TR EMERITUS

Migrant workers in Singapore enjoying their day off. The city state relies heavily on a large population of temporary, low-paid workers. Photo: AP (29 June 2014)        Philip Bowring says Hong Kong should care little for a social economy propped up by dominant state enterprises and foreign companies, and an underclass of low-skilled migrants. So much - often nonsense - is written about how Hong Kong should follow Singapore in assorted ways - economic, political, social and so on. It is time to set the record straight. First, the good things about Singapore. The most prominent and least controversial are its efforts to be in the van of environmental improvement, whether reducing air pollution, limiting private car ownership and taxing its use, or recycling water. The reason Singapore has done these things is not because it has an authoritarian government but because it has strong political and bureaucratic leadership, which is relatively impervious to narrow business interests, of the sort with which Hong Kong is all too familiar. It also knows that most of these policies meet with public approval. That helps sustain the People's Action Party in power. The downside of Singapore's authoritarian system is plain to anyone with the remotest interest in free speech and assembly, and keeping the noses of the government out of personal affairs and private business. That difference indeed remains the cornerstone of Hong Kong. However, it has yet to find a way of marrying these freedoms with a government that is both effective and reflects the interests of the majority.   Read more:   http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1541760/singapore-poor-role-model-hong-kong    Read More →

I refer to 3 Jun 2014 Straits Times report “Strong leaders, clear vision 'key to shaping cities' Factors for liveability, sustainability highlighted at 3 environment forums”. Local and global thought leaders supposedly said that leaders with strong political will and so on are the key to shaping livable and sustainable cities. The following are cities that topped Monocle’s most liveable cities 2014. Most are not characterized by leadership with strong political will. Monocle Most Livable City 2014 Country 1 Copenhagen Denmark 2 Tokyo Japan 3 Melbourne Australia 4 Stockholm Sweden 5 Helsinki Finland 6 Vienna Austria 7 Zürich Switzerland 8 Munich Germany 9 Kyoto Japan 10 Fukuoka Japan 11 Sydney Australia 12 Auckland New Zealand 13 Hong Kong China 14 Berlin Germany 15 Vancouver Canada 16 Singapore Singapore The following are cities that topped the EIU’s Liveability Ranking 2013. Again most are not characterized by leaders with strong political will. EIU Liveability Ranking 2013 Country 1 Melbourne Australia 2 Vienna Austria 3 Vancouver Canada 4 Toronto Canada 5 Calgary Canada 5 Adelaide Australia 7 Sydney Australia 8 Helsinki Finland 9 Perth Australia 10 Auckland New Zealand Thus, there is no need for leaders with strong political will to shape livable cities. Minister Khaw Boon Wan said politicians who give voters "goodies" to win elections risk going bankrupt, souring everyone's view of politics and leading to insolvency and eventually political cynicism. But many authors attest to Singapore practicing its fair share of giving out election “goodies”: • The PAP's resounding victory at every general election since 1959 and the practice of giving out 'election goodies' through the annual Budget seem to indicate the truth of this assertion. [Cinema and Television in Singapore: Resistance in One Dimension, Kenneth Paul Tan, page 167] • Besides some genuine appreciation for the government's achievements, tight media control, pre-election distributions (popularly known as 'goodies'), a limited nine-day election campaign, and lingering fears from the past persecution of opposition politicians, explain what in other countries would be considered a respectable vote share for the government. [Handbook of Emerging Economies, Robert E. Looney, page 222-223] • In his budget of February 2006, several months before the General Election, PM Lee introduced a massive S$2.6 billion Progress Package that will pay every adult citizen in cash a 'growth dividend' of between S$200 and S$800 ... Low-wage workers ... would also get 'workfare bonuses' ranging from S$150 to S$1,200 each ... These were in addition to the regular National Service bonus and CPF top-ups. [Social Policy in Post-Industrial Singapore, Kwen Fee Lian and Chee-Kiong Tong, page 8] • Election-eve government spending initiatives have also been undertaken by the ruling party (The Straits Times 16 Jun 2006) ... However, the spending pattern, and express government statements about disbursements, make full use of the stick-and-carrot approach ... On the eve of the 1997 election, the then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong made statements that opposition-held estates risked eventually becoming slums, without the necessary government funding to upgrade the estates ...This same carrot-and-stick was used again in the 2006 election (The Straits Times 5 May 2006, 29 Jun 2006). This attracted allegations that the PAP used state funds for party political purposes to obtain political and electoral advantage during the election, especially when such handouts were given extensive publicity by the media in Singapore. The publicity surrounding the New Singapore Shares Scheme is an example of this extravagant media coverage. Three months before the 2001 election, the then Prime Minister Goh announced the New Singapore Shares Scheme (Business Times Singapore 20 August 2001). Under this scheme, Singaporeans were given between $200 and $1,700 worth of shares linked to accumulated government surpluses, wih the option of exchanging some of these for cash. The shares were available on 1 November 2001, two days before Polling Day (The Straits Times 13 October 2001) ... At the very least, this seemed to take the form of using public money to project the government in a positive light (The Straits Times 13 October 2001). This strategy was followed by the next Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong. Prior to the 2006 general election there was an offer of a $2.6 billion 'Progress Package' to Singaporeans. The Budget was unveiled on 17 February 2006. Polling Day was on 6 May 2006. Where the playing field has already been tilted in favour of the ruling party, however, it is questionable whether tying in estate upgrading priorities and election eve spending to the continued propagation of the ruling party might not raise ethical issues. [Democracy, Media and Law in Malaysia and Singapore: A Space for Speech, Andrew T. Kenyon and Tim Marjoribanks and Amanda Whiting, page 168-169] • Since 1997, the issue of estate upgrading has featured in every election as a campaign tactic by the PAP. As an incentive for voters to support the ruling party, he PAP has tied votes directly to the eligibility for Housing Development Board (HDB) estate upgrading plans. As then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong warned, "You vote for the other side, that means you reject the programmes of the PAP candidate ... If you reject it, we respect your choice. Then you will be left behind, then in 20, 30 years' time, the whole of Singapore will be bustling away, and your estate through your own choice will be left behind. They become slums. That's my message" [Management of Success: Singapore Revisited, Terence Chong, page 108] Thank you Ng Kok Lim Straits Times, Strong leaders, clear vision 'key to shaping cities' Factors for liveability, sustainability highlighted at 3 environment forums, 3 Jun 2014 LEADERS who are transparent and have strong political will, good financing and a long-term vision are key to the success of shaping cities that are liveable and sustainable, said local and global thought leaders at three key environment forums yesterday. But cities, especially fast-rising ones in Asia, also grow so rapidly that they generate a lot of waste and change the climate for the worse, sometimes irrevocably. Their main challenge, of course, is how to tackle all these fallouts without slowing their rapid growth; cities today account for as much as 70 per cent of global gross domestic product (GDP). If cities do not manage their waste, for instance, they could "stifle themselves under the load of their own pollution", warned Environment and Water Resources Minister Vivian Balakrishnan. He was speaking at the Clean Environment Leaders plenary session, held as part of the CleanEnviro Summit at Marina Bay Sands. The summit runs alongside the World Cities Summit and Singapore International Water Week. The Straits Times is the media partner for all three events. Dr Balakrishnan said that how a city manages its environment determines the trajectory of its growth, as "people vote with their feet" and will flock to a city that is "attractive, sustainable, vibrant, as opposed to stifled, polluted, dangerous". "In Singapore, we've had the advantage of being so small that we had no choice but to be environmentally conscious from the moment of our conception," he said. For example, he added, it converted its mainland landfill to a park next to a freshwater reservoir. But governments should take a long-term view in raising the quality of life, and not pander to the populace for short-term gains, said National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan yesterday. For one thing, he warned, politicians who give voters "goodies" to win elections risk going bankrupt and souring everyone's view of politics. "Democracy of that manner must lead to insolvency and eventually political cynicism," he said, as he underscored an important principle held by the Government, of creating policies for the greater good even as it tried to make Singapore cleaner, greener and more comfortable for all. Mr Khaw's remarks resonated with many other thinkers at the World Cities Summit yesterday, who noted strong, honest leadership was the only way to ensure that city dwellers would keep their cities clean, green and peaceful. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Secretary-General Angel Gurria said new projections by his organisation suggest that climate change could dampen world GDP by 2.5 per cent. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) administrator Helen Clark agreed. Green growth is far from a rich-country luxury, she noted; rather, it is essential to lift people's living standards. Asia should look to environmental protections to grow. "I believe that green growth can be a huge source of innovation, of new jobs, of development of new sources of exports," she said.  Read More →

最近姐妹淘林宝音在网络上发表了一封给总理的公开信，感叹新加坡人不再信任政府，被香港的《南华早报》拿去报道，引来新加坡驻香港总领事傅光燊的反驳。他说，尽 管执政党带领国家渡过一个又一个危机，包括1997年的亚洲金融风暴、2003年的沙斯疫情以及2008年的全球金融危机，并在随后的四个大选中取得不俗 的得票率，林宝音仍不时感叹新加坡人不再信任和尊敬政府。傅光燊引述国际调查结果，说明林宝音的说法与事实不符。他说，根据爱德曼信任指标显示，37％的 美国受调查者表示信任政府，英国和香港受调查者对政府的信任度则分别为42％和45％。相比之下，高达75％的新加坡人表示信任政府。 这个傅领事从心理学角度来看，他是属于自恋心理防卫机制（一级防卫机制），最大的特点是否定和歪曲。欧美机构对于本地民主的研究，新加坡政府向来不采信，却惟 独采信这个75%的高信任率？“随后的四个大选中取得不俗的得票率”，实际上得票率是节节败退，却采用欧美非强制性投票的低标准，认为有“不俗”的表现。 近日最夯的“建国一代配套”似乎有怎么说都说不明白的趋势，这就说明一般国人对于“政府”信赖已经今时不同往日。很多人都说“现在说可以，不见得到了我就可以，我要亲眼得见才肯相信”——于是乎一种保留的态度，任你怎么说，我相信十分之一就够了。 是的， 当年许多政策好像都很利民、惠民，最后都成了政联刮地三尺的明证。政府把整十家华人巴士整合成政联主导的大巴士公司，就说因此能取得“量”的优势，避免不 必要的浪费。哪知道半途跑出一个皇亲国戚的八达巴士，强辞说有竞争毕竟是好事。之后八达巴士又成为地铁公司，而东北地铁线又分给巴士公司去经营，又再次强 调竞争带来的双赢，结果两家地铁倒是竞争谁的故障最多、最频密？最近却说“竞争”造成亏损，又来仿效英国公共交通的外包制度，打包票说明天会更好。根据坊 间传闻，这么些大动作，只不过为了让澳洲一家交通公司进来，如此而已……又，政府诊疗所早年就是为了给国人提供低廉的医疗服务（贫尼学生时代就享受过只收 3元的服务），曾何几时却变成两家政联医药集团……又，医药保健前阵子公积金局说洗手不干了，分给大东方和康福保险去做，据说竞争会引发削价战，带来更多 的好处。结果战事没发生，很多身患重病的国人却被私人健保整得死去活来，现在又来推出“终身健保”，谁知道葫芦里卖什么药？ 所以把人民对政府的不信任包装成公关的问题、语文选择的问题，根本就是大错特错。林宝音说： “不信任感是非常真实的，即使它只牵涉少数人。不信任感有自身的情感力量，与它代表的少数的地位不成正比。况且，它有很大的感染力，能够快速蔓延。” 新加坡人对李显龙的不信任，要从2004那年说起。那年吴作栋暖席之说最终得到证实，把剩下两年的位子禅让给李显龙坐。国人虽然厌恶这种“家天下”的做法，但还是冀望李显龙能带来新政。于是，8月底的总理群众大会，李显龙发表了他的总理处女演讲，隔天报纸恍如换新天： 内页白士德之流更是欣喜若狂，把标题定为“新加坡一夜之间许多‘不可以’都变成‘可以’”。当时还在政界擦边球的李玉云律师就大大吹捧了这个未来主子一番，她说：“他不只是开放更多空间给人民，也开放自己，不会让人觉得他有官僚作风，态度很亲民很诚恳。”—些受访者则认为李总理的演讲课题和风格都显示了他尝试建立亲民形象。 到了2006年大选李显龙“一个都不能少”（Nobody will be left behind）的竞选口号，到2012年总理国庆群众大会的“建设包容社会”，说明他有拉拢所有人的野心。 最近还在大谈的“建设性政治”，请问：“建设性政治不仅要为人民制定有效的政策，还要确保国家由操守和品格高尚的能人领导，同时能针对政策和建议进行有活力与 开放的辩论。此外，它也应该维持高度的诚信，并能团结人民成就共同的事业。”——总理先生，您能身体力行做到哪一点？这些都在他与国民的互动之间被揭穿。 2011年选前李显龙的道歉，之后张志贤大意搞了个“690万人口白皮书”，间接造成榜鹅东补选的失利，以及后来的“我们的新加坡对话会”，都挡不住一股又一股不信 任的浪潮。虽然说明李显龙曾有的一丝悔意。但是这些悔意并没有得到“升华”（Sublimation），反而是有点的老羞成怒的感觉。比如最近控博客诽谤 罪的事件来讲，林宝音有十分恰当的类比： “从您当下的悔悟一直到后来应承彻底的改变，您所带领的政府其实都岿然不动，更遑论兑现诺言。行动党甚至还 走回头路，来到一个更强硬的立场，不惜利用国家机器来散布白色恐怖的年代。……对于许多新加坡人来讲，很多都戴有对法律只偏袒有权有势者的有色眼镜，一点 都不会怀疑最终的结果一定是告到对手报穷为止。虽然你可以装作你只是照着游戏规则玩，大部分新加坡人却认为是行动党以巨大身躯压死一个小人物的招牌动 作。” 李显龙出现了“不成熟心理防卫机制（二级防卫机制）”中的“退行行 为”（Regression），专家说：“当人感受到严重挫折时，放弃成人的方式不用，而退到困难较少、较安全的时期——儿童时期，使用原先比较幼稚的方 式去应付困难和满足自己的欲望。完全的放弃努力，让自己恢复对别人的依赖，从而彻底的逃避成人的责任。而临床上歇斯底里和疑病症常见这种退行行为。” 作者:李莫愁 http://malaysia-chinese.net/luntan  Read More →