林行止—政府负责任 市民尽义务
2009年4月29日
一、
世卫组织已把“流行疫症警戒级别”提高至证实病毒会人传人的第四级，预示猪流感已在各地扩散；面对这种可能蔓延全球的疫症，政府和人民似乎有二种“误信”（也许有人明知不可信却为自我安慰和令大众安心而不得不表示相信），其一为“特敏福”和“乐感清”是特效药；其一为猪肉会传播病毒。
“特敏福”及“乐感清”对不断变异的病毒都无疗效（严格来说是疗效不足百分之五），但在针对Ｈ１Ｎ１（及Ｈ３Ｎ２）病毒的特效疫苗未发现前，卫生当局及医院只能贮备这二种不算完全无用的成药；非常明显，如果公私医疗机构和盘托出世卫的有关实验报告（二十七日本栏；同日有“网友”指出统计见 who.int/csr/disease/influenza/H1N1），则极可能引致公众恐慌；根据世卫的实验，今年一月在证实染上Ｈ１Ｎ１的一千三百六十二宗病例中，对“特敏福”呈抗药性的有一千二百五十一宗，等于这种“特效药”只对约百分之五患者有效……。不过，在无法可想的情形下，当局只能以储存足量的“特敏福”来安抚民心！这种事实，炒卖相关药厂股票者应留意。
猪流感和吃猪肉是二码子事，世卫近日多次强调只要“适当地煮熟”（华氏一百六十度足以杀死猪肉中一切细菌和病毒），猪肉绝对无害，因此，该组织建议别赴墨西哥旅行而没有建议禁食猪肉。世界第一个禁止猪肉进口的似乎是菲律宾，去周六其农业部长作这项宣布时，指出这只是“预防性措施”，同时强调“没有证据显示猪肉带有病毒”。有些国家如俄罗斯去周日宣布禁止猪肉进口，其真正理由当然不是担心猪肉会传播病毒（卫生当局肯定读过世卫的报告），这样做的目的不外“借刀杀人”，因为设法减少肉类进口（近年多次提高肉类进口关税）是俄罗斯扶助国内畜牧业的政策。
顺便一提，人类患猪流感的致命率（ＣＦＲ），以墨西哥为例，约百分之十，猪只染此病毒的死亡率更低至在百分之一至三之间；然而，这是指“猪传人”的病例，假如是“人传猪”─带病毒的人把之传给猪只，后者的死亡率“极高”；医家虽未提供具体数据，但一九一八年杀人无数（五千万至一亿）的“大流感”，引致三十年代“猪瘟”令全球死掉以千万计猪只，便是“人传猪”引致。
二、
在对付猪流感上，特区政府汲取○三年沙士爆发时张皇失措造成大量死亡的惨痛经验，迅速定出多项预防措施，包括每天下午召开“四三○”记者会公布有关情况、成立跨部门督导委员会，医管局同时做好种种相关部署……，食物及卫生局局长周一岳因此信心满满，说“我们正在等待第一个病人来港”！
港府做好应变措施，不仅显示了办事认真和谨慎，同时反映了履行道德及社会责任的决心；惟其能否妥善地“击退”猪流感，有待事实说明。
作为和政府一样负责任的市民，在猪流感风声鹤唳之下应怎样做才能分担当局肩上的重担且能保持良好健康状态？专家（四月号《华盛顿月刊》的提示是密切留意有关消息及资讯、听从政府的“劝谕”（如不去问题地区旅行及“众地勿企”等）、做好个人基本卫生（如经常洗手及勿当众咳嗽等）、发现身体在异状（本人或家人）要马上就医（愈早就医“特敏福”药效愈大）、做好在一般时间不外出家居的准备（如贮足一定数目的日常食用品）。
在真正有效的“特效药”未发现前，上述种种是负责任公民应尽的义务。
三、
海外论者经常批评中国官僚系统敷衍塞责贪污腐化（沙士期间尤为如此），没想到墨西哥的情况不相伯仲。迄今为止，猪流感致命者均发生于墨西哥（墨西哥外一共有约三百宗病例），这究竟是该国医院设备落后、对患者疏于照顾还是药物不足？这些问题都有正面答案。墨西哥的问题，据四月五日《La Jornada》日报的报道（四月二十七日英国《卫报》有强调死了数名婴孩的特稿），猪流感在二月间已爆发，但医院管理不善、医生处理不当及官员贪腐成风，不仅令这种新流感被视为肺炎、气管炎，而且上呈的病患者数字大幅缩水；从可能染上猪流禽却报称死于其他呼吸系统疾病的人数推测，染病人数可能高达一万五千多人。
上引日报报道，猪流感二月间在人口三千多的小镇La Gloria 发现，该村以养猪场出名，但其供猪只“打滚”的浅池有如无遮猪厕，臭气冲天、苍蝇蔽日，该村有六成人口患上“疑似猪流感”……。墨西哥猪流感情况肯定远较外电所说的严重。
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
港迷债丑闻后续：太阳报社评—坐视毒债祸民 先知惨过无知
主题:港迷债丑闻后续：太阳报社评—坐视毒债祸民 先知惨过无知
太阳报社评—坐视毒债祸民 先知惨过无知
2009-04-15
立法会引用权力及特权法调查雷曼迷债事件，演变成一场财金官员争相卸责的闹剧。金融管理局总裁任志刚昨日出席立法会聆讯时，仍在死撑，多番否认对银行监管不足，强调自己早在○六年已就金融衍生产品可能引发的风险作出多次预警，并要求银行提高相关投资产品的风险评级。他并声称金管局无权参与审批金融产品的文件和章程。
任志刚的一番伟论，委实令人摸不着头脑。如果金管局果真如此先知先觉，为何类似雷曼这种毒债仍可卖到成行成市？为何数万市民会血本无归？
事实胜于雄辩，不妨看看本报去年跟进的一宗案例。去年二月，债券苦主林先生到银行做定期存款，在银行游说下购入被职员称为“保本”的雷曼迷债。林先生回家后细阅文件，发现所购入的迷债原来是高风险投资产品，他认为银行销售手法存在误导，乃于四月十五日向金管局投诉，要求局方介入调查，讵料金管局花了近五个月时间跟进他的投诉后，竟说“没有足够理据支持去展开正式调查”。任志刚自称○六年已发现迷债问题，不知从何说起。
显而易见，任志刚根本是在推卸责任。金管局拥有全面详尽的市场资讯，能够预早察觉金融市场所潜伏的危机，不足为怪。然而作为本港金融业的主要监管机构，局方既然发现问题，实有责任及时介入，加强监管，阻止问题产品流入市面，而不是单单发表几句评论，聊以塞责。当局放纵雷曼迷债横行市面，已是难辞其咎，而金管局既知问题之所在却没作跟进，则更是罪加一等！
不难想像，如果金管局对金融产品及时作出规管，必可防止更多市民中招。但令人失望的是，局方竟对毒债销售视而不见、见而不理，坐视市民纷纷堕入陷阱，到了雷曼爆煲后，他们又将责任统统推给银行，“劝喻”银行与客户达成回购和解，自己则置身事外。如今在立法会跟进下，金管局又以“先知先觉”自居，和证监会互相推卸，把本身的责任推得一干二净。
诚如有议员指出，“迷你债券”的名称本身已具有误导性。有议员质疑金管局明知迷债产品存在高风险，却没有阻止相关的销售广告。事实上，这种高风险产品在欧美地区只会卖给专业投资者，但在香港，却可对包括退休长者、残疾人士在内的普罗大众大销特销，这反映的已经不只是个别银行职员的不良销售行为，而是整个金融监管制度的严重漏洞，以及相关部门的严重失职。
雷曼迷债事件告诉我们，表面上，本港金融业是由金管局及证监会“一业两管”，事实上，却是处于“金管不管，证监不监”的真空状态。更加离谱的是，迷债爆煲迄今，人们只见两个部门互相扯皮，至今不见一名官员主动承认责任。市民寄望立法会介入调查事件，就是希望立法会能主持公道，追究失职官员的责任，同时督促当局堵塞监管漏洞，绝对叉他们再次蒙混过关！
雷曼兄弟倒闭，迷债炸弹爆发，掀起全城风雨，造成难以挽回的损失。然而一众财金官员疏于监管、只顾推诿卸责，这对香港这个所谓金融中心的损害，犹甚于雷曼事件。
太阳报社评—坐视毒债祸民 先知惨过无知
2009-04-15
立法会引用权力及特权法调查雷曼迷债事件，演变成一场财金官员争相卸责的闹剧。金融管理局总裁任志刚昨日出席立法会聆讯时，仍在死撑，多番否认对银行监管不足，强调自己早在○六年已就金融衍生产品可能引发的风险作出多次预警，并要求银行提高相关投资产品的风险评级。他并声称金管局无权参与审批金融产品的文件和章程。
任志刚的一番伟论，委实令人摸不着头脑。如果金管局果真如此先知先觉，为何类似雷曼这种毒债仍可卖到成行成市？为何数万市民会血本无归？
事实胜于雄辩，不妨看看本报去年跟进的一宗案例。去年二月，债券苦主林先生到银行做定期存款，在银行游说下购入被职员称为“保本”的雷曼迷债。林先生回家后细阅文件，发现所购入的迷债原来是高风险投资产品，他认为银行销售手法存在误导，乃于四月十五日向金管局投诉，要求局方介入调查，讵料金管局花了近五个月时间跟进他的投诉后，竟说“没有足够理据支持去展开正式调查”。任志刚自称○六年已发现迷债问题，不知从何说起。
显而易见，任志刚根本是在推卸责任。金管局拥有全面详尽的市场资讯，能够预早察觉金融市场所潜伏的危机，不足为怪。然而作为本港金融业的主要监管机构，局方既然发现问题，实有责任及时介入，加强监管，阻止问题产品流入市面，而不是单单发表几句评论，聊以塞责。当局放纵雷曼迷债横行市面，已是难辞其咎，而金管局既知问题之所在却没作跟进，则更是罪加一等！
不难想像，如果金管局对金融产品及时作出规管，必可防止更多市民中招。但令人失望的是，局方竟对毒债销售视而不见、见而不理，坐视市民纷纷堕入陷阱，到了雷曼爆煲后，他们又将责任统统推给银行，“劝喻”银行与客户达成回购和解，自己则置身事外。如今在立法会跟进下，金管局又以“先知先觉”自居，和证监会互相推卸，把本身的责任推得一干二净。
诚如有议员指出，“迷你债券”的名称本身已具有误导性。有议员质疑金管局明知迷债产品存在高风险，却没有阻止相关的销售广告。事实上，这种高风险产品在欧美地区只会卖给专业投资者，但在香港，却可对包括退休长者、残疾人士在内的普罗大众大销特销，这反映的已经不只是个别银行职员的不良销售行为，而是整个金融监管制度的严重漏洞，以及相关部门的严重失职。
雷曼迷债事件告诉我们，表面上，本港金融业是由金管局及证监会“一业两管”，事实上，却是处于“金管不管，证监不监”的真空状态。更加离谱的是，迷债爆煲迄今，人们只见两个部门互相扯皮，至今不见一名官员主动承认责任。市民寄望立法会介入调查事件，就是希望立法会能主持公道，追究失职官员的责任，同时督促当局堵塞监管漏洞，绝对叉他们再次蒙混过关！
雷曼兄弟倒闭，迷债炸弹爆发，掀起全城风雨，造成难以挽回的损失。然而一众财金官员疏于监管、只顾推诿卸责，这对香港这个所谓金融中心的损害，犹甚于雷曼事件。
Taiwan World Class Medical Insurance-- Translated
The article written by Dong Qing Feng published in the most recent issue of Asiaweek has pointed out that Taiwan's Medical insurance system is regarded as one of the best model for the world. From Medical demand, Medical supply etc. it has been praised and ranked second only to Sweden. Few of the main reasons for such high ranking include the hardworking doctors, low wages for medical staffs, few medical disputes and compensations and most importantly, most of the medical institutions are run and controlled by the government.
The report points out that last year, Nobel Prize winner, Economic Professor of US Princeton University and column writer for New York Times, Professor Paul Krugman, has praised Taiwan's Medical Insurance system in New York Times and urged the Americans to emulate such system.
Krugman believes that the Taiwan Medical Insurance system can provide a good example for all Americans to be insured within their economic means. He reiterates that within a short period of six years, the growth in the number of Taiwanese being medically insured has raised from less than 60% to 97%. Besides, the cost for all Taiwanese to be insured is very low and it takes population and income growth into account. Even if the cost of medical care increase, the increase will be insignificant.
The Taiwan medical insurance system was implemented in 1st March 1995. It was one of the greatest achievement of the KMT when Lian Zhan was the Prime Minister then. It becomes famous in the world for providing low medical insurance premium, wide medical coverage and convenience resulting in high subscription rate by Taiwanese. Taiwan Medical Insurance scheme consolidated workers, laborers and farmers medical insurance payment and created a single entity medical insurance for all. It implements a single payment channel and a gross payment system.
This National Medical Insurance scheme embrace the spirit of social insurance, which is risk sharing and under the fundamental guiding principle of mutual help, the young will earn money to take care of the medical risks of the aged. In doing so, it achieves mutual aid across different generations and races. It also creates a huge health database that could be used by healthcare research. On the other hand, the administration cost has been kept under 2% and that is why it has been praised internationally.
In 2000, EIU has ranked Taiwan's Medical Insurance scheme as number two under medical demand and supply, second only to Sweden in the whole world. The ABC has praised Taiwan's Medical Insurance scheme in one of its program broadcast in 2003, pointing out the fact that with a monthly medical insurance premium of US$20 and an average cost of US$4 to US$10 for every medical visit, you could make appointment to any hospital with any preferred doctors of your choice in Taiwan. There are at least 50 countries around the world that have paid visits to Taiwan to study its Medical Insurance scheme in recent years.
Taiwan Medical Insurance Scheme has been well known to be value for money. Base on their income, Taiwanese will pay a token amount of insurance premium every month and they will be able to enjoy all kinds of medical services. Regardless of rich or poor, big hospitals or small clinics, all will receive the same level of medical services. All will receive equal treatment. Even if the rich wish to pay more for additional privileged services, it will be prohibited. Besides, it is very convenient to get medical services there, with big number of hospitals and clinics availability all throughout Taiwan. You can pick and choose your choice of hospital or clinic without any need of doctor's recommendation.
The Medical Insurance is not solely born by the people. Private companies and the government will have to share the cost of the premium as well. Those companies that bought workers' insurance for their employees will have to pay for their medical insurance as well. This is due to the fact that such insurance premium will include workers' insurance and medical insurance. The present law dictates that employers will have to bear 60% of their workers' medical insurance, employees and their family members will bear 30% while the government will bear 10%.
Taiwan Medical Insurance Scheme's premiums are based on income classification. The premiums are charged according to 10 different classes of income. For example, those who earn less than NT$17280 (about US$500) will pay only NT$600 as monthly premium. Those with monthly income more than NT$131700, they will pay a monthly premium of NT$5400.
Foreign workers are included in the Medical Insurance Scheme.
Due to the fact that the National Medical Insurance Scheme is compulsory for all, everyone will have to be admitted into the Medical Insurance Scheme. This will include foreign students, migrants and even foreign workers. Its core value is “Big illness for Hospitals, small illness for small clinics” . Everyone who seek medical care, apart from paying the basic administration fee, patients will have to bear part of the medical cost.
Ex-DPP Legislative Yuan member Sheng Fu Xiong has a heart operation, warded for 4 days. The operation implanted a blood vessel widener for him. He paid about NT$20000 (about US$600), the medical insurance has helped him paid a few hundred dollars. Such operation will cost more than a million of New Taiwan dollars without medical insurance.
Taiwan Medical Insurance is very Cheap!
As a medical doctor, Sheng Fu Xiong is one of the few in Legislative Yuan who are regarded as those who have put in lots of effort in researching on the Medical Insurance Scheme back then. He pointed out that the insurance premium that each Taiwanese has to pay is about one sixth to one eight of US medical insurance premiums and this is very cheap!
Taiwan's Medical Insurance Scheme is the creation of Harvard professor Xiao Qing Lun and this creation is based on the study of Canada's united insurance system. However, Canada's medical insurance scheme is basically a failure, why does Taiwan's scheme a success then? Sheng Fu Xiong pointed out that firstly, Taiwan doctors are just too hardworking. Many doctors has to see 120 patients a day (while in US, the average is only 30), this is very rare and unique in the world. Secondly, Taiwan's medical staff, apart from doctors, like nurses, physiotherapists, nutrionists, psychiatrists, pharmacists etc., are fewer in comparison and their wages are lower. Take nurses for example, their pay is only 20% of US nurses. Thirdly, there are few medical disputes in Taiwan, there are less medical related lawsuits. Even if there are, even if the doctor lost the case, the compensation amount is not high. Compensation for death caused by erroneous diagnosis is at most NT$1m to NT$2m, some are even below NT$1m. Forth, all American medical institutions are listed company, the pressure of profitability is higher. Taiwan's medical institutions are prohibited from listing in the stock exchange, most of them are run and subsidized by the government.
In comparison, Canada's medical insurance system does not have all these advantages. Sheng Fu Xiong pointed out that most important of all, Canada does not have efficiency. If a patient needs an operation that is deemed as non-urgent, like an operation on hip joint, they will need to wait for at least 6 months. In Taiwan, the same operation will only take 1 week to be completed.
Sheng Fu Xiong revealed that a few years ago, Hong Kong government was considering of implementing a system similar to Taiwan's Medical Insurance scheme. Xiao Qinglun has travelled to Hong Kong to explain the scheme to the Hong Kong officials. He was engaged by the Hong Kong government to do a feasibility study there but in the end, he recommended against implementing such a scheme in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong government has accepted his recommendation. “I feel that it is right not to implement it” This is because this system could only be successful in Taiwan, it will fail in other parts of the world. “This is the fruit of Taiwan's special circumstances”.
Hong Kong's system is the middle path between Taiwan and US.
Sheng Fu Xiong said that one of the main reason that it is not suitable for Hong Kong to emulate Taiwan's Medical Insurance scheme is that Hong Kong doctors are not as hardworking as Taiwan's, there are more medical staffs than Taiwan, salaries are higher than Taiwan and there are more medical disputes than Taiwan.” He said that Hong Kong's system is a middle path between Taiwan and US. It has all the bad points that US has but the problems are not as serious as US. Hong Kong does not have the good points that Taiwan has, like hardworking doctors, low compensation for medical dispute, medical institutions are not listed on stock exchange...etc.
Sheng Fu Xiong criticize Krugman as an amateur. Although Krugman is a Liberal but he has socialist influence in his heart. Thus, he does not discount government intervention totally. However, Taiwan's Medical Insurance scheme is a single provider and it under heavy influenced by the governmental system. Besides, it is not a multi-insurance scheme but a unison insurance scheme and this is the role played by the government. He only sees the beauty of Taiwan's Medical Insurance Scheme but not the potential problems. It is due to the fact that the Taiwan Medical Insurance scheme is based on a collapsible structure that it needs to be reformed.
Taiwan government has paid nearly NT$400Billion per year but medical experts criticize that the medical wastage every year amount to Nt$10billion resulting in the Medical Insurance scheme recording deficits every year. Sheng Fu Xiong pointed out that the potential worries of the Medical Insurance scheme is “the growth of our premium collections could not catch up with the growth of the medical expenses.” Thus every time when the accounts are balanced, 3 years later it will become a deficit again. In another words, expenses are always bigger than premium collections and this is due to the lack of restrains and the spirit of free market principles. Taiwanese like to visit hospital, even for a small flu, they would visit the big hospital. Some mother would bring their children to GP in the morning. If there is no significant improvement, they will bring them to otolaryngology in the afternoon. This is almost impossible in US.
One of the main reason for such high medical expenses for the Medical Insurance Scheme is that Taiwanese are used to taking medicine. For the whole of last year, the expenses on medicine by the Medical Insurance scheme has reached NT$125Billion, an increase of 6.9% from the previous year. Among these expenses, medicine for hypertension, glucagon and statin has amounted to NT$32.3Billion. The top medicine “MaiYou” alone, which is used mainly for treatment of hypertension and strengthening the heart functionality, has consistently top the list of medicine for 8 years, cost almost NT$4.5Billion per year.
Due to popular demand, I have decided to spend some time in translating the Chinese article on Taiwan's World Class Medical Insurance here.
Goh Meng Seng
Taiwan Medical Insurance scheme has the mission to provide healthcare for everyone in Taiwan. Although the government has claimed 70% approval rate from the people, but it could not just brush off the potential threats of deficits. The problems of limited medical resources, deficits of the Medical Insurance scheme etc has cast doubts on how long this Medical Insurance Scheme could last.
There are merits in Taiwan Medical Insurance Scheme but we should not just look at the glamorous flowers that it glooms and try to copy it wholesale. We must do thorough examination of its specialty, learn from its good points and try to manage the bad. Only then could we avoid deficits and improve on providing healthcare to all Taiwanese.
Translated by Goh Meng Seng
The report points out that last year, Nobel Prize winner, Economic Professor of US Princeton University and column writer for New York Times, Professor Paul Krugman, has praised Taiwan's Medical Insurance system in New York Times and urged the Americans to emulate such system.
Krugman believes that the Taiwan Medical Insurance system can provide a good example for all Americans to be insured within their economic means. He reiterates that within a short period of six years, the growth in the number of Taiwanese being medically insured has raised from less than 60% to 97%. Besides, the cost for all Taiwanese to be insured is very low and it takes population and income growth into account. Even if the cost of medical care increase, the increase will be insignificant.
The Taiwan medical insurance system was implemented in 1st March 1995. It was one of the greatest achievement of the KMT when Lian Zhan was the Prime Minister then. It becomes famous in the world for providing low medical insurance premium, wide medical coverage and convenience resulting in high subscription rate by Taiwanese. Taiwan Medical Insurance scheme consolidated workers, laborers and farmers medical insurance payment and created a single entity medical insurance for all. It implements a single payment channel and a gross payment system.
This National Medical Insurance scheme embrace the spirit of social insurance, which is risk sharing and under the fundamental guiding principle of mutual help, the young will earn money to take care of the medical risks of the aged. In doing so, it achieves mutual aid across different generations and races. It also creates a huge health database that could be used by healthcare research. On the other hand, the administration cost has been kept under 2% and that is why it has been praised internationally.
In 2000, EIU has ranked Taiwan's Medical Insurance scheme as number two under medical demand and supply, second only to Sweden in the whole world. The ABC has praised Taiwan's Medical Insurance scheme in one of its program broadcast in 2003, pointing out the fact that with a monthly medical insurance premium of US$20 and an average cost of US$4 to US$10 for every medical visit, you could make appointment to any hospital with any preferred doctors of your choice in Taiwan. There are at least 50 countries around the world that have paid visits to Taiwan to study its Medical Insurance scheme in recent years.
Taiwan Medical Insurance Scheme has been well known to be value for money. Base on their income, Taiwanese will pay a token amount of insurance premium every month and they will be able to enjoy all kinds of medical services. Regardless of rich or poor, big hospitals or small clinics, all will receive the same level of medical services. All will receive equal treatment. Even if the rich wish to pay more for additional privileged services, it will be prohibited. Besides, it is very convenient to get medical services there, with big number of hospitals and clinics availability all throughout Taiwan. You can pick and choose your choice of hospital or clinic without any need of doctor's recommendation.
The Medical Insurance is not solely born by the people. Private companies and the government will have to share the cost of the premium as well. Those companies that bought workers' insurance for their employees will have to pay for their medical insurance as well. This is due to the fact that such insurance premium will include workers' insurance and medical insurance. The present law dictates that employers will have to bear 60% of their workers' medical insurance, employees and their family members will bear 30% while the government will bear 10%.
Taiwan Medical Insurance Scheme's premiums are based on income classification. The premiums are charged according to 10 different classes of income. For example, those who earn less than NT$17280 (about US$500) will pay only NT$600 as monthly premium. Those with monthly income more than NT$131700, they will pay a monthly premium of NT$5400.
Foreign workers are included in the Medical Insurance Scheme.
Due to the fact that the National Medical Insurance Scheme is compulsory for all, everyone will have to be admitted into the Medical Insurance Scheme. This will include foreign students, migrants and even foreign workers. Its core value is “Big illness for Hospitals, small illness for small clinics” . Everyone who seek medical care, apart from paying the basic administration fee, patients will have to bear part of the medical cost.
Ex-DPP Legislative Yuan member Sheng Fu Xiong has a heart operation, warded for 4 days. The operation implanted a blood vessel widener for him. He paid about NT$20000 (about US$600), the medical insurance has helped him paid a few hundred dollars. Such operation will cost more than a million of New Taiwan dollars without medical insurance.
Taiwan Medical Insurance is very Cheap!
As a medical doctor, Sheng Fu Xiong is one of the few in Legislative Yuan who are regarded as those who have put in lots of effort in researching on the Medical Insurance Scheme back then. He pointed out that the insurance premium that each Taiwanese has to pay is about one sixth to one eight of US medical insurance premiums and this is very cheap!
Taiwan's Medical Insurance Scheme is the creation of Harvard professor Xiao Qing Lun and this creation is based on the study of Canada's united insurance system. However, Canada's medical insurance scheme is basically a failure, why does Taiwan's scheme a success then? Sheng Fu Xiong pointed out that firstly, Taiwan doctors are just too hardworking. Many doctors has to see 120 patients a day (while in US, the average is only 30), this is very rare and unique in the world. Secondly, Taiwan's medical staff, apart from doctors, like nurses, physiotherapists, nutrionists, psychiatrists, pharmacists etc., are fewer in comparison and their wages are lower. Take nurses for example, their pay is only 20% of US nurses. Thirdly, there are few medical disputes in Taiwan, there are less medical related lawsuits. Even if there are, even if the doctor lost the case, the compensation amount is not high. Compensation for death caused by erroneous diagnosis is at most NT$1m to NT$2m, some are even below NT$1m. Forth, all American medical institutions are listed company, the pressure of profitability is higher. Taiwan's medical institutions are prohibited from listing in the stock exchange, most of them are run and subsidized by the government.
In comparison, Canada's medical insurance system does not have all these advantages. Sheng Fu Xiong pointed out that most important of all, Canada does not have efficiency. If a patient needs an operation that is deemed as non-urgent, like an operation on hip joint, they will need to wait for at least 6 months. In Taiwan, the same operation will only take 1 week to be completed.
Sheng Fu Xiong revealed that a few years ago, Hong Kong government was considering of implementing a system similar to Taiwan's Medical Insurance scheme. Xiao Qinglun has travelled to Hong Kong to explain the scheme to the Hong Kong officials. He was engaged by the Hong Kong government to do a feasibility study there but in the end, he recommended against implementing such a scheme in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong government has accepted his recommendation. “I feel that it is right not to implement it” This is because this system could only be successful in Taiwan, it will fail in other parts of the world. “This is the fruit of Taiwan's special circumstances”.
Hong Kong's system is the middle path between Taiwan and US.
Sheng Fu Xiong said that one of the main reason that it is not suitable for Hong Kong to emulate Taiwan's Medical Insurance scheme is that Hong Kong doctors are not as hardworking as Taiwan's, there are more medical staffs than Taiwan, salaries are higher than Taiwan and there are more medical disputes than Taiwan.” He said that Hong Kong's system is a middle path between Taiwan and US. It has all the bad points that US has but the problems are not as serious as US. Hong Kong does not have the good points that Taiwan has, like hardworking doctors, low compensation for medical dispute, medical institutions are not listed on stock exchange...etc.
Sheng Fu Xiong criticize Krugman as an amateur. Although Krugman is a Liberal but he has socialist influence in his heart. Thus, he does not discount government intervention totally. However, Taiwan's Medical Insurance scheme is a single provider and it under heavy influenced by the governmental system. Besides, it is not a multi-insurance scheme but a unison insurance scheme and this is the role played by the government. He only sees the beauty of Taiwan's Medical Insurance Scheme but not the potential problems. It is due to the fact that the Taiwan Medical Insurance scheme is based on a collapsible structure that it needs to be reformed.
Taiwan government has paid nearly NT$400Billion per year but medical experts criticize that the medical wastage every year amount to Nt$10billion resulting in the Medical Insurance scheme recording deficits every year. Sheng Fu Xiong pointed out that the potential worries of the Medical Insurance scheme is “the growth of our premium collections could not catch up with the growth of the medical expenses.” Thus every time when the accounts are balanced, 3 years later it will become a deficit again. In another words, expenses are always bigger than premium collections and this is due to the lack of restrains and the spirit of free market principles. Taiwanese like to visit hospital, even for a small flu, they would visit the big hospital. Some mother would bring their children to GP in the morning. If there is no significant improvement, they will bring them to otolaryngology in the afternoon. This is almost impossible in US.
One of the main reason for such high medical expenses for the Medical Insurance Scheme is that Taiwanese are used to taking medicine. For the whole of last year, the expenses on medicine by the Medical Insurance scheme has reached NT$125Billion, an increase of 6.9% from the previous year. Among these expenses, medicine for hypertension, glucagon and statin has amounted to NT$32.3Billion. The top medicine “MaiYou” alone, which is used mainly for treatment of hypertension and strengthening the heart functionality, has consistently top the list of medicine for 8 years, cost almost NT$4.5Billion per year.
Due to popular demand, I have decided to spend some time in translating the Chinese article on Taiwan's World Class Medical Insurance here.
Goh Meng Seng
Taiwan Medical Insurance scheme has the mission to provide healthcare for everyone in Taiwan. Although the government has claimed 70% approval rate from the people, but it could not just brush off the potential threats of deficits. The problems of limited medical resources, deficits of the Medical Insurance scheme etc has cast doubts on how long this Medical Insurance Scheme could last.
There are merits in Taiwan Medical Insurance Scheme but we should not just look at the glamorous flowers that it glooms and try to copy it wholesale. We must do thorough examination of its specialty, learn from its good points and try to manage the bad. Only then could we avoid deficits and improve on providing healthcare to all Taiwanese.
Translated by Goh Meng Seng
Monday, April 13, 2009
World Class Medical Insurance Schem- Taiwan
The following is a news article on Taiwan's Medical Insurance Scheme which is deemed as the most successful one in Asia, second to Sweden in the whole world. Yes, they do not need a multi-million annual salaried Heath Minister to come up with this. They do not need Health Minister to suggest vividly that citizens looking for cheap medical care should go across the causeway.
新华网消息最新一期亚洲周刊发表童清峰的文章指出，台湾健保制度被认为是全球典范，从医疗需求、医疗供给等项目，都获称赞，在国际排名第二，仅次于瑞典，其中主要的原因是医生卖力、医护人员薪水低、医疗纠纷少及赔偿有限，还有医疗事业大部分公营，便于政府控制。
报道说，去年诺贝尔经济学奖得主、美国普林斯顿大学经济系教授兼《纽约时报》专栏作家克鲁曼（Paul Krugman），曾于《纽约时报》专栏大赞台湾健保制度，要美国人效法。
克鲁曼认为，台湾健保制度可“提供美国全民在经济上纳保的范例”。强调短短的六年间，台湾人民的健保纳保率快速成长，从不到六成冲到九成七。而且“台湾全民纳保的成本很低，考量人口增加和收入成长，就算整体医疗费用有任何成长，也不多”。
台湾健保制度于1995年3月1日正式实施，是国民党时代连战担任“阁揆”时最亮丽的政绩，它以被保险人口投保率高、投保费率低、给付范围广及就医方便而闻名于国际。台湾健保统合工劳农保医疗给付，建立单一体制的全民健康保险，采行单一支付管道，实施总额支付制度。
全民健保具有社会保险的精神，即所谓风险分摊，在自助互助的基本理念下，年轻人赚钱分担老幼的医疗风险，达到年龄族群和世代互助，而且形成庞大健康资料库，便利卫生研究工作；而行政费用维持在百分之二以下，因而极受国际推崇。
《经济学人信息部》（EIU）在2000年就医疗需求、医疗供给等项目，将台湾医疗保健评为世界第二，仅次瑞典。美国广播公司在 2003年制作节目盛赞台湾的健保，指出每人每月平均付20美元的保费，每次看诊平均付挂号费4到10美元，就可以到特约医院找任何医师看病。近年来，来台湾取经的国家不下50个。
台湾健保堪称价廉物美，民众根据薪资多寡，每月只要付少少的钱，即可享受到各样的医疗服务，不论贫富贵贱，去大医院或小诊所，所受到的医疗服务全都一样，一视同仁，有钱人纵使想多付钱获取额外服务，也不被允许；而且就医便利，医院、诊所到处都是，自己可以选择要在哪里就诊，无须医师指定。
健保不是被保险者付费而已，企业和政府也都要分摊，台湾公司行号有替员工加劳保就一定要替员工加健保，因为两者的加保金额都是以劳保加保金额为依据，且健保是跟着劳保走。现行法令规定雇主每月为员工负担之健保费为六成，员工与眷属自付三成，政府负担一成。
台湾健保投保金额采取分级制，根据薪资等级分为十组，例如月薪最低在1万7280元（约合500美元）以下者，每月缴纳600元；月薪最高13万1700者，每月缴5400元。
外劳也被纳入健保
由于全民健保是强制性保险，无论何人都必须参加健保，包括留学生、移民者，甚至外劳等都纳入。它主要的精神是“大病看大医院，小病看诊所”，任何人看病，除了支付挂号费外，病人还须分摊部分的医疗费用。
前民进党“立委”沈富雄前年在台大医院动了心导管手术，住院四天，装了一枝血管支架，他只付了新台币近2万元，健保帮他付了几十万，若无健保，同样的手术得花费一百多万元。
台湾健保“太便宜了”
医师出身的沈富雄，是当年“立法院”中少数被公认对健保下过工夫研究者，他指出，台湾每个人所缴的健保费大概是美国的六分之一到八分之一，“太便宜了”。
台湾健保是哈佛教授萧庆伦的构想，这个构想是参考加拿大单一保险人制度，但加拿大的健保基本上是失败的，为什么台湾能成功？沈富雄分析指出，第一、台湾的医师太卖力了，不少医师一天至少看120个病人（美国平均约30个），这在全世界是绝无仅有的。其次，台湾医事辅助人员，医师除外，如护理人员、物理治疗师、营养师、心理复建师、药剂师等，用的人数相对少，薪水偏低，以护士为例，台湾护士薪水约美国的五分之一。第三、台湾医疗纠纷频率不高，医病关系很少诉讼，即便打官司，医师若败诉，赔偿金额也不高，误诊致死者，顶多赔一百到二百万台币，甚至一百万以下。第四、在美国医疗事业都是上市公司，盈亏压力大，台湾医疗事业不准上市，绝大部分是公营，有政府补贴。
相较之下，加拿大健保就没有这些优点。沈富雄指出，主要是加拿大没有效率，病人如要开一个不紧急的刀，如大腿髋关节手术，至少要排六个月以上；台湾如要开同样手术，一个礼拜就搞定。
沈富雄透露，几年前香港一度考虑采用台湾的健保制度，萧庆伦曾赴港解说，他也受到咨询实地赴港考察，最后他建议不要，港府也接受他的说法，“我觉得不要是对的。”因为这个制度只有在台湾才会成功，搬到全世界都会失败，“这是台湾特殊情况下产生开花结果的东西”。
香港制度介于台美之间
沈富雄表示，香港不适合效法台湾健保的原因，包括“香港医生没有台湾卖力、辅助医事人员比台湾多、薪水比台湾高、医疗纠纷比台湾多。”他说，香港制度介乎台湾与美国之间，美国的坏处它都有，没有美国严重，台湾的优点香港没有，例如台湾的医生勤苦耐劳、台湾医疗纠纷赔的不多，医疗事业没有上市等。
沈富雄并批评克鲁曼是个外行人，克鲁曼虽然是自由派，但心中有社会主义的色彩，所以他不完全排除政府的干预，但台湾健保是单一的提供者，比较听从单一的政府体系，而不是众多保险，而是单一保险，单一保险就是政府的角色。他只看到台湾健保的美，却没有看到内在的隐忧，因为台湾健保奠基在会崩盘的架构上，这就是要改革的原因。
政府每年健保支出近四千亿台币，但医疗专家批评每年医疗浪费达百亿元，导致健保年年亏损。沈富雄指出，健保的隐忧在于“我们收的钱的成长率不如开销的成长率”，所以每次拉成平衡，三年后就不平衡了。换言之，支出永远大于收入，因为没有节制，“没有自由市场的精神在里头。”台湾人喜欢逛医院，一个小感冒也要到大医院；有的妈妈早上带小孩看内科，如果病情未明显改善，下午再去看耳鼻喉科，在美国几乎是不可能的。
健保开销之所以居高不下有一个很重要因素是台湾人有吃药的习惯。去年一年健保药费支出达1250亿台币，较前年成长6.9%，其中台湾人吃最多的是治疗高血压、高血糖和高血脂的药物，去年吃掉323亿台币；十大健保药物排名第一的是具有降血压与保护心脏功效的“脉优”，已蝉联八年冠军宝座，一年就吃掉44亿 862万元。
台湾健保肩负着全民健康的使命，虽然官方宣称民众的满意度高达七成，却无法摆脱亏损的隐忧，如医疗资源有限、健保支出已超过保费收入等，不禁令识者忧心台湾健保究竟还可以撑多久。
台湾健保有可取之处，但不能光看它外表的花朵美丽而全盘移植，必须深入研究其特殊性，截长补短，方能避免亏损，促进全民健康。
新华网消息最新一期亚洲周刊发表童清峰的文章指出，台湾健保制度被认为是全球典范，从医疗需求、医疗供给等项目，都获称赞，在国际排名第二，仅次于瑞典，其中主要的原因是医生卖力、医护人员薪水低、医疗纠纷少及赔偿有限，还有医疗事业大部分公营，便于政府控制。
报道说，去年诺贝尔经济学奖得主、美国普林斯顿大学经济系教授兼《纽约时报》专栏作家克鲁曼（Paul Krugman），曾于《纽约时报》专栏大赞台湾健保制度，要美国人效法。
克鲁曼认为，台湾健保制度可“提供美国全民在经济上纳保的范例”。强调短短的六年间，台湾人民的健保纳保率快速成长，从不到六成冲到九成七。而且“台湾全民纳保的成本很低，考量人口增加和收入成长，就算整体医疗费用有任何成长，也不多”。
台湾健保制度于1995年3月1日正式实施，是国民党时代连战担任“阁揆”时最亮丽的政绩，它以被保险人口投保率高、投保费率低、给付范围广及就医方便而闻名于国际。台湾健保统合工劳农保医疗给付，建立单一体制的全民健康保险，采行单一支付管道，实施总额支付制度。
全民健保具有社会保险的精神，即所谓风险分摊，在自助互助的基本理念下，年轻人赚钱分担老幼的医疗风险，达到年龄族群和世代互助，而且形成庞大健康资料库，便利卫生研究工作；而行政费用维持在百分之二以下，因而极受国际推崇。
《经济学人信息部》（EIU）在2000年就医疗需求、医疗供给等项目，将台湾医疗保健评为世界第二，仅次瑞典。美国广播公司在 2003年制作节目盛赞台湾的健保，指出每人每月平均付20美元的保费，每次看诊平均付挂号费4到10美元，就可以到特约医院找任何医师看病。近年来，来台湾取经的国家不下50个。
台湾健保堪称价廉物美，民众根据薪资多寡，每月只要付少少的钱，即可享受到各样的医疗服务，不论贫富贵贱，去大医院或小诊所，所受到的医疗服务全都一样，一视同仁，有钱人纵使想多付钱获取额外服务，也不被允许；而且就医便利，医院、诊所到处都是，自己可以选择要在哪里就诊，无须医师指定。
健保不是被保险者付费而已，企业和政府也都要分摊，台湾公司行号有替员工加劳保就一定要替员工加健保，因为两者的加保金额都是以劳保加保金额为依据，且健保是跟着劳保走。现行法令规定雇主每月为员工负担之健保费为六成，员工与眷属自付三成，政府负担一成。
台湾健保投保金额采取分级制，根据薪资等级分为十组，例如月薪最低在1万7280元（约合500美元）以下者，每月缴纳600元；月薪最高13万1700者，每月缴5400元。
外劳也被纳入健保
由于全民健保是强制性保险，无论何人都必须参加健保，包括留学生、移民者，甚至外劳等都纳入。它主要的精神是“大病看大医院，小病看诊所”，任何人看病，除了支付挂号费外，病人还须分摊部分的医疗费用。
前民进党“立委”沈富雄前年在台大医院动了心导管手术，住院四天，装了一枝血管支架，他只付了新台币近2万元，健保帮他付了几十万，若无健保，同样的手术得花费一百多万元。
台湾健保“太便宜了”
医师出身的沈富雄，是当年“立法院”中少数被公认对健保下过工夫研究者，他指出，台湾每个人所缴的健保费大概是美国的六分之一到八分之一，“太便宜了”。
台湾健保是哈佛教授萧庆伦的构想，这个构想是参考加拿大单一保险人制度，但加拿大的健保基本上是失败的，为什么台湾能成功？沈富雄分析指出，第一、台湾的医师太卖力了，不少医师一天至少看120个病人（美国平均约30个），这在全世界是绝无仅有的。其次，台湾医事辅助人员，医师除外，如护理人员、物理治疗师、营养师、心理复建师、药剂师等，用的人数相对少，薪水偏低，以护士为例，台湾护士薪水约美国的五分之一。第三、台湾医疗纠纷频率不高，医病关系很少诉讼，即便打官司，医师若败诉，赔偿金额也不高，误诊致死者，顶多赔一百到二百万台币，甚至一百万以下。第四、在美国医疗事业都是上市公司，盈亏压力大，台湾医疗事业不准上市，绝大部分是公营，有政府补贴。
相较之下，加拿大健保就没有这些优点。沈富雄指出，主要是加拿大没有效率，病人如要开一个不紧急的刀，如大腿髋关节手术，至少要排六个月以上；台湾如要开同样手术，一个礼拜就搞定。
沈富雄透露，几年前香港一度考虑采用台湾的健保制度，萧庆伦曾赴港解说，他也受到咨询实地赴港考察，最后他建议不要，港府也接受他的说法，“我觉得不要是对的。”因为这个制度只有在台湾才会成功，搬到全世界都会失败，“这是台湾特殊情况下产生开花结果的东西”。
香港制度介于台美之间
沈富雄表示，香港不适合效法台湾健保的原因，包括“香港医生没有台湾卖力、辅助医事人员比台湾多、薪水比台湾高、医疗纠纷比台湾多。”他说，香港制度介乎台湾与美国之间，美国的坏处它都有，没有美国严重，台湾的优点香港没有，例如台湾的医生勤苦耐劳、台湾医疗纠纷赔的不多，医疗事业没有上市等。
沈富雄并批评克鲁曼是个外行人，克鲁曼虽然是自由派，但心中有社会主义的色彩，所以他不完全排除政府的干预，但台湾健保是单一的提供者，比较听从单一的政府体系，而不是众多保险，而是单一保险，单一保险就是政府的角色。他只看到台湾健保的美，却没有看到内在的隐忧，因为台湾健保奠基在会崩盘的架构上，这就是要改革的原因。
政府每年健保支出近四千亿台币，但医疗专家批评每年医疗浪费达百亿元，导致健保年年亏损。沈富雄指出，健保的隐忧在于“我们收的钱的成长率不如开销的成长率”，所以每次拉成平衡，三年后就不平衡了。换言之，支出永远大于收入，因为没有节制，“没有自由市场的精神在里头。”台湾人喜欢逛医院，一个小感冒也要到大医院；有的妈妈早上带小孩看内科，如果病情未明显改善，下午再去看耳鼻喉科，在美国几乎是不可能的。
健保开销之所以居高不下有一个很重要因素是台湾人有吃药的习惯。去年一年健保药费支出达1250亿台币，较前年成长6.9%，其中台湾人吃最多的是治疗高血压、高血糖和高血脂的药物，去年吃掉323亿台币；十大健保药物排名第一的是具有降血压与保护心脏功效的“脉优”，已蝉联八年冠军宝座，一年就吃掉44亿 862万元。
台湾健保肩负着全民健康的使命，虽然官方宣称民众的满意度高达七成，却无法摆脱亏损的隐忧，如医疗资源有限、健保支出已超过保费收入等，不禁令识者忧心台湾健保究竟还可以撑多久。
台湾健保有可取之处，但不能光看它外表的花朵美丽而全盘移植，必须深入研究其特殊性，截长补短，方能避免亏损，促进全民健康。
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
PAP Cha Cha - One Step Forward Three Steps Back
I have just watched the news on the proposed PAP law on political films and illegal gatherings. I have very mixed feelings at first but that lasted only for a mere 5 minutes and thereafter I begin to feel amused again by PAP's policy of micro management.
The thought of the Cha Cha dance comes into my mind straight away and yes, it is PAP's Cha Cha with its monopoly of power again. While it tries very hard to "mitigate" the "problems" brought about by the New Media, it also tries very hard to make itself looks good. Well, it tries to show Singaporeans, especially the young ones, that it is willing to "take a step forward" in "loosening up" on such rules, but in actual fact, it is taking THREE STEPS backwards in TIGHTENING the screws that the New Media has loosen for FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION as well as Freedom of Information Flow!
Incidentally, just minutes after I recompose myself from such amusement, Martyn See has sent a note to me via facebook. Yes, he has exactly the same thought I have with regards to the issue on political films. PAP's INTOLERANCE of the "mocking nature" of some creation of its critics in Youtube has prompted it to implement such rules on political films. The spin doctors of this very establishment will go around to boast about the "OPENNESS" of PAP for the coming few days but in actual fact, what the PAP government tries to do is to try to erase away all those grey areas and deprive its Internet Critics a platform to dance around. But of course, the PAP policy think tank will have to hoodwink Singaporeans into thinking that PAP is actually "loosening up" when in actual fact it is trying very hard to tighten it up.
Singapore has the most absurd laws on Freedom of Expression. In this new era of multimedia, it actually restricts politicians and Singaporeans in the form of media expression. For example, why do we have such strange rules on "no animation" in political films? I guess the next possible ruling would be political films should be all dry and high with no jokes and satire expressions allowed!
The truth is, such absurd rules have existed in other forms in the past and present. For example, when the rock and roll bands are so common in the 1960s, the law on political rallies during elections are banned from using songs, music and any other kind of entertainment means. Luckily it does not ban opposition politicians from speaking during rallies and force them to use sign languages!
This law has its political historical background. For the benefits of my younger readers, I will have to dealt with some political history of Singapore here.
The leftist movement that helped PAP in bargaining against British Colonial rule has used songs and music very effectively in motivating and mobilizing its supporters in big and small rallies. The most active anti-Colonial movement existed in Chinese school choir and drama groups. Of course the communist elements have infiltrated into such organizations but not all of them are communists. They are just students and educated people back then trying to mobilize the Colonial subjects to protest against the British Colonial administration. Of course, PAP leaders back then have ride on this wave of anti-colonial movement to come into power. However, there was a break in the different factions within PAP back in 1963 when the faction that Lee Kuan Yew led, decided to have a merger with Malaysia so to break away from the British Colonial rule. Malaysian Malaysia was the slogan of this faction. But the other faction resisted and break away to form the Barisan Socialist party.
History has proven that that the Barisan Socialist faction is right about the merger with Malaysia. It only took two years for the merger to break. This is a great moral challenge against the PAP leadership back then. It created a serious doubt on the PAP leadership's political judgment but the next thing you know, Operation Cold Store was executed to round up all those ex-anti-Colonial fighters whom most of them are in the Barisan Socialist party. They were conveniently labeled as Communists and arrested under ISA without trial.
There may be a big grey area between Communists movement and the anti-Colonial movement. All Communists are against Colonial rule but not all anti-Colonial people were communists. It was due to this blurring perception that PAP back then was so successful in putting the Communist labels on almost all its political dissidents. After Operation Cold Store, the General Elections was called and naturally, with no strong dissidents left to contest against PAP, PAP won a landslide victory.
It was under such political background that PAP decided to eliminate the most effective tool of its dissidents which anti-Colonial elements has used against the British Colonial rulers, songs, music and drama. Right from the late 1960s throughout the whole of 1970s, we have experienced more than a decade of WHITE TERROR rule. Any artistic creations of songs, music, playwright, books, essays, poems and dramas etc that suggested any slight anti-establishment sentiments will be termed as "communist". It will be banned immediately and its authors and groups of people behind such creation will be asked to "limp kopi" (Hokkien dialect term for drinking coffee) in Internal Security Department. Many of these people were locked up in ISD without trial for weeks and months, if not years or decades.
This has resulted in Singapore becoming a cultural desert in contrast with its cultural vibrancy back in the 1950s and early 1960s where we are the Gem of Cultural revival of Southeast Asia. We were the hot bed of artistic creativity whereby many classic movies were made in Singapore instead of Hong Kong before this rule of White Terror came into play.
I have gone into length of this piece of Singapore's history to illustrate a simple fact of PAP's monopoly of power. PAP could only monopolize power via its tight control of the media as well as the suppression on the creativity creation of the people. Freedom of Expression was curtailed at a huge social and cultural cost, just for the perpetuation of PAP's monopoly of power.
This simple mindset still exists today with the latest additions to its effort in trying to control on the Freedom of Expression on the New Media, Internet. Of course, it has to be done in the guise of "openness", so to speak.
Beside changing the political film act in a bid to eliminate grey areas for other people to dance around, I believe that it is a change in law so that PAP sets to allow itself to use the New Media in the coming Snap General Elections. It has to "fight back" the overwhelming anti-PAP sentiments expressed in the New Media in the form of home made videos. Thus, it chose to limit the space for its critics while pathing the legitimate way for its own use of the New Media. At present, the political film act has unwittingly tied up PAP's hands in using Youtube and the New Media in its campaigning effort. The latest move IS NOT A SIGN OF OPENNESS but rather A MOVE TO UNTIE PAP's HANDS WHILE MAKING MORE RESTRICTIONS FOR ITS DISSIDENTS, CRITICS AND POLITICAL OPPONENTS. It is basically a ploy in laying the "FAVORABLE GROUND RULES" for PAP to enter into the New Media Battle Ground.
I would not be surprised that PAP will flush the Internet sphere with all sorts of political films of speeches and political messages once the General Elections is being called. PAP has the resources to get professional production team to do up all the films needed for this New Media campaign.
I have told many of my comrades that the BATTLE GROUND for the next and future General Elections will be fought over the New Media. I have been preparing for eventuality of the usage of the Youtube in the coming election campaign. If you have studied PAP's political behavior well, you would notice that PAP will always try to put up new rules or laws that are advantageous to them or to eliminate strong opponents' participation right before they go for elections. This will be no exception and yes, this is a BIG SIGN that PAP is really preparing for a Snap General Elections.
If PAP is all for OPENNESS on FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, why would it restrict people to film "illegal political activity"? It does not want people to know the truth on how the police treated these political dissidents via the net? This is definitely not a World Class mindset but rather, a Third Class dictatorial mindset similar to the Burmese Junta's brutal suppression of dissidents and the restrictions imposed on those who "leaks" out the "TRUTH" of what is really happening during that period!
Only a CLOSED MIND government would not want people to know the TRUTH of what is happening on the ground, whether it is legal or illegal political activities. They could ban or control the conventional press and media from giving an independent account of such events but they are helpless in preventing others to video taped it to put them up on the net! Thus, this new change to the present laws comes about, NOT in the spirit of OPENNESS or with any respect to Freedom of Expression, nor does it comes with spirit of Freedom of Information flow or respect for Truth to be told. These changes are in fact a blatant attempt to RESTRICT information flow as well as Freedom of Expression over the Internet.
Don't be fooled by such sweet sugar coating of words like "Openness", "Loosening of rules" etc etc. The real poisoned beef lies in the details.
If you ask me, the greatest HARM of these new changes lies in "the banning of filming illegal political gatherings". Is there anything to hide from the matured Singaporeans about such "illegal political gatherings"? Well, to be honest, I could only see one reason behind it. It is not the "legitimacy" of the political gatherings that matters. It is the inexperienced, clumsy and sometimes hilarious way that the police officers handled the situation that the administration is trying to hide from the public eyes. Of course, such filming may become evidences submitted to court which may contradict police statements! (From the past cases, we have seen some instances whereby police officers' statements that have been contradicted by factual video evidences that were submitted by the Non-Violence-Action group of people).
Having said all these, I don't mean to indicate any support to the NVA movement. Personally, I still believe in the parliamentary path. But I would find it strange that a self proclaimed First World Government actually want to emulate a backward Third World Dictatorship like Burma or North Korea regimes in disallowing people to report on video the TRUTH of such "illegal political activities". It would mean that reporters (alas, of course I mean the foreign journalists! The local media will naturally be gone missing!) would be banned from reporting on such events as well!
Such little change in the law has actually exposed PAP's anxiety over the negative responses ignited by FACTUAL REPORTING of what actually happens on the ground; never mind whether it is illegal gathering or not.
Personally, my take is this. PAP is fighting the losing battle over the New Media. The more it tries to control the monster, the more it exposes its own inadequacy as well as anxiety over the negative impact of the New Media that has brought upon it.
Well, folks, it seems that the Battle has just begun. All of you have done a great job back in 2006 in defying such absurd laws on political films over the New Media and I hope you will continue to push the boundaries in the coming elections.
Goh Meng Seng
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
雷曼迷你债券集体诉讼法律行动
请大家参考以下这两个网站以便得到关于雷曼迷你债券集体诉讼法律行动的最新动向和消息：
英语网站
华语网站
以下是关于这迷你债券投资者行动组邀请投资者参与集体法律诉讼的启示：
亲爱的迷你债券投资者，
1）在2008年结束前，我们几位持有雷曼兄弟迷你债券的投资者在接到债权分发商拒绝受理我们的投诉后，便聚集在一起探讨采取可行的集体法律诉讼行径。我们觉得我们被歧视而误销的问题根本没有被正视。我们觉得集体法律诉讼是我们讨回公道和赔偿最有效的途径。我们便成立了迷你债券投资者行动组。
2)在接触几间律师行后，我们很高兴康拉德坎帕斯律师行同意成为我们的代表律师。康拉德坎帕斯大律师本人将成为我们集体诉讼的主要代表律师。
3)我们所提出的集体诉讼将针对债券发行者（银行或证券行）和/或债券的信托公司。我们对坎帕斯律师认为我们有足够的法律理据去追讨所损失的赔偿感到非常鼓舞。
4)由于考虑到资金的关系，我们希望能结集大约1000名迷你债券投资者参与这集体诉讼行动以便能筹集最起码的法律诉讼的资金。我们希望能召集到超过这最少1000名的投资者以便使每人的诉讼费用低于预计的两千元（包括消费税）。每一位投资者所支付的律师费将是全包的。这也就是说，如果没有特殊状况出现的话，每人的律师费的顶限（如果我们胜诉的话）将是两千元或更少。
5) 这每人两千元的律师费用将只限于提早登记参与这集体法律诉讼的投资者。后来者将需付三千元或由执行委员会拟定的其他数额的法律费用。
6) 如果要成为提早登记参与这集体法律诉讼的投资者，你就必须符合以下的三个条件：
在2009年3月31日前登记并且付上五百元的订金
必须是首1000名登记的投资者
必须在2009年5月31日前付清其余的一千五百元的律师费
7) 如果你能为我们奉献时间或专能而成为我们临时委员会会员或义工，请通知我们。我们需要所有人的支持和贡献。
8) 我们呼吁所有的投资者能认真的考虑加入我们的这集体法律诉讼的行动。就算是你还没接到金融调解中心的回复，你也应该趁早加入这次行动以便我们的律师能为庭外和解做出准备，并且为一旦谈判失败后所需进行的集体法律诉讼做出适当的准备工作。
9) 请把在这网址http://drop.io/mbond03里的法律诉讼同意书和投资者资料表下载并且打印出来，填妥后把它和五百元的支票送到律师楼，地址：
M/s Conrad Campos & Company,
c/o 30 Cecil Street,
#15-00 Prudential Tower
Singapore 049712.
支票请注明“M/s Conrad Campos & Company” 收
如果你想以现金付款或你有任何疑问，请电邮miagsg@hotmail.com 以便询问详情。
你也可参考http://www.miagsg.com/Frequent-Ask-Question-in-Chinese.html 以解答你心中任何的疑问。
迷你债券投资者行动组启
英语网站
华语网站
以下是关于这迷你债券投资者行动组邀请投资者参与集体法律诉讼的启示：
亲爱的迷你债券投资者，
1）在2008年结束前，我们几位持有雷曼兄弟迷你债券的投资者在接到债权分发商拒绝受理我们的投诉后，便聚集在一起探讨采取可行的集体法律诉讼行径。我们觉得我们被歧视而误销的问题根本没有被正视。我们觉得集体法律诉讼是我们讨回公道和赔偿最有效的途径。我们便成立了迷你债券投资者行动组。
2)在接触几间律师行后，我们很高兴康拉德坎帕斯律师行同意成为我们的代表律师。康拉德坎帕斯大律师本人将成为我们集体诉讼的主要代表律师。
3)我们所提出的集体诉讼将针对债券发行者（银行或证券行）和/或债券的信托公司。我们对坎帕斯律师认为我们有足够的法律理据去追讨所损失的赔偿感到非常鼓舞。
4)由于考虑到资金的关系，我们希望能结集大约1000名迷你债券投资者参与这集体诉讼行动以便能筹集最起码的法律诉讼的资金。我们希望能召集到超过这最少1000名的投资者以便使每人的诉讼费用低于预计的两千元（包括消费税）。每一位投资者所支付的律师费将是全包的。这也就是说，如果没有特殊状况出现的话，每人的律师费的顶限（如果我们胜诉的话）将是两千元或更少。
5) 这每人两千元的律师费用将只限于提早登记参与这集体法律诉讼的投资者。后来者将需付三千元或由执行委员会拟定的其他数额的法律费用。
6) 如果要成为提早登记参与这集体法律诉讼的投资者，你就必须符合以下的三个条件：
在2009年3月31日前登记并且付上五百元的订金
必须是首1000名登记的投资者
必须在2009年5月31日前付清其余的一千五百元的律师费
7) 如果你能为我们奉献时间或专能而成为我们临时委员会会员或义工，请通知我们。我们需要所有人的支持和贡献。
8) 我们呼吁所有的投资者能认真的考虑加入我们的这集体法律诉讼的行动。就算是你还没接到金融调解中心的回复，你也应该趁早加入这次行动以便我们的律师能为庭外和解做出准备，并且为一旦谈判失败后所需进行的集体法律诉讼做出适当的准备工作。
9) 请把在这网址http://drop.io/mbond03里的法律诉讼同意书和投资者资料表下载并且打印出来，填妥后把它和五百元的支票送到律师楼，地址：
M/s Conrad Campos & Company,
c/o 30 Cecil Street,
#15-00 Prudential Tower
Singapore 049712.
支票请注明“M/s Conrad Campos & Company” 收
如果你想以现金付款或你有任何疑问，请电邮miagsg@hotmail.com 以便询问详情。
你也可参考http://www.miagsg.com/Frequent-Ask-Question-in-Chinese.html 以解答你心中任何的疑问。
迷你债券投资者行动组启
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Democracy: PAP Government IS NOT PAP
I have read the coverage on PM Lee interview on Channel News Asia recently. What caught my eyes was naturally about the "next General Election". Nope. It is not about any speculations on whether there will be a General Election this year but rather how our Prime Minister made his statement here.
The very first sentence read "The Government will leverage on new media in the next General Election, Prime Minister Lee Hisen Loong has said". I am not very sure whether the Prime Minister has actually uttered that SPECIFIC wordings because I do not have the chance to watch the whole interview but it seems to me that it must be a "Government" stand on new media during "General Election".
First of all, the GOVERNMENT, which is filled with civil servants, has nothing to do with General Election apart from making sure that the election is carried out in a FAIR and JUST way.
During General Elections, the Cabinet will only be a care-taker government. Political parties and members SHOULD NOT utilize public resources for their political campaigns. How close PAP has observed such democratic rules is up to anyone's guess.
But if the CNA report is "presenting trusted, unbiased and informed opinions" as what the Prime Minister has proclaimed, I guess it just demonstrates that CNA, its reporters and editors have actually thought that there is absolutely NOTHING WRONG FOR A POLITICAL PARTY, even though it is the ruling party, TO UTILIZE GOVERNMENT RESOURCES DURING GENERAL ELECTIONS!
If CNA is, as proclaimed, a TRUSTED NEWS PROVIDER, then the Prime Minister must have uttered the very specific words that the GOVERNMENT is actually CAMPAIGNING by LEVERAGING on New Media DURING GENERAL ELECTIONS! So who is the GOVERNMENT CAMPAIGNING FOR during GENERAL ELECTIONS? This is a very FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION that citizens of any DEMOCRATIC country should ask the ruling party.
I am really beginning to doubt whether the ruling party takes DEMOCRACY SERIOUSLY or not! Or is it just WAYANGING about being Democratic while deep down its heart, it just takes for granted that PAP=GOVERNMENT and GOVERNMENT=PAP? And that PAP could utilize all the GOVERNMENT resources for its political interests?
Well, maybe I am still very naive after witnessing the pork barrel politicking of PAP in using GOVERNMENT HDB upgrading, GRC and Electoral Boundary redrawing as political tools to attain political interests for itself, I still hold the belief that Democracy still exists in Singapore with the basic fundamental principles intact. I must be wrong in believing that PAP still believes in Democracy. It is just basically a DICTATORIAL political party which only WAYANG about Democracy by having some elections with all the rules skewed heavily to their political advantages.
From this little report here, I must say that I am more convinced that Democracy is already dead in Singapore, in principle. People from the Prime Minister to the reporters and editors of local media no longer believe in the basic fundamental principles of Democracy any more. Unless there are enough brave souls that could stand up to such absurdity in the system, win a few GRCs via that totally skewed and impossible odds against the PAP + Government machineries + Media, I do not see how Singapore could evolve and progress democratically.
I would actually urge the PAP to do away with such a pain of going through the motion of General Elections where they themselves do not respect the fundamental principles of Democracy and declare Singapore a dictatorship once and for all. If PAP does not even respect the fundamental principles of Democracy, why do they need to try to Wayang about General Elections? If they could not even differentiate what is PAP as a political party and what is the role of government, then just equate PAP=Government=Singapore. It will really save us a lot of time and trouble in playing such Wayang game.
Goh Meng Seng
The very first sentence read "The Government will leverage on new media in the next General Election, Prime Minister Lee Hisen Loong has said". I am not very sure whether the Prime Minister has actually uttered that SPECIFIC wordings because I do not have the chance to watch the whole interview but it seems to me that it must be a "Government" stand on new media during "General Election".
First of all, the GOVERNMENT, which is filled with civil servants, has nothing to do with General Election apart from making sure that the election is carried out in a FAIR and JUST way.
During General Elections, the Cabinet will only be a care-taker government. Political parties and members SHOULD NOT utilize public resources for their political campaigns. How close PAP has observed such democratic rules is up to anyone's guess.
But if the CNA report is "presenting trusted, unbiased and informed opinions" as what the Prime Minister has proclaimed, I guess it just demonstrates that CNA, its reporters and editors have actually thought that there is absolutely NOTHING WRONG FOR A POLITICAL PARTY, even though it is the ruling party, TO UTILIZE GOVERNMENT RESOURCES DURING GENERAL ELECTIONS!
If CNA is, as proclaimed, a TRUSTED NEWS PROVIDER, then the Prime Minister must have uttered the very specific words that the GOVERNMENT is actually CAMPAIGNING by LEVERAGING on New Media DURING GENERAL ELECTIONS! So who is the GOVERNMENT CAMPAIGNING FOR during GENERAL ELECTIONS? This is a very FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION that citizens of any DEMOCRATIC country should ask the ruling party.
I am really beginning to doubt whether the ruling party takes DEMOCRACY SERIOUSLY or not! Or is it just WAYANGING about being Democratic while deep down its heart, it just takes for granted that PAP=GOVERNMENT and GOVERNMENT=PAP? And that PAP could utilize all the GOVERNMENT resources for its political interests?
Well, maybe I am still very naive after witnessing the pork barrel politicking of PAP in using GOVERNMENT HDB upgrading, GRC and Electoral Boundary redrawing as political tools to attain political interests for itself, I still hold the belief that Democracy still exists in Singapore with the basic fundamental principles intact. I must be wrong in believing that PAP still believes in Democracy. It is just basically a DICTATORIAL political party which only WAYANG about Democracy by having some elections with all the rules skewed heavily to their political advantages.
From this little report here, I must say that I am more convinced that Democracy is already dead in Singapore, in principle. People from the Prime Minister to the reporters and editors of local media no longer believe in the basic fundamental principles of Democracy any more. Unless there are enough brave souls that could stand up to such absurdity in the system, win a few GRCs via that totally skewed and impossible odds against the PAP + Government machineries + Media, I do not see how Singapore could evolve and progress democratically.
I would actually urge the PAP to do away with such a pain of going through the motion of General Elections where they themselves do not respect the fundamental principles of Democracy and declare Singapore a dictatorship once and for all. If PAP does not even respect the fundamental principles of Democracy, why do they need to try to Wayang about General Elections? If they could not even differentiate what is PAP as a political party and what is the role of government, then just equate PAP=Government=Singapore. It will really save us a lot of time and trouble in playing such Wayang game.
Goh Meng Seng
CNA - THE Government will leverage on new media in the next General Election, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said.
In an interview with Channel News Asia to be aired on Tuesday night, he noted the growing influence of the Internet on politics, citing the recent United States presidential election as an example and said Singapore would go the same way.
President Barack Obama's campaign, for instance, used new media to put out their messages, organise and even raise money. But PM Lee said the change here will not be an an easy one.
'We are still learning. It is not easy to make this transition. It is like going from sea to land or vice versa, you are changing your medium and you need to get comfortable with it. But we are working hard at it.'
He also said the party was on the lookout for more MPs comfortable with new media. His remarks are the latest sign of the Government's changing mindset towards new media.
Last month, Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Lee Boon Yang said that the Government is 'fully into' e-engagement, when responding to suggestions made by the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society.
Since then, Government agencies have also begun responding to forum letters posted on The Straits Times website. PM Lee stressed, however, that traditional media will always have a place in presenting trusted, unbiased and informed opinions. But he didn't dismiss online views outright.
'Well, there is a place called the Wild West and there are other places which are not so wild. And the new media - some of it are Wild West and anything goes and people can say anything they want. And tomorrow take a completely contrary view and well, that is just the way the medium is,' he said.
'But even in the Internet, there are places which are more considered, more moderated where people put their names down and identify themselves. And there is a debate which goes on and a give and take, which is not so rambunctious but perhaps more thoughtful. That is another range.'
The interview on the evolving media landscape was in conjunction with Channel News Asia's 10th anniversary in March.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Fear and Patriotism: Another Threat to Netizens
I am really amused at the way PAP throwing out threats after threats against Singaporeans on the net. Singapore may be a small country but it seems that the amount of FEARFUL threats thrown at the relatively small number of Singaporean netizens has really gone out of proportions.
Even communist countries like China do not throw such threats around. PAP has claimed that they want to "evolve" in this new era of New Media but inherently, it is apparent to all of us that such "paternalistic" nature of the way it threw out threats after threats has demonstrated that PAP is very much outdated and backward. Even the Chinese Communist Party has evolved and they actually made use of their netizens to effect a close check on their ranks and files!
I have not heard any constant nagging threats thrown by the Chinese Communist Party over the various attacks thrown at CCP and its leaders. Well, yes, they may have formed a huge internet brigade to counter some of the bad mouthing but in a more general sense, Chinese netizens have not stopped nagging at their government.
Why? It has been proven that such nagging noise from the ground by these netizens could be very powerful when it comes to Nationalistic aim of defending that Nation's interests against foreign countries. It seems that the Chinese people is both capable to critic their own government as well as defending their Nationlistic rights when they face foreign threats.
What is more intriguing in the following CNA report is that it mentions that nobody is interested to give feedback even with the PAP government whole effort to solicit them from Singaporeans on the net! What does that really mean? It means that they young Singaporean netizens are either apathetic towards the country under PAP or that they would rather nag at the PAP government at their own will instead of helping them in any ways they can!
What does that really mean? PAP's paternalistic style of National education plus threats have failed miserably in lecturing the young Singaporeans into patriotic citizens! The more threats they throw at young Singaporean netizens, the more defiant we will be!
Fear and patriotism DO NOT MIX at all. You may try to maintain your total grip on power by using all means of fearful methods but in the long run, you will definitely lose trust of your people and your power totally. These have happened repeatedly over the centuries whereby Ancient dynasties boom and died.
There is one common saying, it is all in the mind. True in this instance that no matter how PAP has claimed that they are "open" or "light touch" or "engaging the New Media", the fundamental mindset of being rigid, outdated and paternalistic in them are really showing and taken over their deeds. It is no wonder nobody on the Net take them seriously in what they say or claim to do for the good of the Nation. This is explicitly shown by the lack of participation of their so call "feedback" process executed on the Net.
Sincerity of this regime is being graded near ZERO after many years of observations of how PAP government just WAYANG away on the NET by paying lip service on feedback collection. And how could they try to build up their credibility on the Net when the tightly controlled media keeps pounding on the credibility of the Netizens? It is just like calling out names at a group of people but in the end, you try to "engage" them for views! Since you have already labeled them as "not credible" and worse, ministers keep throwing threats at them, why would anyone believes you and your sincerity in "engaging" them for their view? Couldn't the multi-million dollars annual salaried ministers understand such simple logic?
Goh Meng Seng
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...410619/1/.html
Govt says policies on new media will evolve as new challenges crop up
By Satish Cheney, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 21 February 2009 2044 hrs
Photos 1 of 1
A websurfer shopping online.
SINGAPORE : The Singapore government has been embracing and even adopting new media for its work.
And while it is still some way from fully tapping the potential, the government said it will gradually evolve its policies with a light touch, as the Web2.0 revolution constantly throws up new challenges.
Singapore is the most wired city in the world. And according to a survey, young Singaporeans aged 15 to 24 spend an average of eight-and-a-half hours a day being connected.
And the government has been using new media outlets such as Facebook, YouTube and forums to hook up with citizens.
Another new media outlet is the OnePeople Portal.
The online resource on racial harmony was launched by the Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister Vivian Balakrishnan on Saturday.
While the government is gradually liberalising its approach towards online engagement with its citizens, the minister added that one has to be responsible and careful when posting their thoughts online."
Dr Balakrishnan said: "Anonymity in cyberspace is an illusion. You will remember in 2007, we prosecuted three persons under the Sedition Act because of the blogs they put up which denigrated the religion of one of our communities in Singapore.
"The reason we did that was to send the message that your words have an impact; if need be, we can identify you, and if we have to, we will be prepared to prosecute you."
But there are some challenges in the government's use of new media to get public feedback.
Dr Milagros Rivera, member, Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS), said: "We expected people to give feedback. Nobody did. I think seven people posted comments on the AIMS website, and then the blogosphere went crazy with all kinds of comments and discussions about New Media.
"You can have a very nice welcoming website for the government to give feedback. If people are not comfortable they will just stay in their little forums and in their blogs and they will do their thing."
And there is no doubt more challenges will crop up as cyberspace continues to evolve and change the way people communicate with one another. - CNA/ms
Reply With Quote
Friday, February 20, 2009
Politics 101 for the Coming General Elections
The following is written by a forumer with the moniker "Scroobal":
Some basics.
For the Voters
1) Make sure your name is on the electroral Roll
2) Know what the objective or focus is - to express your sentiments on how the PAP fared as a ruling govt and to provide a set of results that tells the next govt of the day, what needs to be done.
Democracy unfortunately was meant for an informed, mature and educated society. Do not be simple minded and think that it a straight forward business of picking the best candidate in your constituency based on meritocracy . The question is how much of power and control do you want to give a political party. Do you put all your eggs in one basket for your savings? Are you looking for balance, accountability and variety of voices in parliament. Do you see the big picture?
If you are in hospital fighting for your life and you have the world's best nurse attending to you but the worst set of medical standards including incompetent doctors, unreliable power supply to operatings theatre etc, do you change hospital or are you happy to be there because of the nurse assigned is first class.
Simple maths on nomination day will tell you that the majority of the seats would have been taken by the PAP to form govt, so go ahead and seek variety and try an attempt to force the PAP to be responsive.
For the Helpers
If you are keen to see at a minimum a 2 party parlimentary democracy, get in touch with your your favourite to give a contact name, number or just your nick. A lot of work has to be done, logistics is huge. They will be grateful for any form of help, your hands, legs, car, lorry, your campaigning prowess, taking photos at rallies, blogging their cause, status report. Don't wait till until its too late.
Do not be upset, if they do not share their plans with you. Secrecy, confidentiality and suprises are important. If you come across something juicy, keep it to your self. Make sure you got leave reserved unless you already unemployed.
For Political Parties ( besides party work)
1) Appoint your logistics and contact person to start a register of helpers. List contact in website. You know the rules - no need for real names if they are not prepared to release.
2) Start tapping friends, families and ex-school mates.
3) Get your websites current, relevant and punchy.
4) Remember the manifesto must be practical and relate to society and the voters and has nothing to do with your ideals in a perfect world or a desire to reach nirvana. Motherhood statements are only good for the dustbin.
5) Appoint a cheermaster to coordinate via the web on rally sites, directional help, parking availability, live feed, agenda etc. Lets not dream that SPH and CNA are going to do the job.
For Potential Candidates
1) If you think you want to be candidate and you are new, give a call to your friendly opposition political identity. I am sure GMS and company are ready to help even though you might not want to join their party. Make sure you got the deposit, get your forms right and start working the ground early with flyers and mail-outs. Gather a few friends to help out.
2) If are you not keen to join any existing party, nevertheless get in touch with a political identity or a party early and express your interest and the constituency that you favour. So that they can tell you what turfs are available to avoid 3 cornered fights etc. and not waste your time doing groundwork in the wrong area.
3) Gather friends, army mates, school mates. Your best bet is to reach out to your age or peer group to provide support and help.
4) Nothing in law, in practice or in convention requires you to be scholar, a successful doctor, lawyer etc. If you have a good mind, a passion and sincerity to help society and an achiever, you are in the zone. Would love to see a couple of ex-school or university mates getting together and contesting in a GRC.
Remember if George Bush can be President, you are more than qualified.
Some basics.
For the Voters
1) Make sure your name is on the electroral Roll
2) Know what the objective or focus is - to express your sentiments on how the PAP fared as a ruling govt and to provide a set of results that tells the next govt of the day, what needs to be done.
Democracy unfortunately was meant for an informed, mature and educated society. Do not be simple minded and think that it a straight forward business of picking the best candidate in your constituency based on meritocracy . The question is how much of power and control do you want to give a political party. Do you put all your eggs in one basket for your savings? Are you looking for balance, accountability and variety of voices in parliament. Do you see the big picture?
If you are in hospital fighting for your life and you have the world's best nurse attending to you but the worst set of medical standards including incompetent doctors, unreliable power supply to operatings theatre etc, do you change hospital or are you happy to be there because of the nurse assigned is first class.
Simple maths on nomination day will tell you that the majority of the seats would have been taken by the PAP to form govt, so go ahead and seek variety and try an attempt to force the PAP to be responsive.
For the Helpers
If you are keen to see at a minimum a 2 party parlimentary democracy, get in touch with your your favourite to give a contact name, number or just your nick. A lot of work has to be done, logistics is huge. They will be grateful for any form of help, your hands, legs, car, lorry, your campaigning prowess, taking photos at rallies, blogging their cause, status report. Don't wait till until its too late.
Do not be upset, if they do not share their plans with you. Secrecy, confidentiality and suprises are important. If you come across something juicy, keep it to your self. Make sure you got leave reserved unless you already unemployed.
For Political Parties ( besides party work)
1) Appoint your logistics and contact person to start a register of helpers. List contact in website. You know the rules - no need for real names if they are not prepared to release.
2) Start tapping friends, families and ex-school mates.
3) Get your websites current, relevant and punchy.
4) Remember the manifesto must be practical and relate to society and the voters and has nothing to do with your ideals in a perfect world or a desire to reach nirvana. Motherhood statements are only good for the dustbin.
5) Appoint a cheermaster to coordinate via the web on rally sites, directional help, parking availability, live feed, agenda etc. Lets not dream that SPH and CNA are going to do the job.
For Potential Candidates
1) If you think you want to be candidate and you are new, give a call to your friendly opposition political identity. I am sure GMS and company are ready to help even though you might not want to join their party. Make sure you got the deposit, get your forms right and start working the ground early with flyers and mail-outs. Gather a few friends to help out.
2) If are you not keen to join any existing party, nevertheless get in touch with a political identity or a party early and express your interest and the constituency that you favour. So that they can tell you what turfs are available to avoid 3 cornered fights etc. and not waste your time doing groundwork in the wrong area.
3) Gather friends, army mates, school mates. Your best bet is to reach out to your age or peer group to provide support and help.
4) Nothing in law, in practice or in convention requires you to be scholar, a successful doctor, lawyer etc. If you have a good mind, a passion and sincerity to help society and an achiever, you are in the zone. Would love to see a couple of ex-school or university mates getting together and contesting in a GRC.
Remember if George Bush can be President, you are more than qualified.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
星展高升票据投资者组织研讨会
星展高升票据投资者组织将于
2009年二月十八日
在PSB Academy Delta Road Campus, 355 Jalan Bukit Ho Swee 举行研讨会
时间：晚上六点半 登记, 七点准 开始
这次研讨会将讨论所有可行的法律途径。这研讨会只限于已经登记的会员。如果您还没登记，请即刻电邮
dbs.hn5@gmail.com 以便登记
您也可以电邮以上邮址询问详情。
2009年二月十八日
在PSB Academy Delta Road Campus, 355 Jalan Bukit Ho Swee 举行研讨会
时间：晚上六点半 登记, 七点准 开始
这次研讨会将讨论所有可行的法律途径。这研讨会只限于已经登记的会员。如果您还没登记，请即刻电邮
dbs.hn5@gmail.com 以便登记
您也可以电邮以上邮址询问详情。
Friday, February 13, 2009
GIC lost 41%? Accountabiliity please!
There are quite a few speculation about how much GIC lost in this crisis. As the GIC is directly under the charge of two heavy weights, Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Dr Tony Tan, it seems that such speculations are really "undesirable " and could well be kept as National Secrets forever.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew keeps saying that such investments are for "Long Term" but my question is, is it "Long Term" or "Wrong Term" already? Besides, with due respect, Mr Lee Kuan Yew is already at his ripe old age and many of his age would have enjoyed retirement life fully elsewhere in the world if they have his kind of wealth and social status.
Mr Goh Chok Tong's assertions about good governance keep ringing in my mind. He said a good government must be transparent and accountable, among other things like being clean. But how are we going to hold the present government accountable if whatever losses we suffer as a nation are being swept away as "Long Term" investment? Especially so when nobody knows whether one could live up to that definition of Long Term (which is not categorically defined as how long?), least a person of 80 over years old.
A WP member, Choon Yong, has an interesting account of what goes on in parliament. According to him, Madam Lim Hwee Hua uttered the figure 41% when Ms Sylvia Lim pressed for an answer to how much GIC has lost. This is really an interesting figure, though, not very surprising.
The PAP government has always claimed the figures of GIC as "National Secret". I am always very puzzled. If such important figures are being classified under "National Secret" how could accountability be exercised on the government itself? Well, I can understand that specific investment portfolio strategy is sensitive information but there is no necessity to keep aggregate figures as "National Secret" at all. Nothing to hide from there. If we are going to practice what good governance whereby accountability is a fundamental pillar, then specific figures and information should be made available. Figures like the amount of money in GIC and the percentage of gain or losses.
It is intriguing indeed. While the PAP government is ready to boast about how much GIC has earned in the past in a fascinating way (claiming to have how many percentage of return over how many years... etc), but when it comes to losses, it has suddenly become so secretive! It practically means that when it comes to claiming credits, PAP government is all too fast to claim it. But when it comes to take responsibility for lapses (well, do you remember Mas Selamat?) and losses, it suddenly sweeps everything under National Secrets!
If any figures are all National Secrets, then earnings from the past should be classified as National Secrets as well! Of course, that would basically mean that this PAP government does not believe in accountability at all. In Hong Kong, such critical figures would be available to public for scrutiny and it really makes me wonder why would Mr Goh Chok Tong go all the way to Hong Kong to teach something that PAP does not practice while Hong Kong government is already practicing! Without adequate information released, information that could well undermine PAP's leadership being hidden away, how could accountability be exercised at all?
Anyway, it is even more intriguing that the National Press has CONVENIENTLY omitted that "sensitive" figure 41% from their daily reports of the parliamentary debates! All is well when there are coordinated effort to avoid mentioning such potentially damaging data on National papers!
There was a report by foreign analyst that the amount of money that GIC holds initially could well be as high as $500 Billion. So if this magic figure of 41% is true, the losses of GIC alone would be $225.5 Billion! Although the official report of Temasek Holdings' losses is $58Billion at the end of 30 Nov 2008, but I guess this figure is grossly underestimated. This is basically because share prices has further tumbled in December 2008. The losses could be as high as $80 Billion by the end of last year.
Thus the total potential losses of GIC and Temasek holdings could well be $300 Billion! What does that mean? It means that it is a loss of $100,000 per Singapore citizen!
While PAP government has always been reluctant in setting up a formal system of social welfare for Singaporeans because it could squander off all our reserves, but it seems that the reserves could well be lost in a more dramatic and faster way in just one financial crisis like this one. The cruel truth is, such losses benefits no Singaporeans while at the very least, a social welfare system could at least benefit quite a number of Singaporeans, especially so in such economic crisis!
We have paid millions of dollars to PAP ministers annually for such mediocre performance which result in such losses that benefits no Singaporeans at all. Some may argue that such losses are "reasonable" because other funds around the world are making the same losses. BUT, please don't forget that we are paying our political office holders HIGHEST in the whole world but yet we are getting mediocre average results same as others? So the fundamental question is, are these "TALENTED ELITES of HIGHER MORTAL" value for money?
I believe this is not merely my ranting. Quite a number of people of middle class income came to my shop to ask me to make the same point. Our ministers are over valued. Their ministerial pay is just too ridiculous. These are not just normal ranting that we used to see in internet forums. These words are uttered by REAL Singaporeans on the street, some with very high qualifications.
This financial crisis has exposed the myth that PAP ministers are "extraordinary talents" that deserved to be paid millions of dollars per year. The PAP ministers may be highly qualified but they are just human, not "HIGHER MORTAL". Are they the "BEST"? Cream of the crop? I really doubt so. The reason being, the BEST and TOP people do not use monetary return as a value yardstick label to stick on them. These people know their limitations and would take responsibility and account for their mistakes. Obama is a good example. Ma Yinjiu is another good example.
I do not think with the present PAP mindset, we will be able to extract accountability from PAP ministers themselves. I do not believe that one could check on himself effectively without trying to shy away from responsibility. While billions are lost, not a single word of apology is heard from PAP ministers. The tightly controlled newspaper is still trying to trumpet it off as "better than others"! Of course, the usual rant that any losses are "temporary", no apology about that, no regrets about that but all for long term. While our children or even grand children in the far future "suffer" from such WRONG TERM investment, they wouldn't know who are the ones who are supposed to be responsible for these losses anyway.
So, this is the kind of accountability that PAP is teaching from their bible.
Goh Meng Seng
星洲选读：林明华—来新山养老
主题:星洲选读：林明华—来新山养老
林明华‧来新山养老
2009-02-12 19:36
农历新年期间，新加坡卫生部长许文远在未惊动媒体的情况下，悄悄进入新山依斯干达特区“参观”当地的医疗机构，並会见了一名即將在那里建造一所拥有200个床位的疗养院的新加坡人。几天后，他在新加坡国会谈到他此行的心得时，建议新加坡人考虑把家中老人送去新山的疗养院养老，因为“在新加坡疗养院住一个月的费用，相等於在新山疗养院的2个半月的费用；何况，新山离新加坡不远，老人的家属可在週末到新山去探望他们”。
这个建议看来很现实，也很实际，但却受到该国反对党议员的严厉批评，他们讥讽许文远以“赞赏”的口吻介绍收费低廉的新山疗养院，似乎已默认该国的医疗费过高的事实。他们也质问许文远，新加坡政府是不是要把她负担得起的医疗服务的责任，“外包”给其他国家？
面对反对党的质询，许文远的回答似乎有点“无厘头”；他说：“消费者都有选择的自由。你可以在新加坡吃海鲜大餐，或到新山吃团圆饭。你可以在新加坡添油，或者越过长堤（添油）。你是在花自己的钱，一切由你决定。”
马来西亚人看新加坡，总是出现两大极端，李光耀家族和政治生態、高薪养廉和高效率、南洋大学和华文教育，都可以引发喋喋不休的爭辩。像新加坡老人入住新山疗养院的课题，也无可避免的引发口舌之爭，而且可以是非常情绪化的爭论。
但情绪化的爭论，有时也有值得反思的一面。例如我的一个朋友便说，为甚么我们的人才和投资都被新加坡吸引过去，而我们能够吸引的，却只是被新加坡遗弃的老人和被新加坡淘汰的夕阳工业而已？
也有朋友不无感慨地说，在他们的许多新加坡朋友眼中，马来西亚简直一无是处，只有在想要购买廉价物品，想要添购廉价汽油，或者想要花钱少少但却要举家出游时，马来西亚才成为新加坡人的最佳选项。
新加坡是世界上第一个將“赡养父母”立法的国家。1995年，新加坡国会通过《赡养父母法令》。此法令下，被控未遵守《赡养父母法》的子女，一旦罪名成立，可面对罚款1万新元或判处1年有期徒刑的惩罚。据说，该国的赡养父母仲裁庭在法令生效的首半年內，便接获了152宗由父母要求子女赡养的申请。
新加坡人对父母真的如此无情无义吗？不是的！据我向一些新加坡友人和亲戚瞭解，把家中老人送入疗养院，对新加坡人来说，迄今还是一个相当避讳的课题。他们说，大多数的新加坡华人还是非常重视家庭伦理道德的。如果不是迫不得已，把家中老人送入疗养院，始终是他们最后的选择，何况是送来新山的疗养院。其中一位朋友甚至这样说：“这样做（把父母送入新山疗养院），不只不孝，而且还丟尽了我们（新加坡人）的面子！”
新山的疗养院收容新加坡老人，事实上也早已不是甚么秘密了。当然，经济考量是原因之一；另一原因，是很多这些老人原本就是马来西亚人，入住新山疗养院，也方便这里的亲友探望和照顾。
老人问题不是新加坡人的问题而已，国內的疗养院愈开愈多，说明我们的社会確实有此需求。至於把家中老人寄养在疗养院，是不是等於遗弃他们？是不是就是一种不孝行为？所谓家家有本难唸的经，这要看具体的情况，不能一概而论。
不过，不可否认的是，今时今日，“养儿防老”的观念已不可靠，遗弃老人的问题日愈严重也是事实，像新加坡这样把道德標准变成立法政策，通过立法来保护失去依靠的老人，或者建议把老人送到邻国去“寄养”，“虽然看起来有点可笑又可悲，但也是非常无奈的现实选择！”
星洲日报／情在人间‧作者：林明华‧言论不代表本站立场‧2009.02.12
林明华‧来新山养老
2009-02-12 19:36
农历新年期间，新加坡卫生部长许文远在未惊动媒体的情况下，悄悄进入新山依斯干达特区“参观”当地的医疗机构，並会见了一名即將在那里建造一所拥有200个床位的疗养院的新加坡人。几天后，他在新加坡国会谈到他此行的心得时，建议新加坡人考虑把家中老人送去新山的疗养院养老，因为“在新加坡疗养院住一个月的费用，相等於在新山疗养院的2个半月的费用；何况，新山离新加坡不远，老人的家属可在週末到新山去探望他们”。
这个建议看来很现实，也很实际，但却受到该国反对党议员的严厉批评，他们讥讽许文远以“赞赏”的口吻介绍收费低廉的新山疗养院，似乎已默认该国的医疗费过高的事实。他们也质问许文远，新加坡政府是不是要把她负担得起的医疗服务的责任，“外包”给其他国家？
面对反对党的质询，许文远的回答似乎有点“无厘头”；他说：“消费者都有选择的自由。你可以在新加坡吃海鲜大餐，或到新山吃团圆饭。你可以在新加坡添油，或者越过长堤（添油）。你是在花自己的钱，一切由你决定。”
马来西亚人看新加坡，总是出现两大极端，李光耀家族和政治生態、高薪养廉和高效率、南洋大学和华文教育，都可以引发喋喋不休的爭辩。像新加坡老人入住新山疗养院的课题，也无可避免的引发口舌之爭，而且可以是非常情绪化的爭论。
但情绪化的爭论，有时也有值得反思的一面。例如我的一个朋友便说，为甚么我们的人才和投资都被新加坡吸引过去，而我们能够吸引的，却只是被新加坡遗弃的老人和被新加坡淘汰的夕阳工业而已？
也有朋友不无感慨地说，在他们的许多新加坡朋友眼中，马来西亚简直一无是处，只有在想要购买廉价物品，想要添购廉价汽油，或者想要花钱少少但却要举家出游时，马来西亚才成为新加坡人的最佳选项。
新加坡是世界上第一个將“赡养父母”立法的国家。1995年，新加坡国会通过《赡养父母法令》。此法令下，被控未遵守《赡养父母法》的子女，一旦罪名成立，可面对罚款1万新元或判处1年有期徒刑的惩罚。据说，该国的赡养父母仲裁庭在法令生效的首半年內，便接获了152宗由父母要求子女赡养的申请。
新加坡人对父母真的如此无情无义吗？不是的！据我向一些新加坡友人和亲戚瞭解，把家中老人送入疗养院，对新加坡人来说，迄今还是一个相当避讳的课题。他们说，大多数的新加坡华人还是非常重视家庭伦理道德的。如果不是迫不得已，把家中老人送入疗养院，始终是他们最后的选择，何况是送来新山的疗养院。其中一位朋友甚至这样说：“这样做（把父母送入新山疗养院），不只不孝，而且还丟尽了我们（新加坡人）的面子！”
新山的疗养院收容新加坡老人，事实上也早已不是甚么秘密了。当然，经济考量是原因之一；另一原因，是很多这些老人原本就是马来西亚人，入住新山疗养院，也方便这里的亲友探望和照顾。
老人问题不是新加坡人的问题而已，国內的疗养院愈开愈多，说明我们的社会確实有此需求。至於把家中老人寄养在疗养院，是不是等於遗弃他们？是不是就是一种不孝行为？所谓家家有本难唸的经，这要看具体的情况，不能一概而论。
不过，不可否认的是，今时今日，“养儿防老”的观念已不可靠，遗弃老人的问题日愈严重也是事实，像新加坡这样把道德標准变成立法政策，通过立法来保护失去依靠的老人，或者建议把老人送到邻国去“寄养”，“虽然看起来有点可笑又可悲，但也是非常无奈的现实选择！”
星洲日报／情在人间‧作者：林明华‧言论不代表本站立场‧2009.02.12
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
放下玉山留残照]--- 淡马锡总裁卸职四记
作者:德仁 09:51am 11/02/2009
放下玉山留残照]--- 淡马锡总裁卸职四记
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
当年拿起意气豪，
飞上名榜九天高。
购得电子剩一丝，*
买来美银挨千刀。**
已化肉酱休叹息，
错逢狼虎欲安逃？
自我憔悴大抛开，***
放下玉山留残照。
=============================
*电子，特许半导体 CHARTERED IND.
目前股值市价二角八分半28。5cts.
*美银，英美银行如花旗，美林，瑞
银和巴克莱银行等在过去的14个月内
总注入超过300亿的巨额注资。
***大抛开，何女士说“对于这个更
替过程，我们尽可能正式确立，努力
抛开自我，抛开个人，尽可能开放，
没有个人偏见。”
放下玉山留残照]--- 淡马锡总裁卸职四记
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
当年拿起意气豪，
飞上名榜九天高。
购得电子剩一丝，*
买来美银挨千刀。**
已化肉酱休叹息，
错逢狼虎欲安逃？
自我憔悴大抛开，***
放下玉山留残照。
=============================
*电子，特许半导体 CHARTERED IND.
目前股值市价二角八分半28。5cts.
*美银，英美银行如花旗，美林，瑞
银和巴克莱银行等在过去的14个月内
总注入超过300亿的巨额注资。
***大抛开，何女士说“对于这个更
替过程，我们尽可能正式确立，努力
抛开自我，抛开个人，尽可能开放，
没有个人偏见。”
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Sunday, February 08, 2009
反思：人民的声音
我要非常谢谢一位翻译高手帮我翻译了我的英文稿"Reflections: Voice of the People", 在此刊登这翻译稿件。
翻译者笔名：韦春花
星期六,2009年2月7日
反思：人民的声音
Cartoon from Sam's Thought
在我这篇文章里，内有三张政治漫画是调侃吕德耀少将在国会的发言，他批评网上博客“恶毒攻击”行动党议员，尤其是是成汉通议员被一名70岁老汉纵火烧伤的这件事。（实际上是两帧漫画，外加一帧是翻译成中文。）
早报的一篇报道威胁说：那些“恶毒攻击行动党议员和部长”的人要小心！看来，一些像我这类“下等人”并没有得到警方应有的庇护，只有那些在网络上攻击“行动党人”的才会被追缉。
整篇报道，只紧盯那些攻击行动党的“下等人”。
“我不认为那些反政府或反人民行动党的人都有意真心地与政府沟通。因此，我们需要的是可辨别是非和能作独立判断的人民。”。
我本人就曾是网路恶毒流言、心怀不轨和含沙射影的受害者。他们散布我“偷情”的传言（实际上那个某人是我妹妹），他们大方来到我的博客留下诽谤的言论，可是我并没有看到警方按捺不住，非要介入这样的调查。
最重要的是，当时我并没有看到由行动党操控的报纸秉持“公义”出来“仗义执言”。相反地，他们甚至紧捉这样的机会来散布对我是“人格谋杀”的谣言。
此外，当有人恶意抹黑反对党议员如刘程强先生及工人党时，如把工人党叫做“哇燕党”（wayang，做戏），报纸的编辑和记者都没有穿上“公义”的外衣来“谴责”造谣者。相反地，他们给这些谣言足够的版面，破坏工人党在众人心目中的形象。
Sketch from My Sketchbook
所以当攻击的是行动党人时，报纸突然间要“坚持真相和维持正义”时，我觉得非常感冒。
这只能说明一个事实，当形势对执政党有利时，造谣者是否可信？根本不是问题，也不必在意他们是否躲在匿名之后。他们还会打出抢眼的标题来吸引国人读者注意这些谣言和中伤，他们甚至找上门去访问那些“邪恶人”（根据他们的新定义），让他们尽情表演。
当然，我已经很习惯行动党操控的媒体行使双重标准，但是习惯不等于认同。现在除了媒体之外，人民公仆如警察部队也随着执政党的需要起舞，真的让我瞠目结舌。我不知道执政党怎么还有脸坚称公务员中立，他们绝不会给执政党当跑腿。
This one is translated into Chinese by a forumer.
我只能摇头叹息，我想这就是新加坡的现实。
当吕少将哀悼新加坡博客社群失去一次自治的机会，我有一个信息要提供给行动党，还有报纸的编辑和记者。
几天前我刚好经过旧店的门口，那里在我搬出后已经空置了六个月。有个朋友问我那座大厦出了什么问题？为什么我要搬走，而且现在看起来空空荡荡？我这样告诉我的朋友：
当我跟业主谈判新租约的时候，我直言告诉他们现在的环境：生意越来越难做，而且眼看衰退就要到来了，于是我要求减租，但是让我震惊的是，他们其实是要加20%的租金！那只不过是去年8月的事，果然许多租户在租约到期后，都一个接一个离开了。
为什么我要提这件小事呢？这里的教训就是说：是否要听真话？一家公司或一个政府可能开头时很成功，那是他们很清楚实际的运作，他们明白主顾和可能客户的需求。他们聆听来自底层和市场的声音，关注他们的期望和需要。总结这些回馈之后，他们推出符合顾客需求的产品和服务，于是他们生意跟着做多也做大了。
可是当他们成功之后，许多商人就会以为成功来自一己的聪明和才智。他们把成功归功于自己的市场嗅觉和做出“正确决定”的好脑筋。实际上他们忘了成功的来时路；关注市场、主顾和客户的需求。当他们赚够了钱，他们开始住进自己的城堡，他们虽然保持和各阶层的人士交往，但是最终他们会没有时间和“下等人”厮混了。他们筑起高墙把自己围起来，就像古代的皇帝和帝王。
最后，他们依靠几个人提供城堡以外的声音，那时起就可以预见他们的下坡路了。
所以这个故事的中心思想是什么？倾听声音。
成功的商人和政治人物都要倾听人民的声音。如果你时时关注人民的声音，你就时时保持在正途上，你感受到市场的脉搏和接下来的路该怎么走。正确的决定来自观察和聆听底层的声音、市井的声音。正确决定不会从象牙塔、“高贵人”、“精英和人才”那里听来的。智慧往往来自底层，而不是“高等人圈子”的几个小脑袋。
历史上，无论现代或古代，只要领袖脱离群众，自居“高贵”看不起“下等人”，皇宫和城堡是为了区隔原本是他们该领导和照顾的子民时，他们的日子和朝代也就不长了。
中国历史上，清朝的辉煌盛世是当皇帝经常微服出巡的年代。基本上，这是皇帝最亲密接触子民的时刻。相反地，当皇帝被佞臣包围，不让他接触人民的时候，朝代很快就会落幕了。
我要说些什么呢？吕少将只看到批评行动党和其议员的负面效应；当一些人同情攻击者多过受伤的成汉通议员时，他觉得很恶心。他看不惯那些攻击行动党、成汉通议员和他的同志的博客，发觉竟然没有人替行动党成汉通议员叫屈！
他无法解读这些对行动党的小拌嘴、宣泄不满和酸言酸语。对我来说，行动党部长和议员没能从人民的声音受益，其实是更大的遗憾；这个比他所讲的新加坡网民失去“自治”的机会更可悲。
互联网是人民的声音，不必经过修饰、送检的来源，当然，里头一定有些恶意的谎言和攻击，但是研究这背后的心态更为重要。如果只是属于一小撮人的行为，那还不打紧。但是如果很多人都说同样的话、唱同一个调，那么就值得当政者去研究问题出在哪儿了？
目前在新加坡，行动党好像一夜之间失去宠信。
首先，主流报纸没有履行他们作为第四监督权来反映人民真实的声音。因为行动党那只看不见的手长期以来都把所有报章安置在同一个屋檐下——新加坡报业控股。几乎所有的免费电台和电视也在新传媒手中，这些都是为了方便操控。
其二，行动党虽然赢得平均66.66%的选票，但是支持他们的选民并没有表现出该有的热情。看看他们的群众大会，你就明白我的意思。如果一个执政党还需要用巴士、免费晚餐和饮料来动员它的支持者，可见有些事情已经错得很离谱。
这就说明为什么没人要挺身而出，虽然对成汉通议员和行动党的无理攻击有时是“太超过”了。可是支持行动党的那些心态比较像“做交易”；“给你高薪，做好你的工作”就是这么简单。看来这个吕少将好像不太清楚自己的处境，还好意思抱怨他的政党和同僚获得太少的热情拥抱。
对行动党那些高贵精英和他们脱离民众的程度，很多能写的人都直接写出他们的不满，但是我猜他们连睬都不想睬，只是口头上随便应付了事。
我认为目前的纷扰底下还有更大的暗潮。不，问题绝不是“网路使用者不懂得自律”，它比这个还要大。事件只是新加坡人民不满的一个导火线，所以行动党不该把注意力转向言论自由滥用的问题，而该找出不满的源头究竟在什么地方？
我记得吴作栋曾经说过，要是完全没有裁员，他反而会担心。我依样画葫芦：要是没有新加坡人宣泄他们对执政党的不满，我也会担心。道理很简单，要是“声音”都不见了，只能是两件事：一、新加坡人对国家完全失望，只把自己当做过客，随时准备搬走。其二、他们做了像回祈团那样的洗脑工作。
避免沸炸的最好方法就是揭盖和熄火，而不是紧压着锅盖。用威吓的手段来压制民众的声音是最愚蠢不过的。
吴明盛
翻译者笔名：韦春花
星期六,2009年2月7日
反思：人民的声音
Cartoon from Sam's Thought在我这篇文章里，内有三张政治漫画是调侃吕德耀少将在国会的发言，他批评网上博客“恶毒攻击”行动党议员，尤其是是成汉通议员被一名70岁老汉纵火烧伤的这件事。（实际上是两帧漫画，外加一帧是翻译成中文。）
早报的一篇报道威胁说：那些“恶毒攻击行动党议员和部长”的人要小心！看来，一些像我这类“下等人”并没有得到警方应有的庇护，只有那些在网络上攻击“行动党人”的才会被追缉。
整篇报道，只紧盯那些攻击行动党的“下等人”。
“我不认为那些反政府或反人民行动党的人都有意真心地与政府沟通。因此，我们需要的是可辨别是非和能作独立判断的人民。”。
我本人就曾是网路恶毒流言、心怀不轨和含沙射影的受害者。他们散布我“偷情”的传言（实际上那个某人是我妹妹），他们大方来到我的博客留下诽谤的言论，可是我并没有看到警方按捺不住，非要介入这样的调查。
最重要的是，当时我并没有看到由行动党操控的报纸秉持“公义”出来“仗义执言”。相反地，他们甚至紧捉这样的机会来散布对我是“人格谋杀”的谣言。
此外，当有人恶意抹黑反对党议员如刘程强先生及工人党时，如把工人党叫做“哇燕党”（wayang，做戏），报纸的编辑和记者都没有穿上“公义”的外衣来“谴责”造谣者。相反地，他们给这些谣言足够的版面，破坏工人党在众人心目中的形象。
Sketch from My Sketchbook所以当攻击的是行动党人时，报纸突然间要“坚持真相和维持正义”时，我觉得非常感冒。
这只能说明一个事实，当形势对执政党有利时，造谣者是否可信？根本不是问题，也不必在意他们是否躲在匿名之后。他们还会打出抢眼的标题来吸引国人读者注意这些谣言和中伤，他们甚至找上门去访问那些“邪恶人”（根据他们的新定义），让他们尽情表演。
当然，我已经很习惯行动党操控的媒体行使双重标准，但是习惯不等于认同。现在除了媒体之外，人民公仆如警察部队也随着执政党的需要起舞，真的让我瞠目结舌。我不知道执政党怎么还有脸坚称公务员中立，他们绝不会给执政党当跑腿。
This one is translated into Chinese by a forumer.我只能摇头叹息，我想这就是新加坡的现实。
当吕少将哀悼新加坡博客社群失去一次自治的机会，我有一个信息要提供给行动党，还有报纸的编辑和记者。
几天前我刚好经过旧店的门口，那里在我搬出后已经空置了六个月。有个朋友问我那座大厦出了什么问题？为什么我要搬走，而且现在看起来空空荡荡？我这样告诉我的朋友：
当我跟业主谈判新租约的时候，我直言告诉他们现在的环境：生意越来越难做，而且眼看衰退就要到来了，于是我要求减租，但是让我震惊的是，他们其实是要加20%的租金！那只不过是去年8月的事，果然许多租户在租约到期后，都一个接一个离开了。
为什么我要提这件小事呢？这里的教训就是说：是否要听真话？一家公司或一个政府可能开头时很成功，那是他们很清楚实际的运作，他们明白主顾和可能客户的需求。他们聆听来自底层和市场的声音，关注他们的期望和需要。总结这些回馈之后，他们推出符合顾客需求的产品和服务，于是他们生意跟着做多也做大了。
可是当他们成功之后，许多商人就会以为成功来自一己的聪明和才智。他们把成功归功于自己的市场嗅觉和做出“正确决定”的好脑筋。实际上他们忘了成功的来时路；关注市场、主顾和客户的需求。当他们赚够了钱，他们开始住进自己的城堡，他们虽然保持和各阶层的人士交往，但是最终他们会没有时间和“下等人”厮混了。他们筑起高墙把自己围起来，就像古代的皇帝和帝王。
最后，他们依靠几个人提供城堡以外的声音，那时起就可以预见他们的下坡路了。
所以这个故事的中心思想是什么？倾听声音。
成功的商人和政治人物都要倾听人民的声音。如果你时时关注人民的声音，你就时时保持在正途上，你感受到市场的脉搏和接下来的路该怎么走。正确的决定来自观察和聆听底层的声音、市井的声音。正确决定不会从象牙塔、“高贵人”、“精英和人才”那里听来的。智慧往往来自底层，而不是“高等人圈子”的几个小脑袋。
历史上，无论现代或古代，只要领袖脱离群众，自居“高贵”看不起“下等人”，皇宫和城堡是为了区隔原本是他们该领导和照顾的子民时，他们的日子和朝代也就不长了。
中国历史上，清朝的辉煌盛世是当皇帝经常微服出巡的年代。基本上，这是皇帝最亲密接触子民的时刻。相反地，当皇帝被佞臣包围，不让他接触人民的时候，朝代很快就会落幕了。
我要说些什么呢？吕少将只看到批评行动党和其议员的负面效应；当一些人同情攻击者多过受伤的成汉通议员时，他觉得很恶心。他看不惯那些攻击行动党、成汉通议员和他的同志的博客，发觉竟然没有人替行动党成汉通议员叫屈！
他无法解读这些对行动党的小拌嘴、宣泄不满和酸言酸语。对我来说，行动党部长和议员没能从人民的声音受益，其实是更大的遗憾；这个比他所讲的新加坡网民失去“自治”的机会更可悲。
互联网是人民的声音，不必经过修饰、送检的来源，当然，里头一定有些恶意的谎言和攻击，但是研究这背后的心态更为重要。如果只是属于一小撮人的行为，那还不打紧。但是如果很多人都说同样的话、唱同一个调，那么就值得当政者去研究问题出在哪儿了？
目前在新加坡，行动党好像一夜之间失去宠信。
首先，主流报纸没有履行他们作为第四监督权来反映人民真实的声音。因为行动党那只看不见的手长期以来都把所有报章安置在同一个屋檐下——新加坡报业控股。几乎所有的免费电台和电视也在新传媒手中，这些都是为了方便操控。
其二，行动党虽然赢得平均66.66%的选票，但是支持他们的选民并没有表现出该有的热情。看看他们的群众大会，你就明白我的意思。如果一个执政党还需要用巴士、免费晚餐和饮料来动员它的支持者，可见有些事情已经错得很离谱。
这就说明为什么没人要挺身而出，虽然对成汉通议员和行动党的无理攻击有时是“太超过”了。可是支持行动党的那些心态比较像“做交易”；“给你高薪，做好你的工作”就是这么简单。看来这个吕少将好像不太清楚自己的处境，还好意思抱怨他的政党和同僚获得太少的热情拥抱。
对行动党那些高贵精英和他们脱离民众的程度，很多能写的人都直接写出他们的不满，但是我猜他们连睬都不想睬，只是口头上随便应付了事。
我认为目前的纷扰底下还有更大的暗潮。不，问题绝不是“网路使用者不懂得自律”，它比这个还要大。事件只是新加坡人民不满的一个导火线，所以行动党不该把注意力转向言论自由滥用的问题，而该找出不满的源头究竟在什么地方？
我记得吴作栋曾经说过，要是完全没有裁员，他反而会担心。我依样画葫芦：要是没有新加坡人宣泄他们对执政党的不满，我也会担心。道理很简单，要是“声音”都不见了，只能是两件事：一、新加坡人对国家完全失望，只把自己当做过客，随时准备搬走。其二、他们做了像回祈团那样的洗脑工作。
避免沸炸的最好方法就是揭盖和熄火，而不是紧压着锅盖。用威吓的手段来压制民众的声音是最愚蠢不过的。
吴明盛
Saturday, February 07, 2009
集体诉讼---请马上登记
集体诉讼---请马上登记
这是非常重要的通告。
对于那一些决定要参与集体法律诉讼的雷曼迷你债券、星展票据和其他结构性的金融产品的苦主们，你们必须现在驯联络你们的各个组长，准备进行集体诉讼。你们应该与组长登记以“原则上”同意进行集体诉讼。这将能让组长们取得你们的联络号码。这只是“原则上”同意，并没有法律约束力，你也无需在这时候付任何费用，如果你在了解整个过程后决定退出，你可以为此作出推出的要求。
在你登记“原则上”同意进行集体法律诉讼后，你也可以继续等待金融机构所提出的任何赔偿和解建议或继续向金融调解局投诉。如果金融调解局拒绝调解你的投诉，你便可以进行集体法律诉讼。
你必须现在就登记。如果你延迟登记，你就有可能失去集体诉讼的机会了。我们没法在最后一分钟帮得了你去争取你的法律权益。请点击这里以取得所有组长的联络。
陈钦亮
Reflections: Voice of the People
Cartoon from Sam's ThoughtIn this article, there are three caricatures of Rear Admiral Lui Tuck Yew in response to his remarks made in parliament about Singapore netters' "vicious attacks" on PAP MPs, especially on MP Seng who was burnt by a 70 year old man. (To be exact, there are two drawings which one of them has been translated into Chinese.)
A report in Zaobao appears with veil threats against those who made these "vicious attacks" on "PAP MPs & Ministers"! Please note that, it seems that other "Lower Mortal" like me will not be under the protection of the police, only internet attackers of "PAP" members will be "chased" by the police!
For the whole newspaper report, the focus is apparently on those "Lower Mortals" who criticise the PAP.
“我不认为那些反政府或反人民行动党的人都有意真心地与政府沟通。因此，我们需要的是可辨别是非和能作独立判断的人民。”
I have been a victim of vicious, malicious and baseless attacks from some Singaporeans on the Internet forums, talking about me having "extramarital affairs" (with someone who is actually my sister!) They have even left defamatory comments on my blog! But I don't see the police officers jumping up and down over such incidents.
Most importantly, I don't see the PAP controlled newspaper has that kind of "self-righteousness" in upholding "Truth". On the contrary, they even took the opportunity to publicise such malicious lies in an attempt to make character assassination on me!
Besides, when someone made malicious attacks on opposition MPs like Mr. Low Thia Khiang and WP, calling WP names like Wayang Party etc., the newspaper reporters and editors did not put on their Self Righteous cloak to "reprimand" these attackers. Instead, they gave them full media exposure, in an attempt to undermine WP's public image!
Sketch from My SketchbookThus I really find it very HYPOCRITICAL for the newspapers to become "upholder of Truth and Justice" when such attacks have turned against the PAP members!
So, it all boils down to one thing. Whenever the situation is favourable to the ruling party, never mind whether these attackers are credible or not, never mind whether they are hiding behind anonymous monikers. They will even put up big headings on the newspapers just to get the attention of Singaporeans to these malicious and unfounded attacks. They would even interview these supposedly "evil doers" (under their new definitions), giving full accounts and publicize their great acts and lies!
This one is translated into Chinese by a forumer.Well, I am getting used to PAP controlled local media's double standards but getting used to it does not mean I will condone such mindset. Beside the Media, what really amazed me is that even the civil servants like the police force is reacting according to the needs and complains of the ruling party only! It is really ironic and amusing that the ruling party still claims that the civil servants are impartial and they are not made used for petty politicking!
I can only shake my head, really. But I guess this is life in Singapore.
While Rear Admiral Lui lamented that Singapore bloggers and netters have missed the opportunity to exercise self-regulation, I have one important message for PAP and the newspaper reporters and editors.
I happen to pass by my old shop location the other day, which is still empty six months after I shifted out. A friend of mine asked me what had happened to the whole building? Why did I left and now it has become so empty? I told my friend this:
While negotiating with the landlord about the new rental contract, I was merely telling them the truth: business has gone worse and there are eminent signs that a recession is coming. I requested the rental to be reduced. But to my shock, they actually requested to raise the rental by 20%! This happens back in August. From then on, one by one, tenants with expired lease left.
Why am I mentioning this little episode here? The main lesson from this episode is about REAL feedback. A company or a government is sucessful initially basically because they knew the ground. They understand what their clients and potential customers need. They LISTEN to the ground, the market place, take notes of their expectations and their needs. Afther taking into all these considerations, they come up with products and services to cater to their customers' and clients' needs. Their sales will increase and business will expand.
After they have become sucessful, most businessmen thought they are smart and intelligent. They credit their success to their good judgement and brains in making the "right decisions". But they have totally forgotten the basis of their success, paying attention to the market, their clients and customers. When they are wealthy, they chose to live in their own castles. They mix with different social class of people and eventually, they hardly spend time talking and mixing around with "Lesser Mortals". They have basically build a solid wall surrounding their castles just like any Emperors and Kings of ancient time.
In the end, they will only rely on the few people surrounding them to feed them information and details of the people outside their castles. And this is when their business will go down hill.
So, what's the moral of the whole process? Voice.
The success of any businessmen or politicians lies in the Voice of the People. If you are constantly paying attention to the Voice of the People, you will always get the politics right, You will always get the market sentiments and directoin right. The RIGHT decisions are always made with observations and voices heard from the ground, from the market places. Right decisions are not just made in Ivory towers surrounded by "Higher Mortals" of "Elites and Talents". The Wisdom comes from the ground, not a few brains in the "Higher Mortal Circle".
In history, be it modern or ancient, it has always been the case that Power is lost and dynasties fell because the political leaders have distanced themselves from the people because they see themselves as HIGHER MORTALS that needs to be differentiated and live apart from the "Lesser Mortals". Palaces and castles are built to "protect" themselves from the harm of the people that they are supposedly to lead and take care of.
If we look at the Chinese history, the most prosperous time in Qing Dynasty were times whereby the Emperors pay frequent visits to the towns and villages outside their palaces. Basically, these were times where Emperors pay attention to the voices and opinion of the people. Conversely, whenever a dynasty comes to an end, it is when the Emperor start to surround himself with people who will only sweet talk to him without giving him the real picture on the ground.
So, what's my point? Rear Admiral Lui only thinks of the big bad comments on PAP and its Members of Parliament. He just find it disgusting that those people who poll actually think the attacker of MP Seng should have all their sympathy instead of MP Seng. He only concerns about while those bloggers and internet forumers are attacking PAP, MP Seng and his party colleagues, nobody comes into PAP MP Seng's defence.
He cannot see beyond the little bickering, venting of frustrations and sarcastic comments aimed at PAP. This is, to me, a BIGGER PITY that PAP Ministers and MPs have failed to reflect upon the Voices of People, as compared to the supposedly lost opportunity of Singapore internet users in "self regulating".
The internet is the place where UNCENSORED Voice of the People could be heard. Of course, there will be the usual malicious lies and attacks going around but it is the cause of such intent that is more important. If there is only one or two persons or a few persons that do that, then it is not that bad. But if many people are saying the same thing, singing the same tune, then it is important for those who are in power to examine what actually went wrong.
It seems that in Singapore, we have a perfect situation for a sudden fall out of love for PAP.
First, the traditional newspapers are not performing their role as the forth estate in providing REAL feedback and independent Voice of the people. This is because PAP has always been the invisible hand behind them and that is also why almost ALL newspapers come under one roof, SPH. Almost ALL free radio and TV stations come under Media Corp. It is for easy command and control.
Secondly, although PAP has won on average, 66.6% of popular votes, but one would notice that supporters of PAP are not passionate towards them at all. Look at their political rallies and you will understand what I mean. If a ruling party needs to use buses to transport their supporters to their political rallies with free dinner and drinks provided, then something must be very wrong.
This explains why there are very few people who will "defend" PAP MP Seng on the net even when the attacks hauled at him and PAP are sometimes overboard! Support for PAP is merely a "transaction", "pay you high salary, you do your job" and that's about all. It seems that Rear Admiral Lui does not really understand this very well but instead, lamented about the lack of passionate support for his party and colleagues.
There are writers who have written about the disaffection of PAP Higher Mortal Elites and how lost touch they are from the ground over the years. But I guess they did not really pay much attention to it, merely pay lip service to feedbacks.
I think there is a big underlying problem with the recent development here. Nope, the problem is NOT "cyber users not self regulating", it is much bigger than that. This incident is just a trigger to a pent up frustrations of many Singaporeans and the most important thing PAP should pay attention to is NOT about why they try to throw abuses at it but rather, what is the SOURCE of the frustrations.
Goh Chok Tong has once said that if there is no retrenchment then he worries. I say, if there is no Singaporeans venting their frustrations at the ruling party, then I worry. The reason is simple, if there is no longer a VOICE, it could only mean two things, one, Singaporeans have given up on this nation but just treating it as a hotel, ready to move on to other places. Two, they are doing something else like what the JI is doing.
The best way of avoiding a boiling kettle from exploding is to let off the steam and try to turn off the fire, not pressing down the cover. Putting up veil threats of all sorts trying to suppress the REAL Voice of the people is the most foolish thing to do.
Goh Meng Seng
吕德耀：网民错失能自我监管的机会
对网民恶言攻击成汉通感到失望
吕德耀：网民错失能自我监管的机会
（2009-02-05）
早报导读
何晶卸下淡马锡控股执行董事兼总裁职
新加坡淡马锡控股召开记者会，主席丹那巴南宣布，何晶卸下执行董事兼总裁职务。
陈幸妤证实准备移民美国
中国扩建交通设施的好时机
日方虽宣布裁员 松下本地不裁员（附地图）
● 邓莉蓉
教育部兼新闻、通讯及艺术部高级政务部长吕德耀少将昨天在国会上对网民恶言攻击被人放火烧伤的议员成汉通的行为感到失望，并指出网民的表现显示互联网社群仍缺乏自我克制与自省的能力。尤其令他大感失望的是广大网民没对这些恶意的网民提出质疑或挑战。
杨厝港区议员成汉通上月初在选区里主持社区活动时，被一名老汉放火烧伤入院，烧伤面积介于10％至15％，需接受两次植皮手术，一些网民非但没谴责凶手，反而在互联网上胡乱揣测他攻击议员的原因，各种未经证实的传言四起，还有人对成汉通作出不负责任的指责。
警察部队行动局局长黄宏冠助理警察总监回答本报询问时强调，警方不会姑息这类网民的行为，如果有人确实触犯法律，警方必将彻查。
他说：“在互联网上作出违法行为者，都不能免除刑事责任。”
白沙—榜鹅集选区议员刘 琳昨天在国会上提出口头询问时，以成汉通遭网民恶言攻击为例，要求吕德耀针对网民的行为发表看法。
在首次针对这起事件作出回应时，吕德耀指出网上也有少部分言论对成汉通的遭遇表示同情，并慰问他和他的家人，一些则赞扬成汉通对社会的贡献，让他的家属感到欣慰。不过，令他失望的是其他绝大部分网民所发表的都是些无益的言论，有些甚至是刻薄和令人厌恶的。
“我认为网上大多数的言论都是无益的，另一些则是不厚道的。还有一小部分简直是可恶，令人感到失望。”
吕德耀进一步指出，广大的网民社群对这些不负责任的网上言论提出反驳时还做得不够，并没向这类网民提出质疑或挑战。
“网民这次是白白浪费了可以证明网上言论也能有更高层次的自我监管的好机会。这原本可以成为他们朝向建立更具责任感和自制能力的网络言论的第一步，但是他们并没有反驳或作出回应。我认为继续让这些没受到挑战、质疑或得到回应的言论留在网络空间是不健康的。”
国会今天继续辩论政府财政政策。
吕德耀：网民错失能自我监管的机会
（2009-02-05）
早报导读
何晶卸下淡马锡控股执行董事兼总裁职
新加坡淡马锡控股召开记者会，主席丹那巴南宣布，何晶卸下执行董事兼总裁职务。
陈幸妤证实准备移民美国
中国扩建交通设施的好时机
日方虽宣布裁员 松下本地不裁员（附地图）
● 邓莉蓉
教育部兼新闻、通讯及艺术部高级政务部长吕德耀少将昨天在国会上对网民恶言攻击被人放火烧伤的议员成汉通的行为感到失望，并指出网民的表现显示互联网社群仍缺乏自我克制与自省的能力。尤其令他大感失望的是广大网民没对这些恶意的网民提出质疑或挑战。
杨厝港区议员成汉通上月初在选区里主持社区活动时，被一名老汉放火烧伤入院，烧伤面积介于10％至15％，需接受两次植皮手术，一些网民非但没谴责凶手，反而在互联网上胡乱揣测他攻击议员的原因，各种未经证实的传言四起，还有人对成汉通作出不负责任的指责。
警察部队行动局局长黄宏冠助理警察总监回答本报询问时强调，警方不会姑息这类网民的行为，如果有人确实触犯法律，警方必将彻查。
他说：“在互联网上作出违法行为者，都不能免除刑事责任。”
白沙—榜鹅集选区议员刘 琳昨天在国会上提出口头询问时，以成汉通遭网民恶言攻击为例，要求吕德耀针对网民的行为发表看法。
在首次针对这起事件作出回应时，吕德耀指出网上也有少部分言论对成汉通的遭遇表示同情，并慰问他和他的家人，一些则赞扬成汉通对社会的贡献，让他的家属感到欣慰。不过，令他失望的是其他绝大部分网民所发表的都是些无益的言论，有些甚至是刻薄和令人厌恶的。
“我认为网上大多数的言论都是无益的，另一些则是不厚道的。还有一小部分简直是可恶，令人感到失望。”
吕德耀进一步指出，广大的网民社群对这些不负责任的网上言论提出反驳时还做得不够，并没向这类网民提出质疑或挑战。
“网民这次是白白浪费了可以证明网上言论也能有更高层次的自我监管的好机会。这原本可以成为他们朝向建立更具责任感和自制能力的网络言论的第一步，但是他们并没有反驳或作出回应。我认为继续让这些没受到挑战、质疑或得到回应的言论留在网络空间是不健康的。”
国会今天继续辩论政府财政政策。
警队行动局局长黄宏冠：网上毒舌难逃法网
警队行动局局长黄宏冠：网上毒舌难逃法网
造谣的代价可达1925万美元
（2009-02-05）
早报导读
何晶卸下淡马锡控股执行董事兼总裁职
新加坡淡马锡控股召开记者会，主席丹那巴南宣布，何晶卸下执行董事兼总裁职务。
陈幸妤证实准备移民美国
中国扩建交通设施的好时机
日方虽宣布裁员 松下本地不裁员（附地图）
● 周殊钦
一直匿名在互联网上蓄意对他人作出不实指责的网民，如果以为他们永远都能躲藏在浩瀚网海所提供的屏障后面，现在可要三思而后行了。
警察部队行动局局长黄宏冠助理警察总监受询时强调，在互联网上发表恶毒言论者，都不能免除刑事责任。如果有人确实触犯法律，警方必将彻查。
“在网络空间里作出的任何不当行为，都是要面对现实后果的。包括对别人形成困扰或对个人、团体、社区甚至整个社会造成危害的行为或言论，只要是违法的，无论是出现在网络空间或是现实世界里，警方都将展开调查。”
黄宏冠所举出的例子，包括过去曾有发表极端种族主义言论的网民和博客受到调查和起诉。
他说：“在互联网上作出违法行为者，都不能免除刑事责任。”
新加坡管理大学法律系助理教授陈庆文也指出，无论是刑事法还是民事法，本地现有的法律都有对付蓄意发表诽谤性言论的相关法规。问题是追踪网络罪犯涉及取得托管肇事网站的服务器资料，而这些服务器未必都设在国内。
“跨越国界的追踪方法不仅昂贵，而且也不一定就能取得调查者想得到的资料。”
最近从人民行动党议员所管理的市镇理事会因投资金融结构产品蒙受亏损；杨厝港区议员成汉通在社区活动上被老汉放火烧伤；到常任秘书陈荣顺携眷到巴黎著名烹饪学校度过五周奢侈学习之旅等事件，都有网民和博客在互联网上不顾后果，鲁莽地发表毫无事实根据的言论去攻击他们，甚至有人捏造谣言指放火烧议员老汉是因付不起购屋分期付款，组屋被建屋发展局收回，才放火烧人以泄愤。
对于这类匿名在网上造谣中伤公务人员和国会议员的网民博客，警方的态度是不能姑息，必会对触犯法律者展开调查。
其实，这类恶毒的网民在世界各地都有，而在英国和美国都有网民因在网络空间里作出不当的行为而受检举。
然而，调查网上罪犯的另一层障碍在于网络谣言很多时候是与真相并行传播的。在网络时代，谣言和真相分别在人们口头和大众传播媒介进行独立传播的情况，已被模糊糅合，而且网络谣言也因人们的想象力充分发挥而变得更加“自圆其说和无懈可击”，使调查者的工作更为复杂。
尽管困难重重，从英国警方将一名把自己超速驾驶的录像放上网的男子逮捕，并对他控以四个月监刑，到纽约警察不辞劳苦，着手调查一些YouTube视频上涉嫌违法的录像等，可以肯定各地的执法当局对网民的不负责任行为，都采取不姑息的态度。
对政府而言，谣言往往不利于正常施政，因此抑制谣言的传播有其必要性，而最佳的应对方法就是未雨绸缪，防患于未然。因为对民众进行教育，使他们了解人人对维持良好的网络环境都有责任，将能对抑制谣言起到一定作用。
从理论角度来说，要取得将谣言扼杀在摇篮里的效果，当局可从两方面着手，一是制定相关的法律和政策，对蓄意造谣和传播谣言者施以相应的惩罚；二是建立健全、及时且畅通的信息发布渠道，以实现信息透明化来抑制谣言。
然而，陈庆文指出制定更严厉的法规，可能会在民间造成反效果，而这对新加坡的声誉及我国有意发展成新媒体枢纽的计划都不利。在政治上，这也可能被视为制止批评、审查反政府看法的举措。因此，当局要执行这些法律，也可能会面对一定的挑战。
他认为政府除了加强同人民的沟通与教育，在这方面能做的其实相当有限。
“我不认为那些反政府或反人民行动党的人都有意真心地与政府沟通。因此，我们需要的是可辨别是非和能作独立判断的人民。”
他指出，如果互联网能做到自我管束，那将是最理想的情况。不过，根据他的判断，这种情况在短期内不会出现。
人们都对曾被鲁迅形容为“杀人不见血”的大众传媒所报道的谣言深恶痛绝，而成语“三人成虎”就充分说明了散播谣言的杀伤力有多可怕。
人言到底有多可畏？被谣言暗箭射中者的伤势会有多严重？散播谣言者所须付出的代价又有多大？如果硬要附上一个数字，这个代价可能高达1925万美元。
这笔金额就是美国法院前年在一起民事诉讼中判给日用品公司宝洁（Procter and Gamble）在上世纪80年代因受到一项谣言困扰而得到的名誉损失赔偿。这起诉讼的结果已成了判断谣言破坏力的判例之一。话说宝洁公司自1981年起便开始受到它当年所使用的商标被指和撒旦勾结，以达到生意兴隆的目的这个谣言所困扰。
谣言的定义
按照美国学者所下的定义，谣言是一种在人际间私下流传的对人们感兴趣的课题所作的未经证实的阐述或诠释。既然需要流传，就必须要有媒介，而随着跨越国界与地缘的互联网时代的到来，谣言的传播更是如虎添翼，不管是复制的速度还是规模，都达到了前所未有的高峰。
人们在网络上可以匿脸、匿名、匿踪，而网络也的确提供了人们无须表现任何社会责任感的空间，而躲藏在它背后的人没了面对面的尴尬和对法律的顾忌，于是都肆无忌惮地在网络上进行宣泄，使互联网成了谣言的温床。
新加坡信息科技高度发达，资讯通信发展管理局前年的统计也显示我国接触互联网的家庭多达74％。在这样的一个国度里，要对网络谣言的危害免疫，是绝对不可能的。过去，我国发生过的因有人在网上发表伤害种族情感和侮辱宗教的煽动性言论而被警方逮捕的实例，更是活生生的铁证。
张有福：适度宣泄可接受
造谣者利用网络平台来发泄自己的不满或不安情绪，真是完全不能被接受的吗？这也不尽然。
最近在本地网络世界饱受攻击的白沙—榜鹅集选区议员张有福便认为从社会发展的角度来看，有一个可让民众表达看法和情绪的平台是件好事。对于网民或博客透过集体行动，利用互联网来表达对某起事件，例如对一些市镇理事会的投资蒙受亏损，或是对议员的不满，他都能接受。但是，这有个前提，即凡事都必须有个“度 ”。
“尽管我认为网络言论和博客应该有比主流媒体更多的言论自由空间，以供民众自由表达意见，但是自我约束还是有必要的。这是为了避免美化或鼓励暴力行为，以及刻意误导人们。”
在他看来，一些网民和博客最近大谈杨厝港区议员成汉通被一名精神病患放火烧伤的事件时，指成汉通为人嚣张、毫无同情心，甚至有人似模似样地“揭露”事件的导因，是因这名老汉不满自己的组屋因拖欠购屋分期付款而被建屋局收回，才采取极端手段。这种失实的指责既残忍，也不负责任，是完全不能被接受的。
“我清楚成汉通的为人，所以我知道这些指责都是不实的。有些网络帖子甚至对攻击者的行为喝采，并认为他应被视为国家英雄。这些言论厌恶得令我停止阅读这些博客。”
事实上，张有福在为同僚打抱不平的同时，自己也沦为网络谣言的受害者。事因他最近对环境及水源部常任秘书陈荣顺到巴黎上奢侈的烹饪课的事件作出回应时，一时不慎错用“低等人”（lesser mortal）一词，而被人假冒其名在某网站上大发“本地人可分为七个等级，政治人物皆为上等人，一般平民都是下等人”的偏激言论，结果引来更多网民的抨击。
对于这种网络造谣情况，受访学者的看法各有不同。研究领域包括新媒体发展的政策研究院高级研究员陈赞浩认为张有福不幸因意思被曲解而遭网民攻击，但是他后来还是向相关网站作出了澄清。
“这是民主辩论的基本特征。有些人对他口诛笔伐确实是很不幸的事，但他还是可以自我辩护，这有什么不对吗？”
然而，新加坡管理大学法律系的陈庆文助理教授在思考我国法律是否能有效地对付蓄意散播失实言论者的同时，也指出互联网上充斥的反政府言论，就是不真实的现实反映。
“这些言论更巩固了我的观点，即假设一名火星人浏览互联网时，看到了博客帖子和新媒体激烈的反政府言论，必定会以为新加坡人就要搞革命了！”
造谣的代价可达1925万美元
（2009-02-05）
早报导读
何晶卸下淡马锡控股执行董事兼总裁职
新加坡淡马锡控股召开记者会，主席丹那巴南宣布，何晶卸下执行董事兼总裁职务。
陈幸妤证实准备移民美国
中国扩建交通设施的好时机
日方虽宣布裁员 松下本地不裁员（附地图）
● 周殊钦
一直匿名在互联网上蓄意对他人作出不实指责的网民，如果以为他们永远都能躲藏在浩瀚网海所提供的屏障后面，现在可要三思而后行了。
警察部队行动局局长黄宏冠助理警察总监受询时强调，在互联网上发表恶毒言论者，都不能免除刑事责任。如果有人确实触犯法律，警方必将彻查。
“在网络空间里作出的任何不当行为，都是要面对现实后果的。包括对别人形成困扰或对个人、团体、社区甚至整个社会造成危害的行为或言论，只要是违法的，无论是出现在网络空间或是现实世界里，警方都将展开调查。”
黄宏冠所举出的例子，包括过去曾有发表极端种族主义言论的网民和博客受到调查和起诉。
他说：“在互联网上作出违法行为者，都不能免除刑事责任。”
新加坡管理大学法律系助理教授陈庆文也指出，无论是刑事法还是民事法，本地现有的法律都有对付蓄意发表诽谤性言论的相关法规。问题是追踪网络罪犯涉及取得托管肇事网站的服务器资料，而这些服务器未必都设在国内。
“跨越国界的追踪方法不仅昂贵，而且也不一定就能取得调查者想得到的资料。”
最近从人民行动党议员所管理的市镇理事会因投资金融结构产品蒙受亏损；杨厝港区议员成汉通在社区活动上被老汉放火烧伤；到常任秘书陈荣顺携眷到巴黎著名烹饪学校度过五周奢侈学习之旅等事件，都有网民和博客在互联网上不顾后果，鲁莽地发表毫无事实根据的言论去攻击他们，甚至有人捏造谣言指放火烧议员老汉是因付不起购屋分期付款，组屋被建屋发展局收回，才放火烧人以泄愤。
对于这类匿名在网上造谣中伤公务人员和国会议员的网民博客，警方的态度是不能姑息，必会对触犯法律者展开调查。
其实，这类恶毒的网民在世界各地都有，而在英国和美国都有网民因在网络空间里作出不当的行为而受检举。
然而，调查网上罪犯的另一层障碍在于网络谣言很多时候是与真相并行传播的。在网络时代，谣言和真相分别在人们口头和大众传播媒介进行独立传播的情况，已被模糊糅合，而且网络谣言也因人们的想象力充分发挥而变得更加“自圆其说和无懈可击”，使调查者的工作更为复杂。
尽管困难重重，从英国警方将一名把自己超速驾驶的录像放上网的男子逮捕，并对他控以四个月监刑，到纽约警察不辞劳苦，着手调查一些YouTube视频上涉嫌违法的录像等，可以肯定各地的执法当局对网民的不负责任行为，都采取不姑息的态度。
对政府而言，谣言往往不利于正常施政，因此抑制谣言的传播有其必要性，而最佳的应对方法就是未雨绸缪，防患于未然。因为对民众进行教育，使他们了解人人对维持良好的网络环境都有责任，将能对抑制谣言起到一定作用。
从理论角度来说，要取得将谣言扼杀在摇篮里的效果，当局可从两方面着手，一是制定相关的法律和政策，对蓄意造谣和传播谣言者施以相应的惩罚；二是建立健全、及时且畅通的信息发布渠道，以实现信息透明化来抑制谣言。
然而，陈庆文指出制定更严厉的法规，可能会在民间造成反效果，而这对新加坡的声誉及我国有意发展成新媒体枢纽的计划都不利。在政治上，这也可能被视为制止批评、审查反政府看法的举措。因此，当局要执行这些法律，也可能会面对一定的挑战。
他认为政府除了加强同人民的沟通与教育，在这方面能做的其实相当有限。
“我不认为那些反政府或反人民行动党的人都有意真心地与政府沟通。因此，我们需要的是可辨别是非和能作独立判断的人民。”
他指出，如果互联网能做到自我管束，那将是最理想的情况。不过，根据他的判断，这种情况在短期内不会出现。
人们都对曾被鲁迅形容为“杀人不见血”的大众传媒所报道的谣言深恶痛绝，而成语“三人成虎”就充分说明了散播谣言的杀伤力有多可怕。
人言到底有多可畏？被谣言暗箭射中者的伤势会有多严重？散播谣言者所须付出的代价又有多大？如果硬要附上一个数字，这个代价可能高达1925万美元。
这笔金额就是美国法院前年在一起民事诉讼中判给日用品公司宝洁（Procter and Gamble）在上世纪80年代因受到一项谣言困扰而得到的名誉损失赔偿。这起诉讼的结果已成了判断谣言破坏力的判例之一。话说宝洁公司自1981年起便开始受到它当年所使用的商标被指和撒旦勾结，以达到生意兴隆的目的这个谣言所困扰。
谣言的定义
按照美国学者所下的定义，谣言是一种在人际间私下流传的对人们感兴趣的课题所作的未经证实的阐述或诠释。既然需要流传，就必须要有媒介，而随着跨越国界与地缘的互联网时代的到来，谣言的传播更是如虎添翼，不管是复制的速度还是规模，都达到了前所未有的高峰。
人们在网络上可以匿脸、匿名、匿踪，而网络也的确提供了人们无须表现任何社会责任感的空间，而躲藏在它背后的人没了面对面的尴尬和对法律的顾忌，于是都肆无忌惮地在网络上进行宣泄，使互联网成了谣言的温床。
新加坡信息科技高度发达，资讯通信发展管理局前年的统计也显示我国接触互联网的家庭多达74％。在这样的一个国度里，要对网络谣言的危害免疫，是绝对不可能的。过去，我国发生过的因有人在网上发表伤害种族情感和侮辱宗教的煽动性言论而被警方逮捕的实例，更是活生生的铁证。
张有福：适度宣泄可接受
造谣者利用网络平台来发泄自己的不满或不安情绪，真是完全不能被接受的吗？这也不尽然。
最近在本地网络世界饱受攻击的白沙—榜鹅集选区议员张有福便认为从社会发展的角度来看，有一个可让民众表达看法和情绪的平台是件好事。对于网民或博客透过集体行动，利用互联网来表达对某起事件，例如对一些市镇理事会的投资蒙受亏损，或是对议员的不满，他都能接受。但是，这有个前提，即凡事都必须有个“度 ”。
“尽管我认为网络言论和博客应该有比主流媒体更多的言论自由空间，以供民众自由表达意见，但是自我约束还是有必要的。这是为了避免美化或鼓励暴力行为，以及刻意误导人们。”
在他看来，一些网民和博客最近大谈杨厝港区议员成汉通被一名精神病患放火烧伤的事件时，指成汉通为人嚣张、毫无同情心，甚至有人似模似样地“揭露”事件的导因，是因这名老汉不满自己的组屋因拖欠购屋分期付款而被建屋局收回，才采取极端手段。这种失实的指责既残忍，也不负责任，是完全不能被接受的。
“我清楚成汉通的为人，所以我知道这些指责都是不实的。有些网络帖子甚至对攻击者的行为喝采，并认为他应被视为国家英雄。这些言论厌恶得令我停止阅读这些博客。”
事实上，张有福在为同僚打抱不平的同时，自己也沦为网络谣言的受害者。事因他最近对环境及水源部常任秘书陈荣顺到巴黎上奢侈的烹饪课的事件作出回应时，一时不慎错用“低等人”（lesser mortal）一词，而被人假冒其名在某网站上大发“本地人可分为七个等级，政治人物皆为上等人，一般平民都是下等人”的偏激言论，结果引来更多网民的抨击。
对于这种网络造谣情况，受访学者的看法各有不同。研究领域包括新媒体发展的政策研究院高级研究员陈赞浩认为张有福不幸因意思被曲解而遭网民攻击，但是他后来还是向相关网站作出了澄清。
“这是民主辩论的基本特征。有些人对他口诛笔伐确实是很不幸的事，但他还是可以自我辩护，这有什么不对吗？”
然而，新加坡管理大学法律系的陈庆文助理教授在思考我国法律是否能有效地对付蓄意散播失实言论者的同时，也指出互联网上充斥的反政府言论，就是不真实的现实反映。
“这些言论更巩固了我的观点，即假设一名火星人浏览互联网时，看到了博客帖子和新媒体激烈的反政府言论，必定会以为新加坡人就要搞革命了！”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
