Saturday, 25 January 2014

行动党最爱的人伤行动党最深


行动党最喜欢强调外来人才的重要,强调他们对新加坡的贡献,哪里知道最后却被这些人出卖了。这种出卖行为,如果没有社交媒体,就很可能不了了之,大事化小小事化无,主流媒体也懒得跟进,我们想想看,在没有社交媒体的时代,这样的新闻能够见报吗?

安顿·凯西(Anton Casey)只是在面簿上留言,羞辱地铁搭客为贫穷人,看不懂德士师傅的行为,还投诉要把身上因为搭公交的恶臭洗掉,就能正常过活了。搭地铁的人占人口的大多数,得罪了这些人,就是和自己的选票过不去。因此,行动党不得不出动部长来批评凯西,尽量把这种出卖行为的伤害减到最少。

是谁让凯西的嚣张行为膨胀?是谁让凯西拿了好处,还反过来咬了行动党一口?这是行动党最伤心的地方。行动党自己最清楚,自己精心制造出这么多高薪职位,把这些外来人才引进,就是希望他们好吃好住开得上跑车,不要牵涉到本地人的事物,社交圈子也在上流社会之间,不要和本地人有太多的接触。

哪里知道,事情都是会出现状况,跑车需要维修,不得不坐一回地铁。不幸的是只坐一次地铁,就把行动党给出卖了。害得尊贵的凯西要为自己和孩子消毒,防止地铁搭客的恶臭长留他们身上。我们的地铁服务真的好可怜啊!今年已经发生4次停车事故,现在,还要背上传播恶臭的罪名。

看来在小印度事件后,行动党的禁酒圈地范围要进一步扩大,不只是低薪的外劳需要管制,限制他们在一定范围喝酒,一定范围娱乐休息的双规外,对外来人才,也要进行双规:只准在高档的地方出入,只准私人的交通服务(怪动作的德士服务不准)。

这样一来,外劳不会和外来人才接触,当然他们也不会和本地人接触,因此,形成一国三制。前两者没有投票权,因此,把他们隔离开,不与本地人接触,就会减少摩擦,国人的不满也会减少。小小的新加坡真的能够一国三制吗?

行动党这么爱惜外来人才,现在却要对他们进行双规,真的有点说不过去。但是,回头想一想,得到好处的既得利益者,会是这么想吗?他们在美酒加咖啡后,会感恩行动党给他们这个发财机会吗?行动党的痛,就是痛在这里,那些得到好处的高薪者,最好不要发言,不然就会得罪选民。现在是行动党这任政府的中期,如果继续有人出卖行动党,后果就是不堪设想。但是,只要社交媒体存在,面簿推特在,犯错的机会多得是,行动党能够防得了吗?

凯西的言行,不论在东方还是西方,都是行不通的。问题是为何他不对英国地铁的恶臭有所表示,而对有恩于他的新加坡地铁有所怨言,是不是行动党把这些人给宠坏了,让他们得以如此的嚣张。行动党现在才感受到被这些人出卖,是不是太迟了呢!在西方的资本主义社会,政客们都知道一人一票,贫穷人占了大数,任何人得罪贫穷人,就不用中选。但是作为外来人才,既得利益者,凯西就没有行动党的政治压力,他不需要为行动党的政治资本着想。凯西得罪了选民,他一家人可以远走高飞,可是行动党不行,除非行动党的头头也跟凯西一样,也想在领了高薪后,可以远走高飞,那行动党就不需要理地铁恶臭的后续问题。

地铁频频出现问题,已经深深的影响了行动党政府的诚信,效率问题。小印度又出现外劳问题,再加上凯西影射出来的外来人才问题,看来我们的人口政策需要一个更加深入的思考,而不是单单690万人这个简单的指导方针。


建国50年,需要新点子来庆祝,如果交通,保安,组屋,社会问题没有解决,社交媒体又加大管制,多些新规定,我们还会有心情想新点子吗?更为重要的是,凯西会是最后一个出卖行动党的人吗? 

Wednesday, 22 January 2014

Institutional Challenges and Constitutional Struggles in Singapore


[More police power in Little India shows the institutional challenge side of story. It also posts a constitutional struggle for being a police state by giving extra power to the police. ]  

The publication of “The Singapore Constitution: A Brief Introduction”#1 by a group of SMU students clearly shows that there is a lack of constitutional education in Singapore. In addition to the insufficient education, ‘3 out 4 local lawyers leave practice in the first 10 years practising law’ indicates the constitutional struggles in Singapore. Why is there no interest in fighting justice in the Courts? Very few Singaporeans have in fact a serious understanding of our Constitution, even within the law practice professionals.  

Institutional challenge can come from external factors as shown in the Little India riot.   But the greatest institutional challenge may be the philosophical questions of ‘are we proud of being Singaporeans’ and ‘Singapore belongs to whom – rich or poor Singaporeans’.

Since independence, Singapore under the PAP government has wanted to project a ‘strong’ institution and ‘weak’ constitution in the running of the country. As what the PAP claimed we need a strong institution so that we can deal with all the difficult problems facing a new nation.  Our economic model is also based on this format so that we can have an efficient market environment.

This model has worked well.  It is so successful that Singapore is now one of the richest nations in the world. Unfortunately, we have reached a turning point, a new political norm that posts many institutional challenges and constitutional struggles for Singapore.

The following examples show the ‘loose’ definition of institutional challenges in Singapore:

-Little India Riot;
-SMRT bus drivers’ illegal strike;
-Corruptions involving senior civil servants;
-MRT breakdowns;
-Hong Lim Park’s protest on Population White Paper.
-CPF and reserves: More and more people are showing interest and more and more are demanding to know more.

The following examples show the constitutional struggles in Singapore:

Hougang by-election court case: The Court has to give the meaning of ‘by-election’.  However, the PM finally called it even he has a right to call or not to call one. The PM is struggling between the PAP and public definition of the Constitution. Is his decision (to call the by-election) under the pressure of public and international opinion?

PE2011: The voters clearly have a better understanding of ‘what an independent President’ can do. They have clearly rejected the pro-PAP candidate with nearly two-thirds of the votes. The voters have yet to agree with ‘how independent they want’ and are struggling to decide the ‘check and balance’ role of an elected president under the Constitution.

Access to counsel: ‘Even as the High Court dismissed alleged hacker James Raj Arokiasamy's application for immediate access to counsel, it ruled prosecutors had failed to show that allowing him access would have jeopardised investigations.’#3This news report looks more like a constitutional struggle (to please both sides) to me.

Anti-gay law: ‘Singapore's High Court on Wednesday dismissed a constitutional challenge against an archaic law criminalising sex between men, the second such petition turned down this year. In a written judgment, the court reiterated an earlier ruling that it was up to Parliament to repeal the provision in the penal code, known as Section 377A.’ #4 The Court wants to shift the constitutional struggle back to the Parliament.

Internal Security Act: It will be hard to imagine the government can use the ISA as it did in the past. Malaysia has already done away with it. Under the constitutional struggle, what is the new political meaning of the ISA? Will it become a political paper tiger?

Balancing institutions and constitutions

With a political norm coming, the past ‘strong’ institutions and ‘weak’ constitutions framework will have to change.  The above examples indicate a new balance between institutions and constitutions is coming.

Any future government, whether PAP or oppositions, will not enjoy the same kind of ‘strong’ institutions likes the past.  Similarly, when people are aware of their rights, the demand for more check and balance, the willingness in political participation, a ‘weak’ constitution will not be possible too.

This will show the maturity of Singapore and how mature Singaporeans are. Without the protection of ‘strong’ institutions and ‘weak’ constitutions, will it be more difficult to run Singapore? And how will it affect the future talent pool of the PAP leadership? Considering politics no more an easy game, are they fighters or quitters?


#1

#2

#3

#4

http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/singapore-court-dismisses-challenge-against-anti-gay-law

Wednesday, 15 January 2014

奸商, 还是无心之过?

一个产品两个价格,用意何在?





【从这个例子中, 我们看到人们为何‘生气’。明明可以省钱,反而要付出更多。经商治国如果只是贪图小利,将永远无法取得人们的信任。】







每次到超市买东西都要很小心,一不小心,就很可能损失几分或几角钱。这些小钱就像鸡肋一样,食之无味弃之可惜。明明是特价品,快过期的产品,付款时,还是要多加注意,不然,就会中招,白白让超市多赚一点小钱。超市真的这么贪得无厌吗?还是无心之过,没有把好关,没有培训好员工,没有认真的对待客人,尤其是购买特价廉价快过期产品的低薪低收入购物者。

难道,他们也像行动党一样,不顾小节,只照顾大客户,那些来买特价快过期产品的低收入消费者,不需要认真对待,他们要冒险买特价产品,就应该冒这个风险 --- 一个可能导致付出更多代价的风险,一个需要多付几分几角的风险。如果真是如此,那就是奸商了。

一直很费解为何一个产品出现两个价码,一个新的,特价而价格比较低的,另一个旧的,比较高价格的。为何不能把旧的去掉,而只保留新的呢?为何要制造风险机会,让购物者在付款的时候,还要多加小心,提醒收银员,注意新价格。有时候,连收银员都不清楚,还问购物者为何有两个价格?说真的,你也不可能一直盯着收银员,后面还有一大堆人在排队付款,大家只想快快结账,快快走人。但是,一回到家里,发现又中招了,又让超市多赚几分几角钱,心里就觉得很不满意,为何买特价低价产品的人就要受这个气?

(一个产品两个价格,只是超市多赚小钱的方法之一。每个星期,超市的价格出现变动,而电脑无法及时更改,更新,那小钱就变成不是小钱了。如果两个价格问题会出现,其他比这更大的问题,你能确保不会发生吗?消费者协会又能做些什么?)

明明是消费者最大,反过来却是受害者。明明是帮忙超市把快过期的产品消费掉,大家都有好处,超市可以多赚一些,购物者可以节省一些,当然,这也符合环保,符合节约的美德。总之,为何好事会变成坏事呢?超市作为企业,事实上,有必要注意对消费者的服务,要做到童叟无欺,公平的对待所有的购物者。但是,从他们对待特价低价产品的态度上,很难说他们已经做到第一世界的水准了。为何它们不要加强消费的信任度呢?

既然企业都忽略了公平对待购物者,那么作为政府当然也会有意无意的看走眼,不小心的得罪人民。得罪了,甚至还不知道?就拿地铁,巴士服务,新路通车来说,政府一直强调我们的交通服务是世界一流的,但是,一旦这些服务出现问题,它给消费者带来的不便,就成了“生气”政府的原因了。时间的损失,车费的损失,德士费的损失,这些损失可比超市的几分几角多得多了。因此,公共交通使用者,怎能不生气呢?当然,这笔账,这笔白花的钱就要算到政府头上了。最可怜的是有些当官的,还是不明白事理,还在问“为何人们如此生气?” 
Sometimes we also scratch our heads and say: “Why are people so angry?” #1

大家使用公共交通,就是要把公共交通费压低,可以节省开支。现在,不单没有压低,反而时不时还要多付出,超市只是多赚几分几角,交通费的损失就没有这么廉价了,从几元到几十块钱。公共交通使用者去找谁来填这笔数目?既然没有人买单,气就只好发到行动党身上了。作为政治人物,不知人民生气的原因,还一直在追问人民为何生气,那就很可能是政治白痴了。

不论是几分几角还是几元几十块钱,新加坡如果真的要成为第一世界国家,我们的态度,经商态度,治国态度,真的还有很多改进的地方。不需要问为何消费者不满,为何生气,问问自己有没有做到更好,有没有做到令人信服,有没有公平公正的对待消费者和人民?

超市可以把买低价产品的风险转嫁给购物者,让贪小便宜,要节省一点钱的低收入人士来承担,那么,对于政府来说,要把风险转嫁出去,不是更加容易了吗?政府掌握着全国庞大的资源,你斗得过它吗?既然斗不过,就只能生气,越多人生气,就越多人投反对票。

不论是经商还是治国,如果一直把消费者当成傻瓜,一直不加强信任度,最后的结果,将是失去原有的地盘,失去原有的江山。或许,一直过惯垄断经商,垄断政治环境的企业和行动党来说,改变的时机还没有到来,好日子还在,你们生气归生气去吧!


#1


Thursday, 9 January 2014

Towards A Targeted Socialism Not Minimum Socialism

The PAP is using $1000 to showcase the targeted democratic socialism announced last year. Cleaners and guards will have a guided basic wage of $1000 per month.  And the PAP claims that this is not minimum wage. Only affected companies need to comply if they want to renew their licenses and stay in business.

What is the difference between a targeted wage and a minimum wage? We don’t know as we have to watch the development whether all Singapore workers will demand for $1000 per month when applying for a job.  Now, there is a targeted wage rate, will other industries follow or not?

More importantly, will this close the gap between the rich and the poor? Most likely not, from $800 to $1000 looks like a big increase of 20%, but what is $200 per month to a high income earner?  So, this is a targeted approach, just like a 5-year plan, how often will it adjust? Or, the target is set intentionally low - an outdated calculation just to showcase the so-called democratic socialism. Because there is a popular demand and because the fact shows no wage increase in the past 10 years, the PAP is forced to come out with a lower than expected targeted wage guideline?

So, when we talk about Swiss standard of living, it is a target, and not the minimum. Now, you know why only few have achieved the Swiss standard of income (may be living too), but majority of us are still looking at the target, laughing at the target.     
Hence, when announcing this new strategy, DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam said, “Our approach is different.  We want to raise incomes while helping everyone, including those with less skills, to stay on the job ladder.”  (Today, 9 Jan 2014).
Direct or Indirect Way

By using a targeted approach, the PAP is using an indirect approach in helping lower income workers. In fact, in the past 50 years, we have witnessed the change of approach from direct to indirect. From direct taxes to indirect taxes, from no COE, ERP to their implementations, even the public transport companies, there is a targeted rate of return.

The advantage of this indirect approach is that it is very easy to implement. The government just uses administration measures to set the target, a moving and adjustable one, not a promised minimum one.

It means there is no human contact and no real feeling, only through two parties – between employers and employees and the government is an indirect third party.
    
This is the greatest disadvantage of an indirect targeted approach. When prices (COE, ERP, transport fees, taxi fares, school fees, HDB flat price and cost of living) increase, the government does not have a direct feeling. They just adjust the regulations and set a target.   

An indirect targeted approach can become very passive in thinking, in running the country and in solving the real needs of lower income workers. Otherwise, the pro-claimed most efficient government in the world will not wait for more than 10 years or 15 years to look at the problems and try to solve it now (really?).

DPM Tharman admitted that “Cheap-sourcing practices discourage wages, skills, and quality from moving up in the way they do in most other industries.’   (Today, 9 Jan 2014). 
Why does the government allow ‘cheap-sourcing practices’ for so long?  It is because it is an easy way out and indirectly, the government can have extra revenues from work permits, levies etc.

This indirect thinking and approach is now deeply planted in the government administration. So much so that even Temasek also claims that they do not manage CPF monies.

True or False? (Today, 8 Jan 2014)

We all know that CPF monies go to the government through the issuance of government bonds. The government then provides monies to Temasek for investments inside and outside Singapore. Yes, in paper, Temasek does not manage CPF monies directly. However, indirectly Temasek gets the funding from the government. So, who are the main contributors of the sovereign funds to Temasek? The people of Singapore, including CPF members, through the government, give the monies to Temasek for management and investment.

The theory of ‘Temasek does not manage CPF monies’ is an indirect thinking.  Unless, Temasek gets her monies from a foreign source, it then can claim that it is not managing the monies of Singapore.  With this indirect approach and thinking, one wonders whether Temasek’s investment approach is for Singapore or for her own management.  

No wonder up to now, there is still no government issued bonds to fight inflation in Singapore. Under the indirect target approach, can we expect a similar inflation-indexed ibond#1 on offer in Singapore?   


#1


Monday, 6 January 2014

从直接到间接面对人民 看行动党治国思维之变

提出民主社会主义,强调民主社会治国,其实也证实新加坡正走向,或者已经是一个租赁经济(Rentier Economy)。在上一篇博文中,我已经简单介绍了这个模式。在租赁经济模式下,政府可以很富有,同时又不需要很努力,依靠行政手段,就可以获得很高,高于一般市场回报的报酬率,即租金。

国家在高租金回报的情形下,变得富有,接着下来,就是分配的问题。在阿拉伯,文莱等地,公民不需要缴税,同时可以很获得大量的津贴。但是,财富分配权都是掌握在皇室手中,他们喜欢怎么分配,人民一般没有话语权,外人外劳更不用说了。这种单方面的 分配国家财富的做法,很容易造成社会摩擦。尤其是年轻人在国家提供免费教育,知识提高而就业无门的情形下,不满就会增加,对当权者的态度更是多加批评和反对。

这种情形对新加坡来说,似乎似曾相识。我们的年轻人口教育都比上一辈人来得高,还懂得双语呢?因此,行动党想要继续单方面控制国家财富的分配权,凭着租赁经济模式继续管理和计划国家财富,遇到的阻力就会越拉越大。而只要有一点让人不满的地方,事情就会变大,批评声浪就会不断出现。

这看起来是走向两个极端:行动党不了解民情,只是依着自己的意思走,根本不知道问题的所在, 依然以老模式分配财富。而人民呢!对行动党这套老的旧的分配方式,当然不满。尤其是总理认为的部分(问题?)网民,一见到不满,不合口味的事情,就批评,就反对。

放下身段与外劳吃饭

前几天看到总理和‘平乱’有功的小印度事件的前线人员共进早餐,我一直在想这个问题:为何总理不能和外劳共进早餐,一起吃饭?如果外劳对我们的经济建设贡献真的如此的高,我们新加坡人真的应该放下身段和他们一起吃饭,促进双方的了解,打造一个更加美好的新加坡。

在租赁经济模式下,获取高租金的管理人员,政府官员,的确很难理解只获得低于基本租金回报的人的心声。因此,总理看到的是一群政府直接管理的‘平乱’人士,而看不到另一群对经济建设有贡献的人。事实上,用上‘平乱’这样的字眼,已经很清楚把这两群人区分开来了。

如果行动党提出来的民主社会主义,真的有所见效的话,总理和政府官员的思维,也要跟着这条民主社会的路走。在吃早餐的问题,我看不到这点改变,总理的思维还是停留在租赁经济的状态中,他看到的是直接影响(保护)他的高租金政策的一群人,而没有看到同样能够拉倒新加坡经济的另一群人。

租赁经济思维深入治国方针

新加坡整个治国思维,在很成功的租赁经济模式下,已经很难考虑到低于市场租金的活动。外劳,女佣,和低薪工友在新加坡所从事的工作,其实就是低于市场租金的活动。当我们考虑奖学金得主,外来人才的时候,我们想到的是他们高租金的回报。外来投资者,赌场豪客,金融大鳄,当然也是高租金的报效者。

所以,我们的服务,就是要建立在服务高租金引导者,建立者和设计者身上。那些低租金创造者不是重点,不论是国人还是外国人,他们不享有话语权,他们是替代品。因为,有很多其他地区的人愿意来新加坡替代他们,抢他们的低租金职位。而高租金创造者却是国际稀有品,各国都欢迎他们。

但是,不论什么地方,都要有人从事低下的工作,整个社会才能顺利的运行。尤其是,一人一票的选举制度,行动党就不能不重视他们。这一点连行动党本身过去的做法也觉得不妥,所以,它提出民主社会主义来提醒自己。因为,如果再这样下去,不注重低租金创造者,基本票将会流失,行动党的政权就保不住了。

下面举出三个例子,来说明行动党思维是如何远离民主社会主义,而成了租赁经济的模范。 
 
从缴税看话语权。行动党看在钱的份上,高收入者,
间接税和公司税当然有更高的话语权。
#2

税务改变:从直接变成间接

自从消费税在1994年代推出后,我国的税务重心已经从直接税转向间接税。当然,我们也很自豪的向世人说,我们是世界上个人和公司税务最低的国家之一。很自然的,这样的安排,也促进了租赁经济的发展,制造更多高租金的机会,拉大贫富距离。

不过,有一种发展趋势却是行动党本身可能都没有觉察到的。那就是从直接税到间接税,政府向人民直接抽税的机会就减少了。很多税务都是通过间接方式抽取,‘人’的因素不见了。政府不需要‘直接’看人民的脸色来抽税,而是通过间接的行政手段来抽税。

因此,政府大声的说,大部分的新加坡人是不用缴(个人所得)税的。只有少部分高薪,高租金人士,才缴税,因此,这些人才对新加坡的财政收入做出巨大贡献。我们需要重视他们,让他们有话语权。相比较之下,没有直接缴税的人,话语权当然就降低了,或者,如外劳等根本不应该有话语权。

表面看来,的确如此,不然美国独立运动也不会发生。波士顿倒茶事件#1,就是因为当地商人认为,自己缴税后,在英国国会还是没有话语权,没有代表,因此就示威抗议,不再缴税。

从行动党政府的直接观感来判断,没有直接缴税的低薪人士,和直接缴税的高收入人士相比,两者当然有所不同。一个应该给予多些话语权,另一个根本没有资格来谈判话语权。久而久之,几十年下来,在行动党政府眼中,就看不到间接缴税的低收入人士。不止如此,在行动党政府眼中,它还要倒贴这些低收入者,如津贴组屋,津贴医药,津贴教育,津贴交通,。。。总之,对于低收入者,政府只有津贴钱出去,没有收钱进来的。

这种思维一旦形成,就成了今天的租赁经济模式,考虑事情,也总是看表面的直接的纳税人士的欢喜。而把大多数人看成是国家的累赘,赔钱货。所以,时不时,我们会听到行动党头头会说,一人一票并不是最好的制度,就好像80年代,提出有些人应该有两票一样。很明显的,如果越来越多新加坡人发现,行动党政府把自己当成累赘,当成赔钱货,那他们会怎么样投票呢?这是一个可想而知结果,行动党自然明白,不然又怎么会在这个时候走回老路-民主社会主义。

工作准证:间接的印钞机

间接面对人民,同时又可以通过有效的行政手段,获得高租金回报的例子很多。新加坡已经越来越多这种印钞机了,工作准证,女佣税,拥车证,等等。

总理说,我们有超过一百万外劳和女佣,每人如果贡献一块钱,就是超过一百万新元。当然,这后面还要加上最少两个零。这是不是高租金回报?行动党政府在间接性思考下,认为不是。这是因为政府管理好新加坡,投资者才来投资,旅游,赌博,消费。而直接负责税务和费用的人,不是政府,所以,它不知道痛在哪里。因为,直接感觉到痛的人是劳资双方,就像公积金一样,痛的是雇主和工人,双方都要交公积金。

主权基金:不知道钱来自人民

如果说,税务,准证是政府和人民直接和间接打交道。那么,主权基金的基金来源,就跟人民的距离拉得很远了。不论是政府,还是负责管理基金的人,他们根本就没有意识到这些钱来自人民,来自公积金,来自国库。

所以,在新加坡只有少数几个人知道外汇储备是多少,主权基金真正的表现如何。当人民问起,政府就叫你放心,他们是专业投资,长期投资,不会随意投资,浪费基金。

我们假设,这些外汇储备的投资,主权基金的投资都获得利益,获得高租金回报,但是,过去几十年来,这些基金的数目,也一直在不断增加,国库公积金一有钱,就往投资经理身上投。久而久之,这就成了一种习惯,淡马锡,政府投资公司,就是坐在那里等钱进来。他们还会想到基金的钱是从何处来,又怎么回归给人民,以高租金回报获得的报酬,是否也应该同样的以高回报答谢金主(人民)。

外汇储备年年增加,见钱眼开,行动党已经忘了这和人民有关。
即使获得高租金回报,也不会感恩人民。#3


从税务,从主权基金,从直接变成间接关系,行动党在治国的过程中,思维上也成为高租金的追求者,他们希望完善租赁经济,制造更多高租金机会,与此同时,也往往忽略了低租金的社会支撑者,尤其是他们的贡献。再提民主社会主义,能改变治国思维吗?能让行动党直接面对人民吗?


#1
波士顿倾茶事件英语Boston Tea Party,原稱The Destruction of the Tea in Boston),亦称波士顿茶会事件波士顿茶党事件,是1773年在当时的英国殖民地马萨诸塞湾省首府波士顿发生的一场政治抵抗运动,由殖民地的民间反抗组织自由之子领导并行动,反对英国政府在殖民地征税并借此控制殖民地政府,以及反对英国东印度公司利用法案垄断北美的茶叶进口贸易。17731216日,在抗议的最后一天,亲英派总督哈钦森Thomas Hutchinson)仍坚持拒绝遣返英国东印度公司的茶船,因此数十名或上百名自由之子成员趁夜色登船将全数茶叶抛入海水毁掉。波士顿倾茶事件是美国革命进程中的关键事件。事件发生后,英国政府采取了一系列强硬措施,引发殖民地的连串反抗行动。对抗接连升级,并导致1775美国革命战争爆发

1760年代,英国在北美殖民地增加税收。1765的《印花税法》和1767的《唐森德条例》(Townshend Acts)等法案导致北美殖民地居民的强烈不满。他们开始宣传一种主张:既然他们在国会没有代表,就没有义务缴税


#2
http://www.iras.gov.sg/irasHome/uploadedImages/About_IRAS/Overview/IRAS%20Tax%20Type%20Collection%20FY2012.jpg


#3