Saturday, 30 May 2015

Post-SG50 Public Policy Challenges and the Outdated PAP Model

According to the Global Trends 2030 #1, a majority of global citizens feel that current government structures are  inadequate to face future challenges. Will Singapore be an exception?  For example, an efficient tax collection system does not mean it understands the tax burdens of the people.


Even the PAP government claims to have first class public administration, the recent policy solutions and responses have failed to gain public confidence and support.  (Or less  public confidence and support as compared to SG50 era).  We are no exception to the global  trends.  More and more non-traditional players, NGOs, will participate in the debates besides a stronger opposition.


Down the road, not only the PAP has to discarded their old and ineffective SG50 model, the oppositions and other players will have to adopt new models too. All of them can not ‘copy and paste’ the old SG50 model. They will have to seek new creative solutions and balances in public policy challenges.     


Under SG50 model, it is a PAP-led and government controlled environment. Any public feedback is just a submission and selection process. In the past, the so-called high public support or confidence was declared without checks and balance, transparency and accountability.  The post-SG50 era will be very different.


Co-creation to replace PAP SG50 model


Professor Aric Rindfleisch of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign explains the digital concept of customer co-creation as follows:
Selection Activity


Customer-led
Co-designing
Collaborating
Firm-led
Submitting
Tinkering
Contribution Activity
Fixed
Open


In the digital world, both customers and firms can lead and co-create values for a product/company. The contribution can come from a fixed or open environment. Fixed contribution means the contribution is related to the product. Open contribution has no restriction.


With small modification, this concept can be translated into a relationship between citizens (stakeholders) and government.    


Selection Activity


Citizen-led
Co-designing
Collaborating
Government-led
Submitting
Tinkering
Contribution Activity
Fixed
Open


Under SG50 model, if there is any co-creation activity, it is in SUBMITTING. Feedback Unit, People’s Association, NTUC, bilingualism,  ...etc are all under this category. They all work under a fixed contribution environment.  Citizens submit their views and opinions. The PAP government selects and then leads the changes.


We hardly see Tinkering, Co-designing and Collaborating in action. However, in the post-SG50 era, public policy discussion will have to have more involvements of non-government actors and of course, oppositions participation.


It also means Singapore has to move away from the fixed and government-led Submitting box to the other three boxes. By doing so and moving away from the old PAP SG50 model,  more co-creation contributions led by citizens, in an open environment, can then be generated in Singapore.   It brings out our potentials.


Let look at some examples:


MediShield reform: The PAP government appoints a committee to study MediShield and medisave contribution, the committee then  submits a report to reform the medical insurance system and covers all Singaporeans. As this is a stakeholder issue, some co-designing and tinkering are needed. But they are absent in this exercise.


Little India Riot report: Again, the PAP government sets up an inquiry committee. It is again a Submitting.  The Little India Riot    
is a complicated issue and involves immigration, population, treatment, psychology, living condition etc.  The report fails to consider open and non-riot views.  It fixes itself into the Submitting box.


Yale-NUS college: This liberal college is again led by the government. The format and organisation is different from Yale in USA. It has a chance to move from Submitting to Tinkering - open environment.  However, under SG50 model, it remains in a government-led and closed environment as politics is only allowed within the campus.   


There are too many examples of Submitting under SG50. Control of mainstream media, Population White Paper, Committee on SMRT strike, NTUC, PA, RC, CCC,  Nominated MPs, election boundary redrawing, NDP, Chingay Parade, school advisory committee, etc.  All these look efficient but are they productive and effective? They make contributions led by the PAP government in a fixed environment. This is the so-called success model of  the SG50 - a box of group thinking.   


In paper, we do see some relaxes in Tinkering and Co-designing. For example, Hong Lim Park is the only place that Singaporeans can have legal protests. However, one will need to apply for a permit and the government can still suspense the activities there.   


We may find private-led activities by some foundations making contributions in Co-designing. For example, Tsao Foundation, Lien Foundation, Shaw Foundation,  they are engaging and promoting social benefits/goods.  However, they have to work under the fixed environment, perhaps some guidelines too. They will not venture into Collaborating.  


The PAP government in many ways is against Collaborating.  Here, there are alternative views or views different from the government. Social media is part of the digital world and new media. The PAP government and their leaders are banning or charging netizens, like ‘To Singapore, With Love’, The Real Singapore, bloggers, Amos Yee, etc.


There are four segments of co-creation contributions. Submitting is the PAP government comfort zone. They are discouraging Tinkering and giving instructions to Co-designing.  Collaborating is the activity that they want to ban, charge and discipline.   


This is the current picture of co-creation. Do you think this can last forever? This is like an airplane flying with one engine.  We must turn on the other three engines to release our potential by having more citizen engagements.   


Outdated PAP model (1).jpg


#1

https://globaltrends2030.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/global-trends-2030-november2012.pdf

Saturday, 23 May 2015

两套标准的真实行动党:不见安全网,只见弹跳床。


行动党对自己人提供安全网和弹跳床,

对人民却是另一套标准没有安全网,有限弹跳床。

为何对行动党候选人提供安全网和弹跳床,对人民又另一套标准呢?

seadiaspora.com
即使有安全网,弹跳床制度已经无法保证行动党人平步青云。


it.wikihow.com


真实的人民行动党,真的是一个50年不变的行动党。2011年大选后,行动党说自己向左走,走民主社会主义的路线,改革公积金,给人民医药保健等等,结果听了尚达曼在瑞士的演讲,更加肯定这个行动党50年不变的真实。并且,行动党将会继续不要改变的事实。


尚达曼是少数行动党内,比较理智,开明和让人肯定的部长。因此,他在瑞士发表的弹跳床伟伦,只能加强选民对行动党不求改变的事实,继续过去50年走过的老路。相当肯定,即使有尚达曼这样的人,行动党还是不会改变,那么,行动党内还有谁能够改变行动党呢?


改朝换代,是唯一的选择!


尚达曼说,行动党政府不向人民提供安全网,人民要有个人责任,利用行动党建立的弹跳床制度,向上弹跳,有能力跳多高就跳多高。所以,什么向左走,什么民主社会主义,什么照顾人民,都是建立在弹跳床上。因此,说到底,就是一个没有安全网的社会。难怪,作为司仪的英国广播公司的评论员认为,这是一个无情无义(ruthless) 的社会。


事实上,有好多新加坡人,可能连接触弹跳床的机会都没有。行动党刚刚公布70万年过60的人,可以获得建国50的更多红包,这些人敢在弹跳床上跳吗?根据尚达曼的说法,这些红包不是安全网。说白了,这是一种过渡性安排,大选过了,红包走了,弹跳床机会当然也没有了,安全网更加不用提了。


对于行动党来说,一个更加可怕的事实是:自己设计的弹跳床制度,也没有百分百的保障。因为,这个制度,无论如何,都要通过选民这一关。行动党的高薪养廉的弹跳床制度,依据所谓的个人努力,个人责任的伟大言论,还是要经过选民的认可。就像杨荣文的团队那样,弹跳床就这样在2011年被选民拿走。(见下文)

说到底,唯一能够做出改变的就是人民,就是选民手中的那张选票!


弹跳床到底是什么概念?


尚达曼的意思很明白,弹跳床是一种提升,晋升机会。人人努力,人人负起个人责任,捉紧机会,就能够向上提升自己,提升家庭。因此,行动党政府提供这个机会,人民要懂得珍惜这些机会。在学校读书,最好能够多多补习,把成绩搞好,然后,争取奖学金,这样弹跳床的功用就能显现出来。成绩好,就跳得高,成绩不好,跳不高,很可能连跳的机会都没有。这里产生的后遗症就是,每个学生要补习,补得好的,就跳得高些。


行动党政府只提供弹跳床的学习机会,但是,弹跳床的机会是要争取的,不是每个人都有的。有些家庭条件不好,或者学习能力不佳,或者身体条件不行,就很可能得不到弹跳床,或者得到不理想的弹跳床。这些人其实占了多数,因为,大学学位有限,奖学金的机会更加有限,失去弹跳床的弹跳机会,就等于失去提升机会。当然,行动党政府会说,你要努力争取下一次的机会,你要个人负责,捉紧下一个弹跳床机会,久而久之,孩子们在家长的压力下,在政府的压力下,在本身负责任的背景下,就越来越机会主义了。


行动党当然不同意这个说法。要拥有弹跳机会,就要付出代价,个人要努力,家庭要督促,不然,机会就给了别人了。而新加坡是一个开放社会,公平社会,依据能力来给予弹跳机会,所以,这个弹跳机会,并不一定就是属于新加坡人,别人比你聪明,比你努力,这个弹跳机会就是别人的。


因此,为了一张弹跳床,行动党政府制造了本地人和外国人的对立。弹跳床的供应有限,要得到弹跳床的学生很多,因为学生都没有安全感。学生们都知道行动党政府没有提供安全网,如果失去得到弹跳床的机会,前途就不安全了。


事实上,行动党就是要学生个人负责。学生不够努力,争取不到弹跳机会,和行动党政府无关,学生拿不到好的弹跳床,也跟行动党政府无关,因为,或许你的补习老师不够好,你的学校不够好。虽然在行动党眼中,每一所学校一样好, 但是,家长,学生,社会都知道它们的不同。有些家长不惜铤而走险,误报地址,就是为了提高孩子的弹跳机会。

弹跳床的理念反映在社会上,在职业上,在工作上,就更加让人害怕。为了争取弹跳床,不论本地人还是外国人想尽方法利用各种手段来捉紧弹跳机会。因此,利用假文凭争取弹跳床是一个方法。管理宗教团体的人,也可利用传教,来争取原本不属于自己的弹跳床。新加坡身份证,护照有一定的价值,因此,也可以作为弹跳的筹码。请不到工人,就说新加坡人不愿工作,懒惰。因此,向政府要求弹跳床,增加外劳,外国工人。即使,行动党本身的基层工作,也有些差别,一些提供弹跳床,一些看到吃不到,根本没有安全网。当然,人人要弹跳床,在行动党基层里,谁还会想到为人民服务。


高薪养廉的弹跳床,给人留下的印象是,一旦获得奖学金,投入行动党阵营,就可以平步青云,越弹跳,弹跳床越大越高。站在弹跳床上的行动党人,做梦也没有想到,这个直通车弹跳床,有一天,居然就这么轻易的失去了。


杨荣文为何失去弹跳床?


2011年,行动党失去了一个集选区,这就表示这些候选人全部失去了他们曾经拥有的弹跳床。这包括两个部长弹跳床,一个高级部长弹跳床,一个凖部长弹跳床,还有一个政联公司(职总)高位弹跳床。


人民的力量,选民的决定,打破了行动党的弹跳床制度。杨荣文说,他没有辞职,是选民不要他。


行动党直通车的弹跳床制度,一下子面对严重的考验。原本行动党设立集选区安全网,选区划分安全网,可以直接让心目中的人选,通过弹跳床平步青云。行动党万万没有想到,弹跳床对于本身精心培养的下一代接班人,造成一种危机。不健全的安全网,让行动党人和一般新加坡人一样,要面对严峻的挑战。他们不但会失去原本的弹跳床,还很可能会和一般新加坡人一样,争取另一个弹跳床。


杨荣文是幸运的。他不需要安全网,在失去弹跳床后,也能遇到知音人,高薪聘请他出任高职。杨荣文最近出版了一本新书,他在书中表示本身有着儒家,道家和天主教的信仰。在落选后,对于得与失有着更加深的体验。是否参与2011总统选举,在行动党表态支持陈庆炎后,他就淡然处之。这或许是他儒家,道家和宗教心态的反映。


杨荣文和一般新加坡人不一样。他的哲理心态,不是每个新加坡人都具有的。他的总统奖学金,更加是少数中的少数。一般新加坡人需要不停地为弹跳床而努力,为了一个没有安全网的生活而奋斗,更加没有阴阳调和,宗教支持的智慧。


我们想一想,行动党精心设计选区的安全网,炮制弹跳床来保障候选人能够顺利的扶摇直上。它懂得为候选人设立安全网,难道它没有想到人民更加需要安全网吗?行动党的候选人是人才,连他们都需要安全网,一般人不是更加需要安全网吗?


尚达曼说,行动党政府不相信安全网,相信弹跳床。现在,我们清楚看到行动党对自己人是提供安全网再加弹跳床。对于人民,不但没有提供安全网,而弹跳床的供应,更加有限。


因此,新加坡人唯一能够改变现状,改变命运的方法,就是我们手中的选票。