TR EMERITUS

作者：新加坡文献馆 2009年1月20日美国首位 黒人宣誓就任第44位美国总统。美国黒人来自非洲原为白人猎取的奴隶是白人的人力生产资源。1847年林肯进入国会积极反对奴隶制度。1863年1月1日 林肯正式颁布由他亲自起草的《解放黒奴宣言》，废除美国的奴隶制。宣言提倡：民有，民治，民享的政治观念。 奴隶制度的瓦解并非上天恩赐，是因为美国社会里有林肯这般的正义之士为社会弱势者争取人权与平等，而黒人本身也努力献身解放事业；在南北内战中有18.6万黒人加入北军，每3个黒人中有1人牺牲。 奥巴马就任美国总统有多重的政治意义。美国文明只需145年时间就接纳了黒人后裔为最高领袖。对美国黑人后裔而言，他们的祖先为争取人权与平等而付出的努力与牺牲获得最大的肯定。对西方文明而言，他们崇敬与奉行民主的高尚精神也是其他文明可以大力借鉴与学习的模范。 在这一个划时代历史性时刻，我们是否应该看看和想想自已的国家社会是立足在那一块人类文明的定点上？ 新 加坡先天是个西方人的殖民地没有自已的政治文明。标榜自由民主的新加坡从独立至今已有43年历史，然而，在84个国会议席里却只有2名反对党议员。这种一 党独大的政体要算是那一门的民主社会制度？在实质上，新加坡是否更接近于一个奴役式的旧封建社会制度？要解读这一课题我们或许可以借鉴中国的文学。 1925年12月26日鲁迅写了一篇《聪明人和傻子和奴才》；其中心思想删节如下： 奴才总不过是寻人诉苦。只要这样，也只能这样。有一日，他遇到一个聪明人。 奴才：“你知道的。我所过的简直不是人的生活” 聪明人：“这实在令人同情” 奴才：“我这样是敷衍不下去的。我总得另外想法子。可是什么法子呢？……” 聪明人：“我想，你总会好起来……” 奴才：“是么？但愿如此。可是我对先生诉了冤苦，又得你的同情和慰安，已经舒坦得不少了。可见天理没有灭绝……” 不几日，奴才又不平起来了，仍然寻人去诉苦。那人是一个傻子。 奴才：“主人并不将我当人；他对他的叭儿狗还要好到几万倍……” 傻子：“混帐！” 那人大叫起来，使奴才吃惊了。 奴才：“先生，我住的只是一间破小屋…秽气冲着鼻子，四面又没有一个窗子……” 傻子：“你不会要你的主人开一个窗的么？” 奴才：“这怎么行？……”。傻子跟奴才到他屋外，动手就砸那泥墙。 奴才：“先生！你干什么？”他大惊地说。 傻子：“我给你打开一个窗洞来。” 奴才：“这不行！主人要骂的！” 傻子：“管他呢！”他仍然砸。 奴才：“人来呀！强盗在毁咱们的屋子了！快来呀！迟一点可要打出窟窿来了”。一群奴才都出来，将傻子赶走。 听到了喊声，慢慢地最后出来的是主人。 主人：“你不错。”主人这样夸奖奴才。 这一天就来了许多慰问的人，聪明人也在内。 奴才：“先生。这回因为我有功，主人夸奖了我了。你先前说我总会好起来，实在是有先见之明……”。 奴才大有希望似的高兴地说。 聪明人：“可不是么……”聪明人也代为高兴似的回答奴才。 鲁迅笔下的旧封建社会好似历久长新，83年的时光宛如静寂不动，和当今的新加坡社会看来并没有什么两样。为何人权与平等的憧憬这么遥不可及？想想看，这或许就是新加坡模式的先天性缺陷。 在新加坡模式里：主人是制度的塑造者，聪明人是制度的保卫者，奴才是制度的受害者，傻子是制度的反对者。 奴才总爱找人诉苦这不就彷佛好似咱们社会里的咖啡店论坛文化，人民借胡言乱语发泄心胸里的窝火憋气。只敢说说，不敢做做，因为害怕主人会骂。 聪明人也总是同情的聆听并热心的劝解奴才；这不也彷佛是议员接见选民的情景？聪明人常说没有了主人大家都活不成了：家里的男人沦为别国的客工，女人也得出国当女佣。每隔一段时期聪明人也总爱重复提出保证：更多好年头。 傻子总爱大声叫嚷受不了了，更企图在主人的墙上打出几个破洞。咱们的社会不也有两三个不知好歹的顽梗分子不循正道而变得一贫如洗？咱们不也常听到有人在喊：强盗在毁咱们的屋子了。 李光耀常告诫新加坡人：天下没有免费的午餐。诚然，奥巴马之所以有今天这个机会并不是上天的特别恩赐，而是因为许许多多的无名士的不怕牺牲，努力争取人权，正义和平等的结果。新加坡人有梦想吗？有《解放黒奴宣言》的民有，民治，民享的梦想吗？  Read More →

By Sanjana George, Lifestyle Columnist Is it acceptable for a couple to live in or not?  It is interesting to note that this is a much-debated topic on the Internet. Under the cloak of anonymity, people openly talk about their understanding of society, give their views and share their opinions. It is interesting to observe what people think. One argument is that society runs on certain protocols, and that its uniqueness should be preserved. Another openly blames the ‘West’ for giving such unwanted ideas about living in to the ‘East’. A third argument woefully stated that the times were changing and that we all ought to keep up with it. World history ironically, is replete with tales of polygamy, polyandry and other juicy tales of men and their mistresses. Although living in is still looked upon as a taboo in society, there is a definite increase in such relationships over the years. This generation is frequently blamed for being too financial independent, unwilling to commit or make compromises- hence the need to be in a relationship that is easy to get out of. Of course, with regard to this topic, there is no right or wrong. Whether you choose to live in with your partner or not, depends entirely on both your perspectives, morals, families and more importantly, how you both see your future together. After all, should society have the last word to decide that marriage and not living in is the only socially acceptable relationship? Why is a marriage looked at with respect and a live in relationship looked at with raised eyebrows? For one, it is believed that there are no guarantees in a live in relationship. Let’s put it like this. If there are no real reasons to stay in a relationship, nothing stops a partner from actually walking out. After all, there are no strings attached. In a marriage, it is expected that couples will have their issues, but will compromise and sort out their problems together. Secondly, a live in relationship is often thought of as encouraging sexual promiscuity or infidelity. In a marriage, partners are supposed to stay sexually active with only each other. Thirdly, in a live in relationship the commitment between two partners is questionable. They want to have somebody around, but don’t really want to commit for life because what if this isn’t the ‘right’ person? In marriage, the commitment factor is believed to be powerful enough to bind couples together and pull them through anything. Fourthly, most people are raised in a way that upholds the sanctity of marriage. No matter how modern they are, most Asian parents are not comfortable with the thought of their children having a live in relationship. The most common arguments in such cases are “Look at us, we have been married for the past 30 years, why not them?’ or even ‘what will other people say if they know?’ Fifthly, having children can complicate matters further. According to studies, children thrive in an emotionally secure and financially stable environment. On the other hand, they can get adversely affected if they see either parent with different live in partners - a situation that does not arise in a marriage. Children who are aware that their parents are unmarried often become curious to know why their family is ‘different’ from others.  If the partners break up, another question that arises is who will take care of the child. Making joint decisions on finances and expenses may also be more difficult for a live in couple. On the other hand, a live in relationship has its plus points as well. The no strings attached clause is an advantage, especially if you feel that you may not be with the right person and need time to make life-changing decisions. It is better than getting married on a whim, being unhappy, and then going through the hassles of a divorce. There are no elaborate ceremonies or customs to go through in a live in relationship, unlike a wedding, which can be an expensive affair. Marital torture, dowry and sexual harassment are a few of the problems that married women are increasingly facing these days. Often the stigma attached to speaking out and getting a divorce, is reason enough for many women to suffer in silence. In a live in relationship, since there are no prior commitments, walking out on a partner is painful but relatively easier. There are pros and cons to both a live in relationship and marriage because each has their happy stories to tell. There are so many live in couples who haven’t tied the knot, but who are blissfully happy together as well as many live in couples who eventually say ‘I do’. On the other hand, many married couples are happy and secure because of the lifelong commitment they have made and there are also couples who are far from happy but simply stay together for different reasons. Eventually, the decisions and responsibilities attached to either relationship rest with you. Either way, it is taking a chance.   About the Author: Sanjana George is a MBA holder, a HR Sr Executive and a freelance creative writer. She has developed and written content  for websites such as Finance Strategy, Travel guide 4 planet and a children’s website Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, among others. She has also published a book of poems – “As a candle flickered in the dark”.  Read More →

By Seah Chiang Nee from The Star WHAT may have been a new, modern-day wave of migration into Singapore has pushed the population pass a historic five-million mark. It is reminiscent of the previous waves of migrants who had been arriving on this island at various periods of history since its founding by Sir Stamford Raffles in 1819. The difference lies in the scale and profile of the arrivals. Half a century ago, they fled from wars or famine in desperate numbers to establish roots here. The migrants today are not the peasant or coolie type who sailed in on refugee ships. Most are richer, better-educated people who fly in – on economy class – to seek better jobs. The majority are transients who leave eventually. In the last 20 years, the population doubled. The five-million mark came five years after Mr Lee Hsien Loong, 57, became Prime Minister, and will probably be recorded to his credit or blame depending on who you talk to. Lee recently said Singapore is well-placed to be a home for talent and is creating programmes of value to companies and the talented. On the positive side, it has produced a more vibrant, exciting - albeit over-crowded – city and higher collective capabilities. The bulk of Singaporeans, however, do not see much merit or pride to be part of a larger-size country. Instead, they resent the longer queues, increased job competition, depressed wages and the higher costs of almost every thing, especially in public housing. A recent report revealed that 40% of the buyers of public housing (HDB) resale flats are PRs, resulting in skyrocketing prices. Even the promise of an eventual 6 to 7 million population, which will make Singapore comparable in size to London (7.5million), isn’t alluring to most people. According to new statistics, Singapore’s population reached 4.99 million last year and it is likely to have passed 5million by now. Freer immigration raised the total number of foreigners to 1.8million – or 36% of the figure. Or one in three people here is now non-Singaporean. Local natives total 3.2million, or 64%, about what it was 15 years ago. “Will we, one day, be like the aborigines in Australia?” one cynic wondered. Singapore’s top civil servant, now retired, Mr Ngiam Tong Dow also appealed for a slowdown. “I do not want to sound alarmist but a recurring nightmare of mine is that someday we will find ourselves strangers in our own land,” he wrote. Historically, Singapore has always been dependent on migrants to prosper – more so since 2004 when Lee became the Prime Minister. “We had thought the recession would put a brake on manpower demand, but the opposite has happened,” one official said. More than 100,000 foreigners have been flocking here every year since 2004. Of the total, 1.25million are foreign workers on contracts with PRs totalling 533,000, comprising mostly of Malaysians and mainland Chinese. Having a larger population has been the expressed wish of Asian leaders who want greater political or economic leverage for their countries. When he was Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad wanted Malaysia to aim for an 80-million population, four times what it was then. And one of Thailand’s ruling generals in the 1970s had called on Thais to procreate more so that the kingdom could triple its population. “In this way, foreigners will have more respect for us,” he added. But for Singapore - which hankers for 6-7 million people - immigration has different objectives: Making up for a low birth-rate and feeding the economy. “It is based on the development of a highly skilled human resource base as the key success factor in mapping a global future,” an economist said. There are two macro-fears, however, in pushing it too far and too fast. Firstly, it could result in an unintended hollowing of its own born-and-bred population, a dangerous phenomenon as increased pressures continue to push out its own educated citizens to settle elsewhere. Secondly, it about security. How much will the foreign residents, who are not bonded to the nation, be depended upon to fight for it? Singapore is defended by a 300,000-strong reservist army, made up of citizens who have undergone two years of military training. The concern is that it can be weakened as more foreigners take over. Singaporeans who draw from Kuwait’s experience are concerned about the impact of the high foreign ratio – 36% - on the city’s defence capabilities. When Saddam Hussein invaded in 1990, Kuwait had a population of 1.2million and only half of which were Kuwaitis. The development of the oil industry had made it dependent on foreign workers, mostly Arabs, South Asians and Iranians. Saddam probably knew the fundamentals well. It took only two days for his army to conquer the sheikdom - and its oilfields. Its size had made it indefensible but the large foreign presence had made even a token resistance impossible. There was no deterrence whatsoever against an attack. “It is useless to allow economic reasons, however compelling, to undermine our security needs,” said an academician. With rising public unhappiness, the Government looks set to slow down the inflow, at least for now. Mr Lee Kuan Yew wants to the “foreigner” presence be capped at one-third, while PM Lee Hsien Loong promises a slower intake. Long-term, however, immigration remains very much a part of Singapore. - The Star  Read More →