Thursday, 26 February 2015

Darwinism over Robin Hood, Jubilee Budget fails to change PAP’s perception


To change is to change twice. The PAP is very smart in making the first change - innovation, productivity, organisations etc. This is why Budget 2015 is rated AAA by S&P. It endorses Darwinism over Robin Hood as DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam objects that the PAP government is taking a Robin Hood strategy.

It means it only makes one change technically.  It only changes the reality, the quantity (up tax rate and CPF saving rate; more money for Changi Airport, research fund, and infrastructure; introduction of SkillsFuture, Workfare, etc.). Physically, Singaporeans see them, see the change in figure, in reality. But you don’t feel it as the headline of Yahoo Singapore pointed out: Not many Singaporeans looked it up.

However, it is not enough. The Jubilee Budget, like SG50, fails in the second change - perception, creativity, new box. The PAP chooses to remain in the old box. It is not creative enough to move into the new box, either it is intentionally refusing change or lack of creative talent.

Is SkillsFuture a new box? Is Silver Support Scheme a new box? Is Workfare a new box? Is free examination fee a new box?

SkillsFuture is just an extension of lifelong learning. Promotion of training and learning can trace back to 1980s when we engaged in productivity movement. Skill Development Fund, Edusave account, subsidies to workforce development, etc were introduced one after another. And Silver Support Scheme is just an enlargement of the welfare assistance programmes. Workfare and other productivity improvement programmes have in fact entered into a negative return dilemma.  

All the above are existing models. The PAP is a smart learner and implementer of models, especially, best practices from the western developed nations. From economic planning, legal system, financial system, medical system, to the information and smart nation planning, the PAP has cleverly (and selectively) adopted or modified the western models with great? success but also potential problems (e.g creativity).  Anyway, these are old boxes.

Because the PAP only concentrates on the improvement of old models, it is unable to change its perception.  The mainstream media tries to highlight the generous ‘handouts’ in Budget 2015 as a Robin Hood policy. However, DPM Tharman does not agree with this perception. The PAP refuses to be a Robin Hood. It still wants to believe in Darwinism that the fittest survives.Those unfit persons will have to depend on family support first.

Hence, there are no new ideas in Budget 2015. It does not want to project a perception change, just like the celebration of SG50.  We look back in history and remember the old PAP and how good they were. It is a strategy of keeping the old box and promoting old ideas, old models as a long-term sustainability.  It just changes contents in the old boxes or enlarging old boxes, like the introduction of SkillsFuture, Workfare or Silver Support Scheme.  When the opposition calls for free education, better medical coverage, the PAP can only offer free examination fee, medical assistance to pioneer generation.   

In fact, we see a lot of problems coming from the old models, e.g. domestic productivity is going down , local PMETs are facing job difficulties, SMEs continue to face shortage of labour, etc. As for rich-poor gap, the best the PAP can do is to marginally increase the tax rate of top 5%. Budget 2015 just does a model improvement or adjustment, not a new box solution.

After copying, modifying and adjusting the best practices from advanced countries, Singapore is now in par with them in income but not in income distribution, especially comparing to Western European countries.  To go beyond and move forward, Singapore will need to be a producer of models not the user of old models like the past 50 years.

However, to be a creator of models, Singaporeans will need to have a free mind so that we can think out of the old boxes, old models. We will have to face more challenges and make illogical or wrong assumptions. But the problem is with the PAP. It refuses a change of perception on itself and on Singaporeans. It denies Singaporeans free thinking and free expression with a extremely low free press ranking. Furthermore, the PAP also refuses transparency and openness.

Jubilee budget fails to provide such a perception change, be it freedom or transparency.

What can Singaporeans do when we face an anti-perception change PAP government? We can either force it to change or denying them the mandate to govern. This is the option for the coming general election. We can make the change.   



Tuesday, 24 February 2015

PAP预算未来:梁山伯还是娶不到祝英台


【同床三年,梁山伯没有发现祝英台的女儿身。这么老实,难怪最后娶不到祝英台。和行动党同床50年,新加坡人也同样没有发现行动党的正身 - 狐狸的尾巴。难怪,行动党能够一直沿用朝三暮四的预算案,制造无数的梁山伯,娶不到美人归。】


说金禧年的预算案,为何离题到谈梁祝的爱情故事。梁山伯到死还是娶不到祝英台,和预算有什么关系?梁山伯太老实了,就像善良的新加坡人一样,身边是一位美女,还不知道,当发现的时候,已经太迟了。因此,最后娶不到老婆,气得吐血而死。人家梁山伯只糊涂了三年,许文远就在国会发表伟伦,那么,和老实新加坡人的50年相比,那就是要尽快发现,觉悟把行动党推翻,重新开始,才能娶到好老婆。不能再像梁山伯那样了。


为什么说今年的预算案是朝三暮四,说是梁山伯娶不到祝英台呢?这里先举出几个例子:


¥考试费免了,因为之前学费已经涨了。
¥路税减低,但是,汽油税却涨了。
¥55岁公积金会员首三万元,多得1%利息。因为,之前已经赚够了你们的血汗钱。
¥50岁以上公积金会员的公积金缴交率提高。因为以前把它特意的降下来,现在只是微调上升。
¥孩童和学生的教育基金补贴,类似公积金制度,进来容易,出去难。不够的时候,尤其是要和马家老板的孩子,祝家的女儿一起出游学习,梁山伯就要打工,或者当掉家当,不然,就只有弃权。


这种朝三暮四的做法,梁山伯不明白。人人都说政府大方的派钱,有的说这是罗宾汉解救没有钱的人,像梁山伯这样的学生有救了。有些形容这是达尔文的适者生存,到底是帮忙落者生存,还是富者越富?梁山伯怎么能够明白洋人的论调,什么罗宾汉,什么达尔文,梁山伯只是知道梁山好汉,项羽刘邦推翻秦朝。


梁山伯只知道听老师的话,听政府的话。因此,老实到缺少独立思考。他对意识形态的东西,言听计从。梁山伯其实对以下的政策是一知半解的:


# 25岁以上未来技能补足500元。
# 公积金顶限上调到6000元。
# 个人所得税回扣50%。
# 延后上调劳工税。
# 40岁以上教育培训课程最少津贴90%。


未来技能是什么?公积金顶限上调,所得税回扣,劳工税,教育津贴跟梁山伯无关。但是,人云亦云,大家说好,梁山伯也认为好,反正梁山伯是一个爱读书的的人。但是,这些钱是不可以拿出来的,比公积金还要不灵活,这不是梁山伯的 钱,是政府(利用人民的钱)给的钱,条件,使用方法,当然更加不方便。


梁山伯上网看了一下,突然发现,有反对党提出最低工资,免费教育,医药福利,甚至包括把新加坡政府投资投资公司,淡马锡,外汇储备重新管理,公开透明管理。因此,梁山伯很希望全民免费上网,这样才是智慧国的象征。可惜财政部长让他失望。为了对梁山伯进行思想教育,新预算提供梁山伯朝三暮四的意识形态,阻止他中反对党的毒,还要从以下方面让他认知失调:


@人民投诉贫富悬殊,新预算特意对最高收入者微微调高税率。
@人民投诉外汇管理不透明,现在政府把淡马锡的预期回报纳入可以使用的政府资金。
@捐款税务回扣调高和延长到2018年。
@10亿元注入国立研究基金。
@30亿元注入“樟宜机场发展基金”。


新财政预算案高调说“人民是经济转型的核心”。今年的预算主题是《共创美好未来,加强社会保障》。梁山伯给搞得糊涂,梁山伯是核心,梁山伯有美好未来,有社会保障?那么,梁山伯是否可以娶到祝英台?这是梁山伯最关心的。不然,死不瞑目。这些高调和主题,对梁山伯来说是曲高和寡,好像每一年都是如此。只是替代声音多了,朝三暮四的把戏就跟着多了。


财政预算案如果真的把人民当成核心,共创未来,强化保护网,就要让人民自由思考,让人民有话语权。 50年来,行动党政府一直通过意识形态来控制人民的思维,而梁山伯在礼教闪电教义下,根本就没有想到祝英台会女扮男装,他没有独立的思维,他无法摆脱行动党强加在他身上的思想束缚,而只能一味听许文远似是而非的辩论,并且接受这种命运的安排。


在行动党笔下,或者说在许文远的辩论原则下,梁山伯没有想到私奔过,没有想到放下功名到杭州做生意,没有想到其他女孩,甚至入赘豪门。更加没有,在三年里,想摸一摸祝英台的坏念头。梁山伯只有像许文远说的自哀自怨,自杀式的结束生命。这就是行动党给新加坡人安排的命运,您接接受吗?


如果接受,那么梁山伯在以人民为核心的新预算案中,最终的命运还是娶不到祝英台。因为,一介书生,梁山伯的财力物力,还有缺少独立思考的头脑,一定无法和祝英台家,祝英台许配的马家相比。50年来,只有40%新加坡人看清这个事实,新加坡的未来,核心人民,要依靠更加多人看清行动党的嘴脸。

金禧年的预算案,50年来没有改变,意识形态,思想控制健在。虽然步入中年,行动党并没有放松思想控制的打算,更加没有放弃fix反对党。预算案没有自由空气,如何打造新加坡的人才资源?行动党的预算案,就是要培养多几个梁山伯。而这些梁山伯最终还是娶不到祝英台。因为他们无法摆脱行动党的教条。

Wednesday, 18 February 2015

PAP Politicians aim to be Super-Rich? Huat Ah!



‘Super-Rich and Us’, a BBC documentary, may be a good refreshment to watch if you have time over the Chinese New Year holiday. If you have only 15 minutes, then you can go straight to the last 15 minutes of part 2 for a brief summary.

The 2-part documentary explains how British government, in order to boost economic growth, offers tax incentives to Super-Rich and promotes London as a financial centre. How rich becomes richer despite financial crisis. Even poor can still be a market for the Super-Rich as their debts increase.

Singapore in many ways is promoting and attracting Super-Rich. The following articles will provide you some background information:

Wealth Over the Edge: Singapore

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324662404578334330162556670

Singapore — home to the world's super-rich

https://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/singapore-home-worlds-super-rich-162204066.html

Singapore: playground of the super-rich


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2BiuW93bos



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xa8b9bm45M


A model of top 1%

The BBC documentary describes the model of attracting the Super-Rich as a top 1% model. The PAP government is doing the same thing here with one exception. They argue the Super-Rich and their investment will help to boost economic growth here. So, we must support them, providing them incentives, safety and security. By doing so, the PAP politicians also aim to be the Super-Rich.

This is the exception to the British model. The difference between a competitive and controlled election environment.  Without competition, the PAP politicians peg their salaries to the top earners - Super-Rich in the society. No other democratic elected governments in the world dare to match the salaries of their ministers and senior civil servants to the top earners and Super-Rich. Neither labor nor conservative government, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans, not to mention European countries, will dare to match their political salaries to the Super-Rich.     

Saving and investment

PAP politicians are able to accumulate savings over their fat salaries. If they are not political holders, they can hold directorship in the listed companies to get ‘extra income’ on top of their salary and MP allowance. They are able to accumulate their first million (第一桶金)saving faster and earlier than many other Singaporeans.  In fact, our ministers can easily get their ‘first gold’ within a year.  This is an important milestone for any person.  

Even Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou, with his modest income, still manages to save quite a lot. In Taiwan, all key political holders need to declare their annual income to the parliament.

The information shows that Ma’s personal account has increased by NT$2.2 million (US$70,186), in addition to NT$2 million placed into fixed deposit accounts, while first lady Chow Mei-ching’s (周美青) account increased by NT$1.19 million, with NT$200,000 placed into a fixed deposit account.#1

Ma’s saving is really a very small sum as compared to PAP ministers. However, he is still under fire and is attacked by the oppositions. Do you think Ma will dare to match his salary to the Super-Rich in Taiwan?  

Saving is an important asset. PAP government wants Singaporeans to save money too, through the CPF system. However, a ‘first gold’ saving of extra fund is different from CPF saving. Wealth managers, financial advisers and investment bankers who advise Super-Rich will approach ‘first gold’ winners for all kinds of investments, be in property, stocks, bonds or future as explained in the BBC documentary.  With a big saving, ‘first gold’ winners can make big investment and big return. This makes the rich-poor gap bigger and bigger. But the Western politicians dare not think of ‘first gold’ and Super-Rich.

Unsustainable situation for the PAP

PAP’s past advantage in awarding themselves ‘first gold’ has gone. No matter what explanation the PAP gives, voters will question their moral obligation to serve. The PAP is supporting an unsustainable model of top 1%. This model of rich-poor divide has posed a great challenge in democratic countries in the world.  Not to mention, the politicians dare to think of ‘first gold’ and become a Super-Rich.

Political parties in other countries have not made ‘first gold’ and Super-Rich their goal.  Unfortunately, the PAP thinks differently and wants to make ‘first gold’ as an incentive for their ministers and Super-Rich as their ultimate goal.

The PAP’s moral high ground is to create ‘first gold’ opportunities for their politicians. How can they win an election with a model of top 1%? How can they convince 99% voters who are not Super-Rich?       


#1
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2015/02/16/2003611694

Sunday, 15 February 2015

求神拜佛,行动党祈求不出现大闪失、大疏忽。


从现在开始到大选前,人民行动党只能求神拜佛,跪求政府部门,法定机构,政联公司,社会上没有什么闪失,没有什么疏忽发生。这看起来比登天还要难。我们等着瞧,行动党这颗洋葱是怎么样一层一层,在放大镜下真面目被彻底的打开。

行动党希望疏忽,闪失不出现,唯一的方法就是尽快举行大选。时间拖得太长,疏忽,闪失的机会就越高。你想一想好像大宝森节,这么安全的活动也会出事;盛港西的投标,路路平安顺利中标,一直到动工前才来出事;AIM爱门事件真的不了了之了吗?

当然,行动党在国会针对工人党市镇会的审计报告,不可能单单只是提出闪失,疏忽,这么简单。让我们从政治策略,尤其是内阁部长的发言和不发言来看行动党的招数。

我们可以把他们归纳成三类:
1.脑残部长
2.莫言部长
3.神隐部长

脑残部长扮演正义连线队,这些部长,将为这次行动的成败负责。

莫言部长有着不能说的苦衷,莫言好过发声,行动失败不用付上最大责任。

神隐部长有着接班人的任务,因此,需要保护。除了莫言,还要神隐。

谁是脑残部长?这里举出三位:
王瑞杰:工人党市镇会已在溃烂。
许文远:缺乏透明度,令人担忧。
尚穆根:违法,图利朋友。

这里建议这三位正义连线队员,带头组成阿裕尼集选区行动党候选团队,来阿裕尼收复失地,来把这里的烂摊子收拾,打开透明度,不再让选民担忧。最重要的是,大力对付非法活动,不能让利益在朋友间互相输送。这里的选民在等待着三位圣人的到来解救。因为,这里急需肯为正义而牺牲,而自杀的行动党候选人。提醒一下,佛教是绝对反对自杀的。

说到脑残部长,这里再举出几位,大家一定会同意。牙签部长林瑞生,病房部长颜金勇,地铁部长吕德耀,跑车部长易华仁。这些部长可以说是比脑残还要脑残。如果让他们担任正义冲锋队,行动党将会输得更加难看。所以,不让他们出场有一定的原因,他们连担任冲锋队的资格都没有。
 
上面三位部长,虽然脑残,但是,还是懂得利用国会的保护伞。任何议员在国会发言,是不需要负法律责任的。即使国会设立委员会调查,在行动党议员占多数的情形下,他们还是会安然无恙的。

脑残部长的下场,行动党很明白,他们的命运会很接近黄根成,马宝山。


谁是莫言部长?应该是莫言总理和副总理。
李显龙:他是最清楚自己的立场,因此,只有选择莫言,多说多错。
尚达曼:他是行动党的第一智者,审计长归财政部管,报告在他手中过,为何也莫言?
张志贤:他如果不是脑残,也是半个脑残。从小印度事件,大宝森节事件,再到高官贪污,都和他的内政部有关。选择莫言是明智之举。

他们贵为总理和副总理,当然不能冒险,冲锋队可以完蛋,他们却有守土的责任。但是,他们莫言的原因,却是各有各的,不是同一条阵线,三个人,有三个不同的原因。一个太聪明,一个太傻,一个自己明白。为什么不发言?把话说绝了,就等于没有后路。这点还算他们没有到脑残的地步。

莫言部长,还有傅海燕,内阁唯一的女部长;雅国,内阁唯一马来部长,当然要加以保护。之外还有维文,黄永宏,林勋强,这些部长,可以说是半个脑残,莫言是正确选择,多说多错。


谁是神隐部长?接班人部长是也。
陈振声,陈川仁,黄循财,这些所谓的接班人。王瑞杰虽然属于接班人,但是由于年龄关系,失去接班人的资格。这些作为接班人的新部长,是行动党的未来,不可以有闪失,更加要大力保护。因此,让他们神隐比较安全。如果让他们担任冲锋队,大谈道义,正义,打击非法,对付朋党,捉透明度,又要下烂泥塘,风险实在太高了。行动党输不起,赌不起。作为政治新兵,虽然带兵领将过,政治的险恶,他们还是需要学习的。


半数内阁成员脑残,行动党岌岌可危。

从行动党这次针对工人党市镇理事会大疏忽的大动作看来,他们的政治策略,就是要大谈正义、道义,让冲锋队在国会攻击工人党。不过,冲锋队还是不够胆量直接攻入阿裕尼集选区,为选民除害,声张正义,把不仁不义的工人党除掉。

我们在这里也看到内阁里,有半数的脑残部长。一个内阁有一半以上的部长脑残,对于行动党来说,这个现实,已经明明白白摆在选民面前。接下来的选举,将是举步艰难。而唯一脱离这个困境的方法,就是提早大选。越迟大选,行动党政府的大闪失,大疏忽就会出现,到时,行动党如何向选民交代,自己的闪失,自己的疏忽比工人党的大上好几百倍。这就叫着是自作自受。

行动党这次的大动作,并没有什么创新。行动党一向来都有整反对党的计划,更何况工人党的今天,已经和以前很不相同。Blackbox的一份保守调查显示(见上一篇博文),除了富人之外,大多数选民认为,行动党在未来的大选,得票率将低于60%。这次的行动是不得已的行动,目的是要阻止得票再次下跌;阻止反对党获得三分一的国会议员席位。

或许,这是行动党临死前的最后挣扎。而错过了提早大选的良机,行动党将会输得很难看。

Friday, 13 February 2015

A political motivated REPENT of $7 million


[The teacher withholds a sweet candy and demands the naughty boy to behave properly. ‘No improvement, no candy’, the teacher sets the rules. What happens when the teacher misbehaves or performs poorly?]


In 2011 General Election, voters in Aljunied were pre-warned of the consequence if they vote for Workers’ Party. They will be ‘repented’.  Really! Is the withholding of $7 million grant a repent? Is this the first repent? Will the PAP also receive a repent from the voters in Singapore?


Perhaps, we look at the following analysis to have a better understanding of the PAP:


$ Strategic option for the PAP.
$ Perception of the PAP - change or no change.
$ To call election sooner or later.  


It is a PAP continued effort to fit the oppositions.


When GRC was introduced in 1980s, the purpose was to prevent oppositions for entering the parliament. The PAP government then introduced town council management and warned voters about the rubbish problems. A mismanaged town can have rubbish as high as two or three story high. Voters ignored this repent warning. In 2011, when the PAP knew they might lose a GRC, they again issued a repent warning. Now we know it is a repent warning of rubbish as what Minister Khaw told parliament yesterday:


"MND is mindful that the suspension does not unwittingly result in the town council not being able to pay its essential services, leading to hardship for local residents," he said. #1


‘Hardship for local residents’, is this a repent?


This shows the continued effort of the PAP to ‘repent’ voters voting for the oppositions. And this is the PAP tradition. As expected when you read the mainstream media today, you will see ‘astounding’,’benefit friends’,’transparency’, ‘accountability’, ‘honesty’ etc.


Will the traditional strategy work this time? Considering the declining popularity of the PAP, it may be the best option to stop the decline. We know the PAP is not creative people. They can’t find a better solution for their dilemma - gaining support without discrediting others.
  
In a Blackbox survey on Singapore government, there is no significant difference of satisfaction in the beginning (72%) and ending (73%) of 2014.


National mood indicators#2

Jan 2014
Dec 2014
Community satisfaction
78%
79%
National economy
67%
65%
Personal finances
51%
47%


The above also shows there is no improvement in national mood in 2014. Has it improved since 2011? Very unlikely. The trend is still pointing down.   


Interestingly, the survey gives the following prediction:


How are Singaporeans Calling the Next Election?
Our polling through 2014 showed that with the exception of those living centrally, an increasing number of Singaporeans think the Government will secure less than a 60% vote at the next election. Results suggest that outside the upper middle class set living in the middle of the island, Singaporeans are sensing that the stakes are competitive and that the Government will have to argue its case across a range of issues not necessarily working its way at present. 2015 is shaping up as an interesting year.

If you are the leaders of the PAP, what will you do if the prediction is pointing to below 60%? What option does the PAP have to prevent the decline?  We all know in 2011, the popularity votes for PAP vs. WP is 55%:45%, the decline in PAP popularity will result to more seats lost to WP. In fact, WP is the only party that can deny PAP two-thirds majority based on 2011 statistics.  


One will also have to consider the Blackbox survey a conservative or revolution one.  The actual picture may be worst than expected. It seems the only rational PAP option is to go back to the past tradition to continue to discredit the oppositions.  


The fixing has failed to change the perception of  the PAP.


SG50, CPF review and other policy changes are additional strategies to stop the decline in popularity. However, these are changes that will not affect voter’s perception. All these changes are ‘reality’ changes in paper, especially in MSM.


Singaporeans think the PAP has not changed. Talk is cheap, in the parliament or in the media. The perception is the PAP is always in talking, in fixing the oppositions, controlling everything from CPF, Temasek, GIC to ISA.   


In the past, when the opposition was made to look weak, voters had no alternatives and formed a good perception of PAP. Naturally, voters looked for the PAP logo to cross. This explains why the PAP popularity was so high then. However, the perception has changed. Now, voters will think and try to avoid putting a cross on the PAP logo.    


To Singapore voters, their perception towards oppositions and the PAP has changed.  And the PAP fails to give them the perception change they want.  Blackbox survey’s prediction above in fact indicates the rich-poor gap in Singapore, reflecting the voting pattern that lower and middle income voters feel they have not benefited from the PAP policies.   


It is better to call the election early than late.

Minister Khaw’s ‘astounding’ and Minister Shanmugam’s ‘benefitting friends’ want to project the moral high ground of the PAP. In fact, ministries and statutory boards also face lapse problems.


Report of Auditor-General 2013/2014#3
In this year’s audits, AGO observed instances of lapses in the administration of grants, schemes and programmes which raised concern over whether public funds were used appropriately.  AGO also found instances of weak management resulting in waste.

There is no guarantee that these lapses have been rectified or solved. There is also no guarantee instances like Sengkang West will develop into a major lapse.


In view of this, the PAP will be in better position to call the election sooner than later.  The PAP’s perception of inflexibility in dealing with social issues like Thaipusam will worsen its image.   


Economy and personal finances in the Blackbox survey also point to more dissatisfaction. The PAP government is not able to solve these problems before 2016. It is better to follow Japan’s Abe to call for early election.


#1


#2


#3

http://www.ago.gov.sg/doc/ar-1314.pdf

Monday, 9 February 2015

新加坡50,公积金新措施,无助人民行动党选情。



【行动党50多年来,就是把人民当成猴子来耍,朝三暮四不满意就来个朝四暮三,选民务必看清这个把戏。】


无论公积金新改良措施,还是新加坡50的欢庆,都很像寓言故事《朝三暮四,朝四暮三》那样,把新加坡人民当成猴子来戏弄,当成猴子来耍 。

公积金会员希望拿出一笔钱,因此,就出台了一个20%。对最低存款不满,因此,就有三套方案的最低存款政策。当然,这些建议,行动党政府是全部接受。

为什么?

因为,这些都不是行动党的钱,是会员的血汗钱。猴子们既然不满意朝三暮四,那么,朝四暮三,你们应该就会高兴吧!记得在公积金新政策公布的第二天,星期四一早,就到超市去买东西,在收银处,一个中年收银员指着当天的早报头条说,现在可以拿部分公积金了。另一个却说,如果现在能够拿就最好。原先那个却说,到65岁才可以拿一部分。另一个回答说,65岁,我已经死掉了。刚好这时,我也付完钱,大家都哈哈大笑!

这个哈哈大笑,大家的解读很可能都不一样。但是,很可能是心照不宣,这对行动党政府,会是加分吗?走出商场的时候,听到两个保全人员在对话,一个说新公积金政策,将会lock(锁)住多20%公积金。另一个却跟他辩论。为什么会多锁住公积金存款?是不是一个误解?

事实上。公积金这一路上走来,到底有多少人了解公积金的真正运作,真正目的?

无论是误解,还是明白,总之,公积金是会员的血汗钱。行动党政府拿去用,怎么用,怎么投资,除了一个比较清楚的2.5%,或者4%利率外,其他的误解,误用,明白不明白,几十年来,人民已经习惯这套猴子戏。人民喜欢早上拿多一点,就让人民拿多一点。公积金新措施委员会的建议,不可能跳离这个指导原则,即是动来动去,只能动会员的钱,只能在这个圈子里打滚。

¥¥¥
再说回新加坡50的猴子戏,为了敬老,行动党政府拿出人民的钱来做庆祝活动。退休老师,退休公务员,都受到邀请出席晚宴,免费的一日游,还包括免费午餐。这些活动,不可能有100%出席率,有些60%,70%或者80%。不出席当然有很多原因,出席的也未必投行动党一票。

除了敬老,家庭条件比较差的,还获得医药优惠,减低家庭在这方面的开支。无论如何,这些花费,都不是行动党政府的钱,行动党只是拿人民的钱去慷慨一番。

人民的钱如何用,国家的钱如何用,公积金的钱如何用,这几十年的一党独大,似乎和人民无关。行动党喜欢怎么用,就怎么用。行动党还很大声的说,世界上没有免费的午餐,一份耕耘,一份收获。行动党似乎忘了,公积金的血汗钱,国家的储备,新加坡50的费用,这些都是人民的钱,人民是否同意这种用法?行动党当然说是,你们次次都选闪电,2011年,还超过60%,怎么会不同意这种用法,这种安排呢?

新加坡选民应该清楚知道自己的身份。全体新加坡人才是决定公积金如何安排,国家储备如何投资,政府活动如何花费的主人。这个主人不是行动党。因此,我们不应该再给行动党这个借口,它是依大多数选民的意愿行事的。如果,我们不喜欢行动党的这种安排,这种投资,这种花费,我们就要在选票上反映出来。

随着社交媒体的广泛使用,互联网的流行,行动党的过去表现,独断独行,横行霸道,已经开始一一现形。而行动党的什么新政策、新措施,欢庆活动,都无法唤起人民的的共鸣。这是行动党最害怕的,新加坡50,公积金新政策,对于人民来说,只是一场哈哈大笑。背后代表了什么,行动党不知道。

对于行动党来说,2015年的任何政策改良、改变、改进,还是欢庆、节日,周年活动,都是拉票的好机会。但是,在刚刚过去的几十天,不论是新加坡50,还是公积金新措施,都无法拉抬行动党选情。雪上加霜还包括大宝森节活动的处理手法,农历新年亮灯的惊吓画面,诉讼案件的傻傻处理等等,行动党真的是度日如年,举步艰难。

新加坡人民的觉醒,让行动党度日如年,举步艰难。再加上流年不利,告人不顺利,搞欢庆也出事,不知道接下来,行动党还会有什么厄运?

Monday, 2 February 2015

PAP, the rubbish maker.


The PAP is the rubbish maker in Singapore, physically and spiritually. It is not only the physical rubbish maker but also a creator of a mind garbage. In computer science, we have garbage in and garbage out.  And garbage collection is a form of automatic memory management. If Singapore is full of rubbish, then the ‘garbage in’ has to come from the PAP.  It cannot blame ‘garbage out’ to the people.
The psychological, cultural, philosophical, and mindset garbage, that the PAP government created
in SG50, has made Singaporeans less creative, less patient, more demanding and more stressful due to the automatic garbage collection.  

There is no point criticizing people when the root of all the rubbish problems are caused by the PAP. In Confucian teaching, as the PAP always claimed, the leaders or the government must always suffer first and enjoy last(先天下之忧而忧,后天下之乐而乐). According to PM Lee’s analogy, garbage problem is not the government problem. The PAP government must be the first to enjoy a clean environment (as it provides a clean environment and throws no rubbish)  and the last to suffer for the clean up work.   

However, rubbish or garbage is a surface problem. When we look into the details, one will ask what kind of education that the government has provided to the people besides fines and punishment. It seems people either forget the fines or ignore punishment warning. Wow! Singaporeans are very daring now and fail to listen to the government. PM Lee needs to ask himself why?

Is it a failed education of SG50? PM Lee is proud of his education achievement in the past ten years. ESM Goh had once aimed high to make Singapore a gracious society. But looking at the garbage problem, both are failing their duty  to ‘enjoy last, suffer first’ under the Confucianism. They pretend there is no garbage in garbage out problems.

Not long ago, I saw this notice at a condominium office. Some guests are not so ordinary and look aggressive in engaging physical or verbal abuse. However, the management is equal aggressive in engaging legal action.

Dear Value Guest,

We  value our staff and committed to server you. Mutual respect and understanding will help us to serve you better.

The Management Corporation reserves its right to protect its staff/agent from any physical or verbal abuse and may take legal action against the persons involved.   

Even a middle class cluster housing can experience bad behaviour, like abusing staff. Nevertheless, the management’s reply is equally aggressive. Perhaps, they are learning from the PAP government. I am not sure whether HDB or Town Council offices dare to put up this kind of notice. Or, implicitly, they know the garbage collection problems but just ignore them.  
The garbage problem is a mindset problem. It is not a stand alone issue. Some recent events indicate the seriousness of the problem.   

  1. The greatest rubbish: In the past 50 years, the education given to Singaporeans is PAP=government=NTUC. Some may even add justice in the equation. So much so we can not run away the image of one-party state.

  1. Misleading rubbish: The PAP believes in money politics and high pay to attract talents. It misleads people in believing talents must be highly paid. It misleads voters high GNP growth will benefit all. It believes money can solve the rubbish problem by employing more workers.

  1. Full of rubbish: The issue of Sengkang West columbarium and the government’s replies are full of rubbish. The analogy of ‘Butterfly lovers’ has dirtied the beautiful love story.  It shows a weak and low appreciation of arts and culture for the PAP.

  1. Uncleared garbage: The alcohol ban is just another unsolved garbage. It further reinforces the concept of ‘rich’ is better. If you have money, just go to the bar, nightclubs, restaurants and hotels, there is no ban there.

  1. Unsolved rubbish: CPF and its recommendations on withdrawal, MediShield  are unsolved rubbish problems. The PAP government has yet to clear up the rubbish. 
  2. Rubbish generator: PM Lee’s Q & A on Facebook generates even more rubbish than he wanted to collect. He could manage to answer only a few questions but there are a lot of outstanding ‘rubbish’, some even unpublished or uncollected.    

The only way to get rid of the rubbish is to get rid of the PAP. Otherwise, the problem of garbage in garbage out will always be there.