Wednesday, 27 November 2013

Thinking Questions, Tuition Questions and the Owl Questions

(The thinking questions of PSLE exam are mostly likely ended up as tuition questions at tuition centres.  Perhaps, more specialised tutors are needed for this niche market. Who say the government is not enterprising?  It is indirectly growing the industry. However, after all the thinking, the owl still cannot find his way out, why?)

The PSLE exam is now shifting to test thinking skills and how much learning a candidate obtains.  Ironically, these thinking questions will become the challenging questions for the tuition centres.  Each will compete with each to come out with the best solutions to the thinking questions.

So, the Ministry of Education is giving tuition centres another marketing tool for promoting themselves.  Really, do we need a tough and high standard of thinking questions to distinguish students?

An owl question
May I ask this funny question? When the owl flied into the office of the Prime Minister the other day, what was this bird thinking or did the owl do a thinking calculation at all before entering the Istana?  Oh!  This becomes a difficult and challenging question.  Perhaps, with his mathematical minds, our PM can give an answer on why the owl flied into his office.

The owl might think too hard on the route to the PMO but unfortunately she was not able to calculate the exit route. So, is the owl thinking inside or outside the box? Most likely the owl was thinking inside the box as she finally needed assistance to fly out of the Istana.

Challenging thinking questions
According to the Education Minister, this year PSLE examination questions are to test students’ thinking skills.  There are challenging questions to test the learning of a candidate: 
[Some of the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) questions this year were crafted differently to guide the students’ thinking, Education Minister Heng Swee Keat revealed on Facebook today (Nov 22).
 “One small refinement we’ve made is to craft the more challenging exam questions in a way that lets our children show what they’ve learnt, while keeping the PSLE standard high,” wrote Mr Heng.] #1
What is the meaning of ‘keeping the PSLE standard high’?  If you want to score A*, you will have to solve these challenging exam questions.  Every school is a good school but not every school is equipped to solve the A* questions.  So, tuition centres come to the rescue.  

In fact, there are many young parents complaining about the difficult thinking questions of primary one or two. So, one can imagine how challenging are the PSLE questions? 

PSLE is a one-way thinking, just like the owl. http://www.straitstimes.com/sites/straitstimes.com/files/psl3110e.jpg
One-way thinking
I am afraid we are training students thinking only one side of the story, just like the flying owl thinking (inside the box) the one-way mission to the Istana.  After taking the one-way exam, the owl could not find a way out.

The owl must have proper education, not necessary taking challenging exam, about what is wrong or right at the first place.  It is wrong to enter a room without permission.  If you are a hacker or intruder, you will be arrested and charged in court. PSLE candidates should know about this before and after taking the exam.  Scoring A* is a one- way traffic and knowing the right and wrong is a two-way traffic.    

Still exam smart
Unfortunately, the schools focus too much on solving challenging questions.  The tuition centres and parents are also too busy preparing students for the exam. So, it ends up with students thinking inside the box – chasing the A*.  Once achieving A*, students go further into another exclusive narrow box in search of more A*.   

Primary school students should be free to think and have fun. Setting challenging questions to maintain high standard for PSLE is dividing ‘have’ and ‘haven’t’. No wonder some tuition teachers can become a millionaire who certainly can help the 'have' to solve the difficult exam questions. 
[Acknowledging that the school-leavers examination may sometimes be more pressurising than desired, he told parents to "find the right balance". He said: "We don’t want to have excessive pressure. Where there is, we have made adjustments, toned it down. But we must not compromise our strengths in developing our children and in preparing (them) for the world, which is going to be very competitive, and for (their) jobs, which will not be easy.”] #2
Preparing our students the high moral standard is far more important than solving the challenging exam questions.  The ‘right balance’ and ‘excess pressure’ that PM referred to is just solving the challenging questions and scoring between A* or A.  It has not solved the fundamental problem.   

#1

#2

Friday, 22 November 2013

技穷才尽–行动党渴望对手犯错

行动党最近频频向工人党喊话,要工人党表明立场,不要躲躲藏藏,捞取政治资本。行动党渴望对手犯错,希望工人党在表明立场出现错误,那么行动党就可以得分,赢回一些政治资本。

行动党要求工人党清楚表明什么立场呢? 
【英兰妮:头巾事件的讨论须考虑我国种族融合】#1
 【哈里古玛批评工人党 争议性课题立场模糊】#2

行动党真的到了技穷才尽的地步,自己不图上进,反而希望从对手表明立场时,如果立论不足,论据不够,就可以捞回政治资本。行动党为何沦落到这个地步。没有了过去的政治优势,没有了(集选区)政治保护网,行动党竟然不懂得如何为国人提供更高素质的生活,反而希望对手犯错,继续执政。

这样的行动党会有前途吗?这样的新加坡前途何在?

这里举两个简单的商业例子来说明:

苹果,三星希望对手犯错吗?

苹果,三星当然希望对手犯错,但是,更重要的是他们对自己有要求,他们要求自己的产品做得更好,更加吸引顾客,更多的人以拥有苹果三星为荣。(行动党应该想一想,新加坡人是否会以它为荣?)

而诺基亚,黑莓呢!在产品设计,多样化都不如对手。他们希望对手的新产品,新设计不受市场欢迎,本身反应迟钝,因此,一输再输,输到把自己都卖给别人。
(行动党一输再输,是否也会把新加坡卖给别人?)

因此,行动党还活在智能手机未上市前的日子。他们希望对手犯错,像诺基亚,黑莓那样,依靠老本来过活。诺基亚,黑莓没有行动党这么好命,他们要在竞争激烈的商场打拼,他们没有像行动党那样有各种的保护网。因此,虽然对手有时也会犯错,但是,总的来说,依靠别人犯错来取分的思维,是要不得的。

这种思维,只能加速自己的灭亡。行动党还活在过去,像过去那样,希望对手犯错,即使错的是一点点的技术错误,例如上街示威,多人集合在一起,都把这些动作放大,好像这些行为,就是误国误民。

时代已经改变了,即使行动党呼吁全民反对黑客,呼吁大家一起反对黑客。但是,了解黑客的行为,了解黑客的目的,和他们要表现的不满,这样一来,未必全民会同意行动党的所作所为。因此,黑客犯错,并不表示人们会全力支持行动党的呼吁,全民反黑客。

所以,全民反对黑客,只不过是行动党的一厢情愿,黑客犯错,并不表示行动党就可以捞到政治资本。反而,人们会反问为何黑客要这么做,目的何在?想通了,行动党的政治资本反而会下降。

邵氏电影,必属佳作?

60,70年代华人电影的帝国,非邵氏电影不可。为何在后来,就连独立制片,独立电影公司都能打倒邵氏,问题出在哪里?这些独立制作,就连菲林,电影的映像,音响效果都不如邵氏,但是还是一样卖座。

为什么? 为何邵氏电影这样的帝国,会斗不过独立制片公司?为什么有着这样多的院线,在香港东南亚有这样多的地皮,现在连一个产业大亨的地位都没有?

是不是希望别人犯错,自己坐在哪里等收成?就是最好的政策?行动党应该尽快的找到为新加坡人追求最大利益,更高素质生活的方法,不然,它的命运将会和诺基亚,黑莓,邵氏电影帝国一样。

即使别人犯错,利益未必归行动党。

后港补选就是一个例子。但是,行动党自己犯错,选民可就不是这么想。选民看到行动党犯错,不但不同情,反而要求更高,结果就出现榜鹅东的结局。

行动党也知道自己不可以再犯错了。一再的犯错就会失去更多的政治资本。人口政策已经失去一些政治资本,但是全国对话却捞不回失去的政治资本。因此,行动党现在的希望就是看到对手犯错。

政策之一就是要工人党清楚表明立场,不要模模糊糊,希望在工人党表明立场后,可以找到错误,加以反击,捞回一些政治资本。

这种一厢情愿的做法,这种不求上进的思维,真的是要不得。它不单不能提高行动党的作战能力,反而加速行动党的灭亡。

为何人才济济的行动党,会看不到历史的教训?难怪人们都说行动党的将军是纸将军,只会纸上谈兵。面对竞争,就只会希望对手犯错,而不会考虑把国家治理的更好,做出更大的成绩来。

工人党市镇会追收居民的欠款不理想,是政治犯错,还是政治加分,行动党心里应该有数。选民也会理解,到底是谁比较体谅人民的疾苦?

新加坡的前途不是建立在行动党犯错,工人党犯错上的。行动党应该想想如何做得更好,而不是好而已。诺基亚,黑莓和邵氏的电影都好,但是,别人做得比你更好,结果就很明显了。

#1

#2







Friday, 15 November 2013

Next life Singaporeans but not PAP men

Life is getting tough for PAP men now and very soon life will become harder and harder for them.  The assumption of born again Singaporeans should not base on the PAP ticket but rather a Singaporean one in general.

I remember seeing an article that a PAP MP said he wanted to be a Singaporean again in his next life. This particular MP is most likely based on the assumption that the PAP will be in power forever and sitting on PAP ticket through the well-designed GRC system he can get elected easily. And there are many directorships and other benefits waiting for him after being elected an MP.

This is the past picture of the PAP and the past fortune of the party.

Life is so different now, especially the life of PAP leaders. They have to fight the war not only in constituency level but also in social media.  So, the ‘next life’ PAP men will have to reconsider their positions and re-calculate the trade-off, the cost-benefit of joining the PAP.

Perhaps, just like many current and ex-PAP men, this particular MP should consider the term “quitters’. Children of PAP men and women are leaving Singapore to seek better future elsewhere. It makes Singaporeans wonder whether born again Singaporeans or next life Singaporeans is the best option, judging from viewpoint of “quitters”.

Next life Singaporeans are the true Singaporeans      

The future Singaporeans will be very different from the present-day Singaporeans. The one-party rule has deeply influenced and affected many Singaporeans in the past. This is in particular for the older generations.

The young Singaporeans and the yet to born Singaporeans will have less of these influences.  They dare to question the government, discuss about policies, and openly supporting alternative parties.

We see changes, whether this is good or bad.   PM Lee said no mercy for hackers and they should be dealt “to the full extent of the law”.  Is this a PAP consensus or a Singaporean consensus? What’s the meaning of “to the full extent of the law”? Why don’t we let the Court to do the judgment?

There are disturbances ahead. Can the PAP handle them well? If we look at the hijab issue, the PAP still wants to solve problems in their old group thinking way:

[“This does little to help resolve a delicate and difficult national issue and runs the danger of encouraging groups, including those from other communities, to take rhetorical positions and make public demands which they may then find difficult to move from,” she said.She was critical of what the WP and National Solidarity Party, who both issued statements last week, said amid growing calls to let uniform officers and nurses don the tudung or hijab.She said they have “presented it in a simple, straightforward matter, with no trade-offs or downsides”.“If it were that easy, we would have been able to solve it long ago, and countries like Turkey (even with a government led by an Islamic party) would not be grappling with similar difficulties,” she said.]
 (http://www.singapolitics.sg/news/wp-%E2%80%9Cstraddling-both-sides-fence%E2%80%9D-hijab-issue-indranee)

Singapore has reached to a time that more open discussions are needed.  If not, why do we set up SG Conversation in the first place?  Difficult questions need public involvement not group thinking. However, the PAP seems to prefer ‘secret’ or private discussions, just like the way they handle the reserve, health care, CPF and poverty issues.    

In the era of social media, the PAP still wants to take time to solve problems at its own pace.  “If it were that easy, we would have been able to solve it long ago”.  This same PAP mentality will also apply to problems solving in housing, transport, healthcare, CPF, poverty etc.  

If you are a born again Singaporean, will you have patience to wait for another 50 years and let the PAP take their own time to solve Singapore problems?


Friday, 8 November 2013

车资检讨后,怎一个“涨”字,说不出口.

如果你只是阅读主流媒体,你看不到一个“涨”字,这个涨字是行动党政府一个沉重的压力,实在是让行动党有口难言,涨字要这么说呢!要怎么解读呢?

过去几天,你看到的报道是车资检讨后,有一百万人,甚至一百七十万人获益。那么其他三百万,四百万人又如何?

车资上涨对行动党来说,真的是压力很大,大到主流媒体不能做出分析,只能选择对政府有利的建议来报道。其他的能够避开就避开。这样的媒体难怪在世界上的自由媒体排名,一直都在下面,抬不起头来。

面对物价,工资,能源的上涨压力,公共交通服务公司提高生产力的回报,所做出的贡献实在是微不足道的。因此,面对车资上涨不单单是政府的决定,还是人民的决定。因此,行动党不愿提车资上涨,不愿把这个课题交给人民来处理,决定。

这里的不同是:国家资源,包括税收的处理,应该如何公平分配的问题。

如果行动党来处理,就由它来做决定。因此,行动党政府设立车资检讨理事会,来检讨未来五年的车资。这个压力很大,原本一个月前就应该出的报告,延期后才出来,你可以想象行动党的压力有多大。(尤其是人口白皮书后,这又是一个不受人欢迎的课题)

如果由人民来决定,要避免车资上涨,或者是上涨幅度不高,国家的资源税收就很可能做出重新的分配,政府的津贴需要增加,甚至把公共交通服务收归国营。这样的选择权,行动党政府会让人民来做决定吗?

因此,最新的车资检讨报告出来,就意味着车资上涨。这个幅度是多少呢?我们看一下下面这个表:

0.4(主要物价指数)+ 0.4工资指数 + 0.2能源指数 – 0.5%生产力回报

前三个项目的比重高,而且在未来五年,有没有机会下调,下降?基本上说不太可能。即使出现经济不好的局面,物价会下降吗?工资会下降吗?能源价格会下降吗?因此,车资上涨的 可能性远远高于下降。如果真的有一百或一百多万人获益,而车资又上涨的活,那么,不是其他人就要买单和多出车资,不然就是政府要增加津贴。

政府没有明说,下个星期才回答。

政府已经拨款给交通业者,让它们买巴士,让他们有一定的获利。这样才能成为股市的优秀股。这种有稳定收入的公司,在股市具有保值的作用。股票市场需要这类股票。

获利不分,生产力才分?

政府的解释是符合经济效益的。我们需要确保公共交通的素质,效率,因此,没有获利,就不能维持下去,公司倒了,整个新加坡都不好。因此,行动党是基于不让SMRTSBS关门,才出钱津贴他们买巴士的。

或许我们这么想:黑老大对公关小姐说,你到赌场去赌钱,我出本钱,赢了归公关小姐,输了黑老大买单。黑老大要的是小姐的服务和生产力,其他的输赢无所谓。

因此,作为公关小姐的SMRTSBS,当然很乐意,这是一门包赢的生意。赢了钱,黑老大不要,又不用跟其他的人分享。多好!至于服务和生产力,就只有天知道了。

为何车资理事会把生产力纳入车资检讨中,而不把公共交通公司的盈利也考虑在内?这是不是有点像公关小姐。

公共交通服务公司之所以能够有盈利,完全是政府的特许经营权,再加上人民的使用相关的交通。如果没有这两者,他们如何能够获得盈利?

因此,车资报告书的重点是这是一个人人负担得起的车资结构,它考虑到下层人民的需要,他们的负担能力。报告书其实还说,家庭收入增加已经使到负担能力和收入间的距离拉近了。(报告书47页)


是否如此,车资检讨报告书是否会像人口白皮书一样,面临同样的命运,人口,车资,行动党政府还有多少个压力,多少个痛?

Monday, 4 November 2013

Sampan Politics Sampan Economics


[PM Lee calls for a new Sampan Project 2.0 to remind Singaporeans of our venerability. It is just a continuation of his Right Politics Right Economics.  Unfortunately, his sampan technology fails to see the reality of social media. As a result, it is difficult for the PAP to get the field study right. ]  
Another sampan is another summer insect to the winter ice. An insect will never have the chance to experience the winter cold in his short summer life.

Project Sampan is just another failed field study that will cost the PAP dearly, on top the workable but less value generated machine of lab study.

Lab study vs. Field Study
Debating whether lab study is more effective than field study in predicting behaviour, most people will point to field study because it gives the realism of actual feedbacks.   However, despite heavy investment on field study, the People’s Action Party still can’t figure out the real problems and it now looks more like a sampan heading to nowhere.

Lab study is like using sampan technology and it worked very well in the past. For field study, you will have to apply internet and social media skills.

Less effective lab study comparing to the past
What is a lab study? The PAP controls almost all the information and data in Singapore. From where you stay, how much you earn, how you travel, how you spend your money, even up to a cluster of voting pattern in your neighbour, the PAP has all these raw data.  They can easily process the data and create values for their own use.  This is why they are so good in re-drawing electoral boundary, grouping of constituencies and sometimes creating new and deleting ‘risky’ constituencies.

In the past 50 years, the PAP has managed their lab study very well. And the study does not disappoint them. 

However, with more and more sophisticated voters, lab study has reached its maximum use. It now faces the fate of diminishing return.  The more the PAP carries out the lab studies, less or even negative values will be created.  The percentage of votes gained in past elections indicates such a trend.

So, the PAP has to invest heavily in field study to get more feedbacks, more accurate returns.

Using sampan technology to conduct field study
What is a field study? In fact, we see them every day. Do you know Feedback Unit? The very first field study initiative to get the ‘real’ feedbacks from the people. You may also hear of the many “Cs”, be it CCC, CC, grassroots organisations, etc. Of course, you cannot miss the NTUC where they get feedbacks from the unions. 

So far, the biggest investment is the SG Conversation and perhaps to a less extent, for the benefit of overseas Singaporeans, the feedbacks expand to overseas – the yearly Singapore Day.

However, field study is less successful than the lab study for the PAP. Information and data collect from different field study channels do not represent the real population.  The samples are bias so do the results.  One thing you have to respect the PAP is that the more failures they receive the more and larger field studies with even bigger budgets they will commit.  So, they are spending tax money for their own good – for the mission (and in the name of inconclusiveness) of getting real feedbacks.

Why? Why is it so difficult to get the real feedbacks despite spending millions of dollars?

First, the samples are wrong. They have bias samples for not randomly selected participants.   So, they are forced to do within groups study and analysis. Sometimes, they also blame the various “Cs” for providing wrong or imperfect information.  They also blame the unions never give the ‘real’ situation – how come no real wages increases for more than 10 years, unions never give the feedbacks.  They also blame the Feedback Unit never reach out to the ‘right’ people.

So, they want to reach out. You see ministers taking public transport, you see MPs looking for high flying objects, you see minister spot check the living spaces of foreign workers, you hear tuition is not necessary, you hear poverty classification is not necessary, you hear flood comes only every 50 years, and after all the achievements, Singapore is still a ‘sampan’. 

In one word, the PAP is using sampan technology to reach out, to get ‘real’ feedbacks.

Therefore, the result of the field study is a one-side Singapore story that the PAP has collected from the people, either intentionally or unintentionally.      

This ineffective filed study will cost the PAP dearly. Despite having all the information from both lab and field studies, they still cannot direct the sampan to the right direction.  

So, a PAP sampan remains a sampan. The PAP remains a PAP with no possibility of gaining back the high percentage votes obtained in the early ‘sampan’ days.

Perhaps, by now you know why PM Lee still considers Singapore a ‘sampan’.  He is in fact referring to his own ‘PAP sampan’ – failing to get the real feedbacks from people.  He is using the same old ‘sampan’ technology to get Singaporean feedbacks.    

Sampan technology for feedbakc in an internet era?   www.demo.com.hk

Advice from Zhuangzi on sampan technology
A ‘sampan’ has no imagination of the world of social media and internet.  Of course, the ‘PAP sampan’ will also not approach social media for feedbacks. Zhuangzi has this advice to the PAP: Never discuss (winter) ice with a summer insect. (夏虫不可以语冰)A sampan technology and a social media technology is really a different world in different era.

So, we cannot talk to PM Lee and the PAP about the feedbacks in the internet era. Like the summer insects, we are in different worlds so do different feedbacks for different purposes.


For PM Lee, his ‘Right Politics Right Economics’ remains a ‘Sampan Politics Sampan Economics’.  For Project Sampan 2.0, it is an equivalent of summer insects to winter ice.  Good luck to the summer insects and the PAP sampan!    

Friday, 1 November 2013

慧眼看新加坡 唤醒公民意识

【有关年轻博客韩慧慧与私教理事会的纠纷,现在很可能进入司法程序,慧慧准备把事情交由法庭来判断,私教理事会作为一个法定机构是否可以向公民提出诉讼。如论如何,这对唤醒新加坡人的公民意识有帮忙,正如巡回大使许通美教授所渴望的那样-新加坡能设立一个申诉专员。】

公民意识不强,人民申诉无门,1959年自治以来,行动党政府从来就没有把公民意识,公民申诉放在心里。行动党心里,眼里,手里就只有资本主义的金科玉律,一切对经济发展有利的事情,大开绿灯,公民的基本权利,公平的申诉管道有没有,这不是行动党关心的。

因此,就连许通美这样接近行动党政府的人,也希望政府能够设立申诉专员,而更把这个申诉专员的设立,看成他的“未完成的梦”("unfulfilled dreams")。

许通美为什么会这么想,难道这个梦真的这么难完成吗?今年76岁的许教授,熟悉法律,也了解政府的运作,当然也包括司法程序,为何申诉专员的设立会如此的艰难,当你想一想韩慧慧这个年轻女孩的遭遇,你就会明白这真的很艰难,这真的是‘官字两个口,有理说不清’。

雅虎新加坡在许通美发布新书的报道中有这么一段报道:

【许通美说:“申诉专员是一个重大的发展。我认为我们有一个良好的公共服务,很少贪污,但是,即使一个伟大良好的公共服务,有时也会发生错误。你知道在现阶段,司法检讨还无法涉入(调查)这些错误。

雅虎在报道中也说明了申诉专员的功能。申诉专员是一个独立的(机构)。它代表了公众的利益,来调查政府部门(也应该包括法定机构)一些令人怀疑的,不公平的办事行为。】#1

一党独大容不下申诉专员 也容不下言论自由

许通美的“梦想“不是没有道理的。如果,新加坡有申诉专员,那么,慧慧和私教会的纠纷,根本就不需要搬上法庭,浪费人力物力,想一想慧慧这个21岁的女孩,还是个学生,怎么有能力负责一笔很大的法庭,法律费用呢?

写到这里,新加坡的公民意识是不是太。。。我们为何还需要一个还未工作,入世未深的女孩,唤醒我们的公民意识,因此,无论结果如何,我们都应该给慧慧一个“赞“字。

如果你上维基看看,世界上,已经有80个国家#2设立了申诉专员,不用说,新加坡榜上无名。这些国家中,有发达国家,也有比新加坡落后很多的国家。因此,申诉专员不是有钱国家专有的。也不是一直要假借认为自己没钱的新加坡,一直假借坚持在一些方面自认落后的新加坡,可以作为借口来不跟上的原因。

因此,我们只能说行动党一党独大,容不下一个申诉专员。当然,慧慧的案件也涉及到言论自由的问题。

法定机构有没有权力告人

事实上,私教理事会的例子,反而是倒过来。私教会竟然动用新加坡最大的律师楼发律师信给慧慧,说她诽谤私教会的名誉。10月初,这件事原本已经结案。但是,私教会认为是慧慧先主动议和,而不是私教会主动议和。因此,才出现峰回路转。

(从一个角度看,私教会的管理层,似乎不会做人,当然,也不会做事。不懂得以和为贵。更给人一种高高在上的感觉。)

但是,现在的争论点是,慧慧要法庭诠释,法定机构是否可以利用公款(公家单位利用人民的钱)来把公民告上法庭。(进一步的细节,可以向下面链接获得)

新加坡有很多东西是反过来做的。法定机构不单不受申诉专员的监视,还可以动用公款,请最好的律师来告一个普通老百姓。难怪,许通美一直无法完成他的梦想。一直有这个未完成的心愿。对于这位这么熟悉政府运作的人,他是不是看到一些我们看不到的东西,一些我们想都想不到的东西???

在一党独大下,事实上,人民已经养成一种害怕政府的心态,只有政府告你,哪里轮到你告政府。因此,慧慧这个举动,无疑的是唤醒了新加坡的公民意识。
原来,政府,法定机构也一样可以被人告。但是,正因为如此,个人财力物力有限的慧慧才需要筹款#3,才需要我们支持。

许通美提出的申诉专员,韩慧慧的司法诠释,不是都在说明,我们的国家缺少了什么,缺少了公民意识,缺少正义,公义。我们在行动党的恐吓下成长,我们在行动党自认政府最优秀的背景下工作生活,似乎忘记了我们应该拥有的权利。

不要忘记,我们还有最后最大的一个权利,我们有投票权。因此,当我们的公民意识开始抬头,正义获得伸张时,我们也要知道如何善用手中的选票,来向行动党说不。



#1
"It'll be great to have an ombudsman," he said. "I think we have a great public service, very little corruption, but even a great public service sometimes makes mistakes, you know, and at the moment such mistakes are beyond judicial review."

An ombudsman, essentially, is an independent person who represents the interests of the public by investigating complaints of unfairness in instances where a government body's decision could be questioned. 

#2

#3