Skip to main content

行动党的提升计划,根本没有考虑公民参与,违背世界银行的指导原则。


人民行动党的提升计划,根本没有考虑公民参与,违背世界银行的指导原则。

Untitled drawing(2).jpg

【什么SGfuture, SG50, 还有REACH,人民协会等等,通通都是由上而下的所谓公民参与,看看宪法委员会的出席人数,以及不打算全民表决总统选举新架构,选民就应该清楚人民行动党搞得是什么把戏了。】

就拿武吉巴督选区的社区翻新计划来说,什么总值190万元的改善基础设施计划,还是去年大选提出的2千4百万元的支票等等,全部都没有把公民参与考虑在内。

世界银行集团在考虑到贷款给发展中国家搞基建项目时,现在都要加入公民参与这个因素。为什么?

【公民直接参与的好处是确保政府,不论对政策的制定,还是提供的公共服务素质,都能做得最好。
Government works best when citizens are directly engaged in policymaking and public service delivery.】

【公民参与能够协助改进政府政策的透明度和负责性。并且能够提高人民对政策的信任度,对重要改革达成一致性,和建立一个持久的政治和人民支持的机制。
Engaging citizens can help improve transparency and accountability of public policies, promote citizens’ trust, forge consensus around important reforms, and build the political and public support necessary to sustain them. 】


人民行动党政府根本就把世界银行的建议当成耳边风。或许,新加坡太富有,我们不需要向世界银行贷款搞基建,因为我们的公积金局可以不断的向政府提供低息贷款。因此,新加坡政府可以不理这些建议,而人们也无需知道公民参与的重要性。

武吉巴督的选民们,难道您们没有贡献公积金吗?行动党政府拿了公积金的钱和储备,有没有考虑公民参与?

他们的选区提升计划,全部都是国家发展部,市区重建局,或者其他政府部门搞出来的。然后,在没有公民参与的情形下,就拿出来让您们选择。人民行动党还要看您们的支持程度,优先分配给大力支持行动党的选区,不支持的选区,就慢慢来,慢慢等。

每一次大选,每一次补选,行动党就把邻里提升计划的冷饭炒热,提醒选民,投票给行动党的好处。总理提醒选民,把票投给对居民有利的政党。这是完全否决选民的公民参与权利。这也是他所谓的Trade-off。

想一想,行动党把提升计划抛出,根本没有考虑到选民的需要。因为,它根本就没有考虑公民参与这个世界银行的建议。事实上,不论计划前还是计划后,行动党根本就不理公民参与这回事。

反观民主党,他们在计划前和计划后,会向选民了解需要,他们要公民参与。选区内的实际需要,是要通过选民的反馈,回报,互相沟通才能完成的。

事实上,世界银行要求公民参与的目的,就是要人民监督政府。因为在发展中国家,有太多的贪污舞弊的事情,施工,品质,预算等问题,小的可以是课本印刷质量问题,大的问题则可以是建筑上的偷工减料。

新加坡自认贪污指数很低,不需要监督。行动党会自己监督自己。如果选民都迷信这套说法,当然就是自动放弃公民参与的权利。

再者,项目、计划等是否是人民需要的,行动党政府希望人民让它自由发挥,选民只要大力支持行动党,行动党就会做的更好,就会效率更高?这是完全违背世界银行公民参与的指导原则。行动党认为只要有正确的政治,正确的政策就行了,真的如此简单吗?

新加坡经济现在正面对挑战,经济不好,就应该参与政策的制定,而不是任由行动党由上而下的自由发挥。过去50年,新加坡经济蛋糕的分配就是在没有制衡,没有公民参与的背景下,变得贫富不均。

为了向世人表示人民行动党政府是透明,是公开的,新加坡多多少少也要搞一些所谓的公民参与的活动。通过SGfuture, REACH, 人民协会,通过非政府组织,通过工会,公会,商业、体育团体等等,告诉世人我们积极推动公民参与的。

无论如何,这些间接,甚至受到控制的公民参与活动,都比不上直接面对人民,和人民直接沟通来得最好。

武吉巴督选民,您的一票,是要支持直接的,主动的鼓励公民参与的民主党,还是被动的,间接的支持公民参与的行动党?

答案就是您手中的一票。

您的决定,决定您是否能够直接的参与选区内的事物,直接对选区内的事务有话语权,而不是行动党抛出的不经公民参与的计划项目。








Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

EBRC objectives: Stop “Out of Aljunied”, Stop SDP Breakthrough and “Negative-Asset” Ministers.

First of all, we have to congratulate the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee for creating more competitions, especially, multi-cornered competitions in the East. When making changes, EBRC aims to achieve 3 goals: To prevent “Out of Aljunied” for Workers’ Party.  This is the most important objective. To prevent Singapore Democratic Party making any breakthrough in the North and Central.   To look for a solution to retire “negative-asset” ministers or reduce PAP damages. From the reported claims from different political parties, we will expect multi-cornered contests not only in single constituencies but also in group representative constituencies. The PAP hopes to have a repeat of 2011 Presidential Election. Then Tony Tan won the Presidency when he got only 35% of the votes, a narrow win.However, a win is still a win. He did in even in the very last minute, after recounts of votes.    How to achieve multi-cornered contests? By i...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...