Thursday, 26 June 2014

公积金是个人的,鼓励的是私德。

公积金是很个人的,在行动党的不走福利政策下,你贡献多少公积金,将来你就拿多少公积金再加上存款利息。但是,在行动党政府复杂化公积金制度后,一般人根本分不清个人和国家的关系,搞到最后,分不清你的我的。最后,只能无奈的高喊:还我公积金!

或许,我们从做账的角度来看这个问题,比较欧美的个人所得的情形后,就会了解到为什么,公积金是真的很个人,拿的是自己的钱,没有拿到国家的钱。为了方便,我们就拿公积金的三个户口为例子:

欧美,尤其是欧洲的福利国家:

公司在发薪水给雇员时,首先算出毛薪金是多少,然后就减去我们公积金制度下的三个户口的薪金:普通户口,医药户口和特别户口(养老时变为养老户口)。在这些国家,这三个户口的存款被当成是社会保险金,医药保险金,和养老保险金。当然,这些国家扣除的钱还不止这些,还要加上失业保险金,小孩保险金,职业病保险金等等。

因此,雇员最后拿到手的净薪金,在扣除税务后,可能只有毛薪金的一半。英美福利比较差,扣的比较少。

这些国家的政府,拿了这些保险金,有些就设立国家的主权投资公司,有点像我们的淡马锡,政府投资公司那样,为这些雇员找投资机会,增加回报。当然,也有一些作为国家的建设基金,像我们的地铁,建屋局组屋,裕廊工业区,港口,机场等基础设施的兴建。

新加坡公积金制度:

同样的,新加坡老板在发薪金给雇员时,也是先扣除普通户口,医药户口和特别户口所应该缴交的公积金。连同老板所应该交的公积金一起算,总数大约接近雇员薪金的40%。所有进入公积金户头的存款,都不是保险金。这就使到这个制度复杂起来,为什么这么说呢?因为不是保险金,公积金会员就要为自己的公积金找出路,烦恼:
-普通户口的存款要如何投资,房子,股票,黄金等。
-医药户口不是医药保险,不等于医药保险,不买保险,医药户口的钱,有可能会花光。
- 特别户口将来摇身一变成了养老金,可以选择要买哪一类的养老保险,当然,如果没有足够的最低存款,选择的条件将是非常有限。

问题是这样一套复杂的制度,对于新加坡人来说是一项吃力不讨好的工作。相对来说,欧美的制度就简单的多了。他们不需要想这么多复杂的投资问题,保险金交了,不幸出问题,保险金就要支付费用。

相反的,尤其是20, 30年前,新加坡人普遍教育程度低于欧美国家,又要新加坡人花时间想这这么多个人的复杂问题,似乎是强人所难,有点像兜售雷曼兄弟债券哪样,一不小心,就有种被欺骗的感觉。最明显的例子就是用公积金存款投资股票,结果是亏多赢少。

因此,新加坡人其实很早就要懂得理财。一开始交公积金,就要规划如何使到公积金生财保值。偏偏很多人,不知道公积金不是保险金,有医药保健户口,并不等于买了医药保险。买了房子,股票,也不是保险,价格上,是升值,价格跌,就亏本。

从这一点看,新加坡人为何不快乐,不幸福,因为我们比老外要更加小心,有了公积金,生活并不一定如意,在这一方面,我们比洋人有更多的顾虑。从行动党的立场出发,这是让公积金会员有更加多的生财机会,怎么还不珍惜。国民人均节节上升,钱越多,个人发财机会就越多,偏偏不是每个人的所得都是节节上升。

公积金局收了存款就是做了一件最简单的工作,就是买政府的债券。这些出售债券得到的钱,转手就落到淡马锡,政府投资公司手上。因此,这两个主权投资公司说,它们没有拿公积金局的钱,它们没有替公积金局投资公积金会员的存款,这里面就要看你如何定义公积金存款,转手的钱算不算?

公积金对上私德

新加坡公积金制度在很大程度上,是鼓励私德。你交多少,将来就拿多少。你要管好自己的投资行为,你要懂得,记得买医药保险,你要存够最低存款,不然将来养老出问题。这里举出几个很明显的例子:

-8块钱的心脏手术:许文远的这个活生生的例子,就是他懂得买额外的医药保险,对于一般人来说,连Medisave MediShield都分不清,就会认为许文远在说骗话。这当然不是,而是他懂得买医药保险,买到只需要付8块钱。事实上,有些保险配套,可能连8块钱都不用付。但是,有很多不幸的人,就是不明白自己的医药户口的存款一直减少,而没有获得医药保险的照顾。许文远个人的私德很好,懂得照顾自己买了医药保险,也很可能为家人买了医药保险。

-如果55岁拿走公积金,很可能一下子就花光了。这当然是政府不相信人民,因为个人私德不好,就会到印尼的小岛,泰国等地,一下子把拿出来的公积金花光。政府如何确保人人私德都像许文远那样,会买保险,为将来计划。

-普通户口可以投资孩子的教育:现金不够,可以动用公积金,不过像买房子,股票一样,毕业后,出售后,将来要归还的,还要加上利息。这是你个人的私德,你投资你孩子的教育,将来希望他们能够回报。

那么,欧美的情形是怎么样的呢?保险金是根据个人的所得来缴交,低收入的雇员,交的数目就少,高收入就交多些。以一个简单的50%来做例子,月入2000元的人,交1000元保险金。月入10000元,就交了5000元保险金。收入越高,就交多。但是,在福利方面,却不是这么计算,为了保障个人(和家庭)的基本生活,低收入的人会获得多一些照顾,月入2000元,可能获得1000元的保障金,作为养老,或者作为失业金。而高收入的人同样会获得保障金,但是,却相对减少,可能只有2500元。

这种制度在行动党看来是要不得的。高收入的人在公积金制度下,是要拿走所有的公积金的钱的,放5000,就是要拿走5000. 1000的人,只能拿走1000。高收入的人是不需要考虑低收入的人如何维持最低的生活费用。低收入的人自己想办法,去收集纸箱,去卖纸巾,去行乞,自己想办法解决问题。

因此,行动党的公积金制度,就是要鼓励私德,我们个人照顾好自己,我们努力工作,增加公积金存款,将来养老就依靠自己的钱,不用政府和社会照顾。我们要保持身体健康,锻炼身体,修身养性,注意个人的行为举止。如果,真的遇上不幸事件,那就要依靠亲朋戚友的照顾了。

欧洲国家在这方面,就比较注重公德的教育。高收入的人多交保险金,多交税务,看起来很不公平,尤其是妨碍资本主义的发展,阻止个人才华的发挥,但是在18世纪开始兴起的国家主义,却区别了公民和非公民的义务。而公民之间,更要有一股互助精神。提升和照顾落势国民,就是社会的公义。

公德和私德

梁启超在100多年前,提出他的【新民说】就谈到公德和私德的问题。中国传统的教育,强调个人的修养,修身,齐家,然后治国平天下。因此对于公德方面的教育,就比较忽视。

行动党执政以来,表面上就是一直强调儒家教育,还一直要保留东方的根。要成为东西方的交汇点。现在想一想,它的真正目的,就是要借儒家的大船,来鼓励行动党的私德教育,每个人管好自己,每个人只考虑自己的利益,这就很好办了。只要给予甜头,个人的利益,人人就会争取发财机会,不用管其他的人的死活,万一自己不幸,成了落势群体,就只好自认倒霉了。千万不要怪政府没有给你机会。

#1

因此,行动党的很多立法,政策,事实上,不单没有强调公德,而是加大力度,鼓励私德。有时候,让人搞不清的是,行动党的精英接受的是西方教育,不单没有接受西方那一套公德教育,反而大唱反调,一直强调东方的伦理和私德教育。或许,这是行动党的教育政策失败,越来越多的新加坡人,已经倾向西方教育,当然也开始诉求西方的公德价值。更大的可能是,行动党看不到时代的发展,不论东西方,强调是公德和私德并重的教育。但是,公德教育对民权,民主,自由,开放,透明有更大的要求,这是行动党很难接受的。就正如它的耶鲁国大博雅学院那样,不对外开放,只在院内搞公德,搞自由民主。

行动党的私德教育真的不少,这里举几个例子:

立法奉养父母:个人家庭的问题,自己家里解决。孩子要照顾父母,因此,国家社会没有义务负责这项私德的任务。政府立法父母可以告孩子,要求奉养费用。难道政府一点公德的义务都没有吗?

禁止进入赌场:由于有些新加坡人私德不够好,因此,我们立法禁止他们进入,要进入,就要给钱。家人还可以申请禁止亲人进入赌场。赌场的设立根本就是公德问题,既然无法解决公德问题,那就只好立法限制私德了。

外劳解决垃圾问题:垃圾问题,小贩中心的清理问题,还有公共场所的清洁问题,这些都是公德问题,行动党就只能通过立法来强制公民要有私德,不要丢垃圾,没有办法就只好依靠外劳帮忙处理垃圾问题。如果我们能够成功的鼓励公德,垃圾和其他社会问题的解决,很可能不是现在这样。

放弃公民,永久居民身份,可以一次过拿走所有公积金的钱这对个人来说,真的非常合算,不喜欢新加坡,一次过把所有的公积金存款拿走。挥挥手,没有留下任何遗憾。这是最好的资本主义安排,你付出多少公积金,就拿走多少公积金。这和欧洲的保险金不同,保险金拿不走,因为,它是一个公德,国民的共同利益。


行动党亡羊补牢

行动党看到了选票的压力,从2011大选过后,就一直在亡羊补牢。

民主社会主义:以前不提的民主社会主义,现在也搬出来。如果行动党也说自己向左倾斜,那么,新加坡的主要政党,很可能就没有右翼政党了。因此,即使行动党向左倾斜,它还是最右的一个,最讲钱,最没有公德的一个政党。

全民医药保险:如果欧巴马没有提出他的医药保险计划,行动党很可能还是像以前那样,模糊新加坡人对公积金医药储蓄和医药保险的概念。因为,搞公德的概念,是要花国家的钱,不利私德,不利个人最大利益的发展。就如美国共和党,反对欧巴马的医药保险计划。

建国一代福利:祭之丰不如养之薄也。为了选票,行动党也不得不做些公德。

行动党的亡羊补牢有效吗?行动党真的做出改变鼓励公德吗?搞了这么多年,才发现公积金制度的目的,就是鼓励私德,鼓励个人更加的自私,不信的话,为何要给自己发高工资,这不是私德,难道是公德行为吗?


#1
http://ms.chgsh.chc.edu.tw/~chi/chi_ebook/xms.htm

Sunday, 22 June 2014

Can PAP Pragmaticism Arrest the Deficit Public Trust?



Is the magic of PAP pragmatism as effective as before?

Has the social divide become deficit public trust?


To answer these questions, we will have to look at the history of time. Comparing 20 or 30 years ago, how do we see pragmatism in Singapore and how trustworthy do Singaporeans see the PAP government?

The 50-year never change People's Action Party will certainly claim that Singaporeans are very pragmatic and once the PAP calls or reminds Singaporeans to be pragmatic or face the consequence of voting out the PAP, majority of voters will continue to give the governmentship to the PAP. So, the magic of pragmaticism is as effective as before.

Similarly, the public trust between people and government even though there is a gap, like the rich-poor gap, it will still be manageable and will never turn into a deficit, a crisis. Singaporeans still obey the law, continue to pay tax and do National Service and furthermore, parents still fight very hard for Primary one registration. How can public trust be an issue when things are functioning like before.

Only when we do a comparison between 1980s, 1990s and 2010s, we then realise how different it could be:


Pragmaticism
Public Trust
1980s, 1990s
Effective
High
2010s
Ineffective
Low

20, 30 years ago, there was no social media. Main-stream media is controlled by the government. When the MSM says pragmaticism is effective, no one can argue and gives alternative views. When Goh Chok Tong gives a promise of Swiss standard of living, Singaporeans also pragmatically think there is a hope and vote for the PAP. When Mah Bow Tan promises a hope of World Cup, Singaporeans also cheer pragmatically for such a dream. We know casinos are bad but pragmatically we also accept without a referendum. Almost all major decisions are passed pragmatically without full debates.

Now all these dreams and promises are broken. Can the call for pragmaticism still attract people and can it continues to be as effective as before?

PAP says we must be pragmatic so that our income can grow and jobs will be secured. No doubt, our income per capita has increased but so do the income gap. The PAP pragmatic approach can only benefit some people, not all people. PM Lee goes even further to suggest the dangers of 'please-all economics'#1. PAP's pragmatic approach is to please some people, either local or foreign. 'Please-all' in fact in the PAP's definition is equal to welfarism where no one wants to work hard as there are generous social benefits. Do Singaporeans pragmatically think in this way? Do people buy this analogy?

The result of PAP pragmaticism is what we see today: no retirement for senior citizens, no wage increase for low income workers for years, no university placing for eligible students, etc.....

The discussion of pragmatism and public trust in the past was a total reflection of the PAP version. There were either under reported or no reporting of ineffective PAP pragmatism in the MSM. So it created a false impression that PAP pragmatism was good, was effective for country's building and we all pretended and assumed that there was no issue of public trust. We trusted the press, we believed in PAP version of pragmaticism and we even protected the pragmatism and public trust by denouncing all those opposed the pragmatism and people questioned about the social divide and public trust.

Today, we see more discussions, criticism and attacks on the PAP pragmatism and public trust. The PAP defends it by saying discussions, criticisms and even attacks are not indications of ineffective PAP pragmaticism or deficit public trust. The PAP is now more open to discussions, we have SG Conversation, we have MediShield for all, and the PAP even turns to democratic socialism. The PAP is changing and is pragmatic as before and there is no problem of gaining people's supports and trust.

If you buy this argument, then you may draw your conclusion below:

[In his article, Mr Mukherjee also expressed confidence that "for all the grumbling, the majority of Singaporeans are too pragmatic to opt for unbridled welfarism at the next elections".

The Prime Minister, in his post, concluded: "We must make sure that he is right."]#1

However, pragmatism and public trust really go beyond welfarism and PM Lee's right way. It is so complicated and it involves social justice, transparency, accountability, press freedom, and many unexpected things. We will have to look at the peer effect, the threshold (not tradeoff) and many other uncertainties.



Note:

Pragmaticism or pragmatism, here we refer to PAP version of pragmatic approach or thinking.    


#1
http://www.singapolitics.sg/news/dangers-please-all-economics-real-pm-lee

Friday, 13 June 2014

审判司法 建设政治


* 未审先知,疑点利益归于被告,在政治新建设下,是否能够有所突破?

* 国家机构和组织的权威性,在人民对行动党失去信任和信心的前提下,是否还能像以前那样,50年不变,还能取得人民的尊敬和信服?


新加坡的司法制度,在建设性政治的大环境下,要扮演怎么样的新角色?司法和行政组织的权威性,在旧的政治框架不再为人民认同后,会做出什么改变? 是否,还是像以前那样,对行动党领袖的诉讼,诽谤案件,做出有利国家经济政治建设的判决,为维护所谓的国家稳定而不顾人民的意愿。


这个前提是否还存在,这个思想解放,我们的行政单位准备好了吗? 这是我们在讨论新加坡新的政治建设时不能回避的问题。政府和人民的期待有落差,而且越来越严重,行政单位,国家组织的独立性,判断能力,已经不容许它们像以前那样,为行动党服务,而忽略人民的期待。


法律,司法和法庭的判决指导方针,必须根据国会通过的法令来执行,当然,也绝对不能违背新加坡宪法的精神。行动党一党独大控制国会,也就表示它能够通过对自己有利的法令,对于宪法的诠释,也可以有一套利于自己的看法,指导原则。这些都是目前法庭,司法单位,警察部门,执行任务的潜规则。过去,新加坡人,不管可以忍还是不能忍,都无奈的面对这个潜规则。有些人,忍力不足,多说了不合潜规则的话语和举动,就会遭受破财,坏名,牢狱之灾,甚至远走高飞。


诽谤案件,内安法未经审讯逮捕,非法聚会,这些潜规则常用的手段,其实,一路来,人民是敢怒不敢言,大家心照不宣,看在眼里,只是在等待建设性政治的到来,还原正确政治,正确的面对一个新的政治架构 - 一个一党独大时代的过去。


而很不幸,对行动党来说,这个新政治架构却是建立在对行动党政府的不信任上面。但是,对于人民来说,却是50多年才来幸福,因为,人民开始拿回自己的话语权,最少,在社交媒体上,这个局面已经打开,从电子媒体,再延伸到实际的实体,例如,芳林公园的集会,网上电子转账,当然,还有更为激烈的涂鸦事件。


随着人民对行动党政府的公信力,信任,信心失去后,国家的行政组织的权威性,也将面临考验,如果,在这样的大环境下,在建设新政治架构的要求下,司法单位,法庭,警察部门还是像以前那样,50年如一日,没有做出相应的改变调整,建设性政治也只是一个空谈,也只不过又是行动党一个变戏法。


事实上,现在很多人在等待看法庭的一出好戏,到底总理的名誉损失是5000元几个倍数。因为总理的律师把案件提到高庭,而高庭的司法案件一般打底最少要处理25万以上的诉讼。可见5000元,在行动党眼中,实在是太少了,虽然总理旧衣服,有破洞的衣服,照样的穿,但是,说到名誉,信誉,行动党和总理可就不含糊,一定要认真对待,要高庭拿出一个数目来。


不论高庭拿出一个什么数目,5000*X的多少,人民的心目中,肯定会有不同的结论。而这个结论,会不会使到宏茂桥集选区失守,那就要看选民的情绪反应了。


价值的判断


很不幸的陈笃生医院#1和卫生部也要加入这个高庭案件。以不符合医院的价值为理由,把人开除。什么是价值? 这个价值是依据医院的潜规则来办事,还是以社会大众认可的价值来判断。


开除的理由最好是根据工作能力来判断。如果以价值来判断,就会有所误差。因为价值可以是行动党的标准,可以是行动党的潜规则,也可以是人民的标准,人民的要求。网民现在出钱出力,就是要看一场好戏,想不到,行动党还真的的配合演出,高庭,医院,卫生部,还有听说,连环境部的小贩部门也想加入演出。外交部#2也插上一脚,香港总领事还要特地澄清,总理还是一样获得人民的信任,并且举出过去几年解决经济问题和国际指标为例子,说明人民还是信任总理。


我们说行动党还是总理获得不获得人民的信任,行政单位最好能够保持独立性。越帮越忙,而不是越办越好,不管这些政府组织是说给行动党支持者听,还是说给外国人听,他们有些不是新加坡的主人,有些只代表一部分新加坡选民。这样做只能把事情给搞糊涂,模糊人民的视线,或许,这是这些政府组织在潜意识下自然而然的执行一路来奉行的潜规则。

但是,建设性政治,正确政治却有不一样的期待,不一样的要求,而抛开潜规则,维护独立办事能力,却是新政治架构的先决条件。这是国家组织,政府机构的新挑战,人民对它们的新要求。


#1
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogger-roy-ngerng-fired-from-job-094224365.html

#2
http://www.singapolitics.sg/news/trust-govt-remains-high-says-consul-general

Sunday, 8 June 2014

Gerrymandering, Big Data and Constructive Politics



Constructive politics mean gerrymandering and other dirty politics will be less effective or no effect at all in future elections.

Transparent, open and reliable Big Data is a necessary condition for constructive politics.


Gerrymandering needs no introduction in Singapore. The PAP has been happily using it for political gains for more than 50 years.

However, gerrymandering and changes in election rules (GRC, NCMP, NMP) will have little impact when the real constructive politics take place.  The magic of gerrymandering will disappear when there is no walkover. When every constituency is contested, how are you going to draw up, divide, or re-group different constituencies? For the PAP, there is no way/place to hide, especially for their weaker candidates. The coming election will be challenging for the PAP and it will be even more challenging in future.

This is the REAL beginning of constructive politics in Singapore. The so-called constructive politics by PAP definition is now under attack. Singaporeans don't trust the PAP as before. People don't trust the mass media anymore. Social media has become the increasing important tool for constructive politics.

Gerrymandering and other dirty political instruments like town council management, defamation suit, ISA, control of media etc are increasing to be seen as political liabilities for the PAP. Their effectiveness and usefulness have gone and any mention of them will anger the voters.

So, we are talking about a different kind of constructive politics in Singapore. It is definitely not the PAP version which excludes the participation of oppositions. Singaporeans want an inclusive constructive politics that is different from the SG Conversation, different from the SG 50 celebration. There you find the PAP and their members talk among themselves, celebrate within themselves and pay high salaries to themselves. They are so out of touch of modern-day Singapore .

What do Singaporeans really want? They want checks and balances, transparency, open and accountability. They want to know how the Big Data works, how the government interprets the Big Data. They don't want to see just a summary or a simple statement saying that you can trust the government and everything is fine.

Singaporeans want more information, more explanations and more details.  The teacher-student (PAP-citizens) relationship of the past has gone. And it is disappearing fast even the most conservative Singaporeans also want their CPF back as shown in Hong Lim park.  

Big Data for all

If our reserve's physical assets need more than 50 man-year to calculate, this must be a very big Big Data. Perhaps, we didn't have super computer then, maybe in the 1990s, the demand for open, transparency and accountability is not high. That was the period gerrymandering and other dirty politics still actively contributed to the election victories of the PAP. That was the period nobody was questioning the Swiss standard of living. Everybody was blinded by the economic growth or threatened to be grouped as troublemakers in the society.

The PAP government is now promoting Big Data. Big Data can be used to improve transport system and passengers' needs as in the case of LTA/IBM project. Big Data can also use to solve social, economic and commercial problems and improve efficiency and productivity.

What is the role of Big Data in constructive politics?

The PAP would like to keep the Big Data for themselves, exclusively for their version of constructive politics. They are willing to selectively releasing Big Data for commercial and economic use, not so willing to share Big Data for social analysis and certainly not disclosing information for political use. (for example, election statistics) So, what kind of constructive politics is the PAP talking about?

Big Data is to be shared, studied, and analysed for a better society economically and politically. Keeping important Big Data for political use is the usual practice of the PAP but how long can it last?  

If the PAP government can disclose more information about reserve, GIC, Temasek and CPF openly and transparently, then we can talk about constructive politics.

Singapore is now at the cross road.  People are rejecting the old way, PAP-style of constructive politics. They want to participate in the constructive politics in their own way, in their own style.  This is a new process of building Singapore and it will take place with or without the PAP.    

Even the PAP has all the Big Data in their hands, they still can’t guess the mood of voters. So, it is to the advantage of the PAP to share the Big Data openly. Better early than late, the PAP needs to act fast for a transparent presentation of Big Data in a constructive Singapore politics.      

Monday, 2 June 2014

信心信任失去 公积金何以安心安全

*为何人们对私人保险公司的信心还高于政府的公积金局?

*为何国际上AAA评级,人们还是不放心政府的做账?



国人对行动党政府的信任指数一直往下滑。其实,国会根本就不用分上下两期,上半期的任务根本没有完成,为何来个下半期?你想一想,全国对话,人口政策,交通,组屋,公积金,这些大问题,本届国会根本就没有在上半期取得突破性进展,为何又来下半旗,继续糊涂百姓?

下半期,一开始就流年不利,一个政治建设,就把整个总统施政方针给搞乱了,再加上公积金的官司,简直就是,火上加油。原本是想要弥补上半期,无法完成的信任信心任务,以便为大选铺路,哪里知道,这个信心指数却被无名英雄,虎虎生威的给哄下去。

行动党想要在短期内,恢复元气,真的太难了。难就难在的困局,如何收拾,看来只有越描越黑;总理和行动党是越陷越深,如何摆脱公积金的两个大问题:

*为何人们对私人保险公司的信心还高于政府的公积金局?

*为何国际上AAA评级,人们还是不放心政府的做账?


公积金局不如保险公司?

公积金局的运作和目的,其实就像是保险公司的作法一样。公积金是强制性的,而向保险公司投保却是自愿性的。公积金的医药存款,医药保险,养老退休金,都是根据保险和精算的方法计算出来。如果要加上普通户头的投资(组屋,股票,黄金等), 就类似保险界的投资性保险,回报和风险的波动大,客户要冒一定的风险,万一投资不顺利,回报会偏低。

不论如何,保险公司是受到金融管理局管制和监控的。当然,公积金局的管制和监控比保险公司还要严格,它是受到新加坡宪法的保护和监控的。因此,

*为何人们对私人保险公司的信心还高于政府的公积金局呢?

你想一想,如果你对一家保险公司不信任,没有信心,你会把保费交给这家公司吗?你会比较,寻找一家适合的保险公司作为你的额外医药保险,人寿保险,健康保险,房地产保险,商业保险,等等的保险公司。当然,也有一些情形,你和银行贷款,就必须向银行指定的保险公司买保险,甚至于律师,也要根据银行的要求。这是有求于人的代价。

由于公积金是强制性的,你没有这个选择,即使你没有有求于人,也要交公积金。

现在,新加坡公积金制度出现信任危机,人们对它的回报不满,对它的透明度不满,对它没有信心,对它提供的保护网不满,对它的最低退休存款不满,太多的不满造成对政府的公信力下降,政府和人民的互信出现问题。不管政府怎么解释,反而激起更多的人不满,一个总理的公积金官司,在短短两三天,竟然能够获得人们的同情支持,筹款数目已经超过5万元。为何人们自愿的提供10元,20元,50元,甚至500元给一个不认识的人,这不是很明显对行动党不满,对公积金局的信任不够。
Funds Raised  by 1 June 2014 5pm
赢了官司,李显龙会为此输了选票吗?http://thehearttruths.com/


如果公积金局是一间私人保险公司,那么,人们就可以自由的退保,政府就无法控制人们的意愿,公积金局就会出现好像银行那样的挤兑现象,门口排长龙,人人要退保,要现金。

为何一个国家级的保险公司-公积金局,会出现这么大的信任危机,难道行动党这50年的经济,政治建设,没有办法留住人们的心吗?问题到底在哪里?

公积金的问题可以说是愈演愈烈,公积金局没有足够钱给会员这个问题,几十年前就已经在传开了。当时没有社交媒体,讨论的空间有限,即使不满也是局部,容易受到控制。行动党一直无法好好的处理这个问题,局部控制反而使到讨论电子化,一发不可收拾,到了今天这个地步。

相对来说,马来西亚和香港也都有类似公积金的制度,在这方面,他们也有不满,但是,不至于沦落到今天新加坡公积金局的地步,和对政府信心信任构成威胁。

因此,我们有必要检讨为何人们对公积金局的信心,对行动党政府的信任,会出现如此的落差?是总理说的正确政治,政治建设做得不够,还是做过了头,出现反效果。人民公仆如果无法取得人民的信任,后果将只有下台一条路。


国际评级高就等于账做对了吗?

由于信心信任出现问题,财政部特地在最近更新有关网页,从三方面(储备内容和管理,总统的权限,和公积金安全吗)对我国的储备做出进一步解释。其中特别指出新加坡是世界上少有的获得AAA信用评级的国家,因此,在国际上有信任度,外人对我们有信心。这是说给国人听的,意思是为何还要对储备,公积金质疑,外人都相信了,我们不应该自己怀疑自己。

在总统的保护储备的权限上,网页也解释当年前总统王鼎昌的疑问。也附上当时国会辩论相关课题的内容。财政部认为这是一个误解,政府并没有不提供资料给前总统,而是:

1。政府(总会计长)有提供实物资产的名单,但是没有估价。因为这需要56个人年来做这件事。
(56 man-years10 to conduct a complete valuation of the physical assets, even though he had already produced the listing (without valuation figures).#

2。不需要重新评估国家资产的价值。即使要,也是当资产出卖时,以市价来计算。no need to revalue all State properties)#

3。重新评估价值是浪费资源。因为第一, 土地没有出卖; 第二,土地的价值要看规划和位置所在的区域。(revaluation would be a waste of resources)

如果,我们想象新加坡政府是一家上市公司,它不公布土地价值,只给名单。它不评估资产的价值,卖的的时候才来根据市价来计算。它还大声的告诉天下人,估价是浪费时间和精力。你的信心和信任是否会动摇?

最近政府公布了一份报告,REIT产业信托不会影响中小型企业,产业信托没有影响租金,这些产业信托在股票市场上市,不知道它们有没有对手上的资产做估价?我们有没有产业股,不对手上的资产做估价的呢?股票市场是否容许不做估价,便让公司上市的特别例子呢?

因此,做账漂亮,AAA只是一个指标而已。不然,雷曼兄弟,恩龙,美国两大房地产公司的失败,也不会对股市造成冲击。他们的账经过国际大审计公司过目的,如果,根据财政部的说法,国际信用AAA没有问题,你会相信吗?

我在上几篇博文中提到,阿裕尼市镇会在账目交接的过程中出现了讯息空洞(Information gap), 上,下结账不对口,因此,造成审计问题。这样的问题,也只有在市镇会换人管理时才会出现。现在,公积金和储备的账目都在行动党政府手中,它以AAA来压人民,人民也是无话好说的。

如果真的的看账目,要看上下账对不对口,那就只有把行动党政府给换掉了。新政府看了账目后,可能出现三种情形:

1。上下对口,没有讯息空洞。一切正常。

2。上下不对口,出现讯息空洞。那就要看这个空洞有多大。如果现金不够,新政府很可能就要举债,向人民借钱,或是向国际金融机构贷款。

356人年的估价。 因为我们没有估价,只有资产名单。因为估价浪费时间和精力,这样一来,国际金融市场如何估价新元,世界各国如何跟一个没有估价的国家做生意,新加坡将出现一个不稳定的局面,而我们的资产底线到底在哪里?

其实,最令人害怕的是第三种情形的出现,人生有几个50年。行动党管理新加坡50多年,明年又是金喜年,真的需要56人年来估价国家资产吗?现在,已经是大数据时代,超级电脑的时代,行动党政府难道还要用算盘来算账吗?

#
http://app.mof.gov.sg/reserves_sectionthree.aspx
http://app.mof.gov.sg/reserves_sectiontwo.aspx

Q18. Did the Government fail to provide former President Ong Teng Cheong with sufficient information to protect the Past Reserves?
A misperception that crops up from time to time is that former President Ong had been denied the information needed for him to perform an effective role in protecting the Past Reserves. In fact, President Ong was given all the information required for the purpose. This information included the value of all the Government’s financial assets, as well as a listing of physical assets, such as buildings and land.
At his 16 July 1999 press conference, President Ong spoke of how he had been informed by the Accountant-General that it would take "52 man-years" to produce the value of the full list of physical assets of the Government.
The facts of the case were explained by former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in Parliament on 17 August 1999, as summarised below:
• The President's Office had requested a listing of physical assets from the Accountant-General on 18 Jun 1996. At a meeting with the President on 14 Aug 1996 (i.e. less than two months later), the Accountant-General provided a listing of State buildings, while the Commissioner of Lands provided a listing of State lands. Updates were subsequently sent to the President's Office.
• It was at this meeting that the President remarked that to protect the Past Reserves, the reserves should ideally be denominated in dollar value. To this, the Accountant-General said that it would take 56 man-years10 to conduct a complete valuation of the physical assets, even though he had already produced the listing (without valuation figures).
• The Attorney-General’s Chambers subsequently advised that there was no need to revalue all State properties at each changeover of the term of Government, as the question of whether Past Reserves were being drawn did not arise unless a piece of land was actually about to be sold off or alienated. At the point of sale, land is valued, and the Reserves protection framework requires only that the land be sold at fair market value.
• Furthermore, the proposed revaluation would be a waste of resources. First, the reality was that much of State land would remain as State land, i.e. unsold. Second, the value of each piece of land depended on planning and zoning restrictions, which  the Government could change.