Saturday, 22 July 2017

Lee Hsien Loong’s values: casinos, EP ‘wayang’, dishonorable son.


In the past months, Lee Kuan Yew’s values were hot topics. Besides inherited some of the bad habits of Lee Kuan Yew”s values, what are Lee Hsien Loong’s values?

[The value of quick money]

The very first thing when he became prime minister, PM Lee introduced integrated resorts - casinos. In his earlier days of prime ministership, he already thought of a ‘get rich quick’ economic policy for Singapore. This is why he promoted casinos in Singapore. Not only in gaming industry, in housing industry we also see high price of Housing and Development Board flats. It is easy for government to make quick money in casinos, in housing, in banking, in telecoms, in road pricing … as far as you are the licensing authority.

Recently, the government finds some innovative clubs also engaging in ‘get rich quick’ schemes by operating jackpot machines.  However, clubs are losers as they don’t have the right to print the operating licences and clubs are subject to rules and regulations under the government.  

When we encourage Singaporeans to try their luck by paying $100 to get a licence to pay at casino, we are telling people there is a way to make quick money even the chance is slim. However, some people do try and as a result, we see the increasing numbers of pawn shops.

Lee Kuan Yew was against gambling. However, he eventually changed his mind because he saw the benefits that it could bring to the country. Perhaps, in this belief, Lee Hsien Loong also thinks 38 Oxley Road can be preserved. But as seen in gaming in casinos, the outcome is not always positive, sometimes, it depends on your luck.

[The value of anti-meritocratic and racial divide]

The Elected President wayang is a continued play of licensing. The People’s Action Party has the licence to direct the wayang.

The elected presidency was Lee Kuan Yew’s initiative. Then, Lee Kuan Yew was worried about the growing support for opposition parties among Singapore’s voters, however, he thought the office of the elected presidency could prevent a profligate opposition government from touching the island’s vast monetary reserves. In LKY’s famous quote: ‘Without the elected president and if there is a (general election) freak result, within two or three years, the army would have to come in and stop it.

In LKY’s evaluation, EP must be a person who can safeguard the reserve and understand and know how to read financial reports. However with a reserved EP, we are not getting the best and capable person to serve. It is even working in concert with the government.   

Is this the same EP value that LKY trying to promote?

By denying the EP value of LKY, Lee Hsien Loong has to acknowledge the EP is a policy mistake.  He is introducing the wayang EP to correct LKY’s mistake, just like the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road.  Not to forget PM Lee has the licence to do so as he is the head of the government.  

[The value of dishonorable behaviors]

Untitled drawing.jpg


Under the licence of ‘ownself defend ownself’, the parliament clears PM Lee’s abuse of power allegation.  However, the title of dishonorable son remains. For traditional Confucian values, dishonesty is even worst than power abuse. A dishonest person can do all bad things, including disloyalty, abuse of power, corruptions, etc.  

Since Han dynasty, ‘governed by filial piety’(以孝治国) had been a key principal value even though not all emperors were dutiful sons.


[The rule of virtue, which is the characteristic of the ancient Chinese society, "to rule the world with filial piety" is the concrete embodiment of governing the country by morality. The so-called "rule the world with filial piety" is to regard filial piety as the policy and principle of governing the country, and integrate the filial piety into the practice of governing the country.
http://www.bestchinanews.com/History/10316.html]

In ‘Lee Kwan (Kuan) Yew, Singapore and the Power of Filial Piety’

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-doctoroff/lee-kwan-yew-singapore-an_b_6952284.html), the writer has credited filial piety as a success factor for Singapore:

{Despite prominent Indian and Malay minorities, Singapore is predominantly Chinese. It is a profoundly Confucian society. The individual does not exist independent of his responsibilities to other elements of society. Even in 2015, the elemental productive unit of society remains the clan. Relationships are organized according to the wu lun (五伦)— five fundamental relationships that constitute a naturally ordered society: between father and son, husband and wife, older brother and younger brother, friend and friend, and ruler and ruled.}

PM Lee, as criticized by his siblings as dishonorable son, has a long way to clear his name and the licence to rule.

It is very unusual for an eldest on not being the executor and trustee of her father’s estate in Chinese tradition. In dynasty history, it means the successor has lost the authority to rule. In the eyes of Lee Kuan Yew, his  final decision and clear message to Singaporeans are Lee Hsien Loong is not the successor of Lee family.

Friday, 14 July 2017

总理在位13载,亢龙有悔。故居遗愿互斗,龙战于野。【横幅:物极必反】

Untitled drawing(1).jpg

李显龙走到今天,可以用《易经》的乾卦上九和坤卦上六来形容。上九和上六都是卦辞的最后一个爻。这是一个卦的顶点,再走下去,就要变成另一个卦,或者就是一个政治终结。

百度百科的简单解释:

(乾卦上九为)亢龙有悔(kàng lóng yǒu huǐ),成语。 亢:至高的;悔:灾祸。 意为居高位的人要戒骄,否则会失败而后悔。 后也形容倨傲者不免招祸

龙战于野为坤卦第六爻(上六)。龙为阳,此爻为阴,故龙战指阴阳交战。城外为郊,郊之外为野。玄黄,分别指天、地之色。天地为最大的阴阳,其血玄黄,是指阴阳交战流出了血,说明此爻是凶爻。喻人事,则为上下交战,至于死伤流血的情形。

亢龙有悔和龙战于野,怎么会和李显龙产生关系呢?

【亢龙有悔】
李显龙为何为了家事需要向国人道歉?李显龙对中国的南海和一带一路立场,是否有所改变?李显龙对TPP的坚持,对于国内的压制,对于淡马锡和外汇储备管理的解释,能够让人信服吗?

【龙战于野】
处于乾(阳)位的李显龙,和政治上不在位(坤/阴)的弟妹互相争斗,用龙战于野来形容是非常的适当。这个结果就是新加坡的国际地位受到影响,国人对政府的信心下降。

不论是龙战于野,还是亢龙有悔,这都显示出李显龙已经不适合担任新加坡总理。前总统候选人陈如斯发表公开信说,为国家,为家庭,为同事李显龙必须辞掉总理一职。陈如斯说,李显龙已经是国家的负资产,没有把事情的先后次序搞清楚(为总统选举瞎忙)。家庭方面,李显龙健康不佳,辞职对于孩子有利。最后,辞职后当然也不用部长们再为他背书。
(https://www.facebook.com/TanJeeSay/posts/1420493988029872)

【立法、司法上的亢龙有悔和龙战于野】

在立法上,李显龙只能依靠国会来护驾,为自己的廉洁辩护。他说弟妹们的指责没有事实证明,因此,他是清白的。国会也就无形中成了李显龙的上六和上九。这是他的最后一道防线, 最强的挡箭牌。

李显扬和李玮玲其实有提出证据。他们说何晶拿来李光耀的遗物,这点李显龙没有否认。他们说,故居委员会的设立和总检察长和其副手的任命,也都是事实。李显龙只能提出他本身上九和上六的解释。因此,在国会自辩,不等于没有事实证明。只能说,这是单方面的说法和诠释。

在司法上,李显龙也已经走到尽头了。首先,超龄的总检察长和前行动党背景的副手,已经让李显龙控制检察权。令人遗憾,新加坡法庭被人冠以“袋鼠法庭”的外号,这当然没有事实根据,没有人能够证明。但是,我们想一想,为何在国际上,新加坡法庭会有这个雅号呢?是不是旁观者清?我们被蒙蔽了?

我们从陈清木对总统选举中,要求法庭为第一任民选总统的定义做出决定可以看出,李显龙已经出尽法宝,把自己推向上九上六的位子。这个位子和时间,不正也不中。虽然,可以一时的把反对势力打倒,压制下来。但是,这只是缓冲之举。更加可怕的是,副总检察长在法庭上对陈清木的种族主义的偏见,竟然可以进入司法程序,成为证据。这似乎是一种江郎才尽。不过,只要达到目的,李显龙还是会满意的。

【易经是哲学,不是算命的八卦】

我们讲到上九上六,看起来似乎说李显龙的八卦和替李显龙算命。事实上,并非如此。易经基本上是中国第一部哲学书。当然,你也可以和李显龙的高度一样, 把它当成占卜的书。根据外媒报道,李光耀故居有两个骨灰瓮。因此,可以合理把它转化成万人参拜的宗庙。这样就接近李显扬李玮玲对哥哥的指责了。

李显龙曾经说,高处不胜寒。事实上,他在好多年前已经知道自己已经是处于上九上六的位置。或许,身不由己,即使他愿意下来,旁边的人未必同意他这么做。这点,我们从第四代接班人和淡马锡接班人都很难顺利产生看出来。古代有帝王的国家,即使做皇帝愿意退位,但是,既得利益者很多,未必同意皇帝的意见,而要求皇帝继续硬硬撑下去。这或许是李显龙的悲哀!他无法控制自己的命、位、时。

李显龙甚至无法维护李光耀的价值。最近的讲华语运动的渎风波,南洋理大的禁风波,说明李显龙的文化程度已经上到上九上六。李光耀不论基于什么原因推广华语,但是,到了李显龙身上,就是不成气候。一个可笑的事实,新加坡有多少人了解一带一路?而一带一路的很多研究资料,历史文献,以中文为主。新加坡人连基本汉字都无法辨认,如何看懂这些资料?连基本的讲华语运动都无法维护,李光耀的其他价值(单打独斗,不需要其他部长背书;灵活外交而非独立外交),李显龙又如何坚持持续下去?

李显龙的小国独立外交论,也显示另类“高处不胜寒”。独立外交,似乎把新加坡带向死胡同。独立外交变成对立外交。难怪,美国人会误把李显龙当成印度尼西亚总统!

【物极必反】

李显龙现在面对的是物极必反的局面。走完了上九上六,就是另一个开始,也即是现在政治生命的结束。他希望保留故居来延续目前的局面,通过立法国会,司法法庭来持续他的政治生命。而他的豪赌,却很不幸的一定跟新加坡的国运有关。

从李光耀,吴作栋,到李显龙。要求李显龙下台的呼声最多。我们似乎没有听到有人要求李光耀下台,只有听到他独裁。我们也没有听到要求吴作栋下台的呼声,只是觉得他很木讷,呆呆的。但是,要求李显龙下台的人,就不少,对李显龙不满的人,更加多。除了陈如斯,还有另外一位前总统候选人陈欣亮在2014年也曾经要求总理下台, 当然还有7月15日的抗议大会。


不满李显龙已经成了全国运动。为了国家,为了人民,为了将来,大家为小红点加油!反对李显龙滥权渎职,尽快放弃这个负资产。

Saturday, 8 July 2017

The Relevancy of Lee Kuan Yew’s values to Singapore after the Oxley drama in Parliament.



Untitled drawing.png

    PM Lee Hsien Loong has declared success of clearing all doubts about Oxley drama related allegations. His explanations in parliament suggest his version of Lee Kuan Yew’ values and its relevancy to Singapore and future Singapore, including the privilege of kinship.

    What are Lee Kuan Yew’s values? According to PM Lee, there are no abuse of power, corruptions, favor of appointments etc. as alleged by his siblings. (What has happened to Lee Kuan Yew’s values? As well as the summary evidence https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByodqaSLlpPIV0QtSmt4SlhhaEk/view)

    Parliament may give the benefit of doubt to PM Lee, but have we had a clearer picture of Lee Kuan Yew’s values now? Or, are we confused? Are we confidence or the public have confidence that we can uphold these values? This is a question remain to be seen, especially among intellectuals and elites in Singapore. Will they, like the Parliament, also give the benefit of doubt to PM Lee or think otherwise?

This is a serious question.  The People’s Action Party needs to attract the best in society to be their election candidates. Over the years, we have seen their quality declining even the PAP claims their candidates are the best in Singapore. Of course, they always stress that there is no alternative team. Or Singapore can’t afford to split their best team into two.

Checks and balances are important under the Lee Kuan Yew’s values.  However, the Oxley drama in parliament clearly shows a “ownself defend ownself” government.  Do we deserve to have a PAP “ownself check ownself” government?

The Oxley drama as shown in parliament highlights an intellectual questions. How potential candidates think and evaluate the parliament debates and the unexplained doubts. Do they believe Lee Kuan Yew’s values are still in the safe hands of the current PAP leaders? Do they believe the allegations are ‘mostly inaccurate’ as claimed by PM Lee? Do they feel comfortable under the double-standard kinship working conditions where there is a big difference between brother or not brother?

Many Singaporeans may not be able to fairly judge the Oxley drama, especially, if they only read and listen to the mainstream media. But those who want to stand as PAP candidates will have to think twice.  From their hearts, do they really agree with Lee Hsien Loong’s version of Lee Kuan Yew’s values and the way he tries to safeguard these values?   

Perhaps, the only return that Singapore gains from the Oxley drama is the enlightenment of intellectuals and elites. These people who can make changes and lead Singapore must evaluate Lee Hsien Loong’s point of arguments. Some may choose to leave Singapore, like Lee Hsien Yang. Some will go into deep thinking when the PAP approaches them as candidates. Hopefully, some will join the oppositions to strengthen the checks and balances in parliament.

Lee Kuan Yew’s values need urgent review and reform too. But PM Lee and his siblings may not agree to this, even though they disagree with each others.

morning.jpg
A reflection? Think again. (photo taken on 3 July morning)

    And perhaps, Kenneth is right.

Kenneth Jeyeratnam: Singaporeans get the government they deserve, I don't want to ...

Saturday, 1 July 2017

死守死板死教条死典范,错失改革良机: 李显龙造不出时势,更造不出英雄。


一个可悲的现实是,1965年李光耀为担忧新加坡前途而失声痛哭。而2017年,讽刺的是,他的儿子李显龙,却必须躲在国会里为自己的政治前途,而不是新加坡的前途而痛哭。

李光耀当年想到的是新加坡何去何从,退出马来西亚,我们的前途在哪里?尽管有人说,那可能是鳄鱼泪,无论如何,当时的新加坡人,的确是为前途而茫然,没有方向感。

2017年的新加坡,在经济,公共行政,社会发展上,当然不可和1965年相比。没有强大的反对党,人民行动党一党独大,在国会拥有绝对的多数。因此,李显龙选择在这个安全的地方,为自己的廉洁辩护,为自己的政治前途辩护,当然,就可以自导自演,反驳“大多数错误”(mostly inaccurate)的指责,轻描淡写的把少数正确的指责轻轻的带过。

李显龙现在的自导自演和国会辩护,完全是从个人的立场出发,考虑的是个人的政治前途,而李光耀当年,虽然也顾及个人的政治前途,同志的期待,但是,国家的前途,却是重中之重。把新加坡搞好搞活,考虑国人的利益就是行动党第一代领导人的责任。反观七月三日的李显龙,他却要为个人的政治前途辩护,他的举动对于新加坡来说是一种减分,由此可见,李显龙的境界有多高!

1965年的李光耀,如果无法领导新加坡,在同辈中,的确有可以取代李光耀领导新加坡的领袖。看看今天的新加坡,似乎没有可以取代李显龙,或者,不愿“冒险”担当这个任务的人。 正如,李玮玲李显扬指出的,李显龙何晶有意培养自己的接班人。从这一点观察,新加坡目前的处境比1965年来得更加糟,因为,我们没有愿意献身的国家领袖。部长和行动党领袖,考虑的是个人的利益,而不是像1965年那样,为国家的前途而奋斗。因此,李玮玲李显扬才说,国会无法说出事实的真相。

    李显龙对于李光耀故居的诠释,就充分的表现出他死守死板死教条死典范的行为。他认为李光耀的教条,不可变更,旧的成功典范,必须永久保留下来。因此,把故居保留下来,就是一项必须工作。如果,没有了故居,那么,李显龙做任何事情,都变得‘名不正言不顺’了。为此,他害怕失去故居,害怕失去这个神主牌。

【时、位错乱】

    李显龙错误的判断,或者说没有看清楚1965和2017的不同。时代已经改变了,连过世的李光耀都看出来,故居的神主牌不可再用。2015年大选的成绩,似乎坚定李显龙保留故居的决心。但是,这同时也是一种误判时间的考量。行动党当年取得政权,不是靠什么神主牌,而是有一群志同道合的同志,大家一起奋斗,间中也用了一些不光明的手段。

    李显龙似乎忘了他的总理位子是怎么来的?他没有看清楚自己的位置,这点他就不如蒋经国。蒋经国看到自己的位子,就开放台湾,甚至,如果蒋经国晚几年过世,台海两岸就不是现在这个样子。或许,这就是李显龙的高度,他坐上总理的位子,想到的是个人的问题,而不是国家的前途。故居问题不是今天才发生,最少两年前,甚至2011年就出现了。但是,他考虑的是死守死板死教条死典范,认为这才是他个人的出路。难怪,李玮玲说当遗属宣布时,李显龙生气得要把故居遗迹化。

    几年前就出现问题,李显龙没有及时处理家里的纠纷,现在却要国人了解。这是时间上的错误。还有,他不是遗属执行人,这就变得位也错了。他应该想一想,李光耀的遗属几年前立下的时候,就注定不让李显龙在“时”和“位”上取得优势。而李显龙根本没有觉察出来,及时的给予纠正。或许,他认为只要神主牌在,任何事情都可以解决。而他的跟班,他也会跟上。就像两个星期来,我们陆陆续续看到这些根本陆续上场。可想而知,在国会,同班人马,甚至更多跟班就会为出现。

    因此,李显龙目前的处境是时、位错乱。他把新加坡带上一条政治不稳定的道路。虽然暂时新加坡没有出现不稳定状况,但是,他个人的错位错时,国家社会分裂(尤其是精英们)将会进一步加深,而接班人,如果有的话,也会出现预想不到的问题。

    李显龙被认为理科顶呱呱,他应该想到量子物理中的迷惑和不稳定性。他死守着死板的死教条和死典范,就像他不惜一切保留李光耀故居一样,其实,在外人看来是非理性的,非科学性的。一个理科顶呱呱的人,在错位错时的背景下,变成采取了非理性,非建设性的决定。

【天不时、地不利、人不和】

    我们回顾李显龙政府过去几年的表现,就会发现,不论外交还是内政,都出现天不时、地不利、人不和的局面。从和中国的外交关系,美国的TPP误判和坚持,海外投资失利,到地铁问题,告人诽谤,媒体言论控制,NTU中文风波,都可以看到李显龙的天不时、地不利。http://pijitailai.blogspot.sg/2017/05/blog-post_27.html
    人不和更是厉害,从家事变成国事。再接再厉变成国际笑话。

【错位错时总理,新加坡何去何从】

    2017和1965当然不同。新加坡在国内外的“位”和“时”都改变了。但是,李显龙还停留在,或者说,死守着死板的死教条和死典范。他以为李光耀留下的旧教条和旧典范,可以依样画葫芦,一切照旧。

    新加坡的困境是,遇到一位错位错时总理,不愿改变、改革,依然活在垄断国会的治国方式。当李光耀在1965年,为新加坡痛哭时,他想到的是新加坡的前途,而如今,李显龙在一党独大的国会,只是为自己的前途而痛苦。他没有勇气公开的面对新加坡的未来,只在国会为自己辩护,呜呼哀哉!


Wednesday, 28 June 2017

From Public Apology to Calling for Public Confidence, Is this a Political Crisis or a PAP Reformation in the making?



    First, PM Lee Hsien Loong made a public apology to Singaporeans - the first in Singapore history.  And then, DPM Tharman called for public confidence - another first in Singapore history. It makes Oxley House disputes or allegations clearly not a family matter.       

In Singapore, the government led by the Prime Minister has enjoyed high prestige and reputation. This is why in defamation cases, the prime minister can enjoy higher damage payment.  And we usually see people saying sorry to the prime minister and hardly we see our prime minister or ministers saying sorry to Singaporeans. (except election time).

The government never says sorry because they have high confidence. In the past 60 years, with Internal Security Act, the PAP government has shown great confidence in public administration. It is strange to call for public confidence if this is only a family affair.  Throughout the years, even in the passing year of Lee Kuan Yew, the government never has such a calling.

Because Oxley House is now an international news. The calling of confidence is targeting international investors, foreign governments, international organisations and bodies.  They are wondering why a safe haven country gets into a mess just because of a house.  

A stable country and her institutions are alleged to act under fear and favor. Is there a political crisis arising from the miscalculation of Lee Hsien Loong? Is he underestimating the danger, damage or challenge as the Oxley House dispute is at least two years already? Or simply, PM Lee never considers such damage and allegation can threaten the stability of Singapore.  He has underestimated the intelligence of his siblings.      

Of course, foreigners also look at the allegations raised by PM Lee’s sister and brother. How independent is the judiciary if foreign investments or companies get into troubles with local administration or local companies? Is there a “big brother’ monitoring my investment or company activities?

Public apology is for local consumption and international confidence is to ensure foreigners Singapore remains a safe hevan.

Singaporeans may get used to the allegations as we have seen people being challenged and sued in Courts. But foreigners, except journalists, do not have such experience. Even PM Lee says most allegations are not accurate, however, it seems there are some or ‘little’ allegations are true.  Can these allegations be the critical ones resulting a public confidence calling?

Anyhow, PM Lee is only prepared to answer these allegations in parliament.  He is going to use this platform to answer or argue his case.  Is this his ‘own’ political crisis or a political crisis of the People’s Action Party?

It reminds me of the Protestant Reformation that challenges the Roman Catholic authority in Rome.

The Protestant Reformation was the 16th-century religious, political, intellectual and cultural upheaval that splintered Catholic Europe, setting in place the structures and beliefs that would define the continent in the modern era. In northern and central Europe, reformers like Martin Luther, John Calvin and Henry VIII challenged papal authority and questioned the Catholic Church’s ability to define Christian practice. They argued for a religious and political redistribution of power into the hands of Bible- and pamphlet-reading pastors and princes. http://www.history.com/topics/reformation
   
In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max  Weber wrote that capitalism in Northern Europe evolved when the Protestant (particularly Calvinist) ethic influenced large numbers of people to engage in work in the secular world, developing their own enterprises and engaging in trade and the accumulation of wealth for investment. In other words, the Protestant work ethic was an important force behind the unplanned and uncoordinated emergence of modern capitalism. (wikipedia)

At the same time, there was a counter reformation. The Catholic Reformation was the intellectual counter-force to Protestantism. The desire for reform within the Catholic Church had started before the spread of Luther. Many educated Catholics had wanted change – for example, Erasmus and Luther himself, and they were willing to recognise faults within the Papacy.

The Oxley House dispute is centred around Lee Kuan Yew value. Demolition or not represents different values - Lee Hsien Loong version (conservative view?) and LKY’s wish (reform view? Starting from zero). It is like a mini reformation and counter reformation.  

We also note that Lee Hsien Yang has said he is not an opposition. He wants to see changes within the system - a reformed PAP.

No matter what type of reformation Hsien Yang is aiming, he has enlightened Singaporeans and highlighted the allegations openly outside parliament.

Singapore needs a rethink and revaluation of Lee Kuan Yew value or legacy. It is again not a family matter. Singapore’s future depends on how we redefine Lee Kuan Yew value.

Thursday, 22 June 2017

一种价值,两种诠释。 人民行动党走向分裂,还是内化?每个新加坡人都应该关心不同诠释下的不同国运结果。



天篇: 谁的境界高?
天一: 宗教改革
天二: 领悟有无
天三: 李显龙只看到眼前的实体

地篇: 分裂vs内部改革?
地一: 巫统党争
地二:     蛛丝马迹 - 行动党内部纷争
地三: 李显扬只认内部反对
人篇: 新加坡何去何从?


李光耀价值的争论,似乎成了一个哲学命题。我们真的能够在这起李家风波中学习到东西吗?如果只是把它当成李家内部问题,而没有考虑到更大的治国方向,路线之争,未来选项等思考,这个大动作就未免变成一项零投资回报,而李玮玲和李显扬也成了零牺牲。

李光耀价值,现在最少有两种李家的诠释。什么是李光耀的价值?新加坡人懂吗?明白吗?应该说,李光耀价值还有很多种诠释,人民行动党党内和党外、国内和国外,都会有不同的解读,不同的诠释。

李家的两种不同诠释版本,只是正统价值观,精神面的诠释。它们的目的同样是要维护李光耀的理念,并且极力要维持、维护这种他们各自认为正统的价值观。这对新加坡是好是坏?我们是否可以超越这种正统的官方的诠释,为新加坡找一条新出路?

先秦儒家的发展,到了孟子和荀子,就出现性本善和性本恶的内部诠释。当然,有些儒者,并不认同荀子。 到了宋明理学,也出现诠释上的不同。不过,除了儒家,中华大地,还有道家和佛家。这才让中国变得多姿多彩。


天篇: 谁的境界高?

天一: 宗教改革

我们先看一下西方的宗教改革。

宗教改革(英语:Protestant Reformation)是指基督教在16世纪至17世纪的教派分裂改革運動,也是新教形成的開端,由馬丁·路德約翰·加爾文慈運理,以及其他早期新教徒发起。1517年,路德发表的《九十五条论纲》引发了宗教改革的开始。改革者反对当时天主教會的教条、仪式、领导和教会组织结构。在他们的努力下,新的国家性的改革派教會被建立。早期的一些发生在欧洲的事件(如黑死病的蔓延和天主教會大分裂)侵蚀了人们对天主教会和教宗的信仰,但教義上的歧見才是引发宗教改革的關鍵。其他一些因素(如文艺复兴思想的传播、印刷术的传播、东罗马帝国的灭亡)也都促成了新教的创立。虽然先于路德就已经有一些较大的改革运动,但大多数人认为宗教改革开始于1517年路德发表《九十五条论纲》,结束于1648年签订威斯特伐利亚和约结束三十年戰爭#https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/

在宗教改革前,对于圣经的诠释,只有一种版本 - 罗马教皇的拉丁文版本。但是,由于罗马天主教会的腐败,欧洲其他地方就出现地区性的不同(和不同语文)诠释。这么一来,对于圣经的解释,教条,礼拜等,就出现不同版本的诠释。这导致不同派别的基督新教的产生。新教的出现对于后来的(英国和北欧,北美)资本主义发展产生了很大的影响。

同样的,在罗马教会里,为了反制新教,反对宗教改革(Counter Reformation),开明的天主教派别也出现,这种内部改革的运动,也称为Catholic Reformation。这些开明天主教会,在开始的时候,也不为教皇所接受,但是,最后的发展,天主教的发展,海外扩张,就是依靠这些忠诚的传教士,著名的人物包括:圣芳济和利玛窦。

同样的故事也发生在伊斯兰教,在对于“古兰经”的诠释上,除了遜尼派和什叶派外,还出现了一些其他小的派别。

李光耀的价值,当然不可能和这些宗教的诠释拿来相提并论。但是,对于一种价值,一种精神,出现不同的诠释,这一现实,我们却是应该接受。只是,我们不应该走向极端罢了。

天二: 领悟有无

这是一个禅宗的故事,神秀的“渐修派”和六祖惠能的“顿悟派”的区别。或许,这是李家看李光耀价值的不同角度,一个看重实际事物,要渐渐的修,日日的拜。另一个马上明白,放弃崇拜。

此偈见于敦煌写本《坛经》。关于这首诗的来历,《坛经》第四节至第八节,有明白的记载:五祖弘忍“一日唤门人尽来”,要大家“各作一偈”。并说“若悟大意者”,即“付汝衣法,禀为六代。”弘忍的上首弟子神秀在门前写了一偈道:“身是菩提树,心如明镜台。时时勤拂拭,莫使有尘埃。”弘忍知道后,“遂唤秀上座于堂内”,说是“汝作此偈,见即未到”,“若觅无上菩提,即未可得”,因而要他“更作一偈”。而“秀上座去数日,作不得。”惠能的偈语(见下图),即针对神秀的《无相偈》而发。据《坛经》所载,惠能本不识字,他先“请人一读”神秀的偈语,然后作此歌偈,“请得一解书人于西间壁上题着”。 这首偈,同神秀的那一首,在修行方法上具有原则的区别。神秀的那首“无相偈”,使他失去作为弘忍继承人的资格,却成了北宗一派的开山祖。由于神秀强调“时时勤拂拭”,后人以其主张“拂尘看净”,称之为“渐修派”。而惠能的这一首,是对神秀偈的彻底否定,也即主观唯心主义对客观唯心主义的彻底否定,直接把握住“见性成佛”的关键,被称为“顿悟派”。 http://baike.baidu.com


李显龙要保留李光耀故居,很显然的就是看到实际的物,保留下来,随时可以利用一番。李光耀和李光耀遗愿执行人看到无和空,一种凌驾在实际物体上的精神 - 本来无一物,何处惹尘埃。

天三: 李显龙只看到眼前的实体

新加坡立国以来,走的就是务实的实体路。李显龙就是要维持维护这条路线。因此,李显龙认为他诠释的才是正统的李光耀价值。所以,他认为利用李光耀威权时代留下的法宝:设立政府部长委员会来处理故居问题和利用国会的保护伞作为辩护管道,将是他合法诠释李光耀价值的实际高度。而务实的新加坡人,也会接受他的“作为唯一合法”诠释李光耀价值的地位。

务实的李显龙,看到了眼前的实体。他很难理解“本来无一物,何处惹尘埃”。他很难明白为何自己的父亲,七次更改遗书,因为,李光耀也在“有和无”之间挣扎,最后,李光耀选择了无,不要保留故居。当然,部长委员会要从公众利益,为是否保留故居,做最后的诠释,也是从实体考虑问题,从实际政治利益考虑问题。

这种看不透务实以外,实体以外的价值判断,没有与时并进的考虑问题,没有看到无和空的用处,李显龙和接班人能够带领新加坡走多远?而且,李显龙和他的部长们,似乎也不愿意看到内部改革,因为,他们相信自己还处于宗教改革前的天主教会 - 教皇是唯一诠释圣经的权威,不可以被挑战。

一个只看到实体的人,境界可以有多高?


地篇: 分裂vs内部改革?

宗教改革导致罗马天主教会的分裂和本身内部的改革。这个发展对于整个基督教的传播,起了巨大影响,对人类文明,经济发展,社会进步(放弃奴隶制度,平等)做出贡献。

那么,李光耀故居事件,对于新加坡来说,会有什么影响?

地一: 巫统党争

马来西亚巫统党争,是我们比较熟悉的例子。但是,巫统党争似乎没有出现内部改革的迹象。无论谁当家,他们都认为自己是维护马来人利益的正统。当权派认为自己是马来人的保护者,而从巫统分裂出来的政党,也打着维护马来人利益的号召。改革在哪里?

从马来西亚巫统的内斗史可以发现,每次内斗之后,保守势力都能巩固实力,甚至变本加厉,进一步打击这个国家脆弱的民主体制。
1951年巫统创始人嘉化想开放政党予非马来族加入,结果被保守势力驱逐。
1969年513事件之后,马哈迪与拉萨逼宫,东姑阿都拉曼不得不退位。拉萨接棒后实行新经济政策,种族为先的政治滥觞。
1986年巫统党争,时任首相马哈迪与党内劲敌东姑拉沙里争夺党魁宝座,巫统分裂为A、B两大阵营。1987年党选,马哈迪微差胜出,东姑拉沙里派系质疑选举舞弊,入禀高庭,法官裁定巫统为非法团体。危机中马哈迪成立“新巫统”,A队全面掌权。东姑拉沙里则率领B队创立四六精神党。
。。。。。
接下来是1998年马哈迪与安华之争,结果是安华锒铛入狱。安华支持者展开烈火莫熄运动,催生公正党,高举民主旗帜;巫统则越走保守路线,继续强化马来民族主义意识。公正党这些年来一直试图扮演苏秦的角色,2007年安华出狱后的确有六国封相的声势,带领反对联盟取得未曾有过的成绩,但始终无法催生两线制格局。
。。。。。
自一马公司丑闻爆发,新一波党争浮出水面。
马哈迪、慕尤丁、慕克力为首的挑战派无法撼动纳吉根基,一个个黯然退党;而今有意组织新政党抗衡,似乎历史又回到了四六精神党创立的时代,回到嘉化创立马来亚独立党的时代。不同的是,现在在野阵营已有多个势力,新党成立,公正党地位更尴尬,反对党间的利益分配更复杂。反观巫统这两年拉拢伊斯兰党,远交近攻的策略,早见成效。
http://prd.zaobao.com/forum/opinion/story20160731-647781

巫统现在的处境,类似宗教改革前的罗马教会。内部腐败,但却一直诠释只有巫统能够维护马来人的利益。所以,一个没有内部改革的巫统,如何领导国阵赢得下一次大选将是一个大考验?

地二: 蛛丝马迹 - 行动党内部纷争

人民行动党有没有党争?在1961年,就出现一次巨大的党争 -社会主义阵线的出现。之后,通过各种手段,行动党稳稳当当的过了50年。

在过去的这么多年中,是否有蛛丝马迹的内部改革,还是分裂的现象?在1980年代,李光耀要求第一代领导人退出政府后,有一部分领导人表示不满。在1987年行动党政府,大规模的动用内安法,但是,当时对付的对象,已经从50,60 年代主要以华校生为主的对象,转为英校生和天主教教徒。 内安法也不过只在行动党内部产生一些杂音罢了。

所以,应该可以说,李光耀,吴作栋,再到李显龙,根本没有内部改革的意愿,也没有这种压力。不过,在2011年大选后,落败的杨荣文曾经提出内部改革的意见。随着行动党在2015年大选大胜后,内部改革就变得无所谓。分裂和外部反对势力连一点威胁都谈不上。

那么,就真的没有内部改革的需要吗?2011年的总统选举,出现了陈清木的行动党B队,他的得票率几乎和行动党A队一样。到底是A队还是B队,更加能够反映李光耀价值?李显龙的正统派,当然认为是A队。而行动党的基层,似乎并不这么认为。

地三: 李显扬只认内部反对
所以,行动党内部改革,还是有一定市场。只要打着“通过行动党内化和改革“,维护内化后的李光耀价值,行动党政府的长期执政,还是可以持续下去。这和李显龙提倡的实体不变的李光耀价值,有所不同和可以被区别开来。

行动党内部一直到现在,还是有一股开明势力。只是他们明哲保身,没有公开表示罢了。

这种折衷式的改革,对于不愿改变,不愿冒险,不愿支持反对党的新加坡人来说,更加具有吸引力。李玮玲和李显扬提出的层次较高,不根据实体实物的李光耀价值,再加上,他们自认没有政治野心,很可能吸引到新加坡有识之士、知识分子的欢迎和觉醒。

因此,李玮玲和李显扬提出和哥哥不同的诠释,不但可以被理解,甚至应该加以支持。因为,如果他们的出发点,是要推动一种类似内部的天主教改革(Catholic Reformation),这对新加坡来说是有利的。

而李显龙处处维护所谓的正统的李光耀价值,将会把行动党带向死胡同,而新加坡内部的原创力,将会受到打击,我们的整体竞争力,将会面临极大的考验。

关心新加坡的有识之士和知识分子,不可以在忙、盲、茫中迷失。小市民或许在忙、盲、茫中,没有时间思考,但是,社会运动和任何一种社会、政治改革,通常都是由社会上层的精英带动的。而李玮玲和李显扬,作为总统奖学金得主,更加是精英中的精英。

我们怎么能能够不重视李光耀故居和李光耀价值的诠释呢?每一个关心新加坡前途的人,都应该自觉的了解李家的不同诠释,和不同诠释下的不同结果。

另外,值得一提的是宗教改革的成功,得利于印刷业的兴起。时代的进步,李玮玲和李显扬没有通过主流媒体传达信息,虽然是一种无奈的选择,但是,却是符合潮流的声音。


人篇: 新加坡何去何从?


。。。。。