Software of Open Society - Learning from HK

I have been observing Hong Kong for quite a number of years due to my frequent visits there.

There are a lot of things which I do not feel good about Hong Kong but there are many things which I feel that we should learn from this vibrant city.

Hong Kong has various districts, just like Singapore with different GRCs and SMCs. Within these districts, there are also similar "community centres" but these are not controlled by any partisan organizations financed by taxpayers' money with "symbiotic relationship" with the ruling party. They don't organize "political activities" like getting people to attend political party's rallies.

These district community centres are pretty well equipped. Some have very decent concert halls or performance halls for cultural activities. This is unlike our Singapore's community centres which are filled with "multi-purpose halls" with very bad audio system and acoustic structures. These concert halls or performance halls are definitely no "white elephants". Many LOCAL cultural groups rented these halls at very low price and put up various performances, from Chinese Wayang Opera, Chinese Dance, Western Ballet Dance, Chinese Orchestra to plays and even special film shows etc.




Hong Kong is preparing to build a huge Cultural Centre at West Kowloon and it is not merely for "International Performances" like our Singapore Durian Esplanade. They will have some main Hong Kong cultural groups like Hong Kong Dance Troupe and such to be permanently stationed there. They are confident that this huge Cultural Centre will be filled with local performances because they have cultivated a substantial mass of cultural performing groups and participants.

Although there are quite a number of small district cultural centres in Hong Kong, but it seems that all halls are fully booked all year round. Even the libraries are available for rent for people to put up artistic exhibitions like calligraphy and such.

Many people have mistakenly labelled Hong Kong as "cultural desert" but I think if you look at the cultural events put up by local groups, you will think otherwise. Such booming vibrancy in the cultural setting could only happen not only with the hardware infrastructural support by the government but also depends on maintaining a truly open society with the core value of respecting the freedom of expression by the people.

Such respect of human dignity was extended to other segments of the society. The radio station of Hong Kong has various programs catered for different segment of the society. There is a weekly radio program specially catered for Prison inmates for them and their family members to write in or dedicate songs to each other. They also have a special program on Sunday morning for foreign maids for them to call in or dedicate Indonesian or Filipino songs since that is their weekly off day. Of course, they will have an Indonesian and Filipino as their co-hosts!

Cultivation of the software of an Open Society doesn't depend only on the big infrastructure investment by the Government. It also depends on the willingness of the people and government to uphold the critical core values on the freedom of expression. It depends on catering to the needs to small cultural groups, not only on the finances but also the availability of opportunities for them to put up their performances.




I have watched Drama Box performing at grassroot level in open air stages at various places in Singapore. I find it quite refreshing and but it seems that it has faced excessive censorship from MITA from time to time. Even that, they have continued their excellent work with limited resources and constrains imposed by govenrment censorship.

In Hong Kong, there are many such small local performance groups who are actively involved in putting up local performances at grassroot level. I hardly hear any censorship issues imposed on them at all.

Many people have said that Hong Kongers are very "practical people" but it seems that even under such capitalist system, there are many more people who have the passion to pursue their cultural dreams. So, what about Singapore? What has happened to Singapore which was once the Venice of SEA back in the 50s? It is really something for us to ponder about.

Goh Meng Seng

Reply from ICA

Apparently ICA has the view that as long as you are a "minor", you can hold dual citizenships up to 21 years old.

I have written the following reply to ICA:

Dear Mr. Wee,

Thank you for your reply.

However, I need further clarification on the following clause under our Constitution:

(2) A person born outside Singapore shall not be a citizen of Singapore by descent by virtue of clause (1) unless —

(a) his birth is registered in the prescribed manner at the Registry of Citizens or at a diplomatic or consular mission of Singapore within one year, or such longer period as the Government permits, after its occurrence; and

(b) he would not acquire the citizenship of the country in which he was born by reason of his birth in that country where —

(i) in the case of a person born before the date of commencement of section 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 2004, his father is a citizen of Singapore by registration at the time of his birth; or

(ii) in the case of a person born on or after the date of commencement of section 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 2004, either his father or mother is a citizen of Singapore by registration at the time of his birth.

By 2(B), the children SHOULD NOT become citizen of Singapore by descent IF they acquire the citizenship of the country of their birth.

It would basically mean that those who are born outside Singapore who have acquired citizenship at the place of birth by Right of Abode are actually BANNED from acquiring Singapore citizenship. That is why I am puzzled ICA deems it is alright for any minor to have dual citizenship up to 21 years old when the Singapore Constitution has specifically denied the right of such application in the above clause.

Goh Meng Seng


ICA Feedback/526564

Dear Mr Goh,

Please refer to your enquiry on 5 Sep 2011.

2 Under the Constitution of Singapore, Singapore citizens are not allowed to possess dual nationalities. The exception to this is when a person is a minor. Such a person is allowed to hold dual citizenship (typically citizenships by descent and by birth) until the age of 21 when he/she is then required to make a decision on which citizenship he/she wishes to retain. If he or she fails to make a decision on the choice of citizenship, the Government will initiate action to deprive him/her of the Singapore citizenship.

3 Thank you.

Yours Sincerely,

Wee Yew Boon
Senior Customer Relations Executive
for COMMISSIONER
IMMIGRATION & CHECKPOINTS AUTHORITY

香港復建居屋 – 從住屋和土地策略性資源說起

香港從2003年群起反對董建華八萬五住屋政策到如今民意180度轉變成支持復建居屋的過程，其實都只是隨市場住屋價格波動而起舞．值得一提的是，已宣布競選特首的梁振英由始至终都堅持建居屋政策．梁先生如此擇善固執必有他的政策考量．

土地是有限量的策略性資源．尤其是在一個如香港的小城市般的地區，土地的規劃和運用就顯得特別重要了．香港人口是不斷在增長，但是土地除了少許填土的實質增長外，根本無法跟人口同步增長．如果沒有適當的規劃而任由市場來決定土地的運用的話，必定會出現嚴重的偏差．

自由市場經濟理論在處理有限資源分配時都提倡由自由市場來定價，以便資源得到‘最高效率’的分配．但是土地的擁有權通常是被政府和少數地主壟斷的．這是違反了自由市場經濟理論的定義．再說土地和住屋是關係密切的，因為如果沒有土地就無法建造屋子了．而住屋又是人民衣食住行最基本生存需求之一．所以為了應付人們的住屋的基本要求，土地和房子的價錢必須能讓普羅大眾負擔得起．

但是由於土地的供應量是有限而且是沒法長期增加的，這就使土地和黃金一樣變得有投資價值的資源．當土地和房屋變成了投資的工具了以後，價格便會被人為的操縱炒賣而脫離了原本實際價值的因素．香港的房子除了被有錢人炒賣外，近年來也引來了許多內地人來炒賣．這會使需求量大于香港本土的真正需求，以致供應失衡．這也會使土地房屋價格走勢脫離了基本通貨膨脹．到最後，多數港人的長期薪金增長就會大大落後于房產價格的增長．

如果單以自由市場來支配土地以致住屋的分配的話，這房產因投資與投機炒賣的價格走向和滿足人民基本房屋需求的政策方針就會產生嚴重的矛盾．如果政府沒妥善處理這矛盾的話，我們很有可能就會陷入像古時封建地主制的極端貧富懸殊狀況而產生社會動盪．

目前香港政府提供了公屋給大約40%香港人以便解決他們的住屋問題．但，這是不是最佳的方法呢？再說，由于房屋的價格因港人和大陸人的炒賣而致使越來越多的年輕的香港中產階級沒法置业，這會導致中產階級的沒落、遲婚、生育率下跌等等的長遠的社會問題．這些中產人士並不符合居住公屋的條件，但也沒能力買房子．如果沒有任何機制去解決這問題的話，中產階級的崩潰將會是遲早的事．這將對社會帶來嚴重的後果與動盪．

政府在維持龐大的公屋群時將會承受巨大的社會資源成本．政府除了承擔了用來建造公屋的土地成本外，還必須承擔建築和長期維修的成本．每建一座公屋，政府就必須先拿出錢來付建築費．公屋是以超低價格出租給底階層的港人．如果能幫助至少40%里的一半的公屋家庭和那些年輕中產港人以低成本價買到居屋的話，政府便實際上大大的減少了維持公屋所承受的社會資源成本和中產階級以致社會所面對危機．

香港社會必須取得一個‘安居樂業’的共識：一個家並非是投資或投機的工具．香港人也必須意識到如果房產價格高到需要以超過25年甚至40年的房屋貸款才能擁有棲身之所的話，那麼他們就不是‘有產階級’而是變成‘房奴階級’了．

房地產投機並不會給港人增加財富而是把下一代的房貸奴役變成了這一代的錢財而已．這等與是隔代掠奪．當然，現在的直接受益者便是大地產商們．

土地雖然是有限資源，具備了投資或投機工具的條件，但是土地和房屋也是政府重要的策略性資源．政府必須以謹慎的方法去分配這策略性資源以達到穩定社會和促進經濟健全發展的目的．如果人們沒法‘安居’，那怎麼能樂業呢？經濟生產力也必定受影響．

香港政府也必須認識到只有它才能解決房產價格因投資炒買的升幅超越普通市民薪金的增長所引起的社會矛盾．只有復建居屋才能解決這矛盾，並且達到平衡土地這策略性資源的分配和縮小貧富懸殊的問題．

至於土地和房屋這策略性資源是否應該讓人，尤其是非香港人炒買，那就是題外話了．

吳明盛