Thursday, 16 November 2017

UOB, Wong Kan Seng and the Singapore’s sad story.



Wong Kan Seng is to be Chairman of United Overseas Bank after being appointed as a Board Director.

It is a sad story. It is not meritocracy.

It is a sad story. It shows the limit of entrepreneurship in Singapore.

It is a sad story.  It is a political decision.

In his political career, Wong Kan Seng had no financial or commerce experience.  


[A former member of the governing People's Action Party (PAP), Wong was a Member of Parliament (MP) representing the Bishan-Toa Payoh Group Representation Constituency. Wong served as the country's Deputy Prime Minister from 2005 to 2011. He also held the Cabinet portfolios of Minister for Community Development (1987–91), Minister for Foreign Affairs (1988–94), Minister for Home Affairs (1994–2010) and Co-ordinating Minister for National Security (2010–11).]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wong_Kan_Seng

One can easily claim that being a minister one is qualified for all management jobs, including banking and finance, as he/she is looking after the ministry’s finance too. So a minister is like a chief executive of a corporation. And we should have no doubt about his ability to discharge his duty as a banker.

While meritocracy may not be applicable here, we can give the benefit of doubt to him. However, Wong is certainly not an entrepreneur before entering politics. His so-called business experience, after retiring from government, is only heading state-owned enterprises under Temasek.  

UOB is an established bank in Singapore. Through merger and acquisitions, it has become one of the Big-Three here.  It is a private bank dating back to 1935.Whether we like or dislike the way UOB grows from a small bank to a big bank, it certainly represents some kind of entrepreneurship. It is able to make decisions on their own and making compromises along the way.    

However, Wong is not known to obtain business acumen.

It is sad that a successful Singapore business still needs a non-businessman to guide its future. Does it mean UOB can only outgrow her present form with some political connections, even though Wong is an ‘old wine’?

It is a sad and bad example.

The only asset that Wong has is his position of former PAP Deputy Prime Minister.

Since 1935, UOB has always appointed a non-politician as Chairman. And UOB in many ways is a family controlled business. In one way, it is good to bring in new blood to reduce family colors. But it is also good to get external expertise to expand knowledge base.

Does it mean the inclusion of Wong indicating a shift where political connection is critical factor for future growth and expansion? Or Wong can be a stabilizer for lesser government’s intervention.   

It seems to suggest political consideration is more important than entrepreneurship. And businessmen must know how to make use of their political assets.

UOB may gain something. Wong is certainly a winner. As UOB chairman, he will enjoy and be entitled to perks accorded to his position.    

This is so different from Lee Hsien Loong’s statement on ministers’ pay in 2011/2012.  

Source: (AFP) – Jan 17, 2012

The above report means PAP ministers has to be paid high salary as they have low or no income after retiring from politics.

On the contrary, it is a sad story and bad example as Wong, a former DPM, still has value to a bank. Lee Hsien Loong had not predicted a full picture in 2012.

Wong is certainly not the case, so do many other ministers and even former and current PAP members of parliament.  Many of them hold directorships in listed companies on a “voluntary” basis.   

Being a volunteer as CEO or director is not a bad option but a sad story to Singapore indeed.

Thursday, 9 November 2017

从地铁(行动党)次等文化看新加坡的未来: 随时误点误事,把持肥缺肥田不落人后。

随时面对误点误事,
自愿把持肥缺肥田不落人后。


人民行动党政府认为自己的地铁文化出现问题,间接承认地铁文化是次等的,不完善,不完美,令人蒙羞的。但是,地铁文化正是行动党治国文化的缩影吗?从地铁的次等文化,细看行动党的次等政治文化:无需制衡,一党独大的狂傲,新加坡的未来何去何从?

地铁公司经过五年的军人式管理,奖学金精英的领导下,还是无法改变旧有的文化,那么,再给它五年,是否真的能够改弦易辙,提高生产力,提高效率,提高公众的信心呢?

答案和新加坡的未来有关,可以说地铁的既定管理文化,不论是重商主义,维修问题,还是领导接班人的问题,不就是人民行动党的政治的反照吗?

而这个烂泥巴,不是始于五年前,而是更加早,甚至10年,15年前,当地铁公司转为所谓的私人管理,骄傲的告诉世人,我们的地铁服务是一门盈利的生意的时候。问题就出在这里,次等文化就此产生。私有化国有企业,可以制造很多肥田肥缺,照许文远的说法,可以让更多奖学金得主,政府精英主动自愿的加入,为党为国牺牲,而不是为了个人利益。

地铁次等文化的产生,就是在行动党政府盈利挂帅的背景下产生的。SMRT企业总裁兼首席执行长郭木财何其不幸,主动自愿为地铁服务,但是现在却背上坏名声。而其他奖学金精英,肥田肥缺自愿耕耘,有些不但把公司搞到关门,还可以扶摇直上,顺风顺水,如,报业控股执行总裁伍逸松,就是其中之一。

因此,在这样的背景下,地铁的次等管理文化产生了,这当然获得行动党的次等政治管理文化的加持才有可能产生。与其怪地铁文化,不如直接怪行动党的次等政治文化来得更加直接。这和李显龙出任总理以来的次文化路线也有关联。因为,他强调解决经济问题,追求高薪高利,而忽视文化问题。从而接受次等文化逐渐变成国策。

因此,如果我们认为,地铁的管理不会有所改善,行动党的行政策略和效率,也是如此这般,那么新加坡的未来,将是黯淡的。因为,我们的要求已经不是第一世界的要求,而是,容许误点误事,把次级表现习以为常的一种病态。私有化国营企业,即使亏本关门,也无所谓,只要政治正确,主动自愿为党请命就可以了。

而我们的人民,也像现在一样,无奈、无助般的接受这一命运,最多,也只是在社交媒体发发牢骚。选举一到,还是闪电第一,闪电最好,闪电样样行的迷思。如此一来,根本,无法做到制衡,改进效率的地步。

这就是未来的新加坡。面对地铁的次文化,面对行动党的次政治文化,欣然接受,无助、无奈又无情的得过且过下去。

当然,我们依然可以做着一千万人口的大梦。或许,这样的一个梦,只能依靠外来人口的努力,打拼,智慧,财力,才能做到。那么,这是新加坡梦吗?我们的奖学金精英做不到,我们的行动党政治文化做不到,一切都需要外来人口才能做到,这到底是不是新加坡精神,还是,李光耀精神骨子里的精髓?我们在这么多年后,才看到这个李光耀的真面目。

    次等文化的历史现实问题:

¥地铁是政治问题。许文远说武吉巴督轻轨基于政治原因而兴建的。行动党可以不依据科学数据,分析,利害关系,就我行我素,只要政治正确就可以。因此,用人,外汇管理,也是如此。

¥地铁文化不是一时产生。地铁次等文化的产生,几十年前就开始了。就像一个年轻人一样,20,30岁没有大的健康问题,地铁营运了几十年后,问题就来了,当然,不懂得保养,维修,身体就会出现严重的误点误事了。

    ¥最聪明的奖学金精英也改变不了文化宿命。从学业表现上,这些自愿到政府关联的企业工作的奖学金精英,可以说是社会上最上层的人。为何这些人无法完成任务?他们不单不了解新加坡文化,对于底层员工的需求,也不了解。新加坡前50年的成功,是一群没有受过良好教育,但是却很努力,刻苦耐劳,不计较高薪的华人,马来人,印度人共同努力的成果。时代改变了,而精英却认为现在的新加坡人还是和以前一样,不会斤斤计较。

    ¥纸上谈兵的军人式管理。地铁是重要的基础设施,需要纪律式管理。因此,引进一批前武装部队高级将领,企图以军事化管理来改变地铁的次等文化。事实上,地铁服务,尤其是维修部门,只需要一支工兵部队就可以。这是光有将军,没有士兵的地铁文化。从这里可以看出新加坡将会出现的严重问题,一大批受过教育的白领,而没有像样的蓝领。

    新加坡在行动党次等文化的调教下,事实上,正在吃着老本。地铁如此,教育,卫生,人文素养(达曼说“过去二三十年来,我们的习惯并没有真正改进),这些都是吃着老新加坡人的血汗而缺少反思反省的行为。我们以前主动要争取世界第一,努力做得更加好,不然,别人会跟上。现在,吃着老本,无力争取,被动接受次等的行动党文化,被动忍受次等的服务。这是一个危机,因为,别人很快就会跟上、赶上。

Saturday, 4 November 2017

Sponsored PAP social media content everywhere. A day to come!



From Russia to USA. From the PAP to Singaporeans. PAP sponsored social media content will appear overall Singapore.

Washington Post  National  World   D.C. Area News and Headlines   The Washington Post.png

This is a report from The Washington Post.

If Russians can do it in an open society, like USA, a country with freedom of speech, how do we imagine the same in Singapore when everything is controlled under a one-party state.

The US has no press control and many mainstream media was against Donald Trump during the 2016 US Presidential Election. Even with main stream media support, Clinton could not win the battle. Why?

Did Russian content in social media really have such a big impact on the outcome of the US election? It may be yes and may be no.  But certainly, Clinton campaign had her weakness. And the blame now goes to social media, especially the Russian content.

If this is true, the People’s Action Party will have to re-think their strategy. They have to worry the effectiveness of mainstream media. In Reducing Importance of Print Media, PAP turns to Social Media for a bigger catch”https://pijitailai.blogspot.sg/2017/10/reducing-importance-of-print-media-pap.html, the PAP is gearing up in the social media. There is a limit that the controlled print media and broadcasting channels can reach.  

The PAP is now talking a lot about their fourth generation leaders. The controlled media can print a handsome picture of whoever they are. But in social media, these PAP leaders are not only less popular, in addition, they are competent deficit.   

If Trump’s social media strategy is right (winning election with or without Russian assistance), then the PAP will have to be very aggressive online.  

If same thing happens in Singapore, the Russian content changes to the PAP content. It will definitely have a big impact, perhaps, a big election impact as big as the passing of Lee Kuan Yew.  While LKY’s impact is through controlled media not in social media. This social media deficit will have to sponsored by the PAP government.

In fact, we have already seen a lot of government sponsored social media content.  As indicated in the Post’s article, Facebook, Google and Twitter had unusual sponsored Russian content during the election period.

The GOP Tax Plan Tells Us Everything About Who Matters In American Democracy   HuffPost.png

Google and Facebook have 60% digital advertising market in the US. They may also have the same percentage share in Singapore. This digital advertising revenue can come  from everyone, including local and foreign governments. While in Singapore, it is less likely foreign governments will thrown money in our domestic market.  But the PAP government, for whatever reason, can legally advertise in social media.

When the PAP talks about the Fake news in social media, it ignores and excludes itself as they claim they have an “Ownself check ownself” system. But all other social media users are subject to their control.   

It is a great challenge ahead, from mainstream media to social media, for both the PAP supporters and alternative views. The PAP supporters and sites must try to attract as many 'likes' as they can. While the alternative views and sites and supporters will have to do the opposite. 



Friday, 27 October 2017

公积金局被动式债务重组 - 寻求会员延后提款。


0 公积金流程图.png


债务重组的意思就是原本到期的应付债务,需要延后支付,不能如期兑现。这不像公积金局的作风,因为,公积金局的钱,都是以借款的方式购买新加坡政府的债券,只要政府如期还款,公积金局就不需要向会员寻求债务重组。

因此,公积金局最近发信给,即将领取每月存款的会员,要求他们考虑延后提款,甚至可以延后到70岁才开始提款的做法,就像是一种要求债务重组的请求。表面上,这是一种善意,那些还在工作的老龄雇员,不需要在65岁提取存款,延后之后,将来70岁的时候就可以获得更加高,更加多回报的提款,不正是一件美事吗?

曾几何时,人民行动党政府会为人民提供这样好的“好康” - 为了乐龄人士提供每月提款到90多岁。Pay and pay 不就是行动党的金子招牌吗?

【债务重组】

公司,个人,甚至国家,如欧洲笨猪五国,就出现活生生的债务重组例子。当然,他们是欠银行的钱。债务重组就是重新谈判,把时间拉长,利率拉高,条件更加苛刻等。那些做生意周转不灵的公司,或者房地产价格下跌的个人,都会面对债务重组的问题。

反过来看公积金局,公积金局是主动,会员是被动要求债务重组。当然,会员也可以选择不要重组。不管怎样,如果同意,会员和公积金局当初订立的(利用最低存款)提款条件,在时间和提款数目上就会发生变化 - 重组。

当然,这不是公积金局第一次要求会员债务重组。在以前,他们还硬性规定把提款年限从55岁提高到65岁。现在的做法,似乎文明多了,还可以自由选择。

【为何债务重组】

我们从公积金流程图里,可以看到从借钱到还钱的流程。
借钱流程: 会员-公积金局-政府债券-淡马锡/政府投资公司
还钱流程: 淡马锡/政府投资公司-政府债券-公积金局-会员

其中,淡马锡/政府投资公司,国家基建/发展的投资和回报是关键。

这些投资和回报如果没有达到预期的效果,如2.5%以上的回报,那么,我们想一想,淡马锡和政府投资公司如何支付本金和利息给政府。而政府又如何还钱给公积金局。因为,公积金局需要付给会员的存款利息是介于2.5-4%。当然,还要考虑55岁扣了最低存款,65岁需要发放每月存款的准备。

难道,行动党政府已经看到回报会出现问题。投资回报无法达到预期,因此,需要提前准备,把每月提款年龄从65岁提高到70岁,在流动资金方面的压力就会减少。

【政府债券利率介于2.5-6%】

公积金局是一个被动的投资者。它收到会员的钱,依法就是通过购买政府债券来进行投资。在公积金局的常年报告书里 (第7项 投资),公积金局几乎把所有会员的存款投资在政府债券上,利率分为浮动和固定两种, 介于2.5%到6%。
公积金局借钱给政府.jpg
政府借到钱后,当然不可能放着不用,因此,就把这些钱交给淡马锡和政府投资公司,也可以作为国家发展和基建。但是,这些钱不是免费午餐,政府需要在债券到期的时候,连本带利还给公积金局。

问题是,万一投资回报没有达到目标,低于2.5%,那么行动党政府就连利息也还不起了。因为,债券利息最少2.5%,回报却低于2.5%。这种情形一旦出现,就是本金也还不了。

淡马锡,政府投资公司是在国内外进行金融和金融项目的投资。就像一般的企业,公司和个人投资,也要面对风险。当然,也正如政府说的,作为长期投资,我们不能拿一年,两年的回报作为标准,要看长期。事实上,65岁提取每月存款,一直到90岁以上,就是一项长期的投资风险评估。

【总统的责任】

公积金局和会员之间的流程在一定程度上是透明的,因为这是个人的钱,但是,也会出现一问三不知的情形。接着,政府和公积金局的流程就比较复杂,而政府和淡马锡/政府投资公司之间的流程,就是人们普遍上认为透明度不够,信任度最低的流程。

政府发行债券获得的钱,自然和政府的盈余(过去和现在)进行一篮子管理。而其中,外汇管理也是工作之一。除了淡马锡/政府投资公司外,金融管理局也负责新加坡外汇管理。为了让人民了解政府没有不适当管理外汇,在gov.sg上,还有一份2012年的说明:
gov.sg   Is there something wrong with our Reserves (1).pnggov.sg   Is there something wrong with our Reserves .png
在说明中,政府也承认,有人不时的对外汇管理产生怀疑,因此,对此作出说明解释。

新加坡在80年代设立总统选举制度以来,总统的功能就是要确保外汇管理适当,以人民的利益出发,监督政府和高级公务员,把外汇和公共行政做到最好。

很不幸的,由于总统本身没有把这项任务做好,人民不得不有所怀疑。从陈庆炎(一个懂得财务的人)到哈利吗(一个不懂财务的人)担任总统,这不是加深加大人们对于政府管理外汇储备的怀疑吗?甚至,也怀疑高级公务员的任命具有政治色彩。当然,更加不用说那些政府关联公司的利益输送问题。

新加坡辛辛苦苦建立起来的廉政?李光耀精神?公务员体系?行政效率?在一再修改宪法,一再变更游戏规则、法规的背景下,是否还能维持以往的建国精神?

为什么以前没有人很大的怀疑李光耀那一辈的领导,在外汇管理和行政任命上有所偏差;而到了李显龙这一代领导,人们却不停的产生怀疑?一种简单的解释为,以前钱很少、很小,现在,国民所得高,钱多了,因此,怀疑就多了。

这么说,就是钱多就作怪。高薪养廉行吗?

Friday, 20 October 2017

Reducing Importance of Print Media, PAP turns to Social Media for a bigger catch.

gear shifting.jpg


    We need to see the recent events in print media as a total package. Singapore Press Holdings, Mediacorp and the People’s Action Party are three in one. When there are changes, we cannot view them as business decisions. These are propaganda shift and the new strategy is to occupy and control the social media.     

    It is easy to make SPH profitable by just given them a piece of good land or good deal. It is even easier to make Mediacorp cash rich by just providing more funds in the Budget.  

    However, the PAP has to consider the return on investment. The same money spent on print media can also be spent in social media, even with a lower budget. But the print media has reached its peak while social media has greater and faster influence with less demanding quality control.

Some of the retrenched journalists can be sponsored into social media activities. Just take 20% or 30% of the cost saving in SPH and Today and invest in social media, the impact will be bigger than continuing their employment. These social media sites can be a one-man show or a group of individuals and work alongside with the 50 Cent Party.  

This is a strategy shift, from a once successful propaganda print media to possible Fake News makers.      

    Print media always claim they have quality control, especially the Straits Times. They are proud of themselves but to the PAP, they are just tools. However, we have to admit from time to time they do provide useful information. They can write their reports 20% right 80% misleading; 80% good news 20% bad news; good news first bad news last. You can see these examples in their MRT reports or parliament reports or poverty/inequality level.

    However, for social media reporting, Fake news reporting can totally on the 80% misleading, ignores the 80% bad news and only report on good news. The public, without further check and consideration, will believe all the PAP good news. Alternatively, they can also concentrate reporting on bad news about the oppositions. The easier one is suspected sex affairs, suspected corruption, suspected mismanagement of town councils.   

    The PAP’s strategy is actively moving into social media which with careful observations, you can see they already achieved some successes.   

    This is why even making profit, SPH still wants to fire journalists. Having easy money from the government, Today still wants to go digital without print version.

    The PAP does do their homework. They consider tradeoff and cost-benefit analysis. Today’s last day of print is the last day of September. Why? It can still be useful if there is no walkover in PE2017.   

    From the strategic point of the PAP or Lee Hsien Loong, print media carries negative return or less importance as compared to the past.  They have less influence over the younger generation.

    The same money can be best spent on sponsoring social media in Singapore. These sponsored sites not only can attract younger voters, they can also create fake news as independent news to either confuse the public or create the image of open society. Of course, with the standard decline of our foreign and diplomatic judgement, we certainly need more foreign correspondents to have more foreign feedback.

If you look at SPH as a part of the PAP government machinery, it is better to refocus efforts on productive areas. Print media has lost its usefulness, except perhaps, for the older generation.  For example, there is no intention to close down or merge the two evening Chinese papers.

The treatment of retrenched journalists is less important. The PAP government, since the day of Lee Kuan Yew, has only considered them as a political tool. The PAP can turn them left, right or center as their wish. And, Singapore journalists never say NO.

Being a tool, you have no control over yourself. You have to accept the treatments the Master gives them to you.  

Journalism in Singapore is a job, an occupation not a duty. Like what the PAP is promoting, you can be rich in every field, provided you do your job right - right politics, right economics.   

### How news has changed.

 copyright: coursera@Michigan

Friday, 13 October 2017

李显龙鼓励不劳而获。别人的忧不如自己的乐。


    原来这个世界上真的有不劳而获这回事。不需要出钱,不需要出力,大把赞助人等着排队津贴圈定的候选人,这就是新加坡今年总统选举的戏码。

李光耀所谓没有免费的午餐,原来不是那一回事。在李显龙的导演下,免费午餐,不单可能可行,更是活生生在新加坡上演。

只要政治正确,站在人民行动党的预订方向,所谓的总统选举,真的是不劳而获。所有可以预见的风险,困难,阻力,行动党都可以一一替候选人解决。甚至,候选人还可以预先购买好屋子,演一回坚持住在组屋的闹剧。

Untitled drawing(4).jpg

李显龙塑造的新加坡,竟然是这幅光景: 选举可以随意炒作,赞助费的津贴高过开支,草草了事的就完成总统选举的程序。对于选举造成的族群分裂,社会不和谐,只是懂得呼吁人民团结。

不过,真正威胁新加坡生存的大问题是国会辩论,竟然沦落到是非黑白不分,论据前后矛盾,说过的话,可以否认。并且,以另一种论据来推翻之前说过的话。这意味着在行动党的严格控制下,不单没有制衡这回事,还可以自由变更游戏规则,只要是自己人,免费午餐到处有,不是自己人,出头的机会难上加难。

【有识之士,应该作何打算?】

新加坡每一年放弃公民权人数有1200人。这个数目和想成为新加坡公民和永久居民的人数相比,少了很多。因此,很多人要进来,出去的很少。这是物以稀为贵的现象。

作为一个有识之士,看到行动党政府过去50年来的记录,政治正确和不正确之间,代价很高。甚至,政治正确,如果不为所用,那么,就算才高八斗,表现的机会也是有限的。因此,有办法的人,就会想到出走。因为,在新加坡,如果对手有免费午餐,又有津贴,竞争当然就是不公平,反而,在西方民主国家,在相对民主的机制下,本身又掌握英文,机会反而多些。

看到这幅光景,社会精英会作何打算?先天下之忧而忧,后天下之乐而乐?还是刚好相反。既然斗不过人民行动党,又考虑到新加坡的前途,捞了一笔后,选择离开,很可能是最好的选择。资深律师,明明最懂新加坡法律,却要让孩子逃兵役。这代表了什么?难道,他不知道出走的代价吗?

一个专业人士在新加坡,生活的好好,事业也好,为何会让孩子知法犯法?难道只是身体不适,这么简单的原因吗?还是看到新加坡的前途,这种津贴式的政治,这种免费午餐式的竞争,如果孩子(在体力,智力上)斗不过其他孩子,倒不如到国外享受人生,更加写意。反正,老子赚的新元,到国外还是坚挺,受到欢迎的。

免费午餐,津贴式竞争的政治,就是造就一批不劳而获的人。这些人并不一定局限在政治圈,在社会上,在商场,在非政府组织,在宗教团体里,都会出现一大批不劳而获的人。

李光耀或许能够控制不劳而获的人数,只是针对少数有利用价值的人开放。但是,李显龙在能力不如老子的背景下,就只有开放和扩大不劳而获人群,来稳定政局。

这种结果,当然就不会出现: 先天下之忧而忧,后天下之乐而乐。既然以不劳而获为前提,当然就是乐先于忧。从直通车总统,早早就买好房子,考虑的不是人民的忧,而是自己的乐。所谓的选举,根本就不需要担心钱的问题,有心人会站出来作为赞助人。这就是为何开支22万元,收到的捐款却有80万元。

资深律师的情形也是如此。孩子出走,他根本没有考虑对国家社会的义务,即使他懂得国家的法律,他还是乐见孩子前往他国,寻求乐园。他没有考虑到这个国家让他有机会发财,而他有机会让孩子快乐出走的基础,其实是建立在新加坡其他的人身上的。

李显龙倡导的“不劳而获”精神,的确无法考虑“先天下之忧而忧,后天下之乐而乐”。李显龙鼓励的是政治正确,就能够不劳而获,人民的忧虑排在个人利益之后。

上面的两个例子,时间上有先后。逃兵役在先,而玩弄、操弄总统选举在后。这意味着新加坡的高级知识分子,在很早之前,已经看到行动党治理下的新加坡的前途。如果能够选择离开,最好在服兵役前就离开,这样就可以先两年完成大学教育。而不用服兵役的女孩,就更加没有这个顾虑了。

李光耀辛苦建立起来的刻苦耐劳的美德,能者多劳的精神,在李显龙鼓励不劳而获的破坏下,还能维持多久?事实上,李显龙弟妹在控诉李显龙不光彩的一面时,就清楚的点出这一点。他们认为李显龙干涉政府的运作太多,破坏了李光耀精神。我们从李显龙鼓励不劳而获的实际例子,也应证也这个不光彩的事实。

Friday, 6 October 2017

Counting presidential term is not a ‘chicken or egg’ question.


Untitled drawing(2).jpg

    The counting of presidential term is a serious business as it is so difficult to get it debated in the Parliament.  However, it can also become a ‘chicken or egg’  question as reported by Lianhe Zaobao:

    This is not a fake news, perhaps the most it is only 50% right.

[林瑞莲问了“先有鸡还是先有蛋”的问题]

http://www.zaobao.com.sg/znews/singapore/story20171004-800189

    By naming the debate as a ‘chicken or egg’ question, Zaobao is directly admitting that the whole issue can go either way - policy decision or legal advice.  It means Lee Hsien Loong and the People’s Action Party government is 50% right in misleading the Parliament and so the people of Singapore.    

    However, as the way the mainstream media reports, it is clearly we should give the benefit of doubt to Lee Hsien Loong and the PAP government.  They have 50% chance of not misleading the Parliament, like the ‘chicken or egg’ question.,  

    The ‘chicken or egg’ can be a good excuse for Lee Hsien Loong and his government not directly answering the question. Terry Xu of The Online Citizens has clearly pointed out: Did Minister K Shanmugam deflect responsibility for PM Lee, DPM Teo and Minister Chan? https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2017/10/04/did-minister-k-shanmugam-deflect-responsibility-for-pm-lee-dpm-teo-and-minister-chan/

    Judge for yourself whether it is a ‘chicken or egg’ debate?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KxkMD7QzFA

[50% Malay]

    By the same ‘chicken or egg’ analogy, it is nothing right or wrong to classify an Indian-Malay mixed blood as a Malay candidate. It can go either way. If someone decides to be a Malay, so be it.

Yes. Even the identity card states clearly the race is Indian, one can still legally choose to be a Malay under the amended Singapore Constitutions.

 

 
[50% dishonorable son]

    In the ‘Dishonorable son’ debate in Parliament, Lee Hsien Loong was given the benefit of doubt - another ‘chicken or egg’ question where 50% right or 50% wrong.

    Like the ‘chicken or egg’ debate of presidential term, many documents or references are clearly not presented, for example the secret behind the legal advice from Attorney-General’s Chamber, the secret behind the setting up of ministerial committee on 38 Oxley Road.    

    When there is doubt, ‘chicken or egg’, Lee Hsien Loong and the PAP government can, the best, claim 50% accuracy. They may be 50% wrong by not providing additional supporting proofs to get the fact right.

[50% Fake news]

    The ‘chicken or egg’ headline shows Zaobao is not sure about its reporting. By giving the confusing headline, it is producing fake
news. It misled readers to believe Lee Hsien Loong and the PAP government is 50% right.  At the same time, it also admits Lee and the government is 50% wrong.  By manipulating news report, Zaobao and other mainstream media can easily omit the 50% wrong.

    The Yahoo news gives the following headline:

    Government used ‘distraction’ of AGC’s advice on Elected Presidency: Sylvia Lim

    Even the Straits Times dares not give a ‘chicken or egg’ fake headline: Parliament: Shanmugam, Sylvia Lim debate reason for Govt's decision on counting of presidential terms

    However, they all focus on the 50% right and ignoring the 50% wrong. So, an incomplete reporting is even worst than a fake news.

[0% Court decision]

    The only state institution that does not give a ‘chicken or egg’ answer is the Court of Appeal. The Courts can not give 50% right 50% wrong answer. So, the Courts make no decision and let the Parliament decides.  

{“It was evident from reading Art 19B together with Art 164 that it was open to Parliament, for the purpose of determining when the reserved election scheme would take effect, to select as the first of the five most recent terms, a term of office that predated the coming into force of the recent amendments to the Constitution,” }
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/presidential-election-2017-tan-cheng-bocks-appeal-dismissed-061418908.html

Ultimately, the Courts believes this is a people’s decision and the Parliament, representing the citizens of Singapore, is the agent of change.

Have we learned something from the ‘chicken or egg’ wayang? How can we expose and inform citizens about the 50% wrong fake news or misleading reporting?  

The ‘chicken or egg’ drama provides ‘50% right 50% wrong’ confusion.  The real purpose is to provide a playing field for an institutionalised One-Party Rule, with or without AG advice, with or without Courts. Hence, even the Parliament cannot really check and balance the wrong doing of the PAP government.


#####

For those who like Chinese dramas, here is a video to enlighten your understanding of historical facts and wayang.






Friday, 29 September 2017

李显龙黑白脸,行动党双簧戏:一手搞族群分裂,一手呼社会团结。


Untitled drawing(1).jpg

    李显龙在总统直通车选举前,利用保留选举,国会/法庭推诿责任的方式,撕裂新加坡各种族间的和谐。直通车一过,李显龙就变脸,高声呼吁国人团结一致。这种迷惑新加坡人的套数,已经是一种惯例,屡见不鲜。

    当然,演戏也要演全套。李显龙除了落力演出外,人民行动党的要员也要参加,一起唱双簧,这样才能取得最佳效果。因此,除了李显龙外,吴作栋和达曼也一起呼吁国人,团结的重要性。即使直通车上任总统,虽然有争议,但是新加坡人应该抛弃成见,我们现在和以前比较,有更多自由,害怕也减少。

    这套双簧的黑白脸,表面上告诉国人,行动党是具有自我监督的能力。行动党党内,不是只有一种声音,因为,有些领袖也承认,总统选举制度的不完美,有争议。达曼说他并不认同,他同僚的每一个策略。更有部长说,这有风险和政治代价。

【假自我监督,真集体迷思】

    但是, 他们只有一个目的 --- 一党独大。正如吴作栋说的,告不告,取决于是否有兄弟情。既然大家都是行动党同志,目标当然一致。什么自我监督,其实就是建立在集体思维上。不论,意见是否同步,大家的目的,就是要维护和继续一党独大。

    而表面的自我监督,就是要迷惑选民,误导新加坡人,双簧戏里,行动党内部的确具有制衡的力量:最高领袖,也要听取其他领袖的不同意见。但是,说白了,所有的领袖,不论赞成还是反对,还是有些意见,最后,同志们还是集体迷失,集体迷思,有时唱双簧,有时扮演黑白脸,迷惑国人。

    偏偏新加坡人看了双簧,见了变脸,还是依然相信,行动党精彩的一党独大演出。甚至,也跟主流媒体一样,参与演出。

【真强化,假转型】

    要看穿行动党的双簧和李显龙的变脸,我们就要从真强化和假转型入手。

    真强化比较明显,如修改宪法,利用国会的绝对优势,来强化行动党的一党独大。每一次大选的选区划分,就不用说了。而一向来的媒体管制,独立以来就是行动党的王牌。组屋翻新,继续强化行动党的基层。

    假转型就比较难分辨。社会民主主义的提出,就是行动党试图告诉国人,行动党会照顾低下层人民。而月入1000元,可以买到组屋;芳林公园开放演说,有限度的示威;推出全民健保;父母孩子公积金存款可以互通有无,等等。

    尚达曼:新加坡主流媒体扮演负责任角色   联合早报.png
        这是达曼的双簧戏,还是白脸戏?

    行动党口口声声说,自己会监督自己,会自我检讨,自我管制,并且,在必要时,转型正义。但是,我们看到了改变吗?李显龙的修宪行为,不只是走向专制,更加是分裂族群的举动。达曼说品格,诚信和真诚是行动党坚持的标志,那么李显龙的Dishonorable son 又作何解?

【双簧戏,黑白脸被揭穿的国际笑话】

    或许有30%,40%新加坡人看得出行动党迷惑国人的双簧戏,以及李显龙的黑白脸。但是,对于老谋深算的中国共产党来说,这种戏码只不过是小儿科。

    李显龙在中美之间,唱双簧。在南海问题上,也扮演黑白脸。在东盟扮演老大,在TPP上,也落力演出。然后,又把错误的外交政策,归咎于一个学者。这种表演,看在中共眼里,只能被当成笑话。

    不只是中国如此,在美国,新加坡小孩余澎杉,现在终于获得政治庇护。这当然是美国人的权利,他们要收留余澎杉,这是他们的权利。但是,这真的如行动党政府说的:“接纳发表冒犯性言论的人,是美国的特权“吗?事实上,美国法庭的判决,考虑到,以及关乎到一个人的人身自由和安全,人权保障的问题,而不是冒犯性言论。这当然就是黑白脸的问题,李显龙关注冒犯性,要国人把重点放在这里,因为在新加坡冒犯性言论会吃上官司的。一方面这是李显龙一党独大的法理依据,另一方面,则可以起到恐吓作用。行动党政府不愿意解开(美国法庭)人权保障,言论自由的枷锁。对于行动党这不是笑话,在国际上,余澎杉成为最年轻的政治犯,不单不是笑话,而是一个讽刺。

    说到最后,行动党的双簧戏和李显龙的黑白脸,只适用于新加坡。放到国外,就变了样了。