Minibond Victims Petition to PM Lee 迷你债券苦主向李总理的网上请愿书

For those victims of banks and financial institutions mis-selling of structured products like Minibonds, DBS High Notes or Pinnacle Notes, the following is a new online petition started off by Mr. Tan Kin Lian to be sent to Prime Minister Lee.

The main thrust of the Petition is to get MAS to implement a similar
settlement to what is happening in Hong Kong, i.e. 60% now and 40% of
the maturity proceeds. This is reasonable and fair as the various investigations done by both MAS and HK SFC have indications that there are systematic mis-selling of these products to retail investors and fixed depositors.

Please help to spread the news about this petition.

http://www.petitiononline.com/PPMCLN3/petition.html

陈钦亮先生再一次带领迷你债券和结构性金融产品苦主向李总理请愿，请求他为苦主们主持公道，力求金融管理局能向香港证监会一样，为苦主们寻求合理的解决方案。那就是，以至少60%的价格回购所有产品并且把从产品抵押品赎回的40%价值归还给苦主们。

这请愿书将在以下的网页收集签名，如果您想签署这请愿书，请点击以下网址：

http://www.petitiononline.com/PPMCLN3/petition.html

吴明盛代启

Concept of Power II- Hong Kong vs Singapore/PRC , Democracy, Social Justice & National Identity

There are a series of happenings for the past weeks that provide an interesting material to make comparative study of the impact of democratic progress to welfare of the people.

I was only thinking of making democratic comparisons between Hong Kong and Singapore at the beginning of the month after my participation of the Hong Kong 1 July protest march, but the unexpected 5 July racial/ethnic riot has added another perspective to my original script.

The Source of Power

I will start with the call for Universal Suffrage for the election of the Hong Kong Chief Executive. Many people may view such "hard political issue" difficult to relate to their daily lives but the Lehman Brothers Minibond issue has brought great contrast to possibility of how different a government under different degree of democratic progress would react to protect the interests of small investors versus big financially powerful corporations.

The fundamental reasoning for the call of Universal Suffrage is to transfer the power of appointment and empowerment from the few individuals (800 to be exact) to the general public. These 800 individuals are mostly screened and approved by the basic source of power, the Beijing government.

Thus, it would mean that anybody who wants to be elected to be the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, he will have to get the backing of the majority of these 800 Bejing appointed delegates. Most of them are rich, powerful and influential individuals in Hong Kong, representing the business community which includes the property developers, banking and finance sectors etc. Of course there are token representatives from the respective professional functional groups and unions but most of these people are perceived as appointed by or proxies of Beijing government.

With such a power structure, it is natural for those who are in the position of Chief Executive to please the big boss who appointed him in the very first place. At the very least, don't agitate or make the big boss angry. On the other hand, he must maintain cordial relationship with those 800 delegates who voted him as proxy to the Beijing Government. Many of them are tycoons or proxies of such rich and powerful tycoons representing their business and organizations' interests.

Thus in Hong Kong, it is not unusual to hear the people or newspapers complaining of "官商勾结"， meaning collusion of the government and businessman in return of favors.

Buttered Side up

To illustrate how the structure of power affects the political behavior and decisions made by the Chief Executive, the simple request for Universal Suffrage by the Hong Kongers was flatly turned down by Donald Tsang recently in Legislative Council. His reasoning was that the Chinese People's Congress (which of course controlled and directed by the Beijing Government) has closed the case with a time table set for 2017 to implement the Universal Suffrage (instead of 2012). He is not going to go against the political will of the Beijing Government by bringing this up again to the Chinese leaders. Neither will he make any arrangement for those Legislative Council members (i.e. equivalent to our MPs) to visit Beijing to put up their views and requests of Universal Suffrage directly to the Chinese leadership.

It is obvious that Donald Tsang's main concern is to avoid agitating the Beijing Government even though there is strong voices on the ground to demand for Universal Suffrage in 2012. He is less interested in bring the voice of the Hong Kongers to Beijing. This is understandable as his reference of empowerment comes directly from Beijing Government itself.

Accountability of the administration is basically skewed towards the Beijing government who is the source of the power rather than the Hong Kongers. In any system that promotes appointment of key political leaders by the few powerful people, it would always be so.

The Pillars of Democracy & Minibond Saga.

Lucky for Hong Kong, there are two other three pillars of democracy to depend on. The very professional and independent judiciary, the freedom of press and the Legislative Council (i.e. parliament). Apart from that, there is a guarantee of freedom of expression by the layman via street protests.

The Lehman Brothers Minibond saga has demonstrated the importance of having these pillars of the democratic system. The Hong Kong Administration may not have the political will to settle the Minibond saga once and for all using its administrative powers, just like Singapore's MAS. This is basically because many of those in the 800 delegates that elect the next Chief Executive are well connected to the banking and finance sector. By right, the regulatory role should fall flat on the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) but eventually, this hot potato was kicked to the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC). HKMA is directly under the prevail of the HK administration of finance ministry while SFC is more or less an independent commission to oversee fair play in the financial market, mostly on the stock exchange and other financial derivative markets. It would be strange to have the SFC instead of the HKMA to oversea regulation over banks who mis-sold structured products. Anyway, this is another story.

SFC being an independent commission did an investigation into the whole matter and took a hard stand on the banks and financial institutions that mis-sold the structured products. It was not satisfied with the initial general settlement proposal (read by earlier posting, overall 60% to 70% compensation) made by the 16 banks and has in fact warned of sanctions on several financial institutions. Some financial institutions have eventually made FULL compensation to ALL of their clients while others are forced to make formal GENERAL SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL.

The Hong Kong Minibond victims are also helped by Pro-Democratic Legco members to force the Legislative Council to set up an independent Legco Committee of Inquiry. They were able to force the setup of such committee of Inquiry which is empowered with special Legco rights and power to call for witnesses mainly because the Hong Kongers have voted in slightly less than half of the Pro-Democratic Legco members as compared to the Pro-Beijing Legco members who are mainly elected via the Functional Group categories. If the composition of the Legco members are just like Singapore Parliament with only 2 or 3 opposition MPs, I really doubt that such Committee of Inquiry could be set up at all.

The Minibond saga in Hong Kong is coming close to GENERAL SETTLEMENT with FAIR compensation to be made to ALL investors mainly due to the power of the Democratic system that allows it to happen. Unlike the plight of Singapore's Minibond victims who are left to their own to fight for their rights and interests, the solid foundation of Hong Kong's democratic system has allowed Social Justice to prevail.

Forging An Identity

The Democratic progress and development in Hong Kong also allows the Hong Kong identity to be enhanced further. From the various postings on the Hong Kong protest march and 4 June memorial service, we an see that young Hong Kongers have been cultivated with a strong sense of social justice and political mindsets.

For an identity to be forged, there must be meaningful collective memories to start with. Collective memories can come in many forms like unique distinctive iconic buildings, common experiences and even food or culture. The unique peaceful protest march of tens of thousands of people without any incidents of violence is one of such amazing collective memories that one would have as a people.

Although Hong Kong is not a country but the Hong Kong identity is unique to many people. Hong Kongers feel that they have the responsibility to mold the future of Hong Kong instead of leaving it to the will and fancy of the Beijing Government. The spirit of "self-determination" is a strong molding factor of Hong Kong identity in this aspect.

As contrast to young Singaporeans who may hold "defeatist" mindset in wanting to initiate a change or molding the direction of their country, the young Hong Kongers, as young as secondary students, would take to the street to voice out their social-political views in the hope that they could maintain the political pressure on the government of the day to meet their demands.

There was a survey study of young Singaporeans and the result was that a substantial percentage of them would consider migration as the ultimate option for them in the future. This is alarming for a COUNTRY that has existed for more than 50 years. Singapore does not face famine, political instability nor any natural disasters. Why would young Singaporeans plan to leave their country? This is, in my view, a National Identity crisis.

Democracy, Social Justice & Fairness, Ethnic Harmony

The riot and unrest in China's Urumqi has raised alarms on racial or ethnic harmony. It is a timely case study for us to understand how such tragedy should be avoided or deal with if it has already happened. Favorism or discrimination will not solve racial and ethnic troubles.

A country needs a system of SOCIAL JUSTICE & FAIRNESS, INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY and DEMOCRACY to ensure that the leaders from top to bottom take heeds of the voices of different races and ethnic groups on the ground. As we can see in Hong Kong's case, minority races or even foreign maids are allowed to go for protests to voice their grievances. In fact, Hong Kong has a commission which looks into Equal Opportunity for all, particularly in employment.

Lessons to be Learned

The very first lesson to be learned is, the political structure and system MATTERS to ALL of us. This is shown by the differences in the way Hong Kong and Singapore government respond to the Minibond issue. While Hong Kong Minibond victims are heading towards possible GENERAL SETTLEMENT with a substantial compensation facilitated by the independent and separation of power along with democratic means to exert political pressures, Singapore Minibond victims are stuck with the only option of going for potentially expensive lawsuits. MAS has only taken the token step of putting a light slap on the wrist of banks who apparently have systematically mis-sold these high risks structured products.

The second lesson to be learned is that our National Identity could not be forged simply by singing nationalistic songs once every year during National Day. Engagements and participations of the young and old in the political discourse and democratic processes are of paramount importance in forging a collective memories, ownership and common identity among the population.

The third lesson is that Social Justice & Fairness could only be supported and sustained by a truly democratic system with high level of citizen activism on the ground. This will maintain the necessary checks and balances to ensure racial and ethnic harmony within.

On the other hand, in order to make our ruling party PAP to really grasp the reality of empowerment by the people, ideally ALL wards should be contested. Although we do not have a good model of democracy or even an ill-democratic system with controlled press and skewed electoral system, but at the very least there is still a way to make PAP MPs and ministers more accountable to the people. This is by means of making each and everyone of them to go through the process of REAL ELECTION rather than walk over.

If they are allowed to walk over lightly, they would think that what matters most is the PAP's SELECTION process, not voters' choice. In the end, they may end up singing more praises to the PAP leadership instead of voicing out the various concerns of the people who are supposed to be their source of power.

Last but not least, we need MORE ELECTED opposition MPs with FULL POWERS in parliament (instead of NCMPs). In my view, the proportionate representation system is the best system we could have to make sure that we have a parliament with a balanced representation of views over the wide population spectrum.

Goh Meng Seng

204 Customers sue Singapore’s DBS over investment loss

Customers sue Singapore’s DBS over investment loss
July 12, 2009 by admin


Source: Reuters, 10 July 2009

SINGAPORE, July 10 (Reuters) - More than 200 customershave sued Singapore’s DBS Bank in a bid to recover investment losses arising from the collapse of U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers.

Siraj Omar, a director at Premier Law, told Reuters on Friday his firm had filed a claim on behalf of 204 investors in a Singapore court. He declined to discuss the case or reveal the size of the claim, which according to the Straits Times newspaper was around S$17 million ($11.6 million).

The investors had purchased a callable basket of credit-linked notes, called High Notes 5, from DBS Bank, a unit of DBS Group, Omar said.


A DBS spokeswoman confirmed receipt of the claim. She said the suit was without merit and that DBS planned to contest the suit, which is the first involving the bank’s High Notes 5 product.

News of the lawsuit had almost no impact on shares of DBS Group, which were up 0.4 percent on Friday morning at S$11.58 in a generally flat stock market.

Financial institutions around the world have been hit by complaints and lawsuits arising from the sale of interest-bearing structured products linked to Lehman that paid higher interest rates than regular savings deposits.

For example, a class action suit was launched in November against UBS in the United States that alleged the Swiss bank had sold Lehman-linked notes as suitable for investors seeking to protect their principal investment.

News of the suit against DBS comes three days after Singapore’s central bank banned DBS and nine other firms from selling structured notes, citing various issues, such as their failure to adequately train the staff who sold such products.

According to a report released by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), DBS which received the shortest ban of six months, had sold over S$100 million worth of High Notes 5 to 1,083 investors that became worthless after Lehman’s collapse.

The bank has to-date paid about S$7.6 million in compensation, the central bank’s report said.

MAS said the failings identified in its investigations “do not automatically mean that the financial institutions are liable to individual investors.


News reported by Straits Times:

204 DBS High Notes 5 investors suing bank - By Francis Chan 10 July 2009 ST



MORE than 200 investors who lost a total of about $17 million on structured notes sold by DBS Bank are suing the bank in a bid to get their money back.

Legal firm Premier Law, which served notice on DBS yesterday, said the claim is based on the 'prospectus and pricing statement relating to the [DBS High] Notes 5'.

The investors want the notes declared 'void' and their stakes repaid.

'The investors have taken this course of action after careful consideration, having sought advice from their legal advisors,' said Premier Law.

A DBS spokesman said last night that the bank remains confident that the case is 'without merit and we will defend it'.

The Straits Times understands that the 204 investors involved in the suit had lost about $17 million on the complex structured notes.

More than 1,400 investors here bought $103 million worth of DBS High Notes 5. More than half of them invested $50,000 or less.

A report from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) on Tuesday detailed flaws in the sales processes of 10 financial institutions - including DBS - that sold products like DBS High Notes 5 linked to failed US investment bank Lehman Brothers.

DBS High Notes 5 were offered to better-off customers last year with a promised annual return of about 5 per cent, but the investors were told by the bank in October that their entire stake had been wiped out with the collapse of Lehman.

Many investors complained that they had been mis-sold the complex structured notes, with some claiming they were told the notes were a low-risk investment.

The MAS report found that the 10 institutions had applied different internal controls and failed in a number of areas.

It also said that some institutions did not ensure that staff were properly trained and had accurate and complete information needed to sell the notes.

In the case of DBS, the report stated that 49 of its relationship managers, who had not taken the required training course, had sold the notes to 303 clients.

The MAS banned DBS from selling new structured notes for at least six months starting from July 1. The other nine institutions received similar bans, with Hong Leong Finance being barred for two years, the harshest penalty.

However, the MAS made it clear that the institutions' failings and the penalties they received do not automatically mean they will be legally liable to investors.

Premier Law said the investors' move was not in response to the release of the findings by MAS.

'This group of investors have been considering their options for several months away from the media spotlight, and it was only after careful consideration that they have decided to take this route to recover their investment,' said Premier Law's Siraj Omar.

The investors also sought the opinion of Professor Michael Furmston, dean of the Singapore Management University's law faculty, said the Premier Law statement.

An SMU spokesman said that Prof Furmston was travelling and could not confirm if he was involved in the case in his personal capacity.

According to the MAS report, DBS paid out $7.6 million to 197 affected investors out of the 866 complaints it had investigated and ruled on.

The bank's payout amounted to about a tenth of the $70 million to $80 million DBS had set aside to compensate investors in Singapore and Hong Kong earlier this year.

The Straits Times understands that most of the investors in the Premier Law group have gone through the three-step complaints resolution process recommended by the MAS.

The MAS had earlier urged investors who could not resolve their differences with the institutions to ask the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (Fidrec) to resolve their dispute. It also urged investors to avoid taking legal action unless they had exhausted the three-step process.

It is not clear whether any of the 204 investors involved in the suit had accepted compensation offers before embarking on this legal route.

franchan@sph.com.sg

香港證監迷債賠償方案 首曝光

證監迷債賠償方案 首曝光 本金退六成 事主再分抵押品四成
(明報)2009年7月10日 星期五 05:05

【明報專訊】雷曼迷你債券16家分銷銀行與證監會 一度膠着的和解談判，出現新發展。消息人士透露，證監會已根據早前中銀香港 （2388）的六成回購方案（簡稱「中銀方案」）為基礎，向銀行界提出反建議，要求銀行在投資本金的六成之上，再把日後收回抵押品剩餘價值的40％，也歸還客戶所有。

按此計算，大部分迷債持有人可取回近90％的本金，這批迷債以金額計已佔總數逾八成。而分銷銀行須承擔的損失將高於「中銀方案」，對於如何回應證監方案，銀行未有任何共識。證監對有關消息不予置評。

自分銷銀行上月底主動與證監會談判以來，雙方一直就「中銀方案」——以本金六成回購，65歲以上長者獲七成回購的建議，討價還價。證監會認為回購價太低，又指部分抵押品剩餘價值高過六成；銀行則認為證監假設的抵押品價值過高。

證監對方案不置評

惟消息透露，近日談判進度加快，證監會以六成「中銀方案」為基礎，接受六至七成的回購底價，但條件是銀行在抵押品解凍後，將剩餘價值的40％給予客戶，其餘60％價值為銀行所有。根據此方案，剩餘價值較高的迷債系列，客戶最終取回的價值，與「中銀方案」有明顯分別。假設有關抵押品剩餘價值為70％，客戶除了取回六成的回購底價外，更可取回剩餘價值的40％，即28％，總共收回本金的88％。若抵押品價值已跌至接近0％，客戶最終只能取回六成的回購價。

按安永會計師事務所去年11月的估值，除了系列5至9價值跌至0.82％，及系列15至18價值較低（少於13％）外，大部分系列的剩餘價值，均達到約64％。在證監會方案下，後者最終可取回幾近本金90％，較「中銀方案」取得的六成多金額高（見表）。按政府去年公布的資料，這些系列的投資金額達 102億元，佔總體迷債125億元的82％。

事主最高可取回90%本金

不過，這只是證監會對銀行提出的建議，銀行將會如何回應，仍待商討。據悉，昨日16家分銷銀行再次開會，但尚未深入討論證監會的建議，因為各銀行仍就六成和解要付出的成本，等候公司董事會的同意。據了解，銀行曾經向證監會提出，在「中銀方案」之下，額外付出抵押品剩餘價值的5％予客戶，與證監會方案的要求有很大距離。

據悉，證監會認為新方案較「中銀方案」可取，因為在「中銀方案」下，若抵押品剩餘價值高於本金六成，銀行根本毋須作額外賠償，不能反映銀行要為不當銷售而應承擔的責任。在「證監方案」下，銀行則須承受額外的損失，而且高於客戶的虧損，證監認為這樣才較為「合理」。

本報以未償還迷債金額125億元計算，銀行首先要付出六成（即75億元）的和解底價，即使銀行有權取回所有抵押品的價值（按安永估值為67億元），仍要將當中四成（26.8億元）支付予客戶，最終損失達34.8億元。較「中銀方案」損失15.6億元，要多付出近20億元。

（明報記者羅羽庭、姜靜嫻報道）

Urumqi Protests- Democracy, Social Justice & Harmony

Photo from TimesOnline

The recent riot happening in Urumqi has provided a great contrast to the peaceful protest march that Hong Kong had on 1st July. Of course, the nature of protests are vastly different. Urumqi protest is basically racial in nature with protesters demanding fair treatment to their own kind in another incident happening in Guangzhou.

There are many inherent reasons behind such perceived racial discrimination. Contrary to popular perception, China is a multi-racial country. The Uyghurs are just one of the many races in China. Historically, Xinjiang has been perceived as a place of a "defiant" province. It has been on and off an independent state in Chinese history and has even threaten the security of the Hans controlled territory. The peak of XinJiang dynasty was Liao Empire during the Song Dynasty. Thereafter, it has been conquered by the Mongolian and subsequently controlled by the Hans again during Ming Dynasty. It was during the Mongolian occupation that Islam became the main religion of that region.

However, Xinjiang has always been a hot spot of rebellion against the rule by the Chinese dynasties, be it Hans as in Ming Dynasty or the Manchurians as in Qing Dynasty. Due to the fact that it is geographically far away from the center of power of the Chinese dynasties in the North, those who are sent to Xinjiang to rule over the people there normally become the "mini-Emperor" there. Sometimes they would even create racial tension or unrest/riots just to get the attention of the Emperor thousands of miles away to send more money and aids to them.

Since the Chinese Communist Party took power in China, Xinjiang has become a province with autonomy powers. The assimilation of the Hans people has altered the demographic structure as well as economic structure. Most Hans people live in the main cities while the rural areas are populated by the minority races, including the Uyghurs. The income disparity between city dwellers and rural farmers is inevitable in the present structure of economic development.

With the basic understanding of the history and background of Xinjiang, we will now look at what is happening in Urumqi. When the riot broke out in 5 July, the Xinjiang authority was quick to point finger at the exiled Uyghurian separatist group, World Uyghur Congress which is led by Rebiya Kadeer of inciting the riot. Rebiya Kadeer has denied the allegation. Up till now, the Xinjiang Autonomy government has not disclosed their so called "concrete evidences" yet.

On the other hand, there were reports and questions asked about how the supposedly peaceful demonstration of the Uyghurs against the perceived unjust treatment of their people in Guangzhou turned into violent riot.

Interesting enough, the Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao did not issue any statement at the earliest possible opportunity. Neither did we hear any comments made by Chairman Hu Jingtao. The Xinjiang leaders have claimed that they have concrete evidences that Rebiya Kadeer and her World Uyghur Congress have instigated and planned for this riot but this statement has not been repeated by either the Prime Minister Wen nor Chairman Hu.

The truth is, after Chairman Hu returned to Beijing to conduct an emergency meeting on this riot, the statement issued was about punishing those rioters and maintaining law and order in Xinjiang, particularly Urumqi. There is no mention of the separatist Uyghurian movement nor the World Uyghur Congress. This is intriguing indeed because this contrast greatly to the kind of statement the Chinese government has issued against Dalai Lama during the last year's Tibet riot.

Many news journalists and reporters, particularly those from Hong Kong, would have noticed the change in strategy that the Chinese authorities have adopted this time round with regard to the incident. Unlike the past, they have allowed foreign reporters and correspondents to visit the place of riot. Although internet and phone networks were disrupted in Urumqi, the communication network is made available to the specific hotels that were allocated for the reporters to stay. The Chinese Government has finally learned how to deal with foreign press in order to upgrade its international image.

However in my view, the root of the this riot lies with the Xinjiang's authority. My guess is that the peaceful demonstration has turned into violent riot was basically due to the hardcore crack down of the demonstration. Someone has made the political judgment to crack down on that peaceful demonstration in the hope of quelling it once and for all. But somehow, it just turned ugly with high racial emotions on the raise.

If the authority in Xinjiang took a different approach right from the start, using the police force to "FACILITATE" the demonstration and allowing the high emotional pressure to have an opportunity to be let off, the result may be very different.

The conventional way of dealing with protests should be changed from viewing all demonstration as bad and treating it with a confrontational approach, to a more tolerant stand. A government stepping into the league of World's most influential governments should take freedom of expression with more tolerance.

The key to the change of mindset is democratic means of electing the various leadership on the ground. This is due to the fact that if the leaders are "selected" by the few people on the top, it would be natural for these leaders to take the views of the these top few more seriously than those he is leading on the ground.

In fact, leaders from the ground would want to find all ways to please those from the top instead of taking serious care of those on the ground. Thus when such demonstration happened, these leaders would naturally be afraid to be seen as "ineffective" or even "useless" by those on the top and thus, the tendency to use forceful means to crack down these originally peaceful demonstration would be higher. Such mindset may just backfire and ignited exploding emotions on the ground, turning it into a riot.

If the leaders of Xinjiang and Urumqi are democratically elected by the people there, I believe they might have handled the whole issue very differently right from the start.

Racial riot is one of the most difficult issue to be settled for any government. The key of mending the cracks of racial harmony and healing the damaged emotions is for the Chinese government to exert Social justice to the whole issue. Social Justice must be done and seen to be done.

While it is only right to punish those rioters who have killed, robbed and hurt others, investigation should also be made into the death of those Uyghurs. Did the police force use excessive force to crack down the demonstration causing the death of these Uyghurs as claimed by some? Who gave the order for such crack down?

Trust and harmony could only be reinstated if and only if just actions are taken against those who have created trouble are being punished accordingly. This must include those who bear political responsibility.

The Chinese government may not want to punish those officials who have made the wrong political judgment for fear of undermining its own authority. But the truth is, if it refused to do so, the Uyghurs would feel even more discriminated, alienated and angry. This will not heal the emotional wounds but may worsen it in contrary.

Again, for a non-democratically elected government, it may not see the need to smoothen out the racial emotional upheaval in the expense of "eroding its authority". Few dictators or Emperors in the past history could bridge the racial gap between different races well. Most of the time they look upon such racial frictions as rebellion against their authority.

But I still hope the Chinese Government would make the "unconventional decision" in making things right in this instance. This would help it to prove to China's many other races of its ability to maintain social justice for each and everyone, every race in China. This would be the basis of long term racial harmony in China.

Goh Meng Seng

After Note 14 July 2009:

Interesting enough, the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee has announced on 13th July 2009 a series of directive on disciplinary actions against Party Cadres and leaders.

For the very first time, the issue of protests has been listed one of the item in this directive. Those party leaders (mid-level leaders) that made wrong political judgment or decisions that result in massive protests will be censured and stripped of their official duties. Those who mismanaged or mishandled protests by the people will face the same disciplinary actions.

This directive sets the rules to make local officials and leaders to be accountable for their misdeeds or wrong political judgment and decisions. It would be interesting to see whether the Chinese Communist Party could exercise such disciplinary actions on those errant party cadres, starting from the incident in Urumqi riot on 5 July.

全國紀委書記座談會13日在北京召開，會議要求各地區各部門貫徹落實近日中央針對黨政官員問責、巡視工作、國企高管廉潔從業而接連頒布的三部文件，以此作為當前加強反腐倡廉建設的重要政治任務，進一步完善幹部監管，加強反腐，澄清吏治。

【本報記者馬浩亮北京十三日電】

中共中央政治局常委、中央紀委書記賀國強出席了全國紀委書記座談會。中央紀委副書記何勇在會上強調，要以改革創新的精神、科學嚴謹的態度、真抓實幹的作風，抓好《中國共產黨巡視工作條例（試行）》《關於實行黨政領導幹部問責的暫行規定》《國有企業領導人員廉潔從業若干規定》三項法規和《關於開展工程建設領域突出問題專項治理工作的意見》的貫徹落實，不斷完善懲治和預防腐敗體系，切實加強反腐倡廉建設。

　中央近日同時頒布針對黨政官員問責、巡視工作、國企高管廉潔從業的三部文件：《關於實行黨政領導幹部問責的暫行規定》、《中國共產黨巡視工作條例》和《國有企業領導人員廉潔從業若干規定》。這三部文件是在今年5月22日的中央政治局會議上審議通過的。其中，《關於實行黨政領導幹部問責的暫行規定》成為規範推行問責制的綱領性文件。

七種問題將被問責

《暫行規定》規定，黨政領導幹部出現七種問題將被問責。一是決策嚴重失誤，造成重大損失或惡劣影響；二是因工作失職，致使發生特別重大事故案件，或短期內連續發生重大事故案件；三是政府職能部門管理、監督不力，導致重大事故；四是濫用職權，強令授意實施違法行政行為或者行政不作為，引發群體性事件或其他重大事件的；五是對群體性、突發性事件處置失當，導致事態惡化，造成惡劣影響；六是違反幹部選拔任用工作有關規定，導致用人失察、失誤；七是其他給國家利益、人民生命財產、公共財產造成重大損失或惡劣影響等失職行為。

《暫行規定》規定了責令公開道歉、停職檢查、引咎辭職、責令辭職、免職五種問責方式，並對問責官員的範圍做了明確界定，包括中共中央、國務院部門及其內設司局、處室機構的領導成員，縣級以上各級黨委、政府及所屬工作部門的領導成員和這些部門內設機構的領導成員。對鄉鎮街道黨政領導實行問責亦適用此規定。縣級以上黨委、政府直屬事業單位以及國有企業、國有金融企業領導，也參照《暫行規定》執行問責。

免職一年內不得復職

針對很多被問責官員免職一段時間後又悄悄復出，換地區或換部門繼續做官的情況，《暫行規定》明確指出，引咎辭職、責令辭職、免職的黨政領導幹部，一年內不得重新擔任與其原任職務相當的領導職務。可根據工作需要以及本人情況，酌情安排適當崗位工作任務。一年後如果重新擔任與其原任相當的領導職務，除應當按照幹部管理權限履行審批手續外，還應當徵求上一級黨委組織部門的意見。

另外，也有公眾質疑，有的官員在出現問題後，借問責制辭職，從而逃避黨紀國法懲罰。中紀委專家對此表示，實行問責不能代替黨紀政紀處分，問責後仍可依照有關規定給予被問責者黨紀政紀處分，涉嫌犯罪的，移送司法機關依法處理。

香港銀行銷售雷曼迷債調查已有初步結論

銀行銷售雷曼迷債調查已有初步結論
(星島)2009年7月7日 星期二 13:00

證監會 行政總裁韋奕禮繼續在立法會 雷曼小組聆訊作供，他表示，部份針對銀行銷售雷曼迷債的調查，已有初步結論，正與銀行討論。

韋奕禮表示，按現行法例，證監會並無權力強制要求分銷商向客戶作出賠償，但經調查後，於考慮如何懲處時，分銷商與客戶的和解協議，以及對客戶作自願賠償的因素，亦會被納入考慮。證監會作最後結論時，會考慮三個元素，包括和解方案能否彌補客戶損失、有關機構有無措施減少日後違規的可能、以及方案對其他機構有否阻嚇作用。

韋奕禮指出，由03年4月至雷曼倒閉前，證監會調查有關經紀涉嫌違反操作守達527宗遭紀律處分，當中5%投訴銷售不當，涉及2000客戶，全部已紀律處分，包括撤銷牌照，另有168宗達成和解。但韋奕禮稱，現未有相關和解賠償金額比率，亦不評論有報道指雷曼迷債分銷銀行早於新年前後已向證監會提交賠償和解建議。

只強調沒有受到政府的壓力，重申沒有權力要求銀行與客戶和解，並指證券行新鴻基 及凱基僅約四至六個月，就完成和解方案，已算很快。 委員會主席何鍾泰 提醒，有關雷曼事件的賠償並未包括於研訊範圍之內。

另外，韋奕禮稱，證監會05年開始研究，要求中介人披露銷售金融產品的佣金，但當時認為需要先諮詢市場意見，確保措施成效，有關諮詢會在今年內進行。他認同，銷售人員按銷售取得佣金存在利益衝突，但情況並不侷限於金融業界，再者中介機構有責任確保銷售過程符合規格，而所銷售產品對投資者合適。

他提及，最激進做法是英國 金融服務局禁止收取佣金之做法，但他認為，即使本港於佣金制定未有確立守則，按現時一般手則要求，對客戶公平做法已有所涵蓋。他又指，已向當局提出建議，成立投資者委員會，以增加保障投資者權力，期望相關工作可加快進行。

Hong Kong Democratic Progress - 1st July Protest

It was a hot and sunny day on 1st July 2009. But the turnout for the 1st July protest march exceeds 30 thousand people (according to my estimate, the number should be about 40 to 50 thousands people). This is the largest protest march ever after the present Chief Executive Donald Tsang took over office.




Hong Kong is an interesting society where its residents are practical people who are calculative to the dot when it comes to business dealings. However, the other side of Hong Kongers is all encompassing, tolerant, compassionate and politically altruistic.

For example, although the organizers of this 1st July protest march have their specific slogans and agenda of pushing for universal suffrage for the political appointment of Chief Executive, but they do also allow different groups of people with different issues and demands to join their march.

Groups of people fighting for their different agenda joined the protests to make their voices heard. There are people who are fighting to retain their village from being acquired by developers.




There are people who fight to get their voices on environmental issues heard as well as preserving of landmark buildings from being demolished. There are also individuals putting up their own slogans and stories.

A young girl accompanied by her mother to protest against Environmental pollution



The most interesting part is that the younger generations are participating actively in these political activities. I am amazed at the level of participation by the young Hong Kongers in both the 4th June memorial service and the 1st July protest march.

They may be individuals or small group of people, putting up slogans, placards or even issuing their own (social-political) statements

A Public political statement made by the collective group of Hong Kong universities' student publications which includes the Hong Kong University Student Union, Hong Kong Chinese University student publication committee, Hong Kong City University etc.


On top of that, some of the youngsters in Hong Kong have taken to creative means of protest, by forming the Hong Kong Complaints Choir. This is a movement initiated by a Finnish organization which have grown internationally. Singapore, too, has one Singapore Complaints Choir but it was banned from public performance by the PAP government using a very lame excuse that there were foreigners in the choir.






Some individual youngsters get their hands on their semi-professional cameras to record down the happenings of the protest march, to be produced into video or news clips to be posted on the internet. I have interviewed one of the youngster and they told me that they have bought their second hand Panasonic camera set from China for the price of HK$7000! And they intend to edit the images into video clips which will then to be posted on the internet. This is part and parcel of grooming professional young citizen reporting.







Many people would think that Hong Kong is a all Chinese society but the truth is, it has many other races which includes the Europeans, Indians, Nepalese, Pakistanis etc. I have seen more other races participating the annual 1st July protest march in recent years. Apart from that, there were foreign maids and workers who were fighting for their rights and equal treatments under the law, particularly the minimum wage legislation.



At first glance, it would be counter-intuitive for Hong Kongers to allow these foreign workers or maids to ask for more pay or labor protection because it would mean that the huge middle class would have to pay more in terms of wages to their domestic maids.

But for the Democratic and Human Right fighters, they are fighting for a fair and just society and this would include foreign workers or maids contributing to their livelihood and economy.





They were given the chance to voice out their grievances on the stage provided by the organizers and in return, they presented a small performance of dance for the audience.



Furthermore, such platform allows them to attract media attention to their plight. In the following photo, a CNN correspondent has approached the leader of the Federation of Asian Domestic Workers for an interview and I believe they will make the first link up for future feature interview.



Such big political event could not be made possible without the contributions of various volunteers.

Every year, political parties and groups have recruited quite a number of party volunteers from such events like 4th June and 1st July gatherings. On top of that, they have also collected quite a substantial amount of donations from the public during these events by selling books, publications or plain soliciting donations.



On the other hand, such events wouldn't be possible without the contribution of the police force in maintaining order during the march. Although there were times whereby protesters exercise some of their civil disobedience tactic but the police has been very accommodating and tolerant in carrying out their duties.




Last but not least, Hong Kong won't be a successful, clean and efficient society without the group of diligent cleaners. The efficiency of the Hong Kong system could be seen by the kind of arrangement they have made even for such anti-government protests. Cleaners and road washing vehicles tailed the protest marchers and start to clear up rubbish so that the road could be opened immediately to other road users right after the last protesters left.

One of my friend called me up one day after the protest march to ask whether I was arrested by the police. I was surprised why he asked that. He said that Singapore Straits Time has reported that some protesters were arrested the day before. This is a gross mis-reporting. The 100 or so protesters were removed from the premise of government house which they planned to stay overnight in demand to have a dialogue with the Chief Executive Donald Tsang. They were forcefully removed from the premise but no one was arrested.

These are the minority of Hong Kongers that would go into Non-violent Civil Disobedience Action but generally speaking, the Hong Kong authorities are more tolerant towards them as long as there were no harm nor damage done to public interests.

I have painstakingly listed out some of the observations I have made in Hong Kong on their progress in becoming a truly open and democratic society for the reason that I believe Singapore can become one too.

There are quite a number of benefits from such development which may help Singapore solve some of the important issues that we are facing, National Identity.

I shall dealt with this issue in my next posting.

Goh Meng Seng

Hong Kong Banks Offer Formal Minibond Settlement

Hong Kong Banks Offer Formal Minibond Settlement, Sing Tao Says


By Kelvin Wong

July 3 (Bloomberg) -- A group of 16 Hong Kong banks that sold so-called minibonds linked to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. have sent a formal proposal to the city’s securities regulator to settle on a refund to investors, Sing Tao Daily reported.

The banks may suffer losses of as much as HK$1.5 billion ($193.5 million) in the proposal, the Hong Kong-based, Chinese- language newspaper said, without saying where it obtained the information. The banks offered to repay investors between 60 percent and 70 percent of the principle of credit-linked notes arranged by a local unit of failed Lehman, Sing Tao said.

Losses sustained by individual investors on the notes, which lost almost all their value after Lehman collapsed, have ignited street protests and demands for refunds from banks and brokerages. The city’s securities regulator has told seven of 19 banks under investigation for misconduct related to sales of the notes that they face possible sanctions, Martin Wheatley, the head of the agency, said June 23.

A total of HK$13.9 billion of the credit-linked notes were sold to Hong Kong individuals, according to the Securities and Futures Commission. BOC Hong Kong Holdings Ltd., Bank of East Asia Ltd. and Wing Hang Bank Ltd. are among lenders that sold the notes.

Sun Hung Kai Financial Ltd. and KGI Asia Ltd. have finished buying back notes they sold at prices equal to the principal invested, the SFC said yesterday. The two local brokerages are the only minibond vendors who have fully refunded investors, with Sun Hung Kai paying about HK$86 million and KGI about HK$1.5 million.

The securities watchdog is unlikely to accept the banks’ proposal, according to today’s Sing Tao report. The SFC is demanding that banks follow Sun Hung Kai and KGI and repay the full principal, Sing Tao said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Kelvin Wong in Hong Kong at kwong40@bloomberg.net

Hong Kong Minibond heading for possible settlement!

The power of democratic movement in applying great pressure to force both the administration authority and the 16 banks to provide settlement proposals for the Minibond issue is really amazing in Hong Kong.

Right after the 1st July protest march organized by the Hong Kong Minibond Victims Alliance, the 16 banks who are involved in the selling of the Minibond has made settlement proposal to the Hong Kong administration to settle once and for all the Minibond issue.

The key points are:

1) Those Minibond victims who are below 60 years old will get proposal to sell back their Minibond at 60% of their original value.

2) Those who are above 60 years old will get an offer of 70% of their original value.

The banks have made promises that if the value of the collaterals of these structured products are higher than the value offered after they were sold off, the excess amount will be given back to the Minibond victims!

This proposal is made using the key by-back proposal made by Bank of China earlier.

Although some analysts have stated that the buy back value is on the low side but in my view, this is a main big step gained after so many months of continuous street fighting by the Minibond Victims Alliance.

As stated in my earlier posting on this Minibond saga, investors will have to take part of the responsibility in making the investment decisions even though they have been misled. Getting 70% or 80% of the value back is reasonable in my opinion. 60% is on the low side.

I truly hope that the banks and authorities in Singapore could work towards some similar settlement proposal for every Minibond victims. If DBS bank in Hong Kong is willing to make such settlement proposal, I do not see why DBS bank in homeland Singapore should not make the same settlement proposal!

The unwillingness of banks and authority in Singapore to work for a universal settlement maybe due to the fact that Minibond victims in Singapore have not applied enough pressure on both the banks and MAS.

Goh Meng Seng

Why Hong Kong?

By now, readers of my blog will find it strange that I have put up quite a lot of information on Hong Kong's democratic movement.

I shall explain it next week after I have time to put up more information on the 1 July protest march.

Goh Meng Seng

Hong Kong Minibond Victims 7.1 Protest

Demanding resignation of Chief Executive Donald Tsang

The Hong Kong Minibond Victims Alliance has organized its first largest protest march since last October today. It is basically very well organized with bamboo stick placards all prepared in advance and all supporters mobilized to take part in its first ever 7.1 protest.

The main theme of the protest is to demand the resignation of the Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang for not able to settle the Minibond saga after so many months of fact finding and investigation.





DBS is naturally one of the main bank the protesters have targeted. There are total of 16 main banks that were involved in the selling of the toxic structured financial products and recently they have made proposals to the Hong Kong Monetary Authority for partial settlement of Minibond investors.

Apparently they are more aggressive in verbal demand



The Alliance has claimed that the mis-selling of minibond should be considered as a case by case basis because it is basically a systematic problem in the marketing of such toxic financial products.

The Alliance has pointed out that the fact finding from the Legislative Council has shown that there are evidences of systematic failure of regulative oversight as well as the internal controls within the banks' marketing protocols.

The Leader of the Alliance addressing the crowd

I estimated the size of the crowd to be about 8,000 to 10,000. Many of the protesters are elderly and fragile victims who have lost their entire savings. In spite of advice from organizers to ask their family members to come as representatives due to the expected hot summer weather, they have insisted to participated in the protest personally.





The protest march created a small commotion on their way to the government house. Some of the protesters deviated from the planned route to the HQ of Bank of China to demonstrate against the bank. Otherwise, the protest is generally peaceful, orderly and very well organized.





This protest is separated from the main 7.1 protest and it is carried ahead of the main 7.1 protest march. Although they lack manpower and funding in setting up big sound system, but generally speaking, in terms of cohesion and preparations, they are better off as a small and highly motivated group of people.

All the best to them.

Goh Meng Seng

Democratic Progress in Hong Kong Part 1 - 6.4 Protest

I have originally wanted to write about June 4 2009 candle light protest in early June but unfortunately due to heavy work commitment and time constrains, I have to postpone it till now.

I shall do a series of write up of June 4 and July 1 protest march along with my thoughts on the democratic progress that Hong Kongers have achieved since 1997's handover of the ex-British Queen Colony to China.



4 June 1989 is a sad day for China as well as Hong Kong. It was even a fearful day for Hong Kong which was anticipating the eventual return to China's sovereign control in 1997. Many Hong Kongers have decided back then to plan for their eventual departure from their homeland for fear of the communist iron fist rule.




The massacred of Tianan Men protesters, who were mainly young students, has casted a terrible shadow of fear on Hong Kongers. From then on, there was a consistent outflow of Hong Kongers to all over the world, including Singapore, which eventually created the exodus all the way till 1997 which Hong Kong has not experienced before.

Amidst the fear of the Communist rule, the first candle light memorial service for the 1989 Tianan Men massacred was held in 4 June 1990. It was reported that tens of thousands of Hong Kongers attended the event and from then on, Hong Kong democratic and human right fighters have continued to organize such event annual for the next 20 years.

Photo from Hong Kong Apple Daily

I have attended a few of such gathering in the past but this 20th anniversary memorial service is the biggest ever gathering I have seen so far. I estimated about 170 thousand people attended the event.

I was just a teenager when the massacred happened back then. My tears were rolling when I read about students being killed and how soldiers fired upon students and civilians who were totally unarmed. It was a sheer political awakening for me on how an authoritarian government with unchecked power could do to its own people. It is a mindless massacred just for the sake of power.

These students stood up against corruptions of that their country faced back then and demanded accountability of the government via democratic changes. It was out of pure patriotism that they took on to the street to demand change to the political system. But their demand was met with cold blooded massacred.

These students might be over zealous in asking for democracy but in my view, the massacred is totally unnecessary. There were advance anti-riot gears and tools to handle such demonstration and protests. To use guns to attack their own citizens who were just civilians is totally unacceptable. Guns, tanks and military machineries are supposed to be used on criminals and for defending the country against external invasion, not on civilians.



Besides, to me, these students are patriots, not traitors nor trouble makers. They are people who are concerned of their country's future. And I think it is about time that the Chinese Communist Party should put this part of the history right and admit their past mistakes in handling these protesters.



Unfortunately, some of the Pro-CCP people have asserted that there were no bloodshed, no massacred when army troops drove in Tianan Men. These blatant lies were told despite of the many evidence shown in various newspaper reports on the event.

The worse thing to happen is that the Chinese government has tried to blackout all news with regards to the 4 June event. Many forums and websites which are critical about the Chinese government were shut down. This reflects very badly on China especially so when it claims that it wants Shanghai to develop into an international financial center by 2020.



It is impossible to convince international investors to invest in Chinese listed companies or have any confidence in the whole system when the government itself could carry out such massive blackout of news and information over anything it deems undesirable!

The primary fundamental pillar of any international financial centers in the world is freedom of information flow. It is amazing that the Chinese government has done something so damaging to its future development plan without even knowing it! Distortion of information or total blackout of information is something intolerable for any world class financial centers.

China will have a long way to go to become the international financial center that it so desired if it carries on having such mindset over information control.







I am very impressed by Hong Konger who are well known for their very calculative mindset when it comes to business dealings. Part of the reason for such large turnout this year was due to the Chief Executive Donald Tsang's assertion that China has made great economic progress since 1989 and his view represented most Hong Kongers. What he meant explicitly was that Hong Kong have benefited from China's economic progress since 1989 and most Hong Kongers would not be bothered about what happened in 1989.

On the other hand, Hong Kong government has denied entry for few democratic activists which include those student leaders of the 1989 Tianan Men protest.







His view and his government's denial of entry for these people has angered many Hong Kongers who are usually more concerned about their livelihood than political events like this one. Many Hong Kongers participated in this candle light memorial service just to make a point to Donald Tsang that they do care about democratic development for the whole China, including Hong Kong, despite of enjoying economic concessions from the Chinese government.

They do not wish such draconian massacred to happen again in China, least Hong Kong, for any reason at all. Even economic development is not a good reason for such cold blooded massacred and human right violations.




More importantly, all these happenings had reminded Hong Kongers the importance of passing on the baton of democratic fighters to the younger generation. One of the main theme of the 20th anniversary gathering is passing on the memories of truth happening of 1989 Tianan Men massacred to the younger generation.

It is a thought provoking sight to witness young secondary school students taking their own initiative to participate in this gathering. And they demanded the truth to be taught in their history book instead of hiding the crucial fact of such massacred from them and the future generations.



I think Hong Kongers will continue to fight and push for more democratic progress, not only in Hong Kong itself, but for the whole China. It may become the important base for democratic fighters in China to push for their agenda in the years to come.

On the other hand, I believe that China should stop its desperate move on information control. It has issued a law to make it mandatory for PC makers in China to install a censorship program but met with strong resistance from the Chinese internet community, as well as PC makers.

The process of democratic liberation is inevitable when the market economy is to be further enhanced. If Chinese companies are to grow into bigger MNCs, they would need foreign funding and this could only be done with an assurance of transparency by means of free information flow.

Hong Kong may well continue to play an important role in pushing the boundaries of democratic development in the whole China. It would be interesting to see how things turn out in the next decade or so.

Goh Meng Seng

The Concept of Power - NCMP better than Proportionate Representation?

I have refrained from making any statements or views here on this blog with regards to the recent changes announced by the PAP government because I have been looking at this issue with various perspectives.

Many people would have argued against the NCMP scheme from the political strategic and tactical point of view. Some would even consider that NCMP is a sham or "backdoor" scheme. In my view, only NMP is a sham and a backdoor scheme for the obvious reason that it has no political basis of "representation" of any kind. i.e. NMPs do not earn the empowerment of Singaporeans via the means of gaining any votes from them. They are not even close to the kind of representation as displayed by Hong Kong Legislative Council system whereby half of its members are still "ëlected" by members from their functional groups. eg. Representative from the Medical functional group is elected by doctors in the medical field. Any doctors have the right to register as a voter of that functional group.

I support the Proportionate Representation system whereby allocatoin of seats is done by the proportion of votes garnered by each contesting parties. For a 5 seat GRC, each 20% garnered by any political party will equate to 1 seat in parliament. For any remaining percentage of vote, it will depend on the which party has the higher percentage votes. eg. if in a 3 corner fight of a 5 seat GRC, PAP garnered 39% while the other two parties have 30% and 31% of the valid votes, each will have 1 seats. The fourth seat will go to PAP and the fifth seat will go to the one with 31% votes.

The basic fundamental principle of Proportionate Representation lies with the votes of the citizens. The respect of each vote that is cast by the citizens. Thus, even the political parties with lesser votes will still have the seats in parliament to represent those citizens that has empowered them via their votes.

The empowerment of these voters consists of two powers.

1) First, the right to attend and speak in parliamentary sessions.

2) Secondly, the right to vote, on behalf of those who have voted them, in ALL resolutions and legislation raised in parliament.

Technically speaking, the concept of NCMP has all similarity with the proportionate representaion system. The basis of NCMP having the right to speak in parliament lies in the empowerment of the voters that supported them. The two main differences are:

1) The number of NCMPs are limited to 9, not granted to all GRC contested.

2) Only HALF of the power and rights are given to NCMP as compared to Proportionate Representation. i.e. they are only granted the power to speak in parliamnet but not the full power of voting.

Thus it raises two interesting questions. Why would PAP, particularly the Prime Minister Lee, objected the Proportionate Representation system which is basically based on the same power concept of empowerment of voters to every candidates? In my view, their argument is pretty lame. They tried to point out the "not so successful" example of proportioante representative system while ignoring the many successful examples, especially those in Nordic countries and even Asia, like Hong Kong!

While they tried to avoid the conceptual basis of power in granting NCMP which inevitably, totally identical to the Proportionate Represenation System, they could not avoid the fact that NCMP is just a scheme to prolong their monopoly of power.

The second obvious question would be the one thrown at opposition politicians like me, on whether we will support or take up the position of NCMP. As far as I know, many people have reservation or undecided on this issue.

Personally, I would object to the NCMP scheme basically because there is a better replacement of Proportionate Representation system, which is based on the same fundamental theory of voters' representation. NCMP only provides half of the power which is, in my view, regarded as the legitimate rights of the candidates who have the support of the voters.

Thus, would it mean that I will definitely object to take up the NCMP position? Nope. I will draw this analogy of casino, since PAP likes casino so much. If you step into the casino to gamble and won $100 but in the end, the casino owner is only willing to give you $50. Would you take it? Yes, I will take it but that doesn't mean that I will stop there. I wil take that $50 but still, chasing after the casino owner for the other $50!

Many people would view that by taking up the NCMP seat, it is just like going into the parliament via the "backdoor". No. Only NMPs walk into the parliament via the "backdoor" because they do not go through the hassle of contesting in electoins and getting the necessary endorsement and empowerment of the voters before they get into parliament. For any people who walk into the parliament with the backing of voters'support, they have all the rights to hold their heads high.

I believe that a matured democratic political system will inevitably developed into the Proportionate Representation system. This is because a stable political system will not only provide the necessary checks and balances on potential monopoly of power, but also on the tyranny of majority rule.

The PAP has no ideological nor political basis to expand the NMP scheme because this in fact, contradicts the concept of empowerment of voters, which all electoral systems are based on. And they have actually short changed voters, especially those who voted for other political parties, by not granting their full legitimate rights as MPs that are voted, endorsed and empowered by the voters, even though they did not get the majority votes.

Voters and opposition polticians alike, should see through such ploy. We should object to such a system that short changed our rights and the power of our votes, but at the same time, should not be shy to take back the half our legitimate rights and power. If someone is only willing to repay you half of his debt, you should take the half payment and continue to chase after the other half, regardless of what he says.

Goh Meng Seng

我们的历史

纪念“五一三”
── 陈国相 ──

今年是“五一三” 事件的五十五周年。一个轰轰烈烈的青年学生反殖民地主义运动在转眼间就过去了半个世纪。

一九五四年五月十三日，新加坡的华文中学生，因为不愿意充当殖民地战争中的炮灰，集体上街示威，反对殖民政府制订的兵役法令。青年学生们从正在举行全新华校学生运动会的惹兰勿杀运动场结队出发，使平常竞争激烈的比赛场面，一时从各学校看台传出“团结就是力量”的壮烈歌声。请愿学生的目的地是当时的总督府，可是当他们游行至皇家山脚下的槟城路时，便遭到警察的阻挡和攻击，结果有学生受伤，也有数十人被捕。

青年学生虽然未能完成当日请愿的计划，却在社会上激起了一阵经久不息的反殖浪潮。一方面，华人社会纷纷对政府不但不和平处理学生的要求，还用暴力对付他们而提出异议。前新加坡工人党领袖，后来的半自治政府首席部长马绍尔律师亲自见到学生被警察殴打流血，抗议警察利用暴力对付手无寸铁的年轻学生。当年的英文虎报编辑，后来的独立政府部长拉惹列南也在社论中批评政府无理。另一方面，一部分受英文教育的大学生，也起来支持华校中学生的要求。马来亚大学(即现在的国大)社会主义俱乐部在它的喉舌“华惹”("Fajar"，是马来语的“黎明”)报发表评论，将殖民地政府用暴力对付学生的事件，视为今后英国将如何利用东南亚联防条约来对付反殖运动的例子，号召马来亚人民起来反对该条约。

“华惹”报的评论，引起殖民地政府总督的不悦。编辑部的八名学生集体被控告，触犯煽动罪。因示威而被捕的华校中学生，也遭到殖民地政府的指控非法集会、举行暴动。两组来自不同源流的学生，首次互相牵连而被告上法庭，这在殖民地政府有意分化被统治者的马来亚，本来就是一件史无前列的事。学生们更借这机会将事件扩大，特别从伦敦请了英女皇律师布里特为他们辩护。在当时刚从英国学成回来不久的青年律师李光耀的协助之下，布里特说服了法官，免了“华惹”报编辑部的全部学生答辩政府的指控，也使一部分被控的华校生免入监牢。

但是事件并不因此而平息下来，因为在这些天里，不仅是华校中学生已经组织起联合全新加坡各华文中学的学生免役代表团，并在华侨中学举行为期数星期的集体抗议。接着又在一九五五年十月成立了新加坡华文中学生联合会。学生家长们也搞起自己的团体来保护子女们的切身利益。在殖民地政府蒙受困扰的当儿，曾经受过压制和打击的工会也重现，妇女们也首次起来成立了新加坡妇女联合会。为李光耀和若干工会代表和反殖民地政府统治人士所倡组的人民行党也因运而生。

陈六使先生在一九五三年就已提出创办南洋大学的号召，而且已得到社会各阶层的积极响应。一旦华校中学生在接着下来的一年被组织起来，创办南大的运动就有如得了上万的生力军为它奔跑。中学生不只自己为南大搞义演、义卖等活动，还协助其他团体或个人为南大筹款。这种任劳任怨的精神很快就感染了东南亚其他地区，特别是马来亚联合邦的学生，使创办南大的基础更扩大，更坚固。

一九五五、五六年是反殖和维护华文教育运动蓬勃发展的一年。虽然殖民地政府紧接着就进行全面反击，连在“五一三”之前就已经注册成立的群众团体(如艺术研究会，小学教师联谊会)，也被宣布为非法，但是反殖运动的基础已经建成。新加坡华文中学生联合会或可在不满周岁就被封闭，学生第二次集中抗议可以被驱散，但是工人还能在工会被宣布非法之后重新建立起来。特别是受学生，工人和广大群众所支持的人民行动党已经开始运作，宪制斗争的可能性已经出现。

在和新加坡及马来亚联合邦的政党举行了一系列的宪制谈判之后，英国政府终于决定让马来亚联合邦于一九五七年八月三十一日获得独立，新加坡于一九五九年也开始实行内部自治。一个中学生为了争取一个安定的学习环境而起来要求在学时期免得服军役的行动，不仅逼英国殖民地政府放弃用亚洲人打亚洲人的幻想，还带动了整个马来亚的反殖斗争，使其提升入一个新的高峰，加速了殖民统治的崩溃。在世界被外来势力统治的人民要求独立自主的历史中，恐怕是少有的。其原因不外是运动进行得有理、有利、有节，而获得广泛的支持和参与。

我个人当时没有直接参与“五一三”，是事件发生之后才“混”进去的。我当时在英校念书，没资格参与华校的活动，是由于我的两个在公教中学念书的兄弟因参加抗议政府的行动而被校方开除，才被“牵连”进去的。本来我也不知道有甚么法令强迫青年学生去当兵，看到兄弟的同学们被殴打又坐牢之后才产生了好奇。我先去找在中华总商会办事的华校中学生免役代表团了解情况，然后设法在自己校内举行一个座谈或辩论会，进一步把事情弄清楚。谁知受奴化教育的英校生绝大部分是书呆子，只顾读书考试，争取领到剑桥文凭，离开剑桥考试还有近半年，他们已经把向外的窗口，关得密密的。

华校中学生后来在华侨中学集中抗议了，我的好奇心也忍不住了，终于走上了山岗。可是我还只是个“通学生”，每天学校下课之后才上去，夜晚就回家，只有周末才“留宿”。因为我是九号班学生，就被分配和高二、三学生一起生活，并且当上了他们的英文“小先生”。对我来说，这数周的集体生活是使我眼界大开，改变我对未来的要求的开始。我从此不再向往在英校毕业后去当殖民地政府的小官。

继续和华校生一起学习，开始成为一种很强大的吸引力。当我在中小学念书的时代，学校师资短缺，课室不够，分上下午班上课。但却给我们四兄弟一个同时在华英两种不同的学校念书的机会，增强我们的双语能力。可是这种沉重的负担也不能长久坚持下去。过了英校七号班和华校初中一之后，“两栖”的学习生活就得停止。而且双语虽能同时学习，却不能深功任一，造成“两败俱伤”。当时我就感觉到华英文水平皆不如标准华、英校生，所以当我在山岗上集中的“学生”们邀请我在九号班后到他们的学校继续念高中时，我的心就动了。其实，我很担心不仅华文赶不上，数学更是。心动的更深层的原因是数星期和华文中学生的接触给我一个心情很舒畅的感觉。他们的好学、合作与豪放，完全改变了几年前我在公教中学念初中一时的印象，让我要和他们长久地在一起过学习生活，从高中一直念到南大。这种向往或者更深的是出自我在英校所感到的寂寞与孤独。

学生集中抗议胜利后，从山岗上下来，我还到几位新的朋友的住所和学校去拜访。最后被他们说服了，在九号班结束后参加插班高二的入学考试，大慨是因为庄竹林校长的宽容的办学态度，我侥幸地被中正中学接受了。这次“回华”，不但改变了我今后生活和事业的方向，还给我在这路途中配了一个好伴侣。原来世界上还有像我这样的一个不彻底的英校毕业生，她也来投考中正高二，又被分配和我同班。同学们都以为他们所称的这对“联合国”，不可能是巧合，而是按事先举行过的“公投”而办事的。不愿意深入了解情况的就索性说这是“主”的安排。其实，两个从未见过面的未满二十岁的青年，因为大致相同的学习经验，不约而同地做了相同的“回华”决定，不是巧合，更不是“主”的安排，完全是因为受到了“五一三”的影响。

我在一九五五年初在中正入学的时候，正逢中学联完成筹组准备成立。“回华”的英校生，很快地被认出来而被提名竞选为学校代表。后来一路顺利地当上了执委会英文秘书。华文中学生搞学运必须打破英文报章的新闻封锁，必须和他们已经建立起联合阵线的马大进步学生保持联系和沟通。当时的华文中学因为缺少合格的教师，学生的英文水平是不足以完成这些工作的。其实，一个半路出家的英校生，也未必能起什么作用。记得每次“上阵”之前我都得温习一下一些有关的词汇，还带上了厚厚的汉英字典准备随时应用。还好很多演讲稿都是由友人（其中包括我后来念高三的英文老师，新加坡妇女联合会主席陈蒙鹤硕士）先翻译好的。可这也不能完全避免出事故。在中学联假快乐世界体育馆举行的万人成立大会上，跟着主席念英文讲稿倒是比较容易的，后来有临时动议，其中一条是谴责政府的。我这个乖乖的英校生从来就没有谴责政府的念头，在脑子里那里会存放这种词汇。犹豫了一阵，满头大汗了，差点喊出 "scold the government"，可幸主席事先有准备，在我耳边说出 "reprimand" 这词，才免了我“一失足成千古恨”。

就是一种要求摆脱殖民统治的力量在催促我们，给我们这些小伙子们不怕天高地厚的胆量，根据我们粗浅的认识去组织、参与和推动学运。就这样地我们参加了由各民族学生联合成立的泛马学联在吉隆坡举办的全马学生文化节，和在印尼万隆召开的亚非学生大会。同时也和全马各种英巫学生和文化团体建立了频繁的往来，促成了一批在马来亚独立建国事业中发挥推动作用的知识分子的出现。对我个人来说，不但给我多方面预想不到的教育，还让我结交了不少来自各民族的知己。在英校的那几年也没有意识到世上会有那么多说英语的“好人”。

中学联也给我一个接触李光耀律师的机会。从华校中学生要求免役代表团成立时开始，李律师就受邀担任法律顾问。另一名是陈维忠律师。在我当上了中学联英文秘书之后，和两位法律顾问的联系主要是由我负责。联系的机会不算少，因为虽然中学联已经胜利组成了，殖民地政府还是不断向群众团体进行反击，中学生当中的活跃份子不断被警方逮捕，使我和法律顾问的见面相当频繁。两位律师同时也是工会和社团的法律顾问，所以都是忙人。记得当我每次出现在设在马六甲街一座店屋的二楼的“李及李律师馆”时，主持日常业务的李夫人都吩咐李律师的秘书不好让我久等。我在工作上和李律师的最后一次见面是在政府宣布封闭中学联的那天。当时只有我留在设在加东维京申路十四号的会所内，正当我将门关上准备离开的时候，李律师走进来。他说他在车上听了新闻广播知道中学联被封后就立刻赶来。听我说执委会的成员都散了，他就问是否可送我一程。接着我上了他的 Morris Minor，到了三角坡的福乐居餐馆前才下车。自己接着走完一条迂回曲折的路，赶往华中参加第二次集中。在那時的白色恐怖籠罩中，中学联会所肯定是受到政治部的严密监视的，感谢李律师把我带出那虎口。

回顾半个世纪多前的事，激发起一阵阵的思乡情，和对许多亲人和朋友的强烈的怀念。首先出现在我脑海中的是我亲爱的爸爸。他从头到尾不仅给我们兄弟百分之百的支持，而且还亲自积极参与家长组织的各种活动。在事件过后好久我们从有关方面得知，他曾经主动答应出学费来鼓励两名学运领袖，在中学毕业后继续念那时已经开课的南洋大学。当时，我的好爸爸的经济情况连过得去都算不上。家庭的收入完全靠他开着一部小货车到处贩卖每箱只赚两毛钱的汽水而得。赚两毛钱也非简单的事，因为像建在小货车不能上的山顶上的工商学校，扛着装满二十四瓶汽水的木箱，在爬完百多级石阶上去了之后，不但满身大汗，上气不接下气，而且还费了宝贵的二十至三十分钟。我们兄弟们在课余时候也帮他，可是在那个动荡的年代，我们大部分的课余时间都在学校参加活动，让爸爸单独去爬石阶。在这么恶劣的经济条件之下，老爸还那么干脆地答应资助别人！我们真后悔当时只知往学校跑，完全不了解爸爸的那种助人为乐的精神，没有出来和他想方设法。直到今天我还说不出，两名学运领袖因为事件预想不到的发展，没能接受爸爸的帮助，到底是好事还是坏事。

这些年来，长久留在我的脑海里的还有那些不畏黑暗的山岗纠察队，劳苦功高而又有能耐将便宜的“扛鱼”煮成香美的鱼粥的炊事员，善讲故事和朗诵诗歌的说书员，晚会上的“火车头”，下笔成章的声明起草人，坚强沉着的家长代表，等等。

“五一三”是一场大团结，青年学生为了争取良好的学习环境，起来反对当兵，不愿当殖民地统治者的炮灰，不支持亚洲人打亚洲人。绝大部分学生认识到这和自己的切身利益密切相关而支持或直接参与了运动，使运动得以坚持到最后胜利。在这事件过后，由于南大的出现，中学生就将学生运动的领导交给大学的老大哥而走下了政治舞台。

我个人在这运动中绝对是个得益者，尽管我在1960年南大毕业后不久就一直在国外生活，我回返南大母校任职有困难，也曾一度不能进入美国。这五十多年来，放弃了在殖民地政府里当小官的念头之后，我是在“五一三”精神的感召下，在一群群的志同道合的朋友的友谊和关怀当中渡过，在他们的支持和鼓励下顺利往前走.

到底一九五四年在马来亚发生的“五一三”是否可和一九一九年在中国发生的“五四”相比，鉴于我个人对前者有亲身的经历，看法是肯定的。显然，这是很主观的看法。但是，历史家要研究这个问题并得出客观的结论，也不是很容易的事，因为这些年来当权者为了显耀自己在宪制斗争中的功劳，不仅拒绝承认旁人也有贡献，还将明明是助他上台的人说是反对党、必须消灭的极端分子。这种“胜者为王，败者为寇”的做法还包括一方面重组并控制新闻出版事业，另方面大事出版“ 白皮书”、“自传”来宣传官方历史。但是事情既然发生了，客观的历史家尽管得花多些时间与精神，最终还是可以把事实挖出来的。

其实，在新一代青年社会科学者在对新加坡官方历史进行修正的当儿，当权者本身也开始意识到历史的真相是不能被他们永远和全部地掩盖的。新加坡外交部长杨荣文最近在提到“五四”对后人的影响时说，“五四运动对新加坡的发展，也有着意义深远的影响。实际上，如果不提五四，是无法理解新加坡本身的国家主义的缘起和演变的。在初期，五四影响着所有的华社团体，包括商团和宗乡会馆、报刊、学校和学生团体以及文化团体。在当时，左倾是很自然的，因为没有一些革命热情，文化复兴是无从实现的。”还说“五四对新加坡的影响，在占了我国人口四分之三的华族的文化复兴中依然可见。它在殖民地时期为华人社会注入的生命力和活力，令英国人感到害怕，也对新加坡的自治和独立，作出巨大贡献。”可惜的是，说了这些比较公平的，给了五十年代青年的进步作为，少许的肯定的话之后，他还是要像放旧录音带样地坚持“经过迂回曲折的发展，人民行动党终于在同最初结盟的左倾共产党人的斗争中得胜，引领新加坡在1959年取得自治，然后在 1965年全面独立。”就是“华族的文化复兴……依然可见”的说法，仍然是官方的一面之词。在“五一三”前后创校和开课的南洋大学，培育了21届毕业生之后就被关闭；养育了“五一三”的儿女们，后又因南大的存在而得以蓬勃发展的华文中小学也不复存在。站在华校学生运动的前列的中正中学，当我在三年前参观的时候，在全校里看到的，尽是以英文书写的牌示，中文字却一个都看不到。

六四感想---面对和正视历史

六四感想---面对和正视历史

今天接到两封由同样一人所发的电邮。第一封说有关当局不允许他的艺术团体运用艺术剧场“电力站”举行中国一九八九年六四事件的纪念集会。我本身就笑着回电邮说报业控股的早报不久前举行了五四运动纪念会，还请了中国学者来大谈以往行动党大力打击的“共产党恐怖分子”头目，中国共产党创始人之一的陈独秀，如今却对六四纪念活动如此畏惧！难道行动党现在只允许唱好以往憎恨入骨的“共产党恐怖分子”而不许人民数落这“共产党恐怖分子”的六四屠城的历史事实吗？

过了不久，这人又来一封电邮，说有关当局改变了原来的决定，有关活动可以继续在“电力站”举行。这活动其实是全世界同步举行的纪念六四的活动，所以我们预计有关当局可能考虑到会引起国际社会的议论，所以才改变主意了。再说，主办者也在接到第一道“圣旨”后，便立即申请到芳林公园演说者角落举办有关活动。如果把这纪念六四的活动搬到户外，可能会有更大的“杀伤力”！

其实对我来说，拥有不同理念的政治人物并不代表他们就是牛鬼蛇神，是什么“恐怖分子”。在许多民主国度里，他们也允许共产党参与他们的民主大选，这包括日本和许多欧洲国家。甚至美国还是允许信奉共产主义的政党注册为正式的政党。民主制度本来就是多元化和具有非常有包容性的特质。

但是，就如我教我的女儿一样，不要只认为当“兵”的就是好人，当“贼”的就是坏人。不要以这种简单的标签来评定人的好坏，而是要看看他们的言行和作为。最基本的就是要公正无私、公平、合情合理，还有要有正义感，才能裁定一个人的好坏。所以共产主义也好，资本主义也好，不管任何人打着什么旗帜，最重要的就是要认清每个人的真伪。

可是，我们最起码应该做到的是，认真面对我们的历史。是非对错，都必须以真实的心去感受、体会和认知。一个民族，一个国家，一个人民都必须有正视历史过错的道德勇气才能使他们的文明得到进一步的升华。每一次日本人试图篡改历史，扭曲历史事实时，我们亚洲人，尤其是中国人民都会很愤怒。如果他们坚持“没有南京大屠杀”的话，我想许许多多的中国人，那些经历过日本侵略的人和他们的后代都会大声抗议。但是如今在中国，甚至香港都会有人说“六四没有流过一滴血”，那么我们这国际社会是否也应该群起抗议这完全藐视历史事实的荒诞谬论呢？

我们姑且不论六四学生运动的对与错。任何有血性，理智和头脑清醒的人都会得到同样的一个结论，当权者用军队，冲锋枪和坦克大炮去对付手无寸铁的学生，这简直是冷血屠杀！这连小孩子都会认为不正确的事情，怎么还会有人去千方百计狡辩呢？

其实，从以往到现在当权者试图掩饰、漂白，甚至不让新一代中国人去真正认识这段丑陋的中国历史，我们便不难发觉其实他们是心虚！他们跟日本人一样心虚！只有心虚的人才不敢说真相，勇敢地面对他们的历史过错。有位中国朋友说得好，日本在南京大屠杀和中共在天安门广场六四屠城是有很大的分别。日本人当时是侵略者，他们是敌人对中国人民做出屠杀恶行，但是中共是以“人民解放军”去屠杀自己手无寸铁的中国人！这是多么的讽刺啊！

中国共产党也是由学生运动斗争起来的，但它却用连袁世凯和国民党蒋介石都不敢用的屠杀式的镇压手法去对付自己中国人民！这是中国共产党员必须认真面对的历史事实，正视它的罪恶和自我检讨它在这几十年执政里所犯的最严重过错。其实我相信许多人，包括受害者的家属只需要中共中央承认这个政治错误判断，平反六四运动，就是这么简单而已。以前文化大革命的受害者更是无数，也不只是一个平反，一个正视历史错误的检讨便能安抚许许多多的中国人吗？

再说，一味把学生运动说成外国帝国主义阴谋论是试图抹杀历史，漂白和遗忘当时学生和中国人民对经济改革所带来的权贵贪污腐败的现实有强烈不满的申诉。而至今中国还是面对八九年同样的社会问题。贪污官员还是一大箩，社会贫富矛盾还是非常尖锐。

刚温习唐代历史。唐太宗李世民在他最得力的助手，魏征宰相去世时说，“以铜为镜，可以端正衣帽；以历史为镜，可以知道国家兴衰的道理；以人为镜，可以发现自己的过错。”
历史是我们文明的一面镜子，试图遗忘、歪曲和篡改历史就是把这面镜子变成曲镜。曲镜会把胖的看起来变得瘦，颠倒是非，对于治理一个国家，就会存在着很大的潜在风险了。

回头看看新加坡，我们何尝不是不敢面对我们自己的历史？尤其是那对行动党来说不是很光彩的历史！那充满白色恐怖的1970年时代，那世界上没通过法庭审判而关得最久的政治犯，那许许多多以内安法令无理扣押政治对手的例子。这就是为什么我们的教科书里通常只会提到莱佛士登陆新加坡，二次世界大战至到独立，然后就奉承现在的执政党歌颂功德，丰功伟绩的“历史”。也刻意抹杀了其他许许多多对新加坡社会建设有巨大贡献的人物，如陈六使等，就因为他们跟当时的执政党意见不和，甚至抬杠，不认同他们的文化政策等！这是新加坡的悲哀。我们必须认真的去面对我们这一些历史事实，就算是对现在执政党有点不光彩，我们也必须去正视，从中学习然后对这政治体系的不足做出调整，这才对我们的后代建设更好的文明社会打好基础。

我是一个相信人终究是会有缺点的，因而相信在没有十全十美的圣人的人类政治社会里，我们就必须有自由民主制度来制衡人类丑恶的贪憎痴。纵然我认为邓小平在六四事件上做出了非常严重错误的政治判断和决定，但他在我的政治认知中还是属于一个伟人。对新加坡政治人物也一样。纵然我觉得他们在那1960和70年代里做了许多不光彩的事情，我还是会尊敬这一些先驱人物。原因很简单，人非圣贤，谁能无过？

但是，我最不能忍受的是，政治人物或政党为了自己的面子问题而刻意去试图遗忘、歪曲和篡改历史，这是对我们的后代做出最坏的事。一个没有真正的去面对自己的历史是不会有文明的进步的。

吴明盛

我们的历史在哪里？ ——观音乐剧《天冷就回来》有感

我们的历史在哪里？ ——观音乐剧《天冷就回来》有感

（2009-05-23）


● 王昌伟

　　近来打算开始着手研究新谣，从中追溯新加坡建国后的社会变迁与文化进程，于是去观赏了打着梁文福新谣旗号的音乐剧《天冷就回来》（以下简称《天》），但看完之后，却有一股很强烈的焦虑感。

　　尽管歌曲和剧情的配搭略嫌牵强，感情的处理也有不太细腻，但作为一个以励志与爱情故事为骨干的商品，本剧自有其成功的地方。令我感到焦虑的，是《天》无意中呈现出来的新加坡人身份认同的危机。

　　剧名所示，《天冷就回来》要描述的是在国外闯荡的游子对“家”的归属感。但“家”是什么？《天》的文案这么写道：

　　“当爱人小静去世，阿乐背着行囊，独自来到纽约，追求自己狂热的音乐理想。在异乡的街头，他遇上了阿强，共同的新加坡腔，共同的追求，建立起了阿乐和阿强的友谊……”

　　因此所谓的“家”，就是新加坡，而制作群的商业策略之一，显然就是要借新加坡人的身份认同来引起观众的共鸣。

　　但令人纳闷的是，全剧中出现的新加坡元素，就是几句被生硬地安插进去的“新式”语言，以及一两首具有本土色彩的歌曲。除此之外，“家”中能够系住阿乐的心的，就只有他对小静的爱情，而剧中的新加坡场景，就只有葬着小静的墓园，以及剧终一闪而过的市容。

　　换句话说，这个“家”可以是地球上的任何地方，新加坡作为“家”的意义，在《天》中显得苍白无力，可有可无，即使制作群安排演员在全剧结束谢幕后合唱《新加坡派》，也唤不起一丝作为新加坡人的身份认同的共鸣与感动。

新加坡的历史人物缺了席

　　在我看来，剧中最具讽刺性的一幕莫过于阿乐为一群新加坡移民的孩子上课。当孩子们要求阿乐教他们历史的时候，我们的男主角很尴尬地说，他最不懂的就是历史。当然，这个安排主要是为了引出《历史考试前夕》这首歌，但却了无意中道出了《天》的困境，以及岛国当前的尴尬。

　　是的，我们这一代人最不懂的就是历史，包括自己国家的历史，因此当我们要建构身份认同的时候，我们就不知该从哪里取材。
　　回想起我在官方教育体制下受教育的过程，我对本国历史的认识，只停留在莱佛士登陆、日据时期的苦难，以及人民行动党争取独立与把新加坡建设成一现代化国家的功绩。

　　我们对从1819年到1940年代这百多年间岛国历史的认识，几乎一片空白，而出现在风起云涌的五六十年代，和官方不同调的声音与运动，不是被否定，就是被边缘化，当然也无法进入年轻一代的历史记忆中。

　　政府多年来经济挂帅的“务实”政策与教育方针，更导致成长于七八十年代的新加坡年轻人对岛国过去的文化建树一无所知。

　　在阿乐为孩子上课的那一幕中，舞台背景是一座教室，墙上挂着一些历史名人的画像，包括孔子、鲁迅、马丁路德金、爱因斯坦、贝多芬等等。我当下的第一个反应是，为什么没有诸如丘菽园、林文庆、陈嘉庚、陈六史、朱比赛、许云樵、张荔英等本地的思想文化名人？

　　当然，这些新加坡名人在世界史上的影响力是比不上孔子鲁迅的，但在一部强调新加坡身份认同的戏剧中，我们自己的历史人物却缺席了，这不是很讽刺吗？

本地校园音乐本来也有段历史

　　我想这就是《天》的困境。也许有人会说，《天》只是一部商业剧，不需要也不应该要求它具有历史意识，但这恰是问题所在。历史对一部意图刻画身份认同的戏剧作品而言，应该是很有商业价值的。

　　吊诡的是，《天》的制作群如果真把上述本地历史人物的画像挂上，也许更会让观众感到一头雾水，因为观众也许根本就不认识他们，根本就无法引起共鸣。从商业的角度考量，岛国的历史对制作群而言，根本就派不上用场。

　　在历史记忆被剥夺的情况下试图建构身份认同，无异于缘木求鱼，最终只能诉诸于表面的新加坡腔，至于男主角对这片土地的归属感，更只能建立在虚无缥缈的，“放诸四海皆准”的爱情之上。就如《天》的文案只能这样说：“这里只有天气，没有季节，但这里有爱，有情……”


　　其实，这里也有历史，也有文化，只是因为各种原因而被腰斩删除了。犹记得新谣的第一个卡带《明天21》的第一首歌叫《沙漠足迹》，我们几乎可以把这视为当年新谣创作者的宣言：
　　曾经这里是沙漠一片

　　曾经这里是荒芜一片

　　歌声不曾飘扬　音符不曾存在

　　曾何几时曾何几时

　　沙漠里印下了足迹

　　曾何几时曾何几时

　　足迹无尽地伸延……

　　在当年这些新谣创作者的记忆中，“这里”一直都是一片荒芜的沙漠，直到他们的出现，才给这片土地带来了音符与生命。少数较有历史感的创作者会强调，新谣的其中一个源头是前南洋大学的诗乐活动。虽然我认为两者之间并没有一脉相承的关系，但诗乐的存在，就足以证明本地的校园音乐文化，在新谣之前并不是一片空白的。

　　可是我相信，对当年的许多创作者与听新谣长大的年轻人来说，诗乐根本就是一个陌生的名词，而对于酝酿诗乐的那个年代，我们当然也不甚了了。这也就是为什么，《传灯》一传到彼岸就不再回来。

　　被我们这一代人所遗忘的，不止是诗乐。有一首新谣叫《我们的歌在哪里》，我想我们今天应该追问的是，我们的历史在哪里？没有了历史记忆，我们该如何建构国人的身份认同？我们将来的文化，该建立在什么之上？


作者任教于新加坡国立大学中文系

NSP Labor Day Message

Double Inflictions: Cost-of-living & Foreign Workers

While the Government has introduced a regular slew of technical measures supposedly meant to assist the growing number of the unemployed, it has done little to mitigate the twin impact of rising cost-of-living and the lax entry of foreign workers.

Consequently, the average workers and their families are the hardest hit. Apart from not being gainfully employed made worse by “foreign” competition, it has become increasingly difficult to make ends meet when the cost-of-living continues to inch upwards albeit at a slower rate.

The ruling regime’s often repeated emphasis on the importance of tripartism is understandable in view of its heavily vested interest in the nose-led trade unions, which only represent a minor portion of the working public. Consequently, non-unionised and low-wage workers are left to fend for themselves – in fact, they face a stronger competition from the influx of foreign workers from neighbouring countries.

The wide availability of skills retraining programmes is good, but the courses should be more realistic and specifically tailored to the existing job market. A lot of people having gone through the retraining schemes are still unemployed, many due to differences in age, pay and expectations.

The joblessness rate has hit a five-year high of 4.8% in March 2009, and economists have expected the figure to rise even higher in the coming months. Job shedding has far surpassed job creation, as worldwide demand for the wholly export-orientated Singapore produce continues to dive southwards. The recent injection of a $20 Billion stimulus package has yet to bear tangible fruits. Many felt that it was insufficient to counter the current economic tsunami. Other nations, even Hongkong, were seen to be more “appropriately” generous.

Meanwhile, inflation has hit almost 3%. The costs of basic necessities such as food, transport and health care are still relatively high. Indirect taxes such as the GST that have contributed to their high costs, could be reduced during this economic downturn, and reintroduced if necessary at a later date when circumstances are more favourable.

The projected economy contraction of between 6% – 9% this year, and a possible double-digit recession next year, point to the inadequacy of our current economic model in coping with the new global paradigm. A fundamental change may be required, something which the Government cannot afford to ignore if it intends to be relevant.

The Prime Minister, in his May Day speech, warned that the anticipated “U’ shaped or even “L” shaped recovery may take several years to materialize, especially when affronted by the new H1N1 virus that threatens to sweep the world. There is thus a dire need for the Authorities to do all it can to trim both the cost-of-living and the influx of foreign workers. Those twin viruses are already crippling the citizens here, apparently with official assistance.




For & on behalf of the

National Solidarity Party




Ken Sun

Secretary General