TR EMERITUS – The Voice Of The Lunatic Fringe – 淡马锡评论 – formerly Temasek Review

我们是否该重新思考国防开支的优先顺序？

新加坡政府近日宣布将采购两艘额外的“无畏级”潜艇，引发了一个重要问题：我们的国防力量，到底需要多强？毫无疑问，一个强大且可信的军队对于保障国家主权与威慑潜在威胁是不可或缺的。新加坡地处战略要冲，国土面积有限，因此需要一支现代化的武装部队。然而，当我们对比邻国——马来西亚拥有两艘潜艇、印尼正逐步扩展至十二艘——新加坡在水下战力上已处于领先地位。这不禁让人质疑，我们是否正引领着一场无声的区域军备竞赛？问题在于：当威慑的需求被满足后，继续扩军是否已经超出必要？一艘“无畏级”潜艇的估价超过十亿新元，还不包括长期的运营与维护成本。这两艘新潜艇的资金，若能转用于迫切的民生需求，例如医疗保健、老龄化支援、教育及弱势群体扶助，或许对社会的整体韧性更具意义。政府一再强调国防开支是经过审慎规划的，但当生活成本日益上升，政府却仍需将消费税（Gst）提高至9%甚至更多，这种矛盾不禁令人困惑。如果某些战略性国防项目能够延后或循序推进，节省下来的资源是否可以用于社会发展呢？ “全面防卫”不仅仅是硬件实力，更是要赢得人民的心与信任。让人民感到安心、有保障、受到重视，这种安全感无法靠潜艇来衡量，而是通过每一位国人的生活实感体现出来。这并非是在呼吁削弱我们的国防，而是呼吁我们重新思考国家的优先事项。当我们继续推进军事现代化的同时，也不要忽视同样重要的任务——巩固社会契约、增强国民凝聚力。 Cwc-Ai

我们是否该重新思考国防开支的优先顺序？

2025大选—明确授权，变化中的政治格局

2025年大选结果无可争议，政府再次赢得了强有力的授权，稳固了其在新加坡政治格局中的主导地位。尽管选举结果并不令人意外，但胜利的过程却并非没有争议和复杂性。值得注意的是，选区划分的变化在本次选战中发挥了重要作用。陈清木医生与徐顺全医生等资深反对派人物，因选区重划而受到显著影响——传统支持基础被分割或并入他区，无疑左右了某些关键选区的最终结果。虽然选区调整在新加坡选举历史上并不罕见，但其公平性与透明度仍持续引发讨论。工人党虽稳守东北区的传统堡垒，但未能在本届大选中攻下新的选区。不过，该党仍获得两个非选区议员（Ncmp）席位，虽属安慰性质，却在象征意义上维持了国会内多元声音的存在。更值得关注的是，本届大选所处的人口背景正经历剧烈变化。新加坡人口从2000年的约300万增长至2025年的超过500万。考虑到多年来出生率持续偏低，这一增长几乎可以肯定主要归因于移民流入，尤其可能在华人群体中增长显著。这一趋势对国家的社会结构和政治生态产生了深远影响。展望2030年大选，各政党不仅要面对一如既往的选区调整与突发的全球事件，更需正视一个不断演变的社会结构。随着越来越多新移民成为国民，选民构成日益多元，政党在政策制定与信息传递上必须更具包容性与前瞻性。他们必须同时争取老一代公民与新加坡新公民的认同，回应共同关切，并跨越代际与文化差异的鸿沟。在新加坡持续向前迈进的过程中，其政治也必须与时俱进——反映日益多元的人口现实，同时坚守国家的核心价值观：团结、韧性与务实。 Cwc-Ai

What Rule of Law?

We have a written Constitution, not an unwritten one like the UK's. The clauses have to mean something more than just identifying the top dogs who get to divide the carcass. Societies are made up of socio-economic classes and sub-classes. While authoritarian regimes represent a narrow spectrum of class interests, democracies expand representation to a larger spectrum – thro’ ‘checks and balances’, but it is doubtful that the state even agree what the term really means. The system of check and balances may not meant to be a defense mechanism for democracy, but could also be a way of 'protecting' tyranny. This tyranny could be at the hands of one, a few, or many, who may be hereditary, self-appointed, or elected. It's one thing to observe, based on history, that the supreme court's views have generally adhered to the policies of the "lawmaking majorities." It's another to conclude that either the drafters of the Constitution intended such a result -- if they did, they never said so -- or that such a result is in any way pre-ordained. The result has been not accommodation with but blatant destruction of executive and state legislative structures designed to promote fairness and equal justice. As a consequence, and in the obvious interests of staying as far below the Executive radar as possible, the court almost always has been very careful about tempering its rulings in their reach ... and keeping them generally to the boundaries of popularly accepted convictions isn't a bad way to do that, as the Legislative MUST also need to deal with those same boundaries. Let us not confuse the courts' decisions render from the bench with the political activities outside of it. Those are separate issues that can conflate them under the banner of "judicial credibility." Law and politics are not supposed to mix simply because as per the constitution it is the legislature (ie: parliament) that is supposed to make all the laws of the land, and the supreme court in it's interpretation of the constitution is supposed to determine the constitutionality of the law that the executive may pass, and therein lies the dilemma. Applicable to current needs? Temporary measures for residual biases? Ahead or behind public sentiment? Are justice and basic freedoms reaffirmed by opinations in parliament? The concept of the "rule of law" is indeed quaint. Read Brooks Adams "The Theory of Social Revolutions" to see why; in brief, the rule of law is contingent on popular support. Power and legitimacy flow from *the consent of the governed*, not from the "rule of law". If on the other hand this is a case of an elite entrenching itself to be resistant to democratic pressure, *then* there is a problem. That is very dangerous for the country. One may have understood the Supreme Court better than some of our contemporaries but there are still imponderables to deal with; that it is political, obvious; partisan? Indeed, I for one much prefer justices who at least pretend to adhere to the notion that the constitution is comprised of words which have meaning prior to and disparate from one's apprehension of them. Accepting a reasonable code of conduct which would prevent the clear appearance of political influence on the nation's highest court is the absolute minimum citizens can ask for. SojoüRne Read More →

The Conclusions On The Maid Case

After two months, finally statements are out. The conclusions are quite straight forward: 1. One person would take the blame, the rest can rest. 2. Cast doubts on the maid and the guy who freed her. 3. No fault on the Home team who made the maid served her time, business as usual, no blame game. Really? Are you guys convinced? Peggy Sue Read More →

Why waste time camping in the house?

Is there a necessity to respond to MP Murali's amended motion when the WP knows that it will be passed by 83 PAP MPs who were already instructed to vote for it? Why waste time camping in the House and trying to persuade MP Murali to withdraw his amended motion? Come on Ms Indranee. Don't try to fool us by telling us that WP failed to debate on the amended motion. It was already near midnight and MPs need to go home and sleep rather than talk to stones. MP Sylvia Lim was absolutely right to tell the House that WP disagrees with the amended motion and all its members voted against the amended motion. The PAP government can continue to believe that the criminal justice system is fair to all when it is not. Teo Soh Lung Read More →