TR EMERITUS

Singapore's foremost anti-government blog "The Online Citizen" (TOC) has come under fire for leading a "campaign" against the Singapore government. A Singaporean by the name of Daniel Wong has lodged a complaint to several government agencies including the Ministry of Home Affairs, Attorney-General Chambers and Ministry of Information, Communication and Arts about TOC's activities and funding. (read letter here) Daniel asked if it is legal for TOC to organize "public campaigns" against the Singapore government, citing TOC's campaign against the mandatory death penalty held today at Hong Lim Park as an example. He also questioned the source of TOC's funding: "I am concerned that TOC may receive funding from foreign organizations and agencies which harbor nefarious motives to influence public opinion to advocate for the overthrowing of the legitimate government of Singapore." The letter was forwarded to TOC as well as a number of alternative news sites in Singapore. From the content of the letter, it does appear that Daniel may be a member of the establishment and it may be a preclude to an imminent crackdown. The standard modus operandi of the PAP is to get a bureaucrat to lodge an official complaint first so that its agencies have sufficient grounds to take concrete action. For example, an official from MDA lodged a police report against British author Mr Alan Shadrake's book which led the AGC to charge the latter for "contempt of court". As a netizen Mark Chee put it succinctly: "We need to understand how our authorities work. They will only initiate action when there is a complaint, otherwise they will be seen oppressive. So now, they have a "legitimate" complainant who is perturbed by TOC's articles. Although the complaint might be malicious, be prepared."     Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us.  Read More →

The trial of Alan Shadrake for criticising the death penalty has damaged Singapore's standing. Singapore's long-serving administration has won some time to ponder how it will deal with yet another self-inflicted blow to its global branding. The reprieve came as a Singapore court today postponed a case against the British author Alan Shadrake for three weeks. Shadrake, 75, faces contempt of court charges, after Singapore's Media Development Authority lodged a police report on 16 July against his book Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock, which criticises the application of the death penalty. Published in neighbouring Malaysia, the book has sparked a criminal defamation investigation against the author in Singapore. Shadrake rejected an offer of mitigation in exchange for an apology at today's contempt of court hearing and said he would fight on. This means more reputation damage is in store for the People's Action Party administration in the weeks ahead. Local groups and international human rights NGOs such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Reporters without Borders have criticised the decision to prosecute the author. News agencies, websites, blogs and social network sites are carrying news about the case around the globe and putting a sharp focus on censorship in Singapore. The Shadrake affair comes as a Malaysian, Yong Vui Kong, faces execution next month for a drug-related offence committed when he was 19. The Malaysian foreign ministry, under pressure from the public, has written to the Singapore government to plead clemency for Yong, now 22. Meanwhile, the British embassy in Singapore has chosen to play the Shadrake affair low key, opting to give the author quiet support without issuing public statements. The timing of the two incidents has regalvanised a small group of activists and bloggers. Although most local NGOs and opposition parties have been characteristically silent, there is a high level of awareness of the two cases among the Singapore public. The administration has spent large amounts of money on marketing Singapore internationally, most recently over the upcoming Youth Olympic Games. But at the same time it continues to damage Singapore's reputation with its censorship. In keeping with tradition, one strategy used at today's court hearings was to threaten legal action against the media for publicising the alleged contemptuous remarks in Shadrake's book. That was a lost cause, given the information already circulating on the internet. Singapore, like everyone else, has to increasingly contend with information disseminated by new media and is no longer able to ensure that only positive images of itself appear. Meanwhile, the book in question is flying off the shelves at bookshops across the causeway in Malaysia.   by James Gomez * James Gomez is deputy associate dean (international) and head of public relations at Monash University, Australia.    Read More →

作者：新加坡文献馆 2010年7月14日新闻：‘俄羅斯一家國際房地產咨詢公司最新公布的研究報告。在戈登洛克公司調查的部分亞洲城市中，泰國曼谷人攢錢買房的時間最短，只需不到7年，盡管曼谷居民的工資很低，但當地的普通房價也相當便宜，每平方米只有 500多美元。 日本東京的房價僅次於瑞士蘇黎世，每平方米高達7000美元，所以年收入可觀的東京人也需要攢近16年時間的工資才能負擔一套普通住房。中國香港和韓國首爾的居民買房的時間則更長一些，需要約20年。 相比之下，新加坡人當“房奴”的時間則最漫長，與其他城市相比，房價高，收入卻不高，造成新加坡人至少需要攢36.4年的工資才能買一套房子。’ 在尝试解读新加坡房奴现象之前，先回顾日本东京的地产经验。在上世纪的80年代当日本可以向美国说不的时候，百万新加坡元在东京只能购买一间公寓里一个厕所大小的地产。曾几何时日本地产泡沫破灭后，一些日本上班族失业后以公园为家。 借鉴日本的经验，当新加坡风光不再之时，有幸保住工作的今天房奴或可逃过破产劫数却难免沦为银行债奴的命运。 新加坡人一世为奴？这就是新加坡梦的回报？这一个可能的未来景象是否意味着当今产业状况以及整个社会制度有着极大的隐忧？ 房奴现象和新加坡社会制度有着密切的必然因果性。这是一个原本具有善意的人民居屋计划在其演化过程中沦为执政党统治工具的悲剧后果。 要了解新加坡房奴现象与住房政策的关系，有必要先澄清一些非常错误但根深蒂固的观念。 首先，居屋住房不是社会福利，因为李光耀政治思维不包容福利概念，认为救援是缺稀资源的浪费，况且穷人贪得无厌会一再伸手索取。李光耀奉行天下没有不劳而获的免费午餐信念。因此，组屋分配并非财富重新分配。 其 二，新加坡组屋没有津贴因为原有津贴不复存在。不相信社会福利的政府也不会相信津贴。早年的组屋津贴亦非来自公款，而是由大型组屋津贴小型组屋，也就是收 入高者补贴收入低者 (Linda Lim 1989)。津贴一事，官方言之凿凿，但学者与人民泰半置疑有这么一回事。 政府虽然 以廉价强征私有土地，但建屋局是以市价向政府购买土地。在过程中政府会拨出一笔款项于建屋局；即所谓的津贴，但这一交易过程的会计并不明确。金融税务学者 Makul Asher（1996）指出：会计报表对 ‘公共组屋资本津贴’ 这项名词既没有清楚的定义也无所解释，但可以推测为是一项政府与建屋局之间的名义上交易。如果把这项名义交易并入现金交易中一并考虑则可以改变对政府开支 数据的诠释。Chan Heng Kong (2005) 把这一技术性诠释解读为：假如政府与建屋局之间的交易只是会计上的帐面挂名转帐，其间并没有现金的转手，那么所谓的建屋津贴并非实事。简言之，这两名学者 都间接与直接置疑政府组屋确实有成本津贴这一回事。 官方津贴的另一个可能解读是；政府把可能的最高市场售价和交易价之差额视为津贴，换言之，政府把舍弃的部分利润看成是对人民的津贴。这种新定义在道义与政治上皆背叛了原有的社会承诺：政府以低于成本的价格出售组屋。 其 三，官方所谓的‘居者有其屋’是不正确的概念，具误导性。居者有其屋让屋主在法律上包揽一切相关组屋法律与财务责任；税务，清扫维修，房债等。但是，在界 定组屋权力时政府保留核心的经济产权：使用，转让与物业收入，屋主只有居住权。使用权涵盖产业的所有合法用途，居住权仅仅是其中一项权力。因此，从产权经 济而言，政府是组屋业主，人民是长期租户，虽然人民出钱买入房子；所以正确的说法是‘居者无其屋’。要了解这个情况并不困难，将组屋层主与私宅屋主的经济 产权相互比较就可以知道个中就究。 正确的组屋政策名称应该是‘居者购其屋’。这一政策的主要政治目的是用来取代原有的政府提供租 赁廉价公共住宅计划。这个旧计划不仅有供不应求所隐藏的庞大政治成本，亦有筹集建屋发展经费的巨大财务负担。居者购其屋政策让政府推卸政治与财务责任，把 解决住房问题转嫁到人民身上：自掏腰包。这一政策明显的有利李光耀政权，但是，它亦从此改变了政府为人民服务的原有政治初衷与承诺。 这一种政治思维也同时解释了为何新加坡政府不热中于提供廉租公屋。这亦证实了新加坡政府绝对不干赔本生意的精明。说白了，新加坡政府没有 ‘让利’人民的政治意愿。 新加坡组屋非社会福利，没有津贴，更要租戶全额买单，在在反映了政府的住房财务政策，而房奴现象就是来自政府的财务策略。 组屋在解决了新加坡二战后所面对的居住问题的同时，却也制造了另一个社会问题，那就是，组屋成为低层社会的沉重财务负担。 组屋的财务政策除了受到李光耀政治思维的约束，亦日益的和经济发展挂钩。实际上，组屋政策的改变和新加坡经济发展策略息息相关，前者受后者支配。房奴现象就是这种政治，经济和社会环境下的产物。 Janet Salaff (1988) 探讨组屋生活如何冲击了低收入家庭：‘我的访问对象都变得更为贫穷，他们的劳力付出多少决定他们可以得到的公共服务的多少…他们在购买组屋后，进一步的受 制于金钱经济…他们必须有长期的工作以支付购屋的分期付款以及交付公积金…妇女的收入补贴了新居的开销以及孩子们的补习费用…人民更介入国家的经济发展计 划，亦更涉足资本世界的文明。’ Bello & Stephanie (1990) 认为人民行动党政府依赖廉价外劳和妇女劳动力来维持新加坡在低工资上的竞争力。 回顾新加坡经济历史，组屋的债务负担是驱使妇女进入劳动市场的最主要因素，换言之，组屋为新加坡工业经济带来了一批新的廉价劳动人口。政府为了确保归女长期留在劳动市场，于是有必要让人民长期的背负着沉重的组屋贷款。 此外，从政治层面来看，一个背负财务重担的一家之主会有更保守的社会价值观，会期待一个稳定社会和工作环境。这种要维持社会现状的思想有利当权者持续执政。 因此，不论从经济发展或者政治利益的角度来考量，新加坡成为一个房奴社会是有利于人民行动党的长期执政。 在这一骨节眼上，如何让组屋租戶成为一世房奴就是一门高深学问。 Chan Heng Kong (2005) ：’组屋订价机制确保了人民长期负债的现象。…屋价是根据收入而定，也就是说，工人的工资越高他越有偿付的能力，所以他就必须付更高的价格。屋价和收入有 着相关的系数，这是为了确保人民承担更高的债务。为了达到这个目的，政府规定何种程度的收入可以购买何种类型的组屋；高收入者是不可以购买小型的组屋，这 是为了杜绝人民逃脱人质枷锁的机会。’ 这一说法看来是有所依据的。从组屋价挌变动的历史可以观察到，在低工资的年代，组屋价挌亦同样偏低，当工资在1979年上调后，组屋价挌亦水涨船高，从此步步高升。为此，屋债的摊还年限尾随着亦步亦趋的延长。 另外，如果屋价是根据收入水平而定的说法属实，那么，政府用低于成本出售组屋的官方说词就很难成立。这是因为组屋价挌和成本没有直接的关系。 还有，如果这一种组屋订价机制属实，则官方所谓的‘人民可以承担的价格’是指政府能夠榨取的最高价位，而非‘人人都可以承担的最低价位’。 有人说政治是一门艺术，诚然，官方说词一般上都可以看成是艺术创作，个人可以凭主观作出判断。但是，新加坡房奴现象却是一个客观的，让人生充满浓厚悲剧色彩的社会现实。 这样的社会模式有多少借鉴价值？  Read More →