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
Showing posts with label 政治politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 政治politics. Show all posts
13 June 2012
30 May 2012
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
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
10 May 2012
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
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
26 April 2012
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
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
12 April 2012
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
23 February 2012
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)
21 January 2012
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
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
17 January 2012
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.
16 January 2012
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。
15 January 2012
2012總統大選 蔡英文選後板橋競選總部發表談話
2012年台灣在野黨落選總統候選人蔡英文
『我們所團結的力量，是一股不可以忽視的力量，這一股力量，不能潰散，也不能消失。各位，你們真的不要懷憂喪志。台灣不能沒有反對的聲音，台灣不能沒有制衡的力量。未來這四年，雖然我們沒有辦法以執政者的角色，來實踐我們的理想；但是，這並不代表，在野就沒有力量。』
==================
謝謝大家在這裡等，尤其下這麼大的雨，大家還這樣情意相挺，大家等我們來，來跟大家說一聲： 謝謝，謝謝大家！
我們在場的朋友、在電視機前面很多國人同胞，還有網路上的網友，大家晚安。
對於今天2012年總統選舉的結果，我們敗選，我要在此向大家致上最深的歉意。
我們承認敗選，也願意接受台灣人民在這次選舉裡面所做的決定。我知道，很多支持者聽我這樣講或許會覺得心碎，可是在這裡，我們還是要恭喜馬總統。希望他在往後四年，要傾聽人民的聲音，要用心執政，要公平的照顧每一個人民，千萬不要辜負人民的期待。
我知道此刻大家的心情。今天，我相信有很多人原本期待勝利，但是，現實不盡如人意。但是，我要跟大家說，我們要堅強，我們一定要堅強，我們一定要比誰都堅強。我們是民進黨，我們過去在面對挫折的時候，我們從來沒有倒下過。以前不會，我知道，這一次也一定不會。
我要請大家回想一下，四年前，我們曾經是這麼的絕望，我們所要挑戰的山頂，曾經被認為是遙不可及。但是，我們咬著牙，整個黨團結在一起，在這四年，一步一步的往前走。這一次，我們已經接近山頂，我們還差一哩路。
我要告訴大家，這樣的結果很遺憾，但是，我們不是一無所有。
我們對小額募款的堅持，樹立了新的政治典範。我們提出的政策主張，在台灣未來的發展中，依然扮演關鍵的力量。
最重要的是，我們所團結的力量，是一股不可以忽視的力量，這一股力量，不能潰散，也不能消失。各位，你們真的不要懷憂喪志。台灣不能沒有反對的聲音，台灣不能沒有制衡的力量。未來這四年，雖然我們沒有辦法以執政者的角色，來實踐我們的理想；但是，這並不代表，在野就沒有力量。
我相信，只要大家繼續站在我們身後，給我們支持，給我們鞭策，我們一定還有未來！下一次，我們一定可以走完最後一里路！
接下來，我要以民主進步黨主席的身分，感謝大家對民主進步黨立委提名人的支持，讓民進黨的國會席次成長。他們未來，會在立法院扮演人民的代言人，會把人民的困難放在心上，努力提升公共政策的品質，讓每一個國民都得到最好的照顧。
民進黨的轉型跟改革，不會停止。我們堅持和弱勢人民站在一起，我們堅持政策理性，我們堅持以小額募款擺脫對財團的依賴。我們會一直做下去，總有一天，我們會贏得多數人民的信任。
雖然我們很努力，但是，我們要完成最後的理想，這條路比我們想像得更漫長，我們還可以做得更好。面對今天的結果，民進黨會認真的做一個檢討，會把它當作一個警惕。
敗選的責任，由我一肩扛起來。我剛剛已經宣布，辭去民主進步黨的黨主席。我相信，下一任的黨主席，一定會堅持，繼續堅持民進黨的改革轉型，帶領大家繼續走下去。
最後，蔡英文也要以個人的身分，感謝大家一路相伴。這四年，是很美好的旅程，我們一起並肩作戰，在我的心中，你們不只是投票給我的人，你們是我最好的夥伴。
今天晚上，我相信大家心裡都很難過；如果你心裡真的很難過，就讓它發洩出來。你可以哭泣，但不要洩氣。你可以悲傷，但是不要放棄。因為明天起來，我們要像過去四年一樣的勇敢，心裡充滿著希望。因為，我們必須勇敢地扛起這個國家的責任，我們必須樂觀地，繼續為台灣這塊土地打拼。
無論我們在哪個位置上，這個國家，都需要我們繼續愛她、呵護她。
各位親愛的台灣人民，有一天，我們會再回來，我們不會放棄。在2012年的這一天，支持民進黨，支持蔡英文，我相信是一件驕傲的事。我們抬起頭，堅強勇敢的走下去。謝謝大家，我的心會永遠跟台灣人民站在一起。
03 January 2012
湯姆與哈克-站火車
林北支持
【搶救火車票！緊急動員！】
各位住在花東，喜歡花東的朋友注意呀！
你能忍受一般週末、逢年過節回花東都要「站火車」嗎？
甚至，台鐵於昨日發新聞說，未來有可能自強號不賣站票，連火車都沒的站！！！
相信大家都知道明天早上六點要起床訂過年車票的事情～
這種擠破頭又不一定有車票的感覺總讓人憤怒！
明天上午十點，花東青年們將在台北車站跟花蓮車站兩地同時舉辦記者會
要求台鐵「先給車票，再談舒適」，
不要讓「自強號取消站位、東部人無票可歸」
集合時間：1/4(三) 上午九點半。（記者會十點開始，十點半前結束）
花蓮集合地點：花蓮火車站正門口
台北集合地點：台北火車站東三門（靠中山北路那面最南邊的出口，車站內郵局方向）
兩地現場都將請大家一起演唱湯姆與哈克的「站火車」（獲得原創同意）
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWcuf0jlR-k
讓大家知道我們的困境，大聲講出我們心中的怒火！
聯絡人：地球公民基金會
花蓮－黃斐悅－0920-711105
台北－曾雨涵－0963-013692
台北－蔡中岳－0912-521216
台鐵打算在今年9月起136輛新太魯閣號及292輛800型區間車陸續到位後，將台鐵自強號比照太魯閣號，不再銷售站票，若有乘客違規站立搭乘，將加罰5成票價。
摘自2012.1.2新聞【自強號明年不賣站票，票違規加罰5成票價】
http://tw.nextmedia.com/realtimenews/article/new/20120102/103732/
東部一群人聯盟將在近日內討論，希望有下一波具體行動唷！
我們無法接受台鐵自強號將加價的決策，呼籲政府立即調整東部班次，
請台鐵「先給座位，再講舒適！」
具體訴求目標：
(註: 座位數及車班已經過計算，大致為台鐵應能達到數量，但主要目的就是提升運量，確切座位數或班次歡迎討論)
(一) 台北-花蓮間
1.花蓮往台北單向:
週日下午尖峰六小時(2~8點)，10000個座位
週五下午尖峰三小時(5~8點)，5000個座位
2.台北往花蓮單向:
週五下午尖峰三小時(6~9點)，5000個座位
週六上午尖峰三小時(7~10點)，5000個座位
(二) 花蓮-台東間
花蓮往台東、台東往花蓮:
每日6:00~21:00 十五小時間，花蓮-台東之間(雙向)每小時都有對號列車
訴求目的：
西部人可以選擇高鐵、臺鐵、客運等不同運輸方式，在小小的台北車站週邊，每5分鐘就有一種運輸工具前往台中；但東部人僅有臺鐵和航空兩種聯外運輸方式，「這班搭不到、再等一小時」，故政府有提供東部居民便捷大眾運輸之義務，而不是只有營利考量。
提供西部與東部「平等」的運輸便利性，並不是指要「多快」能抵達，重點在於「密集」的運輸服務。對於高度仰賴鐵路的東部民眾而言，列車越密集，就等同於兩地之間的時間越快。時間越快，返鄉的路更近、觀光客的「距離感受」也就能更緊密。
東部民眾，很渺小的心願，與西部人擁有同等密度水準的大眾運輸。只要列車密度越高、座位數越充足，家，就不再是東部人心中遙遠的地方。
發起單位：東部發展聯盟, 東部一群人聯盟
連絡信箱：huatung2010@gmail.com
=============
99.05.08
地點:女巫店
【站火車】
詞/曲 Tom
西部的火車 每台都真豪華
東部的火車 每台都是銅汞仔車
這款的情形 你難道攏不知道
西部的火車 常常碼勒 漏空車
東部的火車 買票都要拜託大官
這種的情形 要哭碼無眼屎啦
**別人是 坐火車 去台北 阮是要 站火車去台北
哪想到站火車 我的心情就冷一半
別人是 坐火車 去台北 阮是要 站火車去台北
哪想到站火車 你爸就一LP火啦**
阮老爸 自少年 站火車 站到搭
不知道偉大的政府 到現在 在弄啥
一張票 貴松松 一台車 擠隆隆
西部的火車 是電氣化 現代化
要坐火車的時陣 隨時碼 攏免驚
這邊是賺嘎爽嘎 那邊是了嘎策嘎 (**)
10 December 2011
The Malaysian Insider - Jakim declares book on Lee Kuan Yew haram @ Thu Dec 08 2011
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/jakim-declares-book-on-lee-kuan-yew-haram/
Malaysia
Jakim declares book on Lee Kuan Yew haram
By Shannon Teoh
December 08, 2011KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 8 —
Federal Islamic authorities have declared haram a book in which Singapore’s founding father Lee Kuan Yew urged Muslims in Singapore to be “less strict on Islamic observances.”
Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going, a collection of interviews published in January, was included in a list of 15 books declared haram by the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (Jakim).
Jakim’s planning and research division confirmed the decision was made when its committee on the censorship of publications with Islamic elements met in October.
However, both the division’s director and Jakim director general Datuk Othman Mustapha have not responded to queries by The Malaysian Insider on why the decision was made nine months after the book hit the shelves in Malaysia.
According to procedure, the list of books declared haram is sent to the home ministry for further action but it is unclear if the home ministry has followed suit and banned the books.
Othman’s predecessor Datuk Wan Mohamad Sheikh Abdul Aziz had said in February that Lee was unsuccessful in developing the mindset of the Singaporean public because he was “still influenced by the landscape of the 1960s which were full of prejudice and presumptions against Muslims.”
Lee, who served in Singapore’s Cabinet as PM, senior minister and minister mentor for 52 years before retiring in May, said in the book that Muslims in Singapore were socially “distinct and separate” and should “be less strict on Islamic observances” to aid integration and the city-state’s nation-building process.
It led to uproar from Malay and Muslims groups on both sides of the Causeway with his old rival and former Malaysian PM Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad accusing Lee of having no respect for religion.
Lee later retracted his statement in March ahead of general elections in the island which has a 15 per cent Malay-Muslim population.
His son Lee Hsien Loong led the ruling People’s Action Party to its worst ever performance in this year's Singapore general election, gaining just 60 per cent of popular support.
Lee, 88, admitted last month he has been suffering from a nerve illness for the past two years which prevents him from walking steadily.
Other books in the haram list include Sebongkah Batu Di Kuala Berang by Faisal Tehrani, Mengenal Diri: Ilmu Peninggalan Tok Kenali by Mohd Yusof Che Wook and The Teachings of the Quran by H. U. Weitbrecht Stanton
extracted from The Malaysian Insider Website
05 November 2011
To Mr. Khaw Boon Wan, What did you expect? from PaSsu Diary- Journal of an Ordinary Bhutanese:
http://www.passudiary.com/2011/10/to-mr-khaw-boon-wan-what-did-you-expect.html
To Mr. Khaw Boon Wan, What did you expect?
(This is in reply to National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan of Singapore on his comments made on our country )
Dear Mr. Khaw,
I was not surprised when you said Bhutan is not the last Shangri-la on Earth, because I had a friend from your country who found Bhutan only "full of mountains and valleys". When you visited Bhutan, what did you expect? Those flying mountains you saw in Avatar? or Every Bhutanese merrily dancing in designer clothes? Well, you must have at least expected fancier cars and taller buildings but we only have taller mountains (not flying ones) and thicker forest (truly natural).
I am not surprised even when you said "Most of the time, I saw unhappy people, toiling in the field, worried about the next harvest and whether there would be buyers for their products." because I heard a proverb in school that goes, "Two men looked through the prison window, one saw the mud and other saw the horizon". I am only surprised that you have spend "Most of your time" in Bhutan looking in the fields. I am amazed at your ability to figure out whether the people are happy or unhappy just by looking at them- O' you even knew they were "worried about the next harvest". No wonder you country export human resources.
I visited your wonderful country sometime ago, and it felt like a city from the future. The transportation system held me spell bound, Cleanliness of the street is so much that I didn't find a fragment of dust on my shoes after walking for the hours, Every building and car looks new, and there is no question about the civic sense among the people. Four days after I landed in Bhutan I woke up and started sharing the stories of your wonderful country- yes it took me four days of sleeping to shake of the hangover of many sleepless nights in your 24X7 country. I read the amazing history of your country and thought to myself, if Bhutan's to develop, Singapore can be our vision.
But since you questioned the presence of happiness in Bhutan, let me answer by telling you few things that you overlooked when you visited my country. Those people you saw in the fields weren't unhappy, if you have gone closer you would have heard them singing and enjoying the social lives, perhaps you won't understand that. If you have spent a little longer time watching them, you would have seen and a woman with basket on her back and holding arms with several children coming with steaming food- we don't have McDonald or KFC. Then everybody will sit down to eat their lunch, laughing and joking, feeding babies, for over an hour- you wouldn't have had so much time to sit and watch I know, times means money in your country. But we have luxury of time. People don't worry "about the next harvest and whether there would be buyers for their products." In fact, we don't do much commercial farming, we do most of them to keep with the tradition. And when the sun sets, doesn't really matter what time, people leave for their homes where they have a large family waiting. Large family because we don't chase away our children when they become 18 or children cast away their parents when they age.
We don't need Health Insurance to survive, no have to go for Education Loan for educating our children. We don't hang the drug users, we counsel them to hang on to their lives, we don't have to have a job to survive, and when we fall sick even the furthest cousin comes to attend without having to update Facebook status.
If you reread our history you will find that our wise kings have hidden us from the outside world so that we could remain the way we are today. If we start mining our mountains and lumbering our forests, we can become Singapore in a year but no matter what you do you can never become Bhutan. It is far too difficult. We shall be the last breath of oxygen on earth.
Bhutan may not be the Last Shangri-la but we are happy.
By PaSsu at 1:01 AM
22 October 2011
My reply to Minster Khaw on his comment "Bhutan is not the 'Shangri-la on earth'"
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1160414/1/.html#.TqGXPJgselY.facebook
Bhutan is not the 'Shangri-la on earth', says Khaw
Posted: 19 October 2011 1839 hrs
Khaw Boon Wan speaking in Parliament
SINGAPORE: The measure of happiness has been a topic of debate in Parliament over the last few days, and constant references to Bhutan have been made as well.
National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan joined the debate, saying he visited the small nation a few years ago and the romanticised version of the ancient kingdom did not fit the reality he saw there.
In his speech in Parliament on Wednesday, he said Bhutan is not the "Shangri-la on earth" that some make it out to be.
Mr Khaw said: "Most of the time, I saw unhappy people, toiling in the field, worried about the next harvest and whether there would be buyers for their products. They have studied us because Singapore is also a tiny nation, living next to big neighbours.
"We have successfully transited from third world to first, and managed to create a functioning and harmonious society for our people. In their minds, Singapore could well be the Shangri-la and they want Bhutan to emulate Singapore."
Meanwhile, Minister of State for Manpower and National Development Tan Chuan-Jin weighed in on the discussion on what some perceive to be the government's obsession with economic growth at all costs.
He said the pursuit of GDP should not be an end but a means to an end.
Mr Tan said the main preoccupation at weekly Cabinet meetings has been to provide for Singaporeans and Singapore.
He added that the government is not perfect and there are things that it can do better and it will do its utmost.
"Life cannot be whittled down into an efficient equation, however effective it may be. Not everything is an economic digit; some of the most important things in life cannot be quantified. At the end of it all, it is about us as Singaporeans, and the future we want to build for our children. And we as the government must have the courage to play our role to lead and do the right things," said Mr Tan.
- CNA /ls
19 October 2011
“No, it is not even though we’re different, we are one. It is because we are different, we are one.” “政者正也， 子帅以正，孰敢不正”
http://www.wp.sg/2011/10/chen-show-maos-speech-debate-on-presidents-address/
Chen Show Mao’s speech (Debate on President’s Address)
Mr Speaker, Thank you, and congratulations.
Following our two elections this year, some commentators tell us that Singaporeans’ political differences are rising to the surface. Many of our leaders have expressed their concerns about the differences. They warned of divisions and called for unity. I’d like to remind us that differences are not divisions. It is the intolerance of differences that will be divisive.
I would like to quote a man who is not able to join us here today. In a newspaper interview, former Minister for Foreign Affairs George Yeo related what a Roman Catholic cardinal told him about the late Pope John Paul the Second. The cardinal had drafted, “Even though we’re all different because we speak different languages, we are one”. The Pope corrected him. “No, it is not even though we’re different, we are one. It is because we are different, we are one.” Mr Yeo then said, “I thought that was so profound and beautiful. In my first speech to the United Nations, I repeated that story because in the UN, it is also because we are different that we are one. To be a human being is to be different. The whole logic and driving force of biological life is diversification. An imposed unity is a false unity; it’s a contradiction in terms. To me, that is a core position, and Singapore is an expression of that core position.”
Singapore is an expression of that core position of diversity, and this must include political diversity in this day and age. Let me state quite clearly how I see myself as an opposition member of this parliament. I may challenge government policy in parliament, but I do not by definition oppose government policy. It does not mean that I do not support the government in its work. It is very simple. I am an opposition MP and will perform my role to voice alternative and opposing views in the law-making process, based on my party philosophy. But I submit to laws properly made because I believe they express the sovereign will of our people. You see, I do not believe that Parliament is just form, and no substance. I have been elected to serve in this Parliament and will do what I can to help make it work for Singapore, make it a First World Parliament after our own fashion. As an opposition MP, I am not the enemy of the government, I am a Singaporean and a patriot.
I believe that our community will come out of robust debates stronger. Not just in Parliament but in larger society as well. Social cohesion will be strengthened when we give people, including our young people, room to voice their views and grievances and participate in community affairs. This is being recognized in households and at work places around us and is affecting how they are run. There is no reason not to learn from it. But we must start from a position of difference, not a forced unity.
How do we move forward from a position of difference?
A wise Singaporean wrote to me recently on Facebook, “the key is always to set our ‘devilish’ pride aside and for both parties to communicate.” He did not mean political parties, but any two parties in a position of difference. He goes on, “The aim is not to impose one’s view over the other but to find as much common ground as possible for the good of the common objective both parties have… And yes, I have always practised this in the office and with the wife…so far so good.”
How do we expand the areas of common ground to accommodate political differences? I believe it will be best done through strengthening institutions that are non-partisan and capable of commanding the respect and allegiance of all Singaporeans in spite of their political differences. The office of the Presidency, for example. President Tan clearly intends this. In his swearing in ceremony he said, “I will strive to strengthen our common bonds and our core values that underpin our society. …Whatever your political views,… I will strive to the best of my abilities to represent you.”
The government in the addenda to the President’s address said, “The building of friendship, understanding and trust amidst increasing diversity will be supported through organisations such as the People’s Association and grassroots platforms such as the Inter-racial and Religious Confidence Circles.” We welcome this.
Let us Singaporeans take our cue from the President. Look for what Singaporeans’ different visions have in common and take our next steps in these areas of common ground. Let us ask ourselves “is there more we could do?” I believe that it would always be possible to find common ground among Singaporeans, even if it might now take greater efforts on the part of those of us here in this House. But it is possible – they call politics “the art of the possible”.
HUMAN CAPITAL
Mr Speaker
In the addenda to the President’s address, the government announced its plans to, “significantly enhance the transport infrastructure, quality and opportunities in education, healthcare and housing”. We endorse the goal. And we will hold the government to it.
We believe that Singaporeans in recent years have been underserved by enhancements in these areas. We believe that most of these enhancements are best thought of, not just as increased expenditure, but as investments in the human capital of our country, with long term benefits to our society, such as the productivity increase that the government calls our “fundamental economic challenge”. Adam Smith wrote many years ago about investments in a person, such as by the acquisition of new talents, he wrote, “such acquisition of talents always costs a real expense, which is a capital realized in his person. [but] Those talents, as they make a part of his fortune, so do they likewise that of the society to which he belongs.”
Many economists have long regarded expenditures on education and healthcare as investments in human capital. They produce income and other useful outputs for the individual over long periods of time. They also produce external benefits for the rest of society. When growing disparity in wealth suggest that more and more households may not be able to make the investments that may be needed to give their children a place at the same starting line as their cohorts, it is even more appropriate for the government to increase public investments in the human capital of our young people.
This is one of the goals the government set in the addenda to the President’s address: “Through our investment in Education, we ensure that every child, regardless of family circumstances and background, has access to opportunities.” That access to opportunities has to be meaningful and available to everyone.
Similarly, for many expenditures we make outside the areas of education and healthcare, If we just take an expanded view of the returns from these investments, we will be able to see their long-term benefits.
Take elder care for example. Our investments in this area do not just benefit our elders alone. They enhance the productivity of working family members who worry about their care. They sustain and unlock the rich social and cultural capital embodied in our elders, which enhance the efficacy of our economic capital. More importantly, taking good care of our elders who built the nation is the right thing to do in the “fair and just society” that the President wishes for Singapore. It strengthens our sense of community. It is consistent with the values that we wish to impart to our children. These are all intangible but significant returns on our investments.
This is part of our nationhood: these are the bonds that will hold us together in times of trouble.
Our social harmony needs to be sustained and cultivated, carefully ministered. We must invest in these efforts.
“People are the real wealth of a nation”, declared the United Nations’ inaugural Human Development Report over twenty years ago. “People are the real wealth of a nation,” this is especially true for our nation. Let us put our people at the center of our government policies.
Let us invest in Singaporeans. Invest in the future of Singapore.
Significant investments cannot be made all at once. In addition to fiscal discipline, we would need to watch out for inflation, for effects on our currency and competitiveness. But the investments must be made. So we should start now and engage in a long term sustainable investment pattern for the good of our people.
CONCLUSION
Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister concludes in his National Day rally speech that “ours is an improbable nation”. I cannot agree more with his call for all Singaporeans to treasure and fight for our improbable nation.
I would like to add that an improbable nation will be made more probable for future Singaporeans by the politics of possibility.
Mr Speaker, sir, I support the motion. And now in Chinese.
在今年的两次选举之后，我们许多领导人都提到团结的重要。全国人民现在必须上下一心，步伐一致地向前迈进。
他们有人认为新加坡有政治分裂，不利於团结与将来发展。但是各位想想，这分裂是怎么造成的？ 是因为社会出现了不同的声音，还是因为不能包容不同的声音才会造成分裂？
“政者正也， 子帅以正，孰敢不正”，“为政以德，譬如北辰，居其所而众星拱之”，“风行草偃”，这些都是孔子说的来形容好的执政者，意思就是，一个好的领导者，只要有信心，有正确的方向，有好的道德与能力把政绩做出来，人民自然会乐意跟著他走。不需要害怕国家分裂，强调团结。
爱国的权利不是任何一个政党可以独占的。一个党再伟大也只是国家的一部分而已，不是国家全部啊！陈独秀说过，＂党外无党，帝王思想。＂在民主社会里，有不同的意见，不同的建议，是很自然的事情。这也是好事。
其实孔子三千年前就已说过，“君子和而不同”。和谐，可却不尽相同。晏婴说过：乐团只演奏一个音符，谁听得下去？白开水上再加白开水，谁喝得下去？一个和谐的社会，不只有一种声音。而是每个人很和平的在法律的範围内发表他的看法，从事政治活动。我们不必防民如防贼。
在中国历史上最伟大的贞观之治就不是一言堂式的全民团结，就是有喜欢諌言喜欢说真话不怕被唐太宗讨厌的魏徵，才有了贞观之治。
在这国会的任期里，希望明理的执政党可以做唐太宗，而我们来做魏徵，开出太平盛世，而不是一个执政者独断，而小人唯唯诺诺的世代。
我屡次与国外的人接触，大家似乎有一种感觉，觉得新加坡守成有馀但开创不足，似乎欠缺了那创新的能力。在这全球化的竞争下，我们国家不是应该培养出更多有主见、有创造力的新一代吗？
李前总理在演说中也说了他担忧我们年轻人，生活太过安逸。可见李前总理也想过这问题。真正完整的人格、独立的精神，是不可能在一个凡事听从独大的执政党，凡事唯唯诺诺的环境下生成。我们要我们下一代有创新、有独立自主精神，就不能不在政治上、精神上给他一个自由竞争的环境。这要求及这深深的忧虑不安其实是隐藏在许多新加坡人心中，在全球化激烈的竞争下，我们的竞争力难道只能靠执政党的完全控制来达成吗？
所以我们在野党是为了国家的好，才提出建言与批判，爱国不是执政党的专利，希望我们能在各自的岗位上演好自己的角色，这样我们的国家才能有活力、创造力的向前进步。
最後我要提醒执政党除了对自己有信心以外，对国人也要有信心。但我也要感谢执政党，把新加坡建设成一个成熟的法治社会，让我们在野党，可以在一个合法的基础上与执政党并存，竞争,为人民服务。
谢谢。
Chen Show Mao’s speech (Debate on President’s Address) (Mr Chen is the member of Parliament, Aljunied Group Representation Constituency, Paya Lebar Ward)
extracted from The Workers' Party Website
阿裕尼集选区（巴耶利峇）国会议员陈硕茂先生演讲（关于总统献辞）
转载自新加坡工人党网站
01 October 2011
从新闻看香港与新加坡政府和人民如何处理永久居民问题
http://www.zaobao.com.sg/sp/sp110929_001.shtml
总人口增加10万7000达518万人
我国永久居民人口首度萎缩
（2011-09-29）
● 周殊钦 报道
尽管本地永久居民人口自2005年来首次出现萎缩，但是由于公民人口和非居民人口继续增长，使得新加坡的总人口还是同比增加了10万7000，达518万人。
根据新加坡统计局昨天公布的2011年人口趋势报告，截至今年六月，新加坡公民比去年同期增加了2万6500人至326万人、永久居民则减少了9000人至53万人，而非居民人口则增加6.9％，达139万。
非居民包括那些持工作准证、就业准证、长期社交访问准证及学生证等在本地逗留的外国人。
政府自2009年起收紧移民政策的效果，明显地反映在永久居民人口过去两年的变化。永久居民人口逐年的增幅从前年的11.5％，猛减至去年的1.5％，今年更是首度出现萎缩，减至53万人，进而促使居民人口的增幅也从去年的1％，放缓至今年的0.5％。
居民人口是由公民人口和永久居民人口这两部分所组成。
然而，非居民人口却出现较去年更快速的增幅，去年非居民人口的增幅只有4.1％。这是因为我国就业市场去年增长强劲，所创造的工作机会远比本地人口所能填补的为多。
针对我国人口增长趋势，新加坡国立大学社会学系副教授陈恩赐注意到，人口在一年里增加超过10万人，犹如我国在一年之内出现多一个大巴窑新镇。而这对我国的基础设施和社会资源还是会造成不小的压力。
“除非当局有办法扩大社会资源以容纳更多的人口，民众未必容易接受政府之前所提出已收紧移民政策的说法。”
政治观察家、新加坡管理大学法律系助理教授陈庆文也有同样关注。他指出，调整移民政策需要时间才能见效，而一般国人也未必会去区分永久居民和非居民。
由于基础设施的扩建跟不上外来人口增长的速度，人们过去几年来因必须面对越来越挤迫的社会空间，而日益感到不满。不少观察家更把这个备受批评的移民政策，指为影响今年五月大选结果的重要因素之一。
而前内阁资政李光耀也曾透露，按照人民行动党对大选结果的分析，行动党之所以得票率下跌了6个百分点，主要是因为房屋供给不足以应付需求，以及公共交通拥挤不堪。
政策研究院最近公布的一项人口课题研究表明，如要维持我国劳动队伍的活力，引进新移民似乎是不可避免的选项。
昨天由国家人口及人才署、新加坡统计局、内政部和移民与关卡局联合发表的人口简要报告，也再次透露政府对移民政策，乃至更宏观的人口管理政策背后更深层的隐忧。
据报告数据显示，我国人口在每况愈下的低生育率和日渐加长的预期寿命的双重影响下，人口老龄化的趋势也越来越明显。以年满65岁者为例，这个年龄层所占居民人口的比率已从2000年的7.2％提高到9.3％。老年人口的比重不断上升，意味着全体国人将担负更高的社会经济成本。
这从老年人口赡养比例（old-age support ratio）的变化趋势可以看出。以公民人口而言，这个比例在2000年是9.3，去年是7.2，今年进一步下跌至7.0。换言之，在十年前，大约有超过9名年龄介于15岁至64岁的公民一起赡养一名年满65岁者，现在只剩下7名这么做。
此外，除了生育率继续下滑至去年的1.15，远低于2.1这个自然人口替代率，人口趋势报告还显示我国去年注册结婚的数目，自2003年以来首次下降，只有2万4363桩，比前年的2万6081桩减少了6.6％。
chuching@sph.com.sg
转载自联合早报网
http://www.zaobao.com.sg/sp/sp110929_001.shtml
==========================
高院裁决：入境条例违反《基本法》
港十多万外佣可申请永久居留
戴庆成 (2011-10-01)
香港高等法院昨天裁定香港的入境条例违反《基本法》，当地超过十万名外籍女佣将有资格申请成为香港永久居民。但特区政府随即提出上诉，并向原讼法庭申请延迟执行裁决。
虽然这起官司未知最终会“鹿死谁手”，但连日来已引发香港民众热议，甚至演变成一场社会和政治风波。
香港雇主团体对法院的裁决表示失望，担心会影响社会资源分配，认为特区政府有需要寻求人大释法。但也有法律学者认为，法院对《基本法》的诠释属于高度自治范畴，无须提请人大释法。
这次事件，缘于一名1986年以来一直在港工作，大部分时间都在为同一个家庭服务的菲佣伊万杰琳（Evangeline Banao Vallejos）。她在2008年4月向香港入境处申请成为香港永久居民，但处方根据《入境条例》有关条文拒绝其申请。同年12月，她向人事登记处申请再度被拒，遂向人事登记审裁处提出上诉，但也于去年6月被驳回。
不过，港高等法院昨天裁定，《入境条例》中不把外佣在港工作归类为“通常居住”的做法，违反《基本法》第24条。换言之，居港七年的外佣有资格申请居港权。
判词解释，即使外佣规定要在雇主的家留宿，也不可以改变外佣是在港居住的事实，加上外佣是自愿地留港工作，也受到香港劳工法例保障有休息日、工余时间可以进修，以及享有参与娱乐、宗教及社交活动的自由，因此不应该被剔出通常居港的定义。
高院26日再开庭宣布如何实施裁决
香港高院将于10月26日再次开庭，宣布如何落实及实施裁决内容。
据港府早前估计，目前香港有30万名外籍佣工，其中11万7000人已居港逾七年。高院作出裁定后，外佣团体“亚洲外佣协调会”发言人指出，裁决体现法治胜利，反映港尊重人权。
发言人说：“这不只是令外佣得益，也对香港形象有裨益。第一，判决捍卫了平等待遇，公平对待外佣；第二，判决也是反对歧视，对香港形象是好事，对香港社会也是好事。”
菲律宾官方也欢迎香港法院有关裁决。专责佣工事务的副总统比奈认为，在海外的菲律宾佣工对当地经济有重大贡献，香港法庭的裁决肯定了这一点。
印度尼西亚劳工部负责海外劳务的官员则盛赞香港为印尼海外劳工的最佳工作地点之一：“我们希望这个裁决能够成为一种标杆（benchmark），其他国家都效法。”
然而，许多港人就担心，港府输掉官司后，目前在港工作、数以十万计的外佣恐怕都会申请在港定居，结果将对政府资源、就业市场构成前所未有的压力。
资深律师梁家杰则认为，入境条例判违宪不代表外佣就拥有居港权，有关申请会否成功还要看入境部门是否批准。
保安局局长李少光表示决定就判决提出上诉，并会向原讼法庭申请延迟执行裁决。
李少光指出，如果入境处现在仍处理申请，将对很多香港家庭造成严重影响；如判决最后被推翻，也可能无法挽回后果及损失，强调有关做法符合公众利益。
他同时强调，暂时无须改变香港的外佣输入安排，以减低对雇用外佣家庭的影响。
对于港府一旦再次败诉，应否提请人大释法，香港社会各界意见不一。香港家庭佣工雇主协会主席罗军典指出，希望特区政府提出上诉，甚至在终审庭未作出终极判决前，向人大提请释法。
前保安局局长、新民党主席叶刘淑仪则表示，最理想的方法是由香港法庭自行解决，但若港府最终败诉，无能力解决这个问题，就要由人大释法解决。
不过，香港大学法律学院助理教授张达明认为，法院对《基本法》的诠释属于高度自治范畴，不需要提请人大释法。
张达明指出，很多外佣合约期满后都会回乡，不符合《基本法》订明以港作为永久居住地，相信只有少数人符合资格。
（编辑：梁嘉芪 联合早报）
转载自联合早报网
http://www.zaobao.com.sg/photoweb/pages3/hk111001.shtml
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)