Saturday, 29 December 2012

2012年风云人物:真实新加坡人

是赌场还是综合娱乐城?请还我真面目?


2012年的新加坡风云人物,不是别人,而是我们自己。

今年的新加坡人好不一样,几十年来,我们在世人面前,就是一个乖孩子,样样东西都很听话,简直就是一个完人,行动党更不用说了,搞了几十年的完人政治,终于被自己的伪装给打倒打破了。

是不是,我们伪装到家,还是害怕行动党这个严厉的家长,不敢触犯法律,不敢罢工,不敢色欲横流,不敢招标自己的工程,化国产为党产,不敢以色换合同,。。。。

2012年,新加坡人可以说真的把真面目呈现给世人,也展现给自己。我们走向一个不完美的新加坡,一个远离瑞士美好生活的新加坡,一个接近事实和真实的新加坡人。

这一年来,伪装背后的新加坡是:

太阳下打太极,伪装的连洋人都知道。


冷漠无情我们排在前面。

行善最乐我们排在后面。

快乐指数我们不敢争先。

同工同酬我们坚不认同。

贫富差距我们继续维护。

政党生意我们合理经营。



这样做的后果就是:

游天安门,是为加强社区联系凝聚力? (tnp.sg
罢工事件终于发生。

色欲贪污上了法庭。

清廉政治染上污名。

完人形象一扫而空。



原来,行动党乌托邦的完人政治,就是这么回事。行动党竟然能够伪装新加坡这么久,这么完美,这么彻底,真是佩服佩服。经济上样样第一,人均第一,但却唤不回付出的社会代价,道德问题,生儿育女的问题,文化问题,语言问题。

全国对话最后的施与受,竟然是贫者越贫,富者越富。

seijieiga.blogspot.com
纸终于包不住火,最后还是烧到自己,烧到行动党,烧到新加坡。看看总理如何应对罢工,如何应对补选,为何推出全国对话,为何同工不同酬,。。。行动党真的能够解决新加坡将来的问题吗?

几十年来,是我们欺骗了自己,还是行动党欺骗了我们。我们只想做个真实的新加坡人,但是,行动党讲效率,样样要第一,当然,也要向外人摆出一副完人的形象。这样才能吸引外来人才,外来投资才会放心跟我们做生意。

现在,新加坡人的真面目被揭穿了,世人会怎么看我们呢?到底是过去伪装的新加坡人可靠呢还是现在真实的新加坡人可靠? 
大叔跳热舞,我也来一脚?(tnp.sg

说真的,行动党政府过去几十年所塑造的完人形象,到底是为新加坡人好呢?还是为他们自己的政治前途着想。 如果行动党一味的不说新加坡是完美的,一直不给新加坡人一个瑞士大梦,经常提醒我们政府处事公平,每个人起跑点都一样,用这些伪装来迷惑人心,新加坡选民还会次次投票给行动党吗?

恨只恨2011年大选开始觉醒后,行动党已经无法继续伪装下去。因此,2012年,我们才有这么多的新加坡大事让世人真正了解新加坡。

一个以真面目出现的新加坡人将以什么处世态度,面对2013,会不会有更多的真人故事,非完人的故事发生呢?我们拭目以待。

凯凯嘉嘉,你知道我在想你吗?听得到,看得到吗?(sammyboy.com

Thursday, 27 December 2012

PAP in Business: End of Singapore Model



eoearth.org

Has Singapore reached its limit in social, environment and economic sustainability? PAP in Business is certainly not a sustainable development model for Singapore. In 2012, things are not progressing smoothly as before in the little red dot and our sustainable growth is in question.

  
A fully owned PAP company, entering business with no experience, no capital, no manpower and no office, has emerged as a new business sustainable model in Singapore?

By now everyone is familiar with Aim, the $2 company taking over the software from 14 PAP town councils and leases it back to the same town councils for rentals.  It is a normal business practice – sell and leaseback. Provided you sell at a profit and lease back at a lower rental.  Maybe PAP town councils don’t see in this direction, just like they invested money in Leman Brothers’ high risk financial products.  So, they can afford to lose money again - investing in software development and writing the investment off later.

This new business model has just been confirmed by Dr Teo Ho Pin, the coordinating chairman for 14 PAP town councils.  He also confirmed that the fully PAP owned Aim was the only bidder for sale and leaseback tender exercise.

If this is successful and is able to avoid conflict of interest, will more PAP-related businesses enter the commercial world in Singapore?  If yes, this will be the new engine of growth for Singapore economy.  If a $2 company can generate multiple times of return, then more people can afford to buy luxury homes and expensive cars. House prices and COEs for cars can be kept at a sustainable higher level without fear of losing demand.

The next step, perhaps, is to structure the new business model into a REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust) and gets it listed at SGX. A trust fund with constant rental income with good paymasters like town councils is able to attract investors at SGX. We must congratulate the PAP for being so enterprise and is able to generate high return for investors.  This new model can replace those half-surviving SMEs who can’t afford to pay high salary, high rental and high operating expenses.

However, sad to say, this is the limit for sustainable development.  The PAP has reached its peak.  Using a PAP-owned company to run a public good shows that the PAP has no more business ideas.

Things are not as smooth as before

Limit to growth or the economic led development is certainly not sustainable anymore in Singapore.  If we look at the sustainable development triangle, we will find that Singapore currently is at the stage of inequitable, unbearable and unviable development.  Our growth is unsustainable and we need to change the model urgently. Of course, the PAP will not admit it as they still want to dream of a solution through the national conversation.

Here are some examples of sustainable problems in Singapore:

fanaticforjesus.blogspot.com
Inequitable development between social and economic, e.g. rich and poor gap.

Unbearable living space between social and environment (infrastructure), e.g. the public transport system.

Unviable policy between economic and environment (population), e.g. immigration and foreign workers.  
 
These unsustainable developments result to the following social, environment and economic problems. 

Social
Moral problems: underage sex, sex with students, sex for contracts, sex involving members of parliament donate little, low birth rate, homeless people, etc. 

Environment
Emotionless, unhappy, housing and transport problems, even language and culture problems etc.

Economic
Rich and poor gap, workers on strike, high rental, uncertain external demand, questionable returns of CPF, GIC and Temasek, etc


What is sustainable development? 
"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". It contains two key concepts:·        the concept of "needs", in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and
·        the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brundtland_Commission#Modern_definition_of_sustainable_development

There are also suggestions to add a fourth sustainable dimension: culture. Again, Singapore will not score high in cultural aspect and has no cultural sustainability either.

We have sustainability problems and 2012 has indicated them in a big way.  What can we do? Can we depend on the PAP in Business as a new development model?

Tuesday, 25 December 2012

国产变党产?行动党市镇管理的变戏法


 
the only bidder was the PAP-owned Aim#1
Aim 是一间行动党拥有的公司。这不是把市镇会的公共财产转化为行动党的私人财产了吗?哦,原来行动党还有私人公司,即使只有一间投标公司,行动党难道不会避嫌吗?
到底,行动党还有多少私人公司?

经过几天的剧本操作后,行动党市镇会和Aim终于把剧情的一部分公告天下,根据官方媒体的报道#1,我们可以整理出以下的时间点:

时间0 无事故 无开发费 无开发时间
不知从何时开始14个行动党市镇会开发电脑软件,也不知道开发费是多少,当然,也不知道开发的软件公司是谁?

时间1 招标书
转手电脑软件的招标在2010630日在海峡时报上了广告。有5间公司拿了表格,但是,只有Aim交上招标书:Aim出价14万元,同时每个行动党市镇会每月要支付785元给Aim。首次合同的期限到20111031日。

时间2 转手费
20111月,14个行动党市镇会将电脑软件以14万元转手给Aim

时间3 使用费
每个行动党市镇会每月要支付785元给Aim。首次合同的期限到20111031日。
(这个解释吻合了阿裕尼-后港市镇会和Aim延期合同的纷争,而Aim的回答也不过是表面功夫而已#1

时间4 国产变党产
现在,根据张和傧解释,Aim是行动党的公司。这就是说14间行动党市镇会开发的电脑软件,以14万元转手给Aim,而Aim即是行动党拥有的公司。

电脑会计软件从原本的公共财产,为何会转手给Aim后,就变成了私人财产,而拥有者竟然是人民行动党。行动党要拥有这个软件的目的是什么?

市镇会开发软件,投资花钱,然后,转手给Aim,然后现在行动党市镇会告诉人民,Aim是行动党的公司。到底在新加坡的宪法下,政党是否可以拥有公司,做生意?我们不是说为了防止外人干政,不可以接受外国外人的援助吗?那么,行动党自己做生意就可以吗?Aim只是一个小公司,两块钱公司,就可以有能力付14万元买软件,如果是10块钱的行动党公司,不是可以买几百万,几千万的生意了吗?再发展下去,几个亿的生意都可以做了。

政联公司做生意,人民已经不高兴,更何况行动党的公司?

新加坡人对政联公司,淡马锡,政府投资公司的大做生意,发自己人的财,已经很不满意了。现在,行动党的公司也出来做生意。你觉得如何?

淡马锡和政联公司买下政府的财产,如,POSB,机场,海港,地铁经营权等等,人们对这些财产的估价,都有所怀疑,最初的投资成本折合成卖价,是否有折扣?低估卖价,让利给政联公司和淡马锡,一直是有些估价专家怀疑的地方。当然,Aim是否从中得到好处,不知道软件开发费是多少,开发公司是谁,这个答案一时还不清楚。

让人费解的是,为何行动党市镇会需要转手软件给Aim,这个每月700多元的收费也不多,为何需要这么做。人家淡马锡,政联公司一出手,就是几百万几千万,Aim根本就是小儿科。

不论是小儿科还是大儿科,行动党的公司Aim做了这笔软件生意,已经成为事实。在法律面前,司法面前人人平等下,这里面有着太多的为什么要回答。

这不是折扣不折扣的问题?也没有像颜添宝计算总理薪金给折扣这么简单。他说总理大方给我们每个人折扣,总理的220万薪金,如果用300多万新加坡公民来计算,就是每个人都不到1元。我们还赚到。真的吗?是新加坡人赚到还是总理赚到?

(newnation.sg)

同样的道理,在Aim事件中,是行动党的Aim赚到,还是14个行动党市镇会?14万元除14,每个行动党市镇会拿回1万元,再除组屋人口,每个公民,可以分到多少?以阿裕尼集选区的10多万选民来计算,1万元给10多万人除,每个公民可以得到多少。颜添宝可以不可以用DBS的超级电脑帮我们算一算。

颜添宝天真,14个行动党市镇会天真,还是行动党的Aim天真?Aim董事没有收董事费和其他利益是天真还是不天真的解释#1

现在的重点是时间0的问题,我们要从原点看起。但是,行动党是否会告诉人们事情是如何从无变成有,从混沌变成生成,再从有和生成,最后变成行动党的财产。或许,了解淡马锡,政联公司的变戏法后,我们可以自我解释,自我解读。

说到底,就是10万个为什么?

这里面真的有太多的为什么?为什么交代事情,是交代一部分一部分而不是一个完整的故事。难怪总理一直为榜鹅东单选区的补选放心不下。因为有颜添宝和Aim这样的数学头脑,他怎么会放心举行补选呢?

#1

http://www.singapolitics.sg/news/contract-follows-regulations-say-pap-town-councils

Sunday, 23 December 2012

Mandarin Announcement and the PAP’s Dilemma


The trial run of Mandarin announcement at SMRT trains has stopped. Is this a controversy or a dilemma of the PAP?

SMRT is a listed company, a public company responsible to shareholders for profit making and dividends.  It wants to please certain groups of customers, to make them happy, so that their sales and profits can go up. Why not? Unfortunately, the public and the commuters at large do not see in this way. In a ‘Singlish’ and English speaking society, people are more comfortable with just one lingua for more efficiency, better communication and understanding.

Then, why does the PAP want to take the risk to anger Singaporeans in the first place?  Who has the power to impose political agenda on a public listed company? Is this just a trial run only, so simple?

Receiving end

Cheong Yip Seng in his book OB Markers: The Straits Times Story acknowledges that he is at the receiving end. 
"I have seen newspapers closed when they fell foul of the government, and friends lose their jobs. Journalists have been detained. I did not suffer their fate, but many were the times when I was at the receiving end of Lee Kuan Yew's fury," he writes.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1232391/1/.html

So, SPH is at the receiving end. SMRT, ComfortDelgro (SBSTransit), DBS, Keppel, Sembcorp, CapitaLand, and many more listed companies are all at the receiving end. Not to mention those not listed organizations like PA, NTUC, election department etc., all are directly at the receiving end.    

One will wonder how many big companies and big organizations in Singapore are excluded from the list of receiving end companies.
  
Is Mandarin announcement just to please the Chinese?

SMRT at the receiving end has no power to change the policy of Mandarin announcement.  They just take the instruction from the government.  To have a test run and then cancel the trial run, SMRT is using the listed company’s money to please the mainland Chinese?

Many Singaporeans have criticized SMRT for failing to understand the reality of Singapore and there is no need to have Mandarin announcement. Even the Straits Times in its editorial of 16 December loudly declared that “Just English will do”.  Is this another receiving end instruction from the government?

Let go back and try to examine the reasons why the government wants to have Mandarin announcement at the first place.  SMRT has already enough problems and there is no reason they want to create one more trouble for themselves.  But being at the receiving end, they have no choice.

Let look at it from the view point of a Chinese speaking Singaporean.  We all know that the PAP came to power because of the strong support of Chinese educated and Chinese (dialect) speaking people in 1950s and 1960s.  This continued in the 1970s. 

But with the closing of Nantah in 1980 and the complete phasing out of Chinese schools in the 1980s, the support from them has declined.  However, they also became minority as English and ‘Singlish’ speaking voters become the majority in Singapore. This, in the PAP’s planning, can offset the balance.

Losing ground since 1980s

In fact, the PAP has been losing ground as early as in the 1980s. The loss of Anson by-election in 1981 is due to the lack of grassroots support.  In 1984 there was another loss in Potong Pasir due to weak heartlands support.

One of the biggest miscalculations of the PAP is they fail to anticipate that one day, they will lose their support from English and ‘Singlish’ speakers.  The system of ‘English First’ does not convince the English speaking Singaporeans that they can benefit from the economic growth.

Margin player

To remain in power and control the parliament, the PAP has to act like a margin player in the stock market. With regulatory and parliament changes (GRC, NCMP, NMP, EP and Marxist Conspiracy), the PAP started to add ‘margin’ power to themselves in the 1980s.

From the 1990s onwards, they also used lawsuits, avoid by elections, continued fear tactics and media control etc. to control the parliament.    

However, the loss of support from Chinese, English and Singlish speaking Singaporeans continued. This means the PAP cannot play margin like before or the people of Singapore refuse to extend ‘margin’ facility to them.

The ‘middle ground’, that PM Lee keeps stressing, is referring to the support from Chinese speaking (1960s-1970s), English and Singlish speaking (1980s-2000s) Singaporeans. These supports have all declined since 1980s.

So, they have to depend on the support of foreign born Singaporeans, especially the mainland Chinese? And so we see the introduction of Mandarin MRT announcement and National Conversation?

Efficiency

In economic efficiency, one language for all Singaporeans is the best solution. But the outcome is a surprise to the PAP. They thought the losing support from Chinese speaking Singaporeans could be replaced by the majority English and Singlish speaking Singaporeans. They thought the building of one-language nationhood would give them the advantage and more ‘margin’ limit.    

And now with the losing support of Chinese, English and Singlish speaking Singaporeans, they hope to gain the support of foreign born Singaporeans.  Can the PAP continue to play the ‘margin’ as they wish? 

This may give the right explanation for the trial run of Mandarin announcement (to please the mainland Chinese).  However, without the support of local born Singaporeans, can the PAP still play their ‘margin’ effectively?

So, they have to turn back to the Chinese speaking, perhaps Singlish speaking Singaporeans.  They have no option to the Mandarin announcement. 
To many Chinese educated Singaporeans, the bilingualism is a failure.  In fact, it is true too otherwise we will not see “Just English will do” in the Straits Times.  This is a failed psychology in not recognizing that there are non-English speaking Singaporeans in Singapore. Mainland Chinese is an easy target but it also hurts the hearts of Chinese speaking Singaporeans.
This is the dilemma of Singapore and the dilemma of the PAP.  The PAP knows they urgently need Mandarin speaking (even better with Chinese culture) Singaporeans for business and exchange with China. But there is no better environment for Chinese learning in today’s Singapore.  Mandarin announcement is just a simple step to encourage the learning but it failed again.

In the past, the PAP played their cards well, played the ‘margin’ well. The English first or “Just English will do” policy is so successful that it has transformed Singapore into a monolingual new Singapore. And the uniquely Singaporeans seem to refuse to accept our past, our multi-language multi-culture past.

Who is now at the receiving end? The PAP, Chinese speaking, English speaking or Singlish speaking Singaporeans?

20 years later, by 2030, we are all at the receiving end except those foreigners.
 EDITORIALJust English will doTransport operator SMRT said that its trial run of having Mandarin announcements of station names on some trains, which was supposed to end next month, had been stopped on Dec 5. It was not a moment too soon. The wisdom of such a trial is doubtful, given the social unease it has aroused in some quarters. English has been used to announce the names of train stations all along. So, many wondered, why the sudden need to add Mandarin? SMRT explained that it had started the trial after receiving "considerable public feedback" that Mandarin be used as well to assist passengers, especially older citizens, who rely on announcements during their journeys.But, rightly or wrongly, many came to see the scheme as directed at the growing number of Chinese immigrants who cannot understand English. Society needs to give immigrants a helping hand, of course, but immigrants must make an effort to integrate into Singapore society by learning some basic English.Singapore has come a long way in fostering racial harmony because its founding fathers had decided from the outset that although there would be four official languages, English would be the neutral language to be used by all. No one race should be privileged over the others. It will only stir resentment. As a blogger said, his non-Chinese friends found the Mandarin announcements "deeply alienating".SMRT said it did consider announcements in all four languages, but found that Malay and Tamil pronunciations were similar to English. However, some station names in Mandarin sound very different, said its spokesman. Yet, what language to use in public services has much wider ramifications, not to be trifled with. So apart from ensuring that the trains run, providers of such essential services will have to bear in mind community sensitivities. (ST, 16 Dec 2012)http://www.stasiareport.com/premium/think/story/just-english-will-do-20121216

Friday, 21 December 2012

卿卿我我 你侬我侬 行动党的市镇管理


这里不是说行动党管理的市镇理事会出现什么情色关系,而是说在他们管理下有可能出现的利益冲突,公私关系,公司关系,市镇会和供应商的关系,他们之间的卿卿我我,你侬我侬的暧昧关系。

说不准,这种关系的后续发展,将会出现另外一章更为精彩的情色关系。说真的,谁会想到肃毒局,民防部队的高官们的情色关系,竟然会被告上法庭,告状是‘为了合同而上床’,‘为了生意而牺牲色相’。

多数人知道人协和行动党的卿卿我我关系,行动党和工会的你侬我侬关系,政府和行动党市镇会的你情我愿关系。行动党政府虽然一再说明,我们是清白的,没有暧昧关系。但是,明明看到他们是出双入对,有时还三人行,甚至四人共事,行动党却一再否认,真让人有点‘此地无银三百两’的感觉。

说的人自说,听的人自听。过去可以如此如此,现在却要面对政治的新常态。尤其是行动党地盘被人攻破后,马脚就会露出了。

怪只怪自己,害人反而害己

最新的《市镇理事会管理报告》已经出炉了。这次还新增加了一个新项目:企业监管。阿裕尼-后港市镇理事由于技术问题而延迟交上“企业监管”的报告。给人的感觉是这个工人党管理的市镇会,很不专业,连“企业监管”都做不好。

事实是否如此,工人党林瑞莲的解释是:
市镇会原本采用的电脑和财政系统是由14个人民行动党掌管的市镇会利用超过15个月共同开发,并在去年1月转售给一家公司,之后再向后者租用。但由于市镇会易主,原有的系统便只服务到去年81日。阿裕尼-后港市镇会只有两个月时间设立自己的系统,只好分阶段进行,在前期先继续使用原后港市镇会的系统http://go2.10086.cn/www.zaobao.com/sp/sp121215_018.shtml

这段早报的报道只是报道了前半部故事,给人的感觉就是工人党延后交“企业监管”报告。但是,后半部就更加精彩了,它让人看到政治关系在这里起了什么作用,情色关系如何赢得过政治上的卿卿我我你侬我侬。在这里我们可以看出行动党市镇会和供应商的关系。海峡时报18日进一步报道(重点节译): 
这套由14个行动党市镇会开发的(电脑会计)系统,为何转交给第三者。这个第三者就是AIM公司。这家公司的三位董事都是行动党的前议员(詹达斯,周亨增和刘炳森)。林瑞莲问为何AIM能够只需要一个月通知就终止系统合同,不再为市镇会提供相关的系统。她继续问这是否符合公众利益,为何有这么样的协议?为何系统拥有权会被转让?(报道原文见#1 
事实上,AIM是一家两块钱公司。但是,这个由14个行动党市镇会开发的系统,却转让到AIM手里。转手价是多少,不知道。这样的情节,很容易让人联想到中国的官商勾结。我们当然要相信行动党政府,行动党市镇会是清廉的,因为,我们的肃贪是世界有名的,清廉度更排在世界各国的前面。行动党又相信高薪养廉,本身透明度高。怎么会出现官商勾结的勾当呢!

回想起“企业监管”这个新指标,真是害人害己。系统转到AIM手中,当然,AIM要不要继续提供系统给阿裕尼-后港市镇会,就是一个商业行为了,跟行动党无关。这么一来,工人党的市镇会是否如期能交上“企业监管”报告,就是个问题。国家发展部当时的本意,不知道是否是要‘将’工人党一‘将’。

事与愿违,反而牵出AIM出来。这家公司又与行动党前议员有关。再牵下去,不知道还会牵出什么东西来。柏默事件可以快速止血,因为涉及面没有这么大。现在是14个行动党的市镇会,共同开发系统,然后又在去年一月转手给AIM。这里面的文件,审批程序总应该要有一些吧?

市镇会没有监管机制?

《今日报》在一篇国大教授撰写的文章中提出市镇会的监管问题:

市镇会并没有任何形式的监管。不像其他盈利和非盈利组织一样受到监管。这些组织包括上市公司,合作社和慈善社团。市镇会管理着一大笔的公共财政,我们相信有必要加强现有对市镇会的法律监管架构。Town councils are not subject to any code of governance, unlike many other types of for-profit and not-for-profit organisations, including listed companies, cooperatives and charities. As town councils manage a significant amount of public funds, we believe that there is a need to enhance the current regulatory framework.  http://www.todayonline.com/CommentaryandAnalysis/Commentary/EDC121220-0000039/Improving-the-governance-of-town-councils
这样的说法,简直是说国家发展部新的“企业监管”要求并不达标。比上市公司,合作社和慈善社团的监管来得差。

AIM事件的发生,是不是监管不够?

《今日报》的文章也指出:

我们发现虽然多数市镇会在《常年报告》或网站或同时在两者里宣布理事会的成员和他们所属的委员会名单,但是有些市镇会并没有这么做。一般上,它们也没有透露和这些理事会成员相关的资料。负责市镇管理的公司也经常没有公开它们的行政人员的身份。 We found that although most town councils disclosed, in their annual report or website or both, the names of their members and the committees they serve on, some did not. They also generally did not disclose the affiliations of the members. Estate management companies who act as managing agents for town councils also did not always disclose the identity of their executive officers to the public.  http://www.todayonline.com/CommentaryandAnalysis/Commentary/EDC121220-0000039/Improving-the-governance-of-town-councils
文章最后也说,负责大部分新加坡市镇会管理业务的公司是EM Services. 这家公司的股权75%在建屋局手中而25%归于吉宝地产。文章建议建屋局放弃股权。即使放弃股权而让吉宝100%拥有,那也不就是另外一家政联公司控制新加坡的市镇管理业务。

这些背景资料在在说明,有了“企业监管”的规定,还是有可能出现利益输送,利益冲突的可能性。因为市镇会的法令机制架构并没有很好的制定下来。

所以,既然新规定的“企业监管”都无法监管好市镇会的运作,比上市公司,合作社和慈善社团的监管还要不如。那么,令人担心的是,在没有新规定前,2011年一月的AIM转让系统拥有权的事,不是更是‘有机可乘’了吗?

2011年一月转手给AIM?早有准备?

2011年一月是大约2011全国大选前的5个月。与此同时,还制定出一个AIM只需一个月通知,就可以终止合同的新规定。是不是意味着,行动党意料到有可能会失去一些议席。因此,一旦选区落入在野党手里,这个合同的新规定就可以生效。

只是行动党做梦都没有想到失去的是一个集选区。或许,行动党只是想到会失去一两个单选区,就用这个合同的新规定教训一下在野党。哪里知道,竟然把AIM给带上台面。真是人算不如天算。

沉默不是金,现在我们等待看看行动党如何解释AIM和他们的关系。看看一家两块钱的公司是否用一块钱买下14个行动党市镇会开发出来的电脑软件系统?

除了AIM,还会有多几个AIM吗?这个AIM,真的是AIM错了目标,搞错了方向,反而射中自己,害人反而害到自己。

#1
Ms Lim also raised the issue of the systems' ownership, asking why the 14 PAP town councils, which had developed them, had transferred the ownership to a third party.
AIM became the new owners in January last year and its three directors are former PAP MPs: Mr Chandra Das, Mr Chew Heng Ching and Mr Lau Ping Sum.
She also questioned AIM's contract with town councils, as it allows the company "to issue a one-month termination notice should there be a material change to the composition of the town council."
She said: "How is it in the public interest to have such a thing?"
Asked if she was saying that the move was politically motivated, Ms Lim said: "I'm asking why the agreement was structured this way and why the PAP town councils relinquished ownership of the systems."
http://news.asiaone.com/print/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20121218-390314.html


Wednesday, 19 December 2012

No Document No Talk


We only know No Money No Talk. Now Singapore official words are No Document No Talk. 

No money, of course, you are not entitle to talk loudly, seek assistance and ask for service.  As the government becomes more efficient and accountability, if you have no paper information and document, they cannot process your request and so you have No Talk.

This applies to everyone, whether you are locals, foreign workers or refugees, whether you know or don’t know English.  The government needs paper documents to carry out their duties and process your case.           

Different signature in the document also carries different weight. In the TODAY’s report “Big turn-out at Punggol East MPS”, the signature of DPM Teo Chee Hean has a weight heavier than the former MP Michael Palmer.   
Another resident, a taxi driver who declined to be named, said he felt assured by the fact that a minister was handling the MPS. "He has weight, let's put it that way."  
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC121218-0000045/Big-turn-out-at-Punggol-East-MPS

Hence, a document with a VIP signature is different from a normal document without a VIP signature.  Not to mention when there is no document, foreign workers and refugees seeking help in Singapore will find ‘no door to enter’.   

Troublesome to make it into a document?

The Ministry of Manpower needs document to substantiate the claims of the workers even though it is ‘troublesome’ to do so. 
When asked why they did not come back to lodge their claims, one worker apparently said it was "troublesome".
"Our officers asked one of them why they did not come back. One of the workers shared that going to MOM to lodge their claims was 'troublesome'," Mr Tan said. Mr Tan said the ministry requires documentation from the workers in order to substantiate their claims so they can handle the dispute fairly.http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1241723/1/.html

Does the minister really know the ‘troublesome’ reasons? He even acknowledged that the request to have the ‘troublesome document’ is weighted against workers. 
Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin has acknowledged that in general, the relationship between an employer and employee tends to be weighted against workers.http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1241723/1/.html

Otherwise, you have to act like ‘Function 8’ issuing a statement in proper English not to call the strike ‘illegal’. And quickly the MOM will issue a counter statement to refute you, document to document and word to word.    
The Ministry of Manpower has refuted civil society group Function 8's accusations that the use of the term "illegal strike" to describe the actions of SMRT bus drivers in late November is wrong and prejudicial.http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1243229/1/.html

Legal or illegal we will see it in Court. At least, there will be some documents give a final touch on the SMRT bus drivers dispute.

Rich beyond belief, new Singapore won't share anything with refugees

The above photo caption is taken from Phuketwan.com describing Singapore refusal to accept the entry of MV Nosco Victory and its refugees.

Our economy is structured in a way that we need documents to move forward and upward. Those who have no document, including paper qualification and VIP reference, will be discriminated.  We even don’t share our wealth with our countrymen and our poor, how can we share with foreign workers and refugees?      

In this case, Phuketwan.com does not really understand Singapore. We are a Document Country. We refuse the entry of MV Nosco Victory is not because the word Victory but because they have no documents.

As a result, need no further explanation; the turn away reasons given by MPA are “sketchy” information and no other official documentation.  
The MV Nosco Victory was turned away because the ship's captain could provide only "sketchy" information about the passengers it had picked up off the coast of Myanmar, a spokesman from Singapore's Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) said in a statement."There is no other official documentation to assist at this point, but they do not appear to be persons eligible to enter Singapore," the statement said.http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20121214-389456.html

The next time, when you want to refuse someone’s request, just use the same reason: No Document No talk.

When we look at the Palmer-gate, there are really too many documentary proofs of emails and SMS.   So, with documents, we talk.

Monday, 17 December 2012

市镇会是政治组织还是商业机构?


追债的大字报,催钱的律师信,这些商业手法对行动党管理的市镇理事来说,就是争取经济效益,提高工作生产力的指标,不然如何降低应该收到的账款,营运收益表又怎能和商业机构相比美。

不单如此,收到这么多钱后,还要会理财,懂得投资,才算是懂得管理。因此,行动党的市镇会也学淡马锡一样,搞些投资,结果呢!把居民的血汗钱,每月交的组屋月费给赔了。这难道不是商业营运的指标之一吗?

不难想象,行动党是把市镇会当成商业机构一样来处理。他们就是恨不得能够有更多更大的权力来管理市镇会。最好,就像地铁巴士的垄断经营一样,要让它赚钱就赚钱。经营地铁巴士比经营市镇会容易多了,不会有‘应收账款’的问题,没有钱你就不用想上地铁巴士,地铁巴士的门不会为你而开。

管理市镇会,就有这个麻烦,有些人没有准时交上每个月的组屋月费,又不可以关他的门,像地铁巴士那样,不让组屋屋主进屋。因此,讲效率的行动党市镇会,就发律师信催钱。对大多数善良的新加坡人来说,如果有钱,哪有不还组屋月费的道理,但是,作为一个依照商业模式管理市镇会的行动党人来说,不管有钱没钱,不管是假装还是真装,时间到就是要给月费。

行动党或许已经忘记了,当年设立集选区,市镇会就是政治目的排第一。当年,就是笑你们在野党无法管好市镇会,选民才害怕选在野党。顺顺利利了这么多年,怎么知道这套把戏被人民看穿了。

建屋局是不是政治组织?兴建组屋有没有政治目的?当年把建屋局的部分任务交给市镇会,就是把部分政治任务交给了市镇会。但是,行动党却灵活的利用市镇管理,设立管理公司,利用所谓的专人管理,提高效率。除了制造多几个肥缺外,实在看不出有什么比建屋局这个‘一局独大’管理来得效率更高,更有大规模生产的经济效率。

所以,行动党忘记了市镇会设立初年的政治约定政治目的。越往下走,市镇会就越忘记政治目的,而只顾商业目的。因此,它忘记了,有些人是有可能还不起每月的组屋月费,即使政府提供了一些月费的津贴,但是,他们还是出现经济问题。

为什么?如果你是低薪人士,10几年来,工资没有获得提高,组屋月费年年上涨,你会有钱交每月的组屋月费吗?如果加上通货膨胀,10几年来,工资的收入是负增长,孩子又一天一天的长大,这个担子,就是行动党的政治义务而不是市镇会的业务了-应收账款的商业营运问题了。

行动党把政治义务商业化,设立了应收账款(组屋月费)的指标,表面上告诉国人,他们很行,收钱催钱很厉害,没有应收账款的问题,但是,是不是人民害怕收到律师信而不得不交钱,却因此照顾不了家庭和孩子的生活。又或许,行动党政府通过某些行政行为,补贴了这笔应收账款(组屋月费)?

这就像柏默事件一样,真正的故事,就像主流媒体报道的那样吗?因此,国家发展部发表的市镇会管理表现报告,就真的如该报告报道的那样吗?就正如主流媒体所报道的那样吗?工人党的市镇会出现红字,和延迟交上数据吗?

工人党管理的阿裕尼-后港市镇会,应收账款(组屋月费)出现红字,达不了标,而行动党管理的市镇会却没有这个问题,这表示了什么?这正好表示行动党把组屋月费当成应收账款的商业行为,不还钱就出律师信催钱。而工人党却多多少少有考虑政治因素,因为,市镇管理真的不是商业行为,而行动党政府是不会给在野党任何的财政津贴改善区内的设施,不幸如果像行动党市镇会那样投资失利,那就是管理是失败,主流媒体就会大贴大字报了。

行动党已经把新加坡商业化了。把政治义务也商业化了。Singapore Inc. 到底还能走多远,还能再继续承受这股商业化多久?