TR EMERITUS

作者:冀居·谢 “老牛吃嫩草”——据说鲜嫩的叶草皆为草食动物所喜爱，为何惟独老牛不得吃？且会演变成一个道德问题，这话实在有逻辑问题。 蒋勋在《孤独六讲》里有段话很精辟，他说：“当道德变成一种表演，就是作假，就会变成各种形态的演出，就会让最没有道德的人变成最有道德的人，语言和行为开始分离。” 我也效颦说：“当道德 (morality) 变成一种小报新闻，就是作假，就会变成各种形态的演出，就会让最没有道德的人变成最有道德的人，语言和行为开始分离。” 当一个道歉的人说他所犯下的错，是天底下的男人都会犯的时候，实际上他的道德觉悟比天底下的男人还高。 Edison陈冠希也道歉，并且要无限期退出“香港”演艺圈，这是他聪明的地方。 道德通过道歉变成一种表演仪式，如老虎伍兹为什么要道歉？就是一种损害管理，耗下去对自己的收入绝对是一大伤害，不如出来献世咯。他没有理由不为赞助商和自己的口袋道歉嘛。 蒋勋说儒家社会是群体互相取暖的农业社会，唾弃和鄙视孤独，所以儒家认为道德需要通过社会组成来评估和检测；于是老婆出来原谅丈夫，好友痛骂几句、鞭挞几下， 无外乎取信于人，说该教训的已经教训过了，该原谅的已经原谅过了，你们（我的族人）应该没有话好说了吧，lets move on！ 体现道德是需要孤独的，哗众取宠怎么会是道德？真正一个面对良心谴责的人，是要独自去面对的。你看武侠小说那些离经叛道的高人，哪一个不是曾经做过对不起自己 良心的事而隐在深山孤岛，一待几十年。最近《十月围城》里黎明饰演那个耍得一把大铁扇，武功高强的刘郁白，本是富家子弟，无奈爱上父亲的妾侍，于是自我放 逐做了乞丐。还有韩剧里那些在社会底层出现的高人，帮助一个村或一家人重新振作，原来都是曾经犯了错的大律师、大医生，他们放弃这些无谓的身份地位，跑到 一个无人认识的小村落去开始他们新的人生旅程。这些都说明犯了错是需要独自面对的事，用忏悔或自虐的修行方式来救赎自己的。 麦金太尔也曾说过：“我想要提出的假设是，在我们所处的现实世界中，道德语言同我所描绘的想象世界中的自然科学语言一样，处于一种严重无序状态。……其实我们拥有的是道德的假象，我们继续使用着许多关键性词句，但是在很大程度上我们在理论和实践这两方面都丧失了对道德的理解力。”——眼前的一切，真的太假了。 来源：大马论坛  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent It seems that the YPAP is now being dominated by new citizens who are becoming increasingly vocal in defending the PAP regime and in attacking its critics. After the infamous Indian new citizen Fredric Fanthome who sparked a massive outcry last year by describing netizens as "annonymous hordes which spew venom" in cyberspace, another YPAP activist and new citizen Mr Michael Rebaczonok-Padulo had stepped forward to lead the charge against the online community again. Michael was a former American citizen and became a "naturalised" Singaporean more than twenty years ago. He is a YPAP member and contributes articles regularly on the YPAP website. His latest article - "The Curious evolution of the maturing democratic process in Singapore" is no more than a veiled attack on Singapore netizens for their harsh criticisms on the PAP regime. Michael began his article by describing the recent change in Singapore's civic scene and the proliferation of socio-political blogs: "In the last several years, there has been a tremendous proliferation of websites and blogs that deal with political matters, a phenomenon that would have been inconceivable just a decade or so back.  Netizens have been claiming cyberspace as ‘their own’, posting comments and airing their views freely, in ways they have felt less able to do via the mainstream media." He next expressed his disappointment at some netizens who resort to making personal attacks against those who do not share their views: "It sounds as though we are evolving into a mature, democratic society in which citizens are increasingly asking to be heard as they express their views on myriad issues.  And in some ways that does appear to be the case.  But in other ways, that evolution would seem to be tempered, or hampered, even, by the scurrilous, personal, ad hominem and irrelevant attacks that some netizens make when commenting on matters about which they feel passionate, or when disagreeing with those whose views they do not share.  As such, this evolutionary process, while basically welcome and healthy, is at times somewhat curious and – if one may venture to say – disheartening." The YPAP has come under increasing fire in the last few months to the extent that it was forced to close down one of its Facebook which was swarmed by anti-PAP critics. One of them, a 22 year old project engineer Alex Tan had embarrassed two PAP MPs publicly at a Youth Forum last November. His repeated challenges to YPAP activists to have a public debate at Hong Lim Park were not accepted. Alex has since started a Vote PAP out Facebook which has garnered more than 4,000 members in less than 3 months, an indication of the rising unpopularity of the PAP regime among young Singaporeans. The rapid rise in anti-establishment sentiments in cyberspace and the "self-radicalization" of Singapore netizens is worrying the PAP which responded instinctively by introducing draconian laws to curb the influence of the New Media in the next general election. Describing his own experience in the United States where people can disagree with one another without using personal attacks, Michael questioned the inability of some netizens to engage in a non-personal manner: "Why is it that those who argue passionately for greater democracy in Singapore and for increasing opportunities to be heard, sometimes deny to others that which they so ardently desire for themselves?  That to me is the curious aspect of what is sometimes occurring nowadays.  Why is it that some cannot engage more or less dispassionately, in a reasoned, logical, non-personal fashion, rather than lash out, sometimes viciously, and go for the jugular in the process of disagreeing?  Is that what some consider democracy to be about?  If so, where do we draw the line?  Do we go so far as to delight in seeing MPs engage in fisticuffs on the floor of Parliament, as we have seen happen in other countries from time to time?  Is that what expressing one’s convictions really entails?" Michael should not compare apples with oranges. The United States is a democratic state where freedom of speech can exist but not in a near totalitarian state like Singapore which uses repressive laws to curtail the political and civic rights of its own citizens so as to perpetuate the PAP's hegemony forever. It is quite pointless to engage with an insecure, paranoid and dictatorial regime which insists that it is always right at all times and hell bent on controlling all forms of public discourses. Dictatorships are never voted out of office - they are thrown out by the people who cannot stand their excesses anymore. Given the excellent "apple-polishing" skills of Michael, it is little wonder that the PAP is so enamored with the new citizens that they are spending millions of taxpayers' monies to make them happy in Singapore. Without the continuous influx of immigrants to shore up the PAP's flagging support base, it will probably be booted out of office sooner rather than later. The next election will be the last chance for Singaporeans to reclaim ownership of their nation after which they will be relegated to second class minorities in their own country of birth with the males having to serve two years of National Service to protect the likes of Michael Rebaczonok-Padulo. Fredric Fanthome and Sinha Sheka. Read rest of Michael's article here  Read More →

OPINION When one pay top salaries, one don't expect to get monkeys. The PAP has always boasted that it has the BEST ministers and MPs in the whole world and that's why Singaporeans need to pay them out of the world salaries to "retain" their services. If this is indeed so, then we should be expecting a first world parliament, but this is not the case. In other countries, parliamentary debates are conducted LIVE on TV for the nation to see. MPs pose their questions directly and the ministers are supposed to answer them right on the spot. That is the standard practice everywhere else. In Singapore, our MPs are paid a monthly allowance of $13,000 and even then, they are unable to speak LIVE in Parliament such that all their questions and answers are SCRIPTED. Not only that, some MPs still got the cheek to complain that the pace of Parliament is too "fast" for them or find lame excuses to defend their poor oratory skills like one new MP who claimed that "not everybody can speak as well as Lee Kuan Yew." This is the Parliament we have in Singapore - no LIVE coverage, only segments are shown on the state TV and even then, one Deputy Prime Minister was caught napping when the other was speaking: Let us compare the above with the LIVE parliamentary debates in five countries which have similar parliamentary systems as ours - United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Malaysia and Hong Kong: 1.  United Kingdom: Watch opposition leader David Cameron shred the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown into pieces in one of the spectacular moments of the questioning in the House of Commons on issues of election and inheritance tax in 2007. Cameron would probably be bankrupted or detained under the ISA had he tried to embarrass the Singapore Prime Minister like this.     2. Australia: Australia's Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was embarrassed by opposition leader Peter Costello when asked about the income tax thresholds and rates during the PM's question and answer session in 2007   3. Canada: The Canadian House of Commons voted to adopt a recommendation which, if implemented, would make it possible for U.S. Iraq War resisters to obtain Permanent Resident status in Canada during a LIVE parliamentary session in 2008. 4. Malaysia: Opposition parliamentarians walked out of the Dewan Rakyat in protest against Finance Minister Najib Abdul Razak's refusal to entertain questions during his winding-up of the Budget 2009 Bill debates. Najib, who told the House that questions would be answered at the end of his speech, did not allow the numerous attempts for clarification. 5. Hong Kong: The Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session on 15 January 2009 which was marked by a protest at the beginning by an opposition lawmaker. Chief Executive Donald Tsang did not evict the troublemaker and gracefully accepted whatever was passed to him. PAP MPs should watch more parliamentary debates from other democratic states to realize what a disgrace they have become. Do they have any sense of shame at all? Instead of speaking up for the people, they frittered their time discussing non-issues like the number of steps on an overhead bridge, food museums, triumph bras, frog tales, hairdos and other nonsense. By conducting such a farce, the PAP is insulting the parliamentary system which Singapore inherited from the British. Parliament is an august chamber for MPs to discuss, debate and deliberate on major national policies and not a tea session or a time to take an afternoon nap. It is a time where the Prime Minister and his cabinet are taken to task, held accountable for their words and actions and grilled by the MPs. This is what parliamentary debates are about! Not a "wayang" to rubber-stamp the decisions already made beforehand by senior leaders of the PAP! In 2006, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that if there were 10 or more opposition MPs in Parliament, he would have to spend all his time "fixing" them. This is not democracy, but tyranny! If the PAP is unable to adhere to simple basic democratic principles of governance, then it might as well cut the pretence and do away with Parliament altogether, outlaw all other political parties and set up a National People Congress like China in place of it. In fact, the Singapore "Parliament" is all but in name only. Like China's NPC, the decisions on major national policies are all already made behind closed doors by the senior leaders and the delegates are there to "ratify" their decisions to add a veneer of legitimacy to them. This is the pathetic state our "Parliament" has become after fifty years of uninterrupted PAP rule. So what if we have a dozen more NCMPs or NMPs in Parliament to provide "alternative" views? Will it make any difference? The key decision-makers still lie in the hands of a few persons or one single person who simply refuse to fade away. No matter how the PAP and the state media tried to window-dress it, the bitter truth is - Singapore has a near totalitarian form of government, not too much different from Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union or Kim Jong IL's North Korea - they too have their own "Parliaments" filled with powerless MPs who are there to just to make up the numbers.   Read also: 1. Why do we need so many PAP MPs in Parliament? 2. Why PAP MPs are no more but a “wayang” in Parliament 3. 10 most unforgettable quotes by PAP MPs in the recent parliamentary debates 4. PAP MPs complain that recent parliamentary “debates” are too fast   We all know the ending of these fascist states and sad to say, Singapore is heading the same way too.  Read More →