NEW INTERVIEW: My third interview with Mr. Goh Meng Seng (People's Power Party), 13 May 2026 (includes comments about Yaw Shin Leong case).

               My third interview with Goh Meng Seng (People’s Power Party) 

Wednesday, 13 May 2026 @ Singapore 

Interview length: 2 hours.

Goh Meng Seng: The political landscape has changed very much.

Both the opposition and ruling party have gone through renewal process. In fact, the opposition have a lot of change when Tan Cheng Bock formed Progress Singapore Party. But the middle ground was pro-PAP. On the spectrum, you have white, some grey, blue, some green in between. The middle class support him because of his past record in government. He made a mistake. He should have formed an alliance with other political parties at the end of 2018.

In Malaysia, Anwar became the PM, right now, through an alliance. In my view, that should be the way in democratic young countries like us. He [TCB] wants a full control, he didn’t want to share power, that’s my view.

In 2022, he [TCB] had an acceptable result, he had two NCMPs. In 2025, he lost both. He was forced to retire, I don’t think his party will make a comeback again unless he makes a coalition which I think they are trying to do but it’s a bit too late.

So, what we want is a progressive government, to have a more balanced representation. That’s the immediate goal. PAP has 60% votes but 90% of the seats in Parliament. That is not very healthy as a model of political representation. Even so the majority rule in Parliament is very fragile. Because you are having a monopoly of power but only a 60% rating. It can go out of power. A lot of Singapore opposition community will laugh at it but it’s a true assessment.  PAP actually knows that. We have become something like in UK. It was normally two-party system, but one party is in government. But Lib Dems made a breakthrough when there was a hung parliament. They went in with Labour. I think it will happen again with Reform. In Singapore we need a party to be a confirmed minority like Lib Dem or Reform. I am comparing three systems- Singapore, Malaysia, and UK.

In my opinion, the Singapore system is unstable. It will either go in Malaysia or UK direction. Two-party system can only go so far due to diversity and the speed of information in the world. It is very hard to control information flow in a digital world. LKY [Lee Kuan Yew] railed about this in one of his speeches. We don’t even have a satellite dish, there is a need for the economy to grow, and you have to green up the entire system. The effect is very limited. At any point in time people can set up another website. How can you control? The mechanism of full control is not available.

Back to the 60% rate, there are three parts of our population. Officially, we have six million population, including the foreign workers. Our citizens are 3.7 million. Among this 3.7 million, about 30% are new citizens, not indigenous citizens. I believe those who have been born in Singapore, they have lost the majority. They [PAP] have lost the trust of the Singapore citizens. 

Kieran James: It is like Hong Kong now. 

GMS: Precisely. The new citizens support the PAP. They bring in 20-30K. I have seen the statistics. There is a great discrepancy. I have actually pointed it out. In fact, I think this year or last year, resident births do not cover resident deaths. The increase in population now mostly comes from new citizens. They will become old citizens. They will face the same challenges we face- high cost of living, high tax. Their [PAP’s] power base will be eroded, even with the influx of new citizens. PAP is in a desperate situation. We don’t have the third force, like Lib Dem. We might end up with a hung parliament. Having said that, Workers’ Party is very like PAP, so they won’t have any trouble working together. 

KJ: What do you think about the writing of Yaw Shin Leong out of Workers’ Party history?

GMS: Nobody is perfect. Both WP and PAP have people who are adulterers. That is their personal relationship. Nobody can guarantee that they can have a perfect relationship. Let’s keep it private. Singapore is a very conservative society but it’s not a big problem. Let them settle their own personal problem. Shanmugan was divorced and got remarried.

Does that make you an unacceptable person? Do we care? As long as they carry out their duties, it should be fine. We cannot expect a perfect person to be up there. Lying is a worse thing in the public domain. Lying under oath is a much worse thing. If you lie in Parliament, how can I be assured that what you say is true? We have a strange position on that.

 I find it complex that such a strict form of morality exists. I find the way they manage adulterers is just a political exercise to get rid of the people they don’t want. It’s got nothing to do with public interest, that’s my view. Singaporeans have a very warped sense of morality. 

KJ: Is Singapore a socially conservative society? 

GMS: We have many conservatives among Singaporeans- the churchgoers, the mosque-goers, even some of the Buddhists. However, it does not mean we have the right values or perspective. What works for personal morality and public issues? Every political party tries to be populist in that sense. It tries to consider whether the voters are conservative or not. If you look at it in an objective way, if your CEO is an adulterer, will you sack him? What you value is the skill set of him running the company, nothing to do with his personal life. People do get carried away, from your business. But if the CEO lies to the boss, will you report it? We have a very slanted value out of what’s important, that’s my view.

In the past, LTK [Low Thia Khiang] is in charge. But, why now, in spite of agreeing Pritam was convicted, given a [formal letter of reprimand] by the party, it’s a joke. Does it mean he is truly indispensable? Nobody should be indispensable if you run a party well. Like Iran, if you kill the first general, a second general will come up. It is a very big issue.   

KJ: Tell me more about the Yaw Shin Leong case?

GMS: In 2001, JBJ [J.B. Jeyaretnam] left, LTK had no choice but to take on people he barely knew but they were tigers, highly motivated people, they speak their own minds. We argue a lot, we had a clash of ideas, we are fighters. After 2006, LTK thought he may be out of control because of our team of fighters. We had a certain standing. We revived the party.

When it comes to YSL, the information was deliberately leaked about his affairs. In fact, I also think that the information [leak] was deliberate, not PAP but the WP.

Shin Leong has much better parliament speeches even than Pritam. He has a much better skill in organization. Pritam was with the army, it is sad that when you feel you are unable to manage people, he always feels that he is sharper than you, eventually they will lose one way or the other. You must maintain your relevance by eliminating people who are more vocal than you or not loyal to you.

So, if you look at the new WP, there is nothing exciting or sharp. So, all the strong guys naturally left. I think that there is something wrong with their system. A good leader may not be the smartest or greatest person in the organization, but he must manage that who are stronger than him. We are lacking this in WP.? 

KJ: Was Pritam the wrong choice as successor in your view? 

GMS: Pritam was the wrong choice, … definitely.   

GMS: After the CEC meeting, LTK was driving me back. I asked LTK why he did not appoint YSL. He said he annulled his first marriage because he had an affair. LTK knows about that. But he still stood in Hougang. Later on, all the information came out about his adultery. He did it. 

KJ: Do you think the punishment was too harsh?

GMS: When anybody has a personal relationship issue like this, the most important thing is his wife forgives him. It’s not up to us to judge. He did not resign. He was OK for the party to sack him. I am very puzzled by all this happening. You put someone in an important constituency when you have full knowledge of his past. When the shit hit the fan, you threw him under the bus. This changed the way I view the party. Look at the totality, look at how you treated Eric Tan, look at how you treated Shin Leong, I’m shocked really. It shows there is something very wrong with the culture. This will deter WP from rising up. You will end up with MPs who are mediocre. If you are fighting a strong opposition, you must put in the right people. They may win under the brand of WP, but how long can they sustain that? 

KJ: How is YSL remembered today?

GMS: YSL- he is basically forgotten.  

KJ: Will you be involved in politics?

GMS: I have actually given up on politics in Singapore. It is about societal, the cultural mindset. We have too many new citizens who don’t know the past- it is part of the problem of globalization. It is sad, there is nothing we can do, I’ve done my part, so be it. To progress, you need a situation which can be sustainable in the long term. It is like a wayang [puppet] show. No-one talks about serious issues anymore. No-one talks about how politics impacts.

We are in the midst of an east-west conflict, US-China. We have so many people becoming citizens. Where there is a global political system, where do we start in a global context? With the new citizens, if India and China have a war, what will happen then? The dynamics are quite serious in this era. Nobody dares to talk about that, because the new citizens are their potential voters. We need to address this situation as a nation. The citizenship should not be given up that easily. If you have 40-50% of people that don’t share the cultural roots or the national concern of the land, you are going to be in trouble. These are issues nobody wants to talk about. It’s a very practical issue in advance of what might happen.

Now we know the motive for this climate change [agenda] is not as scientifically-based as we think. The weather has been changing for hundreds of years, but is it really due to the carbon in the atmosphere?

My party is the only party talking about carbon tax and the link to climate change. We are the only ones talking about nuclear power. We might wait a bit longer for the safer technology of nuclear fusion to come.

The voters are not ready for such policy issues. They like branding, they are more influenced by branding. They don’t have time to look at party policies, it’s very different from England. 

KJ: You came very close that year, 2011 (in Tampines and Marine Parade). 

GMS: It’s OK, but we are not at the right place at the right time with the voters. I want to walk away from this politicized branding, but to focus on issues which are very concerning. There are issues that are very concerning for a small country like Singapore. If we do not protect the family unit, we will not have more babies. Why are people not giving birth? It is partly cultural and partly cost-of-living. 

KJ: Do you have sadness or regret that your vote share is not high with PPP?

GMS: We are failing in that sense, but no regrets at that. I am an activist more than a politician. I think the way forward we still need a third force.

KJ: SDP?

GMS: The issue with SDP is continuity. Chee is coming up to 70, but there is no designated successor. They have been heavily infiltrated in the past, so he needed to protect himself and his party. In terms of policy perspective, SDP has a stronger policy set than WP. That is why we say WP is Team B, they have PAP policy, take a bit, add a bit.  SDP has a very clear policy perspective. At least they try to stand on their own, they have a certain ideology.

KJ: What about NSP- it has fallen a long way since the 2011 GE?

GMS: NSP- I thought Nicole Seah and Tony Tan could bring glory to NSP, but I was wrong. They fought among themselves, that’s the issue, and it just fell apart. When I leave, they fought against me. After I left, they fought among themselves. It’s a very human thing, when you look at human psychology. We might have to wait for another 20 years to see the real democratic progress in the system. In fact, 20 years is to be very optimistic. Hopefully, we will not be thrown into chaos. If you do a Malaysia-Singapore analysis, you will see Malaysian politicians have more EQ and that will bring you a lot of progress. If Anwar does another term, I think that Malaysia may surpass Singapore. 

KJ: Chee has been able to improve his vote percentage in recent years. 

GMS: The reason why Chee got a better show was because of geographical. Most new citizens prefer the east and the west. The west is mostly Malaysian Chinese (who have residency). They stay there because of Tuas and to be near to home, the causeway. The east is mostly new migrants. Sembawang up north is the real Singaporeans who are up there because it is cheaper. Sembawang has a younger population. Last time in Sembawang, it is Chinese gangs and Indian gangs that are there, they support PAP. Now things are changing, mostly Singapore-born are moving to the new-built flats. That makes the change. It is the same with Punggol- more of the local youngsters reside there. That’s why the WP could win it. I do not have the stats about how people move around.

KJ: Why is the west so strong for PAP?

GMS: Malaysian Chinese and it’s also gangland. The biggest secret society gang is in Jurong, it’s been incorporated into the grassroots. You have to understand how the gangs worked- it was to protect their village. The PAP did not destroy the gangs but co-opted them. It used to be Barisan Sosialis. In general, if you have younger people, the land is more fertile for the opposition. When you get older you tend to be more conservative. The new citizens in Punggol, Sembawang, they will be ready for a change. The WP [this should read SDP if we are referring to the 2025 general election] did badly in Bukit Panjang; it is infested by new citizens. You will understand why geographic distribution of citizens matters.

I am not so optimistic in the future because we have so many new citizens. The opposition parties have to bring them in. New migrants from the big countries- India, China- they keep to themselves. You see the WhatsApp groups. The Chinese are very cosy in their own communities. They are less close to the locals who are English-speaking. It would be very difficult for the opposition to penetrate them. The PAP is effective because there are benefits in joining the grassroots. In parts of the grassroots, the new citizens are taking over. Their votes may actually increase.

One of the critical mistakes is when Lawrence Wong talked about the Chinese versus Japanese.  That actually created a fire among the new migrants. That’s partly why I see the new migrants will have such an impact on the social fabric. Now they are clamping down on some websites in case they are foreign actors trying to influence local politics, but most are actually Chinese-based. There is no law against foreigners commenting on politics.

China has a unification department where they go around the world to engage all Chinese to support the One China policy. The unification group is active in Singapore.  They are doing all the cultural things. When there are issues that touch on the One China policy, they will be activated. 

KJ: Do you think that the west can be won by the opposition? 

GMS: No [laughs and shakes his head]. The WP does not even go to the west to sell Hammers anymore because we know the stats.

The new citizens will become restless. When they see the opportunities in their original countries, they may go back. In 2011, I was one of the first to complain about the new citizens.

*****THE END*****

Footnote 1: I use the word ‘stagnant’ to describe the WP, GMS agrees.

NEWS: Help Jeanne Ten Fund Court Challenge Against NUS for Wrongful Denial of Master Degree.

Left to Right: Dan De Costa, Khush Chopra, Jeanne Ten, and Kieran James, Joo Chiat Road, May 2019.

Dear friends,

Legal Battle with NUS – For the past 14 years, I have fought a tough battle against the National University of Singapore for the wrongful denial of my Master’s Degree. In 2012, I sued the university as a last resort. I am now trying to raise $20,000 for Security for Costs so that my lawsuit can be heard in the Court of Appeal.

Two years ago, donations from the public enabled me to pay a portion of the $11,000 of court hearing fee and send my case to trial instead of being thrown out by Court. I am now trying to raise $20,000 for Security for Costs so that my lawsuit can be heard in the Court of Appeal.

To recap, here below is a brief summary of the past 14 years in which I had fought a tough battle against the National University of Singapore for wrongfully denying my MA degree, the sabotage of my PhD programme that I was then enrolled in in 2006, which cost me loss of career opportunities and loss of income. NUS destroyed my career.

In September 2006, NUS (National University of Singapore) expelled me from the university after refusing to confer me my Master of Arts Degree in retaliation for my whistle-blowing about misconduct by a professor at NUS, and my whistle-blowing about the subsequent cover-up. As a result of this expulsion by NUS, I had to leave a PhD course that I had already started in the United States. This destroyed my chances of pursuing a career in my field of expertise.

In August 2012, I was left with no other option except to turn to the courts to sue NUS, after two different NUS university presidents and the Ministry of Education all failed to help me despite my desperate appeals for help. If I didn’t start the lawsuit against NUS by August 2012, my case would have been “time-barred” which means that I would have passed the deadline to take legal action.

NUS should have properly admitted its guilt, offered to make amends to me, and punished the wrongdoers. Instead, NUS spent more than $700,000 of public funds to hire lawyers to fight me every step of the way and protect the wrongdoers from the punishment they deserved. NUS fiercely resisted discovery of relevant documents, thereby dragging out the lawsuit and making it very costly for me. NUS could afford to use these attrition tactics against me, because NUS can use public funds (taxpayers’ dollars) to fight me in court. I ran out of money half-way through this lawsuit and had to resort to borrowing. NUS even tried to apply to Court to bankrupt me in 2015.

In July 2017, I went public to raise funds for my legal fees after NUS successfully got the Court to issue me two ultimatums (Unless Orders) – to pay $11,000 within three days, failing which my legal case would be thrown out of court. By borrowing money and crowdfunding, I was able to raise the funds to send the case to trial.

In August 2017, the public trial of my case began in the High Court. The trial spanned a total of nine days from August 2017 to November 2017. I blogged about my 9-day trial and legal updates here.

In July 2018, the Court delivered its decision – I lost all my legal claims against NUS. This was despite the High Court finding that NUS was guilty of wrongdoing against me (see the quotations from the High Court’s written judgment below).

On 26 July 2019, the Court delivered its decision on costs – the High Court ordered me to pay $169,748.77 to NUS for the lawsuit (excluding “interlocutory” matters). NUS originally claimed $698,940.11 in legal costs and disbursements for the lawsuit (excluding “interlocutory” matters). This means that NUS claims that it spent at least $698,940.11 paying its lawyers from Drew & Napier to fight me in Court. Since NUS is a “public body” this money must have come from the taxpayers’ dollars.

I don’t know whether if NUS will appeal the cost award, given that the Court has awarded NUS less than a quarter of what NUS has claimed that it had spent in legal costs. Both sides have until 26 August 2019 to file a “Notice of Appeal.” NUS may also choose to bankrupt me as NUS has tried once in 2015 to enforce the cost orders made by Court. This is what NUS does to a student who has refused to allow NUS to cover up misconduct of one of its faculty members against the student.

Having considered the matter thoroughly, I have decided to appeal the High Court’s decision on costs, as well as the High Court’s substantive judgment, to the Court of Appeal; but the problem is that, in Singapore, if you want to appeal to the Court of Appeal, you have to pay $20,000 for “Security for Costs.” If you can’t afford to pay the $20,000, then the Court will not allow you to appeal. The Security for Costs is for the opposing party, which is NUS in my case, and the Security for Costs is separate from the thousands of dollars of court filing fees to be paid to the Court.

As far as I know, the Malaysian Court and the British Courts do not require (or require only minimal amounts for) this sort of security deposit. However, this is, sadly, the current position in Singapore.

Now, in August 2019, I am resorting to crowdfunding again to raise $20,000 Security for Costs which is for the benefit of NUS, before the Court of Appeal would accept my application to hear my appeal.

At the present moment, I have about 2 weeks to raise the $20,000 to appeal the Court’s decisions. I believe I have an arguable case, in fact a strong case, but I don’t have the sum of $20,000. I need to reach the target sum by 22 August 2019 (and file the Notice of Appeal latest by 26 August 2019).

Appealing to the Court of Appeal is probably the only way that I can avoid bankruptcy – or, at the very least, it is certainly the only way that I can possibly avoid a crushing financial burden in the form of the unfair costs order.

Why do I want to appeal?

Some people have asked me to give up taking NUS to the courts because they feel that I can never win a lawsuit against a Singapore public/government institution in Singapore. However, I will still go ahead with the appeal because I believe I have a strong case before the Court of Appeal.

The High Court judgment has already exposed and confirmed wrongdoing by NUS officers.

In the July 2018 written judgment, the High Court actually found NUS to be guilty of wrongdoing in the main facts of my case. (See the elaboration on this point in the next section below.) But the High Court did not find NUS to be guilty of “malice” or “deliberate” acts and, hence, the High Court did not hold NUS liable to me for expelling me from the university and destroying my career, despite the overwhelming documentary evidence that proves that the wrongful actions that NUS took against me were intentional, deliberate, premediated and carefully planned and executed by numerous high-ranking NUS officers.

In my case against NUS, NUS has consistently taken the legal position that I did not complete the requirements that were necessary for NUS to award me my Master’s degree. This is a lame excuse and a red herring. The fact is that I had successfully completed all of the requirements for my graduation and for the award of my Master’s Degree, including researching and writing a book-length Master’s thesis, and I had submitted the final version of my thesis to NUS on the deadline stipulated by NUS. The documentary evidence of letters and internal emails written by NUS officers, clearly prove that the real reason why NUS expelled me and denied me the award of my Master’s degree, was that I refused to comply with demands that I drop my complaints about a professor’s misconduct (my thesis Supervisor), even after NUS sent me a letter that threatened me with expulsion if I refused to comply with the improper demands.

On 13 May 2019, during the court hearing on Costs, the lawyer for NUS, in trying to convince the High Court judge to order me to pay NUS even more costs, told the judge that NUS had made an offer to me to award me my Master’s degree in 2017. (Refer to an extract of the Court Transcript recorded on 13 May 2019 below.)

In other words, NUS has finally (in effect) admitted in Court in 2019 that it had withheld my MA degree despite the fact that I had already earned the degree in 2006!

The High Court judgment appears to be that what NUS did to me is wrongful but NUS is not legally liable to me in the eyes of the law. With all due respect to the High Court, this is absolutely absurd. I will try to ask the Court of Appeal to reverse the costs order. The actions of NUS are “disgraceful” and deserving of “moral condemnation.”

I filed my Notice of Appeal to appeal the High Court’s judgment to the Court of Appeal on 8 August 2018, which was before the deadline; but, the Court has unjustly denied me my legal right to appeal, despite the fact that the right to appeal is supposedly a legal right that belongs to every Singaporean. The Court denied me my legal right to appeal on the grounds that I was unable to pay the $20,000 for “Security for Costs” for the appeal. Now that the High Court has issued a decision on costs, I have another opportunity to be heard by the Court of Appeal, but first I have to raise the $20,000 for “Security for Costs” before the deadline.

Your donation will help me to ask the Court of Appeal to hear my appeal of the High Court’s judgment, amongst other issues including the issue on costs.

Please donate generously to my crowdfunding appeal, so that my case can be heard in the Court of Appeal. Thank you.

For those of you who are still interested in the details of my case after reading this far, you can continue reading on my blog.

Please donate to my crowdfunding appeal.

Paypal tljvnus@gmail.com; PayLah! 93884036; Bank POSB Everyday Savings Account 193-69702-0; Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie, DBS Bank Pte Ltd, 12 Marina Boulevard, DBS Asia Central, Marina Bay Financial Centre Tower 3, Singapore 018982, Singapore; Bank swift code: DBSSSGSG; Branch code: 081.
Credit Card: https://gogetfunding.com/final-push-to-obtain-justice-urgent-appeal-for-funds-to-get-to-the-court-of-appeal-2/

NEW INTERVIEW: My first interview with Prabu Ramachandran (Civil Society Activist), 20 May 2019.

Activists, Joo Chiat Road. Dan De Costa, Kieran James, Prabu Ramachandran, Jeanne Ten, Anonymous, 20 May 2019.

My new interview with Prabu Ramachandran (Singaporean Civil Activist)

Date: Monday, 20 May 2019.

Location: Al Falah Barakah Restaurant, 363 Joo Chiat Road, Singapore.

Interview Time: 90 Minutes.

Jeanne Ten: How did a policeman become a social activist?

Prabu Ramachandran: I served two years’ mandatory National Service in the police-force, didn’t want to be a career bureaucrat.

Dan De Costa, Khush Chopra, Jeanne Ten, Kieran James.

JT: What made you change to the other side?

PR: Because politics in this country is a one-way street; I wanted to make it a two-way street, there should be more than one view or argument, the world moves in 360 degrees. There needs to be discussion, dialogue, debate; people need to be free to speak about anything without fear hanging over their heads. Many issues are not being discussed. The ruling elite are doing things with very little consultation.

JT: They always said they know better and have your best interests at heart…

PR: How do they know the experiences of ordinary people? Most of them have never done a real job in their lives. They assume that average people have similar experiences to themselves. But they are totally disengaged.

JT: What do you feel that you can bring to the table?

PR: Direct democracy; voting on issues regardless of who is the leader or ruling-party. The BREXIT referendum really inspired me. People should have the right to vote on issues not just people.

Kieran James and Prabu Ramachandran.

JT: BREXIT lost Britain friends overnight…

PR: Most of their trade is outside the EU. They have more friends out there in the big wider world. Only 15% of their trade is with the EU.

JT: For Singapore, what can we learn from BREXIT?

PR: Democracy for starters; justice and equality. Everyone, rich or poor, gets the right to vote on the issue.

JT: Who is your model in Singapore? Who is a good politician that you admire?

PR: Nowadays there is no-one I look up to but in the past David Marshall. He showed that we [ethnic minorities] don’t need a GRC system to get elected. He is a minority within a minority.

JT: Thanks for confirming that there is no credible opposition.

PR: I didn’t say that. We should have a referendum on GST – should we keep it, should we increase it? And CPF withdrawal age and ministers’ salary. It’s ridiculous that in a country of five million, ministers get a higher salary than Donald Trump or the U.K. PM. We should vote on issues that affect people – cross-border tariffs, water, and electricity. We had one referendum in 1963 – to join Malaysia. But we never had a Leave referendum. We did respect the will of the people to join but the choice should have been given to leave or remain. Since 1963 there has not been a single referendum.

JT: How do you take it from here?

PR: The Anti-Fake News law has been passed. It has been said that the majority of people want that law but it has not been proven. If there was a referendum, I would campaign against that law.

Anonymous: What do you think about the issues of foreigners working in Singapore, education, and housing?

PR: The cost of building public housing has to be broken down to the public to give the cost of each individual unit. We don’t know what profit is being made by HDB. We don’t have any numbers or breakdown.

The education system has to create a system of readers. We don’t have thinkers. They, academics, give textbook answers and not real solutions to practical problems. They are just reading it out of textbooks rather than giving their solutions to real issues.

We need to make sure that our population is over-employed (full-time job plus part--time job). Only then should you open up to non-Singaporeans, non-PRs, and immigrants. Many graduates now can’t find jobs in their specialty area.

We are ranked 153^rd in the world in press freedom, it is shameful. Israel ranks higher than us in press freedom and the democracy index. My aim is to get Singapore Number 1 in the press freedom index and Number 1 in the democracy index. We should open up and give more licences to organizations to open more newspapers. It will create more media jobs and improve our press freedom index. We need less regulation from the government.

Anonymous: Do you have reason to believe that the judges side with the ruling-party?

PR: We must ask who the judges are accountable to. We need mechanisms to make judges appointed and removed easily by the public.

Kieran James and Dan De Costa.

Anonymous: What do you think of the Little India riot? Did Indians live up to their stated reputation?

PR: You answered the question yourself. In any other country the police leader or Minister for Home Affairs would have been fired or resigned. We need an accountability check please.

Anonymous: Can you comment on transport fees going up but more breakdowns?

PR: I think it should be privatized and there should be more small private bus companies up in the market. They should challenge for the lion’s market-share. One of the foundations of democracy is private ownership of income-generating assets. I would like privately-owned taxis and buses owned by individuals and not by big business. I believe that assets such as hawker stalls should be privately owned rather than owned by big business or REITs.

JT: How will you get this to happen?

PR: Heavily tax big business and ultra-rich; progressive taxes rather than regressive taxes such as the GST. It should be abolished and we should move to a more progressive tax system. Taxes should rise for big property owners and high-income earners. Most taxes should be aimed at millionaires with assets of S$100 million and above.

JT: Singapore is now a tax-haven for the rich. But it is known as clean and incorrupt. What is happening?

PR: We can afford to charge the rich under the current system because the heavy tax is on everyone else. The rich gets tax discounts and tax breaks. We are doing reasonably well in the corruption index but we are not Number 1, New Zealand is Number 1. There is no accountability and more deniability. These statements are made famous by Ms Jeanne Ten.

JT: I like that statement.

PR: Look at NUS as a public institution today. It took a victim to come out and run a social justice campaign. We need a proactive police-force and Establishment.

Anonymous: What can we learn from Malaysian election?

PR: You vote for who you like. If people are not working in your favour you vote them out; that’s the beauty of democracy. You should be able to vote out people who are not doing well in [their] positions.

Kieran James: Your comment about Workers’ Party’s performance?

PR: They could start speaking about issues such as the unelected grassroots people you can’t get rid of. Hougang and Aljunied MPs should be able to use grassroots facilities such as Citizens’ Consultative Committees. Only the ruling-party can use taxpayer-funded assets. Elected MPs should be the grassroots leaders not the ruling-party candidates. WP should be speaking on issues such as this.

Anonymous: Why do you think Singaporeans do not want to vote for opposition?

PR: Look online. A poll was conducted by Wake up Singapore; 63% of people are afraid to speak up about their political views; that says a lot anyway. In a proper democracy you praise them for their good acts and criticize them for doing the wrong things. This is why I disagreed with Nicole Seah when she said that we should not criticize PAP.

Anonymous: What will you do with your minister’s salary? Give us a breakdown.

PR: There is no answer to that.

Dan De Costa: The scariest thing right now is that none of us in opposition can read the ground anymore.

PR: They are scared of my idea of giving the people a referendum.

JT: Singaporeans don’t understand that concept. They think that ministers should decide.

DDC: The people want Tharman as their PM; it is the PAP that is racist.

PR: If we were ready in the 1950s for non-Chinese leaders (e.g. David Marshall, Othman bin Wok, E.W. Barker), why not now? The argument is on both sides. Michael Palmer and Murali Pillai got elected against majority candidates.

DDC: One Chinese woman said that 80% of Jurong voters voted for Tharman so the racists must come from somewhere else. I thought that was very cool.

[Note: The conversation continued for a while longer but became more and more scattered and informal so I stopped taking notes at this point.]

*****THE END*****