Saturday, 19 August 2017

Lee Hsien Loong’s Over Simplicity: Preschool, Anti-Diabetes, and Smart Nation.



    Once again, Lee Hsien Loong shows his short-sighted simplicity about his long-term plan for Singapore. In his National Day Message, he highlights 3 key issues for his action plan, namely preschool, diabetes and smart nation.

It is a case of over simplicity. He believes he can cut short Singapore problems into preschool, diabetes and smart nation. The bigger problems, however, are education, healthcare and development. Preschool is just a part of education problems Singapore is facing. Diabetes can not run away from our under protected healthcare services. Smart nation can not be just machine smart.

In total, all three issues touch on the level playing field, social mobility, poverty, inequality and most importantly, culture of help, mindset and social change.

1c. Relativism and Reality  The Price of Inadaption   University of Copenhagen   Coursera.png

Lee Hsien Loong tries very hard to preserve the status quo, just like he wants to retain 38, Oxley Road or as reported, the estate of Lee Kuan Yew is not entitled to use or have copies of the oral history transcripts. He makes changes so to have conservation.   

To a conservative, the goal of change is less important than the insistence that change be effected with a respect for the rule of law and traditions of society. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Conservatism

Preschool, anti-diabetes, and smart nation are changes for Lee Hsien Loong’s conservation. However, these means of change serve only one purpose - continued conservation, or in a more prestige name - the Lee Kuan Yew Legacy/Founders’ Memorial.

Founders  Memorial.png

The Lee Hsien Loong’s short-sighted simplicity is to maintain a winner takes all economy. This model as experienced in the USA is facing its critical moment and threatens the capitalist system. Singapore as a role model of Reaganomics and Thatcherism can not avoid the same ills - social mobility, inequality and poverty. 


This is why when Lee Hsien Loong talks about anti-diabetes, he fails to realise the root causes. “The number of adults estimated to be living with diabetes has nearly quadrupled over 35 years, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has said, warning that it has increased drastically because of "the way people eat, move and live".” (http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-is-no-2-nation-with-most-diabetics-5-things-about-diabetes)

They way we eat (hawkers centres), move (MRT breakdown), live (high HDB prices) are contributing factors to diabetes. These and the education demands translate into a stress level that our past conservative culture finds difficulty in coping.

Referring to the smart nation development, Lee Hsien Loong will neglect the social mobility issue. When we decide to abandon dialects, we never consider the communication problem. When we are experience high economic growth, we fail to raise the pay of lower income workers. In order to make ‘winner takes all’ possible, we lower the tax rate and remove estate duty. 



Friday, 11 August 2017

不适当总统,不适当总理,国难当前,真正的PAP党人和国人会站出来吗?


    2017年只走了八个多月,新加坡的政治乱象已经层出不穷。目前,摆在我们面前的,可以肯定的,就是一个不适当的总统 -不论是现任还是准备上任的。同时,也出现一个不适当的总理-一个认知出现问题的领袖。

    以往,不适当总统,原本就不是问题,因为,总理和内阁团队,可以在人民行动党创党精神,信约精神,李光耀价值,和国人勇于牺牲,刻苦耐劳感召下,克服困难,取得成果。

    但是,2017年却告诉我们,无论总统选举是否是直通车,答案已经很清楚,行动党要一个看不懂账簿,不知道外汇交易,更加不知道国内外经济的前任议长,来担任民选总统。因此,这是一个货不对办的民选总统,国人不可能对未来总统寄予厚望。连熟悉财经的陈庆炎都无能为力,无法履行民选总统的职务,前任议长行吗?这里完全是以总统作为一个新加坡人来看问题,与种族背影无关。因为,我们立国以来,就是一直强调能者胜任的原则。

    (李光耀如果还活着,对于李显龙推出这一号人物,不知是否要从棺材里跳出来,高呼一声“不”。)

    很不幸的,总统人选的问题,也突出李显龙的认知问题。从修改宪法,陈清木高庭上诉,到人选的种种决策上,李显龙都是背着民意走。李显龙的认知问题,也出现在外交上,现在不只是假新闻的问题,李显龙似乎连假情报也分不清楚。当然,最大的问题,李显龙一直到现在还不知道为何自己被套上 dishonorable son 的称号。

    一个不适当的总统,遇到一个不能胜任的总理,虽然2017年预测经济成长2.5%,新加坡表面的经济稳定,这只不过是一个表象,内部的腐烂,经过一段时间后,如果不及时制止,那么,新加坡50年来辛苦建立起来的经济,也将会一下子迅速倒下。这不是不可能发生的事,而是很可能发生的悲剧。

    国难当前,为避免悲剧发生,真正的行动党党人和爱国人士,会站出来吗?

    自从李显龙担任总理以来,我们就看到一些爱党爱国的人士出来发声,有些人笼统、简单的把这些人归纳为行动党B队。他们对李显龙团队有所不满,只是没有公开反对罢了。

    1.行动党B队。这个比较明显,以陈清木为主。他们没有公开反对行动党,只是希望能够制衡政府,要求一定程度的政治开放。

    2.学术界。李显龙在挑选国会议员候选人的时候,无法吸纳大学和学术界人才,反而,反对党中出现这些人才。最近,由于假情报事件,李光耀公共政策学院似乎成了反李显龙的学术组织。

黄靖的错误消息,“假情报”事件,凸显李显龙无能的认知问题。到底这是一个单面还是双面间谍的问题,新加坡外交部,没有说清楚。甚至,也可以是无中生有,方便为李显龙认知问题找借口。当然,也可以是学术界的两派之争。

    几年前,学术界出现过,对于人力部的统计数据提出不同解读,而被部长训话。也出现过,10年来低薪雇员没有加薪的论点。

    3.李玮玲、李显扬、知识分子。这些人本着爱护新加坡的心,提出和李显龙不同的看法和意见。他们希望行动党内部纠正错误,本着李光耀价值来治理新加坡。何光平,许通美,还有其他一些知识分子,对于新加坡未来也提出一些看法。

    4.奖学金得主。2011和2015年大选,出现不少奖学金得主加入反对党,他们相信信约精神,政府为民服务的价值。可惜,他们无法突破行动党的围困,进不了国会。他们的失败,导致一些愿意献身政治的人,却步反对党政治。这间接造成李显龙的认知错误,以为反对党成不了气候,那么他就可以为所欲为。

    5.潜伏的B队。即使李显龙在行动党党内一手遮天,行动党内部还是有一股势力,温和的开明派。这个温和派,往往在关键时刻,还是默许李显龙的所作所为,最近的国会辩论,李显龙自吹自擂,自己没有渎职滥权,好多行动党议员都没有说一句话。或许,这是明哲保身,也或许时机未到。更或许,就是在捞好处。我们可以期待潜伏B队,对国家做出贡献吗?

    新加坡其实没有缺少和李显龙、行动党不同意见的人。只是现行的政治局面,行动党一党独大,令人却步。任何时代,都需要爱国具有献身精神的人,每个人有不同的解读,有些人认为是时候了,而大多数的新加坡有识之士,却认为,时机还未成熟。这无形中,进一步加深了李显龙的认知失调,一错再错,最后,连李光耀的老本也输光。

Saturday, 5 August 2017

Lee Hsien Loong’s Stupidity: Parliament Self-Defence, Presidential Controversy, Public Mistrust.



It is a well planned stupidity.  Whether the reserved presidential election or self-defence/self declaration of (non)abuse of power in parliament, these are all well planned strategies by top administrators in Singapore. However, when we look at the outcome, perhaps, it is only a self-satisfaction of Lee Hsien Loong.

Untitled drawing(1).jpg



Smart people do stupid things.  In fact, it is a reflection of inner self with obvious ill intentions. So much so that it not only puts Singapore in a bad shape but creates internal and external confidence problems. There is only one proclaimed winner, putting own self interest above the nation.

It is very surprise top advisers to Lee Hsien Loong have not studied or smart enough or dare enough to point out the stupidity - definition of first elected president, definition of “malay”,  politics of kinship, appointment of attorney-general, ….

Arguments put forward by Lee Hsien Loong and his advisers are far from convincing. There are full of holes which can only be filled by the authority of one-party state machinery.

Lee Hsien Loong’s stupidity also exposes the quality of his top advisers and our top administrators. Are they under stress? Can they withhold the trust and principle of “without fear and favour”? Can they think and judge Independently? If not, it sad to see they are as stupid as Lee Hsien Loong.  And is there a future for Singapore with such a leadership and teamwork?

We are telling people; be it investors, businessmen, salary workers, or professionals; we are practising double standard. If you are my brothers, you are protected. If your racial status is not right, the government can make it right.  We have a unique system to define who is first and who is second. However, if you are not happy, you can still file a lawsuit in Courts.

Saturday, 29 July 2017

政治打压,子承父业,行吗? 自我觉醒,改变政治,敢吗?



李显龙想要依样画葫芦,依靠李光耀留下的政治打压手段,甚至光辉发扬打压范围和压制手段,从个人能力上,他行吗?当然,他的假设很简单,因为新加坡选民很现实,没有政治觉醒能力,也不会冒险做出政治改变。因此,不论李显龙使出什么不合理的打压手段,选民都会照单全收,牺牲反对党,而让人民行动党一党独大,专制下去。李显龙赌的就是新加坡选民的不敢。就像当年,李显龙勇敢的开设赌场,选民也敢敢的没有觉醒,接受李显龙的豪赌。

    这种子承父业的政治打压,在急速世界政治局势变迁下的今天,还能继续依样画葫芦吗?而新加坡选民,在经济局势不稳定,就业前景不明朗的情形下,还会死心塌地,衷心相信李显龙和人民行动党,是选民的唯一出路吗?因此,李显龙的豪赌是,选民宁可没有反对党,也会继续在缺少政治觉醒下,忍痛不敢放弃“子承父业”的Dishonorable son?

    何况,在阿裕尼后港市镇理事会的事件上,李显龙还标榜本身就是正义的化身,为选民的利益着想,保护纳税人的税收没有被滥用。在主流媒体的操控下,工人党的市镇领导,就是滥权,渎职,背叛选民的委托,辜负新加坡人的期待。当工人党被扣上这种帽子后,选民就对工人党失望,甚至看不起,敌视工人党。

    李光耀打压反对党,有他的一套本事,再加上当时的政治气氛,反对共产党的欧美势力强大,冷战的心理,东南亚到处都是专制政权,国人教育水平比较低,收入也比较低。。。。因此,内安法,政治打压,媒体控制,每一样打压行动,如鱼得水,顺顺利利,大功告成。

    李显龙当然希望,子承父业,顺风顺水,甚至,新加坡式的打压政治和文化能够青于蓝而胜于蓝,比他的父亲更加出色。不单,接班人可以如意安排,司法,立法都能够在一党独大的加护下,完成dishonorable son的不可能任务。

    因此,我们需要明白李显龙行吗?新加坡选民敢吗?

【李显龙行吗?】
   
    作为非李光耀遗属执行人,李光耀认为李显龙行吗?最少在故居问题上,李光耀是保留态度,甚至,李光耀认为李显龙不会执行他的遗愿。当然,李显龙认为自己行,因为,国会无法证明他滥用权力、渎职。但是,李显龙的亲兄妹,却不认为,给予他Dishonrable son的地位。

    同样的,不论国内国外,普遍认为,李显龙没有李光耀的高度。这当然是指他在国内的施政和外交手段,远见和判断能力。几乎没有人认为李显龙比他老爸行。因此,李显龙一系列打压政治,控制媒体的手段,是否可以和李光耀的手段,取得一样的成果,如愿以偿。

    即使李光耀处于今天的新加坡和当下的国际经济政治局势,采取同样过去的手段和手法,也未必取得同样的辉煌成绩。我们想一想,一个比李光耀无能的李显龙,如何个行法?

    李显龙的“行”, 能够配合新加坡的政治局势的改变吗?几天前,新加坡智库-李光耀公共政策学院提出设立委员会研究新加坡未来的政治。因为,新加坡的政治环境已经改变了,人民的意愿和心声似乎无法通过正常的管道来进行和疏通。这对国家的长远发展会造成影响。http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/figuring-out-the-right-path-for-political-evolution

    李显龙似乎也明白2015大选的佳绩,似乎不可能再来一次。而2011年大选的结果,很可能再来。这对李显龙和行动党来说,将是一项很大的挑战。阿裕尼和后港选民,即使面对李光耀的“死亡威胁”,民心一面倒,也还是要维护反对的声音。这种政治环境的现实和威胁,李显龙心知肚明,如果不把主要的反对党打倒,污名化,不单继续失掉阿裕尼和后港选区,很可能还会失掉更多选区。这是李显龙“行”的主要目的,阿裕尼后港市镇会的问题,从2011年,工人党成功突破后,就一直是问题多多,从政府,财政部,总审计署的调查,一直到现在自己告自己,就是要找漏洞,消灭工人党。

    李显龙明白知识分子和有识之士希望看到国会有更多反对党议员。李显龙的滥用权力的指控,虽然在国会保护下,暂时无事。但是,在行动党党内和具有认知判断能力的人看来,未必如此。


公共服务委员会主席:奖学金申请者认可工人党。   http://pijitailai.blogspot.sg/2015/10/blog-post_15.html


    李显龙关心的不是即将来临的总统选举,即使最后落到(不可能)的公开选举,不同种族的人,都可以参加,他也不会害怕。新加坡的宪法,立法能够把总统架空,即使有作为的王鼎昌,也无能为力,李显龙最担心的就是国会议席,最好能够赶尽杀绝,一个当选的反对党议员都没有。只剩下,非选区议员,为此,他还增加非选区议员的人数到12人。司马昭之心,很明显,既然反对党无法胜任市镇事务,最好的做法就是剩下12个非选区议员,不让反对党管理市镇会。但是,却维持表面的议会民主。

    李显龙对对付反对党的套数很多,很狠,这是子承父业的写照。问题就出在行与不行。  李光耀行,未必李显龙就行。上面提到外交内政,李显龙都面对,前所未有的挑战,有些挑战比李光耀还要难对付。例如:达曼就被认为比李显龙胜任,国库管理一直被认为有问题,接班人假象,当然,最严重也无法否认的dishonorable son 的称号和本身的健康问题。


【选民敢吗?】   

    新加坡选民偏爱行动党,李光耀是因素之一。同样的偏爱未必在李显龙身上发生。故居风波,对李显龙的政治形象扣分,对李显龙的信任也下降。在这样的背景下,选民敢投反对党吗?选民愿意做出改变吗?多选一些反对党议员吗?

对行动党宽宏大量 对反对党处处刁难


长期一党专政,新加坡无法摆脱行动党的奴性。

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

    新加坡选民对行动党的宽容,对李显龙厚道,面对行动党和反对党的两套标准,两种心态,是否真的能够带来国人最大的利益。从此发展出来的投票行为,当然造成行动党的优势和取胜秘诀。但是,这是不是一成不变?选民永远没有勇气和行动党说‘不’。过去50年的确如此,李显龙是否能够继续如此,利用打压政治的手段,来达到目的,随心所欲的在国会保护下,滥权渎职而不受到任何制衡。

    李显龙面对的压力是隐形的。选民是否敢投李显龙的反票,一定程度上,也要看李显龙的行与不行。

    举两个例子来说明。

# 李光耀公共政策学院院长马凯硕最近提出小国论,小国有小国的处世之道,大国有大国的立场,因此,新加坡这个小国应该采取务实的小国立场。这个说法,受到另一派有识之士的批评。

    # 副总理达曼在印度说,人才的自由交流应该受到限制。意思是,小国新加坡和大国印度,签订自由人才来往的协定,在大国人才无限供应下,新加坡有限的人口和市场,受到冲击很大。

    从这两个例子看出,李显龙的行与不行。李显龙不单开放赌场,在很多政策上,也是在进行一场豪赌。上面的例子,在李光耀手中,可以凭着个人的智慧和聪明的团队,把困难的事情解决掉 - 本身的外交手段,再加上优秀的外交人才团队。在面对,人才交流上,李光耀只对马来西亚的人才大开方便之门,选择性吸收其他外国人才。

    李显龙一方面无法应付当下的世界和国内格局,另一方面,却进行豪赌,自由人才的交流,无限的引进所谓人才;在主权基金淡马锡和政府投资公司方面,也让他们自由进行豪赌行为,不需要监督和制衡。这些例子对于小市民,可能未必觉察出来。但是,对于有识之士却可能造成对于李显龙的疏离感,形成一个强大的行动党B队。当然,其中也有有意加入反对党的有识之士。

李显龙的打压行动,赌的不单是不让行动党B队壮大,更加重要的是,不让有识之士加入工人党和其他反对党。一个市镇会的管理,牵连到官司,对有些有识之士来说,是一个威胁,这可以打消他们的B队心态和反对心理。这是李显龙的如意算盘,他在游走于行与不行之间,或许,他的行只是在国会内,而不是在国会外。治国之道,如果只是在国会内,那么李显龙的所谓‘行’,也不过是井底之蛙。

Dishonorable son 是否能够hold住?选民如何面对李显龙的dishonorale行为,敢和李显龙说‘不’吗?

Saturday, 22 July 2017

Lee Hsien Loong’s values: casinos, EP ‘wayang’, dishonorable son.


In the past months, Lee Kuan Yew’s values were hot topics. Besides inherited some of the bad habits of Lee Kuan Yew”s values, what are Lee Hsien Loong’s values?

[The value of quick money]

The very first thing when he became prime minister, PM Lee introduced integrated resorts - casinos. In his earlier days of prime ministership, he already thought of a ‘get rich quick’ economic policy for Singapore. This is why he promoted casinos in Singapore. Not only in gaming industry, in housing industry we also see high price of Housing and Development Board flats. It is easy for government to make quick money in casinos, in housing, in banking, in telecoms, in road pricing … as far as you are the licensing authority.

Recently, the government finds some innovative clubs also engaging in ‘get rich quick’ schemes by operating jackpot machines.  However, clubs are losers as they don’t have the right to print the operating licences and clubs are subject to rules and regulations under the government.  

When we encourage Singaporeans to try their luck by paying $100 to get a licence to pay at casino, we are telling people there is a way to make quick money even the chance is slim. However, some people do try and as a result, we see the increasing numbers of pawn shops.

Lee Kuan Yew was against gambling. However, he eventually changed his mind because he saw the benefits that it could bring to the country. Perhaps, in this belief, Lee Hsien Loong also thinks 38 Oxley Road can be preserved. But as seen in gaming in casinos, the outcome is not always positive, sometimes, it depends on your luck.

[The value of anti-meritocratic and racial divide]

The Elected President wayang is a continued play of licensing. The People’s Action Party has the licence to direct the wayang.

The elected presidency was Lee Kuan Yew’s initiative. Then, Lee Kuan Yew was worried about the growing support for opposition parties among Singapore’s voters, however, he thought the office of the elected presidency could prevent a profligate opposition government from touching the island’s vast monetary reserves. In LKY’s famous quote: ‘Without the elected president and if there is a (general election) freak result, within two or three years, the army would have to come in and stop it.

In LKY’s evaluation, EP must be a person who can safeguard the reserve and understand and know how to read financial reports. However with a reserved EP, we are not getting the best and capable person to serve. It is even working in concert with the government.   

Is this the same EP value that LKY trying to promote?

By denying the EP value of LKY, Lee Hsien Loong has to acknowledge the EP is a policy mistake.  He is introducing the wayang EP to correct LKY’s mistake, just like the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road.  Not to forget PM Lee has the licence to do so as he is the head of the government.  

[The value of dishonorable behaviors]

Untitled drawing.jpg


Under the licence of ‘ownself defend ownself’, the parliament clears PM Lee’s abuse of power allegation.  However, the title of dishonorable son remains. For traditional Confucian values, dishonesty is even worst than power abuse. A dishonest person can do all bad things, including disloyalty, abuse of power, corruptions, etc.  

Since Han dynasty, ‘governed by filial piety’(以孝治国) had been a key principal value even though not all emperors were dutiful sons.


[The rule of virtue, which is the characteristic of the ancient Chinese society, "to rule the world with filial piety" is the concrete embodiment of governing the country by morality. The so-called "rule the world with filial piety" is to regard filial piety as the policy and principle of governing the country, and integrate the filial piety into the practice of governing the country.
http://www.bestchinanews.com/History/10316.html]

In ‘Lee Kwan (Kuan) Yew, Singapore and the Power of Filial Piety’

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-doctoroff/lee-kwan-yew-singapore-an_b_6952284.html), the writer has credited filial piety as a success factor for Singapore:

{Despite prominent Indian and Malay minorities, Singapore is predominantly Chinese. It is a profoundly Confucian society. The individual does not exist independent of his responsibilities to other elements of society. Even in 2015, the elemental productive unit of society remains the clan. Relationships are organized according to the wu lun (五伦)— five fundamental relationships that constitute a naturally ordered society: between father and son, husband and wife, older brother and younger brother, friend and friend, and ruler and ruled.}

PM Lee, as criticized by his siblings as dishonorable son, has a long way to clear his name and the licence to rule.

It is very unusual for an eldest on not being the executor and trustee of her father’s estate in Chinese tradition. In dynasty history, it means the successor has lost the authority to rule. In the eyes of Lee Kuan Yew, his  final decision and clear message to Singaporeans are Lee Hsien Loong is not the successor of Lee family.

Friday, 14 July 2017

总理在位13载,亢龙有悔。故居遗愿互斗,龙战于野。【横幅:物极必反】

Untitled drawing(1).jpg

李显龙走到今天,可以用《易经》的乾卦上九和坤卦上六来形容。上九和上六都是卦辞的最后一个爻。这是一个卦的顶点,再走下去,就要变成另一个卦,或者就是一个政治终结。

百度百科的简单解释:

(乾卦上九为)亢龙有悔(kàng lóng yǒu huǐ),成语。 亢:至高的;悔:灾祸。 意为居高位的人要戒骄,否则会失败而后悔。 后也形容倨傲者不免招祸

龙战于野为坤卦第六爻(上六)。龙为阳,此爻为阴,故龙战指阴阳交战。城外为郊,郊之外为野。玄黄,分别指天、地之色。天地为最大的阴阳,其血玄黄,是指阴阳交战流出了血,说明此爻是凶爻。喻人事,则为上下交战,至于死伤流血的情形。

亢龙有悔和龙战于野,怎么会和李显龙产生关系呢?

【亢龙有悔】
李显龙为何为了家事需要向国人道歉?李显龙对中国的南海和一带一路立场,是否有所改变?李显龙对TPP的坚持,对于国内的压制,对于淡马锡和外汇储备管理的解释,能够让人信服吗?

【龙战于野】
处于乾(阳)位的李显龙,和政治上不在位(坤/阴)的弟妹互相争斗,用龙战于野来形容是非常的适当。这个结果就是新加坡的国际地位受到影响,国人对政府的信心下降。

不论是龙战于野,还是亢龙有悔,这都显示出李显龙已经不适合担任新加坡总理。前总统候选人陈如斯发表公开信说,为国家,为家庭,为同事李显龙必须辞掉总理一职。陈如斯说,李显龙已经是国家的负资产,没有把事情的先后次序搞清楚(为总统选举瞎忙)。家庭方面,李显龙健康不佳,辞职对于孩子有利。最后,辞职后当然也不用部长们再为他背书。
(https://www.facebook.com/TanJeeSay/posts/1420493988029872)

【立法、司法上的亢龙有悔和龙战于野】

在立法上,李显龙只能依靠国会来护驾,为自己的廉洁辩护。他说弟妹们的指责没有事实证明,因此,他是清白的。国会也就无形中成了李显龙的上六和上九。这是他的最后一道防线, 最强的挡箭牌。

李显扬和李玮玲其实有提出证据。他们说何晶拿来李光耀的遗物,这点李显龙没有否认。他们说,故居委员会的设立和总检察长和其副手的任命,也都是事实。李显龙只能提出他本身上九和上六的解释。因此,在国会自辩,不等于没有事实证明。只能说,这是单方面的说法和诠释。

在司法上,李显龙也已经走到尽头了。首先,超龄的总检察长和前行动党背景的副手,已经让李显龙控制检察权。令人遗憾,新加坡法庭被人冠以“袋鼠法庭”的外号,这当然没有事实根据,没有人能够证明。但是,我们想一想,为何在国际上,新加坡法庭会有这个雅号呢?是不是旁观者清?我们被蒙蔽了?

我们从陈清木对总统选举中,要求法庭为第一任民选总统的定义做出决定可以看出,李显龙已经出尽法宝,把自己推向上九上六的位子。这个位子和时间,不正也不中。虽然,可以一时的把反对势力打倒,压制下来。但是,这只是缓冲之举。更加可怕的是,副总检察长在法庭上对陈清木的种族主义的偏见,竟然可以进入司法程序,成为证据。这似乎是一种江郎才尽。不过,只要达到目的,李显龙还是会满意的。

【易经是哲学,不是算命的八卦】

我们讲到上九上六,看起来似乎说李显龙的八卦和替李显龙算命。事实上,并非如此。易经基本上是中国第一部哲学书。当然,你也可以和李显龙的高度一样, 把它当成占卜的书。根据外媒报道,李光耀故居有两个骨灰瓮。因此,可以合理把它转化成万人参拜的宗庙。这样就接近李显扬李玮玲对哥哥的指责了。

李显龙曾经说,高处不胜寒。事实上,他在好多年前已经知道自己已经是处于上九上六的位置。或许,身不由己,即使他愿意下来,旁边的人未必同意他这么做。这点,我们从第四代接班人和淡马锡接班人都很难顺利产生看出来。古代有帝王的国家,即使做皇帝愿意退位,但是,既得利益者很多,未必同意皇帝的意见,而要求皇帝继续硬硬撑下去。这或许是李显龙的悲哀!他无法控制自己的命、位、时。

李显龙甚至无法维护李光耀的价值。最近的讲华语运动的渎风波,南洋理大的禁风波,说明李显龙的文化程度已经上到上九上六。李光耀不论基于什么原因推广华语,但是,到了李显龙身上,就是不成气候。一个可笑的事实,新加坡有多少人了解一带一路?而一带一路的很多研究资料,历史文献,以中文为主。新加坡人连基本汉字都无法辨认,如何看懂这些资料?连基本的讲华语运动都无法维护,李光耀的其他价值(单打独斗,不需要其他部长背书;灵活外交而非独立外交),李显龙又如何坚持持续下去?

李显龙的小国独立外交论,也显示另类“高处不胜寒”。独立外交,似乎把新加坡带向死胡同。独立外交变成对立外交。难怪,美国人会误把李显龙当成印度尼西亚总统!

【物极必反】

李显龙现在面对的是物极必反的局面。走完了上九上六,就是另一个开始,也即是现在政治生命的结束。他希望保留故居来延续目前的局面,通过立法国会,司法法庭来持续他的政治生命。而他的豪赌,却很不幸的一定跟新加坡的国运有关。

从李光耀,吴作栋,到李显龙。要求李显龙下台的呼声最多。我们似乎没有听到有人要求李光耀下台,只有听到他独裁。我们也没有听到要求吴作栋下台的呼声,只是觉得他很木讷,呆呆的。但是,要求李显龙下台的人,就不少,对李显龙不满的人,更加多。除了陈如斯,还有另外一位前总统候选人陈欣亮在2014年也曾经要求总理下台, 当然还有7月15日的抗议大会。


不满李显龙已经成了全国运动。为了国家,为了人民,为了将来,大家为小红点加油!反对李显龙滥权渎职,尽快放弃这个负资产。

Saturday, 8 July 2017

The Relevancy of Lee Kuan Yew’s values to Singapore after the Oxley drama in Parliament.



Untitled drawing.png

    PM Lee Hsien Loong has declared success of clearing all doubts about Oxley drama related allegations. His explanations in parliament suggest his version of Lee Kuan Yew’ values and its relevancy to Singapore and future Singapore, including the privilege of kinship.

    What are Lee Kuan Yew’s values? According to PM Lee, there are no abuse of power, corruptions, favor of appointments etc. as alleged by his siblings. (What has happened to Lee Kuan Yew’s values? As well as the summary evidence https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByodqaSLlpPIV0QtSmt4SlhhaEk/view)

    Parliament may give the benefit of doubt to PM Lee, but have we had a clearer picture of Lee Kuan Yew’s values now? Or, are we confused? Are we confidence or the public have confidence that we can uphold these values? This is a question remain to be seen, especially among intellectuals and elites in Singapore. Will they, like the Parliament, also give the benefit of doubt to PM Lee or think otherwise?

This is a serious question.  The People’s Action Party needs to attract the best in society to be their election candidates. Over the years, we have seen their quality declining even the PAP claims their candidates are the best in Singapore. Of course, they always stress that there is no alternative team. Or Singapore can’t afford to split their best team into two.

Checks and balances are important under the Lee Kuan Yew’s values.  However, the Oxley drama in parliament clearly shows a “ownself defend ownself” government.  Do we deserve to have a PAP “ownself check ownself” government?

The Oxley drama as shown in parliament highlights an intellectual questions. How potential candidates think and evaluate the parliament debates and the unexplained doubts. Do they believe Lee Kuan Yew’s values are still in the safe hands of the current PAP leaders? Do they believe the allegations are ‘mostly inaccurate’ as claimed by PM Lee? Do they feel comfortable under the double-standard kinship working conditions where there is a big difference between brother or not brother?

Many Singaporeans may not be able to fairly judge the Oxley drama, especially, if they only read and listen to the mainstream media. But those who want to stand as PAP candidates will have to think twice.  From their hearts, do they really agree with Lee Hsien Loong’s version of Lee Kuan Yew’s values and the way he tries to safeguard these values?   

Perhaps, the only return that Singapore gains from the Oxley drama is the enlightenment of intellectuals and elites. These people who can make changes and lead Singapore must evaluate Lee Hsien Loong’s point of arguments. Some may choose to leave Singapore, like Lee Hsien Yang. Some will go into deep thinking when the PAP approaches them as candidates. Hopefully, some will join the oppositions to strengthen the checks and balances in parliament.

Lee Kuan Yew’s values need urgent review and reform too. But PM Lee and his siblings may not agree to this, even though they disagree with each others.

morning.jpg
A reflection? Think again. (photo taken on 3 July morning)

    And perhaps, Kenneth is right.

Kenneth Jeyeratnam: Singaporeans get the government they deserve, I don't want to ...

Saturday, 1 July 2017

死守死板死教条死典范,错失改革良机: 李显龙造不出时势,更造不出英雄。


一个可悲的现实是,1965年李光耀为担忧新加坡前途而失声痛哭。而2017年,讽刺的是,他的儿子李显龙,却必须躲在国会里为自己的政治前途,而不是新加坡的前途而痛哭。

李光耀当年想到的是新加坡何去何从,退出马来西亚,我们的前途在哪里?尽管有人说,那可能是鳄鱼泪,无论如何,当时的新加坡人,的确是为前途而茫然,没有方向感。

2017年的新加坡,在经济,公共行政,社会发展上,当然不可和1965年相比。没有强大的反对党,人民行动党一党独大,在国会拥有绝对的多数。因此,李显龙选择在这个安全的地方,为自己的廉洁辩护,为自己的政治前途辩护,当然,就可以自导自演,反驳“大多数错误”(mostly inaccurate)的指责,轻描淡写的把少数正确的指责轻轻的带过。

李显龙现在的自导自演和国会辩护,完全是从个人的立场出发,考虑的是个人的政治前途,而李光耀当年,虽然也顾及个人的政治前途,同志的期待,但是,国家的前途,却是重中之重。把新加坡搞好搞活,考虑国人的利益就是行动党第一代领导人的责任。反观七月三日的李显龙,他却要为个人的政治前途辩护,他的举动对于新加坡来说是一种减分,由此可见,李显龙的境界有多高!

1965年的李光耀,如果无法领导新加坡,在同辈中,的确有可以取代李光耀领导新加坡的领袖。看看今天的新加坡,似乎没有可以取代李显龙,或者,不愿“冒险”担当这个任务的人。 正如,李玮玲李显扬指出的,李显龙何晶有意培养自己的接班人。从这一点观察,新加坡目前的处境比1965年来得更加糟,因为,我们没有愿意献身的国家领袖。部长和行动党领袖,考虑的是个人的利益,而不是像1965年那样,为国家的前途而奋斗。因此,李玮玲李显扬才说,国会无法说出事实的真相。

    李显龙对于李光耀故居的诠释,就充分的表现出他死守死板死教条死典范的行为。他认为李光耀的教条,不可变更,旧的成功典范,必须永久保留下来。因此,把故居保留下来,就是一项必须工作。如果,没有了故居,那么,李显龙做任何事情,都变得‘名不正言不顺’了。为此,他害怕失去故居,害怕失去这个神主牌。

【时、位错乱】

    李显龙错误的判断,或者说没有看清楚1965和2017的不同。时代已经改变了,连过世的李光耀都看出来,故居的神主牌不可再用。2015年大选的成绩,似乎坚定李显龙保留故居的决心。但是,这同时也是一种误判时间的考量。行动党当年取得政权,不是靠什么神主牌,而是有一群志同道合的同志,大家一起奋斗,间中也用了一些不光明的手段。

    李显龙似乎忘了他的总理位子是怎么来的?他没有看清楚自己的位置,这点他就不如蒋经国。蒋经国看到自己的位子,就开放台湾,甚至,如果蒋经国晚几年过世,台海两岸就不是现在这个样子。或许,这就是李显龙的高度,他坐上总理的位子,想到的是个人的问题,而不是国家的前途。故居问题不是今天才发生,最少两年前,甚至2011年就出现了。但是,他考虑的是死守死板死教条死典范,认为这才是他个人的出路。难怪,李玮玲说当遗属宣布时,李显龙生气得要把故居遗迹化。

    几年前就出现问题,李显龙没有及时处理家里的纠纷,现在却要国人了解。这是时间上的错误。还有,他不是遗属执行人,这就变得位也错了。他应该想一想,李光耀的遗属几年前立下的时候,就注定不让李显龙在“时”和“位”上取得优势。而李显龙根本没有觉察出来,及时的给予纠正。或许,他认为只要神主牌在,任何事情都可以解决。而他的跟班,他也会跟上。就像两个星期来,我们陆陆续续看到这些根本陆续上场。可想而知,在国会,同班人马,甚至更多跟班就会为出现。

    因此,李显龙目前的处境是时、位错乱。他把新加坡带上一条政治不稳定的道路。虽然暂时新加坡没有出现不稳定状况,但是,他个人的错位错时,国家社会分裂(尤其是精英们)将会进一步加深,而接班人,如果有的话,也会出现预想不到的问题。

    李显龙被认为理科顶呱呱,他应该想到量子物理中的迷惑和不稳定性。他死守着死板的死教条和死典范,就像他不惜一切保留李光耀故居一样,其实,在外人看来是非理性的,非科学性的。一个理科顶呱呱的人,在错位错时的背景下,变成采取了非理性,非建设性的决定。

【天不时、地不利、人不和】

    我们回顾李显龙政府过去几年的表现,就会发现,不论外交还是内政,都出现天不时、地不利、人不和的局面。从和中国的外交关系,美国的TPP误判和坚持,海外投资失利,到地铁问题,告人诽谤,媒体言论控制,NTU中文风波,都可以看到李显龙的天不时、地不利。http://pijitailai.blogspot.sg/2017/05/blog-post_27.html
    人不和更是厉害,从家事变成国事。再接再厉变成国际笑话。

【错位错时总理,新加坡何去何从】

    2017和1965当然不同。新加坡在国内外的“位”和“时”都改变了。但是,李显龙还停留在,或者说,死守着死板的死教条和死典范。他以为李光耀留下的旧教条和旧典范,可以依样画葫芦,一切照旧。

    新加坡的困境是,遇到一位错位错时总理,不愿改变、改革,依然活在垄断国会的治国方式。当李光耀在1965年,为新加坡痛哭时,他想到的是新加坡的前途,而如今,李显龙在一党独大的国会,只是为自己的前途而痛苦。他没有勇气公开的面对新加坡的未来,只在国会为自己辩护,呜呼哀哉!


Wednesday, 28 June 2017

From Public Apology to Calling for Public Confidence, Is this a Political Crisis or a PAP Reformation in the making?



    First, PM Lee Hsien Loong made a public apology to Singaporeans - the first in Singapore history.  And then, DPM Tharman called for public confidence - another first in Singapore history. It makes Oxley House disputes or allegations clearly not a family matter.       

In Singapore, the government led by the Prime Minister has enjoyed high prestige and reputation. This is why in defamation cases, the prime minister can enjoy higher damage payment.  And we usually see people saying sorry to the prime minister and hardly we see our prime minister or ministers saying sorry to Singaporeans. (except election time).

The government never says sorry because they have high confidence. In the past 60 years, with Internal Security Act, the PAP government has shown great confidence in public administration. It is strange to call for public confidence if this is only a family affair.  Throughout the years, even in the passing year of Lee Kuan Yew, the government never has such a calling.

Because Oxley House is now an international news. The calling of confidence is targeting international investors, foreign governments, international organisations and bodies.  They are wondering why a safe haven country gets into a mess just because of a house.  

A stable country and her institutions are alleged to act under fear and favor. Is there a political crisis arising from the miscalculation of Lee Hsien Loong? Is he underestimating the danger, damage or challenge as the Oxley House dispute is at least two years already? Or simply, PM Lee never considers such damage and allegation can threaten the stability of Singapore.  He has underestimated the intelligence of his siblings.      

Of course, foreigners also look at the allegations raised by PM Lee’s sister and brother. How independent is the judiciary if foreign investments or companies get into troubles with local administration or local companies? Is there a “big brother’ monitoring my investment or company activities?

Public apology is for local consumption and international confidence is to ensure foreigners Singapore remains a safe hevan.

Singaporeans may get used to the allegations as we have seen people being challenged and sued in Courts. But foreigners, except journalists, do not have such experience. Even PM Lee says most allegations are not accurate, however, it seems there are some or ‘little’ allegations are true.  Can these allegations be the critical ones resulting a public confidence calling?

Anyhow, PM Lee is only prepared to answer these allegations in parliament.  He is going to use this platform to answer or argue his case.  Is this his ‘own’ political crisis or a political crisis of the People’s Action Party?

It reminds me of the Protestant Reformation that challenges the Roman Catholic authority in Rome.

The Protestant Reformation was the 16th-century religious, political, intellectual and cultural upheaval that splintered Catholic Europe, setting in place the structures and beliefs that would define the continent in the modern era. In northern and central Europe, reformers like Martin Luther, John Calvin and Henry VIII challenged papal authority and questioned the Catholic Church’s ability to define Christian practice. They argued for a religious and political redistribution of power into the hands of Bible- and pamphlet-reading pastors and princes. http://www.history.com/topics/reformation
   
In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max  Weber wrote that capitalism in Northern Europe evolved when the Protestant (particularly Calvinist) ethic influenced large numbers of people to engage in work in the secular world, developing their own enterprises and engaging in trade and the accumulation of wealth for investment. In other words, the Protestant work ethic was an important force behind the unplanned and uncoordinated emergence of modern capitalism. (wikipedia)

At the same time, there was a counter reformation. The Catholic Reformation was the intellectual counter-force to Protestantism. The desire for reform within the Catholic Church had started before the spread of Luther. Many educated Catholics had wanted change – for example, Erasmus and Luther himself, and they were willing to recognise faults within the Papacy.

The Oxley House dispute is centred around Lee Kuan Yew value. Demolition or not represents different values - Lee Hsien Loong version (conservative view?) and LKY’s wish (reform view? Starting from zero). It is like a mini reformation and counter reformation.  

We also note that Lee Hsien Yang has said he is not an opposition. He wants to see changes within the system - a reformed PAP.

No matter what type of reformation Hsien Yang is aiming, he has enlightened Singaporeans and highlighted the allegations openly outside parliament.

Singapore needs a rethink and revaluation of Lee Kuan Yew value or legacy. It is again not a family matter. Singapore’s future depends on how we redefine Lee Kuan Yew value.