Saturday, 29 September 2012

总理做到70岁,是全国共识吗?还是小圈圈共识?


全国对话的结果难道就是要达到一个目的:让现任总理做到70岁吗?因为,‘他也坦承,目前来定夺内阁是否已出现具总理潜能的人仍言之过早。’(早报,929日)

意思不是很明白吗?没有人选,全国人民要慢慢等,一直等到70大寿,才突然冒出一个所谓的人选。不久前,总理不是说过,行动党政府考虑问题很远,看的是20年后的事情,为何这件事没有20年的考虑?20年的准备?有心还是无意,说着说着怎么出了一个司马昭的影子?

事实上,行动党有没有总理人选,以及它如何演变成为一种全国对话的共识,原本就是行动党内部的问题。因为,一旦它不是执政党,这个课题就不再是全国共识了。为何要把全国人民拖下水,还说如果全国没有共识,将出现一个分裂的政治。到底是谁在分裂国家,谁在玩政治游戏,谁在为70岁而努力?谁在为70岁而有惑?

欧巴马,卡梅伦都不可以当国家领袖

根据总理和行动党的游戏规则,欧巴马和卡梅伦都不可以担任美国总统和英国首相了。首先他们没有被发掘成为国家的接班人;没有被发现有没有具有潜质;同时,国家也还没有准备好。

错就错在人民选择了他们,他们就有资格成为国家领袖。但是,这种打破行动党思维的做法,没有细心考虑最好人才的做法,是要不得的。在总理看来,在行动党想来,是会加速加深我国的政治分裂的。

因此,总理才强调:

“如果社会缺少该共识,那就会出现僵局或失灵的情况。就如美国现在多方面出现鸿沟,不管是共和党和民主党之间、左翼和右翼、希望税务低者和希望政府提高医疗保健花费者,或开放与保守的人。”(早报,928日)

顺风顺水50年,这个共识可以维持下去吗?

行动党的这套潜规则,这套安排接班人的方法,过去50年顺风顺水的精心安排,会不会过时了呢?把行动党等同新加坡,把行动党等同政府,希望永远执政的思路,希望通过全国对话取得共识,继续执政下去的做法,是否合乎新的政治常态?

虽然,我国的公务员近来有些不检点,但是,我国的公共行政效率还是可以的。不论谁是总理,他们依然会执行执政党的政策的,除非行动党沦为在野党后,会搞些破坏工作。好像,选举结果不合行动党的意思,就出动军队维持次序这样的言论,就是破坏工作之一。

原来,全国对话没有预先设立主题还有这样深层的意思。就是什么都可以谈,当然做到70岁也可以是一个话题。没有主题,当然什么都可以谈,什么都可以不谈。喜欢的就谈,不喜欢的就选择性的不谈。

总理的隐忧,过不了20

当然,总理还是有隐忧的,过得了10年,很可能过不了20年。早报28日的报道:

新加坡国会20年后是否仍由人民行动党主导,取决于大家对社会发展方向是否有持久的共识。

意思是说,有共识就有行动党政府,没有共识就没有行动党政府。难怪总理会形容这是一件大问题:

20年后还会当总理,而如果届时他尚未退位,那就表示“出现了大问题”。

怎么说着说着又加多10年,还是大问题。难道他还想1010吗?到时的大问题,很可能是突然从总理变成国会反对党领袖。这真的是行动党的大问题。不是新加坡的大问题。因为,新加坡已经有另一个共识,选另外一位总理人选。或许,新政府怜香惜玉,把李总理变为李资政,这或许比较接近新的全国共识。

为什么全国对话的共识只可以有一个版本:行动党的共识和70岁的共识,不能是其他国人的共识,提早下班的共识呢?为什么早报会这么报道:

如果全国有共识,那意味着一个政党可获得人民强有力的委托,能够有效地为新加坡人谋福祉。

人民为什么要“强有力的委托一个政党“,而这个政党似乎就是指行动党。为什么说“获得人民强有力的委托,(就)能够有效地为新加坡人谋福祉。”50年来的“人民强有力的委托”,换来的是“福祉”吗?

为什么要把行动党,共识,强有力的委托,福祉连在一起,共生共荣呢?这似乎有点强人所难。人民有选择新加坡的未来的权力,如果人民选择的不是行动党的共识,那行动党的共识就是行动党小圈圈的共识,而‘没有总理潜质的人选‘的共识,更是小圈圈中的小圈圈共识。

新加坡人可不吃这套小圈圈的共识,他们有自己的共识,一个有别于行动党的共识。总理说的‘没共识就政治分裂‘的言论,就是行动党政治的代表,一党独大的小圈圈思维。

难怪和总主教见面也要搞小圈圈,当然和总主教达致的共识,也是小圈圈共识。想到这里,类似的小圈圈还真不少,例如:外汇储备的小圈圈共识,公积金的小圈圈共识,内安法的小小圈圈共识,主流媒体的小圈圈共识,全国对话的小圈圈共识。。。又有多少人知道这些小圈圈共识是如何共识起来的?

Friday, 28 September 2012

The PAP Reality: Political Commitment and Consensus


The reality of the PAP is that they prefer the old way of consensus in the past 50 years. However, they are short of the political will and commitment as before. Hence, they do not have the necessary fighting spirit to gain back the consensus that they have lost.

Political commitment and fighting spirit are required under the new political norm.  Unfortunately, the more they need it, the less they have it.  This is the reality of the PAP and the sad story of this powerful party of the past.

Despite these negative factors, PM Lee still maintains his optimistic of retiring at age 70 and is this the consensus of the people or the PAP or only himself?  

And the only political commitment that he can offer to Singaporeans is National Conversation.    

There is no free lunch as the PAP always claims.  If you don’t pay the price of commitment and fight to win in general election, how can you get your consensus and your mandate?  Through National Conversation, may be. But this is far from the political will and commitment.

The past consensus is still the type of consensus that PM Lee still cries high and low.  And the mainstream media continuously stresses highly about this type of consensus that is the ‘only’ solution for future Singapore:

PM Lee: Consensus, not the PAP, is bigger question
Without consensus on direction of society, Singapore could be caught in divisive politics(ST, 28 Sept 2012)

If consensus is the real question in future, then the political commitment (and fighting spirit) of the PAP is even a bigger question. Members and leaders of the PAP have not only lost their political commitment, so do their fighting spirit to win in election.

If the PAP believes that they are fighting for a consensus for the people; for the workers; and for the low incomers; then they should fight for it in an inclusive way. A consensus is to respect others – their views, their lifestyle and even their continuous rejection of the PAP.  

A consensus cannot be 100% pro-PAP and it must have the elements of yes and no.

Today’s PAP is a party without political commitment and fighting spirit.  Life is too comfortable for their leaders and certain members and so when things are not smooth, they quite. When they cannot get consensus, they blame the critics.

By now, we all know that Ong Ye Kung is leaving NTUC. He is the last losing PAP Aljunied GRC candidate to do so after GE2011. All the losing PAP candidates in Aljunied GRC have now kept a distance from politics.  They have forgotten that failures are the mothers of successes.

However, even losing the election, Ong is given a respectable job with respectable salary to help the labor movements. With such a comfortable environment, he should take the opportunity to learn from the people and workers and strengthen further his political belief and commitment – the PAP way. Unfortunately, we see none. 

If he wants to fight for the workers, he should stay within the NTUC.  Unless, the NTUC itself is another ‘wayang’ – nothing to learn in terms of politics, nothing to help in terms of assistance, and of course, nothing to commit as there is no political belief, only a ‘do nothing’ so-called union movements.

The PAP is in the decline. Without the political commitment and the fighting spirit, they can only use the soft and easy approach of National Conversation to get consensus. And of course, this consensus is a chosen one with a selected theme. 

They hope, perhaps, for a consensus like the past so that they can have an easy and comfortable job waiting for them.  With this in mind, the PM can help a sweet dream and can plan to retire at 70.

But he has his reservation and hesitation as he is not sure whether the PAP will still have the majority in Parliament in 20 years’ time:
If there is a consensus, then having one party with a strong mandate would be possible. If not, it might mean Singapore being mired in the sort of divisive politics that has held up lawmaking in the United States and India, said Mr Lee Hsien Loong.
As such, he did not know whether or not Parliament would be dominated by the PAP in 20 years' time. "I don't know. The question is, will there be a stable consensus in the society on the direction we want to go?(ST, 28 Sept 2012)

He is still dreaming to have a consensus with one-party with strong mandate.  He claims that more than one party is bad and it will lead to divisive politics.

Why must consensus have to do with one-party – the PAP?

What consensus are we looking for? The PAP suggested national conversation or others.

Even PM has admitted that the consensus may not be the one proposed by the PAP:  
The important question regarding Singapore's political future is not whether the People's Action Party (PAP) will remain dominant, but whether society can maintain a consensus about what the country should be, said the Prime Minister. (ST, 28 Sept 2012)

Is he saying that the PAP is irrelevant in future as far as Singaporeans have a consensus of rejecting the PAP?  

Tuesday, 25 September 2012

20年后,辛苦基业托何人,谁是主人?知音人?


自我对话 7 Self Conversation

李光耀和行动党前辈们为新加坡打下的良好基业和江山,20年后将会由什么人来传承下去?会不会出现所托非人的局面?这点无人知晓。即使任然是行动党执政,其创党时期的为民精神,很可能早就烟硝云飞了。

就连李光耀本身,也有些无奈。作为法国油公司Total的国际咨询委员会顾问,该公司特地为此把年度常年会议改在新加坡召开,就是想要李光耀本身不用舟车劳累,并且还希望他能继续担任顾问,不让他辞职。正如媒体报道的,这是新加坡的荣光。但是,也不得不接受命运事实。当李光耀说出这是他最后一次出席会议,他的无奈可想而知。正如蔡琴的《最后一夜》一样,灯红酒绿有时尽。

蔡琴还会继续为我们高唱《最后一夜》,而李光耀留给我们的却是一页页的硬道理。20年后,新加坡人会欣赏吗?

为谁想得这么远?

新加坡想得很远,正如总理说的,很少国家像我们一样,想到20年后的事,而又想到这么周全。偏偏,好多事情是人算不如天算,中国的历史,世界的历史,有哪一个皇帝,不是认为自己是不会倒下去的,偏偏说到倒,就这么快的倒下去了。秦始皇帝,法老,埃及,利比亚的前独裁者,没有想到这么远吗?那就是太低看他们了。

想得这么多这么远,是为了国家人民,还是行动党,还是个人?选择性对话的背后隐藏着真正目的是什么?

20年后的新加坡,人口的半数将是非本地人,原本的华巫印的族群比例,应该不会改变,因为,这是国策。但是,这个独特的新加坡熔炉,将会有质和量的改变。异族通婚的混种人将增加。华族将出现最少讲华语和讲普通话的两大群体。当然,也会有单讲英语的华族。印族将出现讲英语,讲淡米尔语和讲非淡米尔话的三大群体。甚至马来人,也会出现讲英语和讲马来语的巫族。这个错综复杂的变化,表面上看来,就如政府所说的本地和外地人的不协调,事实是否如此,真的言之过早。

族群的关系变化,一方面是贫富问题主导的结果 (美国讲西班牙语就是一例),另一方面,则是外来人口的因素(美国的西语族群)。即使像美国这样的大熔炉国家,人口中,还是有不说美国英语的人,其中,西班牙语的族群人数最多。因此,他们就像是美国总统选举的造王者一样,是不可得罪的一群选民。

人多了,想法多了,《三桓》,《三家分晋》会出现吗?

这是人口增加继续增长的结果。你喜欢也好,不喜欢也好,这是政治的现实。但是,20年后的结果,会像新加坡建国先贤们,尤其是李光耀想象的那样,所委托的未来领导人,一定胜任,一定为新加坡的利益设想,而不会出现像春秋战国的《鲁国三桓》#1,《三家分晋》#2那样的命运吗?

引进来的人,思想就一定要跟你一致吗?这个一致,是指跟新加坡一致,还是跟行动党一致。这点美国就做不到,不然西班牙语的族群怎么会越来越强大,美国本身也出现本土恐怖分子,甚至以美国为跳板跳回本国的也有,或者,跑路到美国的也有。

本地人,虽然在这里受教育,也不定跟着新加坡的主流思想走,跟着行动党的思想走。20年后,人们会更加接受异族通婚,未婚生子,同性恋,不相信主流媒体,更不相信行动党说的一切,更何况行动党被三家分晋也有可能。或者,行动党本身出现鲁国三桓的困境,而做不了真正的主人。

不要忘记,孔子在春秋末期,拥有当时中国最多人才的一个团队,他手上的人才比任何一个诸侯国都来得强大来得多。但是,他却没有治国的机会。命不与时,20年后的行动党,很可能依然拥有很多人才,但是,那个时代并不属于行动党的,因为,像孔子的弟子一样,他们有些成了‘乡愿’,更多的人是没有取而代之的勇气,人才是人才,但不是站在最前面的那种,而是要依靠别人为他们打天下的那种。

为何敌视在野党?

行动党一个最大的罪过,很可能是把反对的声音,在野的政党看成是国家的障碍物,更把这些人这些团体,塑造成反对国家建设,破坏社会安定的人。20年后,我们会看得更加清楚,谁是真正的爱国者,是行动党,还是在野党,是本地人,还是本土化外国人。

说不准,高声大喊爱国的人,高声大叫为人民利益着想的人,才是‘国家有难,远走高飞’的人。爱国者则来自现在的在野党,还有一些本土化的外国人。

为功利而来,也为功利而去。

新加坡打着功利的旗号吸引外国人前来的。当然,当有一天,我们无法为他们提供更高的功利回报时,他们也将离我们而去。打着功利的旗号,新加坡还想吸引道德高尚的人来吗?

F1再续约5年,不是打着吸引游客的功利旗号吗?难道这些人是为环保而来吗?5年后不再续约,功利不在,游客也就不来了。

世界经济局势的变化,对高度发达的国家不利,后工业化时代,服务业,科技时代,资本主义的发展面临很大的挑战。就业,持续发展,环保,外交等新课题纷纷出现。我们得利于全球化,尤其是发达国家,当然,也不能避免这些问题。大学生失业,极端贫穷,族群的紧张关系,也很可能出现。

在新的国际形势下,行动党政府继续敌视与它意见相左的国人和团体,到底是新加坡的幸还是不幸?


#1

#2

Sunday, 23 September 2012

Mitt Romney will win if he were in Singapore


With the help of our main stream media, Mitt Romney will win if he were in Singapore.

Mitt Romney is a perfect candidate of the PAP if he were in Singapore.  His quotes are so close to the PAP’s governing principle and philosophy.  Most likely, in Singapore, he will also not subject to the kinds of scrutiny and criticisms as he has in the USA.

If he were in Singapore, he will win comfortably as the main stream media will not question him about his attitude towards the poor, about the education, income and employment etc.  Instead, the MSM will praise him for his ‘big’ sacrifice.  

Free press plays the crucial difference.  Unfortunately, Mitt Romney will most likely not be elected as the next US President.  His American dream seems to be a mission impossible.

But then, who else in Singapore like Mitt Romney will ‘sacrifice’ himself for a betterment of political development here?  Again will there any multi-millionaire in Singapore be interested to stand for election in Singapore?    

This is why Mitt Romney is born in the wrong place.  If he were in Singapore, we welcome foreign talents and multi-millionaires.  Foreign born, no problem, you can still stand for election if you are a citizen.  

In addition, the PAP will ask the main stream media to help Mitt Romney to promote him despite the following controversies:

Not concerning about the very poor

Like the PAP, Mitt will say there are safety nets for the poor.

“I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor — we have a safety net there,” he said. “If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich — they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72297.html#ixzz27BDWjwXC

Education: if you can afford

Like Mitt, if you have money you can go overseas for university education.   

“I think this is a land of opportunity for every single person, every single citizen of this great nation. And I want to make sure that we keep America a place of opportunity, where everyone has a fair shot. They get as much education as they can afford and with their time they’re able to get and if they have a willingness to work hard and the right values, they ought to be able to provide for their family and have a shot of realizing their dreams.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/06/29/afford/

Most don’t pay income tax but hope for free goods

In Singapore, most people don’t pay personal income tax and they are dependent upon government for health care, housing, transport, and even education.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.""http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/top-13-quotes-mitt-romneys-leaked-fundraiser-video/story?id=17264969#1

Big sacrifice and low tax rate

Singapore offers one of the lowest personal income taxes in the world to residents and people like Mitt Romney if he joins politics in Singapore, he will be considered as a very big sacrifice.

Mitt Romney paid an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent in 2011, according to a tax return filed on Friday,……Romney's income was $13,696,951 in 2011, and he paid $1,935,708 in taxes. Romney's income for the year was more than 263 times larger than the U.S. median household income of $51,914.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/mitt-romney-tax-returns-released_n_1904242.html

Our MSM will further emphasize about his deduction to show that he is making even more sacrifices.  

The choice to not take the deduction allowed Romney to inflate his tax rate to 14.1 percent. The difference between his charitable giving of more than $4 million and his claimed deductions of $2.25 million increased his tax bill by several hundred thousand dollars, as he paid taxes he didn't have to on nearly two million dollars.(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/mitt-romney-tax-return_n_1904573.html)

Low productivity, you are fired

People with low education and low productivity should receive low pay if not fired.

Firing peopleIn January, while making a case for why consumers looking for health insurance would benefit from companies competing for their business, Romney expressed his view in a way that he later admitted would "haunt" him on the campaign trail."I like being able to fire people who provide services to me," Romney told the Nashua Chamber of Commerce in New Hampshire.http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/09/19/romney-speech-blunders.html

Casino – the way to solve problem

Mitt likes betting so he will support the so-called integrated projects in Singapore.

A $10,000 betPrior to winning the Republican nomination in the summer of 2012, Romney took part in a December 2011 debate that included Texas governor and fellow Republican candidate Rick Perry. In a heated exchange, Perry accused Romney of backtracking on a previous statement in which Romney allegedly touted the Massachusetts health-care program he signed as a national model for health care reform.A flustered Romney then made what critics called an outrageous challenge to settle the veracity of Perry's claim."Rick, I'll tell you what: 10,000 bucks. $10,000 bet?" he proposed.Perry declined, responding, "I'm not in the betting business."http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/09/19/romney-speech-blunders.html 
Never understand the difficulties facing jobless people

Like Mitt, the PAP is quite ignorance of problems facing jobless and poor people.

A joke about being jobless
While addressing out-of-work Floridians at a rally in June, Romney attempted a bit of humour: "I should tell my story. I'm also unemployed."
Critics felt this was a bit rich, not to mention disingenuous, coming from a man worth a reported $250 million US.

Conclusion
In Singapore, under the magic hand of the MSM, Mitt Romney will be a person who makes big sacrifice to join the PAP. He is a successful businessman and graduated from Harvard. He cares about the poor, jobless and likes integrated resort projects. Besides having risk experience in investment and betting, he also encourages parents to send their children for education overseas if they can afford.
Of course, Mitt Romney will stress that the government has already have many inclusive safety nets for the poor, for their children’s education, health care, housing, transport and CPF savings.
However, this is a Singapore reality not an American dream. A Mitt similar will win in Singapore but a real Mitt will most likely not be able to realise his American dream in his home country. Blame what – free press! 

Friday, 21 September 2012

透明人还是看不透透明度,几时才能摆脱幕僚身份。



白衣白裤的透明人还是不能明白透明度的重要性。当然,在处理问题上,还是50年没有变化,继续幕僚(见下)利君的思维,难怪,在讯息网络发达的时代,自曝丑态,自取其辱。

如果说性贪污是一个新的贪污行为,那么,透明度就更重要了。透明度高,也同样能够制止贪污,很多东西如果能够摆在阳光下,不管是贪污,不管是政策偏差,甚至包庇一些事一些人,都能一一曝光,对国家,对人民都是有利而无害的。

诺要人不知,除非己莫为。信件的来往,一旦打成黑纸白字,甚至不用打,只要放上网络,天下人就可尽知了。何况是寄出的信又要求收回。新加坡天主教教区的总主教的罗生门,最大的受害人,很可能就是白衣白裤的透明人和他们的幕僚。

博客,非政府组织,人权组织,甚至天主教会,只要在主的面前,坦白承认事实,如果有错,就认错,没错,就吸取教训,主的宽容和爱心,一定会原谅,我们这些俗人。

问题是,人民会原谅政府,白衣白裤的透明人吗?它会向主,坦白事实的真相,事实的全部吗?因此,这件事的发展对行动党不利,因为,我们在 这件事情上,看不到透明度。到目前为此,总主教和政府并没有打算要开记者会解释这起罗生门的来龙去脉。或许,他们不认为事情发展到需要开记者会的地步,甚至还在算这笔账的利弊。

摆脱不了旧思维。我们看到的还是1987-1988年的旧画面。行动党政府和他们的官员还是无法摆脱旧思维,从全国对话,到主教罗生门,我们看不到一个大气,一个宽容,一个包容的政府。当然,更不用说透明度了。25年前,可以做的事,为何现在不能重来一次呢?白衣人不明白,幕僚不明白,这个世界为何变了。

是的,网络的世界真的带来了改变。很难想象在以前,政府会为一个言论意见,做出大动作,做出解释,主流媒体还不得不跟进,大事报道。以前的大动作是做给外国人看的,外国的评论如果对新加坡不利,说我们不民主,政府就加以反驳。在从前,几时我们有看到政府对国人的言论有这么大动作。

为何说白衣人,虽然自认透明人,但是还是看不透自己,看不透时代的改变。为何不抛弃过去的幕僚思维,改以人民为老师的思维来想问题。

如果不与总主教见面,会引起人们的猜测吗?即使要见面,也要制造一个好像中日领袖在走廊偶然见面,而在一起说说话。幕僚的旧思维,只懂得在办公室见面,只懂得朝见这么一回事。

如果总主教的信件在6月就公开,政府过后提出反对的意见,解释不废除内安法的理由,这不是让人觉得,政府的思维开放了,社会可以有不同的声音,但是,作为决策人的政府有必要提出自己的理由。这不是更能令人信服吗?

为何是政府(内政部声明)觉得总主教受辱,而为总主教发出不平的声音。还是总主教有仁爱之心,而政府则别有居心?

从帝王的幕僚提升到帝王的老师

鲍鹏山在《荀子 帝王幕僚》的讲座中,提到荀子和孔孟不同的地方,就是荀子是一个依附性很高的人(2530秒开始),没有独立的人格,同时满脑子都是利君的思维。讲座中,提到荀子的人生目的,就是要做一个帝王的幕僚,培养的人才,也是为帝王所用,继续扮演幕僚,为君王的利益着想。

回头看看几十年来的行动党,政府,官方组织的发展,也不过是继续维护幕僚的地位,继续幕僚的思维,甚至发扬光大这套幕僚思想,难怪,在处理全国对话,总主教罗生门等事情上,他们是这么的被动,这么的造作,这么的不透明,甚至令人反感。

孔孟的不同是他们要做帝王的老师。这在新加坡就不得了,谁有资格做行动党的老师?谁有胆量做白衣人的老师,现在的公务员,现在的议员?广义来说,就只有人民可以做行动党的老师,也只有人民可以教训行动党,但是,如果没有透明度,人民的讯息不全,手头资料不完整,如何做得了老师?

说什么对话,说什么包容,没有了透明度,没有了来龙去脉,老师不也回到幕僚身边,做回幕僚,高薪照拿,只是,这个日子还有多久?在网络时代,人民终于会明白透明度的重要,而更有信心能够当上行动党的老师。

做了老师后,不但可以批评这个作为学生的政府和作为学生的行动党,当然,更可以换个学生来做政府,尤其是一直不听老师教训的学生行动党,这是老师的权力,人民的力量。


Wednesday, 19 September 2012

Transparency and anti-corruption are equally important, if not more important.


If sex-for-favour is a new kind of corruption, then the lack of transparency can also lead to more corruptions.  Anti-corruption is the work of CPIB, however, transparency will expose everything to the public.

Transparency is a deterrent to corruption. An open, clear and transparent public administration will subject its officials not only to internal check and control, but in addition to the external and public check and control.

It is to the benefit of the government to be transparent, be it a tender exercise, a release of information or data, or even public policy and strategy. 

The tender of the folding bicycle; the selection of the National Conversation committee members; the population details; the release of re-restatement of our reserves; all seem falling below the first world standard of transparency.

PM Lee said the government will not tolerate corruption. However, he did not mention a word of transparency. He may think it is irrelevant as transparency and corruption are two different things. However, a high transparency level has helped to prevent corruption in many first world countries. Public officials know that they are responsible for the information or statistics released and they cannot release partial or incomplete information.

SINGAPORE - Despite high-profile graft allegations involving public officers recently, corruption involving the Government forms "only a small proportion" of all cases here and is not a worsening trend, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said yesterday. 
The Government will nevertheless throw the book at anyone involved in corruption and wrongdoing, even if this comes at the expense of its reputation, Mr Lee warned. 
"Let me be quite clear - we will never tolerate corruption; we will not accept any slackening or lowering of standards," he said in a speech at the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau's (CPIB) 60th anniversary celebration. "Anyone who breaks the rules will be caught and punished. No cover-up will be allowed, no matter how senior the officer or how embarrassing it may be."
He added: "It's far better to suffer the embarrassment and to keep the system clean for the long-term than to pretend that nothing has gone wrong and to let the rot spread." (Today 19 Sept 2012)


Transparency will not affect the reputation of Singapore and it will not embarrass the government too as everyone knows a responsible government is a transparent government. 

CPIB has helped to prevent corruption in Singapore and makes Singapore one of the leading least corrupted countries in the world. But we certainly need to catch up on the transparency level – we are yet to become the world leading transparent country.   

Monday, 17 September 2012

明天会更好?金钱物质还是精神文明?



自我对话
6 Self Conversation

70%的参与全国对话-与总理对话的与会者认为,新加坡的下一代将会比目前一代更好。好在哪里?一般的理解,应该是在经济上,就业上,金钱上,物质上,而很少会考虑到精神文明的提升。

一个建立在金钱物质上的明天会更好,是新加坡未来20年,30年要走的路吗?新加坡经济会再快速增长,这是否过于乐观,是否太单方面了。

难怪,在 同一时段,官方亚洲新闻台的网上反应则得出完全相反的结果:只有30%回应的网民认为下一代会比我们这一代来得好。一个是小圈圈的参与对话的人,另一个则是人数众多的网民。

姑且信之,多数的人认为我们的下一代比现在这一代好,但是,这是一个金钱数目字的好呢?还是有内涵的好呢?只要经济能够继续维持3-5% 年增长,年人均收入也当然会有所增加,但是,怎么个增加法?会像林崇椰说的,低收入者加多一点,高收入者少加一点或许不加,这个本质上的 改变,行动党就很难做到了。

这就像荣寿司的3000元一个月的洗碗工作一样,是有条件的,又是超时工作,又是每周工作6天,又要做些额外的工作。在行动党眼中,低薪工友想要提高工资,就要做出额外的牺牲,超时又少休息。难怪,林崇椰的建议,不只是一个震撼,还有一点神经。或许,荣寿司的3000元的提议,就是一个震撼中的神经点子。

收入提高了,生活素质反而下降,这是我们所谓的下一代会更好吗?明天会更好吗?20年后,如果你不做超时,你的收入就无法提高,当然,你的物质生活,就业机会也就跟不上时代的步伐。这是进步还是退步?

或许,参与对话者,根本就不知道下一代会更好的定义。因为,他们看到的是金钱收入,政府也没有说明什么是生活素质。如果一个家庭,两夫妇整天赶超时,没有时间陪孩子,这会是下一代好过这一代吗?所以,他们有些人就选择不要孩子,不要孩子,那更是国家大事,这是绝种的根本问题,一个没有后代的下一代,会好过这一代吗?

行动党或许认为是的,因为他们已经找到答案,就是进口人口。进口人口,没有超时问题,没有夫妇俩的问题,还可以解决绝种的问题,这盘生意当然做得过。别人替你把孩子养大,送来这里完成新加坡传宗接代的工作,这不是下一代比这一代好吗?

原来,行动党的明天会更好是这么一回事。为何对话会上没有问什么是下一代的将来会更好?如何定义?如何诠释?难怪,网上一直热论,参与对话的人,都是精挑细选出来的自己人,他们问也不问,就有70%认为明天会更好,下一代的将来一定会更好。

与总理对话,难道就只有附和,不能认真的提问吗?不能反问什么是明天会更好?难道就只有经济数目,金钱收入一个指标吗?

20年后的新加坡,明天会更好,将是两党或多党的时代,对话会上有提到吗? 下一代的将来会更好,是因为他们和今天相比,有更多的自由,更大的信心,可以不在一党独大的阴影下生活。更多有志之士,愿意在社会上,政治上为同胞做事,而不像现在一样,必须通过行动党认可的组织,才能勉强的做到一些事。在创造,创作领域,可以自由的发挥,进而提升我们的精神文明。

当然,20年后,有些人的选择,并不能为他们在金钱上有所增加,只能在精神上有更大的满足。具有这样思想的人,当然不是全国对话的理想参与者,难怪,全国对话再走下去,就变成是各走各路。

Saturday, 15 September 2012

PAP election campaign kicks off with the National Conversation in a traditional way



自我对话 5 Self Conversation

Even the next general election is 4 or 5 years later, the PAP has already begun their election campaign through the National Conversation by emphasizing traditional value.

This is in line with the typical PAP kiasu and kiasi mentality. To start earlier is kiasu and ‘afraid of losing more votes’ in the next GE is kiasi. After all, kiasu and kiasi are the PAP politics of tradition.

Anyway, the public media is free, the public administration is free, and even the participants are free too.  In this world, it is so hard to find free goods and under the one-party ruled Singapore, it is not only possible but also a practical and effective (?) propaganda.

The tragedy of the commons
 
When there are so many free commons of media, public administration and participants, the tragedy of the commons will have to appear, especially there is only one user – the PAP. 

All these free goods are available for the PAP.  So, they tend to over used, over exploited, and over applied until these resources have no more values or add negative values to the PAP.     

But they still believe in tradition – the traditional way of misusing media, public resources and people. They can’t find an alternative way to reach out to the people.

To the PAP, it is the best way to gather public support and agreement to their policies.  They know they can no longer attract large crowd to their election rally. National Conversation is the only way for the PAP to reach out to more people, more supporters and most importantly the traditional voters.  No wonder they are only interested (and have confidence) to attract few thousands participants to the National Conversation.

Top down approach continued

In the telecasted “A Conversation with PM Lee”, from the sitting arrangement, it is still very top down, very traditional. No wonder they talk about traditional family values, they still want you to pay respect to them as it they are still high up even it is a dialogue – they are seeking views and opinions from you.  Dialogue is supposed to be equal and paying due respect to each other.  They can’t do it the ‘town hall’ way, but only the traditional way.

The emphasis of traditional values is understandable and it reminds Singaporeans the PAP contributions to Singapore. This is a reminder that changes are not always good and a vote for change is not the main stream of traditional voters.

However, who is the one who breaks away from the traditional values?  Of course, it is the PAP. You know housing is important to marriage and family planning, but you create a situation of short supply of public housing. You know the traditional value of public transport is for the public, instead you look for profit. You know education is important but you limit the places of university education. 

The traditional parliament election is single constituency.  But the PAP introduces GRC, NCMP, and NMP to devalue the one-man one-vote system.  If the PAP wants to improve the system, it should introduce proportional representation election system. Instead of going forward, it goes backward just to keep them in power.  And they call it a traditional value of election system!  

Sincere effort to get votes, not for oppositions
 
Heng Swee Keat said it is a sincere effort.  He hopes more people will join the National Conversation.  Rather than seeking feedbacks, the PAP is interesting to feel the ground.  They had misjudged the ground in GE2011 and PE2011.  They hope through sincerity and traditions, more supporters including new citizens can come out openly and influence others to support the PAP.

National Conversation may last for more than one year or two years, there is no time limit, no restriction on topics. It can even extend to 2016, just ahead of the next GE. They can also use this opportunity to look for more candidates, especially those with ‘radical views’. This can also serve as the training for the new minsters and new MPs.

This sincere effort of the PAP is, of course, for the PAP and by the PAP.  No wonder this is a national program without the oppositions.  Otherwise, the result of sincere effort will be shared and depreciated.   

When PM Lee talks about a stronger Singapore promises a better future for Singaporeans, his sincere effort is to urge Singaporeans to think about the PAP in a traditional mindset like the past 50 years – an era without oppositions.  The meaning of stronger Singapore is same as a stronger PAP likes the past.  

Does it mean the traditional voters of the PAP are moving away?  This is why some say the National Conversation is a con job and the aim is to con more traditional voters to continue support the PAP.
   

Thursday, 13 September 2012

司法政治的终结还是权衡权宜之策?



这个星期,我国司法界,法庭出了两件大新闻:陈群川错案和徐顺全脱离破产案。这种新闻在这个时候出现,代表了什么?是否是我们可以和司法政治说拜拜了?它的深层意义一时还看不出来。

这里面有太多的想象空间,这是否是我国司法政治的一个转捩点?还是配合全国对话的一出戏?更还是制造更多在野派的竞争和内斗。

也许,这是天年前的临别秋波,做好事有好报。给人家方便,也给自己方便,同时,还可以让行动党的新人面对更多的挑战。

无论如何,我国司法界,离第一世界水准真的有一大段距离,律师公会的无厘头闹剧还没有结束,现在又出现陈群川这类的错案,总检察署既然可以技术性犯错的办案告人,法庭也可依此来判案定罪。陈群川是一个敏感人物,当年如果没有被定罪,就是马来西亚的部长 (马华公会会长是当然的部长,除了现任会长)。或许就是这个身份,才有这个错案。背后或许有太多的不可告人的秘密。

当事人都不追究了。我们还是不要多说:

(吉隆坡12日讯)沉冤得雪的马华前总会长陈群川表示,接受新加坡前主控官格林奈的道歉,针对27年前的「新泛电事件」而入狱一事,他不会对任何人或组织採取行动,往事已逝,不愿再追究(东方日)

或许,这是陈群川的高度。行动党领导的毁誉官司就没有这个高度。

还是说说,新加坡的情形比较好,总检察署既然在陈群川的案件中,可以技术性犯错的告人告到他入罪,当然也不排除在处理我国的敏感人物时,也会犯上同样的错误。更不用说,在内安法的处理上,可以未经审讯的逮捕人,技术性犯错的可能性就更高了。

这种技术性犯错的司法政治,是否在政治新常态下,可以加以避免呢?

可以肯定的说,技术性犯错的司法政治已经是行动党的一个负资产。这个方法已经不能再使用下去了。越是使用这招,下场越是不好,当然,对选战就更不利了。选民已经知道什么是行动党的‘狼来了’。司法政治就是其中的一个。

徐顺全在当事人李光耀和吴作栋同意他以三万元化解他的破产案时,发表了一篇声明#。他希望这个案子的解决标志着新加坡政治上控告反对人士毁誉时代的结束。向前望,他和新加坡人一样,望向一个新的政治时代,一个以政策和思想主导的深度辩论。新加坡人要求和应当拥有与第一世界相配对的政治。未经审讯逮捕,犯罪化合理的政治活动和毁誉官司不应在新加坡再占有一席之地。 我们需要的是一个民主,自信和向前看的新加坡。

徐顺全希望能够参加2016年的大选,目前希望尽快的凑集到三万元以解决他的破产案件。现在他正在卖书来凑集这笔钱。有兴趣买书者,可以联系新加坡民主党http://yoursdp.org/


#
I hope that this settlement with Mr Lee and Mr Goh will mark the end of a chapter of Singapore's politics marred by defamation suits against opposition members. I look forward, as I am sure all Singaporeans do, to a new era where political discourse is dominated by substantive debates on policies and ideas. 

Singaporeans want, and deserve, a politics that is truly befitting of a First World country. Detention without trial, criminalisation of legitimate political activity and defamation suits have no place in a Singapore that needs to be democratic, confident and forward-looking. http://yoursdp.org/news/lee_and_goh_accept_chee_s_offer/2012-09-11-5350

Monday, 10 September 2012

National Referendum for a divided National Conversation



自我对话 4 Self Conversation


The development, so far, seems to suggest that the National Conversation is dividing the country rather than unifying the country. From the members of the National Conversation committee to the way it organizes itself, all points to the direction that it will have a biased ‘and  expectation managed’ Singapore’s future.

PM Lee seems to change his own position and expectation about the National Conversation. Instead of focusing the future direction, he now said that

<“The key challenge for the national conversation on Singapore's future will be that of managing expectations.”>http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1224959/1/.html  

Who’s expectation?

Are Singaporeans having an expectation problem that needs managing? What expectations are to be managed? Is he trying to manage the expectations of Singaporeans or let Singaporeans having the free say about our own future? 

It looks like it is another manipulation of the future of Singapore through the government machinery and its associated machines, like the mainstream media, PA, NTUC etc.  

Hence, if the recommendations and suggestions of the National Conversation are to be implemented one or two years later, it will have to have a mandate from the people – A National Referendum.

As PM Lee has admitted that the time has changed, the situation has changed so do the need to have a referendum for the important NC suggestions that will affect current and future Singaporeans.

<"The last one was Remaking Singapore, which was 10 years ago. I think our situation has changed, our society has changed (since then)," said PM Lee.>http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1224959/1/.html  


Has the Remarking Singapore made Singapore and life of Singaporeans better? Has it had the mandate from the people besides elections?

Is Remarking Singapore inclusive? Yes, the PAP will say so. But to the people of Singapore, this Remarking Singapore is the root of many problems that we are currently facing.  This obviously is a Remaking without consultation and mandate.


Trying to be inclusive is different from inclusive. Is Remaking Singapore inclusive?

<PM Lee said that in choosing the committee, the government tried to be inclusive. >
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1224959/1/.html  

A National Conversation without people’s mandate is not an inclusive Singapore conversation.  The most we can say it is a PAP managed so-called inclusive Conversation.