Skip to main content

欠你钱的人说话比你还大声,有这么一回事吗?不信,看看你的公积金,工人党的阿裕尼。

欠你钱的人说话比你还大声,有这么一回事吗?不信,看看你的公积金,工人党的阿裕尼。

到底谁是主人,谁是债主,怎么好像换了位置。借出钱的债主,债权人,好像没有发言权。而拿着你的钱的人,欠你钱的人,却四处炫耀,在世界各地投资,成为世界上最有影响力的投资者。

当淡马锡控股和政府投资公司在世界各地投资时,可否想到,这是公积金会员的血汗钱。

民选总统帮助欠钱的人,还是借出钱的人

民选总统到底要站在那一边,他是要帮助欠钱的人(政府),还是借出钱的新加坡人民。总统的职权之一,就是要为人民看好公积金,看好储备金。储备金如果没了,也就等于公积金也没了。但是,总统也可以不看储备的账簿,跟现任总统一样,不只不看,他还曾经让欠钱的人,动用多一些钱,而没有
向借出钱的人报告。

在四位候选人中,陈庆炎是唯一,也是最可能维持现状的人。那就是说,借出钱的人,政府的债主,公积金会员,还是要像过去12年来,看不到账簿。其他三位总统候选人,在不程度上,都会要求政府每年出一份年报,报告储备的状况。

歪理变成有理

这好像是一个歪理,但是,有时借出钱来的人,的确是有口难言,不上不下,不知如何是好。你看看中国,美国的最大债权国,虽然,钱是借出了,但是,又害怕收不回来,又害怕美国赖账,更加害怕美国倒了,血本无归。当美国开口再借时,又不能说不,只好再买美国的债券。几年后,收回美金,又不值钱。

新加坡人民是公积金的会员,把钱借给了政府,政府拿到国外去投资,投资的结果,没有人知道,总统也不理。公积金会员,虽然像中国一样,有怨言,但是,有苦说不出,当政府再发新加坡政府债券时,公积金局就代会员自动的去买。

所以说,美国说话比你中国大声,欠钱的人就是有这个歪理,夹持着你,让你看他的脸色。公积金会员也不是一样吗?你借钱给政府,政府没有感谢你,不让你看账簿,还要你继续买债券,你又不得不买,因为,你的钱锁在公积金局,不到老年拿不出来的。

你有权否决这个歪理

本星期六,当你站在投票箱前,如果认为欠你钱的人说话可以比你还大声的话,并且同意这个歪理的话,那你就投选陈庆炎,他会让你一直低下头做人,看不到储备的账簿。陈如斯则不同,他会公布储备金年报,他会要求自己以道德良心为做事的标准。

新加坡人应该要向这个歪理说。几十年来,欠钱的政府,没有说声谢谢,还说他在国外投资有理,给你看个总数,看个回报率。美国虽然没有给中国看本身的账簿,但是美国国内,三权鼎立,账簿的透明度肯定是有的,借钱还要辩论。我们的政府当然看不起这个做法,为何要这么麻烦,总统都不理了,国会也管不了,继续我行我素,继续跟公积金局拿钱。

霸道行为也反映在治国上

政府的这种霸道行为,也当然不局限在公积金,储备问题上,也延伸到治国方面。早报这条新闻真妙,好像前后倒置:

‘阿裕尼后港市镇理事会改变原有立场,不再规定基层组织在租用市镇会所管辖的场地时须邀请该区国会议员出席。人民协会也因此作出相应调整,不再禁止议员出席非基层组织在人协管辖场地所主办的活动。换言之,所有议员往后都能应邀出席类似中元会晚宴的活动,反对党议员也不例外。’

这像不像政府处理公积金的手法。建屋局把阿裕尼市镇会区内用于主办社区活动的26个公共场所拿回,再租借给人协。
然后,政府告诉你,这26个地方,你不用管理了。由人协来管。如果你工人党不出声,你的议员不可以参加这26地方的活动。现在,你投诉,我就让你出席。

这个歪理可真妙。我把你从家里赶走,让另一个人来管,如果你不出声,那是你的事。现在,既然你投诉了,连总统候选人也觉得不妥,我就好心,让你可以回家看看,出席活动。

欠钱最大,不会永远都这样下去的

行动党政府不能不正视这种借钱最大的心理,人民没有欠你什么,反而还借钱给你,你拿了钱去花,还对借钱的人不理不睬,喜欢就说可以来看看,不喜欢就说,储备金太机密,不可以随便透露。

时代已经改变了,欠钱最大的心理也要收起来了。如果,不改变,官逼民反,不是这次总统选举,就是下次大选,人民的力量会让你做出痛苦的改变。

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

EBRC objectives: Stop “Out of Aljunied”, Stop SDP Breakthrough and “Negative-Asset” Ministers.

First of all, we have to congratulate the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee for creating more competitions, especially, multi-cornered competitions in the East. When making changes, EBRC aims to achieve 3 goals: To prevent “Out of Aljunied” for Workers’ Party.  This is the most important objective. To prevent Singapore Democratic Party making any breakthrough in the North and Central.   To look for a solution to retire “negative-asset” ministers or reduce PAP damages. From the reported claims from different political parties, we will expect multi-cornered contests not only in single constituencies but also in group representative constituencies. The PAP hopes to have a repeat of 2011 Presidential Election. Then Tony Tan won the Presidency when he got only 35% of the votes, a narrow win.However, a win is still a win. He did in even in the very last minute, after recounts of votes.    How to achieve multi-cornered contests? By i...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...