TR EMERITUS

Original Blog Written by Lucky Tan HERE 前几天，一份名为 "十一亿元($1.1B)使收入差距缩小" 的报告出现于海峡时报，解释缩小收入差距的努力己经有所进展。 一个部长级委员会公布了这60页的进展报告，查出了自2006年以来我们工人的处境己经大大地改善(have come a long way)。 当您没有明显地列出了您的目标时，您可以把任何您达到的东西定义为成功。是啊， PAP 政府又再一次成功了： 首先，最底层20%的本地全职工人的月薪从$1,200上升至2008年的每月$1,310。非常奇怪的是政府之内无人知道通货膨胀率是多少，并且似乎无人知道实际工资是什么水平。 因为工人们现在月入$1,310，他们的境况是否比以前较好呢？在2007-2008这两年间，最底层20%工人面对的通货膨胀率是9.5%。在过去 3年，全国消费者物价指数(CPI)则上升超过10% [链接]。 这些低工资工人在2008年必须每月收入至少$1320才能与他们2006年之经济水平仅仅同步。 当政府增加我们的CPF最低限度的储蓄额(minimum sum)时，他们利用通货膨胀作为理由，但是当谈到低收入工人的薪水时，他们不提通货膨胀以便显示他们做了一份好工作给我们看! 每月收入$1,200或者更少的居民人数从360,000人收缩到少过300,000人。怎可使用$1200作为参考水平呢？他们再次没有因为通货膨胀而作出调整。 GINI贫富指数从2007年的0.489下跌到2008年的0.481，这是十年来的首次下跌。 他们必须用小数点之后第3个位 (3rd decimal place) 才能找到GINI指数的一点改善。并且，即使有了一点改善，它仍然是属于第三世界国家的GINI贫富指数。像日本、台湾、和南韩等这些国家，他们的GINI指数大约为0.3。GINI下跌的一个原因可能是富裕阶层的收入下跌而不是贫穷阶层变得更加富有。回想在2008年，我们面对了一次金融危机，它造成了富人的收入来源：例如租金、股息、和高级主管的花红等，暂时下跌。 如果您小心地阅读该报告，您会意识到， PAP政府讲了很多关于帮助贫穷人民的説话并且表达了他们对贫穷人民的关心，但他们的行动与他们的言词并不匹配。十一亿元($1.1B)的援助金还少过淡马锡(Temasek)的一宗投资(英国Barclays银行)所丢失了的金钱。这个贫富问题持续了超过十年并且在近年已经更加恶化了，尤其是PAP引入了大量廉价的外国工人。现在他们编造数字来告诉我们这贫富现象已经改善了，但从那里可以看到他们有真诚呢？但是我们不应太惊奇，因为我们投票支持了这政府，而它首次行动就是向上调整了它自己破纪录的薪金。从这政府来看，普通新加坡人的利益似乎是次要的…  Read More →

From Malaysiakini The World Health Organisation today declared as pandemic the outbreak of the A(H1N1) influenza, raising its alert to the maximum level six. The crisis has escalated into the world's first influenza pandemic in 40 years after infecting tens of thousands of people in 74 countries. WHO director general Margaret Chan said the declaration of a "moderate" pandemic should not spark panic and did not mean the death toll from A(H1N1), which currently stands at 144, would rise sharply. The UN body said it was not recommending the closure of borders nor restrictions in movement of people, goods and services. But it warned the virus was spreading beyond the Americas where it was first detected in April. "We will be raising our pandemic alert level to level six; and this means that the world is moving into the early days of its first influenza pandemic in the 21st century," Chan told reporters after a meeting of scientific experts. "At this time, the global assessment is that we are seeing a moderate pandemic," she added. The WHO raised its six-phase alert level to five at the end of April, indicating an imminent pandemic. The latest WHO figures show that the number of reported A(H1N1) infections has reached 28,774 in 74 countries, including 144 deaths. The vast majority of the deaths have been in Mexico, the original epicentre of the outbreak, and no deaths have been announced outside the Americas. "Moving to pandemic phase six level does not imply we will see increase in number of deaths or very severe cases," said Chan. "Quite on the contrary, many people having mild disease will recover without medicine in some cases, and it is good news, but the tendency to move into complacency is our biggest concern," she added. Pandemic could last up to 2 years Chan said the health agency is concerned that the virus is causing "very severe disease disproportionately" among people 30 to 50 years old. WHO assistant director general Keiji Fukuda warned the pandemic could last up to two years. "For a period for one to two years the virus is going around the world, and is getting people infected in a way a pandemic virus will get people infected... We need to be flexible how we respond to it," said Fukuda. The declaration comes amid growing evidence that the virus, which originated in Mexico two months ago, is now being widely transmitted between humans in Asia and Europe as well as the Americas. EU officials promised measures on Thursday to reduce the impact of swine flu as Spain said 22 schools in the Madrid region had been hit by the virus. The United States said it was well prepared to tackle the pandemic as it had been taking precautionary measures. "We acted aggressively to stay ahead of the virus as it spread across the country. Now our challenge is to prepare for a possible return in the fall," Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement. Read full article on Malaysiakini  Read More →

By Brian Yap from The Malaysian Insider For all our silly posturing and lame jokes about one another, only those blinded by knee-jerk nationalism can deny that Malaysia and Singapore are inextricably linked. Our ties go deeper than the fact that we both find Phua Chu Kang funny (well, some of us do, anyway), and certainly deeper than the fact that both nations lived under the rule of strongmen with a Machiavellian streak marketed as “Asian values.” As the man who shaped modern Singapore makes his way through Malaysia on an eight-day visit, the often prickly relations between the governments of both countries once again enters the public consciousness. So far, the visit has been a cordial one, with both guests and hosts being pleasantly gracious to each other. For too long, history has defined the Malaysia-Singapore relationship, often at the expense of both our nations’ present and future interests. The governments of both countries often seem bent on viewing their relationship through a prism of the past. But this is 2009, not 1965. While Lee still looms large over the island state, the man is now 85 years old. Both Malaysia, Singapore and the world at large have evolved and changed in myriad ways since the Separation. This is not a call to let bygones be bygones, nor am I naively asking for everyone to hold hands and sing “Rasa Sayang”. But surely it is not unreasonable for both sides to acknowledge that our divergent post-1965 paths can offer invaluable lessons for one another. A competitive spirit between Malaysia and Singapore might have spurred progress on both sides of the Causeway, but even competitors can form a relationship of mutual benefit and shared knowledge. After all, there’s much we can learn from Singapore. When the Selangor government decided to rehabilitate the Klang river, it sensibly approached the Singaporean government, which boasts a successful experience in cleaning up the Singapore River and Kallang Basin. It is also in Singapore where vernacular schools were all streamlined into a national system, which remains an issue of contention here. For many reasons  –  some understandable, some just downright childish – some Malaysians view with disdain the idea that Singapore is successful in many areas that we aren’t. (I can hear it coming already – “You like it so much, why don’t you move there?”) From public infrastructure to education, anti-corruption measures to urban planning, there’s no shame in admitting that the island down south can teach us a thing or two. It is not a mark of confidence to dismiss the achievements of others, but rather, a reflection of our own insecurity. Conversely, Lee and his entourage can also learn a lot from us. As they make their way through several states in West Malaysia, the results of March 8 must surely be on the forefront of their minds. In fact, it is probably safe to assume that the shifting political landscape is a big reason for the trip. After all, the political figures on Lee’s to-meet list include top PAS and DAP leaders. Even Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang, who doesn’t hold a position in any government, is on the list. Just like Malaysia has plenty to learn from Singapore, the opposite is also true. Both the PAP and BN have maintained their grip on power using authoritarian measures, demonising, jailing and suing opposing voices to silence them. We had Operasi Lalang, they had Operation Spectrum. For all of my criticism of the federal government, and for all the ways in which it abuses its power, it would be dishonest not to acknowledge that Malaysians enjoy more political freedom than Singaporeans do. Of course, part of the reason is undoubtedly the determination of many Malaysians who have sacrificed much to push for more open political space. Still, I’ve always joked that if I lived down south, I would probably have long ended up in prison for one reason or another. So far, that hasn’t happened to me here. Yet. It would be tragic if the lesson Lee takes home from his visit here is how Singapore can benefit from Malaysia’s inevitably chaotic transition to a two-coalition system. Or that his PAP government must further curtail the political rights of its citizens to prevent even the remotest likelihood of a similar scenario in Singapore. Instead, I hope he leaves Malaysia with the realisation that economic development can only postpone the inevitable desire of people to speak their minds. That a greater sense of participation in the political process only serves to strengthen the bond between a citizen and his or her nation, which in turn will only strengthen Singapore, not weaken it. One other thing I hope he leaves Malaysia with is the realisation that, while race remains a potent defining force here, many Malaysians have come to the realisation that our future lies in moving beyond the narrow confines of communal politics. In other words, if he wanted to get a better understanding of the welfare of Chinese Malaysians, he would be better off talking to the political parties they overwhelmingly voted for. Hint … it’s not the MCA. Source: The Malaysian Insider  Read More →