Skip to main content

政府资讯不分享,在野智库能成型吗?



政府手中的国家资讯是与民分享好呢?还是,50年如一日,像过去那样,独乐乐而不与民丛乐乐呢?50年前没有网际网络,今天资讯这么发达,政府还能继续独享其乐吗?如果,继续一成不变,民间和在野的智库,在缺少完整资讯的情形下,有望成长吗?


行动党政府的一贯做法是不与民分享资讯,过去一党独大,不公开资料,我行我素,人民又能怎样?即使是今天,国会出现了6位在野党工人党的国会议员,情况是否有所改变呢?答案还是一样,不与人民分享资讯,也不让在野党获得更多资料,你在国会提问,我就提供适宜的,选择性的答案。


因此,在资讯没有全面公开,选择性公开,甚至,不公开的情形下,民间的讨论和在野党的辩论,如何才能取得建设性的成果,答案应该很清楚。这无疑是要丑化他人的意见,而把自己的,行动党的意见和建议美化起来。自己的意见看起来资料齐全,资讯最新;而别人的却是资料不全,意见幼稚。


这对新加坡未来的发展,是否是健康的?尤其是政府现在要多听民生问题,接纳人民的意见,接受了新的政治常态,如果还是以前的老做法,不得不让人感觉到换汤不换药。如果政府的资讯只对行动党的精英开放(有时还对外国专家开放),而不对人民,在野党开放,政策的讨论和辩论,不是走向两级化吗?形成鸡同鸭讲,各说各的吗?在不对等的资讯和资料下,如何要求人民和在野党做出建设性的批判?


充耳不闻《讯息自由法令》


世界上比较先进的国家,已经开始出现资讯,讯息自由获取的权力,政府的资讯,应该公开让人民获得,以便参与讨论,评论政府的政策。工人党在去年国会辩论总统施政方针时
(http://www.straitstimes.com/Parliament/Story/STIStory_725738.html),经已提出《讯息自由法令》(Freedom of Information Act)的建议,今年年初,团结党也提出同样的要求。但是,政府的态度,是此时无声胜有声,讯息如果公开,不是有更多漏洞,让在野党人有机可乘了吗?地铁,淹水,高官事件,已经够烦了,再公开,不是再添乱吗?


陈如斯的心动,能形成智库吗?


在去年民选总统选举中落败的总统候选人陈如斯又有新动向,他在总统府不远处、多美歌地铁站附近租了一座三层楼的办事处,准备定期在那里主办政策讨论会议,希望能提出一些替代政策建议。


这个名为心联站Heartbeat)政策讨论中心,可以说是行动党以外,政府以外的一个智库。这个心动活动,还首先需要政府点头。因为,针对他把这个被划定为餐馆和办公室用途的办事处用来举办政治活动是否会抵触业主新加坡土地管理局规定的问题,陈如斯说,他还未向土管局提出申请,不过他相信应该不会抵触当局规定。(早报)


我们假定,政府许可陈如斯这么做,但是,在缺少全面资讯的背景下,这些讨论,替代政策,是否能够做出可靠,令人信服的建议。到时,很可能被批评为资料不全,假设错误,立论没有根据,太多外国的例子和资料,政治薪金的辩论不就是一个例子吗?

即使公开,也要做到政府满意

讯息公开,评论不配合政府的做法,理念不适合政府的政策,也一样会受到攻击的。发生在2003年的新加坡人力部代部长驳斥驳斥南洋理工大学就业研究》http://www.hroot.com/contents/6/216.html 就是一个明显的例子。如果你有空的话,不妨细读一下这篇报道,就能了解,为何资讯公开在新加坡是这么困难的事。

因为,即使是学术研究和探讨,也不能越界,踩到行动党的地雷,也不行。但是,地雷这么多,不明就里的人,随时都会踩到。因此,比较安全的做法是讯息不公开。公开让学术人员研究,也要对他们把关,不能离开政府的政策,政府一

困境?新政治常态?

新加坡也是有困境的,太少人关心政治,或者是,行动党为政治设障碍,有形的资讯不公开,无形的心理压力,在在都使人对政治冷感,或被迫冷感。但是,有钱的人不出来参政,有智慧的人不出来议政,这对新加坡来说是一件可悲的事。

所谓新的政治常态,能够对此做出改变吗?

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...