GRC. 1997 was the full awakening when they started
the HDB upgrading pork-barrelling.
I wrote a very emotional piece after the election saying there are only two options left for me: First migrate and second, stay and fight all for
the betterment of my children. I do not want my children to get cultivated in
such a system. Everything is materialism, everything has a price. I have been
volunteering all my life. It relates to the issue of ministers’ pay. I was
helping out in a Buddhist welfare group. It is an insult to all the volunteers
to say no-one will serve at low pay. My wife moved on to Hong
Kong, she’s working there and my daughter was born there.
KJ: When did you first join a political
party?
GMS: I decided to join Workers’ Party
right at the middle of the election [2001]. I thought if such a trend goes on, the opposition will be history.
WP only fielded two candidates [KJ note: Mr Low in Hougang SMC and Poh Lee Guan
in Nee Soon East SMC], SDA was pretty weak, and SDP was being whacked. So
through a mutual friend I was introduced to LTK [Low Thia Khiang]. After an hour’s talk, I joined WP and never looked
back. I stood in 06 in Aljunied. I was given the task to be the Mandarin anchor
in 06. Most of the speeches were in Mandarin except one defending James Gomez.
We had a fight in Aljunied GRC, James became the lightning rod. People called
him liar, cheater, and a scheming fellow but I know the whole story. It was a
mistake he made; he did not plan for it. I rebutted George Yeo; I said I will
not drop James Gomez. We were quite a strong performer; four out of five of us
were new candidates.
KJ: What was your opinion about the
result?
GMS: Our result was quite respectable;
we gained one NCMP in Sylvia. There was a change in policy regarding media
engagement. WP was not ready for the influx of new members after the election.
I did my political work and recruitment [via] internet since 91. If you say you
can have no blunders on new media it will not allow people to grow; new media
is quite instantaneous and interactive. The party was not very responsive. It’s
understandable because we put so much effort in rebranding the whole party. “We
need to be careful of slurs to party branding if people did things wrong on the
net” [they said].
I disagreed. I asked the audience “can I
have a show of hands whether you got to know the party through the internet?”
75-80% put up their hands, I had made my point, this was at an ordinary
members’ conference. They [WP leadership] said they did not want EC members to
expose identity on net. I took the opportunity to resign. Official reason is I
took responsibility for bad press, the slur on the party brand. I felt if I was
to stay in the party it would be too restrictive for my personal grooming. For
those inside it will do them no
good in the long run. It’s just like a child. Even if you don’t want him to fall, you can’t possibly prevent him from
walking. I felt that
aspiring politicians will not have a good training ground if they stay in the
party. I had to decide whether to start a new party or join an existing one.
In 07 the NSP President Sebastian Teo
asked me to join the party; he’s more open in media engagement. He showed me
the vision; he wanted to revamp the party, to become key player in the
opposition field. He asked me to join. I thought “why not, NSP already has an
infrastructure; I should see how I could contribute to building”. I had a
cultural shock when I went there.
KJ: I’m interested. How was it a culture
shock?
GMS: In WP we have a team to sell
papers. At NSP each has a stack of papers and we give money to the party later
on. There are pros and cons. NSP is very small by comparison. The sales of the
paper were very bad compared to WP. WP on one Sunday sells 700-1,500 papers;
NSP 200-300 – there was a gap.
KJ: What is your comment about working
with Low Thia Khiang?
GMS: I think Low is a very good mentor.
He cautions us about such circumstances; you must be cool and calm in your
analysis; you must avoid being flattered. It’s too bad I can’t agree with the
media policy so we have to part.
I had to compromise and adapt to the new
environment [at NSP]. Although NSP has existed since 1987 there are no core
values. My job after taking over is to reconstruct branding of NSP. In
late-1980s / early-1990s it was a promising party. Most WP candidates were not graduates; NSP has a big
bulk of the talent pool, and SDP. These two parties – SDP attracts mostly
English-educated and NSP mostly Chinese-educated with some English-educated,
it’s mixed. SDP is more successful with Chiam. However, despite this, I had
great expectations for NSP in 1991; it’s too bad it didn’t take off. I found
out later that having a degree is no guarantee of success. It depends on
individual characteristics. NSP could not connect in conversations; it’s a
connection to the ground that’s important. Not many people can go around tables
to sell papers especially the highly-educated who have not gone through
hardships. They cannot mix around with lower stratas of society. It’s changing
now. Chiam, on the other hand, has built his charisma from the ground right
from scratch. It shows why NSP was relatively less successful than SDP over the
same period when they had the same crop of people [KJ note: 1991 General Election
when SDP won three seats to NSP’s zero.] NSP did progress in 01 with one NCMP
Steve Chia. He did above-average in parliament but was burdened by the nude
photo incident.
KJ: Do you think the photo incident
impacted on Steve Chia’s 2006 GE result?
GMS: For Steve Chia in Chua Chu Kang,
his vote actually increased after general vote swing of 5% [KJ note: Chia
polled 34.7% in Chua Chu Kang SMC in 2001 and 39.6% in 2006. The swing against
PAP was nearly 10% across the whole country.] He has not suffered much due to
the nude photo incident. He was given a chance to perform in Parliament and he
performed reasonably well. He maintained national vote swing of 5%.
NSP had to deal with the restructuring.
We set up Malay Bureau. After five years in opposition politics, I decided this was important. I wanted to start up
one in WP. PAP says “no racial politics” but they play the race-card all the
time. They want to portray themselves as the only political party who can take
care of all the races. They guard this jealously. They will attack people as
Chinese or Malay chauvinist. They refuse to acknowledge that other parties can
be guardians of other races. This is something I have to address if I want the
party [NSP] to be a serious contender for the future.
KJ: Some people might say you are
playing a race-card because the Malay Bureau obviously puts a special focus on
Malays...
GMS: To me I’m not playing a race card.
I’m a Mandarin anchor, but my party must take care of Malays and Indians. [KJ
note: an interesting question is whether, according to PAP ideology, a person
could be labelled a “chauvinist” of a race which is not her/his own.] We are
multiracial. Goh Chok Tong did a review, they lost seats; it was due to less
Malay support. Malays depend upon PAP for jobs and stability in the civil
service. A lot of opposition parties do not want to set up race-based bureaus
so to avoid being accused of playing the race-card. I’m multi-racial outlook challenging bases
of PAP. PAP has three bases of power: races; meritocracy (protecting races from
discrimination); and economy / jobs. These are the basic sources of power. GCT
did a review in 91. He found Catholics’ vote moved away from PAP due to the Marxist
Conspiracy issue [1987]. Now they have tried to pacify the Catholic community,
George Yeo is the Catholic icon. One reason they lost [votes] is the Malay
vote. Jufrie of SDP raised Malay issues in 91 in Eunos and was labelled a “Malay
chauvinist” [KJ note: WP team scored 47.6% in Eunos GRC in 1991]. Malays in
Hougang voted for WP, there was a spill-over from Jufrie’s influence. After
this analysis they set up Merdaki and infiltrated all the Malay organizations
to pacify the Malays. Since then there was a swing of Malays to PAP, but 06
there was a slight swing back to opposition. Chinese votes have always been
fifty-fifty depending on the candidates. Malays are more impacted by group
leadership. The imams have a centralized message discourse on Friday prayers.
They cannot give their own sermons. The only concern is small cell groups which
are unregulated. The PAP tries to buy out the Malay talented professionals and
discourages them from getting involved in opposition politics. If you want to
stand for opposition they will talk to you and pressure your family. That is
the administrative and technical means to prevent Malay leaders joining
opposition parties. I have to correct this.
KJ: So please tell us more about your
Malay Bureau plans.
GMS: I will invite people in the
community. My Malay network has established community connections. The number
of Malay activists we have is still growing, ten to twenty.
KJ: Have any of them committed to stand
for the election?
GMS: Some have committed to stand for
election. I have a political science graduate working for MNC who will stand,
and one lady active in social community work. They will compile issues
pertaining to the community and they will attract professionals from Malay
community to join.
KJ: What do you think of the comment by
our friend PL that you have recruited just “Malay trash” to your Malay Bureau?
GMS: [PL] is totally wrong and mistaken
about “Malay trash”.
KJ: Have you decided upon which seats
the party will contest?
GMS: We will contest in Tampines, Jalan
Besar, Jurong, and three SMCs Yio Chu Kang, McPherson, and Yishun Central. [KJ
note: actual GRCs contested at the 7 May 2011 election were Chua Chu Kang,
Jurong, Marine Parade, and Tampines and actual SMCs contested were Mountbatten,
Pioneer, Radin Mas, and Whampoa. The interview took place 7 months before
polling date.] I will contest in Tampines [KJ note: this did happen]. I hope
there will be no three-corner fights; this is something we have to resolve. For
an opposition to take power you need 40 seats and 8 minority candidates. These
are the obstacles to becoming a ruling party. We are trying to recruit people for an Indian
Bureau; to recruit a critical mass where it will snowball.
KJ: What do you think will happen to Singapore
politics in next 10-15 years and how many seats will the opposition win at next
election?
GMS: We must face real problems; we must
win half the seats. This is my plan for 15 years’ time. There is a study of
impact of demographic changes. The prediction is those born after 1965 have
less tendency to give PAP votes due to PAP’s reputation capital of
nation-building. They will vote according to policies and candidates but not historical factors. By
2017 these will be the bulk of the voters. LKY once said he is confident PAP
will still be the ruling party after two elections but after that he can’t say.
After 15 years there will be a coalition
government, hung parliament [KJ note: the Australian Federal election of 21
August 2010 had created a hung parliament so this was upper in people’s minds
at the date of the interview two months later]. They will have a coalition with
other opposition parties. Logically an all-opposition coalition will not
happen. We do not have ruling experience, you need PAP as a coalition party
first, that is the transitional arrangement. In terms of stability in the
transition it is recommended PAP be part of a coalition. For my view NSP is
working towards a coalition government for next 15 years, it will reach there,
whether it is coalition with PAP or opposition is left to be seen. Eighteen or
20 MPs is possible [in 15 years’ time]. This is to do with the post-LKY era. We are in transition
period of LKY era. Philippines
and Indonesia
show that post-war you need a strong leader for reconstruction. After that
people demand more participation. If you resist that there is tension. What I
think is the change has to happen here, as in Taiwan
and Japan as well as Korea to a
certain extent. There must be a transitional time from strong leader to
democracy. We are a late-comer [in this process] so to speak. The PAP strategy
is the politics of retreat. LKY said if we lose two elections we are screwed.
He knew the system he set up; it is designed for total totalitarianism. We are
in a very delicate period. I wrote a piece “Dawn of the LKY Era”. It’s just
like what the Chinese are doing, they are moving to politics of retreat. It’s
not sustainable without a strong leader.
KJ: Was Goh Chok Tong with his “more
consultative style of government” an effective transitional-period leader?
GMS: I would prefer LHL to GCT, with GST
we had COE, asset enhancement, Medicare, health-care system - all were started
by his administration plus ERP; he used ultra-capitalist thinking for all these
policies, poisons
sold as sweets. For all
these policies once they are introduced they can only be moderated but not reversed.
KJ: OK, I want to ask you more about Low
Thia Khiang because you worked closely with him. What are the secrets of his
success?
GMS: Mr Low, the secrets of his success?
First he took the opportunity of winning [1991] due to atmosphere created by
the opposition as a whole. He was an unexpected candidate to win due to impact
of spill-over of Malay groups; also his dialect group. He did well in setting
up an alternative grassroots network of his own; he is seen as the leader of
the Chinese-educated and the Chinese ground. In the Chinese paper he is seen as
angry Teochew man, his public profile is accurate in certain ways; he is seen
as a fearless debater. He did not make mistakes others did; he was second-in-line
to JBJ, not painted as someone ungrateful who will kick out his mentor. He kept
this up until the final break in 1999. He is careful at protecting his own
reputation; his press releases are on him and the town council not national
policies. Debates on national policy are done in Parliament not through the
press. Recently there is a change in direction. He is not as aggressive as in
the past. Maybe he is giving the profile to Sylvia Lim. He will sit in
coffee-shop drinking beer with customers. Secondly, he manages his public
profile as debater in Parliament and defender of his town council. In the new
era ethnic group matters less and less and English penetrates the whole
generation. [Low’s success] cannot be replicated anymore. We must confirm our
reputations as political thinkers with national interests and interests of the
races in mind. The perspective has totally changed from [Low’s] era to my era.
I hope WP can evolve to this model. You cannot expect to win election just by
selling papers and knocking the doors.
KJ:
What do you think of internet political activism by the youth?
GMS: Internet has already been in effect
but the impact has not been that much. It is competition with the main media
that matters. For the young it will have an impact and this will increase over
the years. Facebook and blogs are a good archive and will grow in importance.
Since I started blogging I have had 495 posts, in election period people will
seek out the key players. The new media will work towards informed choice. We
can’t forever depend on people voting for opposition because of an emotional
charge caused by charismatic speeches. I
hope that most Singaporeans will make an informed choice based on policy views. Our economic policies are
very centrist, with more socialist ideas to some extent, for example health
care. The present system is totally inadequate. Since we have so much foreign
labour we will put in mandatory health insurance scheme. For the foreigners
they and employers will share premiums. For locals the government will pay part
of the insurance. We have 40% foreigners working here so it can cross-subsidize
local population. Coverage can be wider like the Taiwanese system. Health
Minister there said Singapore
system looks good but what is the role of the government? That is a very good
question.
KJ: What is the NSP policy on minimum
wage going in to the next election?
GMS: For minimum wage we agree to a
minimum living wage but it should also be applied to foreign workers. It should be universal
– for foreigners and locals. It is not only about minimum wage but also working
hours. Foreign workers are exploited. This combination should be stated clearly
in the labour laws – no discrimination should be tolerated. This should be made
clear, equal opportunities for all. Our slogan of party is “society for all”.
We have to make sure anti-discrimination laws enacted as part of the labour
laws.
KJ: Your perspective on unemployment
benefits?
GMS: I think unemployment benefits
should last for only 6 months. I will put it at 70% of last pay. They are always
concerned about the abuse. We are agreeable about unemployment benefits but we
need more discussion on details.
We have to shift away from transitional
model. Before we just needed companies to invest and education system created
good workers for MNCs and GLCs. The over-reliance on this model is that our own
people can become jobless due to structural change. They import labour from
overseas. They maintain high-growth but with structural problems. Is GDP growth really good for the citizens?
Traditionally Singapore
has benefitted from a foreign talent policy. Many Malaysian Chinese are foreign
talents here. They
are discriminated against in their
own country. They have a similar cultural mindset but with people from India and China it is a totally different
story. There is a need for integration due to this. We have to cap the foreign
population. This economic model is not sustainable. The economy depends upon
foreigners.
KJ: Why and how is the current system
not sustainable in your opinion?
GMS: This model is not sustainable
without LKY in the long-term. The GRC system is not sustainable. If they lose
two or three GRCs they will change it to proportional representation. Hopefully
they will listen to my views and change to proportional representation.
KJ: Do you think most foreigners will
become PAP voters?
GMS: It is a factor that new Singaporean
citizens will become PAP voters but many foreigners are using the system as a
stepping-stone. We are losing a lot of our talents to overseas; the number is growing but they refuse to
publish that.
KJ: What do the opposition parties need
to do to go from 25% to 50.1% and what type of people make up that next 25%
that the opposition must win over?
GMS: First and foremost the women’s
vote. Women are actually more risk-averse. They will choose a known devil over
an unknown devil for stability and family’s sake. I always tell my people I
split votes into three or four sections: Malay and Indian; women and men.
Within each is Chinese- and English-speaking [voters]. We have to give
confidence to the women voters that we are not trouble-makers but we are part
of the government [i.e. government broadly defined to include the responsible opposition].
Every government without checks and balances is not stable. We are not
trouble-makers for the Government.
KJ: So have you any ideas as to how to
reach out to the women voters?
GMS: The more direct way is to get women
candidates [KJ note: Nicole Seah’s arrival for NSP was a major highlight of the
2011 GE]. This is the role of the women. We are capturing the imagination of
the Malays. The shrinking number in the population is the Chinese-speaking
[voters] but it is a critical minority. English-speaking [voters] are more
liberal and willing to read your views and make an informed choice. We have to
cultivate a mindset of making an informed choice not based on fear or emotions.
I sell the idea that your voting must be an informed choice but not based on
emotion. So far we have one woman candidate but she is half-hearted; Nor Lella
is the Malay woman [KJ note: Nor Lella later contested in the 2011 GE in Chua
Chu Kang GRC where the NSP scored 38.8%].
KJ: Lastly, can you comment about
Workers’ Party Treasurer Eric Tan’s remark to me about SDP’s supposed “Mandelaism”?
GSM: I don’t think the Mandelaism of the
SDP is going to be effective. Yes, PAP is authoritarian but they are not a bad
government. It is not a struggle against colonialism. [Mr] Low wanted to
formally announce a separation from SDP and a rejection of civil disobedience.
But I told him we may run foul of the law in the future in regards selling our
paper. Furthermore, why alienate the 1% or 2% of SDP supporters in the
electorates we hold or contest?
*** End of interview, time: two hours
***
