Monday, 29 September 2014

新马关系 - 从兄弟到朋友


【新柔长提的过路费事件,凸显新马领导人的私利行为。国阵巫统和人民行动党领袖,不把新马两国人民的利益和方便放在第一位,反而一直在进行政治盘算。难怪这两个政治团伙,越来越失去民心,得票率和公信力节节败退。】

新马分家明年步入50个年头,但是,新马关系却从兄弟般的亲密走到现在的朋友阶段;再走下去,会不会成了普通朋友,远亲不如近邻,似乎我们大家都忘了?不是吗?

不久前,在第二届青年奥运(南京2014夏季青年奥林匹克运动会)会上,中国国家主席习近平形容中新两国友好关系有如“兄弟情同手足”。早报如实报道,而身在南京现场的新加坡总统陈庆炎只是表示,“很高兴来南京,这是他第一次到访南京,并祝青年选手增进友谊”。#1

再过几年,当从云南跨境越南,寮国,柬埔寨,泰国,马来西亚直通到新加坡的快速火车到达新加坡时,中国和新加坡,还有中印半岛,马来西亚关系也将进一步加强,到时,中国国家主席,或许,也会说除了新加坡外,中国和这些国家的关系,也是兄弟般,情同手足。

区域政治经济局势的稳定对大家都有利。搞了几十年的亚细安,事实上,并没有加强新马的双边关系,反而是新加坡和印尼,新加坡和泰国,如果不是印尼和泰国的国内局势发展,很可能,新加坡和这两个国家的关系,更胜于马来西亚。

现在,习近平说,新中关系,有如兄弟。这是不是意味着新马关系,已经降格到朋友的阶段?因为,我们没有听到李总理,还是纳吉说,新马关系有如兄弟,更多的时候听到和看到不同的声音,不协调的问题。

新加坡由于务实的政治经济外交政策,很早就是向外看,我们和美国,日本,欧洲的关系也很好,在改革开放前,即使在改革开放后,和这些国家的关系也一样良好,因为我们一直在扮演好小弟弟的角色。因此,即使新加坡在人权,在内安法,在新闻自由方面,有所欠缺,这些国家还是很体谅我们,有时还会为维护人民行动党政府而辩护。

新马边防越来越僵化

如果在80年代到过欧洲共同体的人一定知道,跨国到另一个国家,有一些不方便。例如从意大利进入法国,从荷兰进入西德,就是等于过境,要看护照,当然,必要时也要申报,报关。现在呢!欧盟的欧陆地区是一个整体,从一个国家进入另一个欧盟国家,是不需要所谓的”过境”的。

从这个改变来看,亚细安真的有很长的路要走,而新马之间,似乎从独立前的没有过关问题,到过关要看护照,再到现在的过关,好像处处提防对方,处处设立人为的障碍。单单从这一点来看,新马关系,真的是从兄弟走向朋友,在走下去就是生意关系,大家似乎都忘记了过去的兄弟情。

这到底是刻意的安排,还是自然发展?从长远来看,想到有一天,人民行动党政府要新加坡人,在没有钱的时候,过境柔佛或者马来西亚其他地方养老,这不是很不方便吗?新柔长提,第二通道将来会更加不方便吗?想到这里,这不是开倒车吗?不管是通商,经商,旅游,投资,我们都力求方便,为何50年后,反而变得不方便起来?

新马政治经济社会的发展,已经渐行渐远。我们已经没有统一的海峡时报,南洋商报,星洲日报,货币分家,航空公司分家,经济发展速度不同,到现在的国民人均距离拉大和货币兑换差距大等等,在语言文化上也出现更大的不同。

而在新马之间出现差距的时候,我们的人民和政治人物对对方的了解,同时,也出现很大的落差。试问,我们的政治人物了解对方吗?两国人民能够互相了解对方吗?人民行动党的新一代领袖,很可能更加了解欧美,甚至中国和印度(因为他们经常中国印度两边跑)。新加坡人呢?尤其是新加入的移民,他们了解新马的过去历史吗?我们的年轻一代,也和政治人物一样,对于欧美,日本,港台的兴趣,更加多于马来西亚发生的事情。

一个比较有趣的发展是在政治上。新马在政治上出现重新洗牌的倾向。两个地方的老政治势力,现在正面对选民更加高的诉求,选民倾向反对势力,反对势力的崛起,同时更多的人愿意投入替代政府的准备工作。

即使,新马两地在国民人均上有一定的距离,在经济发展上,一个已经是第一世界国家,另一个是伊斯兰世界的模范,虽然道不同,但是,在政治发展上却出现互相映照的现象。马来西亚反对势力先走一步,新加坡方面也跟进。

这样一个”异曲同工“的发展道路,将会为将来的新马关系,埋下一个什么样的伏笔呢?新马的老政治势力把两国关系从兄弟变为朋友,新的政治局面,是否会更加恶化朋友关系,降格到生意关系呢?(纳吉来新加坡为马来西亚农产品批发中心开幕,不是打着生意的念头吗?) 还是有所转机,提升朋友关系到兄弟关系?如果一边依然是旧政治势力,另一边却是新政治势力,那结果又是怎么样呢?看来,我们只能拭目以待。


#1
http://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/singapore/story20140816-378239

Monday, 22 September 2014

Cultural shift without love, without alternatives

The PAP style of cultural shift as announced during National Day Rally is yet another insult to Singaporeans.  We now have a clearer picture of what it means.  As reported, the PAP is still looking for a ‘real solution’ #1 to solve income inequality and they also want to extend their style of meritocracy ‘through life’#2.

The real solution that Prime Minister Lee proposed is not totally new. His concrete solutions are a repeat calling of skills upgrading and the PAP style of wealth redistribution. This, according to him, can give everyone some chips to play with. He stressed again his cultural shift of obtaining necessary skills (with or without a degree) to succeed.


In order to support the so-called cultural shift, the PAP has to continue to champion the PAP-style of meritocracy.  It now becomes a life-long meritocracy. Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam explained it as follows:

“Not a meritocracy that is based on what you have achieved at 18 or 24, but a meritocracy through life, where you are assessed on your performance at every stage of your life, regardless of where you came from or where you started,” #2

Is this really a cultural shift?  When we became self-ruled in 1959, we have already begun our journey and engaged in the real solution of solving income equality and redistribution.  We, of course, base our economic development and social progress on the principle of meritocracy.  Our housing, industrial, commercial, infrastructure and financial development, are all real and concrete solutions, aren't there? Are they not founded on a life-long insist ency of meritocracy? If not, how do people in the past with little education (through their hardworking) get rich?

The key question/answer is REAL SOLUTIONS and MERITOCRACY are always there. They have been in Singapore even long before independence. The only difference is a  ‘changed’ PAP.  In the past 50 years, the PAP has changed the game play and hence not everyone has chips to play. Some have a lot more and some have nothing. Hence, the income inequality becomes a real problem, a political burden to the PAP.  And the meritocracy has returned back to performance, hardworking, hungry to learn rather than scholarships and degrees.  

Real cultural shift in name only

Judging from the official banning of the documentary film “To Singapore, with Love”, do you really think there is a cultural shift as promoted by PM Lee?   What really does he mean when he wants Singaporeans to go beyond paper qualifications? Most likely the cultural shift is just another smoke of the PAP government.

The end result is you have to go to Malaysia to catch the documentary. Alternatively, you may watch the documentary in a controlled environment in the name of academic research. This is the so-called cultural shift of  the PAP government. There is no love, there is no alternatives. Has the PAP changed? Yes. there is no real cultural shift but a changed PAP. The PAP changed the game play from ‘real solutions’ to ‘meritocracy’.    

Cultural shift can not be a piecemeal, cannot be so selective and no alternatives.  We cannot say the European or German apprenticeship (skill based) system is good, then we just take this part of the good practice and transplants it into Singapore system.
We have long past the time that we copies part of the ‘good’ western practices and can successful transplant it here. We have long past the ear of German-, French-, Japan-Singapore institutes.  

Cultural shift is a very complicated process even the British is finding it hard to ‘Make Me a German’ - a BBC documentary explaining the way of life and work in Germany.  A successful apprenticeship needs a caring, loving and supportive society. Do you think the so-called cultural shift of the PAP government can become a real caring and supportive social engineering?  





#1
http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/more-singapore-stories/story/real-solutions-needed-deal-income-inequality-says-pm-lee
#2
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/adopt-meritocracy-through-life-tharman-urges-spore

Monday, 15 September 2014

诠释新加坡历史,不是行动党的专利。


【新加坡建国历史的诠释,不是一个人,一个党的专利。诠释的方式应该是多方面的,尤其应该包含失败者的声音,就像西楚霸王,滑铁如拿破仑那样,失败者同样能够带来巨大的反思反省。】


得奖纪录片《星国恋》#1从国外红到国内。在国外红的原因和国内红的原因,竟然完全的不同。在国外得奖,在国内却因为政治思想不正确,被定为有害国家安全,而被完全的和全面的在新加坡禁演。

当我们在诠释新加坡历史的时候,应该从什么角度来看这个问题?过去人民行动党的角度,现在人民行动党的角度,还是现在新加坡人的角度来诠释历史留下的问号?

过去的行动党认为政治上的异议份子,破坏国家安全,动之以内安法,逮捕他们,或者逼走他们。现在的行动党,很难再使用内安法来达到同样的目的,因此,只能利用媒体法令来限制,过去异议份子的言论。对于行动党来说,这是(保守范围内的)一种进步,这是一种开放,但是,对于人民来说,这是否是一种进步,一种开放?那就要看你是穿什么颜色的衣服了。

讲到现在的行动党,当然就要讲到李显龙 - 行动党的现任秘书长,党的一把手。我们从他最近的三个动作和举动,就可以看出为何行动党政府认为,《星国恋》危害国家安全。

文化转向,有没有?
总理在国庆群众大会上,强调新加坡人应该来一个文化转向,政府将带头不再重视文凭,不再强调大学教育的重要性,反过来,政府将看公务员的工作表现,雇员的提升机会也根据工作表现,主流媒体还特意的为此报道了几位工作表现良好的非大学毕业生。这就是总理所谓的文化转向吗?

因此,从纪录片《星国恋》被禁演,我们可以很清楚的看到,所谓的文化转向是什么一回事?搬出危害国家安全的理由,到底是不是一种文化转向?是否是转向更加保守,一旦出现和新加坡不一样版本的历史诠释,就搬出国家安全这个大标题,然后就顺理成章的否定不同的历史诠释。

所以,提出文化转向,不过是一个欺骗选票的手法,表面上,让选民认为有转向的迹象,说到底,比以前更加保守,没有真实的 改变。间接的,也让我们看清楚总理高调提倡的的文化转向的真正意图。

社交媒体造成社会分裂,破坏和谐。
作为一个理科毕业生,数学比一般人都厉害的人,对于事情的判断,应该是理性多于感性。社交媒体造成分裂,到底有没有什么数据作为根据。有没有什么调查报告,细节,详情,可以和人民分享,说服人民,证明社交媒体的功过。即使真的有什么数据,那也是一方面的看法,另外一些人,也很可能提出另外一些数据,来说明社交媒体,对社会和谐做出贡献,不会造成分裂社会的现象。

因此,媒体发展管理局,发出禁演令,禁演《星国恋》,那也不过是行动党政府的单方面的立场,单方面的数据单方面的诠释行动党版本的新加坡建国历史。《星国恋》反映的是另一方的立场,另一方的看法,媒体发展管理局简单的,没有科学根据的就完全否定另一方的立场,尤其是新媒体时代,根本就是开历史的倒车。

【媒发局指出,安全单位合法并保护国家安全稳定的行为,被电影扭曲成迫害无辜的个人,这样的做法是伤害国家安全。】#1

到底是谁在扭曲历史事实?我们只是看到行动党政府的版本。我们只是看到行动党的一面之词。新加坡人是否有权知道失败者的一面,失败者的过去能否让我们反思反省呢?

因此,到底有多少人相信行动党政府的说法?现在的人看这个问题,和以前的人看同样的一个问题,有什么不同?即使现在的行动党人和以前的行动党人,看同样一个问题,是否也和以前相同,采取的行政手法,是否一致?

看来,我们的李总理,就是要跟随以前的行动党的路线,和以前的行动党一样,采取一致的立场。只要和行动党政见不同,都是危害国家安全的。而像《星国恋》这样的纪录片,它竟然比R21的电影还要危险,对社会的伤害比三级片还要严重。这样的一面之词,即使开明派的行动党人,也很可能未必同意,更何况网民和在国际化长大的年轻人 。

《星国恋》原本要在我们最高学府新加坡国立大学放映。行动党连受过高等教育,在社会上能够比较分辨是非,评论历史事实的人面前,都不敢让他们观看,分析。行动党不敢让他们看,然后说服他们,同意并且支持政府的说法。李总理和行动党政府连这个勇气都没有,他不敢公开放映,在媒体和公众面前,再次击倒这些持不同意见的人,说服国人,这些异议份子真的危害国家的安全。

行动党连受过高等教育的人,都不放心,那行动党还敢搞真的文化转向吗?

法庭只需做出判决,不需考虑细节,
即所谓的summary judgment

和政府立场和做法一致,当然,我们可以想象总理对自己的诽谤诉讼,当然也是采取同样的处理手法。在对博客的诉讼中,总理要求法庭做出summary judgement 的判决。直接跳到赔偿损失的结论上。不需要针对这起诉讼案件的有关细节,进行辩论,尤其是,对方即博客已经做出道歉声明,因此,没有必要再对相关的细节,在进行辩论。

这和《星国恋》的处理手法,是否有异曲同工之妙?

《星国恋》在媒体发展局眼中,事实上已经有所定论,那就是,媒体报道的:

【媒发局认为星国恋中并没有真实呈现这些人为何流亡海外的原因。】
【新闻通讯及艺术部长雅国(YaacobIbrahim)表示支持媒发局的决定,他认为这些人没有诚实说出为何离开新加坡,他不讶异现在这些人想要陈述自己版本的历史。  雅国说,这些离开新加坡且不愿为自己行为负责的人,「不能利用公共平台,传递错误且不真实的观点来误导大众,免除自己对过去行为的责任」。】#1

身为艺术部长的雅国,认为行动党所谓的异议份子是不诚实的。因此,他们不能利用公共平台,来误导大众。在历史的面前,到底是谁在误导新加坡人民?我们又如何诠释新加坡历史,难道,新加坡只容许一个行动党版本的历史吗?难道文化转向,不是要转向到一个全面,比较客观的真实吗?
你相信人民行动党的文化转向吗? 你相信行动党版本的新加坡历史吗?行动党的文化转向,就像坐井观天,外面的世界已经改变了,它还在固步自封和故步自封,没有勇气面对另一种声音和新的挑战。

#1 质疑安全 星禁演纪录片星国恋
http://dailynews.sina.com/gb/news/int/ausdaily/20140910/05006074800.html

Tuesday, 9 September 2014

Hong Kong CE Election: Singapore style, Singapore experience.

Good design is one thing. The outcome of the design is another thing as seen in Singapore Presidential Election. The proposed framework of 2017 Chief Executive election in Hong Kong seems to suggest a design framework favouring a pro-Beijing candidate. However, if we look closely at the similar presidential election in Singapore, the outcome, surprisingly, turned out to be quite different from the original plan of the design.


The political reform for the 2017 Hong Kong Chief Executive election seems to model after Singapore Presidential  election introduced in 1993. You can call it a one-man one-vote Universal Suffrage election but there is  a pre-condition for candidates standing for the election.


Here, we have a Presidential  Elections Committee to approve the candidates and issue the eligibility certificates. Without the PEC eligibility forms, no one can stand as PE candidate.  Only with the approving letter from PEC, Election Department in Singapore will then accept the nomination of the candidate.


In Hong Kong, under the political reform, the 2 to 3 candidates will first have to get approval from the Nominating Committee. Candidates need to get 50% and above support from the members of NC to qualify for CE election. The Nominating Committee has 1,200 members. In 2011, PEC had only three members.


The Hong Kong NC has many more members than the Singapore PEC .  While the PEC looks at the ‘protection of reserve’ qualification of candidates, the NC seems to look at the pro-Beijing loyalty of the candidates.  


In both PE in Singapore and CE election in Hong Kong, an eligibility status is required and a committee is empowered to approve and issued eligibility certificates.  This is why people call it a ‘closed’ and not Open election.


Singapore Presidential Election has existed since 1993 and in fact, in Singapore, Universal Suffrage is not an issue as we have already exercised it in general elections for members of parliament. However, voters are always guessing who will be the candidates, or whether there will be a walkover in PE.


Perhaps, the clever promotion of the PAP has misled Singaporeans into believing that one will need to be a ‘super financial expert overseeing large sum of money’ to qualify to stand for PE election.  
We only ask who is ‘eligible’ to stand or whether there will be another walkover. We seldom ask about Universal Suffrage or Open election. We accept the fact (fate) that the PAP decides who can stand for election.   

Some surprises in Singapore experience


1. A pro-PAP President turns against the PAP
This happens in the first PE in Singapore. The PAP prefered candidate Ong Teng Cheong, a former Deputy Prime Minister stood against a former Accountant-General, Chua Kim Yeow. Even Ong went through but the non-campaigned  Chua managed to get 41% of the votes.  It showed voters wanted a less ‘white’ and independent candidate to be the President to safeguard the reserve.


[Chua was a reluctant candidate and had to be persuaded by the Government to stand so that the election would be contested, and the electorate could choose between two good candidates.
The 10-day campaign was supposed to be a "gentlemen's election", free of flag-waving and noisy rallies. But Chua took it to the extreme, urging supporters not to campaign for him. He appeared on TV just twice (once avoiding any mention of himself or his views), and even announced on polling day that Ong was the better candidate. Even so, Chua did surprisingly well, garnering 41.3% of the vote.]#1


However, Ong questioned about the reserve and the time taken to calculate the reserve as well as the sale of POSB Bank to DBS Bank.  His ‘doing the right things’  won many respects from Singaporeans even until today.
  
[However, soon after his election to the presidency in 1993, Ong was tangled in a dispute over the access of information regarding Singapore's financial reserves. The government said it would take 56-man-years to produce a dollar-and-cents value of the immovable assets. Ong discussed this with the accountant general and the auditor general and eventually conceded that the government only had to declare all of its properties, a list which took a few months to produce. Even then, the list was not complete; it took the government a total of three years to produce the information that Ong requested.[12]
In an interview with Asiaweek six months after stepping down from presidency,[13]Ong indicated that he had asked for this audit based on the principle that as an elected president, he was bound to protect the national reserves, and the only way of doing so would be to know what reserves (both liquid cash and assets) the government owned.] #2


2. The ugly surprise of 2 walkovers
Due to the bad experience with Ong Teng Cheong, the PAP decided to support a former security and intelligence chief, SR Nathan to stand for PE. Not surprisingly, there was no other suitable and qualified candidate, the PEC finally only issued one eligibility certificate to only one person, SR Nathan in 1999 and 2005.  Perhaps, the PAP has lost confidence on their ministers or former ministers and thinking a person in charge of security and intelligence can be trusted.


The two walkovers in PE shows something very wrong in the design of  Presidential Election. It shows the ‘haves’ who are qualified to stand will not come forward (there is no Michael Bloomberg in Singapore) for the betterment of Singapore. It also shows how the system is being manipulated so that only pro-PAP candidate will get the eligibility certificate.      
  
It paints a very bad image of Singapore internationally. If there is no contest, why there is a need for elected president?


3.  The very low support of pro-PAP candidate
In a surprise move,  four persons received eligibility certificates from the PEC in 2011.   However, it was a very closed competition. The PAP supported Tony Tan only managed to get 35.2% of the votes, a narrow win of 0.34% over the second best candidate, Tan Cheng Bok.  The winning percentage of Tony Tan was even lower than the 39% of the votes that Chen Shui Bian received in 2000 during the Taiwan presidential election.    


From 58% in 1993 to 35% in 2011, is this the design outcome that the PAP wants?  The PAP cleverly designs a Presidential  Election in her favour, including the condition of eligibility certificate. However, it can no longer guarantee a desirable and expected outcome that they want in future.  It exposes the vulnerability of the system. Any candidate that is as white as the PAP seems to carry a bag of negative assets and plenty of liabilities.      


The Singapore experience and lesson can provide another vision to the political reform in Hong Kong.   As far as you have the right to vote, there are possible changes and unexpected outcome whether it is a close or open election. The only certainty is there is a walkover like the case in 1999 and 2005 PE.


Both Singapore and Hong Kong is expected to hold PE and CE election in 2017.  Do you think there will be a walkover in both cities then?
 
#1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singaporean_presidential_election,_1993#Chua.27s_Campaign


#2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ong_Teng_Cheong

Tuesday, 2 September 2014

地铁公司先斩后奏, 淡马锡,政府投资公司也可以依样画葫芦。


行有行规,行政、司法制度就是要确保公司,企业,政府部门依据一定的行规来做事。不但如此,作为公益事业,公营企业,国家单位,更是要守法,并且做到公开透明,时时刻刻面对制衡和接受人民、公众的检查。


如果地铁公司,可以因为多做生意或者创意的原因,而不需要守法,自行决定公司的运行和营业方针,那么,淡马锡,政府投资公司,外汇储备的管理,公积金的保障问题,也可以在创意的大前提下,自行制定投资政策,自我安排游戏规矩,不需要考虑到国人,公积金会员的利益。即使,这些出发点,这些创意是好的,归根结底,行有行规,人民的利益是最大的,不能因为创意,就可以不遵守法律。因为如果创意失败,损失最大还是人民。


地铁公司的创意,延伸到淡马锡,政府投资公司,外汇储备管理,和公积金的保障问题,就会出现创意会计,创意投资策略,创意基金管理等等。这些创意,出发点很可能都是好的,目的也像地铁公司一样,表面上不会影响到公众利益,而是通过创意的管理,增加回报。


陆路交通管理局,原本还想要对地铁公司采取行动,现在好像不了了之,大事化小,小事化无。地铁公司夹着创意,竟然连警告信都没有收到一封。如果换做是淡马锡,政府投资公司,外汇储备和公积金的管理,它们如果不理行有行规,是否也可以一样,大事化小,小事化无呢?


如果淡马锡,政府投资公司的创意投资出现问题,产生巨大的亏损,谁来买单?公司负责人还是全国人民,公积金会员?


这是一个非常严重和可能带来严重后果的创意,人民在没有获知创意的前提下,是否愿意并且同意冒险,去进行创意的商业活动、投资活动。既然行有行规,法律已经规定任何创意行为,任何不合公益事业,国营企业和政府部门的行为,做法,都要先行报告,那么为何地铁公司拥有这个豁免权?同样的,豁免权是否也延伸到淡马锡,政府投资公司,外汇和公积金的管理呢?


创意和守法的不同


当初政府在国会通过法令,让陆路交通管理局设立法律,管理地铁公司的运作和营业方式时,当然也考虑到公众的利益,地铁搭客的方便等等因素。地铁公司获得经营权,当然也知道必须遵守这些条文,行有行规,必须要履行这些义务和责任。


事实上,地铁公司的确有不按照牌理出牌的惯例。从创意业务来说,他们因为看重地铁零售点的出租,高于地铁的维修,导致地铁班次误点,甚至地铁服务瘫痪。现在,出现不守规定,创意出租地铁班车,表面上是创意,但是,却是回到以前的利益思维。


国会如何制衡公营事业


任何有关公营事业的行规,监督制衡地铁公司,淡马锡,政府投资公司等等的法令,法律,都是必须经过国会通过的。国会在人民行动党拥有超过三分二议席的情形下,可以轻易的通过任何法案。当然,要修改这些法令,也可以很容易的加以修改,问题是,会不会有一天,为了创意,国会特意通过修改法令,使到公营事业的创意生意,创意投资,创意基金管理,进一步放宽?


地铁公司没有遵守行规,而陆路交通管理局只是发出一两声叫声,就自动,主动停止。到底国会通过的制衡令,监督令,是如何的执行,难道发一两声,就代表了已经完成国会赋予的权力,执行的力度就真的如此简单吗?


延伸到淡马锡,政府投资公司,公积金局,金融管理局等等,它们的背后也都有国会赋予当局的监督制衡权力,要求它们监督,制衡,审阅这些公家政府单位的工作。同样的,在处理这些单位的创意投资,创意基金管理时,是否也和地铁公司一样,只是发出一两声警告声就够了。

这里举出两个简单创意失败的例子:

新航在马航乌克兰出事后,就急不及待的宣布自己的飞机没有飞过乌克兰上空,事实上,新航最后必须做出道歉。而国会也证实,新航飞机其实只是距离出事的马航班机不远,几十里罢了。连新航这样注重创意的国际公司,并且是新加坡的形象,都会出问题,我们的公营事业,地铁,淡马锡,政府投资公司,也当然会犯同样的错误。


最近东海岸市镇会,在不得已的情形下,对付非法,不守法的脚踏车骑士。骑士们的行为,不是今天才发生的,而是几十年来都是如此。人们为了个人的方便,走捷径,反正当局,也只是发出一两声警告声而已。久而久之,这个创意行为,变成理所当然,对行人的安全造成一定的威胁。这是一个随时都会发生意外的创意。东海岸市镇会在考虑了一定的政治代价后,(行人选票多于骑士选票),最后决定对付骑士。


创意是好东西,但是,缺乏监督,没有制衡的创意,结果将是可怕的。现在,陆路交通管理局在国会赋予权力的情形下,没有好好的监督制衡地铁公司,延伸到淡马锡,政府投资公司,公积金局,外汇储备管理等等单位,极有可能,也会出现同样的监管,制衡问题。

这么一来,国会不是形同虚设。赋予有关当局,监督和制衡权力,结果只是发一两声就不了了之。长期下来,新加坡选民要严肃的考虑这个问题,因为,公积金,外汇储备的管理,也同样可以像地铁公司一样,在创意的美名下,没有得到应有的监督。