Mah Bow Tan "Caught off guard"?

I am again bemused and frustrated at the same time when I read the article on Today newspaper.

First of all, how do we end up with the most highly paid minister/politician in the world that could not anticipate problems at all? Mah Bow Tan says he was "Caught off guard" but the government has all the data of increases in PR numbers and such!!! Besides, granting PRs is under the prerogative of the government and there is absolutely no reasons for them to claim "I don't know"!

PAP has made many Singaporeans to believe that they are the brightest and the best, elites of the elites, cream of the crops, but now, he is saying that he couldn't possible to know the sudden surge in demand that cause the spike in HDB prices? It begs the question that if he is not so extraordinary and no different from others, why the hell are we asked to pay millions for his annual salary?

Secondly, the crux of the matter is not about being caught off guard by the sudden surge in demand. The surge is not sudden anyway because for the last two three years, we have been opening up our flood gates for PRs and FTs! Even so, the problem lies in the pricing mechanism. Even if he knew that there is going to be a surge in the resale market prices, what could he possibly do with the present pricing mechanism set up by him?

Last but not least, the worse thing for him to say is that Singaporeans could only have two options, one is the present one while the other is have a fixed price for new HDB flats while citizens have to return the flats to HDB instead of selling in resale market! Why? Why can't HDB sell new flats at fixed price to citizens while allowing citizens to keep whatever profits they earn from resale market? HDB flats are built on land that mostly acquired from citizens at CHEAP dirt prices.

It is a social contract between the citizens and the government that such land acquisitions are made possible for the government to redistribute the land to many other citizens for the common good like housing. If citizens wanted to profit from such sale of their HDB flats, so be it! It is after all the sacrifices made by other citizens whose land are being acquired at cheap dirt price by the government that makes such profits by other citizens possible. Why would HDB be the beneficiary of such sacrifices?

Moreover, this will add value to our citizenship. It is a privilege of being the citizens of this nation that we enjoy the fruits and profits of the influx of PRs!

Even at this moment, HDB does require sellers of HDB flats to pay a portion of their "profits" to HDB if they are to buy their second flat. So, does this sound as if we are just renting the flats from HDB as well?

It seems that such complacency of the highest paid politicians in the world is totally unacceptable. The Minister in charge of water works could well give excuses for the flooding in Bukit Timah as "one freak event in 50 years" but ironically, there are still many floods in the past as well as recently!

No apology but just plenty of excuses from Mah Bow Tan!

This is a problem when Singaporeans agree "grudgingly" to give PAP the monopoly of power as well as the highest pay in the world. There are no incentive for them to "work hard" and "strive harder" anymore. Just like Mr. Lee Kuan Yew says, "spurs are not on their hides" because there is no competition, no extraction of accountability but the only difference is that it has become our problems instead of the ministers!

As MM Lee believes, human beings are just like animals, we just need to discipline them. Should we, as citizens, "discipline" our ministers now? To stick spurs under their hides so that they could work harder for their top pay?

We should prove MM Lee wrong that Singaporeans are not just "Champion grumblers". We should prove to him that we are people who could really put the spurs into the hides of the ministers and PAP's rule if they under perform, less hardworking, less driving, less striving... whatever...


Vote Mah Bow Tan out!

Goh Meng Seng



From Today newspaper.

Asset that keeps growing
by Esther Ng
05:55 AM Dec 30, 2009
SINGAPORE - For those would-be flat buyers who hope property prices do not rise, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan paints an alternative scenario.

Would they prefer a fixed-price system, whereby home-owners, when they want to sell their Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat, must return it to the authorities for the price they paid for it?

In this scenario, no one is allowed to profit from the sale of the flat. As a result, prices are kept low.

"It's almost like renting the flat to somebody," Mr Mah said as he spoke to MediaCorp about housing issues in a year when even he was "caught off guard" by how the HDB resale market trended north in a recession year.

"Nobody, no matter how prescient, no matter how clever, would have been able to predict that this was what was going to happen," he said.

Nonetheless, Mr Mah believes the current system is far superior to one that keeps housing cheap through a non-market-based system.

"Because it gives greater benefits to the home-owner. It gives them a stake in Singapore ... it also allows them to profit from the growth that Singapore enjoys because as we grow, the flat value goes up," he said.

"Once they own the flat, it's an asset. And this asset can be cashed out in old age, be used to finance their retirement. It's a store of value for them."

Mr Mah sees no conflict in the twin objectives of providing affordable housing and creating assets for Singaporeans that will grow over time.

"We have to do both for the simple reason that a flat buyer today will be a flat owner tomorrow ... For that to happen, we must make sure that flats are affordable," he said.

"Otherwise, how can the flat buyer be an owner?"

Prices are still affordable, said Mr Mah, as evidenced by how 80 per cent of Singaporeans who buy new flats can pay for their mortgages using only 21 per cent or less of their income - in other words, using only their CPF contributions.

'At least one BTO launch a month'

Looking to next year, Mr Mah said the opening of the two integrated resorts will lead to higher demand for housing. "But we'll increase the supply as
well.

"We hope demand will go up because that means the two IRs are successful, and if the two IRs are successful, tourism numbers will go up and employment will go up and the economy will benefit."

Pundits are predicting that property prices, public housing included, will continue to increase next year.

The beneficiaries of this, and of any property upturn in general, will be those who own more than one property, according to Ngee Ann Polytechnic real estate lecturer Nicholas Mak, as they can "keep one for themselves, sell one off or rent the other one out".

For flat buyers waiting for prices to dip first, Mr Mak added: "No one knows when the next cycle will take place, or where the bottom is, so they have to get on the bandwagon."

According to Mr Mah, people who bought homes because they were "afraid prices are going to go up even further" contributed to rising prices this year, with pent-up demand and the "usual demand" from first-time buyers and permanent residents being the other factors.

Flat buyers, he said, can look forward to at least one Build-To-Order launch a month next year, which translates to some 12,000 new flats on offer.

"They will be in good locations, not necessarily in mature estates, but in newer towns near MRT stations, facilities in exciting neighbourhoods, so don't rush," said Mr Mah.

淡马锡评论：行动党对新加坡人说：你死你へ代志！

主题:淡马锡评论：行动党对新加坡人说：你死你へ代志！
作者:冀居·谢 3:03pm 29/12/2009

行动党对新加坡人说：你死你へ代志！

2009年12月29日

5天过去了，对于李光耀在国家地理杂志所发表的狂言，新加坡报业控股各语文出版的报章都只字不提。

面对该杂志记者马克·雅各布森时，李资政以主要建构者的身份大谈执政党有关亲移民和宽松接纳的政策。

虽然他说他知道“有些新加坡人对于移民的大量涌入感到不高兴”，但是他还是认为这是对国家“有利”的。

“这些年来，新加坡人已经越来越不进取和努力，所以我们的国家欢迎很多大陆来的新移民是件好事。”李资政说。

李资政形容这些大陆新移民为十分“饥渴”，并且父母们都把“孩子看得很紧”。

“如果土生土长的新加坡人被抛在后头，那是他们对自己的鞭策不够，苦果必须自己尝。”他打趣地说。

国会里有82个行动党议员，竟然没有一个敢公开出来驳斥李资政的评论。我们可以这样就认定他们都同意吗？

这就好比对新加坡的福建人说：你死你へ代志！——听惯这种语气的新加坡人，对此一点也不感到惊奇。

虽然新加坡排在日本之后作为亚洲第二富裕国家，但是新加坡人却享受很少的社会福利，所以造成每年都有不少一流人才移居到澳洲、加拿大和美国等地。

政府可以在海外投资一输上百亿而不眨眼，却不要为新加坡人，特别是那些来自低收入的社群架设一个社会安全网。

人民行动党长久以来要新加坡社会避开任何形式的 " 福利 " ，并将之称为“拐杖思维”，认为将削弱我们的竞争能力。

如此，新加坡人就得工作到死。还有一个部长呼吁本地人要“更便宜、更快、更好”，要实现这个目标，我想他最好以身作则，先减自己的百万年薪。

我国的人均收入是高居世界第四，不过测量收入差距的基尼系数，我们则在香港之后，在亚洲高居第二。那是因为国内有太多不成比例的亿万富豪。另一方面，日本却能够在缩小贫富差距方面保持领先。

而这样的差距唯有继续扩大下去，因为政府已经大开方便之门让追梦的外来移民大量涌入。

这不需要是经济学家也能看得出：大批廉价劳工的流入，当然会给大企业带来丰腴的利润，增加业主和管理层的收入，打压一般新加坡人的薪水。

与此同时，生意成本降低就无需通过提高生产力来达到国民生产总值的提升，这个说明国民生产总值其实并不能真正反映一个国家人民的财富和全体的生活素质。

此外，人民行动党部长们的百万年薪是和国民生产总值的数据挂钩，这也解释为何他们如此沉溺于国民生产总值的计算。

对于一般在职场讨生活的新加坡人，国民生产总值对他们来说并无特殊意义。他们担忧的是收入是否足够维持个人和家庭生活？如何开始一个家庭、抚养孩子以及老有所依？

20年前，也许要追逐新加坡梦还不太难；那时年轻夫妇还买得起政府组屋、没有外来者的竞争、和今日相比，生活费相对地低。在2003年之前，他们还可以一次过领出所有的公积金来安享晚年。

今天的新加坡人面对的是一个萧条、不确定和不安定的未来，新加坡人月入的中位数是2千600元，几乎和十年前一样，并且还要面对百物腾升，特别是政府组屋的价格。

一个大学毕业生起薪不会超过2千800元，除了偿还大学贷款，根本都没钱买辆汽车，更遑论结婚生子。

盛港的四房式组屋在1999年不超过20万，不过隔邻榜鹅区的同样屋子最近已经索价30万。还有在女皇镇的杜生预购组屋，五房式的平均售价是66万6000元。

根据金融顾问，一对夫妇至少要有7千500元的月入才买得起这样的组屋。或许还得每月拿出几百元现金来填补公积金户口的不足，这样下去他们在退休时的公积金户口已经所剩无几了。

生活并非一帆风顺，如果我们在人到中年的时候被外来人才抢去饭碗，或者意外致残、染上慢性疾病如肾衰竭，又或者官司缠身，那我们要如何养得起自己和家人呢？

在“把PAP踢出去”的facebook上，特雷斯·陈网友和大家分享一则揪心的故事：

“我认识一名肾脏和心脏都出毛病的半瞎女子，由于健康问题而不能工作。她现在四十多岁，是个单亲妈妈，有个就读初中三的女儿。以前她向家庭服务中心救助，家庭服务中心明了她的困境，就帮她付建屋局房租、水电费和杂费。此外她每月还获得300元补贴，和让她女儿在学校用餐的250元零用钱。经过两年多的援助，家庭服务中心最近通知她，该中心不能再继续提供她每月三百元和女儿学校零用钱的补助，虽然她的情况没有丝毫改变。他们指示她在接见选民的时间去找贾古玛，那里的人就帮她写封信到东南社理会寻求援助，结果社理会的回答是：‘已经帮了她两年，不能再帮她了。’她回去找国会议员，他说已经帮她写信，就只能帮这么多。”

上面的故事绝不是单一个案，而是时时在我们周围发生，说不定有一天也会发生在你我身上。

行动党可以暂时提供求助者职总超市礼券、水电回扣和免除杂费，然而这一切都是治标不治本的措施。

如果上述的女子不能找到或者保住一个长期饭碗，那么政府就有责任支撑这个家庭，直到她的女儿毕业出来找工作为止。

此外，在新加坡还有很多穷困者够不上国家援助的严格规定：必须由医学专家裁定永久性伤残，或者证明是无亲无故才能获得公众援助金，而且批准与否每回还得依情况而定。

另外一个真实故事：有个73岁老妪在大巴窑七巷靠拾纸皮为生，她有个五十岁的儿子，由于天生弱智不能找到一份稳定的职业。她够不上资格就因为她还有个儿子，然而没有人要聘请她儿子这个事实则搁置一旁。

由社青体部所发出的公众援助金是目前每月330元，显然不足以在新加坡维持一个像样的生活。

几年前，当行动党议员梁莉莉医生要求社青体部部长维文医生把290元援助金提高，那么这些受惠者才能有一天三餐的正常饮食时，维文当场问道：“你要多少？你说的三餐是在小贩中心、食阁还是餐馆吃的？”

这当然不是社青体部经济拮据，才无法帮助更多的人、因为维文医生最近才披露一个1000万元的“社区融入基金”来帮助新公民和永久居民觉得在新加坡“受欢迎”。为什么不拿这笔钱去帮助那些曾在建国时出过一份力的人们呢？

民选政府的基本功能就是要照顾选民，而不是通过一些暧昧的数据和外国竞争、夜郎自大或者使用本地纳税人的钱乘飞机到处去教训别人怎么治理国家。

李资政的讲话显然破坏人民行动党要把自己装扮成爱民政党的任何企图。他已经斩钉截铁地说：如果新加坡人赶不上新移民，不必期望行动党来打救——那是我们人民自己的代志，不是他们的。

也就是说，一个大学毕业生为了追赶升腾的屋价而无法成家立业，也不必期望行动党会把价格拉下来。

一名中年人被中国或印度找来的更年轻的廉价劳工所取代，也不必期望行动党会帮他找到一份工作。

对于年长者由于公积金户口没钱而必须当清洁工来养活自己，也不必期望行动党保证他一天有正常的三餐。

这是新加坡社会在44年行动党一党独大下养成的——冷酷、无情且物质至上。这样的社会真能吸引到最好的人才前来吗？在中国和印度移民心里，新加坡在他们的名单上已经是渐渐“排除”，他们之中的出类拔萃者都喜欢移民到美国、加拿大、欧洲和澳洲去，这一点都不奇怪。

行动党的经济政策已经让低收入群蒙受打击，现正转向中等收入阶层。而有钱商贾、医生、律师、会计师和工程师或者以为他们在行动党的庇荫下“发了”——最好再想一想你们的子孙将来会怎么样？

难道你要他们和外国人在新加坡大学里争夺位子吗？你要他们和那些所谓“进取和努力”满足于2000元以下薪水的新移民为一份工作抢得头破血流吗？你要他们长期紧张、失望和不快乐，就因为他们找不着一份如意的职业吗？最后，你真的愿意看到自己的孩子工作到最后一口气，就因为他们永远无法退休吗？

即使是身为行动党党员，和制度有很多联系的，你的未来也不见得如表面那么风平浪静。除非你能跻身精英阶层，否则你不知道何时会被他们从中国、印度、马来西亚、菲律宾、孟加拉、廷巴克图跟天知晓国度找来的“新宠”所代替。

行动党在八十年代一批老将退下以后，根本不能再称为一个政党了。它更多像一个摆满假人偶的百货市场来表演“议会民主”空壳给全世界看。

诚如李资政自己说的：

“要当个总理，你不必每样乐器都会，但是你都要认得；哦！他是个好提琴手，所以他来当第一小提琴。他可以去当倍低音、他可以玩中提琴、他玩喇叭、他玩鼓。只要把他们组织起来，你就能玩出美妙的音乐。当你建立起一支好乐队的时候，即使放个假人在那儿（指挥），也一样能玩出美妙的音乐。”

现在我们知道为什么82个行动党议员不敢顶撞老家伙的原因——因为他们都是假人，其实都没资格在那儿。

所以新加坡人，下次再有行动党议员来跟你说：他会为你在国会发声。别忘了提醒他们行动党给新加坡人的口号：

“你死你へ代志！”

Singaporeans have lowest priority in HDB's rental flat policy?

It is really frustrating to read the following news in bold below.

We keep reading about families, along with their kids sleeping off the streets just because of financial difficulties that forced them to give up their HDB flats. We have a government that told them to go and live with their relatives or friends or wait for at least 6 months before they could get a rental flat from HDB. Eventually some of them are living off the streets or even camp along beaches.

But here, we have another "FIRST CLASS TREATMENT" by our government to foreign workers working for the Casino resorts! After vacating Singaporeans from their flats in Toa Payoh for the excuse of redevelopment, HDB ended up renting the whole two blocks of flats to these foreign workers at cheap prices with full furnishing which include air-conditioners! Have we become second or even third class citizens in our very own land?

Why should the government through HDB, rented out flats which utilizes CHEAP lands acquired from Singaporeans via the Land Acquisition Act to Foreign Workers? Is the government more responsible towards Foreign Workers and their Foreign Employers than Singaporeans?

During this period, there is an acute shortage of new HDB flats which is caused by HDB ill-planning. And yet, this land which supposedly to be used for redevelopment into new flats for Singaporeans have been used to house foreigners?

I really wonder why the Casino Resorts are employing so many FOREIGNERS when PAP has asserted that the Casino Resorts will create more jobs for Singaporeans! If the Casino Resort operators are determined to employ so many foreigners (about 1500 to be housed in these two flats) to run their operation, isn't it their responsibility to find appropriate accommodation for their employees instead of encroaching into Singaporeans' HDB flats? The Casino Resort operators should build their own Hostels for their foreign employees instead!

The question is that even if their foreign employees want to rent any flats, they should do so from Singaporeans instead of direct from HDB! HDB's job is to take care of Singaporeans' housing interests and needs FIRST! This is why HDB are not selling any flats directly to any Foreigners. The irony is that if HDB is so STINGY and STRICT about renting any flats to Singaporeans, why should it be renting any flats to FOREIGNERS?

There are really a lot of questions the Minister in charge of National Development need to answer!

Goh Meng Seng

Dec 18, 2009
HDB flats for IR workers
By Tessa Wong

Two blocks of Housing Board flats in Toa Payoh have been converted into worker dorms for foreign employees of integrated resort Resorts World at Sentosa.



TWO blocks of Housing Board flats in Toa Payoh have been converted into worker dorms for foreign employees of integrated resort Resorts World at Sentosa.

Blocks 32 and 33 on Toa Payoh Lorong 6 were pending redevelopment until a few months ago, when Resorts World croupiers, hotel service staff and casino pit supervisors started moving in. It is estimated there are more than 300 units in the two blocks. Each flat houses four to six workers, who pay monthly rents ranging from $140 to $260 each.

On the lease tenure, the Housing Board would only say it is a private short-term arrangement between Resorts World and managing agent EM Services. Resorts World said it is providing accommodation for foreign employees 'to help reduce their stress and anxiety of relocating overseas' and to ensure they enjoy a similar lifestyle to their Singaporean staff.

When the Straits Times visited the blocks on Friday, the Toa Payoh flats looked clean with fresh coats of paint. Tenants said the flats come with basic furniture such as dining tables and beds, as well as appliances like washing machines and fridges. The bedrooms are also air-conditioned.

Many found the accommodation comfortable, and the central location convenient. They each pay about $100 per month for a daily return bus service that ferries them between home and Sentosa.

Most of the local residents interviewed said they did not mind the workers.

香港政局 - 五区总辞行公投的争执

香港曾荫权政府推出一个不伦不类的政改方案，导致泛民主派反对声四起，直指这是民主倒退的方案。

其实香港相较新加坡的政治体制来说是比较先进民主的。虽然它也有集选区，但是它在这一些集选区实行的是比例制。这种制度运用在集选区里就会显得比较公平，每个不同层面的声音可以从中得到充分的代表而呈现于议会里（立法会）。

可是美中不足的是，这一些民众普选出来的议员也只占了香港立法会的一半。另外一半是由相对少数的利益团体或集团投选出来的议员，称功能组议员。香港泛民主派的政治团体就是在争取把这一些功能组别投选出来的议席废除掉，而使全部的议席都由全港人一人一票普选出来。

另外，香港特首也不是由所有港人一人一票普选出来的，而是由800民多数由亲中共体系内的人投选出来的。这次政改把有投票权的人提升到1200人，但这也不是普选的体现。香港泛民主派也正在积极争取特首由普选选出来。

在中国与英国一起起草的香港基本法（等于一个政治体的宪法）中明确的承诺香港最终在1997年回归中国十年后必行双普选。但是中国方面一直拖延这条文的实现。最终由中国人大释法，定于2017实行特首普选，2020年实行议会全面普选。

可是令人纳闷的是，曾荫权政府竟然提出同时增加功能组别议席和普选议席。内藏玄机的是，官方提出这多出的5席功能组别是由地区区议员（注：香港实行的是双议会制，一个是区议会，是代表社区为区内向政府提出有关区内的问题和建议,另一个就是立法议员，代表港人提出和实行立法权力）中遴选出来的。官方认为这样的功能组议员就比较有群众代表性。但是，这也就是泛民主派的忧虑！中国方面会不会以此歪曲了“普选”的定义，从而使用这借口声称区议员也是“普选”出来的，而名正言顺的从每一批区议员中挑选亲中立场的区议员让他们成为立法会里的议员，最终保留“功能组别”而使中方永远保留全面控制立法会的权力。这是变相的干预港人治港的制度，违反原有基本法的原始精神！

港府当局要是有心逐渐实现真正的双普选的话，理应逐步减少违反普选理念的功能组议席才对！事实上，它目前的这个整改方案为以后保留功能组议席的“普选方案”留下了伏笔。

政治是充满幻术甚至骗术的。但是同样相似的伎俩运用在不同的体制里是会有不同的结果。在一个充满言论自由，报章、电视、广播媒体百家争鸣的香港，这种政治幻术是根本无法扎根。反观在新加坡，从“民选总统”至“集选区”的政改，甚至于公然以政府资源投入地区建设作为选举收买选民的伎俩，这种种的政治幻术全都在执政党牢控的媒体护航下混过去。

香港的可爱之处就是它的文化思维和民主认知。就连它的中学生都在质问这政改的方向是否恰当！香港学校的“通识”（普通常识）课程是由小学一年级开始实行。而这课程不时都灌输着香港社会的民主、人权等的核心价值观。假以时日，香港人的核心价值的认同将是它最主要的政治与经济财产。

就如这政改的议题，现在基本上已经达到普遍的认知，那就是这政改不符合逐渐走向全面双普选的方针。但是泛民主派还是没有达成如何应对香港政府提出的政改方案的策略。除了要求香港政府提出具体的普选路线图外，泛民主各政党对于以怎么样的形式去抗争和争取普选出现了极大的意见分歧。新加坡人也许会对这种情况感到奇怪，但是在一个真正的多党制的政治体系里，这种意见分歧是非常普遍和正常的。

香港泛民主派政党基本上有三大党。比较主流的政党有民主党和公民党。比较激进的是自称“真正的左派”的社会民主连线（简称社民连）。社民连提出了有别於传统的示威游行抗议的新抗争战略。他们提议五个集选区里的一些泛民主派议员提出辞呈，致使广泛补选的产生而间接形成对政治改革议题的“变相公投”。这建议当然存在着巨大政治风险但是如果泛民主派候选人如果能全胜，这将释放巨大的政治能量从而对曾荫权政府形成压力。这“变相公投”也能间接的提醒中共当局香港人对一人一票普选的坚持是没有妥协的余地的。假使以后中共要以区议会议员包装成“普选出的功能组立法会议员”，想以此浑水摸鱼的实行假普选，香港人必定抗争到底。至少，这“变相公投”将是非常有说服力的预警。

一向跟社民连关系不太好的公民党对这建议非常感兴趣，并且已经决定参与五区请辞变相公投的计划。然而民主党却坚持反对此行动。民主党内部两位元老级人物李柱铭和司徒华意见相左，甚至掀起骂战。

司徒华的论点有二，一是五区总辞是“极端行动”，而且是“激进派”社民连提出来的，不可以“随之起舞”。第二点是如果变相公投失败，赢不回来那一些辞去的议席，那么就没法阻止这政改法案通过（这法案需要三分之二的立法会议员的同意才能通过）。与此同时，也间接说明泛民的立场没有得到广大香港人的认同，争取双普选便失去政治正确性了。他坚持以街头游行来抗争但同时保住立法会的否决权。

以一个新加坡人的角度来看，这是有一点不可思议的。我不能理解为什么司徒华会认为以体制内请辞而致使变相补选，以一人一票的形式对一个政府的政策提出合法理抗议与杯葛还会比街头游行抗议还“极端”！？这真是令人费解。司徒华本身不是一个畏惧强权的人。最近他还因行使“极端”的“公民抗命”，参加非法电台广播而遭到香港政府提控而被判罚款。他也已声明绝不付罚款，继续以“公民抗命”形式抗争到底。一个合法的变相公投诉求怎么会比一个非法的“公民抗命”还极端呢？

其实说穿了，民主党还是为了本身的私利为出发点来考量整件事情。他们是担心本身的席位会受影响而不敢面对民主挑战。从民主党不会以党的名义去支持友党，帮社民连和公民党辅选的决定来看，民主党真是被自身的利益冲昏了头。民主党应该对广大香港民众有更大的信心才对。

就算民主党不参加这五区总辞行动而社民连和公民党依旧执行这计划。如果他们因得不到民主党的全面支持而在补选中失去议席的话，泛民派也未必拥有足够的票来否决这政改议案。退一步来说，如果变相公投真的失败的话，泛民派也必须认真思考这失败所带来的重要民意启示而为他们的政治立场做出适当的调整，勇敢面对民众的调教。这才是尊重民主的行为，而不是一味躲避真正民意的回馈和考验。

五区总辞行公投这一步险棋其实有它非常可取之出。毕竟香港政府不像新加坡行动党政府一样”怕输怕死“，在议员辞职或去世后不举行补选。香港当局已经承诺如果议员辞职，一定举行补选。街头游行抗议毕竟有其局限。就算有50万人上街，但相对于700万人口，那是一成都不到。一个正式的公投策略能完完整整的把民意表现出来，让民主派得到更大的政治授权去给香港政府和中共施压。这一步棋依旧是在体制内抗争的，并不是体制外的极端行为。

当一政党把自身党的利益放在社会群体的利益之上时，民主的警钟就必须响起。这也就是为什么我要参与新加坡的在野党政治。因为我看到执政的人民行动党很多时候已把它党的利益放在国家利益之上了。从这事件看来，香港民主党也逐渐踏上这政治的不归路了。这是令我非常失望的。

香港民主党不参与五区总辞已成定局。如果以政党利益的角度来看，要是社民连和公民党成功从这变相公投中得到全胜，民主党的老大地位必定受到动摇。这对它在2012年的选举将非常不利，因为那两个小党已经能独自争取到香港支持民主的选民的支持，也可能因此使原本只支持民主党的选民在往后的选举中转而支持社民连或公民党。我估计，公民党将是最大赢家，它必定能瓜分到民主党所流逝的最多选票。

倘若变相公投失败，民主党也不会得到好处。民主派中间选民可能会因此迁怒于民主党而往后不再支持它。

民主党这一决定是一开始就注定是双输的。也许它是希望以此决定逼使公民党放弃这五区总辞行变相公投的路线，但事实证明它已经判断错误。很讽刺的是，看来现在民主党也只能希望变相公投会失败，以求个两败俱伤的结局了。

吴明盛

【轉載】激進就是有罪?

【轉載】激進就是有罪?
讀社會科學的，對激進政治總有某種情意結，因為看人類政治歷史，激進政治從來堂而皇之。試問哪一次人類文明的大躍進，不是來自激進思潮及行動？建制容易腐化，社會傾向因循，激進行動及思潮，是帶領人類前進的一大驅動力。

就以香港為例吧。不少人經常緬懷殖民統治，珍惜種種如法治、廉潔、自由市場、社會福利網等「優良殖民傳統」。但只要把鏡頭拉回六、七十年代，殖民統治絕對是千瘡百孔，今天我們所享的「安定繁榮」，實有賴一浪浪當時被視為「激進」的抗爭，令殖民政府不得不回應、改善，承擔開明管治的責任，並進行制度更新。近年的香港研究已不斷指出，激進政治從來是香港發展的重要一環，不可或缺。


「盛世」需「怪人」激進言行衝擊思想

在看似太平的「盛世」(儘管社會矛盾、衝突只被掃到社會暗角處)，社會更需要有些「怪人」以激進的言行，衝擊大眾思想，提醒我們公共事務及社會的可能性多的是，因為只有這樣，才有真正意思的思想交鋒，拉闊社群的想像空間，讓某些議題可以萌芽、生根。環保運動在十數年前不也是被人標籤為「阻住地球轉」？沒有環保人士的堅持，環保問題今天那會變得這麼理所當然？

重讀Mark Kurlansky寫1968年世界社運浪潮，不無感慨。他指出1968年為何振奮人心，不在社運有多「激」、抗爭行動有多創意、或社會有多一呼百應，而是在於不同社會像同時進行「交談」，把一切關於社會前途的意見「攤出來」，而當世界有若干人口對現況不滿，而同時拒絕沈默，站在街頭大聲疾呼，這才是讓全人類感到真切的希望，而不需被動地等什麼什麼「希望批發商」販賣承諾及激情。

當然，激進政治有其激昂面，卻也有務實一面。「務實處事，追求不可能發生的事」(be realistic, ask for the impossible)，是Kurlansky對68年社運浪潮的歸納。激進政治往往有兩大險處，套在香港亦適用。一是行動「儀式化」(ritualized)之險，而忘了保持思潮的前衛進步性，比起行為激進重要百倍。欠缺足夠理論基礎及說服公眾的能力，激進行為變成形式，那頂多是「政治保守」套上新裝而已。而當主流傳媒傾向「娛樂大眾」，播幾句soundbites或幾秒對抗場面，滿足大眾對欣賞「大事件」的感性渴求，一切討論被瑣碎化，運動內藏的改革動力被隱沒在「做場騷」的形象上，這可能才是激進政治落得最可悲的下傷。

其次，是如何梳理好與群眾的關係。激進主義者必先要具自信作為時代先鋒，但這樣也容易陷入盲點，認為「真理在手」，否定群眾生活、想法亦可能有其智慧，也排拒達到相同目的其他途徑。激進政治的核心，就是堅信人類共存有其他可能性，也因此需要更大的包容性，接受自己的路線思想亦有可能出錯、過時及不合社情的可能。左派歷史學家Eric Hobsbawm說得好：「我們要發問，亦需要解釋；最終我們要不斷向自己提問。我們要有心理準備犯錯，我們不可再裝作知曉一切答案，顯然我們不是。」

如何做好這兩點，坦白說，我說不準。卻只知道不少傳媒大眾本能地將連「罷工」都要請假的社工說成「激進」、將像露宿者的保育人士說成「滋事分子」、甚至將和平遊行爭普選說成「搞亂香港」，是極不負責任。我們不斷貶責「激進有罪」。卻又不斷收割上一代激進政治的成果，是否自私了一點？

這星期開始教學，特意把社會運動研究納入課程，希望讓學生反思，默認自己沒有選擇，本身就是一種選擇——你選擇了不去改變現況。而這可能也是香港的激進政治勢力最急切要打破的思想枷鎖。

Sports & Politics

Sports has always been mixed up with Politics throughout modern history. The most famous incident is the "Ping Pong (Table Tennis) Diplomacy" carried out between China and United States in the last century.

However in Singapore's context, Sports has been politicized by the ruling party PAP so much so that it is not uncommon to see PAP MPs rushing in to get whatever political brownie points whenever there are chances of making an issue out of any "victory" out of any sports. But there exceptional blunders lately that sports have become a political liability rather than assets.

First of all, the bounced cheque of "Football World Cup 2010". Every PAP ministers and MPs want to forget all about that big bold "vision" that crashed miserably. In spite of filling up our National Football team with so many "Foreign Talents", we are no where nearer to be qualified for World Cup 2010.

Secondly, the big hoo haa over the Table Tennis team. It is really eye opening how a PAP MP could just take over the position to chair the Table Tennis association just a couple of months before their winning of a medal in Olympics 2008 to claim whatever little credits there is. It would have ended there nicely but it is really mind-boggling that she subsequently ended up in a quarrel with the trainer who are rightfully the most important man in bringing the team to victory. Eventually, the trainer has to leave the team. I have played a lot of games in my schooling years and I have never heard my teacher in charge questioning the professionalism of our trainers especially if the teacher in charge is new to taking the team!

Thirdly, in an over-zealous chase after the "Glory" of holding the first Youth Olympics, our PAP government has made great promises during the bidding process which subsequently ended up with broken ones. The half a billion Olympic village in NUS isn't going to be ready in time for the game. Worse of all, many foreign teams are withdrawing from the game. The situation is so bad that PAP leaders need to hard sell the event, trying very hard to convince other countries to attend when they are attending some other political convention overseas!

Fourthly, for the first time in history, we are going to abandon the opportunity of hosting the Southeast Asian Game! Reasons aplenty but many are questioning why? Since we are prepared to hold the supposedly more prestigious Youth Olympics even without the originally planned Olympic village and the Sports Hub, why couldn't we host the Southeast Asian Game just a couple of years later?

Many people may feel that it would be good to save some money from hosting such sports events but the crux of the matter is, this will be another hit at our "Singapore Brand". It is going to affect our international standing as the Gem of Southeast Asia. Yes, in our over-zealous pursue for "great fame" and political mileage, the PAP government has totally mismanaged the projects. It has all backfired. We are now known to be a small city state that are too boastful of what we can do but couldn't deliver it according to what we promise. Is this "Singapore Brand" that PAP government is making out for us?

While the PAP wants to enjoy the limelight and glory of "Sporting Success" but somehow they have deliberately ignored the substance and essence of sports. It is just another sad story of form without substance.

The fundamental spirit of every sports is Fair Play. This is something that PAP would not want to have in Singapore politics. It is really an irony for a political party that is so obsessed with Sports to ignore such basic fundamental spirit of Sporting.

It has become a "norm" in public consciousness to view whatever policies or laws with regards to electoral rules that are changed by PAP as "unfair" or rather, always in favor to PAP. In fact, PAP is unapologetic in its behavior, openly stated that it is not PAP's responsibility to take care of opposition's interests. But it is not exactly opposition interests that is involved in the process. It is in the Nation's interests to see a fair level playing field to be set for all political players.

In fact, most Singaporeans view PAP's self-serving reasoning quite bizarre; eg. when PAP decided to incorporate the GRC system, it declared that it is about proper representation of minority races' interests.

But somehow, we do not see how increasing the size of the GRC from 3 to 5 or 6 could achieve that stated objective. In Singapore, about 25% to 30% of the population are either Malays, Indians or other races while the majority are Chinese. So when PAP started to increase increase GRC sizes to 5 or 6 with the requirement of one minority candidate in each GRC, it effectively reduces the minority representation!

So the reasons for implementing the GRC system is definitely not for the good for the country except for PAP's own self interests. Well, it is good to see that PAP is going to reduce the size of the GRC but it is yet to be seen how this is linked to PAP's own self interests again.

Of course, for anybody that values Fair Play as in sports, one would want to have an independent referee. But in spite of constant criticism of PAP putting the Election Department under the control of the Prime Minister office, PAP has refused to make it an independent statutory board. Singaporeans are used to the irrational and bizarre boundary changes that are being put forward by the Elections Department just before every General Elections. A central area in Serangoon could be grouped under the coastal Marine Parade GRC. It is no wonder for most Singaporeans to perceive that PAP does not value Fair Play at all. Each and every policy change with regards to Electoral rules are also viewed with contempt and skepticism.

Although all these are just old issues but they are forever relevant to us as a Nation. When the leaders and ruling party of the Nation do not practice Fair Play, it becomes a very bad role model for our young people. It would be highly hypocritical for politicians to stand in front of the camera to cheer upon any sports event while in essence, the ruling party doesn't practice Fair Play itself.

For a start, set up an independent Elections Department that would draw the electoral boundaries with more common sense rather than base on statistical calculations for the benefits of any political party.

Secondly, open up the traditional mass media to give fair and just coverage of each and every political parties. No matter what the government says, the holding of the controlling stake of all the media companies in Singapore are telling signs of unfair practices.

Thirdly, I would like to see a more consensus building among all political parties when it comes to changing of electoral rules. Although the ruling party has the required two third majority in parliament but it doesn't mean that it could just do whatever it wants to the Constitution of our nation. Each and every Singaporeans have a stake in this nation, not just PAP members. We should start to build up consensus in setting up a much fairer political system in our country.

Fourthly, PAP should stop playing Pork Barrel politicking. It is a shame that in this new century where our very own Prime Minister has commented on other people's practice of pork barrel politics, while his very own ruling party is practicing it in our very own backyard!

An Open Society isn't just slogan bitching. It needs substance and it needs to base on the universal understanding of Fair Play. We have a long way to go in terms of building up an Open Society and in fact, we are taking one step forward two steps back most of the time.

It is about time we trust our own people to make the right choices for our Nation. To attribute any loss of seats by the ruling PAP as "freak election result" is an unjustified insult on our people's choice. Democracy could only be developed with Fair Play in place. This should be the most important essence that links Sports and Politics, not just that flowery and shallow glory that comes with it.

Goh Meng Seng

Anti-Mandatory Death Penalty

I have written about this topic a couple of years ago in some internet forums. I have just realized that I didn't record it down in my blog here.

The issue of Death Penalty arises every now and then whenever there are cases concern drug traffickers being tried and the convicted are due for hanging. I am no expert in law but somehow I find it quite funny that even murder could be lessen to a crime of manslaughter which doesn't necessary warrant a mandatory death penalty but drug traffickers are dealt with a direct mandatory death penalty regardless of age and other circumstances.

The present case involving Yong Vui Kong is worth noting because the judge preceding the case has specifically asked the prosecutor and defendant lawyer into his chamber to ask the prosecutor whether the charge could be lessen in any ways. But the prosecutor refused to lessen the charge and the judge, although apparently he felt that the accused deserve a second chance in life, has no choice but to read out the verdict of death penalty just because it is the MANDATORY sentence.

This is the case whereby a law that stipulated a MANDATORY GRAVE SENTENCE of DEATH PENALTY has robbed the preceding judges of the necessary discretion that he needs. Our legal system should not be diminished into just a de-humanized system of strict and rigid rules because justice is based on two main faculties, one is the cold logic of right and wrong, the other, the consideration of human emotions and circumstances whereby crimes are committed.

Furthermore, there may be circumstances that wrong findings may result in injustice being done. In our system, when you are charged and accused of a serious crime like drug trafficking, the onus of proof lies with you, the accused, rather than the prosecutor. For example, if someone made use of your friendship to carry illegal drugs into Singapore to pass it to someone as a "Christmas Gift" and you were caught at the custom, even if you are unaware that the "gift" is actually a decoy containing illegal drugs, you will be charged as drug trafficker.

There isn't a need for any further proof of any sorts, other than the drug appears in the bag that belongs to you. Even if someone mischievously sabotage you by stuffing it into your bag without you knowing.

There is almost zero chance for you to prove your innocence. The prosecutor does not need to prove that you are a "willing" partner in the trafficking and simply by the fact that these drugs are found in your bags, you will be charged, found guilty and hung. The police and prosecutor are least interested in finding out who gave you the drugs and if you are paid to do so, who are the masterminds behind it.

This is the absurdity of the law. There are also criticisms that while our government is over zealous in hanging every small drug mules but yet they have legitimate business dealings with the biggest drug lord in Burma. If that is true, then that is really the biggest irony.

I always wonder whether there are any FRUITFUL follow up on the capture of these small drug mules, beside sending them to the gallows. I mean, shouldn't the police follow the leads from these drug mules to crack down on the drug ring leaders? Or even cooperate with foreign agencies to crack down on these international drug trafficking organizations? If what these drug mules have provided help to crack down on the bigger ring leaders, shouldn't we show some mercy and clemency over them?

Maybe in Singapore, the mindset of the authorities is that showing mercy or clemency is a sign of "weakness". It is not. It is a sign of social maturity, progress and humility if appropriate clemency is shown to those who deserve it.

Drug Trafficking is a serious offense but so is Death Penalty as a grave sentence. A serious offense like Drug Trafficking would need serious findings of guilt other than physical evidence. Just like the case of killing a person. It could well be a MURDER which is planned intent, or manslaughter in a "freak" incident. Or just basically an accident. The intent of the accused is of paramount importance. Thus I could not understand why the proof for such a serious offense like Drug Trafficking is just so simple.

Death Penalty is a serious grave sentence that could not be rectified later if the judgment is found to wrong. It is an irreversible sentence. Strange enough, such a serious sentence could be belittled and trivialized by the law in making it "Mandatory" in cases like drug trafficking. Law is not at all black and white but has a big patch of gray. There are many instances where the judge could not be conclusive in the findings but just based on what he chose to believe to make his judgment. If this is the case, discretion should be given to the judge to make the necessary moderation in his sentencing.

I admire the persistency of some of the human rights activists and lawyers in continuing their fight against death penalty. I may not agree with them totally in the abolishment of death penalty because there are indeed many people who did evil things in this world who need no lesser punishment than the death penalty. But I would find that have a law that assert Death Penalty as the Mandatory sentence for Drug Trafficking or other crimes is not that appropriate at all. In fact, I do not prefer to have mandatory sentencing embedded in any law of crimes because we are a human society. Discretion should be given to the wise judges to decide on the sentence based on the severity of the case and the various circumstances surrounding it.

While many activists may feel hopeful that Yong Vui Kong may have a chance in his appeal because he has won unprecedented battle to get his execution extended twice, but I feel that as long as the law is not changed to get rid of the Mandatory nature of the Death Penalty, chances are that he will not get his second chance in life. There will be many more Yong Vui Kong in future.

For the mean time, it would be good for his family to treasure whatever time he has left in this world while we shall continue to press for a CHANGE in our law and justice to be done by getting the authorities to get the main culprits, the drug ring leaders, to proper justice.

Goh Meng Seng

南方朔觀點－崇禎併發症：自戀型領袖的誤國

南方朔觀點－崇禎併發症：自戀型領袖的誤國

* 2009-12-08
* 中國時報
* 【南方朔】

　北京故宮的後門有小丘，叫做煤山。上有當年崇禎皇帝自縊的那棵樹，原樹兵燬，後人重植，已枝葉扶疏，成了大樹。多年前一個秋日黃昏，我到該處憑弔，繞樹三匝，古木悲風，訴說的都是歷史的悽愴和反覆的愚蠢。

　在此重提明朝崇禎皇帝，並無任何借古諷今的念頭。而是用當代政治學的標準來分析，崇禎乃是所謂「自戀型領袖」的最標準樣本。領袖的極端自戀，小則誤己誤身，大則誤國誤民，崇禎的自戀，就是個「誤」，他「誤」了一切。

　崇禎乃是典型的誤國亡國之君。可是他即位之初不是這樣的。當時魏忠賢濫權，朋黨營私，崇禎立即殺魏忠賢並全面罷黜他的黨羽，看起來很有一點中興氣象，崇禎也自己照鏡子，愈看愈得意，真的以為自己是蓋世無雙的明君。於是由自戀轉自大，由自大變成剛愎自用，刻薄寡恩。明末出了一堆混蛋皇帝及大臣，但他們再怎麼混蛋，還是知道要替國家留一些能吏勇將，去做他們沒有能力去做的事。但自戀刻薄的崇禎自以為是，認為天下只有他是對的，別的人都不盡忠報國，於是他連國家最後的名將熊廷弼、袁崇煥這種人都敢殺。他在位十七年，只相信自己和身邊一群新的奸臣小人，搞到國事日非，民生更苦，最後是貧苦農民造反所形成的流寇，在李自成率領下攻入北京。最荒謬的是，崇禎到了最後還不認為亡國是他的責任！他自縊煤山之前，在衣襟寫了遺詔，仍有「然皆諸臣之誤朕也」之句。自己把天下搞垮，還以為與他無關，都是別人的事。這種混蛋皇帝，真是自戀到了瘋狂昏瞶的極致！

　崇禎皇帝自戀自大自以為是，乃是自戀型的領袖走向瘋狂的極端代表。近代政治學對領袖的自戀人格著墨極多。一般而言，領袖有適度的自戀，把自戀轉化成自尊自重以及催化出的自我能力的嚴格要求，這未嘗不是好事，但領袖病態的自戀卻也所在多有。那種領袖只愛自己，不愛任何他以外的別人，永遠活在自我的良好感覺裡，相信自己永遠不會錯，責任都在別人。當一個國家出了這種自戀型的領袖，老百姓只有「挫咧等」的份了。

　當代知名的領導學專家波耶特（Joseph H.Boyett）在近著《選民進化論》（Won’t Get Fooled Again）裡，有一個專章談自戀型領袖。他指出，自戀型領袖在達到權力的高峰前，由於自戀所創造出的形象很迷人，而且自戀的負面效果還沒有累積到足夠的量，人們普遍會對自戀型領袖寄予過高的期望，因而有利於他快速攀上權力高峰。但到了這時，自戀型領袖的人格及能力特質裡的巨大缺點就會開始暴露，而使他站到很陡峭的滑坡邊緣，很容易快速下墜，波耶特還特別條列出自戀型領袖的許多負面領導症狀，我在此將其中比較有現實性的若干缺點摘要列出：

　──他喜歡刻意表演自己的一些專長，如秀自己的英文，他總覺得自己永遠對，都是別人誤會他、嫉妒他、中傷他；他看不起別人，總認為別人沒什麼，他貢獻最大；他的語言裡，最常出現的是「我」這個字；他沒有同理心也不想有同理心；他不需要了解別人，只要別人了解他；當別人談到他的問題時，他通常都會做別的事，用行為語言表示不耐煩；他喜歡用道德語彙自我包裝，顯示完美；他對年齡與身體有病態的敏感；他不信任別人，只相信小圈子親信；他拒絕別人分享成功，也拒絕承擔過失；他的決策草率但都有理由；他從不肯定下屬，只要下屬效忠。

　因此，自戀型領袖是可怕的，他在自戀裡誤人誤己，誤天下誤蒼生。他搭纜車快速上高山，迎接他的卻是個大滑坡。也正因此，自戀型領袖自己要小心了，必須像拚助選一樣拚著去消滅自己的自戀自大；而這種自戀型領袖的徒眾也要小心了，這種人的自戀自大，乃是他們搖旗吶喊造成的。他們要幫助消滅自戀自大，已不能繼續搖旗吶喊，而應敲鑼打鼓的嗆出不滿之聲，看看自戀自大是否老天爺保佑脫胎換骨！

　（作者為文化評論者）

Does PAP really care about Rational and Informed Voters' Choices?

Prime Minister Lee took the trouble to announce the new electoral rule of "cooling off period" half a globe away recently. The main reason is that PAP is afraid that voters will vote irrationally after being emotionally charged in opposition rallies the day before.

PAP actually preempted questions about such act as self-serving by pointing out that there are other places who practice such cooling off period as well. However, Singapore is a rather unique political entity with its mass media being ranked side by side with many ill-democratic third world countries. How could it make comparisons to first world political entities in this instance? There are certain pre-requisites for such rule to be applied FAIRLY. Singapore will fail for the two conditions:

1) An independent Press. All local press is tightly controlled by the government via holding controlling management shares in these entities.

2) Independence of civil service and statutory boards. PAP has openly declared that PAP = government and government = PAP in the past. It would mean that it will not see itself differently from the civil service and statutory boards. Even the tax-payer financed People's Association has shamelessly declared that it has symbiotic ties with PAP as the ruling party.

It is only reasonable to expect PAP to utilize all the machineries under its control to do up last minute campaigning on its behalf. eg. getting grassroot organizations like RC and CCC to canvass for votes on their behalf. PAP candidates who are usually appointed as heads of such organizations could well attend all activities organized by these organizations during that cooling-off day to continue their campaigning under the guise of "grassroot activities". It has happened before in 2006 whereby PAP candidates have been attending various activities organized by PA grassroot organizations during election campaigning time.

Thus it is only reasonable to conclude that such electoral rules under such ill-democratic political system here in Singapore is only self serving for PAP.

If PAP is that serious about rational and informed voters' choice during polling time, it should have declared the election date 3 or even 6 months in advanced. This is to allow the mass media to give enough exposure to each political parties the opportunities to present their parties' positions on various political issues so to allow voters to have closer scrutiny on them.

Most modern democracies, even parliamentary democracies, have stipulated dates for elections well in advanced. The practice of announcing snap elections just less than 4 weeks before going to poll is not an act that augur well with the notion that the ruling party is concerned about "emotional" or even "irrational" voting.

Workers Party Chief MP Low Thia Khiang has it right on the dot that PAP could use its position as the government to make additional announcement on policies to counter opposition parties' attacks on its past policies failures in its effort to sway voters opinion. This will not be surprising as PAP has always put that arrogant view that Singapore government = PAP and vice versa. I mean it could only happen in Singapore that a ruling party could arrogantly announce that voters will only have priority in HDB upgrading as means pork barrel politicking even before the elections is being concluded!

I mean, slightly more than 50% of seats have been contested in GE 2006 but yet, PAP has been putting out such arrogant call to voters that they will only get priority in various government upgrading services if and only if they voted for them! Does PAP really care about "rational" and informed choices? Apparently not. They are only interested in "FEARED" and "SCARED" votes, that's all.

This is all evident with the track record of PAP's past campaigning, right from 1988 to 2006. Their only campaigning tactic is to take one opposition candidate as whipping boy and start to use all machineries available to go into gutter politics of painting them black, putting labels on them etc. 1988, Francis Seow targeted as "womanizer". 1991, Jufrie as "Malay Chauvinist". 1997, Tang Liang Hong as "Chinese Chauvinist". 2001 Dr Chee as "liar" and the "where is our money" saga. 2006, the all famous James Gomez saga.

They have never been interested to debate on important policy issues at all, except of throwing out pork barrel politicking threats of no HDB upgrading if Singaporeans do not vote for them. Does this track record speak well of PAP's concerns about "rational" and "informed" voters' choice? Apparently not. Their past actions and records for the past 20 years in electioneering is all about Scare Tactic, personal attacks on opponents and mudslinging. What "rationality" are we talking about here? There is no rational live TV debates on various issues because PAP has declined all challenges to live TV debates. PAP did not fight on the platform of debating on any policy issues raised by the opposition parties.

If PAP is really interested in "rational" voting, then I would suggest that the last day of campaigning should be reserved for national LIVE TV policy debates being carried out in replacement of mass rallies. That would be a last campaigning methodology that would be FAIR to everybody, including voters as well as contestants.

But I seriously doubt that PAP will take up this challenge because they are not really politicians that could argue and debate well in public places. They could only live in the comfort of their ivory towers making policies with a very narrow perspective without the need of the true baptism of political challenge by anyone else.

It seems to be a forgone conclusion that such self serving, unfair rule will set in for the next elections. One intriguing question is why now? Has the ground shifted to such dangerous zone that PAP needs such added mechanism to ensure that it will not lose more seats?

The whole package of electoral changes is of great interests. I remember that the Prime Minister has mentioned in GE 2006 that he will have problem in finding time to deal (pardon his exact word "fix") with a parliament that has 10 or more opposition members. But now, we are seeing PAP increasing the number of NCMP, practically the number of opposition members to 9! Why?

The key lies with the so call P65 voters. PAP has shown its worry over those voters who are born after 1965. This group of voters have not gone through the political turmoil of the 1950s and most importantly, have not enjoyed full benefits from the economic success of the 1970s as well as cheap REAL SUBSIDIZED HDB flats.

By the time they are ready to buy a HDB flat to form up their family unit, they found themselves paying 6 or even 10 times more than their parents just for a decent, sometimes smaller, HDB flat. They are the ones who suffered the brunt of 1998 financial crisis, 2003 economic downturn due to SARS and the present financial crisis.

This group of voters are relatively well educated than their parents. They are more internet savvy and apparently, more demanding on the government of the day. They are more worldly traveled and well learned in what is happening overseas. Most importantly they will form more than 50% of the voters cohort by next elections and they will be the main force behind any "Swing Votes".

Although PAP understand the "potential danger" of this group of P65 voters swinging against them, but it seems that they do not really understand the fundamental needs of this group of voters. The PAP didn't understand what they desire to see in an elections.

This group of voters will not vote blindly for any opposition candidates, neither will they succumb to PAP's scare tactics and unfair electoral practices. Most importantly they value FAIR PLAY as well as a good balance of power. They are definitely not that kind of "irrational voters" that PAP wants to subdue by having that cooling off period. They are ready to take the chance of voting for opposition parties if they are convinced that the candidates are passionate and decent in pursuing their political cause. They are very rational voters who understand their priorities in making political choices.

PAP's change of the election rule may backfire on them as it would be regarded as an unfair practice as well as an insult to this group of voters' intelligence. Any pork barrel politicking will fail badly on this group of voters. This group of voters wanted to see more policy debates, not mudslinging during elections. This group of P65 voters wanted more FAIR rules and treatment to all political parties. If they cannot get fair reporting from the mainstream media, they will definitely turn to alternative sources of information which will include but not limited to the new media.

If there is a "cooling off period" without a balance of information feed, most likely this group of P65 voters will turn to the internet for information. This may not be a bad thing for opposition parties and will definitely backfire on PAP.

I am not really against the idea of cooling off period suggested by PM Lee basically because I think it is going to be advantageous to the opposition movement. Of course the PAP will make sure that they will have the last say in the whole campaigning by using all means to bombard the voters with all sorts of messages during the eve of polling day, but I have confident in our matured voters to be more sophisticated than what PAP think they are.

The only musing I have gained from this saga is to witness how naive and irrelevant PAP is. Action speaks for itself. PAP has never been concerned about "rationality" or keeping voters well "INFORMED" of all the choices they could have. Whoever is advising them on this scheme has totally missed the point about the potential P65 Swing voters. What they want is more policy debates, not some dubious "cooling off" period.

I always tell my little daughter that if she always insists in winning each and every games she plays by changing every rules favorable to her, she must well don't play any. Win and loss are just a norm for any game. It seems that PAP is behaving like a kid who only want to win in every political contests they participate in. Going to the extend of changing all boundaries and rules to maximize their chances of winning. Why do they need to be so burdened in doing all these things? No matter what they say, almost everyone in Singapore understand deep in their hearts that this is just another "Kiasu" (afraid to lose) rule that they are putting in to safe guard their own interests.

I will give the same advice to PAP as I did to my daughter. Just don't need to continue this silly contest since what perceived by PAP as "rational" is just, vote for PAP. Just turn this country's constitution into a Monarchy with all members being appointed by the Monarch. That will save a lot of trouble for the PM Lee in wasting his time trying to "fix" opposition. Save a lot of money and resources in conducting such an election with farce rules. Then maybe we will declare Singaporeans will live happily forever thereafter.


Goh Meng Seng

三分染房 之 好步是怎样成为奥步的？

作者:冀居·谢 3:04pm 02/12/2009


三分染房 之
好步是怎样成为奥步的？
2009.12.02


有一天，王子突然想到一个高明的主意，要解决选民不够冷静、理智的问题，就是在选举的前一天来个冷静日，那么一定就会再选出太子党来。这事他就交给众臣去三读通过，大臣们也兴致勃勃地裁制新衣准备出席鼓掌通过礼，而民间已经开始筹备庆祝大会，因为从此以后，王国的臣民将会过着理智美满的幸福生活……

周殊钦在西班牙港发出的新闻稿这样写道：“李显龙总理宣布定国会选举和民选总统选举投票日前一天为“冷静日”，以让选民在候选人停止竞选活动之后，有平静的一天来思考投票决定。”——其实这只是身为总理的一个建议或者提案，还有待国会的通过。周殊钦大概没有看过有些国家的首相或总理虽然有很好的政策，但碍于国会不通过的情况下，面临倒台危机的事儿，所以才会选用“宣布”这种打雷都打不掉的字眼。

民主社会的立法程序，虽然一党独大的情况下可以让他们玩弄于股掌间，但是吃相也不能太难看。世界上很多事物不是说单有个良好的动机就能够通过去执行的。这就好比电影审查制度，用意当然是过滤不好的、败坏道德的东西，但是一刀切的审查制度，只反映审查者的审美观或者道德观，对于很多人是不公平的。所以才会折衷出现分级制，由“把关”变成“建议”，让大家可以自由去选择。

最近mr brown又惹上麻烦了，事因他在新电讯多媒体入门网站inSing.com的一篇专栏文章，在环境与水源部的要求下被撤了下来。因为雅国部长在2006 年的武吉智马大水时说那时不常见的“奇哉怪事”（freak incident），到了2009年的武吉智马大水又说是“奇哉怪事”，于是mr bro 就随着他的口风，说政府应该委任一个 “奇哉怪事部长”（Minister of Freak Incidents）来处理这等事件云云，这下部长蹦了有三尺高。老实说，出来从政且薪水是世界第一高，面对国民的指指点点，本来就应该概括承受，出动到砍人家文章，实在太没有气质了。说起来这种“影子斜”的评论，本来就没什么，难道国民要批评政府时，得像大律师上法庭，人证物证确凿才可以开口吗？他要推翻你的言论易如反掌，你要推翻他的言论难如移山，这就是为什么审查制度是行不通的原因。

说回这个冷静日的措施，在大选前有一段时间沉淀思考，这本来就有；以前不是规定在投票日要终止所有的宣传、造势、拜票、拉票的活动吗？现在不过是延长多24小时而已。然而动机是好的，难保施行的结果就会好，因为这里头有强势和弱势之分。

我个人是从静态和动态两个方面去分析：
【静态】： 行动党这么多年下来，对于大选真的是兴起鸡肋之叹，只希望快快过去，大家恢复正常的生活。他们对大选没有热忱、对自己的群众大会没有热忱、对扫街拜票当然更没有热忱。他们唯一害怕的是那些会热昏头的反对党支持者，因为会像传染病一样在全国传播开来，所以他们希望有个24小时的退烧时间，让那几巴仙回心转意的民众过来投给行动党，那他们就十分满足了。

【动态】： 老实说新加坡的竞选是个实力悬殊的角力（短期内还应该是如此），一边是无权无势的反对党和民众，一边是紧握政权的执政党。最后的24小时，反对党和民众如果在警方强烈执法下可以完全噤声，可是执政党就不同了，他们还是总理、资政和部长，他们随时可以发表政策方面的讲话，接待外宾时，你总不能让他一句话都不说。除了他们自己，他们还可以命令他们部属在最后的24小时发表政策性的未来规划，这些都会影响选情，如何监督、监督得了吗？

此外大家应该还记得，2004年陈水扁在选情告急的情况下，设计了两颗子弹的事故，结果大大地扭转了整个选情。所以设计一个最后24小时的“冷静日”是十分危险且对执政党有利的，要是他们评估选情不妙，执政党开始捉人散布白色恐怖，除非动乱，要不然选民就得接受选举的结果，等待四年后的另一回，到那时啊，他们的奥步就更精了。

所以这一招，绝不是执政党承诺会公平合理地执行就可以的，因为这是对选举的一个彻底反动；他们设计的杠杆很长，只要用很少的力量就可以彻底推翻大多数民众的决定。这个办法你以为只有李显龙想得出而已吗？其实在施行民主的国度，提出这样包藏祸心的障眼法是会让人耻笑的，有哪个笨愿意自动跑出来接受羞辱？

新加坡管理大学法律系教授陈庆文说：“现在的选民也比较敏锐，一旦他们发现行动党在‘冷静日’透过主流媒体宣传，反而会把票投给反对党。”——这位教授真的是“活泼、天真又美丽”，要是选民有这样的水平和坚持的话，总理根本就不必设计“冷静日”了，笨！

Education Hub of Degree Mill?

Recently there are a few ADVERSE reports on Singapore's "Education Hub". First of all, two private schools own by a man were suing NTUC Income and CASE for withdrawing their accredited status which made them lose money.

Then there were two foreign reports which are very adverse on Singapore's Education Hub. The first one is from Malaysian Insider. According to the report, Singapore has been "black listed" by Oregon’s Office of Degree Authorisation (ODA) as "degree mill" which chunks out unaccredited degrees.

This is a serious matter as it affect our international standing. Imagine if you are applying for a job in America and even when you have a NUS or NTU degree but Americans have such a bad impression of Singapore as a "degree mill", you may just lose that opportunity right away just by the virtue of perception of your prospective employer.

The other report is even more damaging to the "Singapore Brand". The report is actually a TV program being broadcast in China CCTV.

Singaporeans are generally regarded as trustworthy by the Chinese because Singapore is known to be a place that follows strict rules. The so call "Singapore Brand" is simply based on our trustworthiness in having upright people who seldom break the rules or the law of the land.

However, this documentary portray Singapore as a land of the cheat, with Education institutions cheating on the students in providing unaccredited paper qualifications that aren't even recognized by the Singapore system at all.

To me, this is a big scandal. What happen to our good Singapore brand name? Has it been totally tarnished by the overly aggressive move of PAP wanting to make Singapore an Education Hub? Or just any HUB that they are so obsessed with?

I guess the whole system under PAP is behaving in a cult manner. Whenever someone in the great leadership position mention some "novel" idea, the people down there all follow like bees to the honey. Ever since the concept of HUB being mentioned, suddenly you hear all sorts of HUBs being created or pursued, quite mindlessly.

In this case, it seems that we have gone overboard. There is apparently no proper guidelines, control mechanism and supervision from the relevant authorities. What we are witnessing is basically everyone trying to push over their responsibility when something goes wrong. Should the Minister in charge of Ministry of Education be held responsible for this mess of having unqualified institutions chunking out unaccredited degrees to the consumers, be it local or foreign? Or just the MP in charge of CASE?

It seems that so far, nobody is interested in clearing up this mess. How long should we tolerate should attitude of no accountability and irresponsibility?

Goh Meng Seng

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/world/44648-singapore-on-list-of-degree-mill-countries

Singapore on list of ‘degree mill’ countries

SINGAPORE, Nov 26 — Degree mills that churn out ‘graduates’ at the drop of a hat are the sort of dodgy outfits we link with shadier parts of the world, but the problem is a lot closer to home and threatens to harm Singapore’s name as an education centre.

Small as it is, the country appears six times on a list compiled by Oregon’s Office of Degree Authorisation (ODA).

The American state has strict laws regarding the use of qualifications from unaccredited institutions and those dubbed “degree mills” or “degree suppliers”.

It requires that a person’s business cards, CV and letterhead declare if his degree is from an unaccredited university.

The term — degree or diploma mill — has been used in the United States and around the world to refer to “substandard or fraudulent colleges that offer potential students degrees with little or no serious work”.

They range from those which are simple frauds — an address to which people send money in exchange for a degree — to those that require some nominal work from the student but do not require the college-level study normally required for a degree.

Oregon’s laws make its list one of the most comprehensive compiled by a state government body in the United States.

It names six institutions here as offering unaccredited qualifications: Cranston University, Templeton University, Trident University of Technology, Vancouver University Worldwide, Westmore University and Lee Community College.

Names of institutions go on the list if there are queries made by members of the public. Checks are carried out on the status of the university both in the US and with foreign governments before they are put on the list.

Checks by The Straits Times found that Westmore University’s website is hosted by a company operating out of Science Park.

Vancouver University Worldwide, which was ordered to be shut by the Canadian government two years ago, had offered its courses here for a few years.

Several insurance industry professionals have MBAs, while some even have doctorates, from the university.

A few Singaporeans were also found to have degrees from Cranston University and Templeton University. Both are listed as online universities, based in Singapore and possibly Nevada.

The Palin School of Arts and Design in Bras Basah lists Trident University of Technology degrees, but Palin officials say that currently they are not offering the degree programme in advertising and design.

ODA’s list says Trident was denied approval by the state of Wisconsin and it was never legal in New Jersey as claimed.

But what was surprising was the presence on the list of Lee Community College. The private school has a CaseTrust for Education quality mark and is popular for its diploma courses in counselling and psychology.

The Straits Times found that the school, in Maxwell Road, also offers a degree from the American University for Humanities (AUH), which a staff member said is accredited by the American Academy for Liberal Education.

ODA’s website has this to say about the American university: “New name for American University of Hawaii, which was closed by court order. Operations claiming accreditation from The American Academy for Liberal Education in Lebanon do not meet Oregon legal requirements and degrees are not valid here. Degrees issued from Delaware are not valid in Oregon.”

Although the school has been offering degree courses for years, a check with the Ministry of Education (MOE) revealed that Lee Community College is not approved to offer any external degree programmes.

An MOE spokesman said the matter would be investigated.

It warned that new regulations require all private schools to seek permission from the new statutory board, the Council for Private Education (CPE) before offering external degree programmes, including online programmes.

Non-compliance may lead to deregistration of the private school and prosecution of its officials.

Lee Community College’s chief executive, Dr Frederick Toke, said the school spent over US$100,000 (RM338,000) to seek accreditation for the degree programme, which was from the American University for Humanities in Tbilisi, Georgia.

It was accredited by the American Academy for Liberal Education, a recognised accrediting agency in the US for liberal arts institutions, but was rejected by the MOE.

Toke did not explain why the school continued to offer the degree despite the MOE rejection. He would only say that the school is now seeking MOE approval to run other degree programmes from the US.

Alan Contreras, the administrator for Oregon’s ODA, said Singapore never used to feature on the ODA’s list.

“The problem Singapore has is that it opened the door to private post-secondary education without establishing a serious governmental oversight process to make those providers prove that they are legitimate,” he said.

“In effect, your government has allowed its name to be used inappropriately because only government authorised colleges can issue genuine degrees.”

Contreras also warned: “Without enforcement of standards by the government, anything goes. This is why the reputation of degrees issued in Singapore is falling.”

The MOE said that under the new laws that will come into effect by the end of the year, the Council for Private Education will run checks on these claimed partnerships.

“These measures will help ensure that dubious programmes offered by degree mills will not be permitted by CPE to be offered in Singapore,” said the spokesman.

But the new laws have come too late for a 26-year-old who attended evening classes and did course work for over three years for an AUH degree from Lee Community College.

The administrative manager hopes the new laws for private schools will ensure that only valid degrees are offered here.

“I took up the degree because I was interested in a counselling career. I spent more than US$20,000 of my hard-earned money to study for the degree. Now I find out that it is worthless.”