Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Democracy: PAP Government IS NOT PAP

I have read the coverage on PM Lee interview on Channel News Asia recently. What caught my eyes was naturally about the "next General Election". Nope. It is not about any speculations on whether there will be a General Election this year but rather how our Prime Minister made his statement here.

The very first sentence read "The Government will leverage on new media in the next General Election, Prime Minister Lee Hisen Loong has said". I am not very sure whether the Prime Minister has actually uttered that SPECIFIC wordings because I do not have the chance to watch the whole interview but it seems to me that it must be a "Government" stand on new media during "General Election".

First of all, the GOVERNMENT, which is filled with civil servants, has nothing to do with General Election apart from making sure that the election is carried out in a FAIR and JUST way.

During General Elections, the Cabinet will only be a care-taker government. Political parties and members SHOULD NOT utilize public resources for their political campaigns. How close PAP has observed such democratic rules is up to anyone's guess.

But if the CNA report is "presenting trusted, unbiased and informed opinions" as what the Prime Minister has proclaimed, I guess it just demonstrates that CNA, its reporters and editors have actually thought that there is absolutely NOTHING WRONG FOR A POLITICAL PARTY, even though it is the ruling party, TO UTILIZE GOVERNMENT RESOURCES DURING GENERAL ELECTIONS!

If CNA is, as proclaimed, a TRUSTED NEWS PROVIDER, then the Prime Minister must have uttered the very specific words that the GOVERNMENT is actually CAMPAIGNING by LEVERAGING on New Media DURING GENERAL ELECTIONS! So who is the GOVERNMENT CAMPAIGNING FOR during GENERAL ELECTIONS? This is a very FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION that citizens of any DEMOCRATIC country should ask the ruling party.

I am really beginning to doubt whether the ruling party takes DEMOCRACY SERIOUSLY or not! Or is it just WAYANGING about being Democratic while deep down its heart, it just takes for granted that PAP=GOVERNMENT and GOVERNMENT=PAP? And that PAP could utilize all the GOVERNMENT resources for its political interests?

Well, maybe I am still very naive after witnessing the pork barrel politicking of PAP in using GOVERNMENT HDB upgrading, GRC and Electoral Boundary redrawing as political tools to attain political interests for itself, I still hold the belief that Democracy still exists in Singapore with the basic fundamental principles intact. I must be wrong in believing that PAP still believes in Democracy. It is just basically a DICTATORIAL political party which only WAYANG about Democracy by having some elections with all the rules skewed heavily to their political advantages.

From this little report here, I must say that I am more convinced that Democracy is already dead in Singapore, in principle. People from the Prime Minister to the reporters and editors of local media no longer believe in the basic fundamental principles of Democracy any more. Unless there are enough brave souls that could stand up to such absurdity in the system, win a few GRCs via that totally skewed and impossible odds against the PAP + Government machineries + Media, I do not see how Singapore could evolve and progress democratically.

I would actually urge the PAP to do away with such a pain of going through the motion of General Elections where they themselves do not respect the fundamental principles of Democracy and declare Singapore a dictatorship once and for all. If PAP does not even respect the fundamental principles of Democracy, why do they need to try to Wayang about General Elections? If they could not even differentiate what is PAP as a political party and what is the role of government, then just equate PAP=Government=Singapore. It will really save us a lot of time and trouble in playing such Wayang game.


Goh Meng Seng

CNA - THE Government will leverage on new media in the next General Election, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said.

In an interview with Channel News Asia to be aired on Tuesday night, he noted the growing influence of the Internet on politics, citing the recent United States presidential election as an example and said Singapore would go the same way.

President Barack Obama's campaign, for instance, used new media to put out their messages, organise and even raise money. But PM Lee said the change here will not be an an easy one.

'We are still learning. It is not easy to make this transition. It is like going from sea to land or vice versa, you are changing your medium and you need to get comfortable with it. But we are working hard at it.'

He also said the party was on the lookout for more MPs comfortable with new media. His remarks are the latest sign of the Government's changing mindset towards new media.

Last month, Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Lee Boon Yang said that the Government is 'fully into' e-engagement, when responding to suggestions made by the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society.

Since then, Government agencies have also begun responding to forum letters posted on The Straits Times website. PM Lee stressed, however, that traditional media will always have a place in presenting trusted, unbiased and informed opinions. But he didn't dismiss online views outright.

'Well, there is a place called the Wild West and there are other places which are not so wild. And the new media - some of it are Wild West and anything goes and people can say anything they want. And tomorrow take a completely contrary view and well, that is just the way the medium is,' he said.

'But even in the Internet, there are places which are more considered, more moderated where people put their names down and identify themselves. And there is a debate which goes on and a give and take, which is not so rambunctious but perhaps more thoughtful. That is another range.'

The interview on the evolving media landscape was in conjunction with Channel News Asia's 10th anniversary in March.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

A Visualization of Crisis of Credit


The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.

Fear and Patriotism: Another Threat to Netizens


I am really amused at the way PAP throwing out threats after threats against Singaporeans on the net. Singapore may be a small country but it seems that the amount of FEARFUL threats thrown at the relatively small number of Singaporean netizens has really gone out of proportions.

Even communist countries like China do not throw such threats around. PAP has claimed that they want to "evolve" in this new era of New Media but inherently, it is apparent to all of us that such "paternalistic" nature of the way it threw out threats after threats has demonstrated that PAP is very much outdated and backward. Even the Chinese Communist Party has evolved and they actually made use of their netizens to effect a close check on their ranks and files!

I have not heard any constant nagging threats thrown by the Chinese Communist Party over the various attacks thrown at CCP and its leaders. Well, yes, they may have formed a huge internet brigade to counter some of the bad mouthing but in a more general sense, Chinese netizens have not stopped nagging at their government.

Why? It has been proven that such nagging noise from the ground by these netizens could be very powerful when it comes to Nationalistic aim of defending that Nation's interests against foreign countries. It seems that the Chinese people is both capable to critic their own government as well as defending their Nationlistic rights when they face foreign threats.

What is more intriguing in the following CNA report is that it mentions that nobody is interested to give feedback even with the PAP government whole effort to solicit them from Singaporeans on the net! What does that really mean? It means that they young Singaporean netizens are either apathetic towards the country under PAP or that they would rather nag at the PAP government at their own will instead of helping them in any ways they can!

What does that really mean? PAP's paternalistic style of National education plus threats have failed miserably in lecturing the young Singaporeans into patriotic citizens! The more threats they throw at young Singaporean netizens, the more defiant we will be!

Fear and patriotism DO NOT MIX at all. You may try to maintain your total grip on power by using all means of fearful methods but in the long run, you will definitely lose trust of your people and your power totally. These have happened repeatedly over the centuries whereby Ancient dynasties boom and died.

There is one common saying, it is all in the mind. True in this instance that no matter how PAP has claimed that they are "open" or "light touch" or "engaging the New Media", the fundamental mindset of being rigid, outdated and paternalistic in them are really showing and taken over their deeds. It is no wonder nobody on the Net take them seriously in what they say or claim to do for the good of the Nation. This is explicitly shown by the lack of participation of their so call "feedback" process executed on the Net.

Sincerity of this regime is being graded near ZERO after many years of observations of how PAP government just WAYANG away on the NET by paying lip service on feedback collection. And how could they try to build up their credibility on the Net when the tightly controlled media keeps pounding on the credibility of the Netizens? It is just like calling out names at a group of people but in the end, you try to "engage" them for views! Since you have already labeled them as "not credible" and worse, ministers keep throwing threats at them, why would anyone believes you and your sincerity in "engaging" them for their view? Couldn't the multi-million dollars annual salaried ministers understand such simple logic?

Goh Meng Seng



http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...410619/1/.html

Govt says policies on new media will evolve as new challenges crop up

By Satish Cheney, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 21 February 2009 2044 hrs


Photos 1 of 1



A websurfer shopping online.




SINGAPORE : The Singapore government has been embracing and even adopting new media for its work.

And while it is still some way from fully tapping the potential, the government said it will gradually evolve its policies with a light touch, as the Web2.0 revolution constantly throws up new challenges.

Singapore is the most wired city in the world. And according to a survey, young Singaporeans aged 15 to 24 spend an average of eight-and-a-half hours a day being connected.

And the government has been using new media outlets such as Facebook, YouTube and forums to hook up with citizens.

Another new media outlet is the OnePeople Portal.

The online resource on racial harmony was launched by the Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister Vivian Balakrishnan on Saturday.

While the government is gradually liberalising its approach towards online engagement with its citizens, the minister added that one has to be responsible and careful when posting their thoughts online."

Dr Balakrishnan said: "Anonymity in cyberspace is an illusion. You will remember in 2007, we prosecuted three persons under the Sedition Act because of the blogs they put up which denigrated the religion of one of our communities in Singapore.

"The reason we did that was to send the message that your words have an impact; if need be, we can identify you, and if we have to, we will be prepared to prosecute you."

But there are some challenges in the government's use of new media to get public feedback.

Dr Milagros Rivera, member, Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS), said: "We expected people to give feedback. Nobody did. I think seven people posted comments on the AIMS website, and then the blogosphere went crazy with all kinds of comments and discussions about New Media.

"You can have a very nice welcoming website for the government to give feedback. If people are not comfortable they will just stay in their little forums and in their blogs and they will do their thing."

And there is no doubt more challenges will crop up as cyberspace continues to evolve and change the way people communicate with one another. - CNA/ms
Reply With Quote

Friday, February 20, 2009

Politics 101 for the Coming General Elections

The following is written by a forumer with the moniker "Scroobal":

Some basics.

For the Voters

1) Make sure your name is on the electroral Roll

2) Know what the objective or focus is - to express your sentiments on how the PAP fared as a ruling govt and to provide a set of results that tells the next govt of the day, what needs to be done.

Democracy unfortunately was meant for an informed, mature and educated society. Do not be simple minded and think that it a straight forward business of picking the best candidate in your constituency based on meritocracy . The question is how much of power and control do you want to give a political party. Do you put all your eggs in one basket for your savings? Are you looking for balance, accountability and variety of voices in parliament. Do you see the big picture?

If you are in hospital fighting for your life and you have the world's best nurse attending to you but the worst set of medical standards including incompetent doctors, unreliable power supply to operatings theatre etc, do you change hospital or are you happy to be there because of the nurse assigned is first class.

Simple maths on nomination day will tell you that the majority of the seats would have been taken by the PAP to form govt, so go ahead and seek variety and try an attempt to force the PAP to be responsive.

For the Helpers

If you are keen to see at a minimum a 2 party parlimentary democracy, get in touch with your your favourite to give a contact name, number or just your nick. A lot of work has to be done, logistics is huge. They will be grateful for any form of help, your hands, legs, car, lorry, your campaigning prowess, taking photos at rallies, blogging their cause, status report. Don't wait till until its too late.

Do not be upset, if they do not share their plans with you. Secrecy, confidentiality and suprises are important. If you come across something juicy, keep it to your self. Make sure you got leave reserved unless you already unemployed.

For Political Parties ( besides party work)

1) Appoint your logistics and contact person to start a register of helpers. List contact in website. You know the rules - no need for real names if they are not prepared to release.

2) Start tapping friends, families and ex-school mates.

3) Get your websites current, relevant and punchy.

4) Remember the manifesto must be practical and relate to society and the voters and has nothing to do with your ideals in a perfect world or a desire to reach nirvana. Motherhood statements are only good for the dustbin.

5) Appoint a cheermaster to coordinate via the web on rally sites, directional help, parking availability, live feed, agenda etc. Lets not dream that SPH and CNA are going to do the job.

For Potential Candidates

1) If you think you want to be candidate and you are new, give a call to your friendly opposition political identity. I am sure GMS and company are ready to help even though you might not want to join their party. Make sure you got the deposit, get your forms right and start working the ground early with flyers and mail-outs. Gather a few friends to help out.

2) If are you not keen to join any existing party, nevertheless get in touch with a political identity or a party early and express your interest and the constituency that you favour. So that they can tell you what turfs are available to avoid 3 cornered fights etc. and not waste your time doing groundwork in the wrong area.

3) Gather friends, army mates, school mates. Your best bet is to reach out to your age or peer group to provide support and help.

4) Nothing in law, in practice or in convention requires you to be scholar, a successful doctor, lawyer etc. If you have a good mind, a passion and sincerity to help society and an achiever, you are in the zone. Would love to see a couple of ex-school or university mates getting together and contesting in a GRC.

Remember if George Bush can be President, you are more than qualified.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

星展高升票据投资者组织研讨会

星展高升票据投资者组织将于

2009年二月十八日
在PSB Academy Delta Road Campus, 355 Jalan Bukit Ho Swee 举行研讨会
时间:晚上六点半 登记, 七点准 开始

这次研讨会将讨论所有可行的法律途径。这研讨会只限于已经登记的会员。如果您还没登记,请即刻电邮

dbs.hn5@gmail.com 以便登记

您也可以电邮以上邮址询问详情。

Friday, February 13, 2009

GIC lost 41%? Accountabiliity please!


There are quite a few speculation about how much GIC lost in this crisis. As the GIC is directly under the charge of two heavy weights, Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Dr Tony Tan, it seems that such speculations are really "undesirable " and could well be kept as National Secrets forever.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew keeps saying that such investments are for "Long Term" but my question is, is it "Long Term" or "Wrong Term" already? Besides, with due respect, Mr Lee Kuan Yew is already at his ripe old age and many of his age would have enjoyed retirement life fully elsewhere in the world if they have his kind of wealth and social status.

Mr Goh Chok Tong's assertions about good governance keep ringing in my mind. He said a good government must be transparent and accountable, among other things like being clean. But how are we going to hold the present government accountable if whatever losses we suffer as a nation are being swept away as "Long Term" investment? Especially so when nobody knows whether one could live up to that definition of Long Term (which is not categorically defined as how long?), least a person of 80 over years old.


A WP member, Choon Yong, has an interesting account of what goes on in parliament. According to him, Madam Lim Hwee Hua uttered the figure 41% when Ms Sylvia Lim pressed for an answer to how much GIC has lost. This is really an interesting figure, though, not very surprising.

The PAP government has always claimed the figures of GIC as "National Secret". I am always very puzzled. If such important figures are being classified under "National Secret" how could accountability be exercised on the government itself? Well, I can understand that specific investment portfolio strategy is sensitive information but there is no necessity to keep aggregate figures as "National Secret" at all. Nothing to hide from there. If we are going to practice what good governance whereby accountability is a fundamental pillar, then specific figures and information should be made available. Figures like the amount of money in GIC and the percentage of gain or losses.


It is intriguing indeed. While the PAP government is ready to boast about how much GIC has earned in the past in a fascinating way (claiming to have how many percentage of return over how many years... etc), but when it comes to losses, it has suddenly become so secretive! It practically means that when it comes to claiming credits, PAP government is all too fast to claim it. But when it comes to take responsibility for lapses (well, do you remember Mas Selamat?) and losses, it suddenly sweeps everything under National Secrets!

If any figures are all National Secrets, then earnings from the past should be classified as National Secrets as well! Of course, that would basically mean that this PAP government does not believe in accountability at all. In Hong Kong, such critical figures would be available to public for scrutiny and it really makes me wonder why would Mr Goh Chok Tong go all the way to Hong Kong to teach something that PAP does not practice while Hong Kong government is already practicing! Without adequate information released, information that could well undermine PAP's leadership being hidden away, how could accountability be exercised at all?

Anyway, it is even more intriguing that the National Press has CONVENIENTLY omitted that "sensitive" figure 41% from their daily reports of the parliamentary debates! All is well when there are coordinated effort to avoid mentioning such potentially damaging data on National papers!

There was a report by foreign analyst that the amount of money that GIC holds initially could well be as high as $500 Billion. So if this magic figure of 41% is true, the losses of GIC alone would be $225.5 Billion! Although the official report of Temasek Holdings' losses is $58Billion at the end of 30 Nov 2008, but I guess this figure is grossly underestimated. This is basically because share prices has further tumbled in December 2008. The losses could be as high as $80 Billion by the end of last year.

Thus the total potential losses of GIC and Temasek holdings could well be $300 Billion! What does that mean? It means that it is a loss of $100,000 per Singapore citizen!


While PAP government has always been reluctant in setting up a formal system of social welfare for Singaporeans because it could squander off all our reserves, but it seems that the reserves could well be lost in a more dramatic and faster way in just one financial crisis like this one. The cruel truth is, such losses benefits no Singaporeans while at the very least, a social welfare system could at least benefit quite a number of Singaporeans, especially so in such economic crisis!

We have paid millions of dollars to PAP ministers annually for such mediocre performance which result in such losses that benefits no Singaporeans at all. Some may argue that such losses are "reasonable" because other funds around the world are making the same losses. BUT, please don't forget that we are paying our political office holders HIGHEST in the whole world but yet we are getting mediocre average results same as others? So the fundamental question is, are these "TALENTED ELITES of HIGHER MORTAL" value for money?

I believe this is not merely my ranting. Quite a number of people of middle class income came to my shop to ask me to make the same point. Our ministers are over valued. Their ministerial pay is just too ridiculous. These are not just normal ranting that we used to see in internet forums. These words are uttered by REAL Singaporeans on the street, some with very high qualifications.

This financial crisis has exposed the myth that PAP ministers are "extraordinary talents" that deserved to be paid millions of dollars per year. The PAP ministers may be highly qualified but they are just human, not "HIGHER MORTAL". Are they the "BEST"? Cream of the crop? I really doubt so. The reason being, the BEST and TOP people do not use monetary return as a value yardstick label to stick on them. These people know their limitations and would take responsibility and account for their mistakes. Obama is a good example. Ma Yinjiu is another good example.

I do not think with the present PAP mindset, we will be able to extract accountability from PAP ministers themselves. I do not believe that one could check on himself effectively without trying to shy away from responsibility. While billions are lost, not a single word of apology is heard from PAP ministers. The tightly controlled newspaper is still trying to trumpet it off as "better than others"! Of course, the usual rant that any losses are "temporary", no apology about that, no regrets about that but all for long term. While our children or even grand children in the far future "suffer" from such WRONG TERM investment, they wouldn't know who are the ones who are supposed to be responsible for these losses anyway.

So, this is the kind of accountability that PAP is teaching from their bible.

Goh Meng Seng

星洲选读:林明华—来新山养老

主题:星洲选读:林明华—来新山养老


林明华‧来新山养老
2009-02-12 19:36

农历新年期间,新加坡卫生部长许文远在未惊动媒体的情况下,悄悄进入新山依斯干达特区“参观”当地的医疗机构,並会见了一名即將在那里建造一所拥有200个床位的疗养院的新加坡人。几天后,他在新加坡国会谈到他此行的心得时,建议新加坡人考虑把家中老人送去新山的疗养院养老,因为“在新加坡疗养院住一个月的费用,相等於在新山疗养院的2个半月的费用;何况,新山离新加坡不远,老人的家属可在週末到新山去探望他们”。

这个建议看来很现实,也很实际,但却受到该国反对党议员的严厉批评,他们讥讽许文远以“赞赏”的口吻介绍收费低廉的新山疗养院,似乎已默认该国的医疗费过高的事实。他们也质问许文远,新加坡政府是不是要把她负担得起的医疗服务的责任,“外包”给其他国家?

面对反对党的质询,许文远的回答似乎有点“无厘头”;他说:“消费者都有选择的自由。你可以在新加坡吃海鲜大餐,或到新山吃团圆饭。你可以在新加坡添油,或者越过长堤(添油)。你是在花自己的钱,一切由你决定。”

马来西亚人看新加坡,总是出现两大极端,李光耀家族和政治生態、高薪养廉和高效率、南洋大学和华文教育,都可以引发喋喋不休的爭辩。像新加坡老人入住新山疗养院的课题,也无可避免的引发口舌之爭,而且可以是非常情绪化的爭论。

但情绪化的爭论,有时也有值得反思的一面。例如我的一个朋友便说,为甚么我们的人才和投资都被新加坡吸引过去,而我们能够吸引的,却只是被新加坡遗弃的老人和被新加坡淘汰的夕阳工业而已?

也有朋友不无感慨地说,在他们的许多新加坡朋友眼中,马来西亚简直一无是处,只有在想要购买廉价物品,想要添购廉价汽油,或者想要花钱少少但却要举家出游时,马来西亚才成为新加坡人的最佳选项。

新加坡是世界上第一个將“赡养父母”立法的国家。1995年,新加坡国会通过《赡养父母法令》。此法令下,被控未遵守《赡养父母法》的子女,一旦罪名成立,可面对罚款1万新元或判处1年有期徒刑的惩罚。据说,该国的赡养父母仲裁庭在法令生效的首半年內,便接获了152宗由父母要求子女赡养的申请。

新加坡人对父母真的如此无情无义吗?不是的!据我向一些新加坡友人和亲戚瞭解,把家中老人送入疗养院,对新加坡人来说,迄今还是一个相当避讳的课题。他们说,大多数的新加坡华人还是非常重视家庭伦理道德的。如果不是迫不得已,把家中老人送入疗养院,始终是他们最后的选择,何况是送来新山的疗养院。其中一位朋友甚至这样说:“这样做(把父母送入新山疗养院),不只不孝,而且还丟尽了我们(新加坡人)的面子!”

新山的疗养院收容新加坡老人,事实上也早已不是甚么秘密了。当然,经济考量是原因之一;另一原因,是很多这些老人原本就是马来西亚人,入住新山疗养院,也方便这里的亲友探望和照顾。

老人问题不是新加坡人的问题而已,国內的疗养院愈开愈多,说明我们的社会確实有此需求。至於把家中老人寄养在疗养院,是不是等於遗弃他们?是不是就是一种不孝行为?所谓家家有本难唸的经,这要看具体的情况,不能一概而论。

不过,不可否认的是,今时今日,“养儿防老”的观念已不可靠,遗弃老人的问题日愈严重也是事实,像新加坡这样把道德標准变成立法政策,通过立法来保护失去依靠的老人,或者建议把老人送到邻国去“寄养”,“虽然看起来有点可笑又可悲,但也是非常无奈的现实选择!”

星洲日报/情在人间‧作者:林明华‧言论不代表本站立场‧2009.02.12

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

放下玉山留残照]--- 淡马锡总裁卸职四记

作者:德仁 09:51am 11/02/2009

放下玉山留残照]--- 淡马锡总裁卸职四记
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

当年拿起意气豪,

飞上名榜九天高。

购得电子剩一丝,*

买来美银挨千刀。**

已化肉酱休叹息,

错逢狼虎欲安逃?

自我憔悴大抛开,***

放下玉山留残照。

=============================
*电子,特许半导体 CHARTERED IND.
目前股值市价二角八分半28。5cts.

*美银,英美银行如花旗,美林,瑞
银和巴克莱银行等在过去的14个月内
总注入超过300亿的巨额注资。

***大抛开,何女士说“对于这个更
替过程,我们尽可能正式确立,努力
抛开自我,抛开个人,尽可能开放,
没有个人偏见。”

Sunday, February 08, 2009

反思:人民的声音

我要非常谢谢一位翻译高手帮我翻译了我的英文稿"Reflections: Voice of the People", 在此刊登这翻译稿件。

翻译者笔名:韦春花


星期六,2009年2月7日
反思:人民的声音

Cartoon from Sam's Thought


在我这篇文章里,内有三张政治漫画是调侃吕德耀少将在国会的发言,他批评网上博客“恶毒攻击”行动党议员,尤其是是成汉通议员被一名70岁老汉纵火烧伤的这件事。(实际上是两帧漫画,外加一帧是翻译成中文。)

早报的一篇报道威胁说:那些“恶毒攻击行动党议员和部长”的人要小心!看来,一些像我这类“下等人”并没有得到警方应有的庇护,只有那些在网络上攻击“行动党人”的才会被追缉。

整篇报道,只紧盯那些攻击行动党的“下等人”。

“我不认为那些反政府或反人民行动党的人都有意真心地与政府沟通。因此,我们需要的是可辨别是非和能作独立判断的人民。”。

我本人就曾是网路恶毒流言、心怀不轨和含沙射影的受害者。他们散布我“偷情”的传言(实际上那个某人是我妹妹),他们大方来到我的博客留下诽谤的言论,可是我并没有看到警方按捺不住,非要介入这样的调查。

最重要的是,当时我并没有看到由行动党操控的报纸秉持“公义”出来“仗义执言”。相反地,他们甚至紧捉这样的机会来散布对我是“人格谋杀”的谣言。

此外,当有人恶意抹黑反对党议员如刘程强先生及工人党时,如把工人党叫做“哇燕党”(wayang,做戏),报纸的编辑和记者都没有穿上“公义”的外衣来“谴责”造谣者。相反地,他们给这些谣言足够的版面,破坏工人党在众人心目中的形象。

Sketch from My Sketchbook



所以当攻击的是行动党人时,报纸突然间要“坚持真相和维持正义”时,我觉得非常感冒。

这只能说明一个事实,当形势对执政党有利时,造谣者是否可信?根本不是问题,也不必在意他们是否躲在匿名之后。他们还会打出抢眼的标题来吸引国人读者注意这些谣言和中伤,他们甚至找上门去访问那些“邪恶人”(根据他们的新定义),让他们尽情表演。

当然,我已经很习惯行动党操控的媒体行使双重标准,但是习惯不等于认同。现在除了媒体之外,人民公仆如警察部队也随着执政党的需要起舞,真的让我瞠目结舌。我不知道执政党怎么还有脸坚称公务员中立,他们绝不会给执政党当跑腿。

This one is translated into Chinese by a forumer.


我只能摇头叹息,我想这就是新加坡的现实。

当吕少将哀悼新加坡博客社群失去一次自治的机会,我有一个信息要提供给行动党,还有报纸的编辑和记者。

几天前我刚好经过旧店的门口,那里在我搬出后已经空置了六个月。有个朋友问我那座大厦出了什么问题?为什么我要搬走,而且现在看起来空空荡荡?我这样告诉我的朋友:

当我跟业主谈判新租约的时候,我直言告诉他们现在的环境:生意越来越难做,而且眼看衰退就要到来了,于是我要求减租,但是让我震惊的是,他们其实是要加20%的租金!那只不过是去年8月的事,果然许多租户在租约到期后,都一个接一个离开了。

为什么我要提这件小事呢?这里的教训就是说:是否要听真话?一家公司或一个政府可能开头时很成功,那是他们很清楚实际的运作,他们明白主顾和可能客户的需求。他们聆听来自底层和市场的声音,关注他们的期望和需要。总结这些回馈之后,他们推出符合顾客需求的产品和服务,于是他们生意跟着做多也做大了。

可是当他们成功之后,许多商人就会以为成功来自一己的聪明和才智。他们把成功归功于自己的市场嗅觉和做出“正确决定”的好脑筋。实际上他们忘了成功的来时路;关注市场、主顾和客户的需求。当他们赚够了钱,他们开始住进自己的城堡,他们虽然保持和各阶层的人士交往,但是最终他们会没有时间和“下等人”厮混了。他们筑起高墙把自己围起来,就像古代的皇帝和帝王。

最后,他们依靠几个人提供城堡以外的声音,那时起就可以预见他们的下坡路了。

所以这个故事的中心思想是什么?倾听声音。

成功的商人和政治人物都要倾听人民的声音。如果你时时关注人民的声音,你就时时保持在正途上,你感受到市场的脉搏和接下来的路该怎么走。正确的决定来自观察和聆听底层的声音、市井的声音。正确决定不会从象牙塔、“高贵人”、“精英和人才”那里听来的。智慧往往来自底层,而不是“高等人圈子”的几个小脑袋。

历史上,无论现代或古代,只要领袖脱离群众,自居“高贵”看不起“下等人”,皇宫和城堡是为了区隔原本是他们该领导和照顾的子民时,他们的日子和朝代也就不长了。

中国历史上,清朝的辉煌盛世是当皇帝经常微服出巡的年代。基本上,这是皇帝最亲密接触子民的时刻。相反地,当皇帝被佞臣包围,不让他接触人民的时候,朝代很快就会落幕了。

我要说些什么呢?吕少将只看到批评行动党和其议员的负面效应;当一些人同情攻击者多过受伤的成汉通议员时,他觉得很恶心。他看不惯那些攻击行动党、成汉通议员和他的同志的博客,发觉竟然没有人替行动党成汉通议员叫屈!

他无法解读这些对行动党的小拌嘴、宣泄不满和酸言酸语。对我来说,行动党部长和议员没能从人民的声音受益,其实是更大的遗憾;这个比他所讲的新加坡网民失去“自治”的机会更可悲。

互联网是人民的声音,不必经过修饰、送检的来源,当然,里头一定有些恶意的谎言和攻击,但是研究这背后的心态更为重要。如果只是属于一小撮人的行为,那还不打紧。但是如果很多人都说同样的话、唱同一个调,那么就值得当政者去研究问题出在哪儿了?

目前在新加坡,行动党好像一夜之间失去宠信。

首先,主流报纸没有履行他们作为第四监督权来反映人民真实的声音。因为行动党那只看不见的手长期以来都把所有报章安置在同一个屋檐下——新加坡报业控股。几乎所有的免费电台和电视也在新传媒手中,这些都是为了方便操控。

其二,行动党虽然赢得平均66.66%的选票,但是支持他们的选民并没有表现出该有的热情。看看他们的群众大会,你就明白我的意思。如果一个执政党还需要用巴士、免费晚餐和饮料来动员它的支持者,可见有些事情已经错得很离谱。

这就说明为什么没人要挺身而出,虽然对成汉通议员和行动党的无理攻击有时是“太超过”了。可是支持行动党的那些心态比较像“做交易”;“给你高薪,做好你的工作”就是这么简单。看来这个吕少将好像不太清楚自己的处境,还好意思抱怨他的政党和同僚获得太少的热情拥抱。

对行动党那些高贵精英和他们脱离民众的程度,很多能写的人都直接写出他们的不满,但是我猜他们连睬都不想睬,只是口头上随便应付了事。

我认为目前的纷扰底下还有更大的暗潮。不,问题绝不是“网路使用者不懂得自律”,它比这个还要大。事件只是新加坡人民不满的一个导火线,所以行动党不该把注意力转向言论自由滥用的问题,而该找出不满的源头究竟在什么地方?

我记得吴作栋曾经说过,要是完全没有裁员,他反而会担心。我依样画葫芦:要是没有新加坡人宣泄他们对执政党的不满,我也会担心。道理很简单,要是“声音”都不见了,只能是两件事:一、新加坡人对国家完全失望,只把自己当做过客,随时准备搬走。其二、他们做了像回祈团那样的洗脑工作。

避免沸炸的最好方法就是揭盖和熄火,而不是紧压着锅盖。用威吓的手段来压制民众的声音是最愚蠢不过的。

吴明盛

Saturday, February 07, 2009

集体诉讼---请马上登记

集体诉讼---请马上登记

这是非常重要的通告。

对于那一些决定要参与集体法律诉讼的雷曼迷你债券、星展票据和其他结构性的金融产品的苦主们,你们必须现在驯联络你们的各个组长,准备进行集体诉讼。你们应该与组长登记以“原则上”同意进行集体诉讼。这将能让组长们取得你们的联络号码。这只是“原则上”同意,并没有法律约束力,你也无需在这时候付任何费用,如果你在了解整个过程后决定退出,你可以为此作出推出的要求。

在你登记“原则上”同意进行集体法律诉讼后,你也可以继续等待金融机构所提出的任何赔偿和解建议或继续向金融调解局投诉。如果金融调解局拒绝调解你的投诉,你便可以进行集体法律诉讼。

你必须现在就登记。如果你延迟登记,你就有可能失去集体诉讼的机会了。我们没法在最后一分钟帮得了你去争取你的法律权益。请点击这里以取得所有组长的联络

陈钦亮

Reflections: Voice of the People

Cartoon from Sam's Thought

In this article, there are three caricatures of Rear Admiral Lui Tuck Yew in response to his remarks made in parliament about Singapore netters' "vicious attacks" on PAP MPs, especially on MP Seng who was burnt by a 70 year old man. (To be exact, there are two drawings which one of them has been translated into Chinese.)

A report in Zaobao appears with veil threats against those who made these "vicious attacks" on "PAP MPs & Ministers"! Please note that, it seems that other "Lower Mortal" like me will not be under the protection of the police, only internet attackers of "PAP" members will be "chased" by the police!

For the whole newspaper report, the focus is apparently on those "Lower Mortals" who criticise the PAP.

“我不认为那些反政府或反人民行动党的人都有意真心地与政府沟通。因此,我们需要的是可辨别是非和能作独立判断的人民。”

I have been a victim of vicious, malicious and baseless attacks from some Singaporeans on the Internet forums, talking about me having "extramarital affairs" (with someone who is actually my sister!) They have even left defamatory comments on my blog! But I don't see the police officers jumping up and down over such incidents.

Most importantly, I don't see the PAP controlled newspaper has that kind of "self-righteousness" in upholding "Truth". On the contrary, they even took the opportunity to publicise such malicious lies in an attempt to make character assassination on me!

Besides, when someone made malicious attacks on opposition MPs like Mr. Low Thia Khiang and WP, calling WP names like Wayang Party etc., the newspaper reporters and editors did not put on their Self Righteous cloak to "reprimand" these attackers. Instead, they gave them full media exposure, in an attempt to undermine WP's public image!

Sketch from My Sketchbook

Thus I really find it very HYPOCRITICAL for the newspapers to become "upholder of Truth and Justice" when such attacks have turned against the PAP members!

So, it all boils down to one thing. Whenever the situation is favourable to the ruling party, never mind whether these attackers are credible or not, never mind whether they are hiding behind anonymous monikers. They will even put up big headings on the newspapers just to get the attention of Singaporeans to these malicious and unfounded attacks. They would even interview these supposedly "evil doers" (under their new definitions), giving full accounts and publicize their great acts and lies!

This one is translated into Chinese by a forumer.

Well, I am getting used to PAP controlled local media's double standards but getting used to it does not mean I will condone such mindset. Beside the Media, what really amazed me is that even the civil servants like the police force is reacting according to the needs and complains of the ruling party only! It is really ironic and amusing that the ruling party still claims that the civil servants are impartial and they are not made used for petty politicking!

I can only shake my head, really. But I guess this is life in Singapore.

While Rear Admiral Lui lamented that Singapore bloggers and netters have missed the opportunity to exercise self-regulation, I have one important message for PAP and the newspaper reporters and editors.

I happen to pass by my old shop location the other day, which is still empty six months after I shifted out. A friend of mine asked me what had happened to the whole building? Why did I left and now it has become so empty? I told my friend this:

While negotiating with the landlord about the new rental contract, I was merely telling them the truth: business has gone worse and there are eminent signs that a recession is coming. I requested the rental to be reduced. But to my shock, they actually requested to raise the rental by 20%! This happens back in August. From then on, one by one, tenants with expired lease left.

Why am I mentioning this little episode here? The main lesson from this episode is about REAL feedback. A company or a government is sucessful initially basically because they knew the ground. They understand what their clients and potential customers need. They LISTEN to the ground, the market place, take notes of their expectations and their needs. Afther taking into all these considerations, they come up with products and services to cater to their customers' and clients' needs. Their sales will increase and business will expand.

After they have become sucessful, most businessmen thought they are smart and intelligent. They credit their success to their good judgement and brains in making the "right decisions". But they have totally forgotten the basis of their success, paying attention to the market, their clients and customers. When they are wealthy, they chose to live in their own castles. They mix with different social class of people and eventually, they hardly spend time talking and mixing around with "Lesser Mortals". They have basically build a solid wall surrounding their castles just like any Emperors and Kings of ancient time.

In the end, they will only rely on the few people surrounding them to feed them information and details of the people outside their castles. And this is when their business will go down hill.

So, what's the moral of the whole process? Voice.

The success of any businessmen or politicians lies in the Voice of the People. If you are constantly paying attention to the Voice of the People, you will always get the politics right, You will always get the market sentiments and directoin right. The RIGHT decisions are always made with observations and voices heard from the ground, from the market places. Right decisions are not just made in Ivory towers surrounded by "Higher Mortals" of "Elites and Talents". The Wisdom comes from the ground, not a few brains in the "Higher Mortal Circle".

In history, be it modern or ancient, it has always been the case that Power is lost and dynasties fell because the political leaders have distanced themselves from the people because they see themselves as HIGHER MORTALS that needs to be differentiated and live apart from the "Lesser Mortals". Palaces and castles are built to "protect" themselves from the harm of the people that they are supposedly to lead and take care of.

If we look at the Chinese history, the most prosperous time in Qing Dynasty were times whereby the Emperors pay frequent visits to the towns and villages outside their palaces. Basically, these were times where Emperors pay attention to the voices and opinion of the people. Conversely, whenever a dynasty comes to an end, it is when the Emperor start to surround himself with people who will only sweet talk to him without giving him the real picture on the ground.

So, what's my point? Rear Admiral Lui only thinks of the big bad comments on PAP and its Members of Parliament. He just find it disgusting that those people who poll actually think the attacker of MP Seng should have all their sympathy instead of MP Seng. He only concerns about while those bloggers and internet forumers are attacking PAP, MP Seng and his party colleagues, nobody comes into PAP MP Seng's defence.

He cannot see beyond the little bickering, venting of frustrations and sarcastic comments aimed at PAP. This is, to me, a BIGGER PITY that PAP Ministers and MPs have failed to reflect upon the Voices of People, as compared to the supposedly lost opportunity of Singapore internet users in "self regulating".

The internet is the place where UNCENSORED Voice of the People could be heard. Of course, there will be the usual malicious lies and attacks going around but it is the cause of such intent that is more important. If there is only one or two persons or a few persons that do that, then it is not that bad. But if many people are saying the same thing, singing the same tune, then it is important for those who are in power to examine what actually went wrong.

It seems that in Singapore, we have a perfect situation for a sudden fall out of love for PAP.

First, the traditional newspapers are not performing their role as the forth estate in providing REAL feedback and independent Voice of the people. This is because PAP has always been the invisible hand behind them and that is also why almost ALL newspapers come under one roof, SPH. Almost ALL free radio and TV stations come under Media Corp. It is for easy command and control.

Secondly, although PAP has won on average, 66.6% of popular votes, but one would notice that supporters of PAP are not passionate towards them at all. Look at their political rallies and you will understand what I mean. If a ruling party needs to use buses to transport their supporters to their political rallies with free dinner and drinks provided, then something must be very wrong.

This explains why there are very few people who will "defend" PAP MP Seng on the net even when the attacks hauled at him and PAP are sometimes overboard! Support for PAP is merely a "transaction", "pay you high salary, you do your job" and that's about all. It seems that Rear Admiral Lui does not really understand this very well but instead, lamented about the lack of passionate support for his party and colleagues.

There are writers who have written about the disaffection of PAP Higher Mortal Elites and how lost touch they are from the ground over the years. But I guess they did not really pay much attention to it, merely pay lip service to feedbacks.

I think there is a big underlying problem with the recent development here. Nope, the problem is NOT "cyber users not self regulating", it is much bigger than that. This incident is just a trigger to a pent up frustrations of many Singaporeans and the most important thing PAP should pay attention to is NOT about why they try to throw abuses at it but rather, what is the SOURCE of the frustrations.

Goh Chok Tong has once said that if there is no retrenchment then he worries. I say, if there is no Singaporeans venting their frustrations at the ruling party, then I worry. The reason is simple, if there is no longer a VOICE, it could only mean two things, one, Singaporeans have given up on this nation but just treating it as a hotel, ready to move on to other places. Two, they are doing something else like what the JI is doing.

The best way of avoiding a boiling kettle from exploding is to let off the steam and try to turn off the fire, not pressing down the cover. Putting up veil threats of all sorts trying to suppress the REAL Voice of the people is the most foolish thing to do.

Goh Meng Seng

吕德耀:网民错失能自我监管的机会

对网民恶言攻击成汉通感到失望
吕德耀:网民错失能自我监管的机会

(2009-02-05)
早报导读
何晶卸下淡马锡控股执行董事兼总裁职
新加坡淡马锡控股召开记者会,主席丹那巴南宣布,何晶卸下执行董事兼总裁职务。
陈幸妤证实准备移民美国
中国扩建交通设施的好时机
日方虽宣布裁员 松下本地不裁员(附地图)
● 邓莉蓉

  教育部兼新闻、通讯及艺术部高级政务部长吕德耀少将昨天在国会上对网民恶言攻击被人放火烧伤的议员成汉通的行为感到失望,并指出网民的表现显示互联网社群仍缺乏自我克制与自省的能力。尤其令他大感失望的是广大网民没对这些恶意的网民提出质疑或挑战。

  杨厝港区议员成汉通上月初在选区里主持社区活动时,被一名老汉放火烧伤入院,烧伤面积介于10%至15%,需接受两次植皮手术,一些网民非但没谴责凶手,反而在互联网上胡乱揣测他攻击议员的原因,各种未经证实的传言四起,还有人对成汉通作出不负责任的指责。

  警察部队行动局局长黄宏冠助理警察总监回答本报询问时强调,警方不会姑息这类网民的行为,如果有人确实触犯法律,警方必将彻查。

  他说:“在互联网上作出违法行为者,都不能免除刑事责任。”

  白沙—榜鹅集选区议员刘 琳昨天在国会上提出口头询问时,以成汉通遭网民恶言攻击为例,要求吕德耀针对网民的行为发表看法。

  在首次针对这起事件作出回应时,吕德耀指出网上也有少部分言论对成汉通的遭遇表示同情,并慰问他和他的家人,一些则赞扬成汉通对社会的贡献,让他的家属感到欣慰。不过,令他失望的是其他绝大部分网民所发表的都是些无益的言论,有些甚至是刻薄和令人厌恶的。

  “我认为网上大多数的言论都是无益的,另一些则是不厚道的。还有一小部分简直是可恶,令人感到失望。”

  吕德耀进一步指出,广大的网民社群对这些不负责任的网上言论提出反驳时还做得不够,并没向这类网民提出质疑或挑战。

  “网民这次是白白浪费了可以证明网上言论也能有更高层次的自我监管的好机会。这原本可以成为他们朝向建立更具责任感和自制能力的网络言论的第一步,但是他们并没有反驳或作出回应。我认为继续让这些没受到挑战、质疑或得到回应的言论留在网络空间是不健康的。”

 国会今天继续辩论政府财政政策。

警队行动局局长黄宏冠:网上毒舌难逃法网

警队行动局局长黄宏冠:网上毒舌难逃法网
造谣的代价可达1925万美元

(2009-02-05)
早报导读
何晶卸下淡马锡控股执行董事兼总裁职
新加坡淡马锡控股召开记者会,主席丹那巴南宣布,何晶卸下执行董事兼总裁职务。
陈幸妤证实准备移民美国
中国扩建交通设施的好时机
日方虽宣布裁员 松下本地不裁员(附地图)
● 周殊钦

  一直匿名在互联网上蓄意对他人作出不实指责的网民,如果以为他们永远都能躲藏在浩瀚网海所提供的屏障后面,现在可要三思而后行了。

  警察部队行动局局长黄宏冠助理警察总监受询时强调,在互联网上发表恶毒言论者,都不能免除刑事责任。如果有人确实触犯法律,警方必将彻查。

  “在网络空间里作出的任何不当行为,都是要面对现实后果的。包括对别人形成困扰或对个人、团体、社区甚至整个社会造成危害的行为或言论,只要是违法的,无论是出现在网络空间或是现实世界里,警方都将展开调查。”

  黄宏冠所举出的例子,包括过去曾有发表极端种族主义言论的网民和博客受到调查和起诉。

  他说:“在互联网上作出违法行为者,都不能免除刑事责任。”

  新加坡管理大学法律系助理教授陈庆文也指出,无论是刑事法还是民事法,本地现有的法律都有对付蓄意发表诽谤性言论的相关法规。问题是追踪网络罪犯涉及取得托管肇事网站的服务器资料,而这些服务器未必都设在国内。

  “跨越国界的追踪方法不仅昂贵,而且也不一定就能取得调查者想得到的资料。”

  最近从人民行动党议员所管理的市镇理事会因投资金融结构产品蒙受亏损;杨厝港区议员成汉通在社区活动上被老汉放火烧伤;到常任秘书陈荣顺携眷到巴黎著名烹饪学校度过五周奢侈学习之旅等事件,都有网民和博客在互联网上不顾后果,鲁莽地发表毫无事实根据的言论去攻击他们,甚至有人捏造谣言指放火烧议员老汉是因付不起购屋分期付款,组屋被建屋发展局收回,才放火烧人以泄愤。

  对于这类匿名在网上造谣中伤公务人员和国会议员的网民博客,警方的态度是不能姑息,必会对触犯法律者展开调查。
其实,这类恶毒的网民在世界各地都有,而在英国和美国都有网民因在网络空间里作出不当的行为而受检举。

  然而,调查网上罪犯的另一层障碍在于网络谣言很多时候是与真相并行传播的。在网络时代,谣言和真相分别在人们口头和大众传播媒介进行独立传播的情况,已被模糊糅合,而且网络谣言也因人们的想象力充分发挥而变得更加“自圆其说和无懈可击”,使调查者的工作更为复杂。

  尽管困难重重,从英国警方将一名把自己超速驾驶的录像放上网的男子逮捕,并对他控以四个月监刑,到纽约警察不辞劳苦,着手调查一些YouTube视频上涉嫌违法的录像等,可以肯定各地的执法当局对网民的不负责任行为,都采取不姑息的态度。

  对政府而言,谣言往往不利于正常施政,因此抑制谣言的传播有其必要性,而最佳的应对方法就是未雨绸缪,防患于未然。因为对民众进行教育,使他们了解人人对维持良好的网络环境都有责任,将能对抑制谣言起到一定作用。

  从理论角度来说,要取得将谣言扼杀在摇篮里的效果,当局可从两方面着手,一是制定相关的法律和政策,对蓄意造谣和传播谣言者施以相应的惩罚;二是建立健全、及时且畅通的信息发布渠道,以实现信息透明化来抑制谣言。

  然而,陈庆文指出制定更严厉的法规,可能会在民间造成反效果,而这对新加坡的声誉及我国有意发展成新媒体枢纽的计划都不利。在政治上,这也可能被视为制止批评、审查反政府看法的举措。因此,当局要执行这些法律,也可能会面对一定的挑战。

  他认为政府除了加强同人民的沟通与教育,在这方面能做的其实相当有限。

  “我不认为那些反政府或反人民行动党的人都有意真心地与政府沟通。因此,我们需要的是可辨别是非和能作独立判断的人民。”

  他指出,如果互联网能做到自我管束,那将是最理想的情况。不过,根据他的判断,这种情况在短期内不会出现。

  人们都对曾被鲁迅形容为“杀人不见血”的大众传媒所报道的谣言深恶痛绝,而成语“三人成虎”就充分说明了散播谣言的杀伤力有多可怕。

人言到底有多可畏?被谣言暗箭射中者的伤势会有多严重?散播谣言者所须付出的代价又有多大?如果硬要附上一个数字,这个代价可能高达1925万美元。

  这笔金额就是美国法院前年在一起民事诉讼中判给日用品公司宝洁(Procter and Gamble)在上世纪80年代因受到一项谣言困扰而得到的名誉损失赔偿。这起诉讼的结果已成了判断谣言破坏力的判例之一。话说宝洁公司自1981年起便开始受到它当年所使用的商标被指和撒旦勾结,以达到生意兴隆的目的这个谣言所困扰。

谣言的定义

  按照美国学者所下的定义,谣言是一种在人际间私下流传的对人们感兴趣的课题所作的未经证实的阐述或诠释。既然需要流传,就必须要有媒介,而随着跨越国界与地缘的互联网时代的到来,谣言的传播更是如虎添翼,不管是复制的速度还是规模,都达到了前所未有的高峰。

  人们在网络上可以匿脸、匿名、匿踪,而网络也的确提供了人们无须表现任何社会责任感的空间,而躲藏在它背后的人没了面对面的尴尬和对法律的顾忌,于是都肆无忌惮地在网络上进行宣泄,使互联网成了谣言的温床。

  新加坡信息科技高度发达,资讯通信发展管理局前年的统计也显示我国接触互联网的家庭多达74%。在这样的一个国度里,要对网络谣言的危害免疫,是绝对不可能的。过去,我国发生过的因有人在网上发表伤害种族情感和侮辱宗教的煽动性言论而被警方逮捕的实例,更是活生生的铁证。

张有福:适度宣泄可接受

  造谣者利用网络平台来发泄自己的不满或不安情绪,真是完全不能被接受的吗?这也不尽然。

  最近在本地网络世界饱受攻击的白沙—榜鹅集选区议员张有福便认为从社会发展的角度来看,有一个可让民众表达看法和情绪的平台是件好事。对于网民或博客透过集体行动,利用互联网来表达对某起事件,例如对一些市镇理事会的投资蒙受亏损,或是对议员的不满,他都能接受。但是,这有个前提,即凡事都必须有个“度 ”。

  “尽管我认为网络言论和博客应该有比主流媒体更多的言论自由空间,以供民众自由表达意见,但是自我约束还是有必要的。这是为了避免美化或鼓励暴力行为,以及刻意误导人们。”

在他看来,一些网民和博客最近大谈杨厝港区议员成汉通被一名精神病患放火烧伤的事件时,指成汉通为人嚣张、毫无同情心,甚至有人似模似样地“揭露”事件的导因,是因这名老汉不满自己的组屋因拖欠购屋分期付款而被建屋局收回,才采取极端手段。这种失实的指责既残忍,也不负责任,是完全不能被接受的。

  “我清楚成汉通的为人,所以我知道这些指责都是不实的。有些网络帖子甚至对攻击者的行为喝采,并认为他应被视为国家英雄。这些言论厌恶得令我停止阅读这些博客。”

  事实上,张有福在为同僚打抱不平的同时,自己也沦为网络谣言的受害者。事因他最近对环境及水源部常任秘书陈荣顺到巴黎上奢侈的烹饪课的事件作出回应时,一时不慎错用“低等人”(lesser mortal)一词,而被人假冒其名在某网站上大发“本地人可分为七个等级,政治人物皆为上等人,一般平民都是下等人”的偏激言论,结果引来更多网民的抨击。

  对于这种网络造谣情况,受访学者的看法各有不同。研究领域包括新媒体发展的政策研究院高级研究员陈赞浩认为张有福不幸因意思被曲解而遭网民攻击,但是他后来还是向相关网站作出了澄清。

  “这是民主辩论的基本特征。有些人对他口诛笔伐确实是很不幸的事,但他还是可以自我辩护,这有什么不对吗?”

  然而,新加坡管理大学法律系的陈庆文助理教授在思考我国法律是否能有效地对付蓄意散播失实言论者的同时,也指出互联网上充斥的反政府言论,就是不真实的现实反映。

  “这些言论更巩固了我的观点,即假设一名火星人浏览互联网时,看到了博客帖子和新媒体激烈的反政府言论,必定会以为新加坡人就要搞革命了!”

Friday, February 06, 2009

Victims of Global Financial Dis-Order

Victims of Global Financial Dis-Order – Credit Linked Financial Products investors

The present financial-economic crisis that we are experiencing now is mainly due to the collapse of the Global Financial Order. The present Credit Crunch is just the result of the total loss of confidence in the Global Financial system.

Financial innovations fuelled by drastic financial deregulations carried out by numerous governments around the world has created an artificial boom in the financial economy. The multiple leverage created by the various new financial derivatives has provided an enormous multiplier effect to the growth of the global financial system. It has also become the fuel to greed and socially irresponsible actions by various individuals and institutions.

Moral hazards were breeding rapidly among a system that puts too much emphasis on monetary performance but resulted in the total neglect on moral obligations of financial institutions to the health and public confidence to the whole financial system.

Products like CDOs created moral hazards which result in irresponsible lending by financial institutions, which transfer risks to other investors in the process. Credit Risk swaps and complex structured products are basically created to remove risks from financial institutions which in return, created moral hazards in allowing them to take more risk than they could bear in normal circumstances in search of higher returns while transferring risks to unsuspecting investors.

The unhealthy competition among cities and countries in wanting to position themselves as “regional financial centres” has caused reckless deregulation process in these places. Hong Kong and Singapore are prime examples of such reckless deregulation due to overzealous of their governments in competing to become regional financial centres.

Minibond and other similar credit-linked structured investors are victims of this financial dis-order created by the combination of Financial Moral Hazards and the reckless deregulation initiated by various governments seeking to become regional financial centres.

High risk and dubious structured products which are being rejected by many countries to be sold to retail investors finally find their ways to these places which welcome them with wide open arms. How could these complex structured products which has high risks as well as potentially damaging financial moral hazards embedded passed through these respective regulatory bodies is still a huge mystery.

The irony is that these products are being disguised as “low-medium risk” products by using deceiving credit ratings, product names as well as big corporate names to create psychological delusions to investors. In some cases, it is really amazing that big financial institutions could “buy insurance” from retail investors which in return, provided these institutions huge funding that they used to invest in high risk financial products. These financial institutions, using a combination of credit risk swaps and investment in high risk CDOs, seek to reap off high returns using totally risk free funds provided by retail investors. Instead of paying for the insurance they seek (or just that this scheme of using big credible reference entities is just a smoke screen utilized to hoodwink unsuspecting investors?), they are actually trying to make money out from the insurance they are buying!

Legal Disparity

Law is the basis of stability and order for the society, country and even the whole world. Law could become such a tool of social stability basically because it commands respect and trust from ALL people that comes under its prerogative. The respect and trust of this legal system comes from the fact that the Law is supposed to PROTECT the interests of ALL people, not just SOME people. In order to do this, everybody is supposed to be EQUAL under the law.

However, what happens in this crisis is in total contrary to what we used to believe. Law has become the accomplice of this financial dis-order.

Imagine that an investment bank like Lehman Brothers could circumvent the law of its country of origin, USA, to open an empty shell company in some small country in pacific ocean to issue huge amount “NOTES” which are named misleadingly as “Minibonds” and sell them to retail investors who are thousands of miles away in the other end of the world.

And when Lehman Brothers went bust, its receiver could actually go to an American Court to protect its interests over the supposedly banned financial products! Furthermore, due to the complicated process whereby these products are created, normal retail investors will find it hard to have the resources and means to seek legal redress.

The prospectus are so well written that not many people could possibly know exactly what these products are, but they did very well in protecting the interests of the issuers in every ways. The Law effectively protects the interests of the issuers but ignore the fundamental common sense of natural justice and the potential huge injustice embedded in the moral hazards of these products.

The situation is being aggravated by the fact that places like Singapore and Hong Kong do not provide a cheaper, efficient and effective avenue for investors to get legal redress. Unlike USA, Hong Kong and Singapore's inheritance of the Commonwealth legal system does not provide class action litigation for these victims.

If such injustice and imbalance of care provided by the Legal system would definitely erode the confidence, respect and trust of the people at large. It would further enhance the perception that the Law is basically a tool to protect the interests of those big, rich and powerful institutions rather than providing a fair and just platform to protect the interests of everybody else.

Over Sold Credibility

Once upon a time, the global citizens at large would trust the Banks to provide them a safe haven for their hard earned money. But this crisis is so serious because Banks and financial institutions have over sold their credibility.

Banks and financial institutions play a very important role in modern world economy as intermediaries for money to be kept within a system that could provide efficient transfer of savings into investment for the global economy. This provide funding for businesses to invest and function with certain leverage. For example, if there are no banking facilities as breaching funds for trading companies, world trade may be adversely affected. Part of the world's problems now is due to the rapid contraction in the role of Banks and financial institutions in financing trading.

Of course, there are huge part of the funds in these institutions that are used in speculative investment in highly leveraged structured financial instruments and derivatives like futures and options.

Traditional banks may only act as an intermediaries in taking money from depositors, paying them an interests and then make loans to businesses and individuals for their investment in properties, machineries, vehicles etc. But all these have changed in the 1990s and up to the early part of this century with deregulation.

In the old days, depositors have trusted banks with their money for safe keeping as well as providing them a certain interest return. Most of the depositors do not want to invest their money in medium-high risk products like stocks, shares, commodities, foreign exchange or even bonds. This is primary reason why these depositors preferred to keep their money in the banks, some in fixed deposits.

But due to the financial deregulation and the shifted paradigm in the role of banks coupled with greed and desires of banks to earn “easy-quick” money, banks begin to sell investment products. Banks have tremendous credibility built up with their clients but in search of higher return, less risk and quick money, banks begin to abuse such trusts. In the beginning, they started off selling seemingly “safe” unit trust funds then insurance-investment products. These products allow banks to earn a percentage from the sales immediately without the need of the banks to take the risks of lending out money to businesses or individuals. The logic is pretty neat. Instead of taking in deposits from depositors and lend them out and bearing risks of bad loans, it would be easier to earn money by selling these financial products!

Couple with low interest rate in the new century, banks begin their aggressiveness in earning quick money. They abuse their position as safe-keepers of depositors' money, getting privileged information on the amount of money their clients put into fixed deposits and embarked on a systematic targeting of clients that have huge sum of money in fixed deposits in their accounts.

The worse part is that, there seems to be evidences from the combined information we get from Minibond-DBS High notes and other structured credit-linked victims that the banks have deliberately trained their front line sales persons to use specific misleading words to sell these products to their clients. They understand their clients as those who would prefer to put their money into low risk fixed deposits, thus, phrases like “just like fixed deposits with fixed interests”, “can guarantee get back capital because it is capital protected”, “very low risk because the reference entities are all very stable companies” etc. These sales talks are specifically designed and targeted at this specific group of fixed depositors.

Many people accuse these victims as greedy investors but in our view, the banks and financial institutions are the most greedy ones. They have misled their clients to buy something that their own sales persons may not even understand totally and resulting them to take up higher risks than any fixed depositors would want to take. Their clients took all the risks while they themselves bear no risks but earn immediate return as high as their clients!

Unwittingly, these banks and financial institutions have over sold their credibility this time round. Making the first mistakes as irresponsible sellers of these products to clients that trusted them is already a bad move. Brushing aside all responsibilities and refusing to bear social and financial responsibilities to their clients after things went bad is really an act of putting a nail in the coffin of their fragile credibility.

Implications of Credibility Crisis of banks and financial institutions

It seems that many of the world governments do not see the seriousness of this Minibond crisis. The world is facing a serious crisis of confidence and liquidity crunch. But the more serious problem lies in the credibility crisis of the whole world banking and financial order.

If the world's banks and financial institutions are now being viewed as untrustworthy entities in their dealings with depositors' and investors' money, what will happen next would be a rapid withdrawal of money from the whole world's financial and banking system.

It is easy for governments of the world to deal with potential bank runs and the domino effects of bank runs by giving 100% blanket guarantee to deposits. But it does not solve the growing discontent, distrust and erosion of confidence in the banks and financial institutions. Investment in financial instruments which act as a very important financial intermediaries that provide funds to world businesses will drop drastically. Unit trusts, fund managing services, insurance, hedge funds will start to shrink or even collapse.

This will effect a snowballing de-leveraging process which may eventually result in the collapse of the whole world's financial order. This may sound a bit exaggerating to many people but the truth is, the second wave of this financial crisis may just develop into that direction very soon.

Rebuilding the World financial order

It is important for the world's governments to come up with a complete solution to this financial chaos that we are facing. The Minibond saga may be a small part of the puzzle of the whole financial chaos but it is an important part in this part of the world because the credibility of the banks and financial institutions are at stake.

Just like what happens in the collapse of the Gold Standards in the early part of last century, we are now in a period of transition from a massive financial chaos created by the destruction of confidence and credibility of the banks and financial institutions to a new era of new financial order.
While the world search for a new order and solutions to maintain stability within a globalized financial system, the most critical part in saving the dying credibility of the banks must be carried out. A world political solution must be provided to rebuild and regain public confidence in the whole banking and financial systems in this world.

The task of bringing change and making these financial institutions to be responsible to their ill-considerate actions of greed should be born by governments of the world, especially so for Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore governments. This is because with the flaws of the legal system and the apparent legal disparities that exist within the system, the victims will have little power bring these financial institutions to task.

Fair settlement

Moral hazards exist while financial institutions, in search for highest returns by using other people's money. Moral hazards also exist when investors invested irresponsibly with their money seeking for highest return but knowing that they could get away from taking responsibility for the risks they take.

Thus to me, a fair settlement for the Minibond saga must address adequately the problems of moral hazards of BOTH sides. It must also address the responsibility of the regulators.

I would suggest the following allocation of responsibilities to each parties:

1) Banks should bear 50% of the responsibility as they earn fees from such transactions and they are suspected to use unethical sales tactic which may amount to serious systematic mis-selling.

2) Investors should bear 30% of the responsibility. Investors must learn the basic rule of investment, no risk no gain. When the return of a product is higher than their fixed deposits, there must be higher risks involved. Thus, in order to prevent future improper investment decisions by other people as well as reducing Moral Hazards of investors, they should bear part of the responsibility.

3) Governments, as regulators, should bear 20% of the responsibility for the lapses in their role.

In my opinion, such settlement would be a fair settlement for all and it addresses the respective allocation of responsibilities among the main players. Such a fair settlement may set a good reference example for the future New Financial Order for the world. An important message must be sent to all these financial institutions that they just could not hide behind a barricade of legal disparities and wash their hands off from irresponsible dealings.

Social Justice as the basis of Social Confidence in Financial Order

It is important to maintain social confidence in times like this crisis of confidence. The only way to maintain social confidence is for us to see social justice is being upheld.

The New World Financial Order needed much of the social confidence from the whole world to function. But before such social confidence and credibility of this new order to be established, Social Justice of inappropriate financial dealings must be seen to be done.

Minibond saga is one of the most prominent financial injustice that needs to be solved immediately, in order for the world citizens to start regaining their confidence in the global financial system again.

I would urge the world's governments to look into this matter seriously to effect a just and fair settlement to the Minibond saga. The Minibond saga is significant because it involves global financial workings and processes. It exposes the inadequacy in the global legal framework in dealing with such complex financial dealings which involve multiple parties across the world. It affects victims from multiple places and countries and IT IS A GLOBAL FINANCIAL PROBLEM.

The complexity of the Minibond saga is far greater than anyone's imagination. The implications of this Minibond saga is far greater than the world thought. If this Minibond saga is not solved fairly, I do not think there will be any confidence left for the present and future financial world order.

Goh Meng Seng

Thursday, February 05, 2009

NSP Budget Response 2009 - Extensive But Not Comprehensive

http://www.nsp.sg/press_releases.php?more=106

NSP Budget Response 2009 - Extensive But Not Comprehensive
Wed, Feb 04, 2009

The “Resilience Package” of $20.5 billion unveiled in Parliament by Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, is generally seen to be extensive, addressing the main problems of job loss, business cash flow and credit crunch.

However, while the direction and footing of the Budget are generally correct, its actual impact will be quite below public expectations, because its somewhat mediocre quantum may be inadequate in facing the tsunami-sized ground crisis. Indeed, the Government has itself admitted that the Package “will not be enough to haul the Country out of recession….”

Firstly, the deficit of $4.9 billion to be drawn from the Nation’s Official Reserves, is very much less than the tens of billions in paper loss which the Government had incurred in trying to prop-up foreign banks, over the past six months. According to prominent economist Song Seng Wun (from CIMB-GK), it was estimated that the Government had accumulated some $60 billion (perhaps, including land sale income) over the past two years, since May 2006. This amount would be more than sufficient to “offset any fiscal stimulus package”.

Secondly, the Package did little to help the unemployed in particular, other than allowing them to pay their income tax instalments over two years. The increment of $30pm in Public Assistance is considered to be so miserly, that the poor recipient will have difficulties wondering whether to use it for salt or sugar!

Considering that Unemployment may probably hit a new high of 6% this year, amidst the already sky-high inflation of 7.5%, the Authorities need to put in more efforts to help the unemployed, especially the bread-winners, to tide over this critical period. For extreme cases, the Authorities should allow defer payments for both public utilities (water, electricity, gas) and conservancy charges, for at least six months. In addition, there should be a “Subsistence Fund” to provide a nominal allowance tagged at 50% of the recipient’s last drawn salary with a cap of $1500 per month.

The National Solidarity Party (NSP) has gathered considerable feedbacks from its weekly direct interactions with the People. Many have requested for the abolition or reduction of several controversial domestic taxes. For instance, the Radio & TV licence fee is seen to duplicate charges payable to media owners. The Water Conservation Tax has outlived its relevance now that the island is quite self-sufficient in water, considering our many new reservoirs and the gracious abundance of rainfall. The Domestic Foreign Worker levy adds heavily to domestic maintenance costs. The levy is seen to be both opportunistic and punitive, especially when the maid is hired to care for children and the elderly sick, and thereby freeing scarce local manpower. In such cases, the Government should subsidize instead of levying additional charges!

The Government should look into more ways of lowering the health care costs, which had jumped by a massive 20%-30% during the last two years. It should refrain from interfering with the ability of local universities to increase their medical faculty intake each year. The current shortage of qualified medical practitioners has contributed to the escalating health care cost.

Its Jobs Credit scheme per se can be quite cumbersome to implement, and may be subject to abuses. A better alternative would the conversion of the proposed 12% quarterly cash subsidy into a direct monthly transfer to the CPF Board under the Employer’s Contribution account. Apart from being comparatively safer, such a mechanism will also ease critical cash flow.

NSP calls on the Government to be more responsible to the People, by being more transparent especially where statistics are concerned. Mark Twain once observed that there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

Following the unveiling of the Budget, there has been an orchestrated hype glorifying the Establishment with glowing commentaries. Although such trends have become a tradition of sorts in Singapore, the Government would be seen to be more sincere if it should shun the temptation of politicizing every twist of event, for Singaporeans have now matured politically.

12th Central Executive Council
National Solidarity Party
Reply With Quote

Will Subsidies to Companies help save jobs?

It seems that there are many people who are skeptical about the subsidies (yes, PAP calls it whatever it likes to hide the fact that it has gone against its principle on giving subsidies or handouts to individuals) that the PAP government is handling out.

Lucky Tan has written an article on effectiveness of the wage subsidy. The Online Citizens has an article that doubts about the effectiveness too. Even Mr. Low Thia Kiang has stated his view that this wage subsidy policy will be ineffective.

In my own article one day before the announcement of the budget, I have suggested similar wage subsidy policy via CPF but with conditions attached. The estimate cost of this scheme is about $3 billoin to $5 billion.

There is no doubt that jobs will be saved by this wage subsidy. The concerns raised by various people are:

1) whether the number of jobs saved justify the total cost.
2) money will be given to companies that are profitable.
3) due to dropping demands, companies are going to retrench anyway.
4) no handouts to Singaporeans but to businesses.
5) foreign businesses will benefit.

I have always been criticising the PAP government of treating Singpaoreans as mere economic digits. One may think that saving 50,000 jobs is small in comparison to the amount of money spent. But these potentially unemployed people are human beings, not just mere digits. There may be 3 or 4 more people affected by each unemployed person!

I have mentioned in my article on the Budget for Crisis of Confidence that the aim of the budget is to maintain social confidence in the economy. Saving jobs is merely means to the end of maintain social confidence.

There are two aspects to be taken care of. One, the consumption side. Secondly, the investment side. Wage sudsidy at this critical point of time is important as it serves to maintain the consumption confidence by keeping jobs. On the other hand, it gives a cushioning effect to the business side.

Of course, to maintain the consumption confidence, more should be done. Things like unemployment benefits is crucial to maintain consumption level. Unemployment benefits could be an useful instrument to balance up impact of recession: social welfare spending in unemployed benefits will increase when recession is here. It helps to cushion a declining in domestic consumption.

Some of the points raised by those who are skeptical about the wage subsidy are valid. Those companies which are making money should not be given such wage subsidy, especially those companies which are protected by the government to maintain profitability. eg. Public Transport companies, Public Utility companies.

Put it this way, if anyone find it unreasonable for government to help profitable companies, they should instead protest against the corporate tax cut instead.

But this is a matter of policy implementation. Such wage subsidy must be given with conditions attached.

In my article I have qualify my stand very clearly. There are things that the PAP government could do, there are things not within their control. External demand is not within their control, thus whether a company will retrench because they are suffering from dropping external demand is not within the control of the government. But the truth is, such wage subsidy will still help these companies affected by external demand to ease their cashflows even if they have to retrench their staff. They may end up retrenching less people due to the savings they get through the wage subsidy.

The argument of unemployed are not given handouts or SMEs having less help, thus wage subsidy should not be there is totally flawed. We could actually request the PAP government to DO MORE instead of cutting this wage subsidy to finance other schemes!

The main strategy of the present budget should be extending the local economy as long as possible and not let it die down before the global economy recovers. At the same time, the government should invest in infrastructure, especially technological infrastructual, to prepare Singapore for boom time.

To achieve the first aim, internal demand should be maintained or even boosted as long as possible. A robost economy has to be maintained by domestic consumption confidence.

We have always depended on foreign companies for our economic development and this is due to PAP's past economic development policy. Although I do not agree with PAP's policy that over dependence on foreign MNCs for economic development, but at this moment, the primary aim is to save a dying man who is bleeding profusely. If it needs foreign medicine to save the dying man, so be it. We will talk about long term development after we could help our fellow citizens to tie over this difficult period.

Goh Meng Seng