生命宛若幽靜長河

生命宛若幽靜的長河

當生命之河奔向死亡

我們才恍然悟到什麼叫做永恆......

──余德慧《生命宛若幽靜長河》

感恩一切因緣。

20120804/5 花蓮

每个人的心里都有一个郭宝崑......怀念郭宝崑（1939--2002）

每个人的心里都有一个郭宝崑...... 
怀念郭宝崑（1939--2002）

在灯光一暗，歌曲开始演唱的时候，我嚎啕不觉的开始哭了起来。可能我想念郭先生，可能我庆幸郭先生的精神继续发扬，可能我想起1985年的自己，可能我们每个人的心里都有一个郭宝崑......

记得1985年的自己，还是中四的学生。当时对于同年龄的朋友的思考格格不入，总觉得生命中缺少了什么。就像老九一样，我不知道自己要什么，但是我知道自己不要什么。看了郭先生的《傻姑娘与怪老树》后，写了一篇很长很长的感想给郭先生。郭先生竟然在第二天演出后，与观众交流的时候，提及我写的东西。虽然现在已经忘了郭先生讲了什么，但是这动作对于一个十六岁彷徨的青年绝对是一股力量。

郭先生的演出就断断续续的在我生命中，给我继续走自己想走的路的力量。郭先生就像《傻》里的大树一样，默默的在生命中滋养着我的生命。我不知道郭先生在我的生命中扮演者这样重要的角色，直到今天。

郭先生，谢谢您的陪伴，您会继续活在我的心中。

我們必須自己走

我常常問自己，跟著老師三年半，自己到底有沒有蹉跎歲月荒廢時間，到底有沒有白花了供我獎學金機構單位的銀子。今天看了老師的文章，我心中有答案。

我粗略看得懂老師的文章。看得懂老師的文章對於我而言是重要的。看得懂老師的文章，說明我有用心學習。看得懂老師的文章，知道自己在工作生活上的方向跟老師希望大家走的方向沒有太大的分歧。看得懂老師的文章，讓我知道自己走的路不是寂寞的。看得懂老師的文章，讓我有繼續走下去的勇氣和希望。

那天在大樹下微風中落葉裡看到了長者的微笑，我知道我們的步伐是緩慢的，我們的進度是遲緩的，我們前面的路還很長。老師是導師，是方向，但是不是我們的皈依處。他領在前，我們跟在後，但是我們要自己走。老師不可能代我們走。

我們必須自己走。

阿姜查的禅修世界-慧 | 生死书

http://www.fosss.org/book/AJiangCha/Hui/09.html

“当没有真正的家时，我们就如漫无目标的旅人四处漂泊，在一处短暂停留后，就再度启程。除非回到我们真正的家，否则不会感到自在，就如离乡的旅人，只有回到家时，他才能真正感到放松与平静。“
~ 阿姜查

阿姜查是我敬重的其中一位比丘。他是上座部佛教長老，泰國當代最具影響力的佛教僧侶，是泰國近代公認的阿羅漢。

1981年，由於糖尿病所致，阿姜查的健康逐漸走下坡。當病情惡化，他以自己的身體作為一種教導「萬物皆無常」的一種活生生的示例。他不斷地提醒人們，要努力在他們自心裡處找到一個真實的皈依處。

他後來被送往曼谷做一個手術。幾個月內，他停止了說話，並逐漸失去了對四肢的控制，終致全然癱瘓而臥病在床。從此以後，他被比丘弟子們全心全力地照顧和服侍直到1992年離開了人間。

他的弟子1981年后的种种努力对我而言，成了阿姜查教导与提醒的最大遗憾。

這网络连结是阿姜查對於臨終者與親屬的開示。

歐洲當代思想巨擘：艾德嘉莫杭（鄭淑鈴/文） @ 群學出版有限公司 :: 痞客邦 PIXNET ::

http://socio123.pixnet.net/blog/post/37774048
歐洲當代思想巨擘：艾德嘉莫杭
鄭淑鈴（法國巴黎第一大學藝術文化研究博士生）

莫杭是20世紀法國重要的思想家之一，不過台灣的讀者對他並不熟悉。這篇文章希望讓讀者瞭解莫杭的學術生涯、思想關懷與轉折，並且點出莫杭重要的學術著作與觀點。

這位難以定位的學者不但著作豐盛更是多元，他研究的領域觸及了傳播研究、文化研究、視覺人類學、電影、哲學、行動研究、社會學、系統理論、生態學、教育學，近期在自然科學領域的著作更是不斷。莫杭自詡為學術自學者，他在大學裡四處聽課旁徵博引，除了書籍以外，他所遇過的人與生命經驗都是汲取知識的來源。這樣的背景讓他沒有學院包袱，對各種知識的好奇與通盤彙整讓他得以倖免於學科專業分工過度的偏狹，從不同領域與角度切入研究主題，並且慢慢發展出一套全面的「複雜思維」（Pensée Complexe）體系。

一場知識的未知冒險：思索方法

莫杭在1977年到2004年間，以「方法」（Méthode）為名陸續撰寫的六本堪稱他學術生涯的經典著作。他選擇六大主題來開展方法的核心思想，探討自然的本質、生命、知識、想法、人性等命題，並且在2004年以倫理作為《思索方法》的終極主題。莫杭探討的方法跟方法論（Méthodologie）相反，它沒有既定的步驟可循，完全是一場如何在知識中逐漸發展一套思想的未知冒險。在這場試圖認識我們如何認識世界的旅程中會形成一些想法、原則、概念，如想正視真實世界的複雜性，這些概念是必要的。

莫杭認為我們越來越無法將知識定位在它原有的脈絡或是從總體角度來觀看。因為我們的知識體系被分割地支離破碎，人們提出的問題越來越難以接近基本核心，也越來越難掌握總體。因此，莫杭的認識論典範試圖從複雜原則出發，在分離的知識之間建立連結。他帶著如何重整知識的問題出發，透過對理論與概念進行一連串的組織重整，希望達到新的認識論與典範層次，獲得「方法」的構思，提供一個思想與行動的路徑。透過知識的重整原則，在知識體系中將那些支離破碎的合併集中、闡連那些分離的、思辯那些晦澀隱蔽的、重新整理我們的智識系統、學習如何學習。

莫杭之所以選擇科學作為切入點是因為寫作當時，科學思維的限制逐漸顯露而需要一種更複雜、更全面、較不抽象的認識論。莫杭一直不斷強調每個人都必需正視這個問題，知識探討不只是哲學問題，他的方法不是局限給哲學家閱讀的知識理論。莫杭認為核心問題在於說明所有的知識如何承受錯誤的風險，因為所有的知識都是現實的轉譯、是對於現實的智識建構。令人驚訝的是，我們在教育知識的過程中，從來不教授究竟知識是什麼。

莫杭在1990年出版《複雜思維導論》（Introduction à la pensée complexe）。「複雜性」（Complexité）是支撐整部《思索方法》的重要概念之一。這個單字來自於拉丁文Complexus，指的是那些「被交織編排在一起的」。「複雜性」在《思索方法》裡指涉的是，我們缺乏獲得解釋正確清楚的必要知識。認知事物的複雜性便是承認我們無法獲得完善的解答，因此在找到更全面的知識之前，我們必需接受處於混亂的狀態，而非否認疑惑甚至摒除問題。許多事物在今日看來日益複雜也是因為我們認識事物的方法已經不足以認識這些被視為複雜的事物。我們得走得更遠，不能停滯在對事物複雜性的認知。因此，莫杭寫了好幾本著作來說明該如何面對事物複雜性的「方法」。

重讀莫杭

近幾年法國重新出版莫杭1960年代早期的著作《時代精神》（L’esprit du temps），令人驚訝的是，莫杭的學術思想在21世紀再次被檢驗時，非但沒有過時，許多思想觀念仍舊精采絕艷。如果將他在《大明星》一書中對明星現象精準的描寫與今日台灣娛樂版新聞相互對照，就算明星不同卻讓人對這重複上演的戲碼與結構看得更透徹。莫杭的作品不只在當時具有前瞻性，之所以耐得住時間的考驗，更是因為他試圖在研究中探索問題真正的本質，這也是為何他的書會不斷再版。

莫杭在1960、70年代法國的社會學領域相對沈寂。1962年《時代精神》出版，但是這本書很快就被社會學界排擠。社會學家布迪厄（Pierre Bourdieu）與帕斯宏（Jean-Claude Passeron）在隔年共同發表一篇文章名為《神話社會學家與社會學家的神話》（Sociologues des mythologies et mythologies des sociologues），認為學者應保持中立，研究不該受既有概念的偏見所囿，也不該受品味喜好的影響。莫杭被認為是捍衛大眾文化的可悲傢伙，作品因此被束之高閣。一直到1990年代法國媒體研究的學者重新回溯法國文獻，才從上述兩位學者的傳播理論史的註釋中重新發現莫杭。

莫杭與大眾文化研究

莫杭在1960年代便發現當時大眾傳播研究的限制，並且先鋒地認為觀眾並非一昧被動地接受大眾傳播的訊息，在訊息發送者與接收者之間有一層複雜的組織會彼此干擾。不過莫杭的用意更高遠，他想進行工業社會過渡到後工業階段的人類學研究，而特地選擇大眾文化作為觀察點，特別是1930-1960年的好萊塢電影。他要「理解」的不是普羅大眾的想像世界，而是整個生產邏輯、再現結構、改變的內在與外在趨力，這些是構成共同想像世界的重要因素，也是這個時代的時代精神。莫杭也強調，集體再現的分析無法與社會現實分離，因為想像世界既非外在於現實世界，也非與現實世界對立，而是它的一部份。

莫杭具有前瞻性地將大眾文化當成人類學研究的觀察對象，用來考察現代性的轉變。法國文化社會學研究長期以來弔詭地籠罩著文化正當性的氛圍，而莫杭卻堅信大眾文化不該被視為次等品或是變質的文化，更非隸屬於特定社會團體的文化形式。大眾文化是現代性特有的形式，是具有普遍性的集體想像產物。它的現代性在於，人類史上第一次出現這樣非特定機構主導，由跨國市場的流動性、不穩定性以及不確定性所產生的共同文化。這樣的的立場促使莫杭重新定義批判理論的文化工業與神話兩大概念，直接挑戰了法蘭克福學派，特別是馬庫斯（Herbert Marcuse）假設中單一面向的大眾文化。

莫杭對於文化工業的高風險特質的討論其實更接近今日文化產業的樣貌，也就是說文化工業夾雜在「工業化的中央標準科層壟斷式邏輯」與「個體化的競爭創意新穎自動式邏輯」兩者權衡的壓力之間。大眾文化必需同時考量工業的內部張力、與觀眾的關係以及文化環境的轉變，因此大眾文化的活力必定是諸說混雜，同時超越地方國界、性別、年齡與社會階層的文化藩籬。如同莫杭在《大明星》裡所分析的，大眾文化供應的神話是種「理想的自我」，表現出從工業社會過度到後工業社會中日益增長的文化衝突，人們不再嚮往功能性個人主義的身分地位而是追求個人表現，對於個人幸福的追求遠大於扮演稱職的員工或家庭成員所獲得的滿足。對莫杭而言，神話是每個特定社會歷史脈絡下文化社會張力的表現，是用來觀察當下集體再現改變的社會學工具。

礙於無法在這麼短的篇幅一一介紹莫杭五十多本難以歸類的著作，而捨棄了其他論及歐洲文明、文明政治、現代性、人性、愛、教育、生態環保、危機、全球化時代人類共同命運等不同面向的著作。有興趣的讀者可以針對感興趣的主題自行閱讀，也希望台灣讀者能有更多機會接觸莫杭的相關著作並進行對話。我個人的研究也受惠於莫杭的思想，但改變的不只是做學問的方式而是對於生命的體驗以及個人的責任。他不做道德的喊話，但是卻撼動人心。

在這無法盡談的一長串書單中，最後希望跟大家分享莫杭在2011年出版的暢銷新書《道路：通往人道的未來》（La voie, pour l’avenir de l’humanité）。89歲的他在強大責任感的催促下，冒著有失尊嚴的風險挑起一個知識份子避之唯恐不及的公共任務。這本書不只是為全人類而寫，更是寫給那些希望創造永續地球的人。這些人彼此互不認識也不受各大媒體與政府機構的認可。莫杭希望這本書能幫助這些行動者將想法放在一個更全面的全球視野，面對具體挑戰的同時也不遺忘其他困難。因為，要是在地行動者沒有更廣的眼界與同心一致的陣線，單獨的行動在彼此抵觸與消抵的情況下是無法產生豐富的結果。

（本文出處：《大明星：慾望、迷戀、現代神話》p.242-246）

Francis Bacon 法蘭西斯·培根 (1909 – 1992)

I believe in deeply ordered chaos. ~ Francis Bacon (1909 -- 1992)

我深深地相信著在一片混亂中依然能夠找到潛在的秩序。── 法蘭西斯·培根(1909 – 1992)

ももいろそらを／About the Pink Sky/ 粉紅色的天空

Rating:	★★★★★
Category:	Movies
Genre:	Independent

Dir: Kobayashi Keiichi
Cast: Ai Ikeda, Ena Koshino, Reiko Fujiwara
Japan, 2011, B&W, 113min

High school student Izumi Kawashima, whose daily routine is rating newspaper articles, finds a wallet containing a large sum of cash. Instead of returning the wallet to its owner, Izumi decides to lend a substantial portion of the money to a middle-aged male acquaintance. She eventually returns the wallet to its owner, a wealthy high-school boy named Koki, who notices the missing money, and as compensation, asks Izumi to do something for his friend - to create a newspaper that brings happiness to its reader.

extracted from imdb
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1890472/plotsummary

Biography
Keiichi Kobayashi was born in Japan in 1972. Kobayashi has directed numerous television programs, music videos, commercials, and Web‐based dramas. ABOUT THE PINK SKY (MOMOIRO SORA O) is his debut feature film. The film won the Japanese Eyes best picture award at Tokyo IFF in November 2011.
extracted from
https://www.festivalscope.com/director/kobayashi-keiichi


导演：小林启一
国家：日本
年份：2011
色彩：黑白
片长：113分钟

小林启一要创新超级英雄，但不是超人也非哈利波特，而是头脑古怪、有点早熟的高校女生。前提是九成日本人路不拾遗，女生川岛拾到30万，怎么办好？答案是拿去接济钓鱼友。两个死党催迫下，她去找物主，有钱仔物主跟她交换条件：炮制报喜不报忧的报纸，来安慰入院的朋友。原来开正她戏路，川岛开始在大街小巷，寻找作古仔的面孔。创意先行的青春片新类型，男女生以自然演绎卡哇儿，令有生命力的画面像磁石吸住眼球，获东京电影节最佳电影奖。

转载自好戏网
http://www.mask9.com/node/51055

麻雀衔竹枝

梁文福（1964年－），生於新加坡，祖籍廣東新會，寫作人、音樂人、華文教研工作者。南洋理工大學中文系兼任副教授、學而優語文中心語文總監。 「他在文學界和音樂界之間搭建橋梁。」這是新加坡著名的戲劇前輩郭寶崑曾經給予梁文福的評語。
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%A2%81%E6%96%87%E7%A6%8F

《麻雀衔竹枝》是新谣中具有新加坡本土风味的歌曲。和大量的"风花雪月"的歌曲不同，这首歌正好也暗合了经过建国20年的历程，新加坡人的身份认同正在建立。

中箭，不爽. 潘耀田博客

http://phoonyewtien.blogspot.sg/2012/06/blog-post_4602.html
2012年6月12日 星期二

中箭，不爽


昨天在联合早报“星期天”版读到早报记者洪奕婷的文章“我们又中箭了”。

一边读，一边不期然想起王昌伟先生的文章 -“刘程强与主流媒体的争议之我见”以及联合早报总编辑吴新迪先生的文章：“别把主流媒体当箭靶子”。

王昌伟先生在文章的开头说：“周六晚上，坐在电视机前看刘程强骂主流媒体，马上就想到我的许多在主流媒体工作的朋友，他们一定很不爽”（可能当时王昌伟先生和洪奕婷女士都正在电视机前“天涯共此时”，心情不同而已）。看来，王昌伟先生果然有先见之明，后来陆续登场之吴新迪先生的文章以及洪奕婷女士的文章，千言万语，读后感总归还是两个字 - “不爽”！

在言语上所谓的“箭”可粗分为“明箭”，“暗箭”或“冷箭”。刘程强先生日前直接而公开的批评主流媒体，和一些媒体在后港补选前后“有关”报道中，字里行间显而易见的“司马昭之心” 以及“悻悻然”，孰为“明箭”？孰为“暗箭”或“冷箭”？相信有眼睛的人都会看得出来。其实，无论明箭暗箭，箭来箭往都是兵家常事，当自己在（有意无意的？）“射箭”时，却不能容忍别人也“射射”，是什么道理？如果这回后港补选工人党的战绩是“半杯水”，凭良心说，媒体又多是以“半盈”或“半亏”的角度态度来形容和报导的？难怪王昌伟先生对媒体有“问心无愧”的期待和感叹。

洪奕婷女士以画家来比喻记者也不很恰当。虽然都属于专业，但画家可以自称或被称为艺术家，记者可以吗？艺术家对事物的描绘不一定都以精确，真实为出发点和终点。反之，记者在报导新闻时事时，则非清楚准确不可。画家在进行创作时可以主观随性的“天马行空”，而记者下笔时则非客观理性不可。因此：一个记者如果动辄以“画家”自居，“兴之所至”便为某些事物添加色彩，一旦“中箭”，那就可能和“因果”有关了？而所谓的“因果”，也和专业精神不无关系。另外：除了宫廷画匠，一个真诚的艺术家，是不会受权势利害所左右的，同时他/她也不会去左右别人的观点，他/她的老板就是他/她自己和艺术本身而已。这点或许不是每个画家都能做得到，但时下又有几个报人记者能做得到？

洪奕婷女士提及：“………. 有些人还深信我们的新闻报道在印刷前必须经过有关当局和部长的审批，我更不能不一再纠正，反驳，为我的同业维护尊严。”我不知道“当局”指的是什么，但我也相信部长应不至于如此。只是不知洪奕婷女士是否有想过，为何“有些人”会如此想？为何新加坡媒体在非政府组织“无国界记者”2011年度新闻媒体自由度排名榜上，179个国家中仅排名135（注）？何人又是这些“有关”新闻报道的最终审批和拍板者？（若有委屈，洪女士是否应该把“箭”导向他们/她们？）

最终：没有人愿意当箭靶子，也不是人人都喜欢无的放矢。种瓜得瓜，种豆得豆却是至理名言。作为大众媒体，“无病呻吟”之余之后，若还想要“维护尊严”，这点智慧也应该要有罢？不然，作为读者，也挺可悲的。


注：根据洪奕婷女士的文章，洪女士自己形容这是“不堪排名”。


11.6.2012

月琴國寶老師 張日貴彈唱

月琴，由阮演變而來的彈撥樂器。

台灣月琴早期用蠶絲弦，現常用尼龍弦，頗流行使用釣線。是台灣歌仔戲、歌仔說唱、民謠說唱重要的特性（特色）樂器。

轉載自維基百科
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%9C%88%E7%90%B4

刘程强:回应早报总编辑文章《别把主流媒体当箭靶子》

http://www.zaobao.com.sg/yl/yl120529_002.shtml
刘程强:回应早报总编辑文章《别把主流媒体当箭靶子》
（2012-05-29）

吴新迪总编辑在刊登于早报5月28日言论版的文章中说：“这起事件，我们没有在后面暗中操盘，想要破坏工人党。” 我必须在此严正澄清：我所说的是“成为暗箭的有力射手”，并没有指控任何主流媒体就是那个“放暗箭的行动党打手”。

　　我在记者会上的完整说词是：“明枪易挡、暗箭难防。意想不到的是，主流媒体竟然成为暗箭的有力射手，一些媒体甚至没有根据，也没确认事实，就大事报道和藏镜人通过电邮所说的话。”

　　我所要表达的是，媒体的大事报道，成为了放暗箭者的有力工具，助长了放暗箭者所要达到的目的。这也同时鼓励更多有心之人在未来关键的时刻效法。不论所说是真是假，不敢站出来面对自己的所做所为，为自己所说的话负责任，不但是小人行为，更是胆怯的伪君子。新加坡朝向第一世界国会民主进程迈进的过程中，主流媒体应该协助清理政坛，不应该允许这类人搅局作乱。反之则等于助纣为虐。这是我的担忧。

　　更有甚者，如果媒体不查证所获得的消息来源是否正确，甚至在不确定提供消息者的真正身份就大事报道匿名者不利某人或政党的言谈，不但误导读者，更会使媒体失去公信力。

　　所以，我接着说：“一些媒体甚至没有根据，也没确认事实，就大事报道和藏镜人通过电邮所说的话。”我所指的是《我报》5月24日的头版“揭秘者接受本报电邮访问”的内容。大标题是“揭秘不是要害工人党、我也不会退出工人党”。《我报》难道已经知道“神秘松鼠”的身份？已经证实“神秘松鼠”是工人党的党员？

　　吴总编辑说：“（我）选择在补选成绩揭晓后的记者会上，突然向媒体发难，把所有主流媒体说成是暗箭的射手，是人民行动党在竞选期间的政治打手。”

　　补选成绩揭晓后的记者会是在5月26日晚上。但是，我早在5月24日，最后一场的后港补选群众大会上，在以英语演讲时就已经说：“……但是，当主要的资讯来源都被垄断，人民又如何能在真正了解事实之后作出选择呢？到今天为止，新加坡报业控股的主席还是由前内阁部长担任，新传媒电视的主要股东是政联公司，淡马锡控股。我们能够期待他们到底有多中立呢？

　　我也说：“传媒有潜能成为对付或支持某个政党强而有力的工具。因此，媒体必须独立，不能受到政府的强力影响，其所提供给人民的信息也必须是可靠的。只有这样，媒体才能够有效审视所有的政党，包括人民行动党，不单单只是反对党。我们不能够让媒体被政府利用，成为政治工具。”

　　所以，记者会是我对这次补选媒体整体表现质疑的总结，以及进一步更具体的表达我的看法和担忧。不是选择在补选后突然向媒体发难。

　　同样在5月24日的最后一场群众大会上，我也说：“……许多记者和摄影记者都有使命感，也负责任。尽管它们在写报道时尽力做到公平，但最终所刊登出来的，是超越了他们的权限。”

　　从我30年从政所累积的经验中，我知道媒体所刊载的信息对公众有很强的渗透力；尤其在政治上，塑造形象的重要性。我也见证了媒体在新加坡政治发展上所扮演的重要角色。我所要表达的，就如我在记者会上担心的，媒体成为新加坡民主进程的绊脚石，会使我们的政治文明倒退20年。

工人党秘书长刘程强

转载自联合早报网
http://www.zaobao.com.sg/yl/yl120529_002.shtml


===========================================
吴新迪：别把主流媒体当箭靶子
（2012-05-28）
● 吴新迪
回应

　　这次的后港补选，还真是如工人党秘书长所说的“充满变数”。

　　最后一个变数，竟然是来自他本人。他选择在补选成绩揭晓后的记者会上，突然向主流媒体发难，把所有主流媒体说成是暗箭的射手，是人民行动党在竞选期间的“政治打手”。

　　这些话，不管从哪个角度来看，都是对主流媒体的公正和诚信所作出的严厉指控。更重要的，这些话，不是他在被记者提问时临场回答的，而是从事先早已准备好的中英文讲稿中念出来的。也就是说，他是经过慎重和周密考虑后，向主流媒体开炮的，而且所选择的字眼，都是经过推敲的，绝不含糊。

　　尽管后来回答记者提问时，《联合早报》并不在他所列举的两个实例中，但因为他曾很具体地说“媒体在无法确认自称‘神秘松鼠’的身份，就刊登了匿名者电邮的相关报道”，而《联合早报》是第一家报道这个匿名电邮内容的主流媒体，刘程强的谈话，无疑让人认为，《联合早报》就是那个放暗箭的“行动党打手”。

　　虽然，刘程强在昨天上午答谢后港选民后接受本报访问时澄清，《联合早报》的报道在竞选期间相对来说是持平的，说法跟前一晚有很大的不同，让人摸不清工人党究竟持着什么立场。但最重要的，破坏已造成了。

　　作为《联合早报》的总编辑，作为有尊严的新闻从业员，我必须严正指出，我们不能接受刘程强毫无根据的指控。

　　5月21日（星期一），工人党的候选人方荣发在接受电视访问时说，他是因为反对非选区议员制度，而向中委要求在投票推选非选区议员时不要把他的名字放在名单上。《联合早报》后来收到他的声明，解释为什么工人党没有推选他为非选区议员。

　　但是，当天晚上10时许，我们接到自称“神秘松鼠”的匿名信，指称方荣发的说法与事实不符，并附上了当年工人党中委开会推选非选区议员的会议记录。在这个会议记录上，方荣发得了一票，这就跟他之前接受电视访问时的说法有出入。

　　虽然这已接近我们的截稿时间，但是我们的记者以专业的本能，尝试通过各种可能的途径求证。其中，当然包括工人党发言人。不过，工人党的指定发言人没有音讯。过了半夜，工人党主席林瑞莲终于回复询问，并表示会在隔天回应。我们以所得到的信息，凭着做新闻的经验，判断会议记录并非伪造，决定在当天第4版刊登匿名信的内容。

　　这起事件，我们没有在后面暗中操盘，想要破坏工人党。相反的，在整个过程中，我们的记者都是以非常专业的态度进行查证和报道。我们认为，读者有权利知道这个最新的发展，至于这个发展对哪个政党有利，并不是报纸所考虑的。工人党会不会回应、要怎么回应、它的回应是否能说服选民，这些也都不是我们所关注的。作为一个传播信息的平台，我们要确保的，是如果工人党有回应，我们会公正地照实报道，而实际上，我们在隔天也这么做了。我们在23日（星期三）的封面，显著与全面地刊登了刘程强和方荣发的回应。

　　为什么有人要选择在这个时候通过匿名方式来揭发这些事？工人党是否要展开内部调查？这些其实应该公开向选民交代清楚的问题，工人党并不正面回答，而是选择把主流媒体当成是箭靶子，这是不负责任，也是不公平的指责。

　　从选战开始的报道，包括对两党候选人的专访，到今天见报的胜利者和失败者的谢票活动，《联合早报》的记者、编辑在处理时所秉持的信念是：专业、公正与独立。面对我们的读者，我们问心无愧。

本文作者是本报总编辑

转载自联合早报网
http://www.zaobao.com.sg/yl/yl120528_001.shtml

Follow The Sun - Xavier Rudd

Follow, follow the sun
And which way the wind blows
When this day is done
Breathe, breathe in the air
Set your intentions
Dream with care
Tomorrow’s a new day for everyone
A brand new moon and brand new sun

So follow, follow the sun
The direction of the birds
The direction of love
Breathe, breathe in the air
Cherish this moment
Cherish this breath
Tomorrow’s a new day day for everyone
A brand new moon, brand new sun

When you feel life coming down on you like a heavy weight
When you feel this crazy society adding to the strain
Take a stroll to the nearest water’s edge, remember your place
Many moons have risen and fallen long, long before you came
So which way is the wind blowing
What does your heart say

So follow, follow the sun
And which way the wind blows
When this day is done

================================
Xavier Rudd is an Australian singer, songwriter and multi-instrumentalist. He was born in 1978 and grew up in Torquay, Victoria.

He has developed a strong reputation for playing live performances at musical festivals and concerts in Australia North America and throughout Europe. His following is particularly strong in Australia and in Canada, where he has recorded several albums.

Many of Rudd's songs incorporate socially conscious themes, such as environmentalism and the rights of Aboriginal peoples. In addition to playing the yidaki in many of his songs, he has also included both Australian and Canadian Aboriginal vocals in some of his songs.

extracted from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xavier_Rudd

20120518 -- 20120522 Kuching 古晋

Kuching, officially the City of Kuching and formerly the City of Sarawak, is the capital and most populous city of the East Malaysian state of Sarawak.

古晋（马来语：Kuching）是位于东马来西亚沙勞越州的首府，它是东马来西亚最大的城市，也是整个婆罗洲最大的城市。

Snatam Kaur - Earth Prayer

Snatam Kaur Khalsa (Punjabi: ਸਨਾਤਮ ਕੌਰ ਖਾਲਸਾ, born 1972 in Trinidad, Colorado), is an American singer and songwriter. She lives in Santa Cruz, California. Kaur performs Indian devotional music, kirtan, and tours the world as a peace activist. The name "Kaur", meaning "princess", is shared by all female Sikhs.

extracted from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snatam_Kaur

政府是动物管理员？人民是被耍的猴子？

http://www.zaobao.com.sg/sp/sp120506_011.shtml
议员专访系列 杨莉明:“丈夫”已知道“老婆”生气了
（2012-05-06）
@何惜薇

hosb@sph.com.sg

针对部分国人在去年大选中流露的不满和“激情”，财政部兼交通部政务部长杨莉明用“丈夫”和“老婆”来比喻执政党与选民的关系。

　　动物管理员要求两只受困于铁笼内的猴子耍完把戏后，先是一律以黄瓜奖励它们。下一次，管理员给其中一只猴子黄瓜，但给另一只猴子一颗葡萄。

　　结果，再次拿到黄瓜的猴子耍性子，咬了黄瓜一口后，把剩余的黄瓜丢到管理员身上。

　　随后，管理员又重施故伎，给同样一只猴子黄瓜，再给另一只葡萄。这一次，拿到黄瓜的猴子不但把黄瓜丢向管理员，还大力地摇动笼子，以示抗议。

　　访问财政部兼交通部政务部长杨莉明（44岁），她出其不意地播放上述网上视频。

　　她也举了孩子与玩具的例子：贫穷的孩子没有玩具，他们会就地取材，自得其乐一番。反观家中有玩具的孩子，他们开始要求更多，甚至与其他人做比较。

　　两个情景都说明一个道理：要求受公平对待是人的本性。不过杨莉明认为，大家对何谓公平的定义已经有了改变，从“我是否分享到好处”过渡到“我为什么要承受更多痛苦”。

过于成功　所以怒气难消

　　“吊诡的是，让人们感到不公平和生气的原因，往往是因为我们过于成功。”

　　她认为，如果我国经济没能从两三年前的全球金融风暴中迅速回弹，收入中位数没能急速增加，或许拥车证和房地产价格就不会被推得那么高。

　　“可是，如果我们没那么成功，我们可能又会面对其他问题，例如高失业率。看来，人们的怒气难消，而这导致他们没能体谅新加坡的特殊情况，正视我们的脆弱性以及成就。”

　　杨莉明之所以谈到人民感到不公平和生气的原因，是回应记者有关“分水岭”大选一年后，人们是否不再像当时那么“怒气冲冲”的问题。当时，大家似乎对很多事情都看不顺眼。

　　“大家总是埋怨拥车证和房地产价格高，却忽略了我国的人均拥车率在国际间是靠前的，也就是说国人拥车、追梦圆梦的机会比其他国家高。大家也忽略了世界上没有多少国家的年轻人，不满30岁就能拥有自己的住屋。他们光是对自己所得不到的东西感到愤怒。”

继续为碧山北居民

争取电梯翻新

　　杨莉明也是碧山—大巴窑集选区国会议员。

　　她管辖的碧山北选区内的72座组屋原本都因为平均成本过高，不能在电梯翻新计划下受益。政府把翻新电梯的平均成本限制在每户最多3万元，但由于碧山北多座组屋设计独特，有些组屋一层楼只有四个单位，而出现每户须承担过高翻新电梯成本的问题。

　　随着建筑方式有了改变，在12年里，碧山北的其中63座组屋加入电梯翻新计划。

　　这一来，剩余九座组屋的居民大嚷“不公平”。

　　“首先，大家都忽略了由政府出资翻新电梯的做法，在国际间可说是绝无仅有。他们也忽略了我们所取得的进展。

　　“但无论如何，身为他们的代议士，我一定要让他们知道我站在他们那一边，我也希望他们能享有电梯停在每一层楼的便利，我不会放弃那九座组屋。”

过去沟通太理性

未来得考虑感性

　　杨莉明坦言，以往只会发信给受影响的居民，列出不能让他们在计划下受益的种种原因。

　　“过去，政府的沟通方式偏重理性，其实我们也得考虑到感性的一面，作出合理的回应。我们现在的处理方式已经有了明显的改变，面对居民，我们的开场白是：我们能够了解你的感受……”

　　这种沟通方式明显地出现在最近有关如何提高低收入者工资的事件。针对知名经济学者林崇椰教授上月建议以“第二次经济重组”来大幅度提高工资，多位政治领导人虽然不赞同林崇椰所开的“药方”，却异口同声地表示了解低收入者的困境。

　　李显龙总理在五一劳动节集会上对该建议不表赞同，却坚定地承诺政府会竭尽所能让低收入者获得提升，让他们从各项援助计划中受惠。

　　谈到林崇椰事件，杨莉明说，该事件其实引发不同意见，有人大力反对，也有人表示希望看到实际的行动。

　　“不是每个人都是经济学者，无从判断林崇椰的建议是否行得通，但不少人表明希望政府为低薪工友做些什么。这是我们必须回应的，而总理也作出了承诺。我国人民有不同特质，有些希望听理性的解释，有些则理性的解释根本听不进去，只希望得到感性的回应。

　　“以林崇椰的建议来说，大家不是辩论对错，正如夫妻吵架时很难理性地作出分析，只是各自抒发感受。或许我将来应成为婚姻辅导员，哈哈。”

　　刚播完的新传媒电视剧《再见单人床》安插名人发表对婚姻看法的片段，杨莉明就是其中一人。在其办公室，处处可见“全家福”以及孩子们的画作，令人倍觉温馨。

　　在超过一小时的访谈中，育有三个孩子的她，多次用夫妻相处之道说明看法。就算是谈到她对去年大选的反思，她也直言，部分国人当时所流露的不满和“激情”是她始料不及的。

　　“这就好像丈夫得罪了老婆，却不知道为什么，一直到老婆发怒才如梦初醒！”

牢骚属于过去

　　回过头看，杨莉明猜测，不一味迎合人民的政府不断坚持认为正确的政策，要求人民接受一些大家不觉得理所当然的事，例如提高消费税以保持低所得税率，接受有引进外籍员工的需要等等，人民后来透过大选表示“消化不良”。

　　尽管如此，她不认同大选导致政府检讨多个政策并作出改变的说法。

　　“社会价值观在改变，人们希望所处的社会不那么苛刻、多一点儿温情。我们不能说大选导致政策改变，只能说大选凸显社会价值观的改变，让我们不得不调整一些政策。”

　　在杨莉明工作的电脑旁边摆放了个很有意思的装饰品，上面写着“提出投诉的截止日期是昨天”（The deadline for complaints was yesterday）。

　　这相信是这位新晋政务部长的座右铭，所有的牢骚都属于过去式，必须乐观地面对眼前的挑战。

　　杨莉明的大儿子今年念中二了，双胞胎女儿则今年参加小六会考。问她如何平衡工作和家庭，她说，所有重要的事情，包括亲子时间都记录在日记簿里。6月和12月的学校假期，她也务必请假陪家人。

　　“我挺迟睡的，如果你看到我的脸上长了更多痘痘，那表示我好几晚都很迟睡。不过，化妆还是能掩盖这些痘痘的！”

过去，政府的沟通方式偏重理性，其实我们也得考虑到感性的一面，作出合理的回应。我们现在的处理方式已经有了明显的改变，面对居民，我们的开场白是：我们能够了解你的感受……

——财政部兼交通部政务部长杨莉明

医学专家吐真言：医生永远是无奈的，癌细胞是杀不死的

http://www.360doc.com/content/11/0906/08/4673886_146108628.shtml
專家吐真言，醫生永遠是無奈的

背景紀小龍，主任醫師、教授、博士生導師，全軍解剖學組織胚胎專業委員會委員、全國抗癌協會淋巴瘤委員會委員、全國全軍及北京市醫療事故鑒定委員會專家，每年在病理會診中解決疑難、關鍵診斷1000例以上。

我是做病理研究的。說到病理學，老百姓瞭解得不多。在國外叫 doctor's doctor，就是“醫生的醫生”。因我們每天干的活，都是給醫院裏每一個科的醫生回答問題。並不是我們有什麼特殊的才能，而是我們都有一台顯微鏡，可以放大一千倍，可以看到病人身體裏的細胞變成什麼樣子了，可以從本質上來認識疾病。

最好的保健就是順其自然

我認為，最好的保健是順其自然。不要過分強調外因的作用，而是按照自己本身生命運動的規律，去做好每一天的事情。小孩、年輕人、中年人、老年人，各有各的規律，各有各的自然之道。大家都吃保健品，保健品毫無作用。男人喜歡補腎，我不明白他為什麼要補腎。男性的強壯和性能力，是由身體裏的男性激素決定的，不是用什麼藥物、吃什麼食物能夠補充的。

化妝品只能用作心理安慰。有的人皮膚乾燥，抹一點潤滑的保持水分，那是可以的。但是想用化妝品變得年輕，今年20明年18，那你就上大當了,

還能變美白,更是胡扯。

皮膚的黑和白，決定於皮膚裏黑色素細胞產生的色素多和少。我去美國的時候專門考察過，黑人、白人皮膚裏的黑色素細胞都差不多，差在細胞產生的色素是多是少。你以為抹了藥，就能讓細胞產生的色素多一點或少一點，這是做不到的。很多化妝品抹上去之後確實有效果，但它不是從根本上解決問題，等於刷漿，你的黑色素細胞是永遠不變的。
每個人的皮膚都有7層細胞。如果你去做美容，磨掉3
層，就像原來穿著厚衣服，看不到裏面的血管，現在磨薄了，血管的紅色就明顯，看上去就紅潤了，像透光一樣。所以你做美容以後，會又紅潤又光亮，顯得年輕了。不過，人的細胞替補是有次數的，假如能替補50次，你早早的就消耗掉了，等你老了，再想替補就沒有了。

還有運動。咱們可以運動，但是不能透支。任何運動形式都有它最佳的頻度和幅度，好比說心跳，正常人1分鐘跳70下，你不能讓它跳120下、150下，那不是最佳的運動限度。運動的時候，不能超過身體裏細胞所能夠承受的限度。許多運動員都不長壽，因為他的運動強度超過了應該承受的頻度和幅度。就像蠟燭，燃燒得特別旺，生命一定很快就結束了。
我們說，平時大家心跳是70下80下，不過成年累月都是這種狀態也不是好事。如果你每個禮拜有一次或兩次，讓心跳達到100甚至120（最好不要超過150），你的血液加速流動，等於給房間來了一次大清掃。一個禮拜左右徹底清理一兩 次，把每個角落裏的廢物都通過血液迴圈帶走，有助於你身體的代謝。

醫生的診斷有三成是誤診

醫生的診斷有三成是誤診。如果在門診看病，誤診率是50％，如果你住到醫院裏，年輕醫生看了，其他的醫生也看了，大家也查訪、討論了，該做的B超、CT、化驗全做完了，誤診率是30%。

人體是個很複雜的東西。每個醫生都希望手到病除，也都希望誤診率降到最低，但是再控制也控制不住。只要當醫生，沒有不誤診的。小醫生小錯，大醫生大錯，新醫生新錯，老醫生老錯，因為大醫生、老醫生遇到的疑難病例多啊！這是規律。中國的誤診和國外比起來，還低一點兒。美國的誤診率是40％左右，英國的誤診率是50％左右。

我們應該正常看待誤診。誤診的原因是多方面的，太複雜，一時說不清，但是可以告訴大家一個原則：如果在一家醫院、被一個醫生診斷得了什麼病，你一定要徵得第二家醫院的核實。這是個最簡單的減少誤診的方法。

有一些不是誤診的問題。比如說脂肪肝，它不是病。在20年前，不管哪本書上，都不會專門有這個詞兒，這全是B超惹的禍。有了超聲這個儀器，把探頭往你的腹部一放：哦！你是脂肪肝！這個詞就叫出來了。
我專門研究過這個問題。我在解剖之前，先給超聲科打電話，讓他們推一個超聲機到解剖室，在打開腹部之前超一下，看有沒有脂肪肝，然後打開來驗證。有時候他們說：沒有，打開一看：這不是黃的脂肪嗎？有的正相反。所以超聲診斷脂肪肝是不準確的。

身體裏脂肪多，你的肝臟裏脂肪一定多，問題是脂肪多了，給你帶來什麼疾病沒有？我們做了很多解剖，沒有發現一個肝臟的硬化、肝臟的損傷，是由於脂肪肝引起的。有人說你現在是輕度脂肪肝、過兩年變重度脂肪肝，然後就變肝硬化，最後是肝癌，說這樣話的人沒有任何證據。
還有酒精肝，都以喝酒對肝損害最大。酒精叫乙醇，乙醇到了肝臟，在那裏分解，像剪刀一樣，把兩個碳的分子剪斷，最終物是水和二氧化碳，二氧化碳呼出去，水尿出去。如果你的肝臟裏都是這樣的剪刀，你害怕喝酒幹什麼？關鍵不是對肝的損傷，肝細胞死了可以再生，關鍵是對神經細胞的傷害。人體裏只有神經細胞是生下來多少個，一輩子都不會再增加一個，只會減少。喝酒每喝醉一次，都要犧牲一批神經細胞。
癌細胞是殺不死的

我對癌症的興趣，從70年代上學時候就開始了，到現在已經30多年了。開始的時候充滿了幻想、充滿了激情。我認為把所有的時間精力都用來鼓搗癌症，總能鼓搗出名堂來吧！1978年第一屆招收研究生，我就直奔著癌症去了。結果搞了半天，發現原來是竹籃打水一場空！每個新方法一出來，我就去鼓搗一陣，最後一個個都破滅了。

我感覺最悲慘的就是：送進來一個十幾歲的中學生，已經全身轉移、擴散了，他還不明白，還想回去上學。我去查房的時候，這個小朋友就問：爺爺，我什麼時候能夠上學啊？我怎麼回答？我如實告訴他, 面對這幼小的一個生命，我怎麼能說得出來？我如果隱瞞，等這個孩子到了最後階段，就會知道我是在說假話，我再去看他，他還能信任我嗎？中晚期的時候，你去治療癌細胞，想把癌細胞殺死，這個思路是錯的。癌細胞是殺不死的！你不要指望通過醫學的辦法，來解決你的癌症問題。那麼要用什麼辦法呢？我打個比方：任何癌症，就像一個種子，你的身體就是一片土壤。這個種子冒芽不冒芽，長大不長大，完全取決於土壤，而不是取決於種子。種子再好，土壤不適合，它決不會長出來。怎麼改善這個土壤？這是現在研究的課題。

我們提倡健康體檢。早期的癌要治好很簡單，問題是怎能發現。傅彪最後也到我那裏去看病，他是肝癌。肝癌多數都經歷了乙肝、丙肝，然後是肝硬化，第三步到肝癌。細胞變成癌要5到10年！肝臟受到攻擊，1個變2個、2個變4個，像小芽冒出來一樣，然後一點一點長大。你每過半年查一次的話，它決不會長成兩三公分的癌！只要提前治，在兩三公分以前，肝癌都可以手到病除。

像傅彪這樣的案例，如果提前診治，不是老說工作忙，是完全有辦法挽回的。但是他找到我的時候，已經沒辦法控制了。他的肝臟切下來我也看到了，太晚了，不可能再活下去。那時別人還罵我說：人家手術以後不是好好的嘛！你怎說人家活不長？

我可以肯定他活不長。他的癌細胞像散芝麻一樣，在肝臟裏鋪天蓋地到處都是，怎能活得長？有人說換肝就可以了。癌細胞很聰明，肝癌細胞最適合生長的環境是肝臟，肝臟裏面長滿了，它就跑別的地方去了，等你換了一個好肝，四面八方的肝癌細胞都回來了！沒有用的！

我們有責任早期發現腫瘤、早期治療。如果是晚期，
我建議針對生存質量去努力，減輕痛苦，延長生命。針對晚期癌症的治療不需要做，因為沒有用。

作為醫生，我給自己只能打20分。為什麼？有三分之一的病醫生無能為力，有三分之一的病是病人自己好的，醫學只解決三分之一的病。而這三分之一的病，我也不可能解決那麼多，我能打20分就很不錯了。

做醫生這麼多年，我有一種感慨：醫生永遠是無奈的，因為他每天都面臨著失敗。

90％的病自己會好的。 雖然說法很另類，但我相信『90％的病自己會好』這是真的。不過，有很多醫生根本就希望你經常回診……
高血壓、糖尿病、高血脂、膽固醇過高、肥胖、痛風、便祕、胃潰瘍、頭痛、腰痛、過敏、失眠、自律神經失調…… 這些佔門診百分之九十的病，實際上不必吃藥就會好，你能想像嗎？

岡本裕是日本腦外科醫生，同時專長惡性腫瘤的臨床治療與研究。他最出名的就是「盡可能不開藥」，但他治療與給過建議的慢性病及癌症病患，復發率卻很低，這是怎麼辦到的？

本書在日本，九個月就暢銷三十萬冊，是作者岡本裕

醫師二十多年，診療觀察的經驗結晶。他指出：當個「聰明」患者，比當個醫生眼中的「好」患者，你得到痊癒的機率更高。

關於 看病吃藥，他指出––
◎ 「好患者」就是會定期回診的病人，因為會替醫院帶來穩定收入。
◎ 不是不吃藥，而是吃藥要有期限，如果一直吃不好，就要檢討原因。
◎ 血壓高未必需要吃藥，壓力大、作息亂才是腦溢血主因。
◎ 血糖標準降低，於是糖尿病患者暴增幾百萬人，但並非都需要吃藥。
◎ 膽固醇愈低愈好？其實膽固醇在 220～ 280 mg/dl 的人，最長壽。
◎ 新陳代謝症候群，根本不必看醫生。
◎ 連醫生都未必知道，腸子是人體最重要的免疫器官。
◎ 制酸劑並不能治療胃潰瘍，原因何在？
◎ 常吃頭痛藥，會刺激交感神經，可能引發其他疾病。
◎ 腰痛別穿緊身搭，更別馬上貼痠痛貼布。
◎ 過敏、溼疹，不用擦藥膏，多攝取發酵食品，就
可以治好。
◎ 抗憂鬱藥物，可能讓人更不開朗。
◎ 晚餐不要太晚吃，就能改善失眠。

岡本醫生提出幾點 養生的好習慣。
他說，想要不生病，最好能––
◎ 別讓養生成為壓力，再養生的食物，吃起來好吃才是最基本的。
◎ 量量體重，就能看出營養是否失衡。
◎ 坐姿不前傾，就能改善很多疼痛症狀。
◎ 按摩手指，就能維持自律神經的平衡。
◎ 按摩小腿部，可以改善全身血液循環。
◎ 按壓百會穴，刺激分泌內啡□，提高自癒力。
◎ 洗澡冷熱水交替，能遠離感冒。
◎ 把看電視改成，每天散步一小時或六千步，半年體重九十變六十。
◎ 睡覺不只是休息，睡足七小時，才能徹底修復人體自癒力。
◎ 不可以用病患的身分去看病，而要以顧客或朋友的對等身分。
◎ 聰明病患會設法讓醫生講出「因為你是私下問，我才會老實說」的醫療建議。

彭榮邦分享他陪伴妻子走過臨終的過程

讓小孩有辦法參與，不要讓小孩隔絕在生病(與死亡)之外。

蔡裕林：贫富差距加速不能简单归咎于市场发展的需要

http://www.zaobao.com.sg/yl/yl120425_002.shtml
蔡裕林：调节贫富差距的苦药良方
（2012-04-25）
● 蔡裕林

　　自上世纪末起，环球化经济趋势的加速，世界经济迈入前所未有的发展规模。得益者成为了时代的宠儿，享受着通过无情竞争，自由搏杀得来的果实。正因为这种残酷的较量，众多国家和人民成为了被现实挤压的牺牲品。它的后遗症终于蔓延到发达国家，致使它们先后陷入贫富差距的深渊，引发社会动乱，激起严峻的反抗声浪。

　　新加坡随着世界潮流，攀上了成功的阶梯，赢得了许多赞誉。不过，我们也面对着同样的困境和挑战。并且，虽同列发达国家，却因体制与社会政策的不尽相同，而出现不同的特点。

　　与西方发达国家其中最大的差别就在于，从国家的层面看，新加坡的外来人口的增长速度与规模，是其他发达国家无法比拟的；新加坡没有失业救济金和养老金制度；以及新加坡的蓝领劳动者的待遇跟不上其他发达国家同行。生活水平的压力却相对快速递增；加上作为城市化的小国，益显两极分化的严重性。

　　形成新加坡贫富差距的关键因素，是外来劳动力的长期过大比例。记得1985年经济危机发生时，当时的劳工部长就曾提出，要在1990年把所有外劳送走。可是，到了1990年，新加坡的外劳人数却不降反升到30万人，2000年的又上升到70万人，2010年突破100万人以上。

政府与工会责无旁贷

　　新加坡因引进外劳而获益良多，是不争的事实。不过，同样不可否认的事实是，因过度依赖廉价外劳的粗放政策，忽视了底层劳动者的利益，导致贫富差距的加速。这就不能简单归咎于市场发展的需要。

　　政府一路来抓大放小，强调外资的重要性，远胜于奖励本地中小企业；政联企业从事甚至包办重要行业，促使本国中小企业，在困难中求存而不易发展。高竞争成本和国内市场有限的的经商环境，更使问题积久成疾。政府和工会必须为此负起应有的责任。

　　为了缩小贫富差距，也为了应对2008年金融危机的袭击，新加坡政府自那时起，就着手加速推动解决贫富差距和危机引起的困境和挑战，强调培训、提供就业补助奖励等措施。2010年尚达曼财长进一步提出要通过提升生产力，在10年内让国人收入上升30%的目标。

　　问题是，国人期待改变能够带来更明显的效果。被社会发展抛在后头的群体，为了应付日益高涨的生活费，正苦苦挣扎。一个公平社会的基准是否得到坚守与贯彻，成为了人民关注与热议的焦点。

　　正是这种客观形势的驱使，争议纷飞，建议不穷。最引人注目的莫过于林崇椰教授的“第二次经济重组”的出台。

　　至今，政府方面表达不同意见的有吕德耀、李奕贤、张思乐；工会方面的有林瑞生。它们都倾向于不赞同，担心引起广泛的负面影响。不过，也有若干工会表示欢迎。学术界则有多人发表了不同的意见，较多持保留意见；财经界的见解各有见地；商界表达关注，并以持反对意见为主。

　　面对着如此反应与评论，林教授先后作出解释与澄清，坚持看法，力陈理据，足见他经过深思熟虑后的建议，具有强有力的论据。

　　诚然，我们不能忽视1979年的经济重组计划，它的首要目标在于推进整体经济结构转型。因而，能对生产力的提升起着正面的作用。林教授所倡议的第二次经济重组，其首要目标着重于调节贫富差距，在很大程度上属于过渡性的对策。这应是两者的最大差异。

　　在思考林教授的建议时，基于不同的国情与发展特点，不应单从商界，学界或工会的视角看问题。人们更应关注，首先从解决社会问题的角度出发，衡量建议的利与弊；然后，才在实践层面考虑不同的措施。因此，政府实在有必要跨越经济层面，更加重视从解决社会难题入手。或许，这样才能找到更好的切入点。更确切地说，政府正好通过短期的激进手法，加速提升蓝领阶层的工资，以拉平本国白领与蓝领，国内与国外相关行业薪金的差距。

　　新捷运将从下月起，把新加坡籍巴士司机基本月薪从1375元提高到1600元，起薪16%，加薪幅度比林教授建议的15%还高。这一实例，至少为我们提供了可行性的参照。除了政府机关和政联企业，以及所有享有利润的公司，都应有能力落实外，其他面对各种困境的企业，政府为何不可以制定变通的对策以求解决？责无旁贷的应是政府，正如林教授所言，目前球在政府脚下。

　　国人乐见各方通过脑力激荡，不断加深对问题的了解，与寻求不同的解决方案的深入探讨，这正是新加坡当前最需要的。

作者是本地政治观察者

Invictus

Rating:	★★★
Category:	Movies
Genre:	Other

Invictus
by William Ernest Henley (1849–1903)

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

不可征服
威廉·埃内斯特·亨利（1849 – 1903）

夜幕中我独自彷徨，
无边的狂野一片幽鸣。
感谢万能的上苍，
赐给我倔强的心灵。

任凭恶浪冲破堤坝，
绝不畏缩，绝不哭泣。
任凭命运百般作弄，
血可流，头不可低。

在这充满悲愤的土地，
恐怖幽灵步步已趋，
纵使阴霾常年聚集，
始终无法令我畏惧。

且不管旅途是否顺畅平稳，
不管承受多么深重的创伤，
我是我命运的主人，
我是我灵魂的船长。

（页底注释：《Invictus》译文来自互联网，译者不详，谨向译者致敬！）

当部长不是搭巴士看报纸

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=287279258015884&id=618649704
交通部长吕德耀说：“列车系统每天接载多达270万乘客人次，一天运作超过18个小时，川行趟次数以千计，没有办法完全防止故障发生......”

Chong Leong Ang说：“为什么列车系统每天需要接载多达270万乘客人次，有关当局在情况发生前没有预警？是基础设施没有跟上需求？还是因为新加坡的人口突然增加？是谁负责监督交通基础设施的建设？是谁负责人口政策？为什么错误的政策需要人民来共同承担结果？”

林北评论：“做贼喊贼。”

===============
毛主席说：“革命不是请客吃饭。”

毛小子说：“当部长不是搭巴士看报纸”

===================================================
吕德耀：维修保养机制要更新 30分钟以上严重列车故障应尽量减少
（2012-04-10）

2011年12月17日早上6时50分左右，乌节地铁站和索美塞站之间一列列车抛锚，之后南北线双向服务都暂停。这次故障长达七个小时，是地铁系统今年第27次出现超过10分钟的延误。政府大厦站是其中一个受到影响的地铁站，月台上挤满了人。（档案照片）

李静仪　报道
leecgye@sph.com.sg

　　交通部长吕德耀昨天在国会答复议员有关地铁系统频频发生故障的询问时强调，由于地铁系统的使用率颇高，不可能完全避免故障发生，但政府将尽可能减少历时30分钟以上的严重列车故障率。

　　他也指出，随着我国地铁系统日益老化，过去实行的维修保养机制已不能全套照搬，而是得设法提早检测出系统是否有问题，特别是优先监测和维修某些关键部件。

　　李美花（义顺集选区）提问时指出，列车服务接二连三发生故障，会导致公众对地铁系统失去信心，她询问交通部是否认为目前实施的预防措施已经足够。

　　吕德耀回应时说：“我们将尽可能减少重大故障事故的发生，并进行检查，但像今日使用率如此高的系统要完全不发生任何故障是不可能的。”

　　他说：“列车系统每天接载多达270万乘客人次，一天运作超过18个小时，川行趟次数以千计，没有办法完全防止故障发生，能够做的是减少重大故障的发生，万一发生了，要有一套事故管理方案，设法减低对乘客的影响。”

　　吕德耀说，陆路交通管理局要求地铁公司遵循一套营运服务准则，包括监督列车的间隔时间及故障率等。它也定期检讨业者的两年维修计划，并审查其安全管理机制。

　　他指出，陆交局将不断同业者检讨列车的维修机制，而独立调查委员会即将在下周一召开的公开听证会也会探讨这方面的工作是否足够。

　　政府国会交通委员会主席符致镜（先驱区）想知道，当局是否有办法提早检测出系统有故障，并更迅速恢复通车。

　　吕德耀说，他已指示陆交局特别监督列车故障的平均间隔时间及关键部件的维修情况，并实行一套状态监测机制（On Condition Monitoring），优先维修某些关键部件或轨道。

　　例如多加留意是否有列车因为车轮表面被磨平或产生额外噪音而需及时送去维修。

　　南北线列车服务在去年底两次大瘫痪，超过20万人受影响；东北线上月中也发生故障，干扰了9万多人的车程。前天，东西线巴耶利峇站东向列车也因故障延误45分钟，约有500人受影响。

　　针对官委议员狄拿卡兰提问有关东北线列车的维修情况，吕德耀指出，过去五年来新捷运共投入1600万元在系统预防性维修工作上，该公司也有一组470人的维修小组定期检查轨道、隧道和高架供电系统。

　　新捷运也采取预防性措施，包括每月定期出动多功能机械车沿着轨道进行检查，及每半年检查隧道是否有裂缝或漏水等。

转载自联合早报网
http://www.zaobao.com.sg/sp/sp120410_003.shtml

"Better to have a worthy failure than a mediocre success" Kuo Pao Kun (1939--2002) “宁可选择一个有价值的失败，而不是平庸的成功” ~~郭宝崑（1939--2002）

汩汩流動

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10150679659539705&id=618649704
汩汩流動
~~對於老師來說，它是老師曾經用來排解苦悶的文思泉湧的時光。
~~對於我來說，這是能引動和參與人與人之間不斷流動感情交流的瞬間。無論是說海南話阿嬤的眼淚以及她離開時探訪的邀約，或亦是者抓住同事之間敞開心胸的交談的片刻。

神無時無刻是與我們同在的。你，發現牠的存在了嗎？

祝：節日不受難
201204030156

何謂「天命」

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=352272901490209&id=618649704
對於我而言，「天命」不是迷信的概念。

所謂「天命」，就是依照自然的規律生活：晴天曬衣，雨天蓄水。

現代人喜歡違背「天命」，雨天想要衣服乾，就發明烘乾機；晴天想要喝水，就取用地下水。公路阻塞，就挖祖宗的墳墓，建造跨越山谷的直路。

~~ 晴天曬衣服，想到即將要在城市發展下，被蹂躪的咖啡山武吉布朗（Bukit Brown），還有那裡的自然景色。

轉載自臉書(fb) Chong Leong Ang

感谢每一刻 Grateful every moment

在兵荒马乱中，感谢在打假期工的小妹，告诉她就是因为她帮我整理名单让我能快捷的联络上有状况住民的家人。让她知道单调的文书工作其实是整体工作的一环，切勿认为文书是无聊的工作，就不认真的处理。

我觉得让员工知道他们工作背后的意义是重要的，让他们分享参与工作的荣耀。让他们知道成功背后的一个环节，缺少任何人都是不行的。

我们应该用每一个机会感谢工作伙伴，不必等到年终或者常年晚会（春酒）。

I thank the young intern in the middle of a chaos situation for helping me organizing list in normal day so that I can quick contact the family members of a residents in distress.

I think it is important to let all staff to know the meaning behind their work and share the glory with them. Any success involved participant of every single member of the group.

 We should use every opportunity to thank our working partners not waiting till the end year party (D&D).

“郭宝崑节”2012 – 寻找郭宝崑

Rating:	★★★★★
Category:	Other

蝴蝶的美，是人所共知，而且没人反对它美。也就是说：谈到这世界的美，有它的一份。换句话说：它对世界的美有一点贡献。然而，有许许多多蝴蝶，其实也就同我的小园子里的那些一样，就只在那么一个小角落里，生存那么一阵子。有时，实在它一辈子也并不为人们所欣赏，可是，那并不丝毫影响它的美。因为它仍旧那么认真地奋斗、茁长，培养它那美丽斑斓色彩、一丝不苟；而且它还是认真地在花间穿梭飞舞，给百花的盛开尽它的媒人之职责。即使在人人看见的一隅，它也一样奋斗生存，使它的后面依旧有蝴蝶，使百花依旧能够延存、茁长、发展。每只小蝴蝶在每一个角隅都这样，一代接一代，全部加起来，就合成总的蝴蝶美了。

蝶之美就在于它尽了蝶之职责......然而，在一片美景之际，别忘一蝶、一花、一果、一树。

“世界从不亏待我们……”

狱中致妻书简(摘录)
郭宝崑（遗作）22-12-1977
转载自联合早报网(2002-09-15)
http://www.zaobao.com.sg/special/singapore/pages1/guo150902c.html

其它网站
http://www.practice.org.sg/%E9%83%AD%E5%AE%9D%E5%B4%91%E8%8A%822012/
http://www.zaobao.com.sg/special/singapore/guobaokun.html

語言成為無所用

https://www.facebook.com/zishe.lin/posts/387379824623283
無聲、無言、無語，在影像中，我們的心思飄動，意義在暗處勾連形構，成為一個孤單的羊、化身為一棵守護的樹、焦焙為成堆的碳。無限流竄的意義，在手持筆書（畫）、放肆的「念」被「定」在當下。時間從流動成為定格，片片斷斷的為人所「見」。「見」者，時間橫切的刀與眼，於是工具不限，筆書、手寫、敲打鍵盤、頌缽、靜坐、冥想都成為「定」的外在形式，而內心精神的力量，只有在知曉者間，以隻字片語、手勢、動作暗示，語言成為無所用。
～林子畬

何謂機會？

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=330416460326969&id=100000758544124
機會在得勝之時，機會也在挫敗之時，但得勝而希望恒勝，挫敗而被覆滅，都是澈底的瞎。明眼者連面對死亡都可能是機會。
~~余德慧

Why we have to pay for a hasty wrong policy made? -- Bus Services Enhancement Fund comes under spotlight during REACH Budget dialogue

http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC120223-0000103/Bus-Services-Enhancement-Fund-comes-under-spotlight-during-REACH-Budget-dialogue
‎"What Singaporeans want are quicker solutions," said Mrs Teo. "They don't want to wait so long. So it's with Singaporean needs in mind that we assessed that the better way to do it, the faster way to do it, the more efficient way of doing it, is to partner the existing public transport operators to deliver the increased capacity."
~ Minister of State for Finance and Transport Josephine Teo

It's the government, in the first place, want to have quick solutions on economics and population policy that it allows many more FTs coming into Singapore that cause the over crowded issue. IMHO, why do we need to pay the final bills for a hasty wrong policy government have made? And if this is so, then a parallel policy re-think or even revamp Transport Ministry need to work on for the public transport policy. We should not always have a short term solutions for issues affect every citizens of this nation everyday.
~ Ang Chong Leong

Bus Services Enhancement Fund comes under spotlight during REACH Budget dialogue
by Sumita Sreedharan Updated 10:01 AM Feb 23, 2012

SINGAPORE - The Government's plan to fund 550 new buses for operators SBS Transit and SMRT dominated Wednesday night's Budget dialogue session organised by Government feedback unit REACH.

Of the 15 questions raised by members of the public during the session, a third zoomed in on the Government's plan to boost bus capacity.

Some questioned why the Government is using public funds to finance private operators, while others felt if the S$1.1 billion set aside under the Bus Services Enhancement Fund could be used for other purposes, such as employment. Questions were also raised as to whether the current market structure of the transport sector should remain or be nationalised.

Minister of State for Finance and Transport Josephine Teo, who chaired the session along with Reach chairman Amy Khor, pointed out that the S$1.1 billion set aside will be used over the next decade and was necessary to improve the levels of service to meet commuters' expectations.

"What Singaporeans want are quicker solutions," said Mrs Teo. "They don't want to wait so long. So it's with Singaporean needs in mind that we assessed that the better way to do it, the faster way to do it, the more efficient way of doing it, is to partner the existing public transport operators to deliver the increased capacity."

Mrs Teo also stressed that SBS Transit and SMRT are "expected to raise standards across the entire fleet they run". As more buses are added to the fleet, buses - including those plying feeder services - will be less crowded, she added.

In funding the new buses directly, Mrs Teo felt the Government has taken a "practical approach" towards the matter.

Speaking to reporters after the dialogue, and asked on whether it would have an impact on any future fare increase, Mrs Teo assured that "commuters should not be overly worried" as "the fare formula hasn't changed as a result of the bus injection". Public transport fares are determined by a fare cap formula, which factors in changes in inflation, wages and productivity.

While public transport made up 12 per cent of total responses gathered by Reach on the Government's Budget, building a fair and inclusive society topped the number of responses with 40 per cent of all inputs received.

At the dialogue on Wednesday night, some raised concerns over the Silver Housing Bonus and wondered if those downgrading were suppose to buy resale flats which were still as expensive. In reply, Dr Khor noted that the Silver Housing Bonus was just an option for those already thinking of downgrading and was "just an added incentive."

The Silver Housing Bonus provides up to S$20,000 - S$15,000 in cash and S$5,000 to CPF - for Singaporeans aged 55, who wish to move from larger flats to smaller units.

Dr Khor, who is Minister of State for Health, also reiterated that the Government's priority is for seniors to age within the community. Having elder-care centres within the community also makes it easier for families to visit their family members, she added.

Responding to suggestions to extend the MediShield illness insurance beyond 90 years old, Dr Khor said the result of that would be higher premiums. She said there is a need to strike a balance when it comes to affordability. Dr Khor added the Medifund endowment exists for Singaporeans beyond 90 years old and who need help with medical expenses.

(Photo taken from http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/current-affairs-lounge-17/transport-issue-%3B-crowding-trains-spill-over-onto-crowding-platforms-2859322.html)

秦皇岛--万能青年旅店

秦皇岛--万能青年旅店
曲:董亚千 词:姬赓

站在能分割世界的桥

还是看不清 在那些时刻 遮蔽我们 黑暗的心 究竟是什么 住在我心里孤独的 孤独的海怪 痛苦之王 开始厌倦 深海的光 停滞的海浪 站在能看到灯火的桥 还是看不清 在那些夜晚 照亮我们 黑暗的心 究竟是什么 于是它默默追逐着 横渡海峡 年轻的人 看着他们 为了彼岸 骄傲地骄傲地 灭亡

万能青年旅店乐队
乐队成员

　　主唱/吉他：董亚千 （二千，董2000）
　　小号：史立 Shit Lee
　　贝司：姬赓
　　鼓： 小耕

　　几个生活在Rock Home Town（石家庄）的闲散人士。长年吸工业废气，长年撒泼抒情，长年蒙受盲瓜（The Blind Melon）等90年代美国非主流摇滚乐队感召。90年代组队，02年更名。风格为非主流/独立摇滚及其他，过于低调的他们少有宣传，06年凭借网络独立发布的不插电单曲《不万能的喜剧》，受到众多独立乐迷的追捧和传颂，短时间内俨然已是国内独立摇滚界的闪亮新星。2010年11月12日，乐队发行首张同名专辑《万能青年旅店》。

转载自百度百科
http://baike.baidu.com/view/1900725.htm

Last Broadcast - Light a Lantern Save Jalan Sultan 灯佑苏丹街

何謂『苦』？

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=318254781543137&id=100000758544124
人能夠理解世界是透過意識的搬運能力，意識是一種格子化的有序空間，只有在格序裡，人才能理解世界，以致廣袤的非格序化的區塊成為奧秘。我們從出生即遭受格序化，以致經常飽受非格序化區域的苦，而莫名所以。~余德慧老師

我就是要你功課爛-Part 2

李國修：教養孩子只給三樣東西：想像力、幽默感及學會愛。

李國修：父母要和子女建立起四種跟子女要建立四『信』：信心、信用、信任、信仰。

史蒂芬·阿倫·史匹柏：生命會找到自己的出口。

Story of a village with only one restaurant: PAPCH Garden

http://www.tremeritus.com/2012/01/17/story-of-a-village-with-only-one-restaurant-papch-garden/
Story of a village with only one restaurant: PAPCH Garden
January 17th, 2012 | Author: Contributions

There is a village that only has one restaurant. Everyone in the village has to eat at that restaurant PAPCH Garden which serves $10 XO Chye Tow Kueh.

Villager: Why can’t we have more than one restaurant?

Head Waiter: Our village is at a critical point in it’s economic development where more than one restaurant can lead to chaos, so we only have one restaurant. Also, if there are other restaurants, I might get distracted and be unable to concentrate on my job.

Villager: But the food here is really not good! And it’s very expensive because all the staff are paid so much. And it’s also full of outsiders from other countries eating in it – and you have them working in the kitchen too, taking away ours jobs.

Head Waiter: Our restaurant is a small one. If you were to open another restaurant, the prosperity of the village would be fundamentally threatened.

Villager: But can’t it be a little cheaper?

Head Waiter: That would not suit the conditions of our village; the restaurant also needs to develop. We need to pay top dollar to attract top talents for our restaurant.

Waitress who called herself Ms Eff You: When I made the decision to join the restaurant in 2006, pay was not a key factor. Loss of privacy, public scrutiny on myself and my family and loss of personal time were. The disruption to my previous career was also an important consideration. I had some ground to believe that my family would not suffer a drastic change in the standard of living even though I experienced a drop in my income. So it is with this recent pay cut. If the balance is tilted further in the future, it will make it harder for any one considering joining the restaurant.

Villager: But the employees of the restaurant are all driving Mercedes Benz! And living in bungalows! And some of them have more than 10 houses.

Head Waiter: To ensure fair and uncorrupted staff, you need to pay them high salaries. This is what it is called, a transparent wage. If you really want, we will form a committee to decide on the staff wages, then talk about it in front of you even though we have already made a decision.

Villager: But last year, you lent all the profits of the restaurant to Temashit store and Jee Ai See Corporation!

Head Waiter: This is the village policy, you don’t need to worry about it. We are in it for the long term.

Villager: I heard that the Jee Ai See guy in charge of purchasing bought all the worthless shares that have since lost all their value – 50 billion American peanuts worth.

Head Waiter: That type of employee is very rare.

Villager: Then why did you promote him to make him President of the restaurant company?

Head Waiter: We have already volunteered him to take a pay cut of 51%.

Villager: But he’s still the best paid President on earth!

Head Waiter: Let’s move on. You have misunderstood me.

Other villagers: And the water from kitchen flooded our houses the other day!

Waiter in-charge of drinks: Ah, that was just ponding which happens once in 50 years.

Villager: And what about the time your restaurant system broke down for over 4 hours and trapped over a 1000 people inside?

Restaurant Valet: Don’t worry, we will have a committee of inquiry on this matter. Also, that chef responsible has also left to pursue personal interests. And the second chef has also left earlier to pursue personal interests.

Villager: So when we’ve got so many problems, why do you still hang up certificates of high quality? Why do you tell outsiders that everyone is eating so well? There are some people in our village who have no houses and not enough to eat.

Waiter in-charge of drinks: What do you want, 3 meals a day? Anyway, you misunderstood me. I am sorry you are upset about your misunderstanding me.

Villager: The grain was grown by the peasant farmers. The village was built by the first generation villagers and the its security is undertaken by all our our young male villagers for 2 years of their lives.

Head Waiter: Look, New Singapore Shares!

Villager: I can’t even get a decent meal, what do these other things have to do with me? Why don’t other villages have all these problems that we have here?

Old Waiter: Whenever you talk about yourself, you only say bad things. When you talk about others, you say everything is good. You are so complacent. You need to have spurs stuck in your hide. You must repent!

Villager: Eh, but down the road there is a new hawker stall with a hammer sign. The food quality looks quite good and the staff wear blue uniforms. Also, they smile at you and try to help you. They have a chye tow kueh chef who was trained in Beijing to make XO chye tow kueh and many other things. He has even taken a pay cut to come back and help our village out.

Major General (NS) Waiter: But hor, even though they only charge you $1.50, you might not want to eat it because the quality is not good leh. (Turning to the other waiters) If you guys agree with me, Kee Chiu!

Old waiter (getting angry): If you choose to go to that hawker stall, then I say good luck to you. You have five years to ruminate and to regret what you did. And I have no doubts you will regret it. At the end of the day, you should ask yourself: Do you want a celebrity chef who has been away 30 years and a bunch of non-scholars to serve you?’

Head Waiter (quickly cut in): Please bear with us. We’re trying our best on your behalf. And if we didn’t quite get it right, I am sorry but we will try and do better the next time.”

Villager: Too late. 39.9% of us are going to try the stall. I hear it’s in Aljunied.

.

Karen Teoh

* From http://www.danwei.com/a-village-with-only-one-restaurant/ with some uniquely Village amendments.

* Personal note: I think the Chye Tow Kueh was the last straw for me after the spate of recent news about pay, SMRT and ‘ponding’. Anyone want to make a video/podcast with it? Might be interesting to hear it “acted’ aloud. At the end of the day, this is just a light-hearted post to blow off steam, laugh about it – then go eat at the other hawker stall in Aljunied in 5 years time. Hope they will be setting up franchises in different parts of the village. Please share and repost – and remind people to eat at the other hawker stall when they next have the chance.

* Editor’s note: Have also added some further amendments to Karen’s amendments. Feel free to add further and share it around

catherinelim.sg » 50 Years of PAP Rule: Has PAP Fatigue Set In?

http://catherinelim.sg/2012/01/17/50-years-of-pap-rule-has-pap-fatigue-set-in/
50 Years of PAP Rule: Has PAP Fatigue Set In?

Below is the full transcript of my acceptance speech on being awarded the ‘Lifetime Achievement Award’ by the Online Citizen on the occasion of its 5th Anniversary, on 13 January 2012.

Following the shock results of the General Election of 2011 (GE 2011) there was, as expected, a flurry of commentaries analyzing the causes. But the analyses omitted what could turn out to be the most interesting and intriguing one of all. Thus while they examined, with forensic thoroughness, the people’s anger against the unpopular PAP policies related to foreign workers and the ministerial salaries, while they scrutinized the resentment against PAP arrogance, they paid little attention to what I have rather facetiously called PAP Fatigue, that is, an overwhelming sense of weariness with a ruling party that has been around for far too long.

The weariness would appear to be part of human nature, a natural disposition to react negatively to an imposed environment of oppressive sameness and uniformity, the reaction being all the stronger when there is no prospect of change.

For nearly 50 years, Singaporeans had never known any form of government except the one-party rule of the PAP, had never been exposed to any but the authoritarian and peremptory PAP style, had never experienced democracy except the carefully edited PAP version.

Some years ago, on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the party’s rule, then Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew declared that since the PAP government was the best, it should be around for the next 40 years. If he had his wish, it would mean that Singaporeans would have to live permanently with PAP fatigue.

Yet into the twenty first century, conditions in Singapore were already ripe for political change. For the society was arguably among the most technologically advanced and globally connected in the world, and the most aggressively capitalistic. This meant that Singaporeans were well exposed to other forms of government, to examples of properly functioning, two-way government-people relationships, examples of robust civic societies.

Why then, for nearly half a century, did the Singapore electorate choose to endure PAP Fatigue?

The reason must lie in the special compact between the PAP government and the people, which though only implicit, was nevertheless strong and binding. According to this compact, the government would provide the people with the highest possible level of material prosperity, political stability and social orderliness, and the people, in return, would show full co-operation and support for whatever decisions the government made and whatever policies it chose to enforce.

So under a rule far longer than any seen in other countries, during which the PAP exerted control in virtually every domain of life, the fatigue factor, because it was not allowed free expression, simply settled into a general docility and conformity of thinking, feeling and behaving. If it dared rouse itself into political agitation, it was quickly smacked down by that fearful instrument of control, the Internal Security Act or ISA, by which activists could be detained without trial. And there was also that equally feared instrument, the defamation suit by which political critics could be financially crippled for life.

Through it all, the people must have constantly reminded themselves that it was still a very worthwhile trade-off, for they were enjoying a degree of prosperity unmatched in the region. In any case, even if they wanted an alternative government, there was simply no prospect of any, since the existing opposition parties were just so pitifully small, weak and helpless. Taking into account all these factors, Singaporeans must have come to the conclusion that their lot, though somewhat complicated, was by no means a bad one.

Hence, it did not matter that outsiders were making unflattering observations of us, for instance, that Singaporeans had become a nation of unquestioning and compliant subjects, incapable of acting on their own, with no interests beyond bread-and-butter concerns and the famous 5Cs of social success. Singaporean students might perform brilliantly in exams but were woefully lacking in independent thinking, creative expression and social skills. The Singapore media and other public institutions were predictably, boringly pro-Establishment. Most of all, there was no identifiable Singapore culture beyond the ubiquitous food centres and shopping malls.

If in a general election, PAP Fatigue managed to surface in little pockets of angry voting, it made no difference whatsoever to the general state of affairs. This was true of all the previous 11 elections; after each one, the antagonism duly subsided, the people went back to their accustomed acquiescence and the government to its accustomed strongman methods. It was business as usual.

So what happened in the 12th election to make GE 2011 so different as to be called a defining election, a watershed, after which things could never be the same? Had the fatigue factor finally reached the stage of ‘enough is enough’, and struck back as a retaliatory force that took by surprise even the supremely confident PAP? Had it managed to link up with the other causes of voter discontent, to form one huge, super anti-PAP force that actually did the unimaginable, that is, compel the PAP leaders, led by the Prime Minister himself, to offer public apologies in an amazing display of contrition, humility and earnestness never seen before?

And did this extraordinary outpouring imply something that was just too good to be true: that in future the government would think twice before ramming through one unpopular policy after another, such as the deplorable one of the ministerial salaries?

Indeed, it may be said that what the people accomplished in GE 2011 was nothing less than historic—putting an end to fifty years of political apathy, fifty years of a losing compact with the government.

At this stage of my deliberations, a very pertinent question may be asked: Is this a true picture of GE 2011 and its outcomes? Or it is somewhat exaggerated, overly optimistic?

We’ll see. Going further in the deliberations, I am now going to suggest that the main reason for the obvious effectiveness of the fatigue factor was the concurrence of two special happenings, unique to GE 2011, which interacted to produce an effect that neither on its own could have achieved.

The first was the emergence of a group of voters who, by virtue of a natural restlessness and impatience were the most likely group to turn PAP Fatigue into an active fighting force. These were the young voters, in their twenties and thirties, many of them first-time voters, with the natural tendency of youth to get easily bored and start clamouring for change.

Thus even the mere fact of the PAP’s very long presence in the political scene would have been enough for the fatigue factor to kick in and make a difference in votes. But what seriously aggravated this fact was the perception of the young voters, accompanied by strong resentment, that the PAP government had become totally indifferent to their needs and aspirations.

They were, in the typical language of youth, ‘pissed off’ by certain well-known attributes of the PAP which, though generally detestable, were especially repugnant to the young.

These included the overbearing, intolerant and patronizing approach that was so stifling to their vibrant and creative energies; the elitism, superiority and highhandedness that offended their youthful ideals of equality and fair play; the inflexibility, stiffness, and formality that were at odds with the casual, spontaneous, friendly manner that they favoured.

If additionally, this group shared the overall voter perception that the PAP, despite its claims of high standards of leadership, was becoming too lax, complacent and arrogant, and losing touch with the common people, then the hostility would have been that much greater.

The second mentioned special happening in GE 2011 was the emergence of a force which provided exactly the hope that these disaffected young voters needed, exactly the channel for their blocked and frustrated energies. This was the amazingly revitalized Workers’ Party, the clear star of the opposition.

It quickly came to represent for them all that the PAP lacked: a simple, casual, unassuming style that dispensed with pomp and ceremony (there was a post-election picture in the newspapers showing the party chairman in a Hawaiian shirt riding a bicycle and another one of him conferring with his new constituents in a Spartan setting of basic furniture set up in an HDB void deck); a bold, creative flair for new ideas, as seen in the party slogan of ‘A First World Parliament’ that clearly resonated with these young voters ; a calm dignity throughout the hurly burly of the hustings, which must have impressed them deeply because it contrasted so sharply with the shocking display of vindictive anger by a senior PAP member.

Perhaps the most attractive attribute of the Workers’ Party for these young Singaporeans was something that the PAP had routinely and contemptuously dismissed as irrelevant in leadership, but which the young, in their media-saturated world, prize highly—charisma. A newcomer in the Workers’ Party, was quickly seen to embody this quality: he had not only the dazzling credentials of a top academic, entrepreneur and CEO, but also the glamorous good looks of a star (A female newspaper columnist wrote gushingly about his choice of a certain style of shirt, showing him in three pictures smiling like a true celebrity basking in the adulation of fans)

In short, these young voters saw the PAP as old, dull and stale, belonging to the past, and the Worker’s Party as new, bright and hip, pointing to the future.

The prominence of this group of voters on the electoral stage may irritate some PAP sympathisers and provoke this question: Why bother about them when they do not, after all, comprise the majority, and, in any case, will soon outgrow the immaturity of youth?

The conclusion which the PAP leaders have probably already reached is this: this group of voters cannot be ignored; on the contrary, they must be singled out for special attention and wooing, for numerous compelling reasons.

Firstly, they will be active voters for a long time to come, and must therefore be quickly weaned from their present hostility. Secondly, they are the young citizens, in an ageing population, whom the government will have to depend on for the country’s future development, and who must therefore not feel alienated enough to want to leave the country and emigrate. Thirdly, they belong to the increasingly powerful world of the Internet and the social media, which no government in the world can afford to ignore. Fourthly, because in GE 2011, they clearly had the support of a large number of older voters who could easily identify with them, they might be setting a dangerous precedent—starting a trend of strong generational unity within the anti-PAP camp that could only work to its advantage.

Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, the exuberance, boldness and defiance of the young voters, operating in the new media world of instant, dazzling communication, could be infectious enough to have an unstoppable snowball effect, engulfing other groups of voters, including even those normally sympathetic towards the PAP. In fact, something like this could already have happened, as may be inferred by the 40% vote against the PAP in the General Election swelling to an alarming 65% vote against the PAP-endorsed candidate in the Presidential Election some months later.

In short, possibly for the first time in Singapore’s electoral history, a small core of young voters had provided the sparks that started a fire that could set off a whole conflagration if not stopped.

Thus it was not surprising that the PAP quickly swung into a massive campaign of damage control, repair and rebuilding. The Prime Minister announced, almost immediately after GE 2011, that the PAP would ‘re-invent’ itself in order to win back the people’s trust. The term is a much stronger one than ‘self-renewal’, used to describe an on-going exercise in which young potential leaders are systematically recruited and trained to replace the older leaders, to prevent complacency and carelessness from ever setting in.

‘Re-invention’ implies much more than self-renewal—it means a complete overhaul, a transformation, a born-again PAP that has an entirely new compact with the people. As if to convince the people of his utter sincerity, the Prime Minister used another, even more impressive-sounding word: he told the nation that from now onwards, he and his team would be ‘servant-leaders’. (I remember gasping at the use of the word) ‘Servant-leaders’—the ultimate oxymoron that must have made many people sit up and ask: did I hear right? Never had a prime minister so earnestly pledged so drastic a change of leadership style, so soon after an election.

At this point, I have to come in as a skeptic, and show the other side of the GE 2011 picture, which I fear is not at all pretty. I believe that the PAP is incapable of re-inventing itself, because true re-invention would require the opening up of one crucial area, that the PAP seems determined to keep under control at all cost. This is the area of political liberties—open debate and criticism, independence of the media, public assemblies and street demonstrations for a cause, etc., all of which are taken for granted in practising democracies.

Over the years, the government had reluctantly made small concessions, such as allowing a Speakers’ Corner, relaxing some censorship laws, tweaking a rule here, tinkering with another there, never going beyond these small, meager offerings that Singaporeans had no choice but to accept because there was nothing better.

In this regard, PAP Fatigue has an additional meaning for political critics like myself—a frustrating, exhausting weariness with the PAP government, not because it has been around too long, but because during this long period of rule, it has not seen fit to nurture the people politically, and has failed to provide the proper environment for political education and growth. This right of the people is so basic and fundamental that no amount of material wealth can compensate for its denial or loss.

Still, assuming that the Prime Minister is sincere in his pledge and that he understands the mood of high expectancy in what may be described as Singapore’s version of the Arab Spring, the following questions are pertinent. Just what can the PAP government do to win the people’s trust, and once and for all, establish a proper basis for a working government-people relationship? To match the watershed expectations generated by GE 2011, what watershed act of re-invention is it prepared to undertake? With special reference to the by now obvious threat of the PAP Fatigue phenomenon, what can the government do to prevent it from ever appearing again, not only among the young voters, but the entire Singapore electorate?

Some months ago, a group of 16 ex-political detainees jointly petitioned the government to set up a commission of inquiry to look into the allegations against them. The petition was promptly dismissed; the government later issued a terse statement to say that since all the proper procedures about the matter had already been taken, no further action was needed.

I was acutely disappointed. For I thought that the PAP had missed a fantastic opportunity to prove to the people that it had the honesty and courage to face up to its past excesses and take responsibility for them, or, as the case might be, that it had the strength and dignity to stand by the principles on which it had acted. Either way, it would have won the respect and regard of the people. Moreover, it had also missed the chance to show Singaporeans what is surely the noblest quality to come out of any conflict—the grace and magnanimity to reach out to former foes in reconciliation and new amity.

Indeed, a Commission of Inquiry with its urgency of purpose, potency of authority and high public visibility, would have been the ideal combination of powerful symbolism on the one hand and political will in real action, on the other, to bring about the event needed to signal the dawn of a new era. In one fell stroke, it would have banished that long-standing affective divide between the government and the people, an emotional estrangement that neither side wants. In the practical language of Singaporeans, it would have been a win-win situation for all—the government, the ex-detainees, the people, the entire society, even future generations. If only. If only.

The unfortunate truth is that the PAP remains adamant on keeping a tight lid on political and civic liberties. While it takes a generous and liberal stance in the opening up of all other areas—education, the arts, entertainment, lifestyle—it has built a firewall around the political domain. While it has readily agreed to commissions of inquiry for national mishaps such as the Nicoll Highway collapse, the escape of top terrorist Mas Selamat, and more recently, the major breakdowns in the MRT, it draws a line at matters that might engulf the whole nation in political questioning and debate, for which it has the strongest antipathy.

Indeed, so averse is the PAP to the subject that, as many of us may have noticed, it even shies away from using words such as ‘democracy’, ‘human rights, ‘ ‘political reform’. And yet these are matters at the core of a government-people relationship if it is to be based on transparency, respect and trust.

I will maintain that as long as there is no real political opening up (two weeks ago, in his New Year message, the Prime Minister spoke about a ‘political transition’ but I don’t think he can ever bring himself to talk about ‘a political opening up’, or ‘political reform’) and as long as political dissidents feel they may be punished in one way or another, for instance, by new and subtle uses of the ISA which the government has made clear it has no intention of repealing, the so-called transformation after GE 2011, will, at best, be a partial one only, and at worst, a travesty of all the noble promises that had been made. What a pity. Once again, the ‘if only’ sigh of wistful longing!

If only, to their very substantial material achievements, the PAP could add the non-material, but equally important achievement of enabling the society to move steadily towards political liberty! I am not talking about the disruptive, wild excesses of democracy seen in some countries; I am talking about a sensible, responsible exercise of democratic rights that surely Singaporeans are capable of, at this stage in the development of our society.

The skeptic in me wants so much to be an optimist. I am terrified that if nothing comes out of GE 2011, nothing ever will, out of any future election. It will be business as usual, in the most hideously fatalistic sense of the word.

My best hope lies in the young Singaporeans I have been so enthusiastically talking about, those young voters who, in GE 2011, converted the fatigue factor into a voice that the PAP government was forced to listen to. Over the years, as they continue to be exposed to the outside world, as they become more discerning, more critical, more engaged, I hope that they will continue to use PAP Fatigue as a tool for change, always constructively and wisely, always with the well-being of the society in mind.

Most of all, they must persevere in nudging forward, respectfully but relentlessly, an exasperatingly resistant PAP government that prefers, if at all, to take such painfully slow, such painfully small steps along the path of political reform. Reform there must be. For only then can Singapore come into its own, only then can it claim to be a successful society in every sense of the word, and take a proud place among other societies in the world.

Current pay system not an option: PAP MP | publichouse.sg

http://www.publichouse.sg/categories/topstory/item/396-current-pay-system-not-an-option-pap-mp
"I believe that there are successful people in Singapore who are willing to put aside their corporate perks and power suits to serve in a cause they believe in."
~~ Ms Denise Phua

Parliamentary speech by Ms Denise Phua, MP for Moulmein-Kallang GRC, on ministerial salaries, on 16 January.

Ask 10 different people how much they think their political leaders should be paid and you are likely to get 10 different responses. Sir, that was my experience when I studied the views of Singaporeans in the public, private and people sectors through desktop research, face-to-face discussions and polls.

To the passionate who are fighting for causes they deeply believe in, sacrificing part or all of their salary is not an issue.
To the low-wage worker who earns $5 an hour, a million-dollar pay is unimaginable.

To a PMET (Professional, Manager, Executive, Technician) earning the median Singapore income of less than $3,000 per month, the million-dollar pay is an unattainable dream.

There are others who are concerned with the Golden Parachute effect of entrants to politics who enjoy big windfalls in pay although they had no prior appropriate leadership experience.

Yet to some in the private sector, the Ministers’ pay is a bargain compared to the typical $3m to $7m annual CEO packages of local banks, telcos and others. On the ground, someone quipped that the annual pay of for instance, a local CEO which in a good year can skyrocket to $20 million, could pay for more than half the Cabinet. The Straits Times reported recently that the annual incomes of second tier senior executives in some big local firms amounted to between $1m and $2m.

Sir, the mixed reactions reminded me very much of the parable of ‘The Elephant and the 6 Blind Men’. Each man described the animal according to the part of the elephant they are touching. And according to John Godfrey Saxe’s poem of the same parable, all men ‘disputed loud and long’.

The truth of the matter is, all of them are right except that each view is but a partial view. The same can be said of Singaporeans’ descriptions of the ministerial pay issue. The disputes are similarly ‘loud and long’ and ministerial pay is one of the most divisive subjects in our country.

To heal our land, it is critical that each of us take the time and be open enough to find out and accept that there are other perspectives.

LEADERS WHO ARE WORTH THE MILLIONS

When the subject of Ministerial and Top Civil Servants’ pay was debated upon in April 2007, I was very uneasy. Till today, I believe that there are successful people in Singapore who are willing to put aside their corporate perks and power suits to serve in a cause they believe in.

Sir, five years on, I have learnt to recognise my view, like the blind men describing the elephant, is but one perspective based on my own values and season in life. Mind you, there are indeed people who would still give up successful careers to do what they believe in. In fact, just last week, yet another young banker hung up her corporate suit and joined the charity I run. But there are insufficient. I could not find enough of them who had the right mix of passion and technical and leadership competencies I need to help me construct our dream 21st century charity. Through a mix of monetary and non-monetary measures such as culture-building, we were able to attract and retain barely enough talents to sustain our rapid growth.

Sir, I can imagine how the challenge of attracting sufficient people with the right character and skillsets to enter politics, is multiplied.

The ‘new-normal’ political culture appears to call for ‘superhero’ politicians who are even rarer species. Ideally, the leaders of the future should be able to:

1. Inspire our people (especially those who have options to leave) to not only stay on but also actively construct our dream country together;

2. Connect and engage their constituents both face-to-face and in cyberspace;

3. Facilitate, gather differing perspectives and resolve multi-faceted issues with stakeholder groups who sometimes have opposing interests;

4. Harness continued support of their constituents and teams and do well at the polls; and to me most importantly.

5. Exercise not only courage to question but also the skills to provide solutions and exercise reforms in sacred-cow areas which are complex and deeply entrenched; but if nothing is done, will lead our country to demise. I am talking about the complex challenges such as trimming the $700-million tuition industry which appears to be a grudgingly accepted feature of our education landscape; the creation or re-designing of jobs to elevate the incomes and dignity of vulnerable citizens such as the elderly, lowly educated or the disabled; the potential of transforming private enterprises in essential services such as public transport to social enterprises.

Sir, MOE has developed a framework of the 21st century competencies essential for the survival of our students, our political and government leaders need the same. The dream leaders who are closer to the ideal profile I described are worth many millions. That is the additional perspective I wish to offer to the topic of ministerial pay review.

HALF-FULL OR HALF-EMPTY – ANALYSIS OF THE REPORT ON MINISTERIAL PAY REVIEW

Sir, I would like to turn now to the specifics of the Report on the Ministerial Pay Review, from a leadership and HR professional’s perspective.

Sir, I hold this glass of water in my hands. Is it half-full or half-empty? Some of us optimists will declare it is half-full. Others who are less positive will say it is half-empty. The cynics amongst us will wonder who drank the other half. I say it is both – half-full and half-empty.

HALF-FULL – POSITIVE RECOMMENDATIONS

Although I do not completely agree with the recommendations carried in the Report of the Ministerial Salaries Committee, I cannot, in good conscience, say that the Committee has done a poor job. By boldly recommending pay slashes up to 50% - measures which are hardly cosmetic, the Committee has moved in the right direction.

Like many in Singapore, I thought it was important that if reference was drawn from what I felt was a more punishing private sector in terms of pay and accountability, then it was only right that common compensation principles in that sector be applied.

I am heartened that some of the recommendations I made were considered and applied, and in some cases, enhanced.

1. An independent and external Salary Review Committee was set up, for the first time so that executives do not write their own;

2. The line of sight linking an incumbent’s Pay and his Performance is now clearer;

3. The previously simplistic link of Bonus to GDP growth rate is now expanded;

4. The Salary Benchmarking formula now targets a much bigger group of 1000 instead of 48 top wage earners;

5. Keeping the annual base pay package to comprise only monthly salaries and a 13th month bonus by removing items like Special Allowance and Public Service Leadership Allowances is a more acceptable compensation practice; amongst others.

HALF-EMPTY – ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Sir, to help further fill up the Glass, I would like to offer 5 recommendations:

1. Peg Pay to a Broader Base of Income Wage Earners and Discard Discount

The proposed salary benchmark of the entry level minister, is now pegged to the top 1000 wage earners, instead of 48, in Singapore. A discount of 40% is then applied.

Sir, the selection of the 1000 top wage earners, albeit more reasonable, is arbitrary and smacks of elitism because the base is about 0.05% of the workforce, assuming a workforce size of 2 milion. The application of the discount, whether the current one-third or the proposed 40%, is also arbitrary and often forgotten and unappreciated.

I propose that political leaders’ pay be pegged to a simple top percentile income bracket, eg 10% of 20% of Singaporeans.

A quick poll I conducted revealed that more Singaporeans are likely to understand and accept that their leaders belong to the top 10-20% income bracket in our country.

2. Strengthen the Line of Sight between Pay and Performance

a. Remove 1 of the 3 components of the Variable Pay Component ie the Annual Variable Component (AVC) and retain only (i) Performance Bonus which relates to the performance of the individual portfolio; and (ii) National Bonus which is linked to how the country performs;

b. Publicise the Key Performance Indicators or KPIs for individual portfolios so that Singaporeans have a better understanding of how they are linked to Performance Bonuses of the office bearers. Developing and publishing KPIs that relate to both the routine operations and new initiatives in, especially essential services such as housing, transport, social services, and education, are important for better understanding of the size of the individual portfolios and promote better quality dialogues;

c. Expand the National Bonus indicators which are now 100% linked to jobs and incomes. This is to reduce the potential of excessive risk-taking or undesirable tactics to boost the numbers. For instance, starting a third casino to boost the economy may well boost all 4 components of the National Bonus - real median income growth rate; real grow rate of the lowest 20th percentile income; lower unemployment rate; and enhance real GDP growth rate; but the move may well be an easier path to developing or own tourism products and is detrimental to the long term competitiveness and social well-being of our people.

3. Review the Benefits Package and Not Over-Extend the ‘Clean-Wage’ Principle.

Sir, it is a little ludicrous that the dental benefit of our Prime Minister and Ministers is $70/- per year and outpatient subsidy capped at $350 a year. Consider the provision of common benefits such as car and annual health screening packages that are typically provided to executives. Do not over-extend the application of the principle of ‘Clean Wage’ so far that it becomes artificial.

4. Clarify the job scope and expectations of Political Appointment Holders.

Sir, one of the underlying factors leading to the constant unhappy undertone when the subject of political pay is discussed in our country is the lack of awareness of the duties of political appointment holders from Members of Parliament to Ministers and even Speakers.

a. Members of Parliaments have differing views of their roles. The latest episode during which several Opposition MPs opine that it is the job of Government to help their poor and needy residents and referral is the right strategy; caused a debate of its own outside the House. The clarity of duties and goals would be useful even to MPs of the ruling party.

b. The man in the street, for instance, does not understand the role of the Speaker of the House and does not have sufficient information to comprehend how it equates to a Cabinet Minister.

c. Clarity is also useful in the case of office bearers who hold multiple portfolios, sometimes up to 3 roles. It takes more than a human being to do 3 roles effectively and leave little time and space for the incumbent to reflect and reform policies where needed.

Sir, instead of sweeping these under carpet, it is needful to clarify the job scopes and expectations of political appointment holders.

5. Conduct a Review of the Civil Service Leadership Pay

One of my deepest concerns is that the Review excluded the some 300 top civil servants in the elite Admin Service. The title of the Report is entitled “Salaries for a Capable and Committed Government” but the review has deliberately excluded top civil service leaders specifically the Permanent Secretaries and others in the elite Admin Service. This is the group that has been often been kept below the radar from public eye though they play a significant role in supporting the Prime Minister and his Cabinet in the development and execution of national policies. Due to their critical role, some of these elite talents are pegged on the same salary band with the ministers.

Sir, if and when the recommendations of the committee of political pay review are accepted, some civil servants will receive much higher packages than their ministers. Unlike the political appointment holders, they will continue to enjoy the retention of benefits such as the pension schemes which will be removed from the former.

a. Sir, paying for top talents especially for those who opt for a career in the civil service is not an issue. However, the same principles of rigour in job evaluation, accountability for KPIs and disclosure must be applied. If private firms and charities are expected to disclose the highest paid executives and their salary bands, there is no reason why there should be a cloak of secrecy over the Admin Service incumbents.

b. Sir, I ask the Prime Minister to conduct an independent review of top civil service leadership that will go beyond pay to attract, develop and retain talent for a capable and committed government.

CONCLUSION - HEAL OUR NATION

In conclusion, Sir, the review of political salaries is a work-in-progress. It needs further refinement but it is moving in the right direction. To reject it and to wait for it to be perfect and acceptable to every interested Singaporean, will mean the current system stays. And that to me, is not an option.

Like our opinion on this glass, some will continue to insist that it is half-full whilst others will insist that it is half-empty. And then there are those who will provide constructive ideas on how to completely fill the glass and make future reviews even sharper and more acceptable. This is the group who will help in the healing of the differences that have arisen out of the controversial subject of political pay.

On this note, I wish to thank the Prime Minister for slaying one of the sacred cows that has been a source of division and unhappiness amongst Singaporeans. I want to thank him too for graciously donating all of his pay rises in the last 5 years, in order to defend the policy of attracting and retaining talents to run our country.

I urge all of us as leaders of this country to develop a dream for Singapore that is so compelling that more leaders with both character and competence will come forward to serve, come what pay.

Chen Show Mao’s speech on Ministerial Salary Review 陈硕茂对于部长级薪酬检讨的国会演讲

http://wp.sg/2012/01/ministerial-salary-review-csm/

Chen Show Mao
"Because political service starts with our election as parliamentary representatives of the people, MP allowance should be the starting point. The Cabinet is the constitutional extension of Parliament not an extension of the private sector."

陈硕茂
“我们的政治领袖可不是直接由私人企业界遴选出来担任部长，而后再兼任民选议员的。相反的，他先得当选为议员，才能受委进入内阁担任部长。因此，部长薪金不应当与私人企业界的薪金水平挂钩，而是应该以国会议员的津贴为基准。“

================
Chen Show Mao’s speech on Ministerial Salary Review

Mr Speaker Sir,

The Workers’ Party view the committee’s report with a sense of hope because it is a step in the right direction. We agree with the three principles that political salaries should be competitive, that political service is a calling and has its own ethos, and that wages should be transparent.

Political service is a calling and not be treated as discount factor
However, the order by which the principles are applied has produced in our view a flawed new benchmark. Because competitive salary is placed as the first principle ahead of political service, the committee has pegged ministerial salary to the median salary of the 1000 top-earning Singaporeans and then applied a discount for political service.
If the new benchmark is accepted by the Government, it would continue to send the message, to potential political office holders and the people of Singapore alike, that top pay is the benchmark by which the importance of the office is to be judged, and that the value of political office can, in the final analysis, be monetized. It cannot be，Not even at the highest income levels. Political service is a calling; it is a privilege accorded by the electorate to serve the largest number of our fellow Singaporeans. It is primarily a privilege, not primarily a burden or sacrifice. The principle of political service should come first and not be treated as a discount factor.

Whole of Government, People-up approach

Because political service is in the genre of public service, we propose a whole-of-government, people-up approach that benchmarks Ministerial salary to MP allowance, which is in turn pegged to the pay of the civil service bench-marked to general wage levels. Because political service starts with our election as parliamentary representatives of the people, MP allowance should be the starting point. The Cabinet is the constitutional extension of Parliament and the institutional expression of the legislature’s control over the executive. It is not an extension of the private sector.

This whole-of-government, people-up approach is a pragmatic reality in many well-governed, developed countries and territories around the world.

Is Singapore unique? Of course. But it is not so dissimilar to others that we cannot learn from their best practices and how they apply good principles.

For example, the committee writes, “As is international practice in Westminster Parliamentary systems, the … political appointment holders will also receive MP allowances as they have the dual roles of being MPs”.

Parliament Sovereignty is paramount

We agree that the Ministers should receive their MP allowances. But that is because, Ministers are MPs first, they are not merely also MPs. We must remember that in our system of government, Ministers are first of all MPs elected by the people as their representatives. Not selected by the Prime Minister from the private sector into the Cabinet and then also MPs. Parliament is the highest authority in our system of government, and MPs, as elected representatives of the people, should be the starting point for the determination of ministerial salary. The committee’s benchmark to the private sector clouds this fact. Worker’s Party recommends pegging ministerial salary as multiples of MP allowance. This expresses the fact that ministers are first and foremost elected as MPs to serve and represent the people.
So in what multiples should Singapore peg ministerial salary to MP allowance? We propose that an entry-grade minister’s monthly salary be 5 times the MP allowance, and 9 times for the Prime Minister.
As DPM said, there are no right or wrong answers, and this is ultimately a judgment call. We propose multiples based on the increased responsibilities and additional capabilities and experience required of the different political offices in Singapore. We also believe that this is where the principles of competitive salary and transparency can come in, to take into consideration some of the factors cited by the committee as to why the system of Singapore may be different from those in other countries. In the words of DPM, we believe the pay should be sufficient to not deter potential political office holders with desire and ability, from serving in political office without undue concern for their standards of living.

Of course we would like to see capable men and women in the Cabinet. But I do not believe that our best people for political office are only those who make the most money. Many of our former and current Ministers did not come in from the private sector or the top earning professions, that is as we would expect. Many of them were public servants who heeded the call of political service by standing for elections.
Political service is in the nature of public service. We believe that MP allowance should be set with reference to the salary of senior executives in the regular civil service. This is consistent with the general practice in most of the countries and territories we surveyed.

The starting salary of entry-grade senior civil servants in the regular civil service — a director of MX9 grade in the Management Executive Scheme of the civil service (outside of the Administrative Service) is approximately $11,000 a month.

In our proposal, MP allowance would be about $11,000 per month, Ministerial salary would range from $55,000 per month for entry-grade ministers to $99,000 per month for the Prime Minister.

We support the clean wage proposal for transparency, in which compensation is fully accounted for with no hidden items. In addition to a fixed 13-month salary that is keyed to MP allowance, we propose that the ministers and the prime minister receive variable pay of different bonuses that add up to no more than five months in any year (compared to 13.5 months recommended by the committee). Many Singaporeans may take home up to 3 or 4 months of bonuses in a very good year, compared to 13.5 months for the ministers as recommended by the committee. In fact, if the maximum bonuses recommended by the committee were awarded, the reduction in entry-grade minister pay would be 8% and not the 31% calculated by the committee.
In our whole-of-government approach, since civil service salary is aligned to general market conditions faced by Singaporean workers, MP allowance and ministerial salary will move with the income levels of many more Singaporeans than with the total employment and trade income of the top-earning 1000, including their bonuses, commissions and stock options. The Workers’ Party’s benchmark will better help our leaders empathize with the majority of Singaporeans and not just the very few.
Inclusivity vs Exclusivity

The Workers’ Party’s proposed approach aims for enhanced inclusivity and sensitivity to the progress of Singaporeans, rather than discounted exclusivity pegged to top earners. We believe the committee has taken the right step forward with the three principles. It is up to the Government now to go further to apply the principles in the right order by recognizing political service as the first principle, anchored in the primacy of parliament. Let us place ministerial pay on a sound footing in order to ground political leadership in a strong sense of service to all Singaporeans.

Thank you. And now, if I may, in Chinese.

议长先生，

我们认可委员会提出的三大原则：一、政治职位薪金应该具有竞争力；二、从政应该有奉献的精神；三、薪酬应该完全透明。

但遗憾的是，这三大原则在奉行时的先后轻重，却使整套新的方程式出现了根本误区。把部长薪金与全国收入最高的1000人挂钩，然后为了反映政治服务的奉献精神再打个折，这个做法突显了委员会优先考虑的是高薪的原则，这只会进一步强化现有的错误观念，认定从政的价值到头来还是要以金钱来衡量。

我们当然希望有意愿从政的人不会因为薪水过低而裹足不前。但前提是，他立志从政该不是主要因为薪水高，而是因为他先把为国为民服务视为己任。这才是我们应当坚守的第一原则。

认清了从政的本质是公共服务，我们就应该采纳“整体政府”的方案，部长薪金应以议员津贴为基准，而议员津贴则与公务员薪水挂钩。毕竟，在我国的宪政体系下，内阁是国会的延伸，内阁从来不是私人企业界的延伸。

这么一种“整体政府”、由民间从下而上的方案，也在世界许多国家与地区推行。

当然, 新加坡的国情向来就是独一无二的。但再怎么特殊, 也不至于完全找不到其他体制值得我们学习的地方吧？

委员会的建议反映了一个政治盲点：我们的政治领袖可不是直接由私人企业界遴选出来担任部长，而后再兼任民选议员的。相反的，他先得当选为议员，才能受委进入内阁担任部长。因此，部长薪金不应当与私人企业界的薪金水平挂钩，而是应该以国会议员的津贴为基准。

认清这一点后，我们可以考虑第二及第三个原则了：议员津贴的多大倍数才足以确保部长薪金保有竞争力，而又透明化？工人党的建议是：部长薪金应介于议员津贴的五倍至九倍之间，以初级部长倍数最低，总理倍数最高。这个范畴比国际标准来得高，应该足以反映新加坡独特的国情。

委员会的建议所反映的另一个误区是，认定最优秀的从政人才该出自收入最高的1000人当中。我们现任与前任的部长当中，就有好多位并不是私人企业界或者高薪专业出身的。不少部长来自公共服务领域，更有些是先从议员做起，慢慢累积政治经验后再升任部长。

整体来说，以收入水平论从政才能，反映的恰恰是我们的社会典型的精英主义的狭隘心态。

综上所述，我们建议采取“整体政府”方案，部长薪金是议员津贴的倍数，而议员津贴则等同于高级公务员的起薪， 大约每月11000元。而既然公务员的薪金也与新加坡其他员工一样取决于经济状况及市场条件，这个方案更能确保部长薪金不会与人民的薪金水平脱钩。与其由私人企业界收入最高的1000名精英由上而下再打折，我们认为较适当的做法是从民间由下而上，由公务员薪金为起点，制定议员津贴，最后再乘以倍数制定部长薪金。
我们支持实行透明化的裸薪制。但是委员会建议的花红数额显然过高了。报告书说部长将减薪31%，那是以平均7个月的花红来计算得出的结果。但是花红总数额最高可达13个半月，如果花红全领了，部长薪水基本上比检讨前只减少8%。

因此，工人党建议，在固定的十三个月年薪以外，部长与总理所获得的所有花红数额，应该设定顶限，总共不得超过五个月。这么一来，在景气好表现好的年度里，部长与总理，可领多至十八个月的薪水，而不是委员会所建议的26个半月。

工人党期许部长薪金制度能以更包容更贴近民生的方式来制定，而不是只局限在社会金字塔顶层的一小撮精英范畴内，而后再通过打折，努力地尝试贴近民生。委员会所制定的三大原则是值得肯定的，接下来就有待政府如何将这三大原则的先后轻重厘清，充分体现政治领导层为国为民服务的使命感和高尚本质。

谢谢。