Thursday, 29 May 2014

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 like one.' 'Ask you to compensate, you can only offer 5K, you think who I am.'

From far away, you can see his shouting.


Act 2 Su Dongbo and Zhang Juzheng

Now we turn to Chinese history. In Northern Song, Su Dongbo (苏东坡)is taking his imperial examination. The chief examiner is Ouyang Xiu(欧阳修).  Ouyang Xiu likes Su Dongbo's work very much and decides to award the top award to him. However, after second thought he decides to award it to another candidate because Su's essay looks very much like one of his students. In order not let others criticize his favouritism, he awards some one not deserving to be the first. It, anyway, never stops Su Dongbo or Quyang Xiu to be the giants in Chinese literature. Su, after exam, still pays respect to Ouyang as his teacher, his mentor.

Few hundred years later, in Ming dynasty, a young talent, Zhang Juzheng (张居正), was born. The Ming was in a period of infighting, dirty politics, and social unrest. It is financially bankrupted and in deficit. Everyone expects Zhang to come in first in provincial examination after his county exam. However, the chief examiner interviews Zhang and tells him the reason why he cannot be the top student. And in fact, Zhang fails the exam. The reason is that young talent like Zhang must learn failure before success. Zhang finally cleared the exam at an older age and becomes the prime minister. His reform in taxation and other social policies turn the fortune of Ming, from deficit to surplus in just 2 years and also he strengthens the defence. Historians comment that without Zhang, the Ming dynasty will fall earlier and Zhang gives Ming another 50 or 60 years to live.

Act 3 Singapore education system

Back in chamber again, a potential member from the ruling party is shouting high and low, cry father cry mother. What is he shouting? I deserve to be first. I cannot forgive my primary five teacher who awards some one not on meritocracy principle. The teacher said, 'you already had too many awards and let other has a chance'. The honourable member replied: 'this is not fair'. 'I am not Su Dongbo or Zhang Juzheng'. 'I want to be the first in examination or in my work based on merit'.

So, this is the kind of standard that the ruling party wants to present to the voters. Is this, a typical product of Singapore education system? The audience has to decide whether the ruling party is running out of candidates and has to present sub-standard candidates to fill up their candidate list. And so where are the high quality candidates? It cannot be a zero sum game. Every education system must produce some talents. Could they go to the opposite side?

Act 4 Social media and creative administration

From chamber, we move to society, to the economy. We look at the social media, the ruling party is doing poorly. We then look at the policy options, again, not convincing.

How can the ruling party turn its fortune? The party does not have Su Dongbo type of talents to begin attacks or defend itself in social media. Neither do they have Zhang Juzheng type of talents to begin any workable reform in Singapore.

The conclusion is the PAP is putting up a sub-standard show in the chamber. And unfortunately, their potential candidates are also sub-standard if not in academic then in morality. They fail to learn success comes from failure. Meritocracy does not make you a great man, but morality does.




Notes on Su Dongbo and Zhang Juzheng

1. The Gay Genius by Lin Yutang
https://archive.org/details/TheGayGenius_985

2. Su Shi

3. Zhang Juzheng

4. 风雨张居正



Tuesday, 27 May 2014

行动党无能 投在野党 建设政治

行动党哪有资格讨论建设政治,这50年来,它的政治工作,就是为了维护一党专政,所以,行动党何来政治建设。政治要求参与,需要更多人的加入,因此,行动党害怕,借总统的口说,政治建设不是民粹。行动党要利用民粹来绑架民意,以民粹来掩盖行动党的一党专政,就是策略之一。

陈如斯等人创立的新党《国人为先》,就是要把新加坡政治这盘冷饭给炒热,更多的人参与政治,更多的人加入在野党,在唤醒新加坡人的公民意识,政治参与,关怀社会,国家建设等多方面把政治炒热,不让一党独大,这是有积极意义的。

什么是政治建设?什么是依民意进行?

旧的,新的在野党,双管齐下把新加坡政治建设起来,不能依靠行动党的冷战思维,垄断政治,独断独行的治理新加坡。建设政治,不是总理在脸书上,把国会辩论政治建设的场面上载到社交媒体这么简单。这种做法像不像冷战思维,像不像我行我素,根本没有把问题交代清楚。

我们回想这50年来,新加坡政治是开着倒车还是有所前进。内安法还在,告人上法庭还在,集选区还在,官委议员还在,政治和经济垄断还在,人协还在花人民的钱为行动党办事,没有协商的选区划分还在,等等。。当然,你可以说,社交媒体现在流行,网民可以自由讨论政治,这是一种进步,细想一下,这种社交媒体的自由是行动党给的吗?不单如此,行动党还想设法想限制社交媒体的发展。

什么是冷战思维?这里举出一个总理在日本论坛上,提出他对未来20年,亚洲局势,东亚局势的看法为例,加以说明。然后再把同样的思维搬到新加坡,我们就知道他的外交智慧和对新加坡政治建设的智慧的前呼后应。

信心美国 寄望中国  图片来自Today今日报

信心美国,寄望中国。== 
(相信行动党,希望在野党)

在日经论坛上,新加坡报纸全版报道了他的外交智慧,指出未来20年的亚洲局势,当中,就特别把“信心美国,寄望中国”点出,好像是大智大悟的伟大论述。这像不像是冷战思维,过去这50年,不正是如此吗?我们要相信美国人会来维护正义,捍卫自由,(捍卫新加坡式的自由民主?),而希望中国,要有理智的处理问题,不要做出违背亚洲利益的事情来。

你把它搬到新加坡来,就是过去50年来,新加坡的政治。人民,选民要相信,要对行动党有信心,行动党会保护你们,会维护正义和自由。而在野党呢! 选民,人民可以对它有所希望,寄望在野党理智处理问题,不要搞民粹。因此,还是不要对在野党报以希望,不然,失望多过希望。

把总理的外交智慧,带回来新加坡,看看他的政治建设,你就知道是怎么回事了。很露骨的,当然,你也可以看到他的政治智慧是什么一回事,高明到哪里?他的东亚分析,他对当前新加坡政治局势的分析,可想而知,无法脱离冷战思维,冷战时代太舒服了,没有政党竞争,一党专政,这个美梦,总理无法摆脱,依然怀旧下去。

总理在长篇大论中,当然有提到美国的政治现实,两党的纷争,国力的问题。在论述中国当然有提到内部问题,经济改革,政治问题等。这些你到大学的国际政治课就可以看到了。他其实没有提到俄罗斯,中国和俄罗斯在俄罗斯远东地区的经济合作,军事合作(例如最近的海军军演)等等。

当然,总理怎么可能摆脱他的冷战思维,行动党就是依靠冷战思维建立起来的政权,他又是喝着冷战思维的奶水长大,你要他摆脱这种思维,有可能吗?因此,他的外交智慧也只能到此为此,你要他如何突破冷战思维?

我们为何不试一试用另一种思维看问题:

信心中国,寄望美国== 
(相信在野党,希望行动党)

新加坡的所谓外交专才,那些留美的外交官,那些不懂亚洲事务的高官,那些不懂亚洲文化的高管,他们有可能为总理指出信心中国,寄望美国的思路吗?因此,相信在野党,希望行动党也不可能成立。这对他们来说,根本就是要他们从新回到学校,再学习,如何做人,如何看事情。

那么,信心中国,寄望美国有没有可能。当然有可能。政治经济局势的变化,未来20年的变化,如果真的如总理那样的冷战思维,就好了。事实却非如此,任何一种可能性都有。只是行动党高估了自己,低估了别人。

因此,相信在野党能够把事情做好,对在野党有信心,而对于行动党呢,就只能寄望它做出改变,不是演戏,真正的改变,如果不改变,也不要紧,反正只是寄望而已,没有行动党,新加坡依然前进。行动党寄望民粹,绑架民粹,利用民粹,人民,选民,可要看清楚它的把戏。

总之,一个对新加坡政治开放没有贡献的行动党,突然借总统的口,大谈政治建设,目的何在?当然,它是针对民粹发声,行动党的意思是,政治建设如果声音很多,有些人又借故民粹来拿分,这对新加坡不好。而事实上,绑架民粹,利用民粹,真正是行动党。行动党只不过是打着民粹的招牌,指在野党利用民粹,捞政治资本。

因此,你要跟一个冷战思维的行动党,冷战思维的总理,共同进退呢?还是要参与,加入政治建设,建立一个属于新加坡,属于自己的政治经济环境和有尊严的生活。

选票在你手中,投在野党,真正的建设新加坡政治。


Saturday, 24 May 2014

Vote Oppositions - To See The Books You Want To See


If we really seriously want to see the books of CPF, GIC, Temasek Holdings etc. , then the last resort is to vote for the oppositions. The PAP will not show you the details, instead if you make a wrong calculation, you will end up receiving a letter of demand.

So, what can we do? The only way is to change the government. Only after changing the government, the PAP will have to hand over the books and the accounts to the new government. However, with 40% support, it is still a distance away for the Big change. Those who are seriously wanting to know the accounts and the books must work harder and ask more citizens to support the oppositions and vote out the PAP.

Voters, not politicians or the Courts, make the laws through parliament.  Laws must reflect the majority as politicians are only temporary elected to lead the country. The PAP cabinet can be removed if citizens vote them out.
    
Voters make and decide the laws?
(picture taken from Today, 24 May 2014)


So, the coming election slogan will be:

To see the CPF books, vote out the PAP.
or in short PAP out CPF in

In fact, not only we will see the CPF books, we will also see the HDB books whether there are subsidies or not, and also the medicare book, population book and many others.
  
Opening and closing balances

If the Aljunied Town Council is still under the management of the PAP, we will not know the problem of the opening and closing balances there. We certainly will not know the AIM problem. Below is the first item of the independent auditor's disclaimers in the Annual Report of the town council :

Opening balances? #1

There is no clear certainty on the opening balances. The auditor said “ we were unable to obtain sufficient, appropriate audit evidence............ we were also unable to determine if the opening balances .........”.

What are opening balances? These are balances ‘carried forward’ from the previous closing balance. So, the closing balances from the previous accounting period ‘brought down’ to become the opening balances of  the the current accounting period. In double entry system, these previous closing balances should be equal to current opening balances.

If these two balances are ‘unable to obtain sufficient, audit evidence and unable to determine’, the auditors will have to state it in the auditors' report as shown above.

But why do the closing and opening balances differ from each other? The auditors don't know and as outsiders, we also don't know. The only certainty is these two supposedly equal balances are now not equal. If the management of town council never changes hand, we will not know about this certainty.

Information gap

In a media release on 14 February 2014, The Workers' Party explained the situation as follows:

[We do understand the auditors’ plight, as there were information gaps that existed at the handover after the General Election 2011 which to date are still not filled.  At FY 2011, the auditors had tried to request information from former auditors, unsuccessfully.  Repeated attempts by the Town Council (TC) to obtain information from the former Managing Agent (MA) and government authorities, such as asking MND / the Housing and Development Board regarding $1.12 million which the PAP-run Aljunied TC had recorded as receivables from the Citizens Consultative Committees (CCCs) for Town Improvement Projects, did not yield answers.  Attempts in FY 2012 to get the information were also unsuccessful.  Unless those agencies with the required information furnish them to the TC, it is likely that information gaps will remain and the accounts will continue to be qualified every year.  In this regard, we note that MND could well be the best party to assist the TC to resolve some of the key information gaps. ] #2

There is an information gap resulting to the opening balances problem.

Town council management is a small business as compared to CPF, GIC and Temasek. Will we expect more information gap when there is a change of government?


Three possible scenarios for CPF Books

Hence, at least 3 scenarios may happen if we vote out the PAP.

1. The PAP is right.
There is no information gap. The closing balances of the old government equal to the opening balances of the new government. The books are clean and all accounts are properly maintained and there is no disclaimers from independent auditors.

2. The PAP is wrong.
There is information gap like the auditors' disclaimer in the Aljunied Town Council. In this case, an estimated opening balances have to open so that the accounting and (qualified with disclaimer) auditing work can carry out.

The new government may need to issue bonds or get loans from IMF, World Bank or Asian Development Bank if our cash balances are not sufficient to carry out the daily operations.  For the Aljunied Town Council case, there are money in the bank, so the daily operation is per normal and the town management needs not need to raise extra fund to support its operation.  Otherwise, Aljunied residents will have to pay more fees even though they have made no faults at all.  

The certainty is we know there is an information gap. There is a ‘certain’ difference between opening and closing balances.  

3. A delay of 52 man-years
This is the worst scenario and will create the biggest uncertainty in Singapore. We cannot rule out this possibility. When the late President Ong Teng Cheong asked to see the books, the answer from the PAP was:

[that the Accountant-General had informed him it would take 52 man-years to provide him with a list of the Government's physical assets;] #3

The account books need 52 man-year to calculate and new opening balances will then show up. What happen to CPF members, reserve, foreign exchange, etc in the mean time? This will create the biggest uncertainty in Singapore and will bring political crisis to the new government and Singaporeans. This potential political crisis is so different from the so-called political warning from government scholars and academics.

However, if we want to see the truth, the books of accounts, we have to vote out the PAP to see the real picture.  There is a price to pay for knowing the truth.

#1

#2
http://www.ahpetc.sg/media-release-14-feb-2014/

#3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_of_the_President_of_Singapore#Differences_between_Government_and_first_directly_elected_President

Monday, 19 May 2014

行动党无能 高工资经济

行动党政府不是无能管理经济,只是不会管好高工资的经济。50年来,新加坡经济这么亮眼,因此,不能说行动党无能,只能说,它对低工资经济太有把办法,在垄断一切资源,行政,政治等各方面太有办法。所以,新加坡经济辉煌发展,显现出来的就是低工资的发展模式。

但是,新加坡经济早就已经进入高工资的环境,十几年前,新加坡已经是高收入国家。在1990 年代,我们的个人人均已经超过前殖民地老板英国,这之后这个距离越拉越远,拉到现在,新加坡已经是名列世界前茅。这应该归功于行动党政府的低工资经济政策,没有一路追求低工资,是很难达到这么辉煌的结果。

GDP per capita, PPP, constant 2000 US$ #1


一部分人先富起来

行动党在1959年新加坡自治后管理新加坡。邓小平在1979年搞改革开放,也是希望让一部分人先富起来,然后把整个国家和人民带动起来。当年,邓小平访问新加坡,最感兴趣就是新加坡这个小国是如何搞经济,发展起来的。因此,让一部分人小富起来,能够把国人带动起来,与此同时,没有富起来的人,就要做出牺牲,忍受低工资,这点就连当年的部长,也要面对低工资,高效率,和具有努力拼搏的精神。

邓小平访问过后,进入80年代,新加坡就大幅度提高工资,结果造成1985-86年的经济衰退。低工资的人,继续拿低工资,获得加薪的部长,高级公务员,却只是面对短暂的减薪,过后,也加入先富起来的那一群人。

面对提高工资的失败经验,行动党政府便集中力量,继续让一部分人先富起来,重心不再放在低工资的人身上。低工资成了金丹,本地找不到,就是进口。很快的,进入90年代,人均就超过富国俱乐部成员-英国(见图), 把老宗主国给赶上了。接下来的故事,大家都知道,就是林崇椰教授的低工资工友十几年没有获得实际的工资增加#2

没有公平分配

富起来的人,继续富起来。低工资工友,继续低工资,再加上没有公平分配的福利政策,没有免费午餐的信念,从50年代一直到现在,我们只看到一部分人先富起来,而大部分的人继续低工资。

因此,今天的新加坡社会才会出现这么多声音,这么多不满行动党政府的行为,这么多的反对票。人生有多少个50年,明年新加坡庆祝独立50周年,但是,这一部分,大多数的低工资工友,牺牲了50年,难道行动党还要继续告诉他们,以及年轻人,忍多50年,先让一部分人先富起来。

问题是富起来的这一部分人是行动党政府圈定的。不是人人有机会。因为,如果人人都有轮流富起来的机会,怨气就不会这么大,也可以忍耐一时,等待机会的到来。可惜,可恨,这个机会没有来,低工资的继续低工资,就像上一篇博文说的,经济重组后,培训后,还是低工资。

新加坡人忍耐力可真够,一忍就忍了50年,可以说是到了忍无可忍的地步了。以前,威胁利诱,高压手段,媒体垄断,有时不是不忍,而是无知。现在,受教育多了,新媒体出现,忍功就下降了,一遇到不满,就发泄出来,而选票的记号,也压不住爆发出来的‘忍’气,反而敢敢投了反对票。

因此,行动党政府的叫低工资工友忍耐,让自己和一部分人先富起来的良药苦口,已经失去见效。人们已经没有耐心,等你50年,给你多一个50年的机会。

国会新任务鼓吹忍耐

上个星期五,国会新的第二阶段政府任期开始了。新的政府任务,就是要鼓励人民忍耐,不要民粹,为了博取低工资老年人,乐龄人士的欢心,政府说会改善公积金的配套,医疗上也会照顾这群人。这就是为大选铺路,乐龄人士,老年人已经为国家做出牺牲,也不可能再加入就业市场,但是,这群人忍耐了50年,给他们一些好处,或许,能够留住他们的心,忍多一届,行动党又可以过关了。这对行动党来说,选票上有个底,能够稳住基本盘,这对行动党是非常重要的。

年轻人没有耐心,也不要50年的忍耐,更不相信行动党的公平分配,公平机会,因此,行动党对这群人,反而是要倒过来,忍耐这些年轻人,越是激怒他们,反应就越强烈。行动党对年轻人没有办法,可忍则忍。

如何高工资治国

行动党的贸工部长坦言,我们不能在第一世界国家给予第三世界的工资。他虽然这么说,但是,如何在新加坡这样的第一世界国家,公平合理的为低工资工友提供第一世界的工资,却不是行动党擅长的事。

行动党擅长的是低工资经济,即使人均收入已经超过英国,我们还是继续一直走低工资的政策,而不理会低工资工友的压力,现在才来亡羊补牢,行动党行吗?我们在人均超过发达国家的时候,就应该考虑(也正如林教授说的几十年没有实际工资增长,当时就要进行的工作),如何调整步伐,而不是一路冲到底。冲到现在人民忍无可忍。

一个擅长低工资,依靠垄断治国的行动党,在面对选票压力,面对经济重组,面对民生问题时,如何应对。而行动党现在高唱民主社会主义,高唱社会关怀,到底是亡羊补牢,还是演戏?现在行动党背弃本身最擅长的低工资政策,要多走爱心路线,行吗?这么勉强,这么辛苦,又不灵活,就像行动党青年团的短片#3一样,你真的还要忍耐,给它多一次机会吗?


#1
http://dangay.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/singapore-gdp.png?w=600

#2
http://www.singapolitics.sg/news/prof-lim-chong-yah-repeats-call-shock-therapy

#3
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/pap-says-youth-wing-s/1106714.html

Monday, 12 May 2014

Structural Reform – no lazy way out


[In between Mother’s Day and Vesak Day, more compassion and hard thinking are needed to solve the problems of low wage and older workers. The lazy thinking of the PAP is not only outdated but will add more pressures to citizens.]  

My neighbor, a good and loyal senior citizen, still insists on working without complaining. To the PAP, she is really a model citizen. However, our work and business structure have forced her to quit her job.

She told me she is going to work until 26th of this month.  Why? Her cleaning company has lost the tender. But according to market practice, she can still work with the new tender winner as she is more familiar with work environment and condition. Her answer is the new cleaning contractor wants workers to work for 2 blocks of buildings instead of the current arrangement of 1 block 1 worker. Physically, she said she couldn’t handle 2 blocks of cleaning work in one go.

In fact, as she told me, the condo management (MCST) has just increased the conservancy fees and she thought she not only could keep her job perhaps with a pay increase. However, the result is just the opposite. A senior citizen lost her cleaning job while the cleaning industry is under restructure with new licensing requirement.  

This is the reality of the PAP job reform and economic re-structure.  Everyone must be fit even senior citizens must be fit to compete in a physical demand environment. Apparently, the new contract winner must be able to cut cost by giving extra money or overtime pay to younger workers by covering the cleaning work of 2 blocks. If the contractor cannot find local workers willing to do the job, then the contractor will have reasons to bring in foreign workers.

This is logical and it seems reasonable explanations on why we need to bring in foreign workers. But is it a lazy way of thinking and solving problems?  The lazy thinking provides straight forward solutions but also creates problems at the same time.  

Singapore is already a first world country and as what the Minster for Trade and Industry had said we could no longer paying our workers third world wages. We need hard creative thinking not lazy direct thinking to solve our complicated problems, especially when we want to increase the retirement age. What kinds of suitable jobs are we going to offer to senior citizens, in addition to fair wages? 

The PAP has been using this lazy way of thinking to solve problems since independence. This explains why the wages of lower income workers have not increased for more than 10 years. Our economic policymaking is a very straight and lazy thinking. We use low wages to stimulate the growth and in many ways we seek to achieve growth rate above our local potentials.

How can the minister offer first world wages to our old-age cleaners? How can the reformed cleaning industry continue to provide jobs match the physical condition of senior citizens?

Another example: CPF

If you look at the CPF minimum sum, it is again another lazy thinking. In anticipation of future inflation, living longer and higher living costs, the retirement funds will certainly increase. As the payout is not inflation-adjusted but a fit sum, so this minimum sum has to increase not decrease. Is this another lazy thinking? Like the cleaning lady, by increasing the minimum sum is the easiest way to solve the problem. Whether you have physical or intellectual ability to meet the minimum sum is not the problem of the government. You find your own solutions and the government is not helping you at all. 

So, when the cleaning lady is running out of money, and she wants to enter the labor market again, she will have to offer herself at a lower rate, a rate lower than her current employment. And you know there is no minimum wage here, even there is a so-called guideline for cleaning industry, the cleaning contractors will want to find the productive workers and unfortunately this has to come from outside Singapore or willing younger workers.

How to give a fair value to senior citizen cleaning workers, and how to cover the retirement needs (either minimum sum or some combinations) are hard thinking questions. The PAP’s lazy thinking solution may work well in the past but certainly Singapore needs hard and creative thinking now and in future.  

Other lazy thinking examples include:

Hospital beds: The lazy thinking is if you can’t wait, you can either upgrade or go to private hospitals. To make it one step lazier, once you upgrade, you can’t downgrade. Once you go out, it is hard to return to public hospitals. Your financial burdens are your problems.  

The Toa Payoh graffiti: The lazy thinking of the mainstream media is to alter the picture so that readers will not be able to read the right messages. There is no hard thinking on why this happens. There is no hard thinking why the truth cannot be reported. In placing charges, will the persecutors take the lazy way to skip the key words in the graffiti?

The Little India Riot: The lazy thinking is to blame the alcohol. The lazy thinking is to move foreign workers to a remote area and contains them there.   

Jubilee Baby Gift and Golden Birth Certificates: To celebrate SG50, the lazy thinking is to give all new born babies something in 2015 and ignore other babies. Are they caring the minority or the majority?

You can find more examples if you take a closer look at the PAP and how they run Singapore.  They are solving problems in a lazy way. However, Singapore has become more complicated and sophisticated, and the lazy thinking of one-party rule has gone. Singapore can no longer solve our problems like the past – only the PAP doing the lazy thinking. Lazy thinking is not creative thinking.  


It is time to do the hard thinking, difficult thinking and involving more parties. And in between Mother’s Day and Vesak Day, we shall not be so lazy in thinking, rather we must think in a compassion way. 

Monday, 5 May 2014

后李时代,出现两党制还是多党制。

这个李指的是现任总理李显龙,因为他说他打算做到2020年。那么,之后呢?行动党的一党专政将会结束,在国会的一党独大地位,也将不保。因此,这个后李时代,指李显龙将更为适合。因为,李光耀退位20多年来,行动党依然是一枝独秀,一党独大的地位并没有起什么变化。但是,后李显龙时代,我们将会看到变局,即使现在我们也已经嗅到这股味道,而李显龙本身也承认这个现实。那么,到底新加坡是朝两党制,还是多党制前进呢?

对于行动党来说,两党制还是多党制来得划算,来得更为有利?而新加坡众多的在野党,又要如何分这块大蛋糕?

杜维格法理论#1

在一个正常的民主选举制度中,在一段时间的来来去去的选举过程中,在多次选举过后,由于选举制度的不同,将会出现偏向两党制和多党制两种结果。

在一人一票单选区一个代表的所谓多数制中,出现两党制机会比较高。根据杜维格法理论(Durverger's Law),多数制有利形成两党政治,且两党意识形态差距将日益减少,但小党将被排除执政的可能 新加坡的选举制度是多数票制度,胜利者全拿,只需要赢对手一票,就是赢。友诺士集选区,静山集选区,还有2011的总统选举,就是例子。

而比例代表制,却会出现多党制。因为,在很多比例选举制的国家(如欧洲国家),只要获得5%的选票,就有机会进入国会。因此, 国会里出现一,两个大党,加上几个小党的情形就很普遍。

那么,新加坡是实行多数票制度的国家,为何杜维格法理论下的两党制没有在新加坡出现。我们经过50多年的选举,为何还要嫌时间不够久,继续一党独大下去。可见,这里一定有一些违反杜维格法理论的选举方式,或者说,这些选举是在不民主的选举下产生的结果。

在上一篇博文中,已经举出在新加坡大选中的运作,操作,制度,资讯和垄断等多方面的不民主,不合理的选举作法。这里再举一个简单的例子--选区划分,就知道是什么一回事了。友诺士集选区,静山集选区在大选过后就不见了。在野党辛苦经营的一些选区,说划分就划分。选区也可以随便划大划小,从有到无,从无到有,喜欢怎么划分,就怎么样划分。除了行动党外,根本就没有人对选举局有能力提出任何质疑。当然,选举局属于总理的管理的部门,更是不争的事实。

因此,新加坡的行动党一党专政,一党独大,是事出有因的,而不是一种自然的选举结果。那么,为什么现在会出现这种自然现象呢?或者说,我们在2011年大选过后,一直在讨论的政治上的新的正常局面,这个正常局面导致自然现象,导致两党制,或者多党制的可能出现。同时,导致一党独大的有利因素,现在却变成行动党的负担。例如,媒体垄断,选区划分失效,人才凋零,用经济术语来说,就是边际效益出现负数,越是霸道,垄断,负数就越高。

政治局面

在行动党长期操控下,自1963年 以来,就没有一个在野党单独的竞选全国所有的议席,甚至,没有一个在野党参选过超过一半以上的国会议席。因此,如何谈论替代政府?如何出现两党制或多党制。如何可能否决行动党的三分二多数议席。

难怪,李显龙信心满满的,认为自己可以做到2020年,没有问题。因为2015/2016年的大选,只要老调重弹,输多几个议席,甚至输掉几个集选区是有可能但是,老方法还是能够让行动党执政下去因为,在野党要经营一个选区,不是一届还是两届大选,就能取得杜维格法理论中,所说的两党制的结局

杜维格法理论提到弃报效应,集中投票,甚至忍痛投第二选择,也要确保自己阵线的候选人中选的过程,将导致像新加坡这样的多数制的选举,出现两党制,而不是多党制。新加坡选民已经开始意识到这点。但,这是否足够在2015/2016年的大选中起着决定性作用呢?因为,多角战在 2015/2016大选是有可能出现的。对于行动党来说,多角战对它来说,还是有好处的。

目前,在新加坡,不利杜维格法理论实现的原因还包括在野党的基层还是不够,政党虽然多,但是,根基并不强。行动党50年来的破坏,要一下子,恢复到自然选举结果的结局,不是这么容易做到。因此,比较可能出现的情形是,个别在野党可能有零星的突破,变成一个大太阳,一个月亮和几颗小新星。

短期内,新加坡不可能出现茉莉花运动,或者泰国的反政府反选举活动,甚至台湾的占领议会的学生运动。因此,政治局势的变化,会是渐进式的,而不是急进式。不过有人网上开骂,有人示威抗议,的确能够提高人们对政治的意识。因为行动党真的太不透明,太不民主,国财己用,唯我独尊,太不解民意了。

太阳,月亮和星星,在2020年的后李显龙时代,又出现波动,变动,再过一段时间,杜维格法理论的两党制就有机会出现。而正如杜维格法理论所说的这两个政党的意见其实是十分接近,很可能一个是中间偏右,另一个是中间偏左,有点像美国的民主、共和两党,或者英国的保守党和工党,接近我们一点的是台湾的国民党和民进党,马来西亚的民联和国阵。

这样的一种结局,是不是新加坡人期待的?我们当然不喜欢一党独大,但是,有些人也不喜欢两党制。两党制轮流坐庄,就是一个问题。归根究底,很可能是一个老问题,政治人物的道德良心

#1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law