Wednesday, 30 September 2015

新内阁的另类解读:架空、潜规则、非华人总理,东海岸集选区。。。


新的政府内阁,除了表面上让新加坡人看到第四代接班人外,其实,这里面还有一些行动党的政治潜规则,最为明显的是女性离开总理这个位子,真的是太远了。当然,非华人出任总理一职,也是相对遥远。

架空一个人的表现机会,架空一个人的权力,比较好的做法,就是明升暗降。表面看起来,这个人好像是升官,事实上,却是失去真正的权力。新加坡内阁在原本两个副总理的背景下,现在,出现三个统筹部长,负责安全,经济和社会,基础设施等三大方向。除了许文远外,其他两个副总理,没有负责任何政府部门。他们只是负责培训,监督未来领导人。

一个部门两个部长,是不是另一种架空现象呢?新的内阁安排被认为是加速内阁更新,测试新人的领导能力,以作为将来总理人选的条件。我们都知道,新加坡学生考试厉害,奖学金得主为了在国外拿到A*,也会选比较容易获得A*的课程,总理在分配部长职务时,是否也做出相应的安排?读者们自我解读,自我分析后,很可能就能看出这个玄机。在学校里,老师们为何频频给一些同学机会发挥,而冷落另一些同学呢!老师,甚至军官为何分配一些不容易犯错的工作给一些学员?这些也是行动党潜规则的一部分。

【潜规则:有“料”未必能够担任总理、部长】
我们大家都知道张志贤只是一个陪衬人物,不是总理的料。相反,尚达曼就不同,很多人还把2015大选的好成绩归功于他。他具有做总理的料,却是没有出任总理的命,通过统筹部长的安排,已经把他归于第三代元老,未来的总理来自第四代领导人。因此,和丹那巴南的命运一样,在行动党的潜规则下,尚达曼也没有机会出任总理。

”将在外君权可以不受“,尚达曼负责的是中央的统筹,不再是一个军区司令。说的不好听,就是一个中央的高级培训统筹部长。这算不算是行动党的一种架空手段?支持尚达曼的网民,还发问为何新加坡不能出现一位非华人总理,看到这样的安排和潜规则,网民应该明白了吧!

说到女性部长,英兰尼是比较能够独当一面的人物。但是,内阁里如果再出现多一位印族部长,相对马来族部长,就会显得不对称。目前,内阁里已经有四位印族部长,而马来族部长只有两位。这也是行动党的潜规则。不论是尚达曼还是英兰尼,行动党的潜规则并不一定要以“料”来作为标准。所以,将来的总理人选,也是依潜规则来进行,不一定以“料”来决定。吴作栋就是一个鲜明的例子。

【三头马车,三幅嘴脸】
老实木讷,温和理性,阴森狡猾。行动党这次大选获得好成绩,阴森狡猾不能不说没有功劳。统筹部长多一个这类人物不算多。获得提升的维文(外交),黄循财(国家发展),沈颖(高级政务部长)在大选中的表现也可以印证这点。不知道黄循财接手国家发展部后,是否会跟随他的前任那样,继续不发放政府津贴给反对党市镇会?还是,这招已经玩完,黄循财可以扮演白脸了?

在所谓的第四代领导人中,出现在温和理性集选区的似乎没有。他们不是出现在老实木讷,就是出现在阴森狡猾所统筹的集选区。当然,也有正统出身丹戎巴葛集选区。这代表了什么?这个发展对行动党有利吗?对新加坡有害吗?

【第四代领导人根本没有非华人总理人选】
非华人总理候选人的圈子越来越小。行动党第二代领导人,出现一位具有总理潜质的非华人丹那巴南。但是,李光耀认为新加坡还不适合非华人出任总理一职。事实上,第三代领导人中也出现了尚达曼,同样具有总理的潜质。但是,新内阁的安排,尚达曼已经被定位为“教练”,“评估第四代领导人的统筹”, 他出任总理的机会等于零。除非发生了”非常意想不到的情况”,国家和行动党出现重大问题,尚达曼才可能临时受命,像丹那巴南当年,退下又复出那样,不过,丹那巴南只不过担任部长而已,没有担任总理一职。

现在浮出水面的第四代领导人中,并没有一位有潜质的非华人。这意味着新加坡第四位总理将是一位男性华人,也不会是一位女性华人。总理这次的新内阁,还是未来两三年后的内阁改组,也将依着这个方向发展,总理人选将是男性华人。

【鸡肋和东海岸集选区】
东海岸集选区的李奕贤是唯一没有继续担任高级政务部长的中选原议员。这代表了什么?是不是行动党也没有把握是否能够守住东海岸集选区。在“快来看看行动党的鸡肋候选人?”#1博文中,我提到好几个鸡肋候选人,其中包括东海岸行动党团队。这些鸡肋候选人,大选过后,并没有获得政治任命。

行动党没有想到运气这么好,不但保住东海岸,还收复榜鹅东。林瑞生(还有林勋强)的部长任命看来只是一个过渡,内阁中期改组后,就会和其他鸡肋议员一样,任期满后就退出政治圈。

下一次大选,还会有东海岸集选区吗?2020年大选的一个重要问题将是,东海岸集选区的去留。在行动党没有适合人选守土的情形下,东海岸集选区将会步入历史,被划分到其他的选区去。

#1
http://pijitailai.blogspot.sg/2015/08/blog-post_28.html


Sunday, 27 September 2015

Work harder is the only strategy! ?


Smart strategy needs the support of soft and hard power. Ironically, the opposition has nothing of them. This is the fact and the reality of Singapore politics. All state institutions are giving hardware support to the PAP. The PAP also receive software support from the media, boundary redrawing, use of supercomputer and consultants (including social media consultants).  


Sadly, the opposition has to work harder than the PAP to gain support and spread their messages across. This is the hard, unfair way but voters will only appreciate your efforts through your hard work. This is like the poor non-elite students facing more difficulties than a rich elite student. If you look at the struggle of Bernard Chen (Workers’ Party), you will know what I mean.


Singapore is a strange country. When we say we want to level the playing field, we should give opportunity to neighbour school students. If they perform well, their effort should be recognised.  However, the society is doing the opposite. We will give opportunity to the elite rather than a non-elite. We don’t trust the neighbour school students can outperform the elite students and run an effective government.   


Hence, for the opposition, besides working hard, there is no other alternatives.   


Just imagine how much tax money has been spent on People’s Association and grassroots activities. Before election kicks start, the People’s Action Party has already invested millions of dollars on their candidates.  All state machinery plus free media coverage, every PAP candidate has already received at least S$1 million political investment. For the opposition, it is almost zero investment. Candidates have to come out with their own money to fund their elections.


As a result, PAP is not only awarding their candidates million-dollar reward through directorship or political positions, long before that PAP has already invested million-dollar on their candidates.  


To unseat the PAP, without the support of hardware and software, the only way is to work all the way up - a stupid but slightly effective way. One can only win them in spirit.
 
Expectation of supporters and candidates


Many analyses focus on the voters - supporters and non-supporters. There is a swing of opposition supporters or middle ground voters to the PAP. Do the opposition candidates also feel the same? Many of the opposition candidates are first timers. Do they expect to be elected in the first time?


Perhaps, they are more psychologically prepared to be defeated rather than to be elected.  Just like a football team, supporters always want to see their team win. But players know too well about their chances. Whether we like it or not, opposition team is challenging one of the best run (partial free, undemocratic) governments in the world. It is like you are up against Brazil or Germany in the World Cup.


It is important young and first time candidates from WP and Singapore Democratic Party will stand again in the next election. Supporters must continue to give supports, perhaps even more supports, to the opposition.


Sorting, Peer Effect and the Asian thinking
 



Many analyses also use the western models to explain the election result. It can be a ‘sorting effect’ where pioneer citizens, SG50, CPF, boundary redrawing, creation of GRCs and SMCs take place. It can also be a ‘peer effect’ like LKY as celebrity, fear of change of government, small opposition in parliament, etc. Both models exist in GE2015.


Modern western political thinking take place after Enlightenment where we see different political models appear. Singapore voters are defined as ‘rational, pragmatic and fair’. It then brings Singapore to the period of early Enlightenment - utilitarianism. Morally speaking, the PAP believes they are practising


it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong" #2   


No matter 60% or 70% mandate, the PAP thinks they are doing this "fundamental axiom".  In GE2011, the greatest number decreased. And so, they adjusted their policies. As a consequence, the greatest number improved to 70% in GE2015.


However, utilitarianism is not the only model. There are different moral measures of right and wrong. Unfortunately, the PAP’s education and training are still following this old tradition. And Singaporeans, including the elites and middle class, believe so.  


Further to the western models, we have to realise that Singapore is an Asian society. This is why we say we are exception.  Western models cannot fully apply here. We may not have enlightenment at all. Or, we can just jump start to a new model where pragmatism is more important than democracy. We still prefer to remain at the lower end of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.


As explained in my previous post, 长期一党专政,新加坡无法摆脱行动党的奴性#3, if given freedom to leave Jia family (The Dream of Red Chamber), slave servants still want to remain as slaves in the elite family. They believe life outside the Jia family is substandard and their status as a free person is even lower than a slave in the elite family. They prefer to die rather than force to leave the family as a free person.  


This dilemma may help to explain the result of GE2015.

#1


#2


#3

http://pijitailai.blogspot.sg/2015/09/blog-post_15.html

Sunday, 20 September 2015

上限70% 下限60% 永远的一党专政?



2015大选显示选民支持人民行动党的上限大约在70%的水平。要做到这个地步,行动党已经动用所有的资源,这当然包括选区划分,集选区,政府资源,人民协会,工会,等等不公平的选举制度和策略。

利用同样的不公平选举制度,即使在没有李光耀,SG50等因素的背景下,行动党的得票率,依然可以保持在60%的下限,甚至(出现贪污舞弊管理失误等情形下,行动党还是比反对党行)即使下限下降到55%,行动党依然是一党独大,可以继续专制统治新加坡,合理的在大多数选民支持下,以“一人一票的民主”方式中选连任。

上限论可以从陈庆珠#1和杨荣文#2的观点看出来。

陈庆珠称中间的选民为“strategic voter”。这些策略选民,将以本身的利益出发,哪一个政党做出对他有利的事情、政策,他就投选哪个政党。现在,行动党做出对符合他们利益的事,他们就选择行动党。反之,他们就投反对党。陈庆珠认为选民是理性,务实和公平的(rational, pragmatic and fair)。

杨荣文则提出他的道家理论,物极必反,70%是一个极端,它是会反弹,而转向另一个极端发展。因此,他希望选民走中间中庸的路线。他不希望看到太大的变化。

不论是策略选民还是中庸选民,他们已经给行动党定下一个上限:70%。 行动党想要回到以前80%的水平,是不太可能的。对于行动党来说,他们也不认为自己的上限在70%,这个成绩有点出乎意料。

下限论的一个指标就是2011年的60%。当然,在2015大选的选前预测55%也是可能的。不论,55%还是60%,只要新加坡的选举制度没有做出重大的改变,(事实上,如果你是行动党,你会愿意改变吗?)对于新加坡反对党来说,将是致命的一击,除了工人党外,几乎没有其他反对党能够再次逃过一劫。

反对党的上下限

从2011和2015两次大选结果看来,反对党的得票上下限应该介于:

工人党
40%-50%
民主党
30%-40%
其他反对党
20%-30%

除了工人党,没有一个反对党的上限接近50%。没有50%的上限,就几乎没有中选的机会。

选民如果没有办法看清楚这个现实,一直被行动党愚弄,把反对党当成是都是无法中选,或者,全部都可能中选,把没有希望中选的人,误认有机会中选,造成变天,那就是大错特错了。工人党候选人才是唯一有希望中选的候选人,其他反对党候选人,中选机会接近零。

反思行动党拥有超过90%国会议席

不论上限还是下限,新加坡国会将会有超过90%的议员来自行动党。未来几届选举,如果游戏规矩没有改变,行动党一党专政的情形是不可能改变的。

这个10%的上下限距离,导致除了工人党以外,几乎所有的反对党都不可能有所突破。国会里将继续上演一个大党欺负一个小党的画面。选民过去50年已经看惯了这样的场景,所以,继续看到这样的局面也见怪不怪。

工人党主席林瑞莲认为,选民或许不希望看到工人党强大起来。 从选民继续同意让行动党拥有90%以上议席看来,这个说法有一定的道理。不论策略还是中庸选民,他们和行动党一样都希望国会里,只要有一点反对的声音就可以了。这样就足够代表新加坡的民主了,象征新加坡的民主了。

加强民间对话管道?

在国会缺少民间,反对意见的情形下,有人建议加强政府和民间的对话,加强民间组织的力量,沟通的管道。王少妍#3就是其中的一个,她认为应该加强现有的机制(如,公民组织,总统,媒体,司法),或者,设立新的机制让替代意见有适合的管道发声。事实上,许通美在几年前已经提出类似的建议。

行动党如果接受这些建议,就表示自己监督自己失效。行动党根本就不需要其他的机制来监督行动党。

另立沟通管道,事实上是侮辱民主,明明有一个选举制度,现在因为不公平的制度,导致国会失去平衡,然后,通过国会外的机制来弥补这个缺点,这看起来也像另一套国王的外衣。这只不过是自由者的理想罢了。

我们看到了新加坡选举制度的不公,也看到了行动党的60%-70%上下限,以及国会90%归行动党的现实,也听到自由主义者的呼声。但是,作为行动党的领导,你会想到改变吗?即使像尚达曼这样的温和派行动党领袖,他能够改变行动党的横行霸道,走向公平的竞争吗?

新加坡选民选择了陈庆珠式新加坡式的“合理,务实,公平”思考方式,为2015大选做出了新的定义,在旧常态里产生新常态,让行动党的不公平竞选方式合理化。甚至把2011年的新常态#4推翻,把“选民就是老板”的理论推出,因为老板是可以把工人(政党)炒鱿鱼。但是,不是所有的老板都有最新最准确的消息来判断员工的表现,尤其是职场上,战场到处都有秦侩这样的人物,作为选民的老板如何能够做出正确的选择呢?

看清楚了这个政治现实,新加坡选民又能做什么呢?更何况看不出真相的老板,策略和中庸选民呢?

#1
Singaporeans are today better educated, well-informed and much travelled. The electorate is sophisticated and discerning. We are rational, pragmatic and fair.
All this produces a strategic voter. There are party loyalists in any country, of course, and they will vote for their party, no matter rain or shine. But the bulk of the Singapore voters will use their vote strategically to push for the outcome they wish for.
If the PAP is responsive and going in the direction they want, they will support the governing party. If the PAP does not listen or heed their voices, support will be withdrawn.
http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/the-strategic-voter-in-the-new-normal

#2
针对本报提问,如果行动党胜出,国会将只剩下一个反对党议员,对新加坡的政治环境会造成怎样的影响,杨荣文没有直接回应。他说:“我相信道家哲学,当钟摆被拉到一个极端时,它一般就会往另一个极端摆渡,所以中庸之道还是比较好的,最好不要有太大的摇摆波幅。”  http://www.zaobao.com.sg/news/singapore/story20150919-528246#sthash.7H06nv79.dpuf

#3
I believe we must seriously explore how to generate these conditions in some other way. Either by strengthening existing institutions (such as civil society, the presidency, the media, the judiciary) or by creating new ones (such as an ombudsman or other mechanisms that don't yet exist elsewhere).
Crucially, whatever means we choose, we must insist that these institutions be given legal and political teeth; they must be independent from the political aristocracy, be empowered to work openly, and have direct access to the public, such that we have the benefit of their guidance whenever we head to the polls. If we then choose, in our own unique way, to endorse our aristocracy, we do so on a free and informed basis.
http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/liberal-reflections-on-loss-and-acceptance-in-ge2015

#4
Yet, that is precisely the point about every election. Each time voters go to the polls is different, and anything can, and often does, happen. There are no straight lines to the future in politics, with all its surprising ebbs and flows, and if nothing else, GE2015 has debunked the idea that a "new normal" was set after 2011. The next election will be no different, with its own set of issues to be addressed, and electoral battles to be won, rather than a simple extrapolation of trends from GE2015.
In the end, voters made clear on Friday that they retain the right to judge at each election just who has understood their concerns best, and acted in their interests, and give their support accordingly.
What voters give, they can just as readily take away. They are in charge, they "are the bosses", to borrow from one of PM Lee's rallies, and that is precisely the way they like it. It is a message that politicians ,whether in red, white or blue, should never forget, in both victory and defeat.
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/the-end-of-the-new-normal

Friday, 18 September 2015

The Pillar of PAP Integrity: Teo Chee Hean and Charles Chong

[When AGO did a 10-month audit on AHPETC, was the opening account of Punggol East a deficit or a surplus?]

During election, the PAP talked and stressed so much about integrity. After the election, they seems to forget the importance of integrity. So much so that they are not able to provide a ‘definitive clarification’, one week after the election.   


Where is the productivity and efficiency of the PAP? They have all the accounts at their hands. And yet it takes them so long to explain the deficit or the surplus as they claimed.


Teo Chee Hean’s teammate, Sun Xue Ling, is an investment director at Temasek. Sun should be able to explain to Teo that deficit is different from surplus. And Income Statement and Notes to Income Statement are two different concepts.


Of course, Teo and Charles Chong may have ill intention of spreading misleading information, as claimed by Workers Party, to gain political advantage. They wanted to mislead voters in Punggol East and other constituencies and used it to paint a question mark on WP’s integrity.


In some other countries, this reason alone can lead to a re-match or a by-election by the Courts.  However, the PAP just pretended they are right and have no detailed explanation. The Election Department also pretended this had nothing to do with fair election. And the media has once again failed to clarify and check the basic accounting principles.


If Teo and Chong are the faces of PAP integrity, then we can conclude they have a questionable integrity, so do Ng Eng Hen who voiced out and said the PAP would certainly provide a ‘definitive clarification’.     


Integrity is so important to the PAP. They warned voters to elect candidates with high integrity. And they told voters WP’s integrity was questionable as they had not handled AHPETC accounts properly. Voters should think carefully. This could be another PAP misleading information just for political gain.


Are these PAP candidates, like Teo, Chong and Ng, having a higher credible and integrity than WP candidates? Unfortunately, voters have failed to differentiate them.  Voters continue to believe the PAP. They are too kind to the PAP but too harsh to WP.  


When analysing the GE 2105 result, no one has mentioned about the integrity of the PAP. No one has said this could be a contributing factor for the PAP big win. Maybe we should re-think the integrity of the PAP? Teo, Chong and Ng have yet to explain how a deficit becomes a surplus at Punggol East.


on 6 September 2015, I posted this:

Deficit = Surplus. PAP is a liar.

http://pijitailai.blogspot.sg/2015/09/deficit-surplus-pap-is-liar.html

WP3.png

Tuesday, 15 September 2015

长期一党专政,新加坡无法摆脱行动党的奴性。


几年前读过《王蒙的红楼梦》,其中有一句话,让我印象深刻:贾府奴才“不奴隶毋宁死”的心态。王蒙过后还特地出版了一本同名的《不奴隶,毋宁死?——王蒙谈红说事》。

red chamber book.jpg



好多年前,王蒙还做过中国文化部长,他对人性的观察,尤其是把奴性放在自由之上,做不了贾府的奴隶,生不如死,宁可死在贾府,也不愿意踏出贾府一步,真的是一针见血的观察。wang 王蒙:贾府奴才“不奴隶毋宁死”心态_新华每日电讯.png
#节录自《王蒙的红楼梦》

这种奴性心态,似乎也反映在2015年的大选。新加坡虽然是第一世界经济体,人均收入高居发达国家之上,但是,在人民行动党50年来的调教下,人民似乎更加乐于放弃自由,放弃民主,放弃制衡,而选择行动党的一党专政,更加多的迷恋经济成长的果实。


国人为先党的洪永元医生把这次大选,行动党高票中选的原因归于选民有感恩的心态。他把这种心态称为: transfer of gratitude. 选民感恩于李光耀对新加坡的贡献,因此,把这种感恩的心态转嫁给李显龙。


感恩和王蒙的奴性是有一些差别,但是,贾府的丫鬟不愿意离开贾府,和新加坡选民不愿意离开行动党(李家),似乎有着异曲同工之妙。正如,行动党在分析胜利的原因时,特别提出选民要求一个稳定的政治,当然也看到行动党过去的成绩。


我们回看《红楼梦》,贾府的过去当然是无限风光,名门望族,多少人想进入贾府都不容易。何况,那些进了贾府的人和丫鬟,他们宁可死在贾府也不愿出贾府一步。他们的吃喝穿住,每一样都比外面的世界好。这不是新加坡的写照吗? 行动党一直告诉选民,新加坡有多好,比其他国家好很多。选民最好选择行动党,继续在行动党的大家族管理下,享受第一流的生活,而不要操心民主,自由,制衡等。即使有这样的要求,也应该以行动党的标准来作为标准。以行动党的诚信为诚信的标准。


http://pijitailai.blogspot.sg/2015/09/lee-hsien-loong-hangs-his-posters.html



为了胜选,行动党的张有福和张志贤,还创造新的会记标准。
总审计署花了10个审计工人党市镇会的账目,也没有·出来说明。会计审计师学会,也没有出来澄清,指正。而任由行动党的标准横行。行动党影响整个社会的奴性,可想而知。


就像贾府的丫鬟和佣人,他们只是看到贾府内部的事情,而不知道外面的世界。他们不知道自己处在险峰,贾府的树倒猢狲散是迟早的问题。贾府内部根本没有一个能够解救贾府命运的人。


行动党口口声声说,现在开始进入第四代领导层的工作。到底它是不是另一个贾府,目前言之过早。


但是,选民如果没有做两手准备,把鸡蛋都放在行动党的篮子里,是不是也像贾府的丫鬟那样,自行选择放弃自由,选择离开贾府的机会,到最后,也和贾府一样,充军的充军,被卖掉的卖掉,下放的下放,连妙玉这种洁身自爱的人,也难逃劫数。


过去50多年,行动党成功的把这种奴性灌输入选民的脑子里。在教育,在媒体,在行政,在司法,各方各面无孔不入,把这种依赖行动党的心态置入选民的心里。因此,在关键的时刻,感恩的心态就出现,选票当然就高了。洪永元医生认为,下一届大选,感恩心态就会消失。这是比较乐观的看法。


事实上,行动党不但在国民教育上做到感恩的心态,即使是新移民,也同样做到了,甚至有过之而无不及。外来移民不只是感恩行动党,他们也希望行动党继续执行类似贾府的政策,他们认为继续让贾府管理新加坡,他们才有出息。如果,没有行动党的政策,他们很可能就不选择来新加坡。因为,没有行动党,就没有人会继续执行这个优良的东方传统 - 贾府的奴性政治。

这就是新加坡的将来吗?

Monday, 14 September 2015

Youth is an asset. And Workers’ Party has it all.


How long can the PAP old horses hold on to East Coast, Marine Parade, Jalan Besar or even Nee Soon GRC? One more or two more elections, they will have to give way to younger PAP leaders.  Will you still see Goh Chok Tong, Lim Swee Say, Yaacob Ibrahim or K. Shanmugan again in 2020?

The PAP, of course, can redraw the boundary again to protect their 4th generation. But how far can it go? How to achieve an effective drawing in the East? Will the PAP ask the old guards to stand again or send in a new team?

The key point is it is quite unlikely, in 2020 they will receive the same result achieved in 2015.  Luck is with the PAP in 2015 but 2020 is another story.   

What does it imply? There is still hope for WP to have a breakthrough in GRC.  For 2015, most of the WP candidates are young and new candidates.  If you recall Sylvia Lim asked those below 50 year-old to stand up to face the supporters, this is the asset of WP - the future of WP.  No other opposition parties have such a big number of young candidates with good background! Not even the PAP if you may add.

future of WP simei rally.png
Future of WP, perhaps also future of Singapore!

@2.40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g037TMQMXSk


These young WP candidates can fight on for another three or four elections. We, of course, cannot guarantee all will remain as candidates in the next election. But let hope majority of them will stay on and contest in 2020. Not to forget, new and young bloods will join in too.  

Thank god, these young candidates still can gain firsthand meet-the-people and other experiences in Aljunied and Hougang. Again, no other opposition parties have this opportunity.

The PAP can knockdown young WP once, perhaps twice but in the third attempt, the old guards of PAP will have to give way, especially the swing is not at the PAP side.

WP will continue to attract young members, especially those who find 2015 is a very unfair, unjust and undemocratic process.

wp-supporters-and-data.jpg
Young WP supporters!


The hope is youth and young candidates.  And certainly, not the overprotected 4th generation PAP leaders.

This is my message to one member of the Marine Parade team after the election:

“What a sad result let us work harder 2020 pse send my regards to wp team marine blue”.

And this is the reply:

“No to worry, we regroup and see what we can do together.”

Hope is always there and we should not give it up so easy.

Sunday, 13 September 2015

对行动党宽宏大量 对反对党处处刁难


2015年大选,人民行动党春风得意,运气出奇的好,好到连行动党本身都不相信。当然,选民也不相信,自己手中的一票,竟然让行动党大胜特胜。

行动党的每一步,似乎都注定成功,从SG50开始,李光耀去世,建国一代优惠,医药保健,公积金部分提出,诚信问题, 到最后的可能失去执政地位,前总统候选人出现在反对党的造势,群众大会人数很多,都让选民认为,行动党会面对失去政权的危险。原本希望国会有少数反对党议员的选民,开始反思,万一搞不好,过去的稳定就会消失。当越来越多的选民有着这样的心理反应,同时,又抱着not in my backyard的心态,既然对反对党的支持这么好,就让别的选区投选反对党吧!



行动党背后的风水,真的是一个高人,9月1日提名日为定江山,9月11日为吉日,开票后,果然节节胜利。当然,李光耀还是一直在保护着行动党,即使到了阴间,他的光环,依然照耀着行动党,让行动党顺利的过关,过的轻松写意。当然,演戏也要演全套,行动党中选的候选人,也不忘连连说humble,自我谦虚一番。

这是asiaone.com 的一个标题:

PAP's huge win due to Lee Kuan Yew, SG50: Reports


从另一个角度看来,新加坡选民似乎太容易骗了。什么民权,什么未来,什么民主,什么公正,这些行动党都能够处理好,只要相信行动党,一切都行。这和中国人对新加坡人的观感十分吻合:

stupid singaporeans.png



作为执政党,一党专政50多年,行动党怎么会不明白这个道理。只是这回的骗术(再加上恐吓)特别有运气,把选民都骗得团团转,一点都没有觉察出来。就如,上文说的:随便编个理由,就能让他们心服口服。

新加坡选民是否真的被骗得心服口服?那只有等2020大选才能知道答案。PAP % vote.png
上图是1959年以来,行动党的得票率,这是一党专政的象征。未来几届大选,行动党的得票率也将在60%-70%之间来回。这样的趋势说明,新加坡出现两党制的机会几乎等于零。选民可能对一些课题不满,行动党得票率就下降到65%甚至60%。

当然两党制或许有机会发生,那就是行动党第四代领导层,真的很不行,什么都无法满足选民的要求,改变是唯一的办法。另外,行动党自己闹翻了,分裂了。还有,接管行动党是一门生意,别有企图的外人,有可能插手行动党管理层。或者,另立一个财雄势大的政党与行动党抗争。不要忘记,再过几年,外来人口,将占人口总数的一半。

行动党一党专政,新加坡表面的稳定,是否能够继续下去,见仁见智。这种稳定,是否真的能够团结人民,唤起爱国心,这又要回到运气问题了。行动党真的有这么多好运气吗?新加坡选民把运气建立在行动党身上,是否是一个大赌局,雷曼兄弟会倒台,谁能确保行动党万无一失呢?




Saturday, 12 September 2015

It May Take Another 50 Years, or longer, for a Two-Party System to Emerge in Singapore.


If we consider the historical records of past general elections, even at SG100, we will never see the possibility of two-party system.

Look at the table below:

Table: PAP valid votes (%)

1959
54.1
1963
46.9
1968
86.7
1972
70.4
1976
74.1
1980
77.7
1984
64.8
1988
63.2
1991
61.0
1997
65.0
2001
75.3
2011
66.6
2015
69.9

In the past 50 years, the percentage valid votes for the PAP has never gone down to 60%.  Even in 1963, it went down to 46.9% but the PAP still managed to maintain two-thirds majority in the house.

Oppositions will need at least two general elections to recover the loss ground and another two general elections to bring down the PAP percentage vote to below 60%. With current election system (GRCs, boundary redrawing), additional rounds of elections will be needed to get back to 60% level.

However, there are two possibilities that the two-party system may come earlier.

One is the performance of the 4th generation PAP leadership. When Lee Hsien Loong is gone after 2020, a new team of the PAP leaders will have to take over.  We have seen the lowering standard of the PAP new leadership. The PAP fails to get top guns from the business sectors, in particular, successful entrepreneurs.  Creating high value jobs will be very challenging in future.  Can the 4th PAP generation deliver a sustainable growth for Singapore? If they can’t, even they may be the best to solve economic problems, voters will want to make a change.

The other possibility is a sad story. It may happen when there are two groups of citizens: local born and new citizens fighting for each other interest in SG100 or SG75.

In SG100, there may be more foreign born citizens than local born citizens in Singapore. Both are fighting for their own interest and two political groups will emerge. The PAP may be on the central left and the other one central right (as they look for profit). The PAP will then have a different home ground, or a small home ground.

We are talking about a population of more than 6.9 million. And if we still want to maintain high growth, then we are talking about 10 million population.  There are certainly not enough local babies.  

The PAP may still control the state machinery. However, the other group will have foreign influence. Both are citizens of Singapore and can participate in elections.

Wealth creates in the past 50 years may not be in the hand of the PAP. Unless we are applying universal love and we really do not mind people take advantages of our system to enrich themselves. People can leave and go as they wish as far as universal love exists, our aim is to help the world to create more millionaires and super riches.    

These are two possibilities that will bring down the PAP.  The PAP has successfully created a political system to create a ‘sure win’ election for themselves. However, they fail to realise a poor 4th generation within their rank will bring two-party system forward. Externally, outside Singapore, a big non-local born citizen population will also create challenges to them - a foreign talented political force.

What do you think? Which outcome do you prefer?