Saturday, 31 August 2013

行动党最怕有人英文英语比它好!

{说到最后,行动党所要栽培部长就是打工皇帝,打工拿高薪是他们最终的志向。}
真的吗?精英中的精英,为什么还会如此害怕!几十年的所谓双语教育,国人,尤其是年轻一代多数都能说一口英语,有些还说的很溜呢!这就使到行动党很为难,因为,他们的精英,和以前相比,英文英语不但不如以前,和同一辈相比,也好不了多少,这么一来,不论是网上网下,这个优势就没有了。

没有了这个绝对的优势,行动党能不害怕吗?

因此,行动党担心的不是什么亚洲价值观,不是双语双文化,不是文化传承,更不是英语可以不可以成为新加坡人的母语。行动党党人琢磨的是,如何才能阻止别人的英文英语胜过自己。因为,英文英语不够好,就无法胜任总理一职,已故王鼎昌总统就是一个例子。

总理说,新一轮的内阁改组,荣升一些人,这是要为未来的总理,未来接班人做准备工作。选民可要记得,英文英语这个条件哦!当然,这是行动党的理想安排,事事是否都能如此顺利,到时就知道了。

害怕别人英文英语好,在新加坡是有根据的。80年代的JBJ,萧添寿,1987年内安法下被逮捕的人, 以及90年代的徐顺全,Catherine Lim这些人的英文英语,不是和行动党党人一样, 就是好过他们。甚至,行动党连自己人也不放过,已故的蒂凡那总统,也是能说会道的人,听过他演说的人,也会被电到。

因此,英文英语好的新加坡人,才有条件成为新加坡真正的精英。英文英语不够好,最多只能做个副手,或者,做个陪衬。因此,我们不要怪父母,家长们为何一定要选某一些名校,尤其是英文英语特别好的学校,因为,要成为行动党所谓的真正精英,这个语文的基本功,没有掌握好,是不行的。当然,你也可以不要选择这些名校,而相信every school is a good school.当然,这样一来,你也不计较名校不名校,精英不精英了。在行动党的种种诱导下,到底有多少家长,能够这么洒脱!

现在内阁的英文英语水平如何?

回过头来看看这次的内阁改组,在这些人中,有没有英文英语特别好的人呢?这是一个先决条件,当年吴作栋做总理,还有人还不十分愿意,满意。认为现任总统的条件更好,不知道这是否是说吴作栋的英文英语不够好,另外一人的英文英语更好,所以,更加适合做总理。

如果拿2011年才进入国会的行动党议员来说,我们很难想象他们的英文英语有过人之处。他们的英文英语水平,在今天的新加坡也不过是中上,社会上,在政府部门,在私人领域,和他们有着一样水平的人还是有的,甚至,有些还好过他们。你只要观察一下周围的人,公司里的一些部门主管,或者,教会里的教士,其中有些肯定比这些新晋议员好。

这样一来就对行动党非常不利了。因为,行动党不可能再像以前那样,不喜欢英文英语好的人,就想方设法不让这些人进入国会,通过各种手段,选区划分,非选区议员,官委议员,集选区等等来阻止因为自己英文英语无法好过别人,而设立种种障碍来围堵英文英语好的反对党候选人。 
如果英文英语真的是唯一的标准,新晋议员中升任部长,政务部长的潜质总理人选,很可能还没有出现,就好像淡马锡找总裁一样,找了好多年还是找不到。或许,这个语文条件需要修改一下,甚至放弃这个条件。反正,就像修改选举条例一样,喜欢改就改一下,适应环境需求。

问题是,行动党本身没有进步,别人的英文英语水平提升了,那么这样一来,总理人选,就很可能落入他人之手,而不是行动党之手。这么说来,我们大家还要感谢行动党的‘成功的教育政策’,让其他国人,也有机会掌握英文英语,并且成功突围,在英文这关迎头赶上。

社交媒体的英文如何?

社交媒体的英文水平,当然有好有不好,这是一个沟通的平台,不是语文的平台。不过,其中有些网民的英文水平是很高的。尤其是有些在主流媒体工作过的网民,博客还有再加上原本英文掌握能力很强的人,这些人的文章的英文水平,不单语文水平可以跟上主流媒体,在创意和深度上,更是独具一格。

内阁英文英语水平没有优势,主流媒体的英文创作,又胜不了社交媒体,行动党真的有难了。最新的消息显示,有更多网民加入社交媒体,媒体新条例没有把他们吓走。

真本事,真心话才是胜负之分

几十年来,行动党就是喜欢设立框框,对自己不利的就大力保护,没有办法单打独斗,就利用行政手段,来个捆绑,来个集选区。他们忘记做事,服务人民还是要靠真本事,和说真心话。

就拿王鼎昌来说,他在担任部长的时候和担任职总秘书长的时候的所作所为,人民的印象可能有些模糊。甚至这段时间,他有什么贡献,人民也不清楚。但是,他在离任总统最后阶段有关新加坡储备的提问,却深深的留在人民心目中。这可能需要50年的时间才能消化掉。(一笑!)

还有默默耕耘20多年的刘程强,英文英语水平当然不如内阁部长那样高,但是,为何却能把杨荣文,林惠华这样的精英给挤掉。(二笑!)更加令行动党掉眼镜的(应该是掉眼泪),竟然是一个双语双文化的专科医生还赢不了一个要为民服务的候选人。(三笑!)

这再一次证明英文英语不如行动党候选人,靠着真本事,真心话,还是能够击败对手的。英文英语不够好,就做不了总理,看来还有个政治目的,就是有意指定接班人。可惜,这套把戏,既不适合行动党,也不适合新加坡现在的国情。 

你说李嘉诚的英文英语好,还是他手下的打工皇帝好。当然是打工皇帝,用这个来推理一下,行动党就是要培养打工皇帝,它的所作所为,就是要培养一群领着高薪的打工皇帝部长。
打工皇帝或许有真本事,但是,打工皇帝却未必有真心话。这就是为何行动党会败选的原因,人民不单要看行动党的真本事,还要看和听真心话,新加坡全国对话和最近的国庆群众大会真的做得到吗?

内阁新添的打工皇帝部长?photo from www.chinanews.com

Wednesday, 28 August 2013

Misinterpretation or Warning: Lee Hsien Loong Needs Hard Thinking


Just before PM Lee making his official visit to China, the Global Times in China published a controversy piece of news over its website. #1

Is this a misinterpretation as what our Ministry of Foreign Affairs explained? Or, deep in his heart, should PM Lee see this as a warning to himself or worst still, a slap on his face prior to meeting the new leaders of China.

New leaders always come with 3 fires (新官上任三把火).  This is the first time that PM Lee meets President Xi Jin-ping and Prime Minister Li Ke-qiang in their respective new capacities.  As an outsider, it is not our business to know (details) how Chinese choose their leaders.  However, PM Lee’s remark on Diaoyu Islands in Tokyo in May 2013 is a very sensitive issue in China.  A wrong remark or misinterpretation can easily lead to strong emotional reaction.  It is understandable after the publication of the ‘misinterpreted comment’, strong reactions are expected from netizens in China.  

Singapore MFA had no choice but to make the following statement: 
[Using a sensationalist headline, the article took Prime Minister Lee's comments completely out of context and grossly distorted and misreported what he said. Such unprofessional reporting is unhelpful and could harm bilateral relations and affect people-to-people ties. #1]

It blamed the Global Times and the Global Times said they just carried the same piece of news from Ta Kung Pao.  They can blame each other but the timing of the publication looks more like a warning to PM Lee, in Chinese it is 下马威. Before landing in Beijing, let’s warn you over the internet first indirectly and ‘unofficially’.   

Both Ta Kung Pao and the Global Times are mouthpieces of the Chinese Communist Party.  

Ta Kung Pao (大公报) is a pro-communist newspaper in Hong Kong #2, so do the Global Times in China #3.

Just imagine SINGAPOLITICS #4 publishes some bad news about our neighbours, for example, the haze problem or the crimes happening there. What will the foreign governments and their netizens think? How will they interpret it?  Can SINGAPOLITICS claim that they are independent and are just a private identity under Singapore Press Holdings?   

PM Lee and MFA, of course, can claim that this is just an isolated incidence by non-official news website in China. They can even say these are social media in China, like the (mistrusted) social media in Singapore. Deep in the hearts of Chinese and Singaporeans, do (they and) we really interpret in such a way? Is it just simply a ‘completely out of context and grossly distorted and misreported’ news over internet?

Back in Singapore politics, the phrase ‘completely out of context and grossly distorted and misreported’, in fact, looks quite familiar. Can you recall some of the past incidences? It needs no further explanation.

If this can be used as a political excuse to do some things, to serve some purposes, why can’t it be used as a warning or even a slap just before the Beijing visit?  

Besides enjoying his visit in China, PM Lee should think very hard what really his hosts are trying to say? Wrong interpretation or misinterpretation from the Singapore side has to be equally weighted and taken into consideration seriously.

#1

#2

#3

#4

Saturday, 24 August 2013

认知失调的国庆群众大会演说

 【是谁认知失调,是谁认知协调,大跃进,大转折,新思路,新大道,听了演说后,你是失调还是协调?】
 
一如以往,国庆群众大会的演说又是一个让人,令人认知失调的宣传。认知失调,或者,认知不协调是一种影响,改变,或者持续坚持一种行为的社会心理学。尤其是,得到小恩小惠的人,最容易出现认知失调,这么做的目的,就是让人继续不断的支持行动党。

什么是认知失调?给一块钱和给20块钱的差别,拿了一块钱的人会出现认知失调,而得了20块钱的人却不会。现在,你是否终于明白为何总理部长高官领取高薪不脸红,而一般市民却出现认知失调,怨言多多。
 
下面是美国著名社会心理学家费斯廷格的实验结果:

费斯廷格在一项实验让一些大学生做一项非常乏味的工作,然后给有些学生20元,给另一些学生1元。当问及学生是否喜欢这项工作或感到有趣时,拿1元钱报酬的学生都说这项工作很有趣味;而拿20元的学生则都说这项工作枯燥无味。为什么会出现这种现象呢?费斯廷格在经过认真分析后认为:只拿1元钱的学生面临一个难题:他做了一项枯燥乏味的工作,但几乎没得到奖励,如果他认为这是乏味的工作,那么,他为1元钱而干这活,无疑是个傻子。为了避免这种令人不快的结论,他们改变了对这项工作的看法。这种态度的变化往往是无意识的,然而又是确实发生了。与此相反,拿20元报酬的学生对他们为什么做这项工作的解释,无须顾虑任何问题,因而可以对这项工作做出忠实的判断。
由此可见,人们都需要恢复信心:自己是作了正确的选择、做了正确的事情(Festinger,1957)。http://ite.stu.edu.cn/xdjyjs/xuexilun/charpt7/lesson4/links/link3-2.htm

从这个实验中,你再想想总理的演说,或者,回顾一下过去几十年的国庆演说,从李光耀,吴作栋再到现在的李显龙,你是拿了一块钱的人还是拿了20块钱的人。如果,你没有拿到20块钱,那么是谁拿了这20块钱,是不是行动党政府的总理部长高官们?因此,是谁得了认知失调?是你,人民,还是,行动党的头头和团伙们。

这个看起来,偏向福利,向左走的新道路,大转折,是否是一块钱的认知失调?你想一想组屋政策(对低收入家庭)的改变,教育上的新的小安排,是你的一块钱的认知失调还是他们的20块钱认知协调。甚至细节还未公布的全民保险计划,没有人可以退出的福利安排,到底是一块钱还是20块钱的认知失调诱惑?

因此,下面这些新闻,不是行动党人的认知失调,什么刀枪不入厚脸皮,什么名嘴论证,还有学唱三首歌,这些动作,在中介的大力鼓吹下,就是要让人认知失调。

clip_image002
clip_image004
clip_image006

主流媒体是认知失调的中介

看回上面的实验,在实验中一定要有人一直重覆的告诉学生,不论如何,要告诉下一个参与实验的学生,这个乏味的实验是有趣的。久而久之,那拿一块钱的学生,反正奖励不高,就自己困扰起来,真的以为这个实验是有趣的。但是,拿20块钱的人,奖励高,看得比较清楚,一直坚持实验是乏味的。

没有实验人员这个中介,一直重覆不断的告诉拿一块和20块钱的学生,这个实验是有趣的,学生们又怎么会认知失调呢!因此,你现在明白了新加坡主流媒体是扮演什么角色了吧? 实验要成功,实验人员这个中介是一定要有的。

当我们在思考演说中提到的大跃进,新思路,我们很有必要想一想,是否又在中介的推波助澜下又再陷入认知失调中。我们已经经历太多的认知失调了:


# 两个已经够了,变成现在的不够。 
# 瑞士的生活水准,变成现在的贫富悬殊。 
# 关闭南大和华校,变成现在的所谓双语教育和将来的单语。 
# 集选区是为确保少数种族有国会代表,变成一党继续独大。 
。。。。

认知协调的出现对行动党不利

一直到人口政策的6.9百万这个数字出现,新加坡人的认知才开始协调起来。一直到另一个媒体中介-社交媒体出现,人们的认知才开始出现协调,当然,高素质的在野党人的出现,更是加强人们对改变的信心,心理素质,认知也开始协调起来。因此,行动党害怕这种认知协调,它要想方设法让选民认知失调。或者说,为何补选对行动党不利,因为这种选举,行动党认知失调的策略比较难成功。不过,他在2011总统大选中,却成功的在选民的认知失调中险胜。

但是,当选民的认知协调起来时;相对的,就对行动党不利,因为,它的认知失调策略就会失效。这就是为何行动党政府和主流媒体这个中介,一直要,一定要把这次的国庆演说定调为大跃进大转折,新思路新道路了。

@想要知道多一点有关认知失调的认知,可以看一下这个短片。












































Thursday, 22 August 2013

How to Make Your Own Judgement on PM’s NDR 2013 Speech


Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had finally delivered his National Day Rally speech for 2013.  He concluded that there was a new way forward and announced that the government was making major strategic changes.

You also read about the comments from two different sources: mainstream media and social media. Now, consider this is as a political rally speech in the General Election 2016, will you be persuaded and influenced to vote for Lee and the People’s Action Party (PAP)?

Professor Robert Cialdini and Steve Martin have developed a scientific technique to help you to assess the effectiveness of a persuasion. In the persuasion of science, they list the following 6 short-cuts:  

Reciprocity, scarcity, authority, consistency, liking and consensus.

You can view the video in YouTube:



Reciprocity: People are obliged to give back to others the form of behaviour, gift, or service that they have received first.

Lee has made some changes in housing, education, and health care etc. Are you the one who will be benefited from the changes?  What will you do in return?

Scarcity: Simply put, people want more of those things they can have less of.

Lee said there are very few successful countries like Singapore in the world. Indirectly, he was saying the PAP is a scarcity. He stressed, ‘we are not taking these steps because our system is bad. On the contrary, we are starting from a good position.’ He also said, ‘very few countries or cities can think or plan over such a long term.’

Authority: The idea that people follow the lead of credible, knowledgeable experts.

Lee announced big projects like new airport terminal, new port in Tuas, the moving of Paya Lebar Airbase, etc. They are experts in economic development.

Consistency: People like to be consistent with the things they have previously said or done.

Lee said Singapore was making a shift and a major one. But at the same thing, he said, ‘we may have made major shifts in our policies, but our core purpose has not changed.’  He wants changes but also wants consistency. 

Liking: People prefer to say yes to those that they like.

During the speech, Lee was seen moving to tears. Do you like it or not? Overall, do you like his speech?

This ‘liking’ factor needs further explanation. In the video, it mentions: We like people who are similar to us, we like people who pay us compliments, and we like people who cooperate with us towards mutual goals.
  
Similarity, compliments and mutual goals, have you found these in Lee’s speech?

Consensus: Especially when they are uncertain, people will look to the actions and behaviours of others to determine their own.

Lee said his speech was a feedback of Our Singapore Conversation that seeks consensus for the future development of Singapore. Do you agree with this consensus?  Do you see the consensus?


After viewing the video, you can then use the 6 short-cuts to make you own judgement.  If the election is called tomorrow, will you vote for Lee and the PAP?  Which one of the short-cuts is the most critical factor for you to make your decision? And are you a marginal voter and will you make a change after listening to his speech?

Voting is secret and we should all make a wise choice for Singapore. There is rumour in social media, if Lee’s sales technique and persuasion work, the PAP will call for early election. 


Monday, 19 August 2013

物质还是精神上的 大跃进大转折


懂得中国近代历史的人,都知道50年代的大跃进是什么回事,那也是中国历史上的一个转折点。不论在物质还是在精神思想上,这都是一个大灾难。总理在国庆群众大会上用了转折点,新的大跃进(new way forward)来形容目前的新加坡。

因此,建议他最好以另外一个思路来思考未来的新加坡。转折点,大跃进是否适合他提出的策略新改变,和他的所谓治国新方向吻合?

或许说这是总理的政治选择,2011年后民意民情都不在行动党这边。情形如果继续恶化下去,行动党即使保得住政权,也将会失去更多的议席。因此,在离下次大选还有几年的时间前,推出一些利民措施,在物质上讨好一些边缘选民。 因此,我们看到教育上的小修改,住屋上的小津贴,还有,医药保健上“全民终身医药保险”。

他认为这是大改变,转折点,大大的跃进。事实上,这只不过是回到行动党创党时的原点,为大多数的新加坡人,不分语言,宗教,种族,创造美满的生活。在行动党的网站上,你还是可以看到这样的行动党誓约。http://www.pap.org.sg/about-pap/party-milestones

这几十年来,行动党偏离本身的原点太多,太远。在物质上无法满足国人,在贫富悬殊下,更是把居者有其屋,病者有照顾,老人有关爱,抛在脑后。甚至在教育上,落势家庭的提升机会,像就读名校上,也被抛离的远远的。

因此,总理所谓的改变,新策略,事实上,就是要向原点走。但是,又不能走向原点太近。因为,如果太近了,就像总理说的,不能没有名校还是不行的。没有了名校,奖学金得主哪里来?因此,每间学校都是好学校,是教育部的希望,而不是家长和学生的标准,指标。那么,要什么样的转折,什么样的大跃进,才可以改变和缩短这种距离。小一报名的小改变,小六会考成绩的等级区分,更多机会入读中学名校的选项,行吗?

提都没有提到精神思想的提升

总理在群众大会上,一直要给人民希望,尤其是低收入家庭和落势群体和个人。新加坡的未来是美好,下一代会更好,建国的策略策划没有结束,也不会结束,要继续延续下去。海港空港美好家园,他为新加坡规划的是一个在物质上完美,精神上空虚的未来。

而这个物质上的完美,是否能够做到还是一个问题。从他出任总理以来,经济第一,高薪奖励,贫富悬殊加剧,更多人买不起房子,看不起病,更不用说买车了。是的,更多人出国,就像他在日本富士山那样,看到新加坡游客比日本人还多,充其量,这只是物质享受而已。

教育的普及化和英语西化,已经使到新加坡年轻一代,更加要求个性化,个人品味。即使是外来移民,甚至是老一辈国人,都在精神思想上有所要求。这是建国以来,最大的思想改变,或许说这是主流媒体影响力下跌,社交媒体影响力上升的时代。

国人,无论贫富,在精神思想上有各自不同的要求。也就是即使是住在同一座组屋,里面却出现不同的思想,不同的精神诉求。而总理只字不提人们的精神诉求。这种精神诉求,很可能比满足人们物质的需求更为重要。

在建国初期,人们为了建立一个强大的新加坡而努力。似乎没有考虑个人的得失。这是精神战胜物质,今天。我们站在物质的高点上,全球第一的人均收入,如果不能在精神上再度战胜物质,那我们所拥有的一切也将是空虚的。

早报今天的社论,来不及为群众大会造势加分,只谈了总统奖学金得奖人的多元化背景。新加坡大多数的政府奖学金得主都是出国留学,不在本地大学就读。即使本地大学世界排名一路领先,具有国际水准,但是,还是外国的月亮比较亮。难道建国48年后,我们还是对自己这样没有信心,总理不是说我们的教育令很多国家羡慕,这包括一些欧美国家,为何我们对自己还是缺少信心?

(从吴作栋这位本地大学毕业的前总理身上,我们不只看到本地大学毕业生能够胜任总理一职,似乎,他更加能够理解人民的需要。把奖学金得主送到外国大学深造,似乎更加加剧他们不解国人的诉求。这不只是政府对本地大学失去信心的问题,更加重要的是,他们对民情民意的拿捏问题。除非,他们本来就有着一种献身和牺牲的精神。)

这就要回到精神思想的问题上。有些网民说总理在大会流下鳄鱼眼泪,我倒不这么认为。应该说总理无法在精神上,协助更多落势人士和家庭而流眼泪比较贴切。

但是,要突破这个思维,找回以前的拼搏精神是如何的困难。转折不转折,跃进不跃进,没有了精神支持,新加坡是很难再向前一步的。尤为困难的是,如何叫得到好处的既得利益者,现出一些精神来帮助落势人士。

总理当然不会提到社交媒体新规定,当然不会提到新闻管制,当然不会提到内安法,会不会有大转折,大跃进。因此,总理的演讲,只是为了满足一些人的物质要求,而忽略了逐渐增加,人数越来越多的追求个性,追求个人品味的人的精神诉求。


或许,正如总理说的,我们已经做得很好了。现在,在物质上,再来一点较为平均的分配,就很圆满了。为何要开放自由空间,民主空间,媒体空间,来提升国人的精神呢!

Friday, 16 August 2013

End of Li Ka-Shing Era in Hong Kong and Lessons for Singapore


Li Ka-Shing is the richest Chinese in the world and of course in Hong Kong, his business is almost everywhere ranging from logistic, supermarkets, energy, to property development.  Interestingly, a recent article from the influential 21st Century Business Herald#1 in China predicted that his monopoly or golden era in Hong Kong is over.

Li’s position in Hong Kong in many ways is even more important than Temasek Holdings in Singapore.  Why a mighty ‘Superman’ has to end his golden era in Hong Kong, 17 years after the return of HK? The reason is simply.  According to the article, Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are marching into Hong Kong.  In the eyes of Chinese political leaders, the most they can classify Li is just a successful businessman and for political reasons, the importance and existence of SOEs in Hong Kong are more than doing businesses and making money alone.

So, Li now moves his investment to Europe.

[Li Ka-Shing goes shopping in Europe as Hong Kong sales slump] #2

Why does he want to move to Europe when Li has so good connection in China? And Euro crisis and European recession are still not over yet. Perhaps, he sees the value in Europe or the undervalued assets in Europe as The Malay Mail above had suggested.

The 21 Century Business Herald gives another reason. Li predicts his future business development in Hong Kong is limited and his monopoly positions in many business sectors are ending.  However, the decisive reason is he sees his investment in Europe has a stable and predictable future with certainty. In another word, he wants to invest in a business environment that has legal protection.

We have to understand that media in China is controlled. Why does a Chinese publication make such a prediction? Why does Li think there are less legal protections in Hong Kong in future? And the 21st Century even says Li has made a right business decision and strategic move.

What lessons for Singapore?

It is very complicated.

At least, we are lucky Singapore is an independent sovereign country and Singaporeans can decide our future in the present moment.  Legal protection is always here and increasingly, the ruling party has to respect the rights of citizens.

But will the Hong Kong situation happen to us? When our population increases to 7 million, the game play will be very different. We have seen more and more SOEs coming to Singapore as well as many Indian companies too.  In theory, we can do a yin-yang balance to offset all the inflows of Western, Japanese, Chinese, Indian and Korean investments and businesses. Just like what we did in the past 50 years.

But with the increasing mistrust between the PAP and Singaporeans, what will be the future look like? Will the PAP be another Chief Executive of Hong Kong, having limited say in the running of Singapore?  Will Temasek Holdings like another Li Ka-Shing, having less control over Singapore economy? Perhaps, a less monopoly Temasek in Singapore is a good thing to all.  We don’t know.

The Wall Street Journal Chinese edition has an interesting article on political promise in China#3.

This is a book review by a constitutional law professor from Peking University. He talked about several ‘miss’ opportunities for a constitutional (and democratic) China. He said, ‘we entrust everything to the people who rule us and believe the delivery of political promise made by the rulers. Unfortunately, political promise cannot be trusted (given the situations in China).’

The review also touched on the mindset change and political demand of the Chinese:  

[When you realize you have the right to demand something, you are no more a slave. However, the Master has not adjusted to this change and he still treat you like before.  The logic of the Master is simple if you have no power to challenge me, you better wait.  Not to forget, I still hold the national machineries! And our pioneers had fought hard to win the war with your support.]#4    

Singapore’s situation today is certainly better than that of today’s China. Yes. The PAP won the elections in the 1960s with the people’s support. They now control the machineries of the country. But when we awake and demand for more changes, they hesitate and refuse to adjust.  

Under Singapore Constitutions, general elections have to be held regularly, this makes us very differently from China and Hong Kong.  We decide the political stability and legal protection in Singapore.  We still have a final say at least in the coming election.  We should appreciate it and vote wisely.



#1

#2
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/money/article/li-ka-shing-goes-shopping-in-europe-as-hong-kong-sales-slump#sthash.rVxaJAxa.dpuf

#3


#4

你现在站起来向主人讨说法,那就表明你已经不是奴隶了。不过,主人还没有适应这种变化,他还和从前一样把你定位成奴隶。他的主流逻辑是:只要你还没有实力和我叫板,就慢慢等着吧。不要忘记,国家机器掌握在谁手里!这个江山是我们先辈打下来的,当初也是在你们拥戴下得到的。(cn.wsj)

Monday, 12 August 2013

消费李光耀!


谁敢消费李光耀,是他自己还是一些有心人。这可说不准,任何人都可以消费任何人,只要他有这个价值。而没有价值的人,就没人消费,你只要看看2011年大选后下台的部长,还有人在消费他们吗?

消费就是一种交易,一种经济行为,有了交易才会有一个价码,有了消费才知道价值在哪里。一个没有消费交易价值的东西,是没有人要的。就像一只不会动,不会变化的股票,那它的价值价格,就不会有所起落,股民也懒得理它。

但是,从李光耀在发布新书发表会上看来,他似乎不像是自我消费。他对于生死的观念,寻求急死,要求安乐的离去,似乎,他已经不再那么在意,那么的执着于活着,而是一旦有什么三长两短,就要快速离开,而不要痛苦的活着。

甚至对于新加坡,他也不再坚持,对于低生育率,他也无能为力。更加重要的是,即使新加坡沉沦下去,他也不再坚持要从棺材里爬出来,不像从前,只要有一口气,他就要爬出来,为国服务。

李光耀看开了,他不再坚持。因此,他说这是年轻一代的事,他没有办法里,也管不了。这样子推理,李光耀似乎不可能自我消费。但是,没有消费,就显示不出价值来。因此,没有了自我消费,别人就要动脑筋消费消费一下,把冷饭炒一炒,那就能把李光耀这块金字招牌,再次炒出和发挥一下它的价值。

消费,炒饭,冠名

李光耀这块金字招牌被消费的程度,可以说世界少有。美国总统离任后,也不过只有一座图书馆,以他的名字命名。这些总统中有化解核子战争危机的,有解决经济大萧条的,也有平庸的,更有花尽国库的败家子,大家都可以分到一座图书馆的冠名权。

看看新加坡,从大学的学院,再到什么中心,什么奖学金,什么基金,什么奖状,大家似乎越消费越起劲。当然,时不时的有人代笔出出书,消费消费一下,把这盘冷饭再次炒热。

消费李光耀这样的命题似乎是对李光耀大不敬,但是,如果我们观察一下,近几十年来的李光耀的冠名运动,我们很难说,这种行为,不是消费,而是一种尊敬。人家老人家,已经不计较生死,也不执意一定要从棺材里爬出来,有些人,还是要利用李光耀的剩余价值。唯恐自己是最后一个分到消费蛋糕的人。因此,拼命想方设法找出点子,来消费一下李光耀。

其中有一个大道理就是,趁着李光耀在世的时候,把他对世界局势的看法,全球的政治经济走势,未来几十年的变化,给世人留下些许的指示,指引新加坡,甚至世界,应该朝哪一个方向前进。这就是希望把李光耀的剩余价值都给挤干,不让他带走。

论语和红楼梦的伟大在于不完整

有好多的观点,想法,看法,思想,并不一定,一定要在一个人在世的时候完成。反而是,在过世后,由后人整理,修改,论证,才真正的显示出这个人,这本书的伟大之处。

《论语》是孔子过世后,才成书的,是他的弟子根据他的言行,整理出来的。那么,《论语》可以代表孔子的思想吗?当然可以。

曹雪芹的《红楼梦》也没有留下完整的稿本。同时还出现几个版本,真正结局是什么?到现在还在争论之中。但是,他却造就了红学,研究红楼梦的人,还是一直大有人在,而且还一直兴致勃勃。

或许,李光耀并不希望,他的思想,治国理念,具有争论性。尤其是在他大限之后,有一大批争论性的文字出现,因此,自行订立自己的理论依据,立论看法,不要在以后产生争论。他想在有生之年,立下自己的版本,别人代笔,后人的修订,修改,评论的都不是正统,和他无关。


这么看来,李光耀只是把自己的价值定在他自己的标准上。他让自己消费自己,也让别人消费,完全是活着的交易消费价值,而不是大限后的价值。就正如他相信,不可能和夫人相见一样,不在乎天长地久,而只在乎曾经拥有。对于李光耀来说,爱到分离仍是爱。而这个爱,也只有活着的时候才有。


Friday, 9 August 2013

One Man’s View, Can Lee Hsien Loong handle it?

A new book entitled "One Man's View of the World" was recently published by PM Lee’s father. The book conveys senior Lee's views on foreign affairs, international politics and the future of major powers and regions of the world.

Looking at the possible future as described by his father, can PM Lee and his PAP team handle the situation well? Do we have the confidence that the PAP can face the future? If not, PM Lee may claim that the one man’s view is just another Chinese Room Argument.

The Chinese Room argument, devised by John Searle, is an argument against the possibility of true artificial intelligence. The argument centers on a thought experiment in which someone who knows only English sits alone in a room following English instructions for manipulating strings of Chinese characters, such that to those outside the room it appears as if someone in the room understands Chinese. The argument is intended to show that while suitably programmed computers may appear to converse in natural language, they are not capable of understanding language, even in principle. Searle argues that the thought experiment underscores the fact that computers merely use syntactic rules to manipulate symbol strings, but have no understanding of meaning or semantics. Searle's argument is a direct challenge to proponents of Artificial Intelligence, and the argument also has broad implications for functionalist and computational theories of meaning and of mind. As a result, there have been many critical replies to the argument.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/

The PM, who is unable to solve the future problems in one man’s view, can just simply claim that the view is just another artificial intelligence.  So, the PAP is in dilemma either to face an unsolvable future or to deny the artificial intelligence of Lee Kuan Yew.   

In reality, the possible likelihood of the future may be something in between, some true and some not true, some will happen and some will not.   
[“He doesn’t hesitate to explain why one-man-one-vote is unimaginable in China. He laments how Japan is strolling into mediocrity, and observes that Vietnam has yet to be liberated from the shackles of a socialist mindset. He argues that the Arab Spring will not bring democracy to the Middle East.”](CNA, 6 Aug 2013)
So, which of the above is true and which is not true?  We don’t know so do PM Lee and the PAP about the future. The question is do the people of Singapore have trust and confidence that the PAP is the best political party to take on the future challenges?  Heng Swee Keat in his speech at the Economic Society of Singapore explained: 
[The next step is how we strengthen trust and accountability between the Government and fellow Singaporeans, and how we promote mutual understanding among Singaporeans in an increasingly diverse Singapore.]http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2013/08/06/the-singapore-economy-confronting-challenges-anew.php

And as explained by senior Lee, Singapore is too small to change the world and whether past, present and future, we have to manoeuvre among the big countries: 

[As for Singapore, it is too small to change the world, he writes, but "we can try to maximise the space we have to manoeuvre among the big 'trees' in the region. That has been our approach and we will have to be nimble and resourceful to be able to continue to do so".]http://www.asianewsnet.net/Lee-Kuan-Yews-world-views-in-new-book-49696.html

The best defence for the PAP is if the PAP cannot move among the big ‘trees’ smoothly, then the inexperienced oppositions will find it even more difficult to do the same.  True or not true and who is inside the ‘Chinese Room’? Is it the PAP or the people?

In order to manoeuvre among the big countries, as highlighted by Heng Swee Keat, you need the support and trust of the people.  Experience or inexperience, Singaporeans cannot totally base on artificial intelligence prediction of the future.  They have to decide who is best representing their interest.  Who can help to solve the following problems?

Population and birth rate:
Lee said the falling fertility rate remained Singapore's biggest survival threat.

Race and talent:
Malaysia losing talent to keep one race dominant: LKY

Life and health care:
Singapore's Lee says he wants a quick death

Culture and languages:
LKY says NO to Cantonese and Hokkien programmes

And there are many more other problems and situations.

After watching his national day message, do you think Lee Hsien Loong is able to handle the situation inside ‘One Man’s View’?  The book is talking about future scenarios and challenges, PM Lee got the first hand information directly from his father, how is he going to digest and face it?  How would he distinguish the illusions of China Room argument?

Here is one example:

Comparing China’s Xi Jing Ping to South Africa’s Nelson Mandela and saying one-man-one-vote is unimaginable in China, which is a China Room argument? Can PM Lee handle and face it well?

In his senior years and seeking a quick exit in life, senior Lee is now more like a ‘consumer item’ rather than giving insight views of the world.  Singaporeans should provide him a ‘peace of mind’ environment rather than continuing seeking China Room foresights?

To know more about China Room argument, you may visit:





Tuesday, 6 August 2013

谁来主导 打造新加坡梦 星洲家园

 【在欢庆新加坡独立48周年前夕,我们又回到做梦的日子。新加坡梦要如何进行,向哪一个方向出发,星洲家园又是由谁来主导,依照哪些人的意愿来进行呢?
打造一个美好家园,一个新加坡梦。和1965年相比,整个民情,时代背景发生很大的变化。这个梦要建立在怎么样的基础上?今天的新加坡,在做梦的时候,在建立家园的时候,出现了三种不同的诉求:

第一类是人民行动党的支持者和接受行动党理念的人。这类人的数目正在减少中, 尤其是在年轻人之间。这些年轻人好多还是受惠于行动党政府的教育制度,但是,他们更希望国家能够和世界潮流接轨,给他们更多的自由民主,和优质机会。

第二类是反对行动党和不认同行动党治国理念的人。这部分的人数随着世界潮流,在增加中。作为选民,他们可以向行动党施压,要求改变新加坡家园的构造,以符合自己的要求。行动党如果要继续执政,就必须做出妥协。

第三类人或许没有投票权,但是对新加坡来说,尤其是行动党来说,就是救命的最后一根稻草。没有外来投资,没有超级富豪,没有外来人才,在行动党的字典里,新加坡肯定完蛋。那么他们和我们的新加坡梦,星洲家园有没有关系呢?

对于喜欢fixing反对党的行动党来说,管理新加坡其实只要第一和第三类人就可以了。偏偏第二类人开始冒出,他们的出现和日益强大对行动党所要构建的家园,造成很大影响。

这怎么办?新加坡梦要如何满足这三类人的要求?第一和第三类人,不介意贫富差距扩大,不介意房价继续上涨,不介意中下层人民生活素质下降。。。。第三类人更加关心的是他们的投资回报,他们对于生活费的上涨不介意,反正,只要回报高于生活费用,他们的净所得还是正数。

打造家园,构建星洲梦,会不会出现几个版本:一个版本给第一类人看,就是要留住他们的心。另一版本用来安慰第二类人,让他们放心,行动党会照顾他们的利益。第三类人,更是不可得罪,一定要满足他们的要求。

世界上有没有一套政治经济制度,能够满足三类人三种要求?或许,总理一直提倡,高调弹出的‘正确政治,正确经济“,就是一举三得的妙方。可惜,独木难支,总理即使是天才,那他也没有50多年前的行动党团队,那个梦幻组合,在现在的时代背景下还可能出现吗?

因此,未来的新加坡,行动党单方面是绝对不可能独自打造新加坡梦,也不可能构建星洲家园的。对于拜金的行动党来说,这个梦想家园,很可能要由第三类人来主导,依照他们的想法,思路来打造,但是,矛盾就在第二类人身上,行动党认为这类人不合作不妥协,第三类人就不来了。没有了财,如何生财,没有了富,如何富上加富。行动党想不通,你能够想得通吗?

新加坡梦星洲家园比瑞士花园还难实现

打造一个美好家园,一个新加坡梦。当我们的人口接近七百万,外来人口比例占了40%以上的时候,新加坡家园应该由谁来主导,由谁来打造,还会是行动党吗?到时,还会是行动党执政吗?或许,还是一个预想不到的结局?

总理要谈家园,看来他希望在任期内完成一个不可能的任务。我们曾经一度要打造瑞士家园,吴作栋花了14年,无法完成。总理还有7年的时间,他能够给新加坡人,一个怎么样的梦,怎么样的家园。他打算做到2020年,他将如何整合新加坡人,凝聚国人,以及如何号召一批外人,和他一起打拼新加坡,打造一个真正属于新加坡人的家园。

这个新加坡梦,这个星洲花园,看来比吴作栋的瑞士花园还难完成。为什么这么说呢? 吴作栋时代的社会成本,营运成本,工作机会都没有像现在这样更具挑战性。而新加坡的发展,在国民所得的增加上,遇到了瓶颈,好多已经是世界第一,再向上升,只能加剧贫富距离。

我们现在作为一个国际财富管理中心,更加要为富人服务。富人不来,我们创造不出财富,没有新添的财富,如何进行分配,为穷人打造家园呢?

英美两国的借鉴,财富集中在1%

新加坡喜欢英国美国式的发展模式,这意味着我们的财富分配会更加像英美两国,下面两个图表显示这两个国家的最有钱的1%人,在国家财富中的比例,从1979年到2007年,年年增加。事实上,这1% 最富有的人,一直占着国家财富
30%40%,如果是以最富有的10%人来计算,国家财富的三分二集中在这10%人手中。

英国的数据显示,富者愈富,贫者在经济发展中没有得到好处。

美国的资料也证明富者愈富,最富有的1%人,财富大幅度上升。
 
在英美两国,最下层的50%-60%人,实际收入是负增长。因此,当我国的统计数字显示,过去10多年,低收入家庭,实际工资没有增加,这一点也没有奇怪。

因此,英美两国的低收入家庭基本上已经没有梦了。这两个图表的数据是到2007年,我们大家都知道之后发生了金融大风暴,好多人连家都没有了。

新加坡的发展策略就是根据这个模式,总理还说希望引进更多的超级富豪,这是一个富上加富的模式。也正如下面这篇报道所说的那样:外来财富加剧新加坡的不平等。

Foreign wealth widens inequality in Singapore


中下层人民如何构建家园?

对于中低下层人民来说,总理要为他们打造一个怎么样的家园?在贫富差距加剧,在富上加富的模式下,总理如何分配国家财富,如何满足这些人的家园需要。

美国的数据也显示,新的工作就业机会虽然有所增加,但是在素质和薪金上,都大不如前。美国的就业人士,已经不像以前斤斤计较工作的满意度,生活和工作平衡,花红等等,这对雇主来说,是一个好消息。反映在新加坡也是如此。新加坡40岁以上的专业经理技术人员(PMETs),一旦失去职业,想找一份同样薪金的,同样素质的工作,几乎是不可能的事。

对于这些中年人士,他们原本就在打造一个家园,遇到职场上的不如意,他们的家园计划,就很可能出现危机。孩子的学园计划,也会受到影响。

这些情形,是目前世界经济状态下的问题。如果,全球经济出现危机,欧美日本复苏无望,外来资金又被调回本国,行动党如何打造和给新加坡人一个怎样的家园?

或许,我们的家园是别人的天长地久。我们曾经拥有过这个天长地久,但是,如果是行动党政府继续执政,它就会让外人来主导和打造新加坡,因为,我们的生育率是无法提高的:

李光耀在他撰写的新著《李光耀观天下》(“One Man’s View of the World”)中说明,他会推出这个政策至少一年,以证明我们的低生育率,与经济、金融因素,如生活成本增加或缺乏政府的帮忙无关。他认为,我国的低生育率主要是因为生活方式和心态的转变,而这是政府所无法扭转的。news.omy.sg

既然如此,土生新加坡人越来越少了,那么,我们的家园,不就是别人的天长地久了吗?