Inadequate Public Transportation

** My apology. We have made an error in our interpretation on the statistical table. The occupancy rate refers to the average number of people in a single cabin carriage at any one time. But the conclusion is intact.

The following is a Table compiled to show the contrast of population growth vs MRT development.

	SMRT Total Number of Passenger Trips (Million)	SMRT Car Kilometres Operated (Million)	SMRT Average Operating Car Occupancy	Total Population	Resident Population
2003	394.3	89.6	56	4114.8	3366.9
2004	391.5	77.4	63	4166.7	3413.3
2005	402.6	75.1	66	4265.8	3467.8
2006	413.8	75.5	67	4401.4	3525.9
2007	434.9	77.1	69	4588.6	3583.1
2008	469.3	78.0	73	4839.4	3642.7

2009*

510.2

85.2

73

------

------

 

Total Population and Resident Population from Table 3.1 of the Yearbook of Statistics 2009

MRT Statistics from SMRT Annual Report 2007/2008

From the table above, we can gather the following facts (from 2003 to 2008 as the population figures for 2009 is not available yet):

Total Population Growth 17.6%

Resident Population Growth 8.2%

SMRT Total Number of Passenger Trips (Million) Growth  19.0%

SMRT Car Kilometres Operated (Million) Growth  -13.0%

SMRT Average Operating Car Occupancy Rate Growth 35%

What do the above statistics tell us?

It is quite puzzling to me actually. The public transport companies like SMRT has been increasing their fares for the past 7 years but it seems that their service standards have dropped with respect to the population growth.

It is very disturbing to note that while demand on MRT has increased steadily for the pass 7 years (We are unable to get the 2009 figures for population growth yet) in tandem with the increase in population growth, SMRT has actually DECREASE their train service frequencies by as much as 13%!

An increase of 19% of demand couple with a decrease in supply of 13% will naturally result in packing the MRT cabins with more people! This is reflected in the increase of occupancy rate from 56 persons in a carriage to 76!

It means that on average, Singaporeans will find the MRT 35% more crowded than 2003! I guess the LTA is sleeping on this development while agreeing to PTC and public transport companies' demand in increasing their fares!

I hope this is not another "Caught Off Guard" situation for the Ministry of Transport as it is for Ministry of National Development. Someone up there have to be accountable for mismanaging the whole situation for Singapore.

WP NCMP Sylvia Lim has categorically questioned the PAP government on whether they are doing enough to cater to their aggressive FT policy which has artificially increase the population by 17.6% from 2003 to 2008.

Yet, the PAP has continued to sleep on this important issue. We have seen how Ministry of National Development under Mah Bow Tan has totally mismanaged the housing needs in view of the expected increase of housing demand due to influx of FT. Now it seems that the Ministry of Transport has also totally mismanaged the transportation sector.

There is no silly excuse of "Caught Off Guard" as the opposition party has already raised the alarm as early as 2006! Singaporeans have to see clearly that we are paying TOP WORLD CLASS salaries for these ministers but yet, we are having them mismanaging the situation here.

The Ministry of Transport and LTA are only concerned about setting up more ERPs all over Singapore because that is the SACRED CASH COWS that will make money. Who cares about the general welfare of Singaporeans in squeezing in MRTs and Buses (yes, I believe we can show the same inadequacy if we build the statistical table for buses) everyday due to their mismanagement. The Ministers have hardly experience the frustrations of normal Singaporeans who take public transport daily. The MRT train frequency is really third world standards!

It is about time Singaporeans should give PAP the wake up call! Vote the respective ministers out, give a clear signal to the PAP government that we want accountability!

We want ministers who put Singaporeans' welfare as their top priority, not how much money their ministries could save or make as their top priorities.

If the above analysis is not convincing enough for you, then please take a look at the following table:

	SMRT Total Number of Passenger Trips (Million)	SMRT Car Kilometres Operated (Million)	SMRT Average Operating Car Occupancy (Person)	SMRT Profit after tax and minority interest (S$ Mil)
2003	394.3	89.6	56	72.1
2004	391.5	77.4	63	89.5
2005	402.6	75.1	66	126.7
2006	413.8	75.5	67	103.4
2007	434.9	77.1	69	135.4
2008	469.3	78.0	73	149.9

For the period from 2003 to 2008, SMRT profits have increased 107.9% from $72.1m to $149.9m!

What does this mean. There is an increase in demand, increase in fare but SMRT continues to reduce supply by a drastic reduction in 2004. While the demand continues to increase, it suppressed the corresponding supply while continued its demand of fare increase. The so call "improve in services" is just lip service. Service standards has dropped while SMRT just let the trains get more cramp!

LTA under the Ministry of Transport, kept both of its eyes closed for all this while! This is totally unacceptable for a world class government with top pay! It seems that our PAP government only takes good care of corporate profits while neglecting the welfare of Singaporeans, allowing them to be reaped off by suffering sub standard services with increased prices.

Do we continue to let them be or give them a wake up call? The choice is yours.

Goh Meng Seng

* I have added the figures of the SMRT side without the figures of population data here. The increase in the car operated per kilometer is partly due to the opening of circle line. This means that frequency of trains in other older lines might not have improved at all. Besides, this is offset by the increase in the demand, partly due to the increase in population (estimated about 3% plus if total population is to reach 4.99 million). As the result, the occupancy rate is just about the same. This result doesn't change the main point that since 2003, the trains are getting very cramped, about 35% cramped.

When the authorityies come a-helping -- beware!

I am putting up articles written by TOC writers here basically because TOC is down again by DDoS attacks.

Andrew Loh

When the National Parks Board (NParks) relaxed camping rules in December 2004, it cited the popularity of the activity among Singaporeans as a reason. Campers would no longer be required to obtain camping permits. "With the relaxation of this rule, we hope more families and friends can enjoy camping in our parks,” Dr Leong Chee Chiew, NParks Chief Operating Officer, said then. “This is part of NParks' ongoing efforts to enhance parks users' experiences, and bring more people into our parks". NParks said between January and October that year, it received 10,000 applications for camping permits.

Well, the relaxed rules lasted about 5 years.

There were 12,000 campers in 2008 who used the various parks in Singapore. In March 2009, the permit system was reintroduced because of, ironically, the popularity of camping among Singaporeans. Among the new stipulations, camping days were limited to just 8 days within a one-month period. Campers can only camp for a consecutive 5-day period within a month.

The jump in permit applications in 2008/2009 perhaps coincides with the economic downturn. One of the consequences of the economic malaise was the number of people who defaulted on servicing their mortgage loans from the HDB or the banks. In a report in January 2009, the Sunday Times said “such defaults have climbed from 5 per cent to 8 per cent of all HDB home loans.” In total, some 33,000 households were in arrears for more than three months. This means one in 12 borrowers are in default, a rise from one in 20 previously. Members of Parliament have also confirmed seeing more of such cases at their Meet-The-People sessions.

So, what happens when one is unable to service the loan?

Aisha (not her real name) and her husband have been bracing the outdoors camped out at Sembawang Park for several months. They had been living with Aisha’s mother until September 2009. When the family could no longer pay the loans, they had to sell the flat, otherwise it would be repossessed by the HDB. Unfortunately for them, the flat was sold at a lower price than when they first bought it. When her mother applied for a rental flat from the HDB, she was told that she could not as the rules say she had to wait 30 months as she has just sold off her flat. In any case, even if she qualified, she would have to wait anything from 5.5 months to as long as 19 months, according to the HDB website, before one would be available for her.

So, where does she go in the meantime?

As for Aisha herself, who is seven-months pregnant, she had sought help from MCYS previously. The officer that she met, we’re told, suggested that she put up at a hotel in Geylang instead because “it is cheaper”.

It is believed that there is only one home for the homeless in Singapore, run by New Hope Community Services. We understand that it is already at full capacity. The homeless have no choice but to sleep out in the open, at parks and void decks.

Yet, it seems that even this is not allowed.

When the raid on the homeless took place on Saturday, it was obvious that it was a poorly-coordinated and desperate attempt at ridding the park of the homeless campers. The police, which came with officers from MCYS and NParks, and with their patrol lights flashing, started ordering the campers to dismantle their tents and also issued summons for infringements of camping rules.

The authorities must have known about the situation at Sembawang Park for months. If they did not, one would have to question their competency. Would it not have been better then for the authorities to visit the place quietly, speak with the homeless, find out about their plight and help them, rather than come in such an intimidating fashion? It makes one question if the aim was to truly help the homeless or simply to intimidate them or haul them away into oblivion. After all, why issue summons and bring the police along?

And when the homeless families were taken to a facility at Angsana Home, which is located just beside the Institute of Mental Health, they were not allowed to leave the premises at any time.

By what authority were they so illegally restrained and confined?

Does that sound like “helping” the homeless?

And the authorities had no idea where to house the campers, besides telling TOC that they hope to find some voluntary welfare organizations to take them in.

Yet, the issue here is a bigger and more important one – that of the affordability of public housing. With more and more people defaulting on their mortgage loans, and prices of flats reaching ridiculous ranges, how many more people will be driven to homelessness? Already, the Minister for National Development has tacitly recognized the problem by announcing that his ministry would be building 7,500 more one and two-room flats over the next three years for the public housing rental scheme. This is in addition to the 42,000 current public rental flats, bringing the total to almost 50,000.

Would an additional 7,500 rental flats over the next three years be enough? Given that the waiting period and the waiting list itself are so long, one would question if this is adequate.

Where do the homeless sleep in the meantime?

Thus, the authorities, particularly those from NParks and MCYS, should be more understanding and merciful with regards to homeless campers. These homeless have nowhere else to go.

Ironically, just beside Sembawang Park, a new housing development – Watercove Ville - is being built, boasting beachfront living for those who can afford it.

In the meantime, the homeless have to tread carefully, in case another posse of authorities come a-helping, with the police in tow – lights flashing and all.

-------

Read also TOC's report on the raid on the homeless at Sembawang Park on Saturday night by MCYS, NParks and the police.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=254377408963&id=14440041382&ref=nf

Raiding the Homeless in the middle of the night...

Joshua Chiang / Andrew Loh

They have been camped out there for months, but no one from the government agencies seem to have known about them – perhaps until The Online Citizen’s report on 13 January.

TOC had reported that some 15 homeless families were camped out in tents at Sembawang Park.

Three days after TOC’s revelation, on 16 January, Saturday, at around 10pm, officers from the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS), and NParks, together with some 10 policemen, swooped down on the park.

When TOC arrived at the scene at about 10.50pm, there were two police cars and a pick-up van. Some of the homeless were seen dismantling their tents. When queried about why they were being asked to do so, the NParks officers said the campers had broken “rules and regulations”, even though most of them still had valid camping permits. The summons referred to Section 9(1)(a) of the Parks and Trees Regulation Act 2005 which makes it an offence to conduct a barbeque without a permit, among other things. The camping permit does not include permission to barbeque, apparently.

The officers insisted repeatedly that this writer identified those among the campers who were homeless and that their names and particulars be given to the officers. This writer declined to do so.

TOC then asked if there were any representatives from MCYS. A female officer stepped forward. On being questioned, she would only say that those who were homeless would be brought to an “institution”. When TOC probed further on what this “institution” is, she disclosed that she was referring to Angsana Home, located at Buangkok Green, next to the Institute of Mental Health.

http://www.streetdirectory.com/asia_travel/travel/travel_id_6760/travel_site_89755/

The home is part of Pelangi Village, a purpose-built Social Welfare Complex and houses the elderly destitute and ex-drug addicts.

TOC understands from the campers that Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, minister in charge of MCYS, had visited the camping site last Thursday afternoon. In the evening of the same day, two of the families were told to pack up and were then effectively carted off to Angsana Home. When they arrived at the home, they had to pass through a security gate which could only be unlocked with a pass by one of the attending officers, who claimed to be from MCYS. Once they were brought to the room where they would stay, they were told that they could not leave the premises. To do so, they would have to make a request.

According to one of the families, when they requested for food, they were given two pieces of roti prata to be shared among the family of six persons. The mattresses they were provided were also in bad condition. Some of them had rashes the next morning after having slept on them.

Two of those locked in had to go to work in the morning and asked to be let out of the premises. Their request was denied. Eventually, one of them told TOC she lost her job because she was unable to show up for work. When TOC asked the officer about this, she said she “guarantees” that those who needed to go to work would be allowed to. Still, TOC told her, it isn’t quite right for the authorities to forceably keep these people behind locked gates and to confine them. After all, they have not committed any offence, neither are they criminals who deserved to be locked up. Further, the homeless do not seem to have been given a choice of deciding whether they wanted to be housed at Angsana Home.

According to the lady from MCYS, the stay at Angsana would be a temporary one, until MCYS finds a place for them. She said it would be “for a day or two”.

It is hard to persuade people you want to help with such complete lack of coordination and heavy-handedness, TOC told her. Not with police cars with lights flashing, officers from the government ordering tents to be dismantled and summons being issued. We suggested that there were two choices – one, the campers would be allowed to stay for another day or two while MCYS looked for a proper housing option for them; or two, if they were to be housed temporarily at Angsana, they have to be assured of freedom of movement. By this time, a senior female officer had taken over the discussion.

She agreed to let the campers stay at Sembawang Park until Monday, 18 January, when six of the campers will meet with her at the MCYS office for further discussions to resolve the situation. She said she will push for the HDB to issue “interim flats” to the campers in the meantime, or to see if any Voluntary Welfare Organisation could take them in temporarily.

TOC spoke to some of the homeless about a week earlier and we understand that some of them had applied for rental flats with the HDB. However, their applications were rejected for various reasons. Some have also paid repeated visits to the HDB to apply for these flats.

When asked where these homeless people would go if they were chased away, a senior officer from NParks said, “We will help.” One of the campers retorted, “By putting us in Angsana?” The officer looked away and replied, “That is the help.”

TOC understands that a summon for overstaying could mean a $200 fine, something which the homeless can hardly afford. Campers are only allowed to camp for a maximum of eight days in a month, with consecutive-days camping fixed at a maximum of five days.

We asked if the authorities would consider waiving the fines from the summons issued to the homeless campers. The MCYS senior officer said she would speak to NParks as, she said, it was not in her power to decide.

It was almost midnight before the situation was finally resolved – at least for now. Only five out of the 20 or so tents were left standing – and none of the homeless was carted off to Angsana Home.

HDB Mortgage Slaves

I have been writing a lot on HDB policies and the ills of it recently basically because I am keeping up the pressure on the Minister of National Development to do something about it.

Mr. Mah Bow Tan has been very hardworking recently. I should say that he has made his utmost efforts recently to appear in Main Stream Media (MSM) to explain his HDB pricing policy is still "affordable".

Mr. Leong Sze Hian of TOC (The Online Citizen) has written quite a number of comments and queries on HDB policy. He has made many valid points and HDB has so far unable to provide satisfactory answers to all the questions raised so far.

According to Mr. Mah Bow Tan and his statutory board HDB, HDB flats are still "affordable", citing the "fact" that most Singaporeans are using less than 30% of their income for their HDB mortgage payment.

However, I should point out here that the Minister and his people have missed the point totally. They have based their "affordability" argument on a mortgage of 30 years. When I bought my HDB flat, I have tried to choose to go a mortgage of 15 years instead of 25 years. We settled for a 20 year mortgage instead.

My reason for a shorter mortgage is that the longer mortgage you have, the more interests you pay. And the increase of interests is not linear but rather compounded. Furthermore, imagine if you buy your flat at the average age of 27, if you go for 30 years of mortgage, it would mean that you could only pay off your mortgage at the age of 57! And if you use all your money in CPF to pay the mortgage, you will have no money for your retirement!

So what happen if you don't have enough savings for your retirement? In fact, the problem of insufficient retirement financing is surfacing slowly. The extend of the problem will explode in the next two decades when 3 generations of Singaporeans have spent all their money in financing their mortgage (for 3 decades) and have nothing left for retirement at all.

Now PAP government will tell you that oh, you can actually do a reverse mortgage of your flat! How nice of that, right? But it would mean that after slogging for 30 years, you will have nothing left to leave for your children!

In fact, the kind of "precision mathematics" that the PAP government has laid out for most Singaporeans is that most of us will be enslaved by the whole system! You will be slave to your HDB mortgage for all your working life and please make sure that you don't lose your job during this 30 years period else you will be living like those campers at Sembawang Park, Changi Beach, East Coast Park... without a roof over your head. But the best thing is this, even if you managed to pay off your mortgage for the 30 years of your productive life, you will be left with nothing for retirement!

Thus, the PAP government will OFFER you to reverse mortgage your HDB flat! Meaning that you have paid hefty interests (believe me, the total amount of interests you are paying may even be 50% of the loan if you loan from banks!) in paying for your HDB flats, you will end up selling it away cheap cheap to the government or banks! And if you die early, the government of bank will have the last laugh in taking your whole flat without paying anything further!

It means that, we will practically become SLAVES of our HDB mortgage! I would advise my young readers that if you are looking for a flat, make sure that you could pay off your mortgage in 15 years at your comfort zone... preferably 25% of your total household income. At the very worst, take only 20 years of mortgage and nothing more than that. If you can't, you better consider other alternatives. Don't be enslaved by this system, this myth of "affordability".

I will continue to fight the PAP, urging people of Tampines to vote Mah Bow Tan out, to send a strong signal to PAP that we do not want to be enslaved by the very system that they have built. We don't want our children to pay crazy prices for just a PUBLIC HOUSING which will in the end enslave them for the rest of their lives. We want to tell the PAP government that they could no longer fool us with such flawed argument and mathematical calculations. Most importantly, we want change to the way on how our lives are being governed.

Goh Meng Seng

Come on MPs. Get off your butts! -- Andrew Loh

This is another article by TOC writer, Andrew Loh on the homeless at Sembawang Park.

Andrew has revealed that MCYS has acted to get the pregnant woman under a roof since TOC writers and social activists visited the Sembawang Park campsite. However, the main issue of housing is yet to be resolved.

I am going to keep the pressure on the Minister of National Development high up as long as his ministry cannot provide a solution to these people as well as other homeless people camping around Singapore in tents. I am contemplating to make a video of these campers and keep campaigning for BASIC HOUSING RIGHTS for Singaporeans.

Let's see whether Mr. Mah Bow Tan's ministry does anything about this issue.

Goh Meng Seng


After the General Elections in 2006, the newly-formed P65 Members of Parliament from the People’s Action Party (PAP) were the speakers at a public forum. It was organized by the PAP’s Youth Wing. There were three MPs there – namely Teo Ser Luck, Zaqy Mohamad and Michael Palmer, all freshly-minted young MPs.

During the Q&A, I asked about the poor in Singapore and how the grassroots were not doing enough to help them. I sarcastically remarked that these organizations were more interested in karaoke-ing than in helping the poor. I mentioned karaoke because there were news reports at that time about the Community Clubs having these sessions which were loud enough to bother residents. Why were the organizations spending precious resources in singing? Why were these not used to help the poor instead?

MP Michael Palmer took issue with what what I said and rebutted my remarks. No surprise there, of course. While the grassroots are independent of any political parties (well, they’re meant to be anyway), PAP MPs, who’re appointed as grassroots “advisers”, are expected to defend these organizations.

Yet, one wonders what these very same MPs, such as Michael Palmer, would say if he visited Sembawang Park. There, families of all types are camping out not because they love the ourdoors but because they have nowhere else to go. Their stories vary – from being kicked out by relatives whom they had disputes with, to defaulting on their HDB or bank mortgage loans. And they are not an overnight phenomena. In fact, many of them have been camping out in tents there for months.

Children, infants, teenagers, braving the rain and the sun, the unpredictable weather.

Many have applied to the HDB for rental flats but have been rejected, for various reasons. In the end, this dogged adherence to HDB rules by civil servants have resulted in a ridiculous situation where even a seven-months pregnant woman has to endure camping out at Sembawang Park.

“We’re not looking for pity,” she tells me. “We only want a roof over our heads for our children,” she confides as her eyes well up and tears start to fall. Her other two children runs around, oblivious to the predicament their parents are going through. She had skipped her doctor’s appointment because she says her husband needs the money to go to work. She does not know how she us going to afford the hospital bill when she finally has to deliver her third child.

Minister for National Development, Mr Mah Bow Tan, was kind of proud to announce recently that two blocks of flats in Toa Payoh would be reserved for another group of people who would otherwise be homeless as well – the foreign workers.

It makes one wonder where the minister’s priorities are and if he is aware that there are homeless Singaporeans struggling to keep their heads above water, and their sanity at the same time.

The situation in Sembawang Park – where as many as 15 families are camped out – has been so for months, as I previously mentioned. One would therefore have to wonder several things:

1. What has the MP there done about it? Why, apparently, has he not done anything?

2. What have the grassroots organizations there been doing? Surely, they’re aware of the situation. I’ve seen them, the GROs, hold big events there on weekends, some involving as many as a thousand people.

3. What about the MCYS? Surely, being the ministry in charge of helping the less fortunate, it must have known about the situation for a while?

It is ridiculous, to me, that so many families should endure living in such a way at the park when they could easily be helped. For example, when we highlighted the plight of the pregnant lady, officers from the MCYS immediately put her up at a shelter and promised to expedite her request for a rental flat.

Why did it take our intervention before the ministry took action? Was it because they were afraid that The Online Citizen would expose the situation?

Yet, Sembawang Park is not the only park where the homeless camp out. We understand there are similar homeless people at East Coast Park, Serangoon Park and elsewhere.

If we can build dormitories for foreign workers, or reserve blocks of flats for them to stay, why can’t we do the same for homeless Singaporeans?

With property prices reaching ridiculous heights and the cost of living not letting up, it is no wonder that we are seeing more homeless Singaporeans.

What would be even more sad is if the government retracked the rules and disallowed camping at the parks – just as it disallowed begging in S’pore in the 80s. Perhaps this will then allow it to boast that there are no poor or homeless people in Singapore. I would not put it beyond the government to change the rules. It has already been changed once – from unlimited camping periods to the present rule which states that one can only camp at a designated area in a park for a maximum of 8 days each month. Once your 8 days are up, you'd be asked to leave - or pay a S$200 fine, which some homeless people, poor as they are, were told to when they "over-stayed".

One only hopes that the government will do what is more substantive – to find long term housing for those who can no longer afford public housing – rather than be more concerned about superficialities such as presenting an impression or image to the world that Singapore is so clean and prosperous that even the genuine poor and homeless are not seen in public.

For now, my advice to those in government or the grassroots organisations and the MPS is this : Get off your butt and get down to Sembawang Park! No Singaporean should live like this!

And yes, you might wanna give the karaoke-ing a rest too!

People of the Tents -- Joshua Chiang

While HDB is busy taking care of FOREIGN WORKERS employed by PRIVATE CASINO OPERATORS, our OWN CITIZENS are forced to live in tents without a roof over their heads! We have to vote Mah Bow Tan out to send a strong signal to the PAP government that Citizens should be the government's priority!

The following article is written by Joshua Chiang on their visit to Sembawang Park. This will become my main election issue against Mah Bow Tan if their housing problems are not solved by then.




The campsite had a holiday feel to it. Clothes hung on makeshift clothes-line. Small stoves and barbeque pits occupy the floor around the park shelter. There were fishing rods, crab traps, guitars, styrofoam boxes, unwashed plates and utensils as well. At one of the shelter, there was even a table on which were two containers of syrup. People - mostly Malays - sat in the shelter, chatting, laughing. A couple arrived with their kid pushing a small shopping cart of groceries. I counted 23 tents pitched on a grass patch about 50 meters long. The kampung spirit certainly lived on in these people, one would assume.

Except that most of them would rather not be here at Sembawang Park. They were here because they had nowhere else to go. You could say they are homeless, but you would be wrong. The homeless do not exist in Singapore. They are merely 'temporarily displaced'.

Andrew and I spoke to a couple seated inside one of the shelters. The male - his name is Zazali - had a place to stay, but he came on weekends to see his friends staying here. He was a very friendly chap, but as he spoke about the people living here (he claimed there were about 15 households), you could sense the frustration in his voice.

When it rains, he said, the tents became flooded, even with the extra layer of canvas on top of almost every single one of them. (Next time you want to know if the campers are merely here for a day or two, or much longer, look at their tents). So what happened to the people inside the tents? I asked. They come to the shelter, Zazali replied.

I looked around at the open shelter and asked how would it stop them from getting wet in a heavy storm. "Like this," said Zazali standing behind one of the pillars.

"And when there's a strong wind, everything fly," he continued, gesturing at the items around him. "Everything."

I imagined a whole family huddled behind one such pillars, most likely with a huge plastic sheet wrapped around them, pelted by the rain with the wind billowing around them, and wondered how anyone could live like for months at a stretch.

But apparently they did.

Somehow living like that had become the norm for them. Every eight days, they would go to the nearby AXN machine to re-book the use of the grass patch for their tents. (Legally no-one can camp at the place for more than eight days a month, but they somehow managed to get around it by getting their friends or older family members to take turns registering) But there were a few who had smaller networks of friends and family members, and they were fined up to $200 when they couldn't re-book the turf.

They showered and washed their laundry and dishes, and got their drinking water at the nearby toilet.

"At least here, it is free," Zazali noted. "At East Coast (Park) you pay 20 cents per entry."

They cook their meals on portable gas stoves. Sometimes visitors would offer them their leftover barbecued food.

Didn't any organizations come to donate stuff, I asked. He shook his head. It appeared that the only people who visited them were the park rangers. And it was usually to ask to see their permits.

We were joined briefly by a young teenage boy who introduced himself as Sulaiman. His family of five - minus his father - had been staying here for four months ever since their uncle decided not to shelter them. His mother was in her 40s. Until recently, she was the only one in the family working. His eldest brother, who was sleeping in one of the tents, just found a job in the shipyard nearby.

They had tried applying for one of the HDB rental flats but were told the waiting period was 13 months (and even then it was on a case-by-case basis, and also subject to an income-cap regulation). They were told the same thing when they approached their MP, or more accurately, the MP's assistant.

I forgot to ask if they had tried the open market (after all, if two people were working, they should be able to afford to pay the rental of $500 a month - which is the usual rate now), but I guessed having helped a friend find a room to rent before, most landlords would not want a family of five to share a room when they could offer the same room to a single person who is bound to be less of a hassle)

We found out later that Sulaiman and his siblings had stopped schooling. Whatever the reason, we made a mental note to find out more when we return. Poverty should not be an excuse for stopping people from getting a decent education if they want to. (We also found out much to our astonishment that Yanni - the girl with Zazali- had been suspended from school for seven months - an awfully long time for whatever offenses she had committed)

"You go talk to them ," Zazali said, looking in the direction of the tents . "They get to know you more, then you will see them cry sometimes."

Pretty soon it was time to leave. We shook hands and gave our word that we would highlight this issue in whatever ways we can.

"Thank you for listening," was Yanni's parting words. I felt the urge to tell her that many times that was all we could do, but held back. I guessed she knew as much. But at the same time, that was what the tent people needed at the very least. For someone to listen. For people to know.

On our way out, we passed by a piece of land designated for the building of eighty houses. There is little doubt that there would be a mad rush for these units when they're completed, even if each unit costs two millions. After all, it is next to a beautiful park, and faces the sea. If you're lucky, your house might be the one getting the best view of the rising sun at dawn.

There is little doubt too that the tent people would trade all these for somewhere they can sleep without getting wet whenever it rains.


(you can join this group to see more photos, or if you know people with similar stories to share http://www.facebook.com/#/group.php?gid=243022663629&ref=ts)

漫谈双文化-作者:冀居·谢

漫谈双文化
作者:冀居·谢
2010.01.06


近日有些网络英文论坛为了标榜服务“全新加坡人”，而在文章的选择方面加入了少量的华文评论，却引起一些网友的反弹，认为看了很‘苟猥’，有者还认为降低了该坛的评论水平。是的，单语舒适应该是人类的共通惰性，特别是年纪越大，越钟意和怀念乡音。另一方面，如果以1980年完全消灭华校为分水岭，而又假设行动党的双文化见解和政策是正确作为前提，至今教育了二至三代的双语/双文化人，能够优游涵泳于两个世界，然而对于语文的敏感度却似乎有增无减，这本身就是一个奇怪的现象。

林瑞生说宁愿两科都五十分也不要做个单科状元；甘愿做双栖的小青蛙，也不要成为单方面的陆地跑步或水上游泳的冠军。既然执政党的愿望那样炙热，为何会生出一个独尊英语的社会，是哪个环节出了错误，还是一开始就有人不断地说谎？

维斯瓦在国会发言，发现执政党越是声嘶力竭地高喊融合，各种族各语言的隔阂越深。他举的一个例子，我小时候也很有印象，就是第八波道是分时段为华族和淡米尔族服务的，所以我跟祖母一小一老常在华语节目结束后接下去看淡米尔片，老实说我对淡米尔片歌舞场面的喜爱，远在美国人发现Bollywood之前。

现在很多商家和政府机构把文字内容呈现给各族大众夸大成十足的难题，或者干脆自行选择只用英文呈现，其实就是一种鸵鸟心态。我记得马来西亚的漫画家Lat就把小时候看露天电影的记忆画出来，布做的天幕上有一半的画面是被华、巫、英的字幕所遮盖，不过大家还是看得津津有味。因为大家都知道，要维持多元文化，让所有人都能一起欣赏，这样的一点让步是必要的。

也不知道什么时候，华文和 “offbeat”划上等号，认为华文呈现的东西都是逊一点的。看到西片有中文字幕，觉得很offbeat，可是当银幕上的人物讲德语或者法语，他们又眼巴巴希望赶快有英文字幕的辅助。他们说英文是世界主流，娱乐主要来自英语产品，可是他们有没有想想电子科技产品的龙头是日本和南韩，电脑游戏方面中国也渐渐赶上，这一二十年来就有很多新玩意儿是先有日文版、韩文版，将来可能有更多是先有中文版，然后才翻译成英文给那些懂得英语的人使用，他们有因为这样而看不起使用英语的人吗？我想不会。

新加坡的年轻人很多都喜欢自诩是双语，但是第五波道的很多外地节目只听得懂一半，有时就转向本地制作的第八波道，因为只有第八波道的华语水平适合他们；所以第八波道就成了为老一辈识字不多、还有识华文字不多的新一代服务。他们看不懂两岸三地的节目，因为华文太“深”！比如昨晚我看韩剧《李算》，有一句“席蒿待罪”，“蒿”是粗糙的织席材料，念hāo。但是字幕却打成“席藳待罪”，配音员也跟着念错，念成gǎo。

新加坡台面上的人物，能够应用双语发表演说和写文章，达到舒适程度且信手拈来的，我看只有一个吴明盛，竟然还是个反对党人物，对于推动双文化的执政党和二丑们，这是多么大的讽刺！四五百万人才出一个，这需要多高的智商，俨然是挟泰山而超北海的不能事，大家别傻了。

有人说不用中文发表的原因是因为打字太麻烦，真的吗？撇开“单指神功”不谈，英文打字要学会用十指来打，也一样要下苦工的。我记得中学的时候还乘着假期花钱到加东购物中心学了十多课才学会的，那时隔壁的奥迪安戏院还在放映《唐山大兄》。

很多人对于眼前事物的理解是不问原由的，比如为什么新加坡的老年人有一部分不能够使用电脑，那一部分就是使用华文华语的人，是这些人比较笨吗？其实不然。根本就是人为障碍的问题，视窗中文版在两岸三地随便都可以买到，但是在本地却完全没有人引进，还能够说我们是提倡双文化的社会吗？只要电脑界面的文字是认识、会看的，其实已经成功了一半，接下来就是熟悉和重复练习的问题罢了。把视窗只能呈现一种英文视为理所当然，才是耽误和剥夺了很多老人上网的机会。就以火狐（Firefox）这个浏览器来说，可以有70多种文字的呈现，中文还分简体和繁体两种，并且每个月都在增加。而我们还执拗于先去spur学会英文才能掌握电脑这个工具，到底是谁先入为主的观念让我们这样笨下去的？

有人说懂得英文，世界所有政要的名字都能够一目了然，而不必像中文那样，一地有一地的翻译。他这样说的时候，大概心中只有欧美，或者更准确地说是雅利安语系的 christian names 吧，亚洲、非洲的名字一样也是不了啊， “Ai Iijima”还不如“饭岛爱”更为人所知。

在亚洲，虽然日本、南韩、台湾和大陆的英文程度都不如新加坡，但是人家对于好莱坞电影的欣赏比我们层面更广、更投入，吸收得更多。世界要多元化，不同的文化可以通过翻译来交流，单语化是愚蠢的结论。而翻译也是社会分工的一部分，吾生也有涯，并不一定要自己来。那些认为自己懂得英文可以直接欣赏英文戏剧的人，为什么在欣赏自己的母族文化时，却要靠英文字幕，这一点你们想过没有？

成语“求全责备”好像很义正词严，其实其近义词却是“吹毛求疵”，这些人用很狭隘的视角，常在门缝里把人看扁了。

Commemorating JBJ - The Icon of a Lost Generation

5th of Jan is the birthday of the belated democratic fighter, Joshua Benjamin Jeyaratnam, better known as JBJ. I attended the commemoration gathering at Hong Lim Park this evening and gave a short speech.

My speech revolves around the theme, JBJ is the Icon of my generation, the lost generation. Why lost generation?

I am coming to 40 year old, born in 1970. My childhood was spent in the era of White Terror. Throughout my first 10 years of living, I have been "indoctrinated with fear" by my parents and elders. Whenever I talked bad about the government, they would just try to shut me up, warning me "The MATA (policemen) will come after you!"

It is no wonder my generation of peers are generally politically apathetic and will even shun me if they or their spouses work in GLC, GIC, Temasek or the civil service. There are many opposition members who are in the 20s, 35 below, 50s, 60s and even 70s, but very few at the age of 37 to 40 now.

When I attended TOC's 2009 year end event last week, I was very impressed with the relatively huge turn out who are mostly in their 20s and early 30s. Some are older, 45 and above but I find very few who are of my own age. It hits me that my generation is burdened by the indoctrination of fear that we received during our impressionable youth. The young ones who are born in the 1980s are hardly brought up with fear deliberately instilled in them.

However, their youthfulness would also mean that they may not really know JBJ as the icon of my generation. JBJ won his as well as opposition's FIRST electoral battle in 1981's by elections after one and a half decade of PAP's monopoly of power. But that was a quiet victory to the general public because the victory was not telecast live on TV.

JBJ did it again in the subsequent General Election in 1984. I believe those in their 20s now would not understand fully what it means to be a REAL VICTORY against all odds. When JBJ's victory was announced on TV, there were screaming and cheering breaking through the night in the area where I stay. He was the man that has broken the silence of the fearful generation.

JBJ has broken the monopoly of PAP and put a dent in PAP's myth of invincibility. This happened in an era of white terror where the majority of Singaporeans were living in fear exerted by the PAP's ruthless demolition and massive detention without trial of its political opponents. PAP's hatred of JBJ arises from the fact that he was the one who have broken that big egoistic myth of political invincibility in polling. But to many of us of this lost generation, he is the LIGHT to our blind fear. He has shown us that it is totally possible to win against all odds, against the ruthless tyranny of monopoly rule.

JBJ has forced the ruling party, in their very own fear of losing more seats, to start changing the electoral rules so to prolong their monopoly of power. Even change the Constitution to disallow legal appeals to the Privy Councils when JBJ won his case against the PAP government when he appealed in Privy Councils. ironically, it was PAP's fear of losing any seats to JBJ that made them did so many things which disgust many people like me.

Notably, the introduction of pork barrel politics of HDB upgrading in 1997 and the amendment of the GRC system to further expand them in sizes, contradicting the very principle of "appropriate minority representation" that the GRC was first argued for implementation. As a voter of Cheng San GRC which was contested by JBJ's team, I was literally held hostage by the PAP with the then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong threatening us that there will be no HDB upgrading for us if we do not vote for PAP. Our rubbish chutes will pile up. We will have last priority even in lift rescue services as compared to other PAP wards.

JBJ's team attracted ALL the heavy weights ministers from PAP to contest in Cheng San GRC. PM Goh personally declared that he was putting his reputation and stake into the fight in Cheng San. Then the SM Lee Kuan Yew stepped in, followed by his Son. It was then, my political awakening was invoked thoroughly.

All these events that happened against JBJ have made me realized that as long as PAP is in power, it will forever, for its own political self interests, hold Singaporeans hostage with whatever "weapons" they have when it comes to voting. They will continue to instill fear in Singaporeans by holding us hostage. They will continue to disregard the basic fundamental political rights of Singaporeans.

The most important question that I have asked myself is, do I want my children and future generations continue to live in the very fear that my generation has lived through? Do I want them to continue to be held hostage by such self-serving ruling party? Always have that invisible hand that will always be on their throats, threaten to strangle them if they do not vote for them? Or just choke them to silence? Absolute not. There are only two options left for me if I do not want that to happen. Either I save enough money and emigrate out of this place or I stay back to fight to effect change to this political system, all for my future generations. I decided to stay back and fight for change eventually.

I have lent my torchlight to the speakers who speak tonight for reading their scripts. This very torchlight has the privilege of shining through every words of tribute that the speakers have made. JBJ was and forever will be the torchlight of my fearful generation.

JBJ might have left us but his undaunted fighting spirit to change Singapore has not died. We should continue to fight for change, not merely from the electoral battles, but also to effect change to the general mindset of Singaporeans. Fight for the Change of the mindset of my Lost Generation as well as your generation. WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW OURSELVES AND OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO BE HELD HOSTAGE BY THE PAP! We should liberate ourselves from the knuckle dusters and fear created by the PAP. The only way is to break their monopoly of power which will break their arrogance into humility.

I hope, with the torch that shines on everybody that is present tonight, we could carry on the legacy that is left by JBJ. Not everyone will choose the path of front line politics but everyone could do their part in talking to their peers, their families and friends about the need to change our sterile mindset in order to liberate ourselves from PAP's ransom seeking.

I also hope that all my readers would do the same. For the sake of ourselves and our future generations, we should start asking ourselves whether we want our children to continue living in the very political fear that we have gone through.

My generation has lost the opportunity to really appreciate the democratic light that JBJ has shed on us. But I hope the younger generations which have experienced less indoctrination of political fear in their lifetime, would continue to effect the change that JBJ has worked so hard in his whole life to initiate.

The future lies in our hands.

Goh Meng Seng

Rejected Letter on HDB

High HDB prices driven by speculators, hurting genuine home seekers
Monday, 4 January 2010, 10:50 am | 151 views

The following is a letter to the Today newspaper by Mr See Leong Kit which was “rejected for publication.”

Your report “Asset that keeps growing” (TODAY Dec 30) highlighted Minister Mah Bow Tan’s simplistic and optimistic view that HDB flat values will always go up.

Home prices in Singapore have become “ridiculously-high” for private property and “sky-high” for HDB flats.

Is it financially prudent for our young couples to start their marriage saddled with huge housing debts for something as basic as a roof over their heads?

The broader issue is that land-scarce Singapore must have proper policies to promote an “orderly” property market that is sustainable by economic growth, real demand and especially rising incomes. Such a market with gradual capital appreciation will benefit many Singaporeans from successive generations.

Whereas a “speculative” property market of sky-high prices is largely driven by speculators out to make a quick buck by “flipping a property”. But when the Property Bubble finally burst, both speculators and genuine home owners will be hurt by rapidly falling property values.

During our 1994 Property Bull Run, prices of both private and HDB properties were rising at 30% per annum for three years in a row. But since when has our economy as well as our salaries grow at such a phenomenal rate?

Our 2007 Property Bull Run lasted only nine months, cut short by the US sub-prime housing bubble turning into a Global Financial Crisis that brought recession and job losses to Singapore. But during that nine months, average freehold property value in our East Coast area doubled from $700 psf to $1400 psf.

A property may be “an asset that can be monetised”, but it can also end up as a millstone around one’s neck. High property prices will affect the average Singaporean as follows:

> As a home-buyer. Is it wise to sink so much of your hard-earned monies in a brick-and-cement house with little left over for your children’s upbringing, your own healthcare and retirement needs in old age?

> As an employee. If your employer has to pay high office rent out of its operating budget, can it afford to pay you a better salary,increment and bonus?

> As a consumer. If a shopkeeper or supermarket operator has to pay high commercial rent, will it not charge you higher prices for goods and services?

Finally, two pertinent questions for HDB flat-owners:

Are there not more important things in life, such as good health, close family ties and well brought-up children than this materialistic addiction to “HDB Upgrading Carrots” and “my HDB flat is worth a lot”?

Should you die suddenly from an accident or heart attack, can you take your high-valuation upgraded HDB flat along with you to the next world?
Reply With Quote

星洲选读：林明华—李光耀和南大

主题:星洲选读：林明华—李光耀和南大
作者:冀居·谢 10:12am 04/01/2010

林明华—李光耀和南大
2010-01-03 18:14

事实证明，李光耀至今仍对华教和南大充满了偏见。

新加坡內阁资政李光耀早前接受《国家地理》杂誌访问时表示，他后悔没有早点关闭南洋大学，而决定关闭主要是因为当时的华文大学流失优秀生，只能招收次等生。

李光耀的表白，令许多因为李光耀晚年的一些“后悔”之言，而对他產生“南大有复办希望”幻想的南大子弟，再次彻底绝望。

李光耀曾经说过，“如果时光能够倒流，就不会关闭华校”。他也曾表示，“如果（新加坡）失去南大精神，就会很麻烦”。很多人將他这两句“名言”解读为“后悔之言”，以为他的心態改变了，並因而对他有了浪漫的期待。

然而事实证明，李光耀至今仍对华教和南大充满了偏见，这种心態，数十年如一日，从来就没有真正改变过。

正如他在访谈中所坦承，他是一个“实用主义者”，他没有早点关闭南大，主要是考虑到当时的政治因素，担心在接下来的大选中会引起选民的强烈抗议。

回溯歷史，命途多舛的南洋大学是在陈六使领导下，由马新华社在1956年正式创办。1980 年，李光耀把南洋大学和新加坡大学合併成新加坡国立大学，南大由此走入了歷史。1981年，李光耀在南大的旧校园创办南洋理工学院，並於1991年將之升格为南洋理工大学（简称南大），引发了“南大”是否还实质存在的爭议。

在南大人看来，云南园的相思树已被砍尽，南大也早已和华文小学和华文中学一样，成为新加坡的歷史名词。这是他们心中永远的痛。

但李光耀从来就不曾后悔过，为了合理化他那至今仍然爭议不休的的教育政策，他对南大生和华校生的批评和矮化，依然是那么不留情面，尖酸刻薄。

其实，华文教育在新加坡的没落，究其原因，是既复杂和多方面的，並非李光耀所说的那么简单。其中，政府的英文至上和刻意矮化华校生的政策、李光耀的反共立场，以及他与左翼华文知识份子之间的恩怨，都是促使它写上“休止符”的直接因素。

毫无疑问，新加坡今日的经济成就非凡，但这一切的背后，除了李光耀的“实用主义”发挥了效用之外，难道就一点也没有华校生和南大人的贡献在內？

徙南大於1980被迫关闭，到1987年新加坡华校全部走入歷史，这些歷史大事，都是发生在李光耀担任总理任內。

这个事实，以及李光耀在新加坡华教史上的“歷史定位”，不是滔滔善辩就可以改变的！

星洲日报／云淡风轻‧作者：林明华‧2010.01.03


大马论坛

李光耀 新移民有幹勁國民愚蠢

李光耀 新移民有幹勁國民愚蠢

03/01/10

作者/来源：明報 http://news.sina.com.hk

憂星洲人變蠢

新加坡內閣資政李光耀接受外國傳媒訪問，大談獅城治國方針和國家面對的挑戰，內容引發爭議。李光耀表示，擔心新加坡國民的幹勁遠遜於移民，「變得愚蠢」，長遠下去人才不繼，恐難見長治久安，又表示歡迎新移民，並大讚中國學生勤奮。有關言論惹起部分網民不滿，稱李所指的問題是他當年的政策造成。

恐人才不繼 國家百年後難存在

李光耀早前接受《國家地理雜誌》訪問，他雖然確信新加坡未來10至15年仍能在一套行之有效的機制下穩健發展，然而「100年之後，我不能確定新加坡是否還會存在」。他指出，新加坡的長遠未來取決於領導層能否持續進行更新，引進有才幹的年輕人接班。國家缺乏天然資源等有利發展條件，故只能靠人才。一旦治理不當，新加坡很可能由成功走向失敗，一切打回原形。

他表示，國家發展須仰賴「不斷創新的想法和人才新血」，所以積極吸納新移民和外來人才，以激發新加坡人的新思維和營造互相競爭的意識。可是他留意到，很多新加坡人並不喜歡移民湧入，尤其是到來爭取高薪厚職的高學歷新移民。大家即使「驚輸」，卻「看不透」要迎頭趕上就當加把勁、加快步伐的道理，失去衝勁。

「中國學生努力學習」

李光耀指出，本土國民衝勁不足，新移民卻求知若渴，決心取得成功。例如來自中國的學生原先都不會英文，但是他們深知學好英文在新加坡是很重要的，因此努力學習，很多新移民學生在中學畢業時，英文都是班上頂呱呱的。

他慨嘆道：「我們常提醒他們必須勤力點，否則會變得愚笨。他們總是看不透這一點，以為既然可以慢跑，又何必賽跑，何不保留力氣，做點其他事情？比如搞藝術、芭蕾舞和體育運動。但是，新移民卻整天呆在圖書館或家裏埋頭苦讀。」

他又稱「人性跟動物相似」，他認為人可以受訓練，學守紀律，卻不可以改變劣根性，所以新加坡重視教育又實施許許多多規矩守則，而高薪養廉，總比鬧出像英國「津貼門」般，議員長領低薪卻巧立名目領報公費的醜聞。

現做「遠程雷達」 為政府護航

這位對星洲命脈仍舉足輕重的86歲老人，直言早已不直接參與政府決策，而是扮演「為政府尋找發展機會、捕捉可能威脅」的「遠程雷達」角色。他說：「我所能做的就是確保在我離開時，新加坡的體制仍完好有效、政府廉潔高效，掌權的領導人懂得治理這個國家。」

雖然官方掌控的媒體周六才轉載這次訪談，但在網絡上，李光耀的談話早已引起新加坡網民的廣泛批評，不少人都抨擊李光耀執政時的政策是導致他口中所說新加坡現時的困局。

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