我們的靈魂在哪裡？

今天參加外甥的頒獎禮。在台下的我，進入井井有條會場，看著微笑的總統蒞臨，聽著教育部長的熱情致詞，順著沒有意外的典禮進行，看著台上機械式的笑容和合影。我自已察覺我情緒越來越多。

對於工作，對於工作流程，對於人事，對於需要安排得有條不紊的世界，我感到厭倦了。厭倦不是因為討厭秩序，喜歡雜亂無章。而是覺得這有條理的世界，缺少了人的味道與氣息。我們的靈魂在哪裡？

覺得人的世界是有機( organic)的。有機不只是用在蔬菜農產品。Organic在英文其中一個意思是" close to nature"，就是接近或者趨向自然的意思。

什麼是自然？自然是傷心哭泣，高興鼓掌。而不是主持人在事前，告訴你在總統來的時候一定要拍手鼓掌。當然，如果是循序漸進的暖場，那又另當別論。(主持人其實也沒有提示大家要站起來，但是大家也自動自發的站起來啊？)

部長在演講時候，我心裡在嘀咕這一定又是主辦單位為他準備的講稿。因為演講沒有靈魂，沒有激情，連隨著內容情緒的起伏都可以看出是偽裝的。

總統在頒獎，尤其中後段的時候，完全是機械式的接獎狀，握手，面對鏡頭，微笑，頒獎，發呆，下一個。我還跟姐姐開玩笑說：幹嘛每個活人，當了總統都變成機器人啊？

頒獎後，總統安排和獲獎者寒暄。這些學生大概是平時乖巧不越軌的，臨時出問題的機會比較少。

想著想著，我的情緒越來越激動。猛然發現，我幾個月前還在進行同樣的勾當，策劃同樣的典禮，寫著同樣的講稿和演講詞。

我覺得夠了，對於這個沒有靈魂的世界。我知道世間的表面虛偽還是必須的，但是我曾經有過比較人性化的生活和環境。我知道這樣的生活會比較辛苦，這樣的環境比較艱辛，但是我必須鼓勵我自己，要尋找自己的生活，要獲得自己的快樂，要找回自己的靈魂與人性。

莫忘初衷。

中箭，不爽. 潘耀田博客

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

中箭，不爽


昨天在联合早报“星期天”版读到早报记者洪奕婷的文章“我们又中箭了”。

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

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

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

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

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

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


注：根据洪奕婷女士的文章，洪女士自己形容这是“不堪排名”。


11.6.2012

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

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

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

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

何謂「天命」

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

所謂「天命」，就是依照自然的規律生活：晴天曬衣，雨天蓄水。

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

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

轉載自臉書(fb) Chong Leong Ang

“郭宝崑节”2012 – 寻找郭宝崑

Rating:	★★★★★
Category:	Other

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

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

“世界从不亏待我们……”

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

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

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.

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。

刘安安：公共服务忘了为民服务才是本位

http://www.zaobao.com.sg/yl/yl120106_004.shtml
刘安安：失焦了的核心价值观
（2012-01-06）
热点话题
刘安安

　　对一向来以效率第一见称的公共服务之精英团队，地铁大瘫痪事件无疑是个醍醐灌顶的案例，在这个关键时机，各个公共服务机构须要好好地来个釜底抽薪的省思及变革，才能化危机为转机，将公共服务的核心价值观导入正轨。正如叶鹏飞君在《地铁大瘫痪的教训》一文所说的重话：“地铁大瘫痪的意义，就在于宣判目前关于效率的主流论述的破产。国人还是希望公共交通系统有高效率，但那是服务于人民利益的效率，而不是通过各种手段如增加收费、削减成本来提高企业盈利的效率。如果大家能从在地铁大瘫痪里吸取真正的教训，痛定思痛并改弦易辙，也未尝非塞翁失马之福”。

　　个人尝试在这个课题上，再将问题抜高到更深更广的层次来讨论，即公共服务的精英团队的核心价值观是否已经失了焦呢? 又，整个导航体系是否迷失了方向？

　　中国改革开放后脱颖而出的一位儒商，说到在企业家的身上，必须具备及精通两“学”，即“数学”和“哲学”。所谓的“数学”，是精于在整体规划上精打细算，并且生财有道，使企业有了赖以生存的源泉。所谓的“哲学”，即企业家所拥有的扎实的哲学底蕴，对个人一生的修身养性大有裨益；对企业来说，既有能力又善于将抽象的企业理念化为全体上下、人人能够理解的愿景，并且引领大家齐心合力，去创造企业能够永续发展的动力及企业文化。

　　倘若不能在“数学”和“哲学”中取得一个平衡点，只一味地向“数学”倾斜，追求利润最大化，忘了组织原有的责任与使命，迟早是会发生乱子的。先说美国的例子，金融界的精英分子，凭着第一流的“数学本事”，出尽法宝以谋利，结果误国又误民，甚至是误了全世界。美国政府为了国家经济免于崩溃，动用国库来拯救银行，而这些金融界的精英分子在国难当前，还在打政府援助金的主意，奥巴马总统气得破口大骂亦无济于事。

　　说回SMRT，自成立之初开始至今，单一的沟通语言及告示就一直为人所诟病，SMRT根本不为所动，最近的地铁大瘫痪事件，可以说是给SMRT一个狠狠的教训，也是给其它的公共服务机构的一个殷鉴。

　　像类似以创造财富为贤能的事件不断地出现，民众不禁要问：精英分子经常告诉百姓不要视这一切是理所当然，百姓也要告诉精英分子，高薪养贤亦是理所当然吗？若只知道为集团创造财富以领取高薪花红而忘了使命感，视“先天下之忧而忧，后天下之乐而乐”等哲理为美丽的词藻，当“鞠躬尽瘁，死而后已”为神话故事，则社会有难了。

　　冰冻三尺，非一日之寒。这不禁使我想起有关已故文化人郭宝崑的新闻报道，在每年国庆的群众大会演说之后，郭宝崑总是在摇头叹息：领导人每年花几个钟头的演说，都在大谈特谈经济，人文及文化素养靠边站，这个国家将来会变成怎么样？哲人先知先觉的话几乎成了预言，在今日验证了重“数学”、轻“哲学”的精英分子所暴露出来的严重缺憾。当公共服务的核心价值观，一切都以功利至上来算计，忘了为民服务才是本位，已非人民之福，更非社稷之幸。

作者是社团秘书

行行重行行 Walking on

行行重行行

很多人，尤其是刚开始参与城市的眼睛的人，都要求我们用很简短简单的方式告诉他们，城市的眼睛到底是一个怎样的活动。我们用的字眼常常是“保留文化”、“集体回忆”、“纪录即将消失的人事物”、“用影像关怀社会”、“人文活动”等等。到底这些简短的文字能不能概括城市的眼睛活动呢？城市的眼睛到底是一个怎样的活动呢？

我很喜欢跟拍摄照片回来缴交的参与者闲聊，有些人兴高采烈分享他们和家人朋友聚会玩得很开心，然后顺便拍照，我听了故事点点头收了照片。有些人兴奋的说他们从来不知道他居住工作的环境有“这样”的人或事或物，我听了故事点点头收了照片。有些人告诉我们他们预备了一年，高兴终于拍到他们想拍的，或者可惜来不及拍到他们想拍的，我听了故事点点头收了照片。有些人偷偷告诉我们他们去了以前从来不知道不熟悉的地方拍了照，我听了故事点点头收了照片。有些人失望的告诉我们，他今年没有想到好的题材，没有拍到好的照片，我听了故事点点头收了照片。

我喜欢一部小说改编成张艺谋的电影《活着》。有朋友看了电影不明白，说电影没头没尾，我就告诉他就是一个人怎样“活着”。只要你还没有死，你就必须得走下去。走出去就有路，但是每个人因为际遇不同，走的道路就不同，虽然道路不同，毕竟是一条自己走出来的路。我想：他们行行走走，回来后，都应该对城市的眼睛到底是一个怎样的活动有些看法。

我一直觉得城市的眼睛是一个播撒种子的活动，我们要做的是把信念化成一颗种子，把它撒在大家的心里面。他什么时候开花结果，开什么花、结什么果，甚至会不会开花结果都是一个疑问。因为开花结果每个参与者自己要负责的，我们只是负责撒种子。

城市的眼睛从2002年开始主办，我们这组人自2004年接手，至2010年为止，一共九年。城市的眼睛走的也是一条不平的道路，我们几经波折，几次几乎要停办，但是都熬下来了。当我们在2011年11月初宣布要停办的时候，很多人都说可惜。我想：其实宣布停办活动，让大家更觉得珍惜，是不是也是一种获得。有时候停下来，空下来的时间和空间，反而能让大家有机会能够进行更深刻的文化心灵思考。

2011年12月，柳文斌先生和张三丰先生正式向我们提出他们想要接手主办城市的眼睛，我们很高兴。文斌和三丰参与过城市的眼睛活动，他们想从一个新的方式主办城市的眼睛，我们没有意见。

新的主办者，新的操作方式，新的内涵，一定跟从前的城市的眼睛不一样，开始的时候可能不太习惯，但是我们希望大家能够继续支持城市的眼睛活动。无论如何，我希望大家要用各自的方式，继续走下去。

走啊走啊......不停的走......走啊走啊......不停的走......

汪忠良

城市的眼睛

2004--2010

========================================

Walking on

Many people, especially those just starting out on their Eye ē City journey, had always asked us to explain in simple terms what exactly is Eye ē City? We often reply with the words “preservation of culture”, “collective memories”, “to record what that may be disappearing”, “to care for our society through images”, “a socio-cultural movement”, etc. Do these words give a complete picture of Eye ē City? What is Eye ē City?

I like to talk to participants returning to submit their images. Some will happily share that they had taken photos whilst having a wonderful time with their family and friends. I listened, nodded my head and collected the images.  Some will excitedly relate about how they had never known that such a person, event or thing existed in their neighbourhood or workplace.  I listened, nodded my head and collected the images. Some tell about how after a year’s preparation, they finally captured their desired image or express their disappointment in not being able to. Again, I listened, nodded my head and collected the images. Some will secretly reveal that they had gone to places unfamiliar to them to take photos. Still, I listened, nodded my head and collected the images.  Some dishearteningly tell us that this year they were not able to capture any good images as they could not find any good topic.  I listened, nodded my head and collected the images.

I like the movie, “To Live” which was directed by Zhang Yimou and adapted from a novel. I have a friend who commented that he did not understand what the movie is about and that it has no head or tail. I told him this is how it is “to live”. As long as you are not dead, you just have to keep walking. As long as you keep walking, there will be a road. However, everyone has their own fortunes which lead them down different paths. Despite this, it is a path chosen by oneself.  I think after returning from the journeys you have since embarked, you will have some thoughts on what Eye ē City is about.

I have always felt that Eye ē City is a movement that sows seeds. What we need to do is to sow the seeds of our beliefs in everyone’s hearts. When will it blossom? When will we taste the fruit? What kind of flower? What kind of fruit? Will it even blossom or bear fruit at all is anyone’s guess. It is the responsibility of every participant to let the seeds grow. We only sow the seeds.

Eye ē City had sustained a total of nine years since it began in 2002. We took over the reins of organizing the event from 2004 to 2010. It has been an arduous road through the years. Many a times, we had wanted to give up. But somehow, manage to pull through. When we announced in early November 2011 that Eye ē City will be discontinued, many expressed their sadness.  If by discontinuing the event has made everyone hold it dearer, it may be a gain after all. Sometimes, stopping to smell the flowers may give us the time and space to develop a more profound cultural and spiritual thinking.

When Mr Martin Liew and Mr Aaron Teo officially offered to take over the organizing of Eye ē City in December 2011, we were elated. Both of them had been participants and volunteers and had new ideas for Eye ē City which we do not object.

New organizers, new procedures, new content, it will certainly be a different Eye ē City. It may take getting used to. However, we hope that you will continue to support Eye ē City events. In any case, we hope that you will in your own way, continue walking.

Do walk on and not stop.

 

Ang Chong Leong

Eye ē City

2004 – 2010

(Translated by Tan Siang Bee) 

Dreams and Reality: Masterpieces of Painting, Drawing and Photography from the Musée d’Orsay, Paris

Rating:	★★★
Category:	Other

看了这美术展览感想是新加坡的艺术观念有待改善。灯光一样打得很差，很多画作因为灯光打得不好，影响了欣赏的乐趣与耐性。画作的编排就像新加坡的美食“罗惹”（Rojak）一样，暴发户似的以各种主题的方式，想把很多的内容和艺术家安插在其中，结果没有从时间或者画家或者风格为重点，看了觉得很混乱。当然，也有可能我的艺术知识和鉴赏能力比较差，我和太太到最后印象深刻的反而是几幅风格简单的画作。

因为参观当天是免费入场，很多画作变成游客“到此一游”的景点背景。新加坡的艺术基础教育和艺术基本鉴赏，比起先进的国家差了一大截。

最后最不解的是，为什么国家博物院要和新加坡美术博物馆抢生意，主办美术展览，难道定位为展出历史文物的博物馆已经没有其他主题可以发挥了吗？

========================
Venue Singapore National Museum Exhibition Galleries 1 & 2
Date Wed 26 Oct 2011 – Sun 5 Feb 2012 | 10am – 6pm daily Saturdays Only | 10am - 8pm

From the collection of the world renowned Musée d’Orsay, over 140 Salon, Realists, Impressionists and Post-Impressionists paintings, photographs and drawings from the mid-19th century to the early 20th century will specially tour to Singapore this year. Titled Dreams and Reality: Masterpieces of Painting, Drawing and Photography from the Musée d’Orsay, Paris, the exhibition explores the reaction of man towards modernity at the turn of the century from 1848 to 1912. The changing social and industrial landscapes of Paris in early modernity forced artists and photographers to rethink their approach to the visual world around them. Their varied responses generated new ways of depicting reality and a proliferation of styles.

Highlights of the exhibition include Paul Cézanne’s The Card Players, Vincent van Gogh’s Starry Night and Alexandre Cabanel’s The Birth of Venus. Many other key works by forerunners of modern art such as Gustave Courbet, Edgar Degas, Jean-François Millet as well as female Impressionists Berthe Morisot, Marie Bracquemond and Eva Gonzalès will also be showcased. A portrait of Georges Clemenceau by Édouard Manet will travel exclusively to Singapore.

extracted from Singapore National Museum
http://www.nationalmuseum.sg/ExhibitionDetail.aspx?id=65&cat=2#INTRO

柯木林：从“咖啡山”风云谈到古迹保存问题

http://www.zaobao.com.sg/yl/yl111207_001.shtml
柯木林：从“咖啡山”风云谈到古迹保存问题
（2011-12-07）
柯木林

狮城脉搏

　　最近，“咖啡山”再起“风云”，舆论界对护山的情绪高昂。有趣的是，这座坟山已存在近百年，至今还有不少古墓无人清理！但自从当局宣布规划开路后，人们才对即将失去的东西，起了“怜悯之心”，开始关切起来！

　　记得在大学读书时，聆听历史系教授讲述当年拆除北京旧城墙的情景，只有古建筑学家梁思成（梁启超的儿子）抱着北京的牌楼痛哭，说这是摧毁近千年的古董，当时没人理他。60年后的今天，人们都对北京旧城墙的拆除感到惋惜。我们是否也要再过两代人，那就是60年后，才可以评断今天“咖啡山”的是非问题？

　　“咖啡山”迁坟事宜已定局。目前唯一可做之事，就是以科技方法将古墓资料记录存档，这也是无可奈何的权宜之举。然而，如果通过此次事件，能唤起人们对历史的普遍认知，从而引发人们对古迹保存的意识，那么，这批先贤的古墓总算没有白白“牺牲”！

　　目前，在我们周遭也有不少古建筑、文物、遗址等，值得我们关注。从这点上说，古迹保存局（The Preservation of Monuments Board）的工作，任重而道远。

　　古迹保存局成立于1971年1月，时称古迹保存委员会，这是在新加坡建国6年后成立的一个非常重要的法定机构。可见建国初期，我们就有保存古迹的观念。两年后的1973年7月，古迹保存局公布了第一批以天福宫为首的六处国家古迹。以后陆续分批公布，至今已46年，所公布的国家古迹，约25批，64处古迹。近期公布受保护的是丹戎巴葛火车站。

　　我对历史古迹一向情有独钟，或许是由于个人专业训练及兴趣使然。记得1973年大学刚毕业不久，就与几位同道友好，利用星期六、星期天或公共假期的时间，勘查新加坡的一些华族古迹，之后出版《石叻古迹》一书（1975年4月），列为南洋学会丛书第十三种。

　　如今38年过去，再回首当年所勘查的古迹，未免感伤：清元真君古庙、广福古庙、绿野亭公所、曹家馆、豆腐街(Upper Chin Chew Street)消失了；“天福宫”的旧名匾不知所踪（目前的名匾为复制品）；粤海清庙庭园变小，气派大不如前；双林寺虽在，寺内古老的法堂已被拆除重建；恒山亭毁于火，而粉刷一新的玉皇殿，早已失却当年古风；萃英书院被改装为餐馆等等……一言以蔽之，许多古迹在城市重建声中，烟消云散了！

　　于是，保存古迹的工作，更形重要。古迹保存局的责任，可媲美教育部。教育部与培养未来社会主人翁有关；但在保护文物、重建人文景观、培养国家意识，尤其是普及历史知识等方面，古迹保存局的工作不容忽视。

国家不能没有集体记忆

　　要培养国家意识，首先必须要有全民的集体记忆。集体记忆是指一个具有自己特定文化内聚性和同一性的群体，对自己过去的记忆。集体记忆有助于群体对某个地点，乃至一个城市或一个国家的眷恋。一个没有记忆的城市或地方，是没有什么值得留恋的。这就好像一部没有下载资料的电脑，丢了也不可惜一样。

　　古迹使国家的某部分历史具体化，古迹在每个人周遭，就是我们生活的一部分。它是可以触摸到、感觉到的实体；古迹也可以勾起个人的旧时回忆，及对未来的遐想，古迹的保存不应只停留在不拆除一幢旧楼，或一座房子的层面上，而是发掘蕴藏于此间的文化内涵，这就是我们历史的一部分。

　　过去46年来，古迹保存局在保存古迹方面贡献不小，受保护的古迹包括庙宇、教堂、回教堂、学校、殖民地建筑物等等，这是一项不错的成就。然而，从已保存的国家古迹看，对名人故居的保护，尤为欠缺，今后可以在这方面加强。名人故居作为人文景观之一，也是旅游资源的重要组成部分。

　　位于花柏山下秉德路（Pender Road）10号的金钟大厦（Golden Bell Mansion）就是很好的例子。这座具有土洋特色与历史内涵的名楼，至今尚未被列为国家古迹。然而，与金钟大厦建筑时间不相上下而被保存的古迹却有：陈德源大楼（Tan Teck Guan Building，1911年建，今卫生部建筑），暹宫（Siam House，1906年建，道南学堂原址，现为土生华人博物馆）等。唯独金钟大厦成了“漏网之鱼”，不知何故？金钟大厦（新华领袖陈武烈宅邸）是可以考虑升格为国家古迹之一的（参见拙文《金钟大厦不只是一栋大厦而已》，2011年8月13日《联合早报·言论》）。

　　至于那些已被拆除的名人故居，如振裕园、南生园、佘山楼、客云庐等，可以在其具体位置上，铭记碑刻，供人凭吊。除故居外，历史名人的墓地也应在保护之列。目前我们只保存了林谋盛烈士的墓地，前文述及的“咖啡山”坟场，有不少华人先贤的墓园，古迹保存局的专家可以积极参与保留及规划的工作。

　　古迹保存局可说是与新加坡的建国成长同步。再过4年，我们将迎来建国50周年，古迹保存局也成立将近半个世纪。在未来岁月里，古迹保存局更应具备新思维和新管理理念，扩大工作范畴，对保存古迹方面做出更多的贡献。譬如开办讲座、引导学生参观、出产系列纪念品（当年就曾铸造古迹纪念银章）、摄制纪录片等，目的是引起人们对古迹的兴趣。

　　过去50年，我们的经济发展已闻名于世。如果让这座城市再增多一点历史文化的内涵，该是一件美事。于今所能盼者，就是假以时日，我们也能有一两处世界文化遗产，传诸后世。

作者是本地历史学者

The Complete Works of Kuo Pao Kun, VIII: Interview 郭宝崑全集，第八卷：访谈

Rating:	★★★★★
Category:	Books
Genre:	Other
Author:	Practice Performing Arts Centre 实践表演艺术中心

The economy has been achieving excellence progress since Singapore independence. Kuo Pao Kun feels that culture building is relatively neglected compare with emphasis of economy in Singapore. Although starting from 1990s, the government invested heavily in culture, but its coverage is still too shallow. He said that we cannot neglect literature, history, philosophy, religion and mythology education should we want to improve the progression of our culture. “While the Government put in a lot of money supporting orchestra, theater groups, dance companies, we could not have something in-depth should we lack of foundation. Most pressing work to be done is to rethink and to build the base for our culture. There are great gap in our knowledge structure. There is no awareness of the importance of cultural building which we need to invest in generations of effort.

(In Chinese, titles and names translated from Chinese)“Sowing Seed Of Drama In The Wilderness” written by Xiao Jiahui , "The Complete Works of Kuo Pao Kun, VIII: Interview " chief edited by Quah Sy Ren and edited by Chen Ming-luan, Practice Performing Arts Centre and World Scientific co-published in March 2011, Page 26


新加坡自独立以来，经济取得卓越成就。相对于经济，郭宝崑认为新加坡的文化建设被忽略太久。尽管1990年代起，政府在文化上大力投资，但涉及层面仍然嫌浅。他说，若要在文化建设上做根本的补救，就不能轻视文学、历史、哲学、宗教与神话教育。“政府虽拿很多钱支援乐团、剧团、舞团，但欠缺底蕴，再支援十年也出不了有深度的东西。大力建设文学，思考文化建设是当务之急，但我们的知识结构里有很大的缺口，意识上没有认识到文化建设的重要，这需要经历几代人的工作。”

--萧佳慧著〈在荒原上播戏剧的种子〉，柯思仁总编辑、陈鸣鸾主编《郭宝崑全集，第八卷：访谈》，实践表演艺术中心与八方文化创作室联合出版，2011年3月，第26页

城市的眼睛2010年12月31日 eye e city 31 December 2010

19:23 Lorong 1 Toa Payoh 大巴窑一巷

I passed by this HDB flat at ground floor when I strolling with my wife and there was always no one at home. The corridor outside the unit often filled with paper boxes, cans, plastic bottles, and other old items.

Sometimes, there are dark stains on the ground. I presume this is the accumulation of stains which spraying out while flattening the cans.

The corridor considered clean at the day of shooting this photo. However, whenever I thought of the life of this household compared with the general households in Singapore, I was lost in reverie.

和太太在家附近散步时，经过这个位于一楼，经常没有人在的组屋单位。单位前常常摆满了纸皮箱、汽水罐、塑胶瓶子，还有其他旧物。有时候，地上还有黑黑的污迹，估计是在踏扁汽水罐的时候，剩余汽水喷出来，累积堆积出来的污迹。

这天经过拍摄时，已经算是整理清理过的。但是，这户人家相对于一般新加坡人的生活，还是会引起我很多的遐想。

Ang Chong Leong 汪忠良, 41/Social Worker 社会工作者

My photos selected by organiser of eye e city 2010 was censored by exhibition partner, Singapore Discovery Centre (SDC), during the exhibition. Is the photos political incorrect ???

I always feel proud of these people who still choose to work hard and earn a living. This is an alternative view Singapore and Singaporean could have besides thinking they are poor and pitiful ones.

Luckily, it was still in the photo book published by eye e city. Hope the book will not censored and removed from NLB library. :)

这两张被2010年城市的眼睛主办者遴选的照片，在展览时被展览伙伴新加坡知新馆(SDC)剔除。这两张照片出了什么问题？是政治不正确吗?天晓得?

我常常为这些选择努力工作生活的人感到骄傲。与其觉得这些人可怜，值得同情，新加坡和新加坡人可以对这样的生活方式，有另外一种领悟。

还好城市的眼睛出版的2010年摄影集包含这两张照片，希望国家图书馆不会冷藏这本摄影集。 :)

承风启雨渡九年 A Perseverance of Nine Years

承风启雨渡九年

汪忠良

缘起与发展

我不是摄影人，也不是文化人。2003年在机缘巧合之下获知2002年开始主办的“城市的眼睛”活动，当年感怀新加坡很多值得保留的景物都被拆迁，社会也有很多的变迁，便拿起傻瓜相机参与了这项活动，希望能为我们的城市留下一些值得回忆的影像。后来知道这活动不办下去，便联合李子民先生在2004年一起接手主办策划活动，后来陆续的又增加了一些成员，并在公司机构的赞助、社会各界和义工的支持下，每年持续主办这项岁末活动。

先前参与策划活动的大多是艺文界人士，而后来我们接手后的大多是草根较强的社会人士或者是业余摄影人士，所以前后策划者关注的事物和看待事物都有些出入。大致上来说，前者关注的是保留文化记忆，后者是以关怀社会为主调。其间，我们面对了专业摄影对我们活动照片代表性的挑战，还有摄影技术与文字描述与照片内容之间重要性的拉扯。虽说风风雨雨，我们坚持了每年岁末24小时，不设立奖金奖品，没有主题，不以比赛的方式，一年年的坚持下去。

这几年的活动，我们接受很多参与者的意见，作出不少的改变和调整。为了让学生可以参与活动，我们把年龄限制调整至13岁；为了让活动容纳更多的内容，我们也接受手机拍摄的影像、增加了摄影组照 (Eye Essays) 和年度挑战 (Eye Challenge)。

城市的眼睛是一项社会人文运动

有很多人建议城市的眼睛应该设立奖金奖品、每年设立主题、或者以电邮的方式收集照片。这些建议能够更快捷方便，增加参与的人数与作品，而且也能因为有特定主题，更能够符合特定机构的捐款目的。但是我们认为城市的眼睛是一项人文活动，人和人之间的关系、沟通、了解，也是活动重要的构成。我们希望大家亲自报名、选择照片、和我们的会员交换心得，建立起人和人的关系。我们也看到很多参与者在参加活动或者参观展览的同时，也通过谈论照片的内容，加强了与家人和朋友之间的交流，甚至对于新加坡这城市的社会人文发展更加关切。

城市的眼睛也不是为了宣扬某一个文化、思想、价值观，或者是肯定或否定它们；我们强调的是社会的多元性和包容性。遴选出来的照片是代表当年参与者的共同回忆，没有被选的照片也不表示他们是不重要的，或者是没有纪念价值；而只是在活动在展览和出版数量和内容上的限制。我们相信所有的照片对于参与者都有他个人的价值，每个人因为个自的生活背景和经历，对于同样的照片也有可能也不一样的体会，而这照片带给人们的记忆或回忆不能够用数字或者金钱来衡量其价值。

从这个角度来看，城市的眼睛事实上是一个社会人文运动。我们希望借着活动的推展，从大家对于记忆与回忆的讨论，加强人与人之间的交流与沟通，并且关爱我们生活的城市。从更长远的眼光来说，我们希望成为一个相互平等尊重讨论议题的平台，让参与者能够相互分享自身拥有的信念以及拥有这些信念的理由，并且帮助他人了解自身的观点；并且能以各自的方式共同建立这城市的人文景观。

集合大家的力量，圆满今年的活动

有人说，城市的眼睛有一般活动没有的流动魅力。因为没有特定主题，很多时候，我们是在遴选过后才知道当年照片的组合与氛围，以及可能带出来的整体的内涵动力。当年的作品的内容其实是代表了参与者当年对于发生在新加坡的一个集体的记忆。但是在这个非敌既友的世代，活动有时候不能符合赞助机构商家的特定目的，而无形的人文价值和意义，对于很多人来说是没有投资回报价值的。但是吊诡的是，组织筹办活动还是要回到这有形的世界里，需要靠资金来推动的。由于缺少能为活动筹款的义工，今年我们向参与活动的朋友们筹款，并获得了$1,418.50的捐款，加上其他单位个人的捐款协助方才能圆满今天的结果。

此外，我们还要感谢以各种方式协助我们的个人、公司与单位，尤其是新加坡知新馆(Singapore Discovery Centre)协办与支持今年的展览。

今后的挑战

社会趋势和科技的发展对于主办城市的眼睛有相当大的影响。当年，数码相机没有今天普遍流行，大部分摄影都是以底片为主，如今大家只要拿起相机，都能不用迟疑的捕捉他们想纪录的影像。当年，分享资讯不像现在社会网络和电子书这样方便，所以当年出版书籍和展览相对还是主要的影像传播媒介。当年，“集体记忆”这字眼几乎是不存在的，也不像今天在商业与政治带动下，被重点地推上社会舞台。无论官方机构，或者私人机构都一把抓地把大家的集体回忆收罗起来，放在手中。

最近火车站的搬迁，更是被媒体、社会网络和政治人物炒得沸沸扬扬，成为城市的焦点。城市的眼睛如何在这新媒体蓬勃、商业介入和政治热闹的新局面下，避免集体记忆的探索流于表面，而能进入更深层文化和心灵层面的思考，将是今后我们主办人的一个挑战。

转载自《城市的眼睛--2010 岁末24小时人文影像纪录》，新加坡。城市的眼睛出版，2011年10月，pp10-11。

A Perseverance of Nine Years

Ang Chong Leong

Beginning and Development

I am neither a photographer nor an intellectual. By coincidence in 2003, I got to know “Eye é City”. The demolition of many historical and culturally-rich buildings and sites coupled with the social changes happening at that time moved me to pick up my compact camera to capture a moment of the city. In 2004, together with Mr Lee Chee Ming, I took over the reins of organising the annual year-end event which started in 2002, after the previous organisers decided not to continue. Since then, joined by more organising team members and with strong support from volunteers, corporate sponsors and the public, we managed to carry on the annual year end activity through the years.

As the previous organisers were mainly from the arts and literary circle, the focus was on preserving history and culture. After taking over, the organising team was made up largely by people with close connection to the community as well as amateur photographers. More emphasis was placed on expressing care and concern on social issues. In the meantime, we faced much criticism from professional photographers on our photos’ representation as well as our continuous dilemma to balance between participants’ write-ups, content and technical skills of the photos. Despite these, we persevered year after year, 

persisting with photo-taking in the last 24 hours of each year not turning the movement into a competition by giving away prizes and establishing specific themes. However, for the past years, we have also accepted suggestions from participants and made many changes. These include lowering the age criteria to 13 years old to allow more student participation; accepting photos taken by mobile phones; and introducing Eye essays as well as Eye Challenge to enhance greater photo content.

Eye  é City  is a social-cultural movement

Many also suggested giving away prizes, allowing online photo submission as well as setting themes to help attract certain corporate sponsorships, in the hope to increase participants and photo images in the fastest and easiest manner. However, we feel that Eye é City is a community movement. The relationship, communication and understanding between people are important part of the movement. Participants are encouraged to be involved personally from the point of registration to selecting their final photos and in the process share their experiences and the stories behind their photos with our facilitators and volunteers.  Through such interaction and discussion, participants sometimes not only strengthen their ties with their family and friends, but also develop a greater awareness of their surroundings and society.

Eye é City does not advocate any specific culture, values and beliefs, or comment on their negativity or positivity. We emphasize both diversity and inclusion of society. Selected photos represent the participants’ collective memories for that year. Unselected photos do not mean they are unimportant or of no memory values. It is simply due to the limitations of exhibition and publication space that choices have to be made. We believe that all photos hold personal values to its owners. Due to the differences in life experience and background, different individuals may view and react differently to each photo. Yet, the memories that it evokes cannot be measured in monetary terms or numbers.

As such, Eye é City is indeed a social-cultural movement. We hope the annual activity will encourage and motivate more discussions and exchanges on our memories, we can enhance interaction and communication between people as well as show concerns for this city we live in. We envision Eye é City to be a platform for participants to share their ideas, thoughts and motivations freely based on mutual respect and equality and in their own way, contribute to Singapore’s social-cultural diversity.

 

Gathering Strength for 2010

Some say the uniqueness of Eye é City is in its fluid nature and unpredictability. As there is no specific themes, often times, we are not able to determine the dynamism of the photo collections till after the photo selection. The collection for a particular year represents the collective memory of participants for that said year. In this world of absolutes, it is unsettling for some sponsors seeking specific projects that can meet their contribution objectives and purposes. To many, there is no tangible returns in nurturing social-cultural values. However, the paradox of the situation is that funds are still required to run our activities. Due to a lack of volunteers able to solicit sponsorship, we sought donations from participants this year, who generously helped to raise $1,418.50. Together with other solicited donations in cash and kind, we managed to pull through to completion. We wish to thank all contributors, whether individuals or organisations who has helped us in their own way this year, in particular, Singapore Discovery Centre for co-organising and supporting the 2010 exhibition.

Future Challenges

Social trends and technological developments have had a huge impact on the organization of Eye é City. In the past, film cameras used to take precedence. But nowadays, digital cameras make it so easy for everyone to snap their desired image without hesitation. Back then, when e-book and the social network were not so popular, book publications and exhibitions were the main outreach medium for images. Even the term “collective memories” was virtually non-existent when the movement first started. Today, motivated by commercial and political interests, collective memories have been pushed into the social limelight. Public and private organisations alike are scrambling to gather everyone’s memories. Recently, media, cyber space and even politicians were abuzz with the moving of the railway station, making it the focus of the city. 

It is definitely challenging for Eye é City to avoid the superficial and to develop a deeper cultural and spiritual understanding of collective memories in this new landscape of vigorous new media development and increased commercial involvement and political activity.

 

Translated by Karen Kan & Tan Siang Bee

extracted from "Eye é City -- A Visual Account of the Last 24 hours of 2010", Eye é City, October 2011, pp 8-9.

“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

厅 by bob lee

感谢林志勇先生制作录像
Special thanks to Mr Lim Chee Yong for working on the video
https://www.facebook.com/ahyong99
https://www.facebook.com/bobleeks/posts/160303374060456
=============================================
这是一组记录新加坡组屋(客厅）的照片。

从2009年开始拍摄，拍了五间组屋就停了。
而现在离开了原本的工作岗位，时间也比较灵活，
我想，也应该继续拍摄。

A series of photos of living in Singapore HDB apartments, through the portray of Living Rooms of various Singaporeans from all walks of life staying in a HDB apartment.

https://www.facebook.com/bobleeks/posts/160303374060456

李欣赏 Bob Lee
www.bobleeks.com
bob@thefatfarmer.com

===========================
Bob's work bears testimony to his passion and desire bring a subject to light. His work depict his heart’s desire to capture the minute,
the mundane and the increasingly oblivious. The outcome of this manifestation brings forth compelling images that invoke emotions and
arouses curiosity. Viewers marvel at nature’s wonder through his lens whilst questioning the core purpose of humanity.

His numerous accolades and awards, garnered both locally and interntionally bears testimony to his immaculate craft. In 2003, he
beat over 200 top photojournalists from 32 countries to clinch the top award in the Behind the Scenes category of the ClickArt: World
Photojournalists Meet. His other notable awards include the Jurors’ Choice in the Singapore Art Awards 2005, Honourable Mentions in The International Photography Awards 2007, the Gold Award in the 'Best In Feature Photography' category in the Ifra Asia Media Awards 2008, Honourable Mentions in Prix de la Photographie, Paris 2009, just to name a few.

His work extends out of an image into numerous publications and exhibitions. In 2003, Bob published his first book, Have a Little
Faith, highlighting the daily life of the Sikh and Jewish community in Singapore. The book project led to his inaugural solo exhibition held
at the Singapore History Museum in the same year. In 2004, he launched his second exhibition and publication, One Room Flat, a unique
exhibition which revealed the life of the one-room flat elderly dwellers. In 2008, Bob published his third book "ah bob baba zhouji".
The publication comprises a compilation of blog entries and photos documenting the trials and tribulations of himself, a first-time
father. In 2009 Bob launched his second solo exhibition ‘CurioCity: Photographs from My Toy Camera’ and subsequently published his 4th
publication ‘Curiocity - U and I’ in February 2010.

Albeit all these achievements, Bob has remained level-headed and continuosly groom our young generation as a lecturer teaching
Photography in Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (2005 - 2007), Ngee Ann Polytechnic (2008 - present) and Egg Story Digital Arts School (2007 - present). He also contributes, searching for budding photographers, as guest judge for photography competitions such as 2009 National Museum of Singapore "Spot & Shoot 2009 – Our Landscape", 2009 Canon Photo Marathon, 2007 North East CDC "SNAP", 2005 NUS Montage, 2005 NTUC"Vitality & Me".



关于李欣赏

欣赏善于在闲暇时静心留意身边的一草一物,用相机把幻灭世界中的光影捕捉下来，透过他敏锐的洞察力，拍摄出一幅幅充满立体情感的平面作品。市井生活中再平凡不过的人物和景象，往往透过他的镜头下呈现出不同姿态。

现年34岁的李欣赏是在十年前加入<<联合早报>>摄影组当摄影记者,间中参与创办新加坡第一份免费华文报<<我报>>，最近刚归队早报摄影组。

这些年来他囊括海内外多个奖项，最近一次是于2008年在国际报业与传媒商业科技协会（Ifra）主办的第七届亚洲媒体大奖（2008 ASIA
MEDIA AWARD)最佳特写照片组别中获得金奖；同年5月，他在新加坡报业控股的华文报集团常年新闻奖中拿下了"最佳年度新闻照片"；在2005年，他获得"菲利普·莫里斯（Philip Morris)新加坡艺术奖"中的最高荣誉－－评审大奖。在2003年"ClickArt 国际艺术新闻摄影集会 " 中
，他也击败群雄在"幕后点滴"主题中夺得首奖。新闻嗅觉敏锐的欣赏在新闻采访线上的表现也非常突出,多次获得新加坡报业控股华文报集团颁发新闻奖以示肯定。

欣赏的摄影作品多次以摄影展的方式展出，精选作品也陆续结集成书，至今他已出版四本书。他刚在2009年举行他第二场摄影个展，这项名为《方城市》的展览展出他对英国、法国、德国和西班牙四个国家、八个城市的印象与观察，同名摄影集已在2010年2月出版。他的首场个展是于2003年12月在新加坡历史博物馆举行,他当时透过这项《信是有缘》摄影展,借镜头带大众贴近、了解新加坡的锡克和犹太族群；隔年,他再接再厉,与另一同事联办《一房一世》摄影展,展示多幅记录新加坡一房式组屋老人家生活点滴的黑白照片,希望能借此引起普罗大众对这些老人家的关怀。2006年，初为人父的他在博客上写下他这名新手爸爸的心情日记，博客文章定期在《我报》刊载长达一年半，广受读者欢迎，《ah
bob 爸爸周记》也因此在2008年诞生。

欣赏从马来西亚吉隆坡林国荣创意科技学院广告设计系毕业，主修摄影，后来取得University of Western Sydney
Nepean设计系学士学位。除了透过镜头为社会纪实，他也积极跟年轻一代分享摄影心得，他曾在南洋艺术学院多媒体部门（2005-2007
Multimedia Department），数码动画公司 EggStory Academy (2007-2009) ，以及义安理工学院中文系（2008-2010）教导摄影。

extracted from http://www.bobleeks.com/biodata.php