Skip to main content

撒辣椒,在野党玩假的 -- 再论李显龙的饥饿论。

新加坡总理李显龙日前在伦敦大谈新加坡民主和在野党玩不做政府的策略,来获得更多的选票。对于投选在野党的人,到底是希望看到在野党在玩假球还是真球。我们在做出选择时,真的像总理说的希望在野党在玩假球,还是希望替代政府的出现。

如果我们希望看到假球继续,那么,我们什么都不用做。就让假球一直踢下去。但是,如果,我们希望看到替代政府出现,我们就有责任告诉朋友,告诉不认识的人,这是一场真球比赛,替代政府还未成功出现,大家要努力。同时,新加坡人不是总理说的那样,只要一个行动党版本的饥饿论。

总理高调的说,新加坡人认为行动党政府普遍上做了对的事。因此,他们投选在野党是一件让人不解的事情。他们这么做的原因,或许是希望看到有人在政府的尾巴上,洒了一些辣椒(粉),刺激一下行动党,认它不舒服而已。

(Well, the odd thing going on is that in Singapore people actually know that the government generally is doing the right thing. But they like somebody to be there to put a bit more chilli on the government’s tail.) #

新加坡40%选民是否真如总理说的,只是要行动党政府不舒服,刺激行动党,让它醒一醒,大家玩一下假球,娱乐一下,投假票的人,是否知道自己在做什么,行动党是否也认为大家在玩假球,而且也知道大家玩假球的目的。

因此,Chatham House 论坛的主持人Malcom Rifkind 爵士也认为这个发展有些莫名其妙,不可思议。40%反对票,如果继续下去,行动党难道不担心吗?因此,总理只能以玩假球来解释。大多数的新加坡选民还是要行动党做政府,因为,在野党说它们不要做政府,所以,选民才放心的投票给在野党。主持人觉得很纳闷,因为在英国,执政党只获得40%选票就做政府了。为何新加坡与众不同,而获得40%选票的在野党,在国会却获得少过10%的议席?

总理这个时候推出了新加坡式的民主论。他认为新加坡人只要,且只接受行动党的饥饿论,就是上一篇博文中说的:高经济成长,高物价房价,接受贫富不均的事实,提高生产力,没有免费午餐,低薪工友十年不加薪等等。因此,对行动党的不满,也只是洒一些辣椒粉罢了。而且,也只是在尾巴上而已,根本没有造成什么伤害,选民只是玩玩而已,不用认真。

最令人喷饭的是总理把40%选票=低于10%在野党议席的说法:绝对多数票制度,集选区制度,非选区议员,官委议员等等。主持人认为,英国也有绝对多数票制度,而官委议员也不民主,而40%反对票,如果一直没有足够的国会代表,是否会出现强大的不满情绪,而需要进行政治改革?

总理从头到尾,一直强调新加坡选民要行动党执政,不想改变政治现状,只要行动党版本的饥饿论。完全否定人民要求替代版本的饥饿论:公平民主社会,财富分配贫富差距比较公平,言论自由,照顾人民的起居生活,提供公平的教育工作机会等等。

因此,主持人提醒总理,50年一变的可能性。总理说,新加坡的政治环境是一个很平稳的过渡。
it’s a very flat political landscape

他不认为,政治环境会一下子做出改变。主持人说,这不是突变,而是渐进式的,(例如:选票一届比一届少)。因此,不能说50年的改变是一下到来。如果渐进式的说法比总理的假球说法和一个行动党的饥饿论说法更为合理的话,那么50年一变,SG50 一变也是有可能的。只要我们相信自己,在野党不是在玩假球,不是不想做政府,只是时机还未到来而已。

事实摆在我们面前,50年后的行动党,已经不是50年前的行动党,而50年后的在野党,也不是50年前的在野党。当然,总理很希望50年不变,50年不变多好,50年的假球论,在野党不想做政府的假设,官委议员的假民主可以一直走下去。

是时候推翻总理的50年不变的假设了。是时候认真看待替代政府出现的可能性的时候了。您准备好了吗? 还是给总理说中,大家都在玩假球,不希望改变,要行动党一直执政下去?

#
总理的问答,可以在下面的网站看到:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X1jQJUFeNw&list=UUCW8a4CgTbBWzid3IJYomFQ


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

EBRC objectives: Stop “Out of Aljunied”, Stop SDP Breakthrough and “Negative-Asset” Ministers.

First of all, we have to congratulate the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee for creating more competitions, especially, multi-cornered competitions in the East. When making changes, EBRC aims to achieve 3 goals: To prevent “Out of Aljunied” for Workers’ Party.  This is the most important objective. To prevent Singapore Democratic Party making any breakthrough in the North and Central.   To look for a solution to retire “negative-asset” ministers or reduce PAP damages. From the reported claims from different political parties, we will expect multi-cornered contests not only in single constituencies but also in group representative constituencies. The PAP hopes to have a repeat of 2011 Presidential Election. Then Tony Tan won the Presidency when he got only 35% of the votes, a narrow win.However, a win is still a win. He did in even in the very last minute, after recounts of votes.    How to achieve multi-cornered contests? By i...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...