Hong Kong Democratic Progress - 1st July Protest

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




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

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

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




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

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



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

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

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


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






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







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



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

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





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



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



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

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



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




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

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

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

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

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

I shall dealt with this issue in my next posting.

Goh Meng Seng

Hong Kong Banks Offer Formal Minibond Settlement

Hong Kong Banks Offer Formal Minibond Settlement, Sing Tao Says


By Kelvin Wong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hong Kong Minibond heading for possible settlement!

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

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

The key points are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goh Meng Seng

Why Hong Kong?

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

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

Goh Meng Seng

Hong Kong Minibond Victims 7.1 Protest

Demanding resignation of Chief Executive Donald Tsang

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

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





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

Apparently they are more aggressive in verbal demand



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

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

The Leader of the Alliance addressing the crowd

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





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





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

All the best to them.

Goh Meng Seng

Democratic Progress in Hong Kong Part 1 - 6.4 Protest

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

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



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




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

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

Photo from Hong Kong Apple Daily

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

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

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

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



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



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

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



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

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

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







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

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







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

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




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

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



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

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

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

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

Goh Meng Seng

The Concept of Power - NCMP better than Proportionate Representation?

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

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

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

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

The empowerment of these voters consists of two powers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goh Meng Seng

我们的历史

纪念“五一三”
── 陈国相 ──

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

六四感想---面对和正视历史

六四感想---面对和正视历史

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

吴明盛

我们的历史在哪里？ ——观音乐剧《天冷就回来》有感

我们的历史在哪里？ ——观音乐剧《天冷就回来》有感

（2009-05-23）


● 王昌伟

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

新加坡的历史人物缺了席

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

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

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

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

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

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

本地校园音乐本来也有段历史

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

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

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


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

　　曾经这里是荒芜一片

　　歌声不曾飘扬　音符不曾存在

　　曾何几时曾何几时

　　沙漠里印下了足迹

　　曾何几时曾何几时

　　足迹无尽地伸延……

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

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

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


作者任教于新加坡国立大学中文系

NSP Labor Day Message

Double Inflictions: Cost-of-living & Foreign Workers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




For & on behalf of the

National Solidarity Party




Ken Sun

Secretary General

Lesson from AWARE SAGA - Defending our National Core Values

I have refrained myself from commenting on the AWARE saga up till now, after the dust has settled and new victory won by one of the group.

My congratulations to Ms Dana Lam whom I have the opportunity to know when she was preparing the book on last GE 2006 entitled "The Days of Being Wild". But I am more relieved that the victory is won for Singaporeans at large, not just women, but all true blue Singaporeans in which the very Core Value of our Nation as a Multi-religion and a Secular Nation in public sphere is being defended with much passion and spirit by all those who have attended the AWARE EOGM.

This episode is NOT about how a group of people with a hidden agenda carried out a coup in a NGO, in such a scheming and ambushing manner. Neither is it about Homosexuality and least, victory for the Pink Movement in Singapore. This episode is about how we, as a people of a Nation, view about the precious value of our Nation's foundation as a secular society with multi-religious people living in harmony.

Singaporeans are generally apathetic when it comes to NGO or political activism. Most of us are generally contended with life in Singapore although we always complain about many of the problems and inadequacies of government policies. But the AWARE saga must have raised some eyebrows that when there is a need or a calling for Singaporeans to stand up and be counted to defend what we believe as Core Values as a Nation, many people will become vocal and passionate about it.

It is ashame that the ruling party PAP has not taken this opportunity to make its stand clearly on this episode when it first surfaced. They have lost all secular moral courage to make a clear stand to defend our deep rooted consensus Core Value of a Secular Nation in a society of multi-religion.

If it can happen to a NGO in the public sphere that anybody from any religious segment could just scheme and carry out a coup to take over control of that organization just because such secular organization has different values as their religious one, wouldn't it be a possibility that it could happen to any ruling party that make laws that are against any religious group's belief too? A coup of the ruling party just to assert their religious values and teaching?

Many religion are against abortion. So is it acceptable for these religious groups of fundamental beliefs to plan a coup to wrestle control over the ruling party just to change the law to ban abortion?

This is something for us to think about as a Nation. Someone commented that such acts are just like religious terrorists. At first thought, I cautioned him about using such strong words but after much consideration, in essence, the intend to take over control of an organization or even a country just to impose their religious values unto others, is what religious terrorists are aiming to do! The only difference lies in the methodology, one is by coup of democratic means while the other by force in terms of armed struggle!

It is understandable that why PAP refused to come out straight to reiterate our Secular values for fear of losing support from the Christian community. However, as the ruling party, it should be thinking more about what is RIGHT for the Nation instead of putting party's interests as top priority in consideration. Of course, PAP is not stupid at all and they understand the implicit as well as explicit impact of this AWARE saga. This is why the media is being tasked to become a proxy battle front for them, against the Christian group.

Passion is what we need in our citizens to defend what is dearest to us as a Nation. The initial apathy among AWARE old members has taught all of us a painful lesson about Democracy - Democracy will fail miserably when it is left alone with apathy. Singaporeans should not be apathetic towards the Nation's development else we might just end up losers one day without even knowing why!

Active citizenry should be encouraged and we must not let our passion dies as a people for our Nation. For that to happen, we must first ensure the democratic system must be enhanced or developed.

I read from the papers that this year's National Day's theme would be our National pledge. And I would urge everyone of us to rethink about our current situation as compared to what we have embedded in our National Pledge.

While the AWARE members have basically raised up to defend our Core Values as a Secular Nation, I think there are more to be done for Singaporeans at large to re-enhanced our National Core Values embedded in our National Pledge.

Goh Meng Seng

Singapore's Pledge

We, the citizens of Singapore
Pledge ourselves as one united people
Regardless of race, language or religion
To build a democratic society
Based on justice and equality
So as to achieve happiness, prosperity & progress for our nation

May Day 2009 - Accountability the Core Value

I have decided to write about one very important aspect of a TRUE Democracy, Accountability. What has it got to do with Labor Day?

During the ancient time when Democracy was not even heard of, feudal land lords enslaved the peasants by imposing high rental for farm lands. It happened both in the Eastern as well as Western World.

Democracy come with a heavy price, mostly pushed by the movement to liberalize enslaved peasants and slaves. Thus, Labor Rights has everything to do with the evolution of Democracy throughout history. It is only with the success of implementing Democracy on their land, workers and peasants alike could get their rights protected. Of course, the communist movement also utilized such attractive idea of liberalism and labor rights to gain trust and support from the masses to mount on revolutionary armed struggle. But history has proven that a balanced Democracy that takes care of both the capitalists as well as the workers would be more prosperous and stable than an authoritarian communist regime.

But what is Democracy? The most simplistic idea is having elections. But we must bear in mind that even in an authoritarian communist regime, there are elections and voting as well, though not necessary an universal suffrage. There are a few key core values of Democracy like balance of power because power tends to corrupt human beings and representation of popular will and voices. But ultimately, I think it is mainly about accountability of the ruling class to the citizens.

During the ancient time, feudal lords, kings, emperors or the ruling class did not need to be accountable to the people they ruled. Elections is just means to get the ruling class to become accountable to the people but it does not necessary always work well especially so when the vital tools like media, needed to ensure fair play are being manipulated or even monopolized.

The result of an ill-democratic society will eventually leads to a skewed focus of the ruling class in taking care more of the rich and powerful instead of the mass, mainly working class. The ruling class will find less incentive or need to be accountable to the masses but would be more willing to oblige to the demands made by the rich and powerful. The problem will aggravate when rich individuals get into politics or send lobbyists as proxy representatives in the circle of ruling class.

Such problems exist in many countries, not only Singapore. It even happens in US where powerful lobbyists of the rich are stationed and worked on the lawmakers, ministers as well as the White House. But the more open nature of the society and political system has somehow managed to keep the whole system under a delicate balance.

There are many aspects in Singapore where we could see how the PAP government has skewed towards the business sector instead of taking care of the workers. First of all, workers are always asked to make sacrifices when things do not turn out well. When productivity growth lags behind wage growth, the PAP government would ask workers to have lower wage increase or even pay cut. But it does not apply the same principle to rent extracted by the landlords in which the government as well as GLCs are the biggest landlords in Singapore. Rent has increased in an incredible momentum which could reach as high as 50% or even 80% increase within a couple of years. Nothing has been mentioned or done with such unrealistic increase of rent across Singapore which ultimately will translate into higher cost of living and doing business in Singapore.

While the PAP government would subject itself to the big business demand for more cheap labor substitutes from foreign countries, it has never shown any concerns on the impact in wage stagnation in Singapore. While horrendous high rent and increase of GST take their tolls on cost of living for all Singaporeans, wages of workers are suppressed by the extra-liberal Foreign workers policy.

When time is good, Singaporeans do not enjoy much of the fruits in terms of higher wages due to the wage suppression by huge import of foreign workers. We were told that they are needed to keep Singaporeans' jobs! But when the economy went down, Singaporeans bear the full brunt of the downturn, most of them become the FIRST TO FIRE brigade. Companies, especially huge MNCs and GLCs would fire local Singaporeans first instead of the cheaper foreign workers!

And the truth is, PAP government is more worried about the profitability of the businesses instead of empty stomach of those retrenched! While they would put up all sorts of relief measures to companies through wage subsidies (the job credit) but not a systematic welfare scheme for retrenched Singaporeans.

Thus it really makes one wonder whether Singaporeans have really become Second Class Citizens in their very own country! What went wrong?

The answer is very simple: the ruling party PAP, does not see the need to be accountable to Singaporeans, the workers at all. Not for the Minibond Saga, neither the impact of horrendous rental increase and indiscriminate import of foreign workers as cheap labor substitutes for local workers. They only see the need to be accountable to the rich and powerful business, MNCs, GLCs etc, but never about Singaporeans.

When will Singaporeans at large learn about the truth of such ultra-capitalist government? How could Singaporeans extract more accountability from the million dollar annual paid ministers?

The answer my friends, is blowing in the wind.

Goh Meng Seng

林行止—政府负责任 市民尽义务 Hong Kong

林行止—政府负责任 市民尽义务
2009年4月29日

一、
世卫组织已把“流行疫症警戒级别”提高至证实病毒会人传人的第四级，预示猪流感已在各地扩散；面对这种可能蔓延全球的疫症，政府和人民似乎有二种“误信”（也许有人明知不可信却为自我安慰和令大众安心而不得不表示相信），其一为“特敏福”和“乐感清”是特效药；其一为猪肉会传播病毒。

“特敏福”及“乐感清”对不断变异的病毒都无疗效（严格来说是疗效不足百分之五），但在针对Ｈ１Ｎ１（及Ｈ３Ｎ２）病毒的特效疫苗未发现前，卫生当局及医院只能贮备这二种不算完全无用的成药；非常明显，如果公私医疗机构和盘托出世卫的有关实验报告（二十七日本栏；同日有“网友”指出统计见 who.int/csr/disease/influenza/H1N1），则极可能引致公众恐慌；根据世卫的实验，今年一月在证实染上Ｈ１Ｎ１的一千三百六十二宗病例中，对“特敏福”呈抗药性的有一千二百五十一宗，等于这种“特效药”只对约百分之五患者有效……。不过，在无法可想的情形下，当局只能以储存足量的“特敏福”来安抚民心！这种事实，炒卖相关药厂股票者应留意。

猪流感和吃猪肉是二码子事，世卫近日多次强调只要“适当地煮熟”（华氏一百六十度足以杀死猪肉中一切细菌和病毒），猪肉绝对无害，因此，该组织建议别赴墨西哥旅行而没有建议禁食猪肉。世界第一个禁止猪肉进口的似乎是菲律宾，去周六其农业部长作这项宣布时，指出这只是“预防性措施”，同时强调“没有证据显示猪肉带有病毒”。有些国家如俄罗斯去周日宣布禁止猪肉进口，其真正理由当然不是担心猪肉会传播病毒（卫生当局肯定读过世卫的报告），这样做的目的不外“借刀杀人”，因为设法减少肉类进口（近年多次提高肉类进口关税）是俄罗斯扶助国内畜牧业的政策。

顺便一提，人类患猪流感的致命率（ＣＦＲ），以墨西哥为例，约百分之十，猪只染此病毒的死亡率更低至在百分之一至三之间；然而，这是指“猪传人”的病例，假如是“人传猪”─带病毒的人把之传给猪只，后者的死亡率“极高”；医家虽未提供具体数据，但一九一八年杀人无数（五千万至一亿）的“大流感”，引致三十年代“猪瘟”令全球死掉以千万计猪只，便是“人传猪”引致。

二、

在对付猪流感上，特区政府汲取○三年沙士爆发时张皇失措造成大量死亡的惨痛经验，迅速定出多项预防措施，包括每天下午召开“四三○”记者会公布有关情况、成立跨部门督导委员会，医管局同时做好种种相关部署……，食物及卫生局局长周一岳因此信心满满，说“我们正在等待第一个病人来港”！

港府做好应变措施，不仅显示了办事认真和谨慎，同时反映了履行道德及社会责任的决心；惟其能否妥善地“击退”猪流感，有待事实说明。

作为和政府一样负责任的市民，在猪流感风声鹤唳之下应怎样做才能分担当局肩上的重担且能保持良好健康状态？专家（四月号《华盛顿月刊》的提示是密切留意有关消息及资讯、听从政府的“劝谕”（如不去问题地区旅行及“众地勿企”等）、做好个人基本卫生（如经常洗手及勿当众咳嗽等）、发现身体在异状（本人或家人）要马上就医（愈早就医“特敏福”药效愈大）、做好在一般时间不外出家居的准备（如贮足一定数目的日常食用品）。

在真正有效的“特效药”未发现前，上述种种是负责任公民应尽的义务。

三、

海外论者经常批评中国官僚系统敷衍塞责贪污腐化（沙士期间尤为如此），没想到墨西哥的情况不相伯仲。迄今为止，猪流感致命者均发生于墨西哥（墨西哥外一共有约三百宗病例），这究竟是该国医院设备落后、对患者疏于照顾还是药物不足？这些问题都有正面答案。墨西哥的问题，据四月五日《La Jornada》日报的报道（四月二十七日英国《卫报》有强调死了数名婴孩的特稿），猪流感在二月间已爆发，但医院管理不善、医生处理不当及官员贪腐成风，不仅令这种新流感被视为肺炎、气管炎，而且上呈的病患者数字大幅缩水；从可能染上猪流禽却报称死于其他呼吸系统疾病的人数推测，染病人数可能高达一万五千多人。

上引日报报道，猪流感二月间在人口三千多的小镇La Gloria 发现，该村以养猪场出名，但其供猪只“打滚”的浅池有如无遮猪厕，臭气冲天、苍蝇蔽日，该村有六成人口患上“疑似猪流感”……。墨西哥猪流感情况肯定远较外电所说的严重。

港迷债丑闻后续：太阳报社评—坐视毒债祸民 先知惨过无知

主题:港迷债丑闻后续：太阳报社评—坐视毒债祸民　先知惨过无知

太阳报社评—坐视毒债祸民　先知惨过无知
2009-04-15

立法会引用权力及特权法调查雷曼迷债事件，演变成一场财金官员争相卸责的闹剧。金融管理局总裁任志刚昨日出席立法会聆讯时，仍在死撑，多番否认对银行监管不足，强调自己早在○六年已就金融衍生产品可能引发的风险作出多次预警，并要求银行提高相关投资产品的风险评级。他并声称金管局无权参与审批金融产品的文件和章程。

任志刚的一番伟论，委实令人摸不着头脑。如果金管局果真如此先知先觉，为何类似雷曼这种毒债仍可卖到成行成市？为何数万市民会血本无归？

事实胜于雄辩，不妨看看本报去年跟进的一宗案例。去年二月，债券苦主林先生到银行做定期存款，在银行游说下购入被职员称为“保本”的雷曼迷债。林先生回家后细阅文件，发现所购入的迷债原来是高风险投资产品，他认为银行销售手法存在误导，乃于四月十五日向金管局投诉，要求局方介入调查，讵料金管局花了近五个月时间跟进他的投诉后，竟说“没有足够理据支持去展开正式调查”。任志刚自称○六年已发现迷债问题，不知从何说起。

显而易见，任志刚根本是在推卸责任。金管局拥有全面详尽的市场资讯，能够预早察觉金融市场所潜伏的危机，不足为怪。然而作为本港金融业的主要监管机构，局方既然发现问题，实有责任及时介入，加强监管，阻止问题产品流入市面，而不是单单发表几句评论，聊以塞责。当局放纵雷曼迷债横行市面，已是难辞其咎，而金管局既知问题之所在却没作跟进，则更是罪加一等！

不难想像，如果金管局对金融产品及时作出规管，必可防止更多市民中招。但令人失望的是，局方竟对毒债销售视而不见、见而不理，坐视市民纷纷堕入陷阱，到了雷曼爆煲后，他们又将责任统统推给银行，“劝喻”银行与客户达成回购和解，自己则置身事外。如今在立法会跟进下，金管局又以“先知先觉”自居，和证监会互相推卸，把本身的责任推得一干二净。

诚如有议员指出，“迷你债券”的名称本身已具有误导性。有议员质疑金管局明知迷债产品存在高风险，却没有阻止相关的销售广告。事实上，这种高风险产品在欧美地区只会卖给专业投资者，但在香港，却可对包括退休长者、残疾人士在内的普罗大众大销特销，这反映的已经不只是个别银行职员的不良销售行为，而是整个金融监管制度的严重漏洞，以及相关部门的严重失职。

雷曼迷债事件告诉我们，表面上，本港金融业是由金管局及证监会“一业两管”，事实上，却是处于“金管不管，证监不监”的真空状态。更加离谱的是，迷债爆煲迄今，人们只见两个部门互相扯皮，至今不见一名官员主动承认责任。市民寄望立法会介入调查事件，就是希望立法会能主持公道，追究失职官员的责任，同时督促当局堵塞监管漏洞，绝对叉他们再次蒙混过关！

雷曼兄弟倒闭，迷债炸弹爆发，掀起全城风雨，造成难以挽回的损失。然而一众财金官员疏于监管、只顾推诿卸责，这对香港这个所谓金融中心的损害，犹甚于雷曼事件。

Taiwan World Class Medical Insurance-- Translated

The article written by Dong Qing Feng published in the most recent issue of Asiaweek has pointed out that Taiwan's Medical insurance system is regarded as one of the best model for the world. From Medical demand, Medical supply etc. it has been praised and ranked second only to Sweden. Few of the main reasons for such high ranking include the hardworking doctors, low wages for medical staffs, few medical disputes and compensations and most importantly, most of the medical institutions are run and controlled by the government.

The report points out that last year, Nobel Prize winner, Economic Professor of US Princeton University and column writer for New York Times, Professor Paul Krugman, has praised Taiwan's Medical Insurance system in New York Times and urged the Americans to emulate such system.

Krugman believes that the Taiwan Medical Insurance system can provide a good example for all Americans to be insured within their economic means. He reiterates that within a short period of six years, the growth in the number of Taiwanese being medically insured has raised from less than 60% to 97%. Besides, the cost for all Taiwanese to be insured is very low and it takes population and income growth into account. Even if the cost of medical care increase, the increase will be insignificant.

The Taiwan medical insurance system was implemented in 1st March 1995. It was one of the greatest achievement of the KMT when Lian Zhan was the Prime Minister then. It becomes famous in the world for providing low medical insurance premium, wide medical coverage and convenience resulting in high subscription rate by Taiwanese. Taiwan Medical Insurance scheme consolidated workers, laborers and farmers medical insurance payment and created a single entity medical insurance for all. It implements a single payment channel and a gross payment system.

This National Medical Insurance scheme embrace the spirit of social insurance, which is risk sharing and under the fundamental guiding principle of mutual help, the young will earn money to take care of the medical risks of the aged. In doing so, it achieves mutual aid across different generations and races. It also creates a huge health database that could be used by healthcare research. On the other hand, the administration cost has been kept under 2% and that is why it has been praised internationally.

In 2000, EIU has ranked Taiwan's Medical Insurance scheme as number two under medical demand and supply, second only to Sweden in the whole world. The ABC has praised Taiwan's Medical Insurance scheme in one of its program broadcast in 2003, pointing out the fact that with a monthly medical insurance premium of US$20 and an average cost of US$4 to US$10 for every medical visit, you could make appointment to any hospital with any preferred doctors of your choice in Taiwan. There are at least 50 countries around the world that have paid visits to Taiwan to study its Medical Insurance scheme in recent years.

Taiwan Medical Insurance Scheme has been well known to be value for money. Base on their income, Taiwanese will pay a token amount of insurance premium every month and they will be able to enjoy all kinds of medical services. Regardless of rich or poor, big hospitals or small clinics, all will receive the same level of medical services. All will receive equal treatment. Even if the rich wish to pay more for additional privileged services, it will be prohibited. Besides, it is very convenient to get medical services there, with big number of hospitals and clinics availability all throughout Taiwan. You can pick and choose your choice of hospital or clinic without any need of doctor's recommendation.

The Medical Insurance is not solely born by the people. Private companies and the government will have to share the cost of the premium as well. Those companies that bought workers' insurance for their employees will have to pay for their medical insurance as well. This is due to the fact that such insurance premium will include workers' insurance and medical insurance. The present law dictates that employers will have to bear 60% of their workers' medical insurance, employees and their family members will bear 30% while the government will bear 10%.

Taiwan Medical Insurance Scheme's premiums are based on income classification. The premiums are charged according to 10 different classes of income. For example, those who earn less than NT$17280 (about US$500) will pay only NT$600 as monthly premium. Those with monthly income more than NT$131700, they will pay a monthly premium of NT$5400.

Foreign workers are included in the Medical Insurance Scheme.

Due to the fact that the National Medical Insurance Scheme is compulsory for all, everyone will have to be admitted into the Medical Insurance Scheme. This will include foreign students, migrants and even foreign workers. Its core value is “Big illness for Hospitals, small illness for small clinics” . Everyone who seek medical care, apart from paying the basic administration fee, patients will have to bear part of the medical cost.

Ex-DPP Legislative Yuan member Sheng Fu Xiong has a heart operation, warded for 4 days. The operation implanted a blood vessel widener for him. He paid about NT$20000 (about US$600), the medical insurance has helped him paid a few hundred dollars. Such operation will cost more than a million of New Taiwan dollars without medical insurance.

Taiwan Medical Insurance is very Cheap!

As a medical doctor, Sheng Fu Xiong is one of the few in Legislative Yuan who are regarded as those who have put in lots of effort in researching on the Medical Insurance Scheme back then. He pointed out that the insurance premium that each Taiwanese has to pay is about one sixth to one eight of US medical insurance premiums and this is very cheap!

Taiwan's Medical Insurance Scheme is the creation of Harvard professor Xiao Qing Lun and this creation is based on the study of Canada's united insurance system. However, Canada's medical insurance scheme is basically a failure, why does Taiwan's scheme a success then? Sheng Fu Xiong pointed out that firstly, Taiwan doctors are just too hardworking. Many doctors has to see 120 patients a day (while in US, the average is only 30), this is very rare and unique in the world. Secondly, Taiwan's medical staff, apart from doctors, like nurses, physiotherapists, nutrionists, psychiatrists, pharmacists etc., are fewer in comparison and their wages are lower. Take nurses for example, their pay is only 20% of US nurses. Thirdly, there are few medical disputes in Taiwan, there are less medical related lawsuits. Even if there are, even if the doctor lost the case, the compensation amount is not high. Compensation for death caused by erroneous diagnosis is at most NT$1m to NT$2m, some are even below NT$1m. Forth, all American medical institutions are listed company, the pressure of profitability is higher. Taiwan's medical institutions are prohibited from listing in the stock exchange, most of them are run and subsidized by the government.

In comparison, Canada's medical insurance system does not have all these advantages. Sheng Fu Xiong pointed out that most important of all, Canada does not have efficiency. If a patient needs an operation that is deemed as non-urgent, like an operation on hip joint, they will need to wait for at least 6 months. In Taiwan, the same operation will only take 1 week to be completed.

Sheng Fu Xiong revealed that a few years ago, Hong Kong government was considering of implementing a system similar to Taiwan's Medical Insurance scheme. Xiao Qinglun has travelled to Hong Kong to explain the scheme to the Hong Kong officials. He was engaged by the Hong Kong government to do a feasibility study there but in the end, he recommended against implementing such a scheme in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong government has accepted his recommendation. “I feel that it is right not to implement it” This is because this system could only be successful in Taiwan, it will fail in other parts of the world. “This is the fruit of Taiwan's special circumstances”.

Hong Kong's system is the middle path between Taiwan and US.

Sheng Fu Xiong said that one of the main reason that it is not suitable for Hong Kong to emulate Taiwan's Medical Insurance scheme is that Hong Kong doctors are not as hardworking as Taiwan's, there are more medical staffs than Taiwan, salaries are higher than Taiwan and there are more medical disputes than Taiwan.” He said that Hong Kong's system is a middle path between Taiwan and US. It has all the bad points that US has but the problems are not as serious as US. Hong Kong does not have the good points that Taiwan has, like hardworking doctors, low compensation for medical dispute, medical institutions are not listed on stock exchange...etc.

Sheng Fu Xiong criticize Krugman as an amateur. Although Krugman is a Liberal but he has socialist influence in his heart. Thus, he does not discount government intervention totally. However, Taiwan's Medical Insurance scheme is a single provider and it under heavy influenced by the governmental system. Besides, it is not a multi-insurance scheme but a unison insurance scheme and this is the role played by the government. He only sees the beauty of Taiwan's Medical Insurance Scheme but not the potential problems. It is due to the fact that the Taiwan Medical Insurance scheme is based on a collapsible structure that it needs to be reformed.

Taiwan government has paid nearly NT$400Billion per year but medical experts criticize that the medical wastage every year amount to Nt$10billion resulting in the Medical Insurance scheme recording deficits every year. Sheng Fu Xiong pointed out that the potential worries of the Medical Insurance scheme is “the growth of our premium collections could not catch up with the growth of the medical expenses.” Thus every time when the accounts are balanced, 3 years later it will become a deficit again. In another words, expenses are always bigger than premium collections and this is due to the lack of restrains and the spirit of free market principles. Taiwanese like to visit hospital, even for a small flu, they would visit the big hospital. Some mother would bring their children to GP in the morning. If there is no significant improvement, they will bring them to otolaryngology in the afternoon. This is almost impossible in US.

One of the main reason for such high medical expenses for the Medical Insurance Scheme is that Taiwanese are used to taking medicine. For the whole of last year, the expenses on medicine by the Medical Insurance scheme has reached NT$125Billion, an increase of 6.9% from the previous year. Among these expenses, medicine for hypertension, glucagon and statin has amounted to NT$32.3Billion. The top medicine “MaiYou” alone, which is used mainly for treatment of hypertension and strengthening the heart functionality, has consistently top the list of medicine for 8 years, cost almost NT$4.5Billion per year.

Due to popular demand, I have decided to spend some time in translating the Chinese article on Taiwan's World Class Medical Insurance here.

Goh Meng Seng


Taiwan Medical Insurance scheme has the mission to provide healthcare for everyone in Taiwan. Although the government has claimed 70% approval rate from the people, but it could not just brush off the potential threats of deficits. The problems of limited medical resources, deficits of the Medical Insurance scheme etc has cast doubts on how long this Medical Insurance Scheme could last.

There are merits in Taiwan Medical Insurance Scheme but we should not just look at the glamorous flowers that it glooms and try to copy it wholesale. We must do thorough examination of its specialty, learn from its good points and try to manage the bad. Only then could we avoid deficits and improve on providing healthcare to all Taiwanese.

Translated by Goh Meng Seng

World Class Medical Insurance Schem- Taiwan

The following is a news article on Taiwan's Medical Insurance Scheme which is deemed as the most successful one in Asia, second to Sweden in the whole world. Yes, they do not need a multi-million annual salaried Heath Minister to come up with this. They do not need Health Minister to suggest vividly that citizens looking for cheap medical care should go across the causeway.


新华网消息最新一期亚洲周刊发表童清峰的文章指出，台湾健保制度被认为是全球典范，从医疗需求、医疗供给等项目，都获称赞，在国际排名第二，仅次于瑞典，其中主要的原因是医生卖力、医护人员薪水低、医疗纠纷少及赔偿有限，还有医疗事业大部分公营，便于政府控制。

报道说，去年诺贝尔经济学奖得主、美国普林斯顿大学经济系教授兼《纽约时报》专栏作家克鲁曼（Paul Krugman），曾于《纽约时报》专栏大赞台湾健保制度，要美国人效法。

克鲁曼认为，台湾健保制度可“提供美国全民在经济上纳保的范例”。强调短短的六年间，台湾人民的健保纳保率快速成长，从不到六成冲到九成七。而且“台湾全民纳保的成本很低，考量人口增加和收入成长，就算整体医疗费用有任何成长，也不多”。

台湾健保制度于1995年3月1日正式实施，是国民党时代连战担任“阁揆”时最亮丽的政绩，它以被保险人口投保率高、投保费率低、给付范围广及就医方便而闻名于国际。台湾健保统合工劳农保医疗给付，建立单一体制的全民健康保险，采行单一支付管道，实施总额支付制度。

全民健保具有社会保险的精神，即所谓风险分摊，在自助互助的基本理念下，年轻人赚钱分担老幼的医疗风险，达到年龄族群和世代互助，而且形成庞大健康资料库，便利卫生研究工作；而行政费用维持在百分之二以下，因而极受国际推崇。

《经济学人信息部》（EIU）在2000年就医疗需求、医疗供给等项目，将台湾医疗保健评为世界第二，仅次瑞典。美国广播公司在 2003年制作节目盛赞台湾的健保，指出每人每月平均付20美元的保费，每次看诊平均付挂号费4到10美元，就可以到特约医院找任何医师看病。近年来，来台湾取经的国家不下50个。

台湾健保堪称价廉物美，民众根据薪资多寡，每月只要付少少的钱，即可享受到各样的医疗服务，不论贫富贵贱，去大医院或小诊所，所受到的医疗服务全都一样，一视同仁，有钱人纵使想多付钱获取额外服务，也不被允许；而且就医便利，医院、诊所到处都是，自己可以选择要在哪里就诊，无须医师指定。

健保不是被保险者付费而已，企业和政府也都要分摊，台湾公司行号有替员工加劳保就一定要替员工加健保，因为两者的加保金额都是以劳保加保金额为依据，且健保是跟着劳保走。现行法令规定雇主每月为员工负担之健保费为六成，员工与眷属自付三成，政府负担一成。

台湾健保投保金额采取分级制，根据薪资等级分为十组，例如月薪最低在1万7280元（约合500美元）以下者，每月缴纳600元；月薪最高13万1700者，每月缴5400元。

外劳也被纳入健保

由于全民健保是强制性保险，无论何人都必须参加健保，包括留学生、移民者，甚至外劳等都纳入。它主要的精神是“大病看大医院，小病看诊所”，任何人看病，除了支付挂号费外，病人还须分摊部分的医疗费用。

前民进党“立委”沈富雄前年在台大医院动了心导管手术，住院四天，装了一枝血管支架，他只付了新台币近2万元，健保帮他付了几十万，若无健保，同样的手术得花费一百多万元。

台湾健保“太便宜了”

医师出身的沈富雄，是当年“立法院”中少数被公认对健保下过工夫研究者，他指出，台湾每个人所缴的健保费大概是美国的六分之一到八分之一，“太便宜了”。

台湾健保是哈佛教授萧庆伦的构想，这个构想是参考加拿大单一保险人制度，但加拿大的健保基本上是失败的，为什么台湾能成功？沈富雄分析指出，第一、台湾的医师太卖力了，不少医师一天至少看120个病人（美国平均约30个），这在全世界是绝无仅有的。其次，台湾医事辅助人员，医师除外，如护理人员、物理治疗师、营养师、心理复建师、药剂师等，用的人数相对少，薪水偏低，以护士为例，台湾护士薪水约美国的五分之一。第三、台湾医疗纠纷频率不高，医病关系很少诉讼，即便打官司，医师若败诉，赔偿金额也不高，误诊致死者，顶多赔一百到二百万台币，甚至一百万以下。第四、在美国医疗事业都是上市公司，盈亏压力大，台湾医疗事业不准上市，绝大部分是公营，有政府补贴。

相较之下，加拿大健保就没有这些优点。沈富雄指出，主要是加拿大没有效率，病人如要开一个不紧急的刀，如大腿髋关节手术，至少要排六个月以上；台湾如要开同样手术，一个礼拜就搞定。

沈富雄透露，几年前香港一度考虑采用台湾的健保制度，萧庆伦曾赴港解说，他也受到咨询实地赴港考察，最后他建议不要，港府也接受他的说法，“我觉得不要是对的。”因为这个制度只有在台湾才会成功，搬到全世界都会失败，“这是台湾特殊情况下产生开花结果的东西”。

香港制度介于台美之间
沈富雄表示，香港不适合效法台湾健保的原因，包括“香港医生没有台湾卖力、辅助医事人员比台湾多、薪水比台湾高、医疗纠纷比台湾多。”他说，香港制度介乎台湾与美国之间，美国的坏处它都有，没有美国严重，台湾的优点香港没有，例如台湾的医生勤苦耐劳、台湾医疗纠纷赔的不多，医疗事业没有上市等。

沈富雄并批评克鲁曼是个外行人，克鲁曼虽然是自由派，但心中有社会主义的色彩，所以他不完全排除政府的干预，但台湾健保是单一的提供者，比较听从单一的政府体系，而不是众多保险，而是单一保险，单一保险就是政府的角色。他只看到台湾健保的美，却没有看到内在的隐忧，因为台湾健保奠基在会崩盘的架构上，这就是要改革的原因。

政府每年健保支出近四千亿台币，但医疗专家批评每年医疗浪费达百亿元，导致健保年年亏损。沈富雄指出，健保的隐忧在于“我们收的钱的成长率不如开销的成长率”，所以每次拉成平衡，三年后就不平衡了。换言之，支出永远大于收入，因为没有节制，“没有自由市场的精神在里头。”台湾人喜欢逛医院，一个小感冒也要到大医院；有的妈妈早上带小孩看内科，如果病情未明显改善，下午再去看耳鼻喉科，在美国几乎是不可能的。

健保开销之所以居高不下有一个很重要因素是台湾人有吃药的习惯。去年一年健保药费支出达1250亿台币，较前年成长6.9%，其中台湾人吃最多的是治疗高血压、高血糖和高血脂的药物，去年吃掉323亿台币；十大健保药物排名第一的是具有降血压与保护心脏功效的“脉优”，已蝉联八年冠军宝座，一年就吃掉44亿 862万元。

台湾健保肩负着全民健康的使命，虽然官方宣称民众的满意度高达七成，却无法摆脱亏损的隐忧，如医疗资源有限、健保支出已超过保费收入等，不禁令识者忧心台湾健保究竟还可以撑多久。

台湾健保有可取之处，但不能光看它外表的花朵美丽而全盘移植，必须深入研究其特殊性，截长补短，方能避免亏损，促进全民健康。