Friday, 31 May 2013

缺乏自信,行动党越做越傻?

媒体新条例,新闻网站新规定就是一个例子。一个行动党受不了的例子。

2013年已经过了5个月,这5个月来,我们看到的尽是行动党失去信心,胡乱出招,搞到人心愤愤不平。从人口白皮书,AIM爱门报告书,到现在的新闻网站新规定,越看行动党是越傻,过去的自信心去了哪里?

或许说,这些自信心随着老一代行动党领袖,甚至中生代领袖的退出政坛,行动党的行政办事,真是一代不如一代,留下来的竟是一股傻劲。不只是本地福建人(应该是闽南人)说的,无料要“在”,行动党现在是即无料也即不“在”(稳定),一有什么风吹草动,就会出现杯弓蛇影,以“法”制人。

马来西亚大选纳吉的不光彩胜选,让行动党非常的不安心。尤其是马来西亚的网民比新加坡更加积极,鼓励选民回家投票,提供不同的意见,看法和分析。行动党看在眼里,实在放心不下,因此,趁着2016大选还有一段时间,不如先来一个新闻网站限制,将来大选到了,网民博客就无法发挥作用了。

想想看,马来西亚的宽频网速,电讯科技的硬体设施没有新加坡先进,城市化的程度当然不如新加坡,他们还有相当比例的乡村地区,通讯也无法及时到达,但是,大选结果竟然能够使到反对票多过支持票。行动党越想越害怕,还是先下手为强。如果在大选前才来这个动作,不是更加令人不满吗?

因此,从61日起,新闻网站新规定就出炉了。这个新鲜蛋糕就是杯弓蛇影的傻结果。当然,它更像“只准州官放火,不准百姓点灯。”

谁是蝴蝶谁是青蛙?是谁受不了!

行动党认为自己是客观大方的蝴蝶,快快乐乐的飞来飞去。但是,这5个月来,我们看到的行动党,行事作风比较像一只青蛙,它把自己关在井底,看到网民在井外有如蝴蝶那样,快快乐乐的飞翔,他就有一点TAK BOLEH TAHAN! 受不了。


行动党终于也有沦落到受不了的一天!yoursdp.org

想不到,风水轮流转,现在轮到行动党受不了了。网民博客可算是立下了一番汗马功劳。

有关蝴蝶青蛙的故事,可以参看以下的博文: 
行动党的推理:客观蝴蝶乐,主观青蛙悲。http://pijitailai.blogspot.sg/2013/03/blog-post_11.html  
蝴蝶声影青蛙动作,怪怪的新加坡?http://pijitailai.blogspot.sg/2013/04/blog-post_26.html
这里说明一下为何行动党越来越不像花蝴蝶,而越来越像一井底之蛙。 
*人口白皮书说明行动党的经济政策就是人力推动的经济。它只懂得在井底发展,而不会向外发展。当然,它也不会提升井底下层的人口素质和生活条件。
*爱门事件的报告,进一步肯定,思想一致,大家可以在井底一起做生意。市镇管理原本就是政治化的,在管理市镇时,当然是用自己人比较放心,这口井既然被行动党占了,当然就由行动党的党员和相关人士来打理比较思想正确。 
*人口白皮书和爱门报告书在思想上无法反击网民博客,又无法顺利说服人民,主流媒体的世界新闻自由排名又是从后面算起,行动党无计可施,就只有推出新闻网站新规定,这样一来就有效多了。说不过你,就封你的口。现在,行动党是官,网民博客是民。因此,暂时来说,社交媒体是斗不过两个口的行动党的。

您的选票改变您的命运

行动党认为它代表大多数新加坡人,它的得票比反对党多。因此,它做的一切都是合理,都是依据人民的意愿。所以,行动党制定新条例管制新闻网站,也是合情合理的。

是的。国会可以辩论,辩论新条例是否适宜。但是,怎么辩论,你都无法通过反对新条例,行动党在国会拥有绝对的大多数。行动党的口在国会比反对党的口多出很多。因此,国会这口井,也被行动党占了,他们的青蛙很多,也不让外面的蝴蝶飞进来,也不让里面的反对党青蛙跳出去。大家在井底辩论,最后的结论,当然是大多数青蛙的意见。

如果,新加坡要有所改变,选民的选票意向就很重要。

过去,你认为行动党可靠,你或许同情行动党,也或许认为行动党会做出改变,也或许认为行动党解决经济问题最行,因此,你就把票投给行动党。

但是,现在,你看到的行动党是一个没有自信心,一只井底之蛙,却又依然要用过去的强制手段治国时,这一票是否还值得给它吗?行动党的青蛙心态还能带领新加坡前进吗?

想一想,你的选票不只决定你的将来,也决定孩子的将来,在马来西亚最近的大选,有很多选民,是因为孩子的将来,而反对纳吉反对国阵的。

问一问自己,一个没有自信心,越做越傻的行动党政府,值不值得你手中的一票。

 
处于青蛙心态的行动党,如何带领新加坡走向将来?k.mengxiang.org

Thursday, 30 May 2013

From Creative Technology to Ilo Ilo, it is always Sustainability vs. MDA licensing

From the business point of view, we want our business to grow and become bigger and bigger. In view of creativity and entrepreneurship, we want to have free hand to develop our business. Perhaps, this is not the case in Singapore. Perhaps, you will see the opposite, especially in social media.  

The bigger you are you will encounter more official controls and obstacles. So, whether TRE or TOC, this business model will not work in Singapore. 

The government only allows MSM and its websites to grow.  When they are not able to compete, the government will help to control the growth of alternative social media.  

This is the business environment in Singapore.  So, you cannot expect business models like Malaysiakini or The Huffington Post in Singapore.

Hence, the question is how Singapore can have a sustainable creativity and entrepreneurship environment. Singaporeans are creative but the environment is very different.  The game rules are not set by the market and its growth has to be approved by the authority.

No supporting environment for creativity

From Creative Technology to Ilo Ilo, how can we sustain our creativity?

No wonder our creativity cannot sustain for too long as we have a government likes to control ….
Starting from this Saturday, websites that regularly report Singapore news and have significant reach will require individual licences to operate. Even you want to grow big in the internet; you can’t as there are always visible and invisible hands over your heads.

By winning the top honours and making history for Singapore film industry at this year’s Cannes Film Festival, Anthony Chen’s Ilo Ilo has once again demonstrated to the world the creativity of Singaporeans. But can this creativity last? And how can we sustain it?  

If you remember the story of Creative Technology, one of the best known Singapore technology company in the 1980s and 1990s, how come we, Singapore as a whole, cannot help and push the company to a new height?

Like Ilo Ilo, Creative Technology and many of our artists have achieved honours first not in Singapore but elsewhere.  And we know it is very difficult to have the breakthrough. For example, the City Harvest Church’s crossover project had spent multi-million dollars in the USA and has yet to see significant achievement for Sun Ho.

Monopoly in social media

We are happy to see the success story of Ilo Ilo at Canes. But with the kind of movie industry and appreciation culture in Singapore, how long can the success last? The issue of creativity sustainability is always there.  We can’t solve it in the past and how can we solve in future?

To add salt to the wounds, the new MDA licensing is telling netizens to self-control your activities in the social media.  Try not to be too creative or too smart to outdo others.   

Instead of preventing monopoly in social media, the government is trying to tell Singaporeans that monopoly of MSM is good for Singapore.  In the nation building, MSM not alternative news will be necessary and required.  So, if you want to be creative, you can join the MSM or SG Conversation.  This is safe environment and you are protected but with a trade-off of your creativity.

The new MDA licensing is not only bad for social media development.  It also reminds creative people their limited space in Singapore and the difficulty they will face if they want to be enterprise or develop business models in social media.

No need to be creative, the AIMgate has already shown you the importance of political association and correctness.

For the future good of Singapore, do we really need creativity and entrepreneurship? Perhaps, in the view of the PAP, only politically correct creativity and entrepreneurship have a place in Singapore.

What do you think?


Monday, 27 May 2013

期待,期望,失望和行动党的压力

新加坡公务员首长王文辉希望新加坡人和公务员一起合作,打造一个更加美好的新加坡。新加坡人应该参与国家的建设,提供意见,完善政府的政策和施政#。因此,我们在期待政府公务员放下身子,聆听人民的声音,因此,公务员开始有这个期待。

期待沉默的大多数把心声说出来。这个大多数,根据林瑞生的意思,是指基层领袖,参与社区活动的人,当然,更应该包括参与全国对话的人,他们是沉默的大多数,公务员要他们提供意见,期待他们的参与和投入。

这不是刘程强所说的“期待”。最近刘程强在接受中国学者访问时,说新加坡人对工人党有所期待。因此,这个期待和王文辉的新加坡人参与建国的期待是完全不同的两回事。对象也很不一样。而这个大多数的定义也相差十万八千里。

期望还是失望?

到底谁说的大多数才是正确的?那一个期待是新加坡人期望看到的。从行动党的立场出发,它期望看到国人参与全国对话,接受王文辉的鼓励,像社区领袖那样积极参与政府活动,提供意见。这是行动党期望的大多数。如此一来,刘程强的所说的期待,不就成了一个落空的期望吗?

反过来说,如果刘程强的“期待”被大多数人认可,那就是行动党的失望了。

因此,我们面对两个可能的期待期望,两个可能的沉默大多数。这就是政治的奥妙之处,选举的千变万化,这个大多数,是有可能改变的,不是一成不变的。今天参与全国对话,未必明天就成了行动党的沉默大多数。刘程强所谓的国人的期待,是否会转化为大多数,目前言之过早。即使赢得了大多数选票,也可能像安华那样输了选举。

因此,不论行动党还是工人党,都应该要有务实的期待和期望。不然,这个沉默的大多数,就会让你很失望。当然,在这个方面,行动党的压力的确比在野党大。压力小一点就失去国会三分二优势,压力大一点的话,就连政府也保不住。当然,也可能像纳吉那样,输了选票,赢了选举,这就变成了一种怪压力,不上不下,名不正言不顺。

支持人民选出的执政党

王文辉在访问中,肯定公务员体制将会支持人民选出来的政党。 
“我们将会为新加坡人和新加坡的长远利益和当选的政府一起合作工作。”We work together with the elected government to serve the long-term interest of Singaporeans and Singapore.
他说,因为新加坡是个民主国家。This is a democracy.

这虽然不是说公务员体制期待期望和行动党以外的政党合作,为新加坡的长远利益努力。最少,公务员体制效忠国家,效忠人民选出的政府,不论这个政党是不是行动党。因此,这和以前,我们看到的,听到的版本有所不同。以前的版本是说,如果出现不稳定情形,军人可能出现。

现在的这种说法,或许,正是人民的期待和期望。不论支持行动党的大多数还是支持在野党的大多数,大家都希望看到公务员体制支持人民选出了来的政府,而公务员的工作就是支持这个新政府。

或许,行动党某些领袖,对这句话很不中听,很失望。但是,既然公务员首长,已经认可新加坡作为一个民主国家,他也只能说支持人民选出来的政府的话。只是我们不知道,这番话是否是在沉默大多数的期待期望下,为了不让大多数人失望而说的。或许,这就是首长的压力。在公开的场合,他必须说沉默大多数要听到的话,他不能像一些行动党领袖,说了大多数人不希望听到的话。因为,他不是政治人物,只能说公务员应该说的话和公务员应该做的事。

王文辉也谈到公务员人才问题,高级公务员薪金问题。同时也谈到变化,国际变化,以及公务员体制如何面对这些变化和挑战。这些挑战来自经济,社会,和科技方面。因此,公务员体制选择走向人民。以人民为中心One Public Service With Citizens At The Centre

因此,公务员要贴近人民。首先就是要放软身段,接近人民,拉近关系。more relational government where we move from government to the people)。
接下来,又是和人民有关,公共服务需要更清楚的感受和了解基层。Public Service will need to get a better sense and understanding of the ground)。
最后,努力的提升政策设计和服务提供 up our game on policy design and service delivery

工人中心公民中心

这看起来,有点像林瑞生的“工会要以工人为中心”。所以,公务员体制要以公民为中心。全国对话要以沉默大多数为中心?

仔细一看,像不像是选举前的战前演习。以人民为中心,原本就是政府以前的工作,为何变成是现在的工作。没有人民为中心,何以合理执政?因为,过去几届大选选票一直下跌,所以不得不聆听人民的心声,不得不以人民作为中心?

这个政治的硬道理,这个人民的期待,选民的期望,为何现在才来发现?这个转向,对行动党来说,来得及吗?会不会又是行动党的另一个失望?

无论如何,行动党的压力,经济政治压力,不以人民为中心的压力,已经一一显现出来。公务员体制,政府机关,法定机构可以配合演出,但是,最后还是要由沉默的大多数来决定,信不信行动党和公务员体制的落力演出。这套戏还没有演完,全国对话的新配角多了一个公务员体制,这是否会兴起另一股高潮?

#

Thursday, 23 May 2013

Not happy then please leave Singapore


After disagreeing with the Malaysian politics, will the unhappy PAP ask the unhappy Singaporean citizens to leave the country? Some things similar to the newly appointed Malaysian Home Minister suggested to their countrymen.

If you read about this article, “ S’pore cannot afford to import M’sian politics”,  (http://www.todayonline.com/commentary/spore-cannot-afford-import-msian-politics) you will know how unhappy the PAP is. Not only they are unhappy about the political development in Malaysia, they are also afraid of the consequences – the migration of voters, especially Malay voters from BN to PR. 

The ruling BN is under pressure. The pressure is so unbearable that the result is:    
New Malaysian home minister tells unhappy Malaysians to emigrateMalaysia's newly-appointed Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi has reportedly said that Malaysians who are unhappy with the country's political system should leave the country, stressing that loyal citizens should respect the rule of law.http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/se-asia/story/new-malaysian-home-minister-tells-unhappy-malaysians-emigrate-20130516

Yes, this is what the PAP hopes to achieve too. Voters are not happy with the political and electoral system can leave Singapore and more new “loyal” citizens who agree with the present system are been encouraged to come here.  With a plus of loyal voters and a minus of unhappy voters, this is long life the PAP.

Lost citizenship  

In fact, the PAP even went further than asking unhappy Singaporeans to leave.  They just simply take away their citizenships.    

[In 1965, Nanyang University faced the expellation of 101 students and 75 staff members in 1964 and had their students union dissolved. Why so? Some say that it was because  had a powerful influence on electoral outcomes. In the 1963 General Elections, founder of Nanyang University, Tan Lark Sye and the students gave tremendous support to these Barisan Sosialis candidates. As a result, BS won 32.9 percent of the seats as a result. This was an impressive feat despite the arrest of popular candidates in BS by PAP before the GE 1963. 
After the elections, the citizenship of Tan Lark Sye was revoked and he was accused for “collaborating with the communist group in nan-tah (nanyang university)”. The PAP also raided the school and used the Preservation of Public Safety Ordinance to arrest a number of students and alumni.]http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2013/04/untapped-power-youth-activism/

It is not sure whether making a person lost his citizenship is more effective than asking the person to leave Singapore.  Perhaps, it is more civilized to invite people to leave rather than losing the citizenship.

Change within rather than external influences

President Obama can only show his concern about the irregularities in the recent Malaysian general election. What else can he do besides congratulate both the ruling and opposition parties and the people of Malaysia?

Statement by the Press Secretary on Malaysia’s ElectionsOn behalf of the President and the people of the United States, we congratulate Prime Minister Najib on his coalition’s victory in Malaysia’s parliamentary elections on Sunday May 5.  We also congratulate the people of Malaysia, who turned out in record numbers to cast their votes, as well as the parties of the opposition coalition on their campaigns, as a vibrant opposition is a foundation of democracy.  We note concerns regarding reported irregularities in the conduct of the election, and believe it is important that Malaysian authorities address concerns that have been raised.  We look forward to the outcome of their investigations.  The United States looks forward to continuing its close cooperation with the government and the people of Malaysia to continue to strengthen democracy, peace, and prosperity in the region.http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/08/statement-press-secretary-malaysia-s-elections

So, political changes have to come from within the country. The PAP and the Singapore authorities are very uncomfortable about the aftermath of Malaysian GE and so they have to form the idea of “Singapore can’t afford to import Malaysian politics”.

Anwar also knows that he cannot depend on the USA for assistance.  Changes have to come from the Malaysian people within Malaysia.

If there are further changes in Singapore politics, it will have to come from within Singapore.  Malaysia politics, whether imported or not imported into Singapore, whether we can or can’t afford, is secondary.  Like President Obama’s statement, Najib can just put it one side but bi-lateral relationship between US and Malaysia will still go on. 

This is why striking off citizenship or leaving the country is a better solution than a press statement ‘looking forward for the outcome of the investigation.’

But both methods will not work under a more open and more democratic Singapore.   

Monday, 20 May 2013

状元未必成功, 沉默大多数知否?

行动党部长又发表伟伦了。这回这些伟伦是有一定的事实根据的。好文凭,高学历,未必一定能够确保未来一定成功,一定一帆风顺。沉默的大多数是指社区领袖,基层领袖,好像有人会不同意,的确在垄断政治时代也是事实。
为何说这些都是事实呢?从行动党过去,现在和将来的竞选成绩来分析,的确如此。行动党的奖学金得主,高学历候选人,已经不是胜选的保证,就是一个事实。因此,行动党现在才明白好文凭高学历,不是成功的保证,似乎有点迟钝。

那么,为何基层领袖,也是沉默的大多数呢?2011大选过后,行动党自我检讨,好像说过,没有聆听基层的反应,榜鹅东补选,也好像说是没有听基层的反应。因此,行动党败在没有听基层的大多数声音,没有接受基层领袖是沉默的大多数。只是,这样解释沉默的大多数,行动党不知是否接受?其他的人是否接受?

过去成功,将来未必。

行动党垄断性治国,在过去的确取得很大的经济成就。但是,它现在也必须面对经济成功背后的问题,贫富问题,如何为国人创造高和好的就业机会,企业,创业精神培养的困境,重文凭问题等等。

我们的经济成功模式,就是培养一批为外国大企业,政府企业的管理人员。因此,在这样的基础下,衡量一个人的标准就是好文凭和高学历。大家都在看文凭学历,而忘记了企业的永续生存和做大是要依靠创造力的,是要依靠企业精神的。

因此,过去的政治发展和经济发展同步,行动党培养的就是高学历和好文凭的人才。这些人有很好的前途和钱途,不论在职场还是在政坛上,行动党会为他们铺好一条康庄大道。这就是行动党的精英经济,精英政治。好文凭高学历的确如鱼得水,政治经济两边通吃。

沉默的大多数看在眼里,人人跟着一起大唱高学历好文凭。每个人,每个父母都要提升孩子的教育水平,没有大学文凭的,就去读,不论国内还是国外,总之,就是要提升。行动党即使知道,也不敢出声,因为,供孩子读书,政府不提供本地学位,让父母花钱把孩子送到外国或本地私立学院就读,原本就是选民的一股闷气,谁叫行动党政府不提供提升学位的机会,如果再出声,选民不就怒火中烧吗?

但是行动党教育部长最后还是不能不出来说话了。因为,再好的学历和文凭,如果没有就业机会,这笔账,最后还是要由行动党政府来买单的。现在,有学历有文凭的找不到满意的工作,已经是一件正常现象。再下去,家长的投资回报越算越不合理,这些家长变选民的人,再加有学历有文凭的孩子变新选民的人,一下子的怨气就只有往行动党身上发泄了。

经济政治互相辉映

为何以前可以,现在不能如此这般呢?难道为国内外大企业,政联企业服务不对吗?为他们培养高学历好文凭的人才不对吗?

时代不同了,要求也就不同了。首先,新加坡经济的发展已经到了资本主义的最高峰,过去只培养管理人才的策略,已经不行了。新加坡或许还可以继续吸引国际热钱涌来,但是,热钱是否可以创造高薪职位给我国管理人才,才是问题所在。而且,这些高薪职位足够吗?还是和国际热钱一样,国际人才也跟着来到。他们比新加坡人更具创意,有些还愿意低薪高聘来加入我国职场,来分这块肥肉。

反映在政治上也是如此。过去,我们不需要具有创意的政治人物,只要听话,只要跟着行动党的步伐走就可以。行动党会改变政治游戏,推出集选区,选区划分,各种方法,确保这些听话的政治管理人才中选。但是,政治和经济一样,行动党遇到瓶颈,陷入自己设计的模式中,而不能自拔。

沉默的大多数还是最终的少数? 
以前在垄断政治下被认为的沉默的大多数,在今时今日,到底还能继续被垄断性的归纳为大多数吗?
如果基层领袖真的能够为民请命,反映事实给行动党的头头,或许,他们真的代表了新加坡的沉默的大多数。回顾历史,行动党的风光时期,人民协会,职工总会,社团,甚至,宗教团体,时不时和政府高官喝茶聊天,把民间的事情反映给政府。在当时的社会环境下,政治环境下,多多少少都要反映一下沉默的大多数人的意见,看法,即使,这不是大多数的看法,也要被当成大多数人的看法,来认同来处理。

想不到,局势改变后,行动党部长还以为,这些意见和认同,依然可以代表沉默的大多数,并且还要以这个(以前政治垄断的)标准来认可证明,这些就是沉默大多数人的意见。

和经济表现有所不同的是,行动党无法在经济上培养企业精神,创业精神的人,这将严重影响未来新加坡的发展。而在政治上,却出现一股和行动党所谓的‘沉默大多数“不一样的人。这些在行动党认为少数的人,在芳林公园出现,在网络上出现,在在野阵营出现。因此,到底谁是多数,谁是少数,很可能有理说不清,只有等选票来说清楚。

在处理经济上没有创意,在政治问题上也同样没有创意。在经济上的“高处不胜寒”,想不到突围之路。在政治上也是如此。在垄断政治后,在无法绝对控制国会后,行动党在遇到后垄断政治时代,还没有找到一条出路。因此,它只能继续认同基层领袖是沉默的大多数。

正如高学历好文凭一样,行动党在经济上无法突围确保未来的成功之路。同样的,沉默的大多数,也是如此。以前被认可的“沉默的大多数”,在政治垄断下被承认的“沉默的大多数”,现在在新的政治要求下,已经不是“沉默的大多数”了。当然,行动党部长还是希望时代没有改变,以前和现在未来都一样,这有可能吗?

或许,行动党再想怎么走巫统国阵的马来人的马来西亚之路,换成新加坡,行动党想走一条行动党过去的老路,一条继续垄断政治的路, 一条行动党的新加坡之路。而硬硬要把这条路定位为沉默大多数人的路。

Saturday, 18 May 2013

A thief shouting "thief, thief!" – The latest blame show of AIM gate


{It takes so many years for the PAP to finally acknowledge and agree with “paper qualifications alone are not a ticket to success.”  The hard truth and verdict of current AIM gate can also be discovered later, the sooner the better in 2016.}       

There is a Chinese saying “贼喊捉贼” (Zéi hǎn zhuō zéi) perhaps can best describe the AIM dilemma that PAP is facing.  A thief is shouting and crying for attention for others to catch a thief.  With the pro-government main stream media, “A thief shouting “thief, thief!” has received good coverage in Singapore.   However, this is only one side of the story from the PAP.

But a “thief” is a “thief”. Nevertheless, for the interest of all, the thief should not stop behaving like a “police”.  It is playing with fire and the consequence is beyond everyone’s imagination. 

From the release of MND Town Council Review Report, to the parliament debates, ministerial statement, up to the latest Dr Teo Ho Pin’s “serious questions”, have Singaporeans learnt anything from the AIM gate?  Do we have a clearer picture of what is going on? It seems we are all trapped in solving a PSLE math paper – a simple, straight forward but difficult and unwilling to answer question.

The blame show
Let’s move away from the “thief, thief!” crying of Zei Han Zhuo Zei.  A more meaningful translation of it can be “cover up one's misdeeds by shifting the blame on to others.” (tw.websaru.com)

To stop the “thief” behaviour and to stop the shifting of blame, the Workers’ Party has no choice but to issue the following statement:   
"If the Minister, Dr Teo or the Ministry believe there was any wrongdoing in WP's management of the Town Council, we invite them to make a report to the CPIB or other relevant agencies to investigate the matter, rather than to make these suggestions and insinuations”.    
WP is telling everyone if there is a thief please report to the proper authority.  Shouting and crying “thief, thief!” will not solve the problem.  There are proper authorities that can discharge and investigate the reported wrong doings if there are any.

Higher moral standard
I think WP is making history in Singapore by calling for a CPIB investigation. And in Singapore politics, this is unusual and strange.  The normal practice is the CPIB or other government authorities will initiate the investigations, as small as postal fees.

Yes, if you are not a thief, what is the fear?  WP has stood very firm on this issue and it seems they have higher moral and ethical standard than the PAP.

The new AIM show makes the PAP looks weak and perhaps a little bit of “賊頭賊腦 (zéi tóu zéi nǎo)” - to behave like a thief. (tw.websaru.com). The beauty of Chinese language and literature is that with one word, you are able to link to other meaningful phrases. From a single word “zei”, we can derive many related meanings and expressions.  “賊頭賊腦 (zéi tóu zéi nǎo)” shows the ugly side of the PAP and it does not mean the PAP is really a “thief”.

It is bad to say people are behaving “賊頭賊腦 (zéi tóu zéi nǎo)”. But we have to distinguish that it is different from accusing someone is a thief.  It just tells the bad intention of the person initiated the move. 

After reminding the PAP not to behave like a thief, they should further self-control their ‘hearts’. “賊心不死 (zéi xīn bù sǐ) is “bent on evil-doing” (tw.websaru.com). If the PAP continues practising with a thief’s heart, bent on evil-doing, a worst case scenario performance can be expected in the next general election.   

MSM may project the positive side of the PAP, continue the blame show, and print a “no conflict interest” image in the AIM gate.  However, the more they attack WP and FMSS, the more Singaporeans will look for more details and want to find out the truth – the hard truth of town council management.

So, “贼别急着喊捉贼” the thief should not rush to cry for “thief, thief!”  The more they cry, the more Singaporeans will try to find out the hard truth of political connections in TC management.  

And so who is the one with the last laugh? The PAP, WP, oppositions, voters or foreigners.  Please don’t make the AIM gate another great joke of Singapore as we have already obtained the very low ranking in press freedom in the world. 

Wednesday, 15 May 2013

爱国还要分先后,许文远‘我们有这么笨吗’?

在国会的服务期限比他人久,就比别人爱国。这是哪一门的道理?行动党想要赢回阿裕尼,那就派多几个部长过来,最好是由许文远带队,这么一来,就不会有人高声说你所谓的“我们真的有这么笨吗?”是玩真的。

爱国要分先后,越老越爱国?

许文远比在野党议员林瑞莲先进入国会,但是表现却一届比一届的差,当然,这也不能完全怪他,因为,行动党的政绩,也是一届不如一届,所以得票率一直下降。或许,因为这个缘故,老羞成怒的他,不得不倚老卖老,教训一下首次成为当选议员的林瑞莲: 
【他情绪激动地说:我们当中很多人在她(林瑞莲)进入国会之前,已在新加坡服务了几十年,请你不要表现得好像只有你爱国。】(早报514日)
许文远自认国会年资高过林瑞莲,为新加坡服务了几十年,因此,有资格批评林瑞莲,爱国的人大有人在,不只林瑞莲一个。到底谁在爱国,谁在为民服务,选民看的很清楚,八块钱动个心脏手术,还沾沾自喜,不解民情,到底是爱国爱民,还是害国害民?

许文远发表的伟伦的确不少,什么建屋局不赚钱,什么读大学无用没有增加价值,什么到新山养老,上网看看还真不少。不知道这些算不算爱国表现?

组成部长团队,赢回阿裕尼

信心满满,许文远最好的爱党爱国的表现,就是在2016年的大选,带领一个五人部长团队来阿裕尼集选区竞选。那样才叫做玩真的。不然,我们只能说行动党在玩政治游戏,说说而已。而下面这句话,我们也只能当成耳边风: 
【他说:我们最大的政治动机是什么?是要赢回阿裕尼集选区,而不是搞些小动作让大家生气,让我们永久地失去阿裕尼。】(早报514日)
到底是谁在搞小动作,行动党还是工人党?国会里答非所问,是谁在浪费纳税人的钱?当然,如果要如实回答,面子上就会不好看。不管好看还是不好看,行动党上下都不能脱离AIM爱门事件的阴影,现在没有说清楚,将来后遗症将会更为严重。

行动党阿裕尼落选候选人已经走了七七八八,根本没有一个部长级的领头人物,如果真的要收复失地,最好的做法就是派五个部长一起来照顾这个集选区。不过,看来行动党的头头,就像大禹治水那样,过了阿裕尼的家门,也没有空进来坐一坐,还害怕被卷进来,被当成代罪羔羊。

这一点,行动党还不如巫统。巫统明知山有虎,偏向虎山行。振林山一战,为了不让林吉祥胜选,硬要把马华拉下,派了前柔佛州务大臣阿都干尼上阵,虽然最后失败,但是求胜之心还在,就是不让林吉祥轻易中选。或许,行动党连这个勇气都没有,更没有自告奋勇的部长愿意到阿裕尼来。更何况,还要出动五位部长组成团队。真是难上加难。在这一点上,行动党比较像马华,连决战之心都没有。

对行动党的笨失望还是对工人党失望?

早报报道:身为行动党主席的许文远强势回应工人党的指责,批评林瑞莲以恶意的眼光看待AIM交易,根本是杯弓蛇影,令他感到失望

到底是谁对谁失望?行动党对工人党失望,还是选民对行动党失望?爱门检讨报告,工人党全部拒绝,选民会对工人党失望吗?还是选民对检讨报告失望,直接的就会对行动党失望,这样一来,才是行动党的最大损失。

许文远连续两次反问(林瑞莲)我们有这么笨吗?许文远应该问选民这个问题,连续的问两次,看看结果是什么?许文远问林瑞莲是问不出结果的,因为只有选民能够回答这个问题。选民手中的选票决定谁笨谁聪明?做了这么多年的部长,许文远为何不明白这个道理?或许,行动党根本就不敢面对选民,尤其是阿裕尼选民。不相信的话,就请许文远下次大选到阿裕尼来,看看谁才是这么的笨。

合约给政党支持者和给政党公司有何不同

行动党就是喜欢顾左右而言他,因此,早报的标题大大的打出:“许文远:工人党市镇会 给支持者公司合约。”这样的标题很容易误导读者,让人以为工人党和行动党一样,都是用自己人,但是,行动党却用了自己的公司。这是有所区别。

当然,还有很多关于AIM爱门事件的问题,行动党是无法回答清楚的。工人党议员在国会都没有办法问得清楚,选民又如何可以获得明明白白的答案呢?这些问题网上都有讨论,这里不再重覆。

爱国理念的不同诠释

行动党的爱国理念就是和世界大趋势不同。行动党认为参与国庆大检阅,国庆群众大会,全国对话,人协活动,就是爱国的表现。那些参与芳林公园大集会反对人口白皮书的人,参与网上批评政府的网民,更不用说,那些参与在野党政治活动的人,这些人在行动党眼中,不是爱国。

最可怕的是,爱国还有先后之分,先霸位的就是最先爱国。以不公平选区划分制度霸了位之后,还沾沾自喜批评他人,不知道什么是爱国,自认吃盐比别人吃米多,当然,爱国也比别人先,别人多。爱不爱国,最后还是选民说了才算数。

或许,有一天,新加坡人在国外示威抗议我国选举不公时,行动党政府也会像马来西亚政府那样,指示驻外代表,不要协助公民,那是他们自作自受。行动党的爱国标准和巫统标准一样,都是过去式,因此,行动党很难认同新的爱国行为,不止如此,连新加坡人在芳林公园声援马来西亚的不公平选举,内政部还派人录像留念。

那么,什么是新的爱国行动呢?
【民主行动党全国副宣传秘书张念群表示,马来西亚驻新加坡最高专员莫哈末胡欣应该为在新加坡参与抗议活动而遭逮捕的21名大马公民伸出援手,而不是落井下石。 
毕竟这21名大马公民,并不是因为贩毒丶走私而被捕,他们是因为关心我国的政治和民主进程,虽然身处异地,也决定聚在一起为大马打气! 
她说,这群大马公民的行为,无疑已凸显了他们的爱国精神;然而,莫哈末胡欣的言论却让人怀疑这个国家的政府,是否还爱她的人民。
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/229955

如何诠释,马来西亚年轻人爱国还是不爱国?

新加坡需要这样的年轻爱国人士,不论身处何处,都关心新加坡的未来,这样才叫做爱国,新加坡才有希望。这么做的结果,许文远和行动党就会感到很失望,就像许文远在国会里对林瑞莲那样的失望一样。

行动党的失望,不也就是新加坡人的希望吗?

Tuesday, 14 May 2013

AIM, Customer Service and PAP Politics


Every morning, before opening hours we can see customers queuing outside banks, finance houses, CPF, HDB and other government offices. And inside the offices, staffs are sitting under the comfortable air-conditioning environment, talking, walking, laughing and ignoring customers waiting outside under the hot sun.

This is the typical customer service in Singapore. When you complain, the standard answer is ‘law-by-law’; we can only open at 8am, 9am and not early than that. Some offices or clinics are kind enough to provide chairs for early birds, but these facilities are placed outside the offices or clinics. 
You are not allowed to enter the premises to wait for services.

So, customers are not the kings in Singapore.   Putting money into the banks/finance companies, seeking legal or medical or other professional services, looking for government services, all these activities do not require quality customer services.  Or rather, customers are at a disadvantaged position begging for helps or assistances even you make due payments.

And in the many long and short queues, there are definitely some senior citizens, sometimes some people with mobile difficulties or children.  But law is law, the OPDs, the government offices can only do so much.  What is surprising is the private sector, the business sector all agree with this typical and uniquely Singapore customer service.      

PR, HR or Personnel departments in the world will have fewer problems and would very much like to have Singapore style of customer services. Standard, no less no more, everything is served according to the book.  There is nothing wrong about the services except you demand better and quality services.

No wonder the debate in the parliament is also law-by-law. And ‘WP adjournment motion on town councils inadmissible’ is expected. Yes, just like the customer service, debates have to go law by law and other than that are ‘inadmissible’.

MND Review on AIM

So, when you hear or read the parliament debates on the MND Town Council Review Report and the ministerial statement on the Review, you are just like the customers waiting outside the offices under the hot sun and have ‘no say’. There are some kind-hearted staffs who may want to help customers and even go forward to serve the customers but they are prevented to do so. ‘Law-by-law’ the offices can only open at 8 or 9 am some even not allow to place chairs outside offices.  

So, this is our kind of customer service and our kind of parliament debates. Under the law, you restrict yourself to do more but in your heart, you know improvements are needed and lot of them. 

What do you think?  The PAP has absolute majority in the Parliament.  If you want a better customer service, if you want to take back your rights as a customer, you have to exercise your votes as a rightful customer in 2016.

There is nothing wrong with the ‘law-by-law’ attitude, you queue and then you will be served. You want to be served first; you come early and wait outside the offices. You cannot expect better customer service other than the typical standard one.  And for this, we are proud that we are ahead of many countries, especially developing countries.    

Perhaps if you are willing to pay or you are high net worth individuals, the personal bankers will come to you, the private hospitals or the A class government hospitals welcome you, the lawyers,  doctors, architects will all come to you.

However, not to forget, even you are flying first class; your risk is the same as the economy class passengers in the same flight.

Another review another standard customer service

MND is going to make a comprehensive review of the management of town councils. Does another review mean a reform or a revolution on town council management? Is it a new standard service guideline replacing the old one – the AIM one? What is expected is another standard customer service - the ‘law by law’ customer service of the PAP politics. MPs continue siting and (so-called) debating in the air-conditioning parliament building and ignoring what is happening outside the Parliament.

The PAP is performing the customer service according to law and according to the parliament procedures. Everything is protected and guarded and in paper, there is no conflict of interest at all.  

There is nothing wrong for the PAP if this type of customer service can retain parliament majority for them.  But changes are happening everywhere. Customers have begun to understand their rights and demand better quality services.

Come 2016, the customer voters will judge whether they agree or not agree with ‘the ministry gives “the same latitude” to all political parties in town council transactions with political affiliates.’   

Friday, 10 May 2013

纳吉在历史原点上打转,民联在转折点上前进。

【纳吉下台平民怨,民联妥协为国家。或许是一个折中不完美的选项。】
505是马来西亚政治的转折点
http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/p480x480/947374_448428871917801_469072493_n.jpg

马来西亚505大选的结果,最高兴的不是纳吉,而很可能是人民行动党。因为,在原地踏步的前进,依然可以保留政权,批评归批评,一马当全国对话,选区划分,高压手段和威胁再加分裂国人,不也是人民行动党继续奉行的政治教条吗?

既然纳吉可以通过这些手段,在得票低于对手的背景下,继续执政,那么,为何人民行动党不可以如此这般呢!李总理除了 放下心头的 一块大石头外,还要谢谢纳吉给他指出一条可行之路,一盏可以继续政权的明灯。

难怪,他要说纳吉的胜利是一个令人信服的胜利。因为,他在想如何可以像纳吉那样,在得票下降的情形下,依然可以获得国会三分二的议席。既然纳吉获得47%选票,却可以获得60%国会议席,因此,下次新加坡大选,人民行动党如果获得55%选票,理应也可以获得三分二的议席。

从纳吉47%选票得60%议席,和行动党55%选票得67%议席相比,人民行动党还比纳吉的国阵强上一个%。因此,纳吉的路,纳吉的灯,对总理来说,可以说是信息明确,十分贴切。更何况新加坡在整体表现,国家组织结构上都比马来西亚来得强,即使用了纳吉的路灯,外人也会觉得符合国情。

在所谓的和解下撕裂族群,如何整合马来西亚。

2008年大选相比,2013年的马来西亚大选,在总得票上,巫统领导的国阵,并没有取得突破,反而失去更多的选票,再一次落后于民联。赢了议席,输了选票,在这个历史点上,纳吉除了在经济成长上有所前进,在政治上,在整合马来西亚各个族群方面,可以说是开了倒车。

这样的一个领导人,是否可以顺利完成未来五年的首相任期?巫统内部对这样一个落势首相,会不会来个窝里反,把他拉下马呢?不管一切,只要赢,因此,在赢不了选票的时候,就只有找一个借口:华人海啸作为代罪羔羊。这个借口已经用了50多年,这也证明这么多年来国阵在历史原点上没有做出改变做出突破。反而民联却为寻求国家统一,族群统一努力。

纳吉一个人能够抵挡人民力量吗?巫统在静思后,认清政治的现实后,会继续留任纳吉这个负资产吗?

民联在选票上取得胜利,并一再的增加选票,因此,这已经显示转折点已经来到了。虽然,民联老一批领导人在下一次大选,可能不再扮演前线的角色,但是,新的,年轻的领袖,在勇往直前的精神号召下,配合年轻选民的心态,城市选民的支持,多元种族的选票,下一次大选将能击败国阵。

高谈和解,却剑指华人

纳吉还是无法脱离种族利益,种族隔离的思维。他在所谓的胜选记者会上,高调的谈论要马来西亚全国和解,因此,他原本应该继续说下去的是希望全国各个族群间应该互相合作,建立一个团结的马来西亚。可惜的是他选择在原点上前进,继续维护过去的思维和政策。没有好好的反省,选民为何不投票给国阵。或许,纳吉的小圈圈集体思维,实在是太小,小到只有他一个人。

一个政府如果做得好,做的对,平等的对待各个族群,为何独有一个族群极度的不满,为何独有各族城市选民极度不满。这说明了什么?选民发出的信息,不只纳吉没有收到,反而赶快找代罪羔羊,为自己得票低找借口。

或许,纳吉的这套戏是做给巫统党内的人看的,这样做可以为自己找到一个成绩比阿都拉差的原因。把箭头指向华人,这个借口,巫统内部也可以接受,更有一些极端领袖十分赞成。

民联把马来西亚的政治推向一个转折点,巫统却不愿意接受。那就要看选民是否也接受了。纳吉在这个历史点上,选择在原地踏步,没有团结全国人民的决心。

最可怜的是马华,看到纳吉这么说,不单没有阻止,还大声的赞成。自己没有做好工作,没有争取华人的选票,反而怪华人选民。看来,马华的历史转折点已经来到,这次大选过后,马华还能叫马华吗?政治人物的悲哀就是,选民永远是对的,把失败归咎于选民,看来就只有国阵,巫统和马华了。

国阵很可能是世界上唯一一个政党把自己的错误归咎于选民。一而再再而三,每次大选过后都把责任归咎于选民。这样一个做法,似乎就是要完全放弃投反对票的选民。其结果将是最终失败。总有一天,放弃越多选民,选票就会越少,政权也将失去。

最少,李显龙还会说对不起,行动党做的不够好,会努力改进。行动党敢说选票下降,是选民的错,选民没有看清现实,选民没有珍惜过去,选民没有知恩图报,选民忘恩负义,选民。。。

看来,一马行动是一场白干,劳民伤财,结果选票还是无法增加。如果,总理也只看到纳吉的路灯,跟着他的撕裂族群路线,报着他的‘都是选民错’的心态,那么他也将有着纳吉那样的前途。

最令人痛心的莫过于新加坡外交部长尚穆根,竟然认可纳吉的华人海啸言论,认可种族对立的言论。看来让这样的人担任外交部长,对新加坡来说,也是一种原地踏步,保守的守护着人民行动党的利益,不愿意看到改变的一面。

新加坡政府现在想想或许会认为自己当时说的太快,总理的‘令人信服的胜利’,尚穆根的‘种族对立言论’,很可能是当时太高兴了,国阵胜利了,行动党可以有样学样好榜样,因此,跟着纳吉一起瞎起哄。

或许,这就是人民行动党自认的政治智慧,只看到纳吉的路灯,没有看到马来西亚人民的力量。