TR EMERITUS – Untold Hard Truths From Around The World – 淡马锡评论 – formerly Temasek Review

英国‧8华人参选盼破零纪录

来源：《星洲日报》2010-05-05 英国下议院大选今届破天荒有8名华人参选，可谓八仙过海，各显神通，英国华人希望通过此次努力改变议会没有华人议员的状况，从而改写华人在英参政的歷史。 8位华人候选人是：保守党候选人李泽文、吴克刚；自由民主党候选人杜淑真、凌家辉、谢晓明、李佩腾，北爱尔兰联盟党候选人卢曼华以及独立候选人成世雄。战情拉紧胜算难测成世雄表示，很难估计8名华人的胜选机会。他以自己为例，因三党领袖在大选前的三次电视辩论之后，令公眾对自民党的支持率提昇，打乱了他之前的选举形势分析，他的票源可能因自民党而被削弱。但他强调不管成败，参选已是一种政治行动。属於保守党的英国首任华人市长、伦敦红桥区市长陈德樑根据以往选情分析，8位华人要击败对手並不容易。他希望保守党能打破工党14年执政，且以中肯的立场来看，英国也的確需要改变。除有8位华人参加今年英国大选外，还有不少华人参加英国地区议员和青年议会议员的选举。 Read More →

电视台应开放予在野党

作者：吴启聪2010-05-04 隨著世界新闻自由日降临，马来西亚新闻自由排名被排在第141位，名列新闻自由最低的32%国家之一，试问身为马来西亚人民的我们，应该做何感想？也许我们唯一可以感到欣慰的是，比我们更为发展进步的邻国新加坡，其新闻自由排名竟然还落在我们之后。马来西亚的新闻自由，经歷了一场308海啸后，可以说已经取得很大的进步，然而仅此程度还是远远不够的。当政者必须知晓一个道理，处於一个资讯无界限的年代，还有甚么是在网上找不到的呢？新闻自由亦是同样道理，当政者若以为单凭打压新闻自由，就可以阻扰人民获取资讯，其实当政者不但不可能如愿，甚至隨时还会招致反效果。然而，虽然平面媒体的新闻自由已经露出曙光，可我们的传统电子媒体，尤其是电视台，似乎还未准备开放空间予在野党。电视台的政治立场基本上还是相当保守，虽然不至於彻底沦为当政者的代言工具，但在野党想要衝破电视台这一关卡，还是不容易。其实，若换另外一个角度思考，如果当政者愿意开放电视台的空间予在野党，这何尝不是促进一场良性竞爭的机会？今日的民联，一直以来都缺乏一个有力的宣传平台，能够向人民阐述他们的治国理念。单凭平面媒体，其感染力是不足够的，而民联各成员党似乎一直都只停留在全国巡迴演说的阶段。至今，人民或许可以大概瞭解民联3党各自的政治理念，然而对於民联统一的治国方针，民眾似乎都还模糊不清。笔者建议，电视台应该给予民联机会，让民联3党领袖站在同一个台上，通过电视节目，向全国千千万万人民阐述民联针对政经文教的政策制定，所要走的统一路线。人民最为关注的，莫过於民联执政过后，打算以甚么方式来处理“种族政策”问题，这一点肯定是我们华社最想瞭解的大事。对於当政者来说，开放电视台的空间予在野党，不但凸显自己开明的一面，也好让人民能够彻底瞭解在野党的治国理念，就好像亲身体验当政者的施政方针一样。没有良性的竞爭，当政者永远不会进步，反而被冠上禁錮新闻自由的骂名，徒然增加民怨，促使选民把怨气发泄在选票上，到时更得不偿失。来源：《星洲日报》 Read More →

Who elected these clowns?

Only in Singapore do we elect Members of Parliament who seem more occupied with addressing the needs of foreigners rather than our own. Marine Parade GRC MP Seah Kian Peng said more needs to be done to help new immigrants 'work with the old team and feel a part of us'. 'First, we need to make sure that they are called new Singaporeans rather than new migrants. They are not even new migrants - they are an old hand at migrating, and want a new life. They want to settle down and to make Singapore a new home,' said Mr Seah in his speech during the debate on the 2010 Budget Statement on Wednesday. Mr Seah also suggested that "men who become new citizens should be called up for NSmen duties": This could be in the form of a short 30-day induction to Basic Military Training in the Singapore Armed Forces, he said. 'We teach them to use rifles, fire weapons, basic physical fitness, or we put them into civil defence training where they could learn rescue techniques. 'Civil defence, too, is part of total defence and provides a vital part of Singapore's interior strength.' Let me be clear: I am not disputing the policies he suggested, merely the fact that he is showing less concern for the constituents who elected him. I have actually been thinking about the policy for integrating foreigners, but that will be discussed in another post. This perhaps is one of the bigger issues surrounding the elections of GRCs; allowing a weak candidate to be elected on the strength of a popular former Prime Minister in this case. But Mr Seah can't hold a candle to Mr Ong Ah Heng, who is the MP for Nee Soon Central, a single-seat constituency. "I know of one family who complain the cleaners in their precinct are lazy and too old. They don't want local workers who are old, they want young foreign workers. To satisfy the demand, I changed the local workers to foreign workers. Foreign workers are not a burden to us. Their presence here is not negative. Without foreign workers, things will be worse," he said. Is Mr Ong implying that local older workers are the burden instead? This goes far beyond inarticulate speech or political incorrectness. This is an insult to the elderly who have built this nation on the back of their hard work. This reflects the hubris that Mr Ong, a 66-year old himself, has uncoyingly betrayed. In one broad stroke, he painted the elderly as lazy and unproductive and patted himself on the back for his display of ruthlessness. He is proud of it. Neither Mr Ong nor Mr Seah deserve a seat in Parliament, and yet we put them there either because we don't have a choice or because we did not care. A case could be made for Mr Seah, as the policies he suggested merit further discussion, although in their current forms they are half-hearted measures that appear to be aimed at populist sentiments. And until he is reassigned to another ward, I expect Mr Goh Chok Tong's popularity will keep him in his seat. There is no case to be made for Mr Ong. If we go by his logic, he should be the first one to be replaced. All 14,211 of you who voted for this clown should be ashamed, and you should be forewarned: he'll fire you without batting an eyelid. That is how much he 'cares'. Callan Tham Read More →