MICA (P) 256/10/2007 Issue No: 0802 www.wp.sg $2.00

HOW TO CONTACT US?HAMMER:The Editor,P.O Box 15 Toa Payoh CentralSingapore 913101Email: editor@wp.org.sg

OPEN HOUSE:Every Monday (except public holidays)from 8.00pm to 9.30pm at:The Workers’ Party HQ216-G Syed Alwi Road #02-03Singapore 207799Location (http://www.wp.sg/contact/contact.htm)

“The Workers’ Party 50th Anniversary Commemorative Book”

Available for purchase atWP Party Headquarters at 216-G Syed Alwi Rd 1. #02-03, on Monday evenings from 8 to 9.30 pm

Blk 310 Hougang Ave 5 void deck on Wednesday 2. evenings from 8 to 10 pm

In the heat of the General Election campaign in May 2006, Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan was pressed by The Workers’ Party to divulge the government’s plans to intro-duce means testing for hospitalisation. His response was:

"Means testing itself is not wrong, but how to do it properly is tricky and needs time. Originally, I was more ambitious when I returned to (the Health Ministry) three years ago. I thought we could do means testing. But after discussion with people, I think let us do other proposals

first… I will do it only if it is practical, because the theory may be sound but if the implementation is more costly ... then it's not worth the effort… So whether to do it or not, I don't know. It depends on whether we can come up with

practical ideas. " (Today, 2 May 2006)

Despite the concerns expressed by the Minister himself, the government continued to talk about means testing for hos-pitalisation in 2007 and in 2008 consulted various groups for feedback. By 15 Feb 2008, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam suddenly announced in his Budget state-ment that “means testing has been thoroughly debated”...a done deal! On 3 Mar 2008, the Health Minister unveiled the plan to commence means testing in Jan 2009 based on an initial set of criteria.

This article traces the main justifications, criticisms and concerns about means testing for hospital subsidies, and argues why you should be alert and wary of the implica-tions of this move on your critical healthcare needs.

What Means Testing for Hospitalisation Is AboutCurrently, our public hospitals provide acute care and inpa-tients stay in wards segmented by class. The existing gov-ernment subsidies based on ward class is as follows:

TABLE 1: GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES UNTIL YEAR END 2008

Ward Class A B1 B2 CLevel of Govt Subsidy (%) 0 50 65 80

The level of subsidies has been means-blind, meaning that anyone, rich or poor, can choose his ward class and get the same government subsidies.

With effect from Jan 2009, means testing will affect the subsidies given to each patient. How much subsidy you will get if you choose to go to C or B2 will range as fol-lows:

TABLE 2: GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES COMMENCING JAN 2009

Ward Class A B1 B2 CLevel of Govt Subsidy (%)

after Jan 20090 50 50-65* 65-80*

*the exact % of subsidy received by each patient would be within this range, based on the outcome of means-testing.

Minister Khaw announced the initial criteria for means testing in Parliament on 3 Mar 2008:

a) If you earn less than $3,200 per month, you will con-tinue to get the same subsidies as before (65% for B2 class and 80% for C class).

b) If you earn $5,201 and above per month, you will pay the same as those in the next (higher) class. In other words, to stay in B2, you will pay B1 rates (50% subsi-dy); to stay in C, you will pay B2 rates (65% subsidy).

c) If your income falls between $3,200 and $5,201 per month, you will receive subsidies somewhere within the range stated in Table 2 above for B2 and C class, based on a sliding scale.

d) If you do not have income, such as homemakers, reti-rees and children, you will receive the same subsidies as before unless you live in property with Annual Value exceeding $11,000. Properties which have Annual Val-ues more than $11,000 currently covers mostly private properties. Residents in such properties will be treated like those earning $5,201 and above per month.

Government Arguments For Means TestingIn gist, Minister Khaw offered the following reasons to jus-tify means testing:

a) Government subsidies have been increasing in line with the aging population, but resources are still limited.

b) As B2 and C class services improve, the difference be-tween them and class A and B1 will narrow. Higher-income patients may then be attracted to stay in B2 and C class wards, crowding out those with lower income who have no alternatives.

c) Means-testing will promote fairness in resource alloca-tion as it allows the government to target subsidies to the lower income.

Implications Of The Government’s ArgumentsThere are several red flags arising from the government’s policy to means-test hospitalisation.

1. Your assurance of a social safety net of subsidised basic hospitalisation services is being diluted.

Seeking treatment in acute care hospitals is an unpleasant necessity of life. Affordability of medical care consistently ranks among the top concerns of Singaporeans in surveys and dialogues, especially since all are living longer. Now,

By Sylvia Lim

2

continued from pg 1

In April 2008, the LTA levied a $387,000 fine on SMRT for an accidental disruption to its train service, apparently caused by an operator who did not activate one out of two sets of brakes on a maintenance train due to an oversight. The inconvenience caused was considerable – several thousand commuters were affected. But the effect was probably felt elsewhere as well.

For the sake of a more gracious society, and to diffuse the impact of the rising cost of living in Singapore, LTA’s reac-tion to such breaches in service agreements should have been of a ‘corrective’ nature, rather than the purely ‘puni-tive’ one that it currently is.

Accounting implicationsAllow me to elaborate. In a punitive system, the fines levied by a regulatory authority for breaches of agreement (in this case, a breach of service) goes into the government coffers and ends up as part of either the next fiscal year’s operating budget, or a budget surplus which then gets locked away in Never-Never-Land. Income from such fines may be taken as a surplus because they are not part of the normal operat-ing revenue (money from normal operations); the excep-tional one-off “income”.

Economic ImpactWhen money is locked up in this way, it may have detri-mental effects on the economy as it means less money in circulation in the economy.

Let us take a slightly different approach. The fine imposed by LTA could be a “corrective” fine instead of a “punitive” fine. The difference is that, in a corrective situation, LTA could stipulate that this amount of money must be used in part or full to rectify the process or situation that caused the breach of agreement or service.

In this particular case, SMRT could be made to institute “fail-safe” measures, utilising the amount intended for

the government is rationing its subsidies based on its as-sessment of how much you can afford to pay. A patient could end up paying 1.75 times the bill of the person lying next to him. In other words, for a $1,000 bill in C class, you may pay $350 (65% subsidy) while someone pays $200 (80% subsidy). Is the government so poor that, for such a critical need as hospitalisation, it has to resort to this?

To sum up, I can do no better than Straits Times journalist, Salma Khalik, who wrote: “Means testing…spells the end of the health bedrock: that no one will be denied basic (hospitalisation) care at basic rates”. (ST 9 Jan 2008)

2. Your ability to do financial planning overall will be eroded.

Before means-testing, you could determine for yourself how much you should spend on the hospitalisation needs of yourself and your family. With means-testing, the gov-ernment decides how much you can afford to pay, based on a simple (frankly, simplistic) income / housing type test. 2 people may earn $5,201 per month but the dispos-able incomes could be vastly different: one may be in ill-health or have many dependants, while the other has no commitments.

Based on just income alone, will the government be able to know your concerns about future healthcare needs, providing for parents or children, or your debts and li-abilities?

Looking at the simple criteria for the test, it seems that the government is not concerned about these at all. Health Minister had in fact made it clear that he preferred a “less correct but simple” test to a “correct or more complicat-ed” one! (ST, 14 Jan 2008).

3. Ominous Words Have Been Uttered… Before March 2008, there had been months of painful and emotional speculation as to what the cut-off income for full subsidies would be, with Minister floating thoughts of a low cut-off, then possibly drawing the line at the 50th percentile wage earner, meaning someone who earned about $2,300 per month. In hindsight, there may have been a psychological purpose to that, as the eventual cut-off at $3,200 was met with some relief (see also last para of this article).

However, in answer to WP Secretary-General Low Thia Khiang’s question, Minister Khaw acknowledged in Par-liament that the criteria for means testing might change over time e.g. as incomes rose. What I had intended to ask the Minister then, but was unable to due to the allotted time running out, was to explain what he had meant when he said in January that: “In the short term, the majority of Singaporeans should continue to receive the same level of subsidies as they do today and will not be affected”

(ST, 8 Jan 2008). Does it mean that once means testing as a concept has become “accepted” by Singaporeans, the criteria will become much stricter? It is hard to rule this out, especially since our aging population will mean that the number of retirees seeking treatment will swell and become a significant cost factor on the government’s health expenditure.

4. Healthcare costs are likely to increaseIt is likely that medical costs will continue to rise, due to inflation generally and specific reasons such as advance-ments in medical technology. As bills go up, the amounts to be paid by the patients, after deducting subsidies, will also go up. If the government continues to adjust subsidy levels, you will face the double whammy of a bigger bill and paying a bigger proportion of it.

Some Concluding ObservationsHealthcare spending in Singapore is very low by inter-national standards. While developed countries spend easily at least 8 to 10% of their Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”) on healthcare, Singapore spends about 3.8%, with government expenditure on healthcare only at 0.9% of GDP (MOH data). Is the current tightening of govern-ment subsidies because the government is reluctant to in-crease healthcare spending, bucking international trends?

The Ministry of Health (“MOH”) knows that Singapore-ans generally do not over-consume hospital services. In 2004, MOH released an Information Paper “International Comparison of Key Healthcare Utilisation Trends” which compared healthcare utilisation trends in Singapore’s acute hospitals with those of other developed countries. The conclusion was that Singapore had done well in the international comparison, having lower admissions to hospitals, and inpatients did not seem to overstay.

While MOH tries to justify means-testing on the “fair dis-tribution of limited resources” argument, it must be re-membered that those with higher income already bear a higher proportion of the tax burden and get lower rebates in any distribution exercise.

The Workers’ Party regrets the government’s deliber-ate decision to burden you with the stress of increased healthcare costs, when there is absolutely no need to do so. Looking at the government’s annual revenue collec-tions and its undisclosed reserves, there is no reason to think that continuing the same subsidy levels will break the bank.

Are you then hapless and helpless victims? Prime Min-ister Lee Hsien Loong provided the answer recently. He was asked by the media why the Health Minister had pub-licly explored a low cut-off income (less than $2,000 per month) for full subsidies for hospitalisation, before mov-ing it up incrementally to finally settle it at $3,200. “You have to ask Minister Khaw Boon Wan… I think the public

would not have accept-ed it if he had begun at $3,000 and it became $1,500 eventually”. (ST 15 Apr 2008). In other words, the government still needs to consider how far you can be pushed before you will vote against it – a testa-ment to the fundamen-tals of politics and your empowerment through contests at the General Election.Source: Daquella manera (flickr.com)

By Perry Tong

3

the fi ne. For example, SMRT could install some form of electro-mechanical device to prevent the train from mov-ing if the train operator inadvertently forgets to activate the brakes. Or it could be the implementation of a system or procedure for which additional costs are incurred.

Such a “corrective” fi ne would mean that the money is ploughed back into circulation in the economy. Certainly, $387,000 may not mean much for certain sectors of our economy, but for some it could represent a person’s salary for fi fteen years or a year’s salary for fi fteen people. This amount, relatively small though it may be, could then be spent on other areas, thereby boosting the economy.

Impact on SMRTWhen a fi ne is levied on SMRT, the accounting process will most likely put this under “legal expenses”. Now, “le-gal expenses” typically fall under operating expenses for most companies. As a result, at the end of the fi scal year, SMRT may report a slight dip in earnings due to this “legal expense”.

A few things can happen here. A dip in earnings reported typically triggers a sell-off in shares of the company, which in turn leads to a decrease in shareholder value and prob-ably a decrease in dividends. It should be reiterated that al-though the amount, and hence the impact, may not be very large relative to SMRT’s earnings in this case, the principal behind it is the same.

Impact on You and MeA secondary impact from such “legal expenses” is that, in the not too distant future SMRT is likely to use the year’s overall profi t numbers to perhaps demonstrate a decrease in profi t. An application to the Public Transport Council (PTC) to raise fares is then very likely. So a $387,000 problem is now passed on to the general population – that’s you and me!

Realistically, $387,000 may translate into barely half a cent in potential fare increase, but consider this: if such fi nes are imposed each time there is an accidental train delay, many drops make a spoonful. Hence the cost of living, in this case transportation, continues to rise unabated. And yet, the government attributes the rising cost of living to “global factors beyond our control”. Really?

Is Our Gracious Society Fine?Lastly, in our present legal and judicial system, corrective action is often preferred over punitive action in enforcing justice (probations instead of jail, study instead of jail, psy-chiatry instead of jail...etc). I applaud this “opening up” and liberalisation of Singapore’s legal/judicial practice be-cause it demonstrates a truly positive approach towards the cultivation of a more gracious society.

However, LTA’s punitive action in this case certainly does not fl ow in this same positive direction. The hard-hand-ed and unforgiving punitive actions of regulators such as LTA (among others) stick out like a sore thumb in our le-gal landscape to some extent. Just think about how many regulatory bodies we have on this little red dot, and the impact is multiplied.

Offenders should be given help to correct and improve themselves, not be condemned and penalised in a manner that appears vindictive. Special note should be paid to ‘cor-porate’ offenders since the impact, as demonstrated, can easily trickle down to Singaporeans.

Once again, Singapore is seeing an upswing of the prop-erty market, with private property prices surging 31%, and the HDB resale market rising 17% since early 2007. Although prices have cooled down in the later part of last year, they are still at relatively high levels. More new HDB fl ats have been put on sale with higher price tags, while virtually all resale fl ats in the open market today are selling above valuation.

Rising property prices inevitably make owning a fl at less affordable, especially for young couples who have just started work and are planning to get married.

Opting for a new “build-to-order” (BTO) HDB fl at is one solution, but because of the high values of resale fl ats, there is now a long queue for BTO fl ats; applicants have to wait up to 3 years on average before getting their keys. Those who cannot wait that long have been forced to source for fl ats in the resale market.

On 18 Feb 2008, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan said that HDB resale fl ats were still relatively affordable, citing government assistance such as CPF grants, low-interest loans and subsidies. (The Straits Times, 18 Feb 2008).

However, he did not give the full story – many fi rst-time HDB fl at-buyers cannot afford to purchase a resale fl at be-cause of the cash-over-valuation (COV) amount that they have to pay the sellers. The COV in the present market could amount to $10,000 or more, for a three-room fl at in a shorter-lease block on a low fl oor without lifts servicing its level or amenities in the vicinity. For a well-renovated fi ve-room fl at located on a high fl oor at lift-level and in close proximity of an MRT station or amenities, the cash portion could reach as high as $80,000!

Hence, while Mr Mah may not be wrong to say that “re-cent buyers of new HDB fl ats use only about 20 per cent of their monthly household income to service their hous-ing loans”, he is not entirely correct in saying that buyers do not need to fork out cash up-front because of such as-sistance schemes.

Presently, there is no assistance for COV. High grants or subsidies are rendered ineffectual for fl at-buyers who

cannot pay for the COV amount. A solution that has been suggested was to allow loans to cover the selling price of a resale fl at instead of just the valuation price. However this is risky and not encouraged, as Singaporeans may buy bigger and more expensive fl ats without thinking of the long term ability to keep up with mortgage payments, especially if the loan is taken from a bank at high interest rates.

One idea that the government should seriously consider is to give cash grants to cover the COV amount, in lieu of the existing CPF grant. Issuing such cash grants will not mean giving buyers money up-front, as these cash grants will be withheld by HDB until the buyers have chosen their fl at.

In a way, this cash grant works like the CPF grant except that the former covers the COV part instead of part of the valuation price. If the cash grant is unable to cover the COV, then the buyer has to fork out the remaining amount in cash. On the other hand, if the cash grant exceeds the COV, the remaining amount will be converted to a CPF grant to cover the outstanding valuation price.

Should the buyer purchase a HDB resale fl at at or be-low the valuation amount, then the cash grant to cover the COV amount will not apply. Instead, the government will give the normal CPF grant.

Giving a cash grant for the COV, however, means that the mortgage loan amounts will increase since the grants have already been used to offset the COV.

In all, giving a cash grant instead of the usual CPF grant will help to make fl ats more accessible especially for young couples with minimal cash in hand.

continued from pg 2

(Melvin Tan, a property agent, is the Assistant Secretary of the Hougang Constituency Committee.)

By Melvin Tan

4

By Aaron Peng, WP Youth Wing Member

The year 2006 saw a major revamp of the ‘A’ level syl-labus. Among the changes was the inclusion of a compul-sory cross-disciplinary subject. This means that all students sitting for the ‘A’ level exams are now required to take a subject from a different stream. Arts students, for instance, must take a subject from the Science stream and vice versa. These changes were on top of the introduction of Project Work, where students have to work in groups on a project which they will then present orally and in a written report at the end of their first year in junior college.

Being in the education sector myself, I have seen how these changes have greatly added to the burden of the students. Yes, it is important to provide our students with a well rounded and balanced education and the brighter ones may find it the perfect way to stretch their minds further and shine.

However, have we forgotten the many students who are already struggling with 3 core ‘A’ level subjects in the previous syllabus? Was the previous system not stressful enough such that we now need to add to their burden? Can we realistically expect an Arts student to be as good in Bi-ology as a student of the Science stream? Or to expect a Science student to be as good in a subject like Literature? Or for a student with a very weak foundation in Mathemat-ics to take the subject at ‘A’ level because that is the only contrasting subject he qualifies for? In addition, having 2 more compulsory subjects has become too heavy a burden for many of our academically weaker students.

These weaker students are already competing with those who can score 4 A’s with minimal effort for the limited places available at the local universities. The weaker stu-dents have to play the “catching-up” game throughout their ‘A’ level course, often without much realistic chance of ever catching up. Do we really need to add to their dif-ficulty by constantly raising the basic requirements of the ‘A’ level examinations?

For Project Work, I do agree that the skills that students pick up such as making an oral presentation and working in

teams are important ones that they need for the workplace in the future. However, is it necessary to make it another examinable subject? Could the teaching of these required skills not be woven into other ‘A’ level subjects instead? Alternatively, we could make Project Work part of the in-ternal assessment required for promotion from JC1 to JC2, without having to make it an ‘A’ level subject which would affect students’ future i.e. their ability to proceed to uni-versity.

In my opinion, these additional subjects, including Project work, should be offered as electives, which give the more academically inclined students a chance to broaden their minds and enjoy a more balanced education from different streams. It will also provide them with an additional oppor-tunity to impress future employers or scholarship panels, just like the current higher level courses offered to poten-tial scholars. Weaker students, on the other hand, may take up these electives only if they feel that they are coping well with their other core subjects, or have a genuine interest in a particular subject of another stream. This will ensure that students still get the chance to study something they like and hence have the best chance to excel.

Some may argue that the ultimate aim should not just be to get to university and obtain a degree, but to broaden the exposure and mindsets of our students and teach them im-portant life skills. However, we all know that an ‘A’ level certificate is in many ways merely a passport to university, so we should give our students the best chance to achieve this ultimate aim.

Hence the ‘A’ level syllabus, in my opinion, deserves an-other close review to ensure that as many able students as possible will make it to university, and not miss out on the chance just because they have little choice over the sub-jects they have to take, or because they are over burdened, perhaps unfairly. We need to draw a line between trying to stretch the brightest to their fullest potential, and trying to provide as many opportunities as possible for students to excel in what they are good at.

After all, many of these students are at a stage where they are ready to specialise in an area of study which they like and can excel in. Why “force” them to do something in which they are highly unlikely to find interest and in which they will struggle? After all, nobody is good at everything as we are all different and have different interests.

If students are not able to get into our local universities, many will have little choice but to turn to overseas univer-sities as the next best viable route to getting a degree. Many of them may eventually settle overseas, and this will cer-tainly not help Singapore’s “brain-drain” problem which the government has been working so hard to solve.

By Winnie Law, Member of WP Youth WingWhen I joined the Workers’ Party in July 2007, my family members weren’t very supportive at first, and my grand-parents even advised me to withdraw from the party, “just in case something happens” to me.

Such is the mentality of most Singaporeans. We refuse to stand up for what we believe for fear of “trouble”, espe-cially when it involves opposing the government.

You’ll be glad to hear that other than some problems with the biometric system when I entered Malaysia (which has nothing to do with my involvement in the Workers’ Party), life goes on for me as normal – there has been no “trouble” at all.

Yes, some people were shocked when I told them I was with the Workers’ Party. But, like my family, when they saw that nothing bad had happened to me since I joined the Workers’ Party, they gradually came to terms with it. In fact, some of them have asked me how I thought the gov-ernment can do better in certain policies, and others have even asked me how they could join the Party.

But why is there this inherent fear associated with opposi-tion politics? Perhaps it can be traced back to the 1960’s, when Operation Coldstore happened. In that year, 117 opposition members and labour union leaders were de-tained, many of them for up to 17 years. Mr Chia Thye Poh, a member of the Barisan Socialis, was detained for 32 years.

The fact remains that despite Singapore declaring itself as a democratic first-world country, many of us know that our media supports the ruling party, PAP, and this is often re-flected in its media coverage and slant. For example, the newspapers and TV have played a big part in painting a glowing picture of the Singapore government, touting it as an incorruptible world-class government that goes beyond its call of duty to take care of its citizens.

Various policies have sprung up and have proven unpopu-lar among many Singaporeans. Yet, I find that such protests and voices of discontent are hardly reported in the media

With the rise of the New Media, however, a lot of such discontent among Singaporeans has surfaced on the Inter-net and blogs. Many Singaporeans are now more open to supporting the opposition (albeit merely in cyberspace). It is fine to voice your views online, but we need to do more than just that.

Singaporeans, it is time to stop being a NATO (No Action, Talk Only) person. Join a political party that you believe can help Singaporeans progress in life!

For me, I decided to do something for my country, so I joined the Workers’ Party. If you take that first vital step, you will realise that there is nothing to fear at all.

5

Frieda ChanAge: 32

BackgroundFrieda is the eldest of two children in a Teochew fam-ily. Her father returned to the workforce few years ago after retirement and her mother is a housewife, while her sister ventured to work in Shanghai as product designer two years ago. Frieda attributes her helpful nature to the influence from her dad and late maternal grandfather who were ex-grassroot leaders with the PAP and Residents’ Committee.

EducationFrieda was educated at Boon Lay Garden Primary School, Crescent Girls’ School and Townsville Institute, before she pursued a Bachelor of Arts degree at the National University of Singapore (NUS), graduating with double specialisations in Social Work and Sociology in 2000.

During her pre-university days, Frieda served as the presi-dent of the Students’ Council. While at NUS, she joined the NUS Democratic Socialist Club (DSC) where she was elected the Assistant Organising Secretary. She partici-pated in closed-door dialogue sessions with political lead-ers and was one of the twelve delegates who represented Singapore at the Korea-ASEAN Future-Oriented Coop-eration Youth Exchange Programme in 1998.

CareerUpon graduation, Frieda joined an international youth organisation where she worked with local and overseas students, teachers, parents and other youth organisations. She was promoted to Division Coordinator the following year. Within the next two to three years, she was promoted again to Assistant Director and Director of two divisions.

Gordon LimAge : 42

BackgroundGordon grew up in the Upper Serangoon area. His father passed away when he was only 10 years old. His moth-er became the sole breadwinner and sin-gle handedly brought up Gordon, his elder brother (private inves-tor) and younger sister (banker).

At a young age, Gordon fended for himself when his mother was busy at work. Because of this he became very independent and always told himself never to regret the decisions he makes but to learn from any mistakes and not to repeat them.

EducationHe started his education at St Gabriel's Primary School and went on to obtain his "O" level from St Gabriel's Sec-ondary School. He now sits on the school alumni board as an executive committee member, a position he has held for the last 11 years.

In 2004, Frieda and a group of experienced community development workers founded Life! Community Develop-ment Ltd (LCD), a registered charity and VWO committed to promoting local and overseas community development work and volunteerism. Despite being a relatively young player in the field, LCD has gained substantial recognition among the veterans and governments of tsunami-hit areas. Its work was featured on one of the national television pro-grammes overseas.

Since 2005, Frieda has been an Ambassador for the Social Work profession, giving talks and training in schools and to young people. Recently, she joined an international school as Associate Lecturer. Besides teaching, her job as a lec-turer allows her to observe and understand the dynamics of foreign students settling in Singapore.

Why did she join the WP?It was not because of any anti-PAP sentiment that Frieda joined the WP. In fact, she has fond childhood memories of wearing her beige-coloured “RC kid” T-shirt. “I love my country and that’s why I join the WP,” reveals the social worker-cum-educator.

She does not deny that the PAP has performed reasonably well in nation-building, but she feels that Singapore needs strong leaders in parliament who can keep the country pro-gressing through the socio-politico-economic challenges ahead. “Will the newly-elected PAP members who got into parliament courtesy of the ingenious GRC system be able to rise up to challenges ahead?” she asks.

She is convinced that there are many highly credible op-position party members who can do a lot for Singapore. “We need to give these talented opposition party members a level playing field on which to compete,” she says with conviction.

Frieda volunteered her help to the WP Ang Mo Kio team during the General Elections in 2006. Convinced that the Workers’ Party is capable of generating positive dynamics for socio-political change, she joined the party as member in August 2006.

PhilosophyFrieda believes in “Unity in Diversity”. She would like to see a nation-building process where different individuals discover and play their role well in shaping the country’s future. “There can be no room for unchecked fear and political apathy. We should appreci-ate one another’s differences and help to support, not tear down, one another,” she explains.

Frieda believes we should focus our faith (trust) on facts, rather than on (unchecked) feelings. “Faith is like fuel, which must be fed into the engine of facts, in order for the train to move forward. Pouring faith into the passenger cabin will not move the train,” she explains.

Frieda enjoys studying about human behaviour. Kopi-tiams and cafes are her favourite hangouts. She enjoys reading, penning her thoughts on paper, and playing bad-minton, ultimate frisbee and captain’s ball. Recently, she took up Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and acu-pressure massage. “It is vital to stay healthy; I have not fallen ill for more than year,” she declares.

After having spent 3 months in a pre-university centre, he decided not to continue with his studies. Gordon instead found his calling in the hospitality industry and went on to obtain the National Trade Certificate Grade 2 (NTC 2) in the Food & Beverage Services from the then Vocational Industrial Training Board (VITB) and the Singapore Ho-tel Association Training & Educational Centre (SHATEC), where he was awarded a Sliver Medal (The SHA medal for Excellence) in 1988. Since 1993, he has been helping out as a Meet Advisor at the Singapore Hotel Association’s Inter Hotel Athletics Meet.

CareerUpon graduating from SHATEC, he went on to work in the Food & Beverage departments in various hotels, rising to the rank of Captain Senior Operations Manager in 1995.

Gordon is now a Sales Supervisor in charge of strategic accounts with a leading Wine & Spirits company in Sin-gapore.

Why he joined the WP?Having lived in the Upper Serangoon area for a good 40 years and seeing how the residents in Hougang had stood up for their political beliefs, he decided to contribute to the opposition’s cause. The natural choice for him was the Worker's Party, whose MP, Mr Low Thia Khiang, has been serving the residents in Hougang since 1991.

Gordon joined the Workers' Party in May 2006, with the blessings of his family. He is currently the Secretary of the Workers’ Party Welfare Committee and a member of the Hougang Constituency Committee.

Gordon also works closely with the Workers’ Party’s Vice-Chairman, Mohamed Rahizan, on their regular house vis-its in the north-eastern area of Singapore.

PhilosophyGordon believes that every journey begins with a single step and that there are no short cuts to success.

Gordon also believes that in order for our nation to be successful and progress into the future, we must have a "check and balance" system. He explains: “This is where the Workers' Party comes into play. Like the saying goes, ‘You need two hands to clap’. It does not matter if you are the ruling or opposition party; we are all Singaporeans.”

“In time of crises, I will be there carrying arms with my fellow Singaporeans, regardless of our race, religion or political beliefs, protecting my Singapore, family and friends,” he declares.

Gordon is a Roman Catholic and has four daughters.

6

On 3 May 2008, the Workers’ Party Youth Wing held its inaugural YouthQuake forum. The first in a series of public forums planned by the Youth Wing, this forum focused on the question: “Should Singaporean Youths be Allowed to Vote @ 18?”

Invitations for the event had been sent to various bodies and organisations, including the mainstream and online media, friends and supporters of the Youth Wing, politi-cal parties and various organisations such as the National Youth Council (NYC), REACH, the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) and the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS).

Th forum which took place at the Workers’ Party headquar-ters at 216G, Syed Alwi Road saw a full house and was enlivened by the presence of many young Singaporeans.

Bernard Chen, the project manager of YouthQuake and or-ganising secretary of the Workers’ Party Youth Wing, was the moderator of the forum. He said: “YouthQuake pro-vides a platform for youths to speak up and interact with fellow youths on issues affecting young Singaporeans, and it prompts youths to take the initiative to bring about changes.”

The inaugural YouthQuake forum saw 3 speakers from varying backgrounds giving their take on the issue. They were Anne Tan,17, a student at Anglo-Chinese Junior Col-lege, Khairulanwar Zaini, 20, a full-time national service-man and Choo Zheng Xi, 23, co-editor of the online portal, theonlinecitizen.

The speakers generally agreed that youths in Singapore were responsible and had the ability to make informed and intelligent decisions; they could, and would, vote well if they were given the opportunity to do so.

The embodiment of participatory democracyGiving her views on why the government’s efforts at re-po-liticising youths had failed, Anne reasoned that it was due to the over focus on “head knowledge” in subjects such as Social Studies and the “entrenched cycle of fear” that was still very much prevalent within the civil service.

She offered voting at 18 as a possible solution to the grow-ing political apathy among youths in Singapore. She said: “It is one thing to know that elections take place every 4 to 5 years... and another thing altogether to participate in elections.”

Conceding that lowering the voting age from the current 21 to 18 would not suddenly reduce the level of political apa-thy among our youths, she argued that it was, nevertheless, a concrete first step to take.

Age is not a barometer of maturityKhairulanwar Zaini, the second speaker, spoke passionate-ly on the inconsistencies in the existing system of serving national service at 18 while allowing youths to vote only when they are 21.

Noting that the many benefits and privileges offered to na-tional servicemen through the various government agen-cies and statutory boards were nothing more than a consol-atory gesture, he argued that “despite fulfilling our duties of citizenship, carrying out our national duty, we do not get accorded the full rights of citizenship, [because] we still cannot vote. That is almost akin to taxation without repre-sentation.”

Khairul believed that as an inherent principle of democ-racy, we should extend suffrage to those who were serving the interests on the nation, in particular those who provided for the finances and the defence of the state.

Khairul disagreed that 18-year-olds were too immature to vote. “The right to vote should not be accorded based on maturity level; it should be a way of recognising the con-tribution of citizens by providing them with a legitimate means to voice their concerns,” he emphasised.

Khairul also argued that if we did not allow 18 year old full-time national servicemen (NSF) to vote because that might lead to a politicised military, then it would follow that regular NS men should also not be allowed to vote. He further reiterated that voting at the age of 18 would make National Service even more meaningful, as it would help NSF personnel to forge an identity with the nation and rec-ognise the fundamental meaning of a serviceman’s role as a citizen solider.

The intrinsic value of our vote in a politically apathetic societyThe third speaker, Choo Zheng Xi, argued for a lowering of the voting age by situtating the is-sue first in its proper legal and political context. He

observed that Singaporeans did not have the constitutional right to vote but there existed in the Parliamentary Elec-tions Act, the “compulsion” to vote. He also noticed that Singaporeans tended to view the need to vote as an obliga-tion rather than a right.

Although he questioned the effectiveness of lowering the voting age to 18 in reducing political apathy among youths if there was no corresponding change in the mindset of the youths, he did agree with the first two speakers that it would be a good starting point to help Singaporeans to see themselves as stakeholders of this nation and to work towards a system that they truly want to see.

Encouraging feedbackThe subsequent question and answer session was well re-ceived and many youths voiced their opinions and added much depth to the discussion. Ideas for a complete sociali-sation of political education in Singapore schools were rec-ommended to complement the vote@18 agenda.

In closing, Bernard left the audience with the following provoking thought: “Leaders whom youths can’t vote for today may send them to war tomorrow. Youths shouldn’t be subject to stricter standards than adults. Lowering the voting age is the just and fair way to set things straight.”

The Workers’ Party Youth Wing would like to take this op-portunity to thank the speakers and all the participants who spent their Saturday afternoon at this fruitful forum.

In the words of Alvinder Singh, 17, “the forum was in-formative, thought-provoking and engaging. The ideas put across by the young speakers were well researched and this inaugural forum certainly provides an ideal platform for political discussion among youths.”

We would like to hear from YOU!The Workers’ Party Youth Wing will continue to engage young Singaporeans on this issue of lowering the voting age to 18 through its Facebook account (http://www.face-book.com/group.php?gid=10878451692&ref=share)

What do you think of lowering the voting form 21 to 18? We would like to hear from you!

Contact the Workers’ Party Youth Wing @ youthwing@wp.sg for more information on upcoming YouthQuake forums!

7

8

Source: memekode (flickr.com)

Source: Daquella manera (flickr.com)

9

Dalam rencana saya yang sudah, saya telah meng-gesakan agar masyarakat menghapuskan BUDAYA PAK TURUT.

Siapa yang dapat berbangga dengan seorang yang hanya TAKLID MEMBABI BUTA.

Bila anda membuat keputusan tanpa maklumat, terlalu mudah terpangaruh dengan arus berita media massa yang dikongkong ketat serba menekan maklumat, terbujuk den-gan pojokan iklan dan propaganda, maka keputusan anda bukan satu keputusan yang boleh dibanggakan.

Orang yang tidak mahu kebenaran itu menonjol, tentunya akan menyorok informasi.

Cuba kita fikirkan peranan sains kemanusiaan dan ilmu-ilmu sains yang lain - usaha itu bertujuan mengungkapkan maklumat-maklumat yang benar bagi kesejahteraan umat sejagat.

Kalau menurut istilah saya, maklumat yang benar adalah berlandaskan "sains bersih", "sains tauhid" (ketuhanan) - yakni renungan kajian terhadap alam semesta membawa kepada rumusan adanya pencipta yang Maha Esa - yang Satu, tidak tua atau tiga.

Cuba bayangkan kalau pembangunan itu tidak berasas maklumat sains yang betul - alamat akan roboh atau mer-eng pembangunannya.

Lantaran sebab yang sedemikian saya selalu berpendirian - "there should be transparency of information, exchange of information and dissemination of information" (ketelusan maklumat, pertukaran maklumat dan penyebaran maklu-mat) kerana inilah yang akan merangsangkan sains pem-bangunan yang sihat dan makmur.

Cuba kita ambil satu contoh

Apabila PM Lee Hsien Loong menyorot saya dalam Pile-han Raya Umum 2006, dengan soalan "Apa Mohd Rahizan akan berbuat tentang pelajaran anak-anak Melayu...", saya telah mengemukakan pandangan saya pada Pilehan Raya Umum yang lalu di khalayak ribu-ribuan pengundi-pen-gundi: -

Pada pandangan saya, Mendaki itu walaupun merupakan pembentukan yang mulia daripada masyarakat Melayu, hanya dapat memainkan peranan sampingan sahaja (sup-plementary role) kerana terhad oleh dana, kepakaran dan lain-lain sumber yang terbatas. Saya menegaskan, peranan yang asasi dan utama adalah tanggung-jawab Kemente-rian Pelajaran dan telah membalikkan soalan agar Menteri Pelajaran ketika itu, Encik Tharman mengemukakan alasan kenapa pelajar-pelajar Melayu tercecer ataupan apa usaha yang diambil untuk membantu pelajar-pelajar yang tercec-er dari pelbagai bangsa, termasuk pelajar-pelajar Melayu.

Peristiwa ini tidak dibuat liputan oleh Berita Harian, Straits Times dan akhbar-akhbar tempatan yang lain.

Senang kata di "black-out".

Kami, telah sebal dengan keadaan seperti ini dan peranan

yang dimainkan oleh pemberita-pemberita utama di Sin-gapura ini.

Maka, kerana inilah juga salah satu dari Manifesto (Dasar-Dasar) Parti Pekerja (Workers' Party) mengambil sikap dan pendirian bahawa Media Massa perlu bebas dan berkecua-li. (Demi sains Tauhid seperti apa yang telah saya ulaskan tadi.)

Tentunya bukan secara kebetulan Encik Masagos dilantik oleh PM untuk menjawat sebagai Setiausaha Kanan Parli-men Kementerian Pelajaran.

Kena jaga pelajaran anak-anak Melayu beb!

Kita tengok apa nak jadi? Boleh jadi Menteri tak?

Lagi satu informasi yang anda perlu tahu.

Tahun demi tahun, ramai rakyat Singapura yang telah men-inggalkan bumi kelahirannya dan membuang kerakyatan Singapura. Diantara mereka ini seramai 1,000 professional terbaik Singapura telah meninggalkan Singapura buat sela-ma-lamanya baru-baru ini.

Di kalangan masyarakat Melayu kedengaran bahawa mere-ka memileh untuk berhijrah ke Australia.

Orang Melayu Singapura yang berakar umbi di sana, mem-punyai pandangan kritis terhadap Pemerintah PAP - mereka bersikap vokal dan kritikal. Apa nak jadi?

Apakah akan lebih ramai lagi masyarakat Melayu yang akan berhijrah ke Bandar-Bandar Utama Dunia. Jangan salah faham bukan kita menyalahkan Globalisasi. Bagus kalau kita mempunyai semangat perantau dan meraih pe-luang di mana saja.

Yang menjadi tanda-tanya mereka membuang kerakyatan mereka.

Apa sebabnya?

Apa seronoknya apabila kita mendapati akhirnya rakyat tempatan diambil alih tempatnya oleh pendatang yang diberikan kerakyatan oleh sebab penduduk asli telah be-ramai-ramai keluar meninggalkan negaranya buat sela-manya.

Pada tahun 2006, seramai 57,310 penduduk diberi status sebagai Penduduk Tetap dan seramai 13,209 diberi ker-akyatan Singapura.

Ada pengkritik yang telah menggelarkan bahawa Singapu-ra bukanlah sebuah Negara lagi tetapi, sebuah "Hotel", orang cuma menginap dan pergi.

Apa nak jadi?

Kalau ini terus berlaku, bererti kita telah gagal dalam "Na-tion-Building" (Pembangunan Negara).

Kita syok-syok mendabik dada negara kita adalah Dunia "Kelas Pertama" tetapi rakyat asli kita berpusu-pusu men-inggalkan negara ini.

Apa sebab ketidak-puasan ini? Tentu banyak faktor yang perlu dikaji dan suatu huraian perlu disediakan.

Diantara kemungkinan yang perlu diteroka berdasarkan te-ori Maslow, seorang pakar saikologi, dalam teori jenjangan keperluan manusia---tahap keperluan bukan hanya ber-dasarkan keperluan "mengisi perut" tetapi juga menjenjang ke tahap yang lebih tinggi - jenjangan "santapan" rohani dan keindahan seni dan nilai-nilai sejagat.

Sebab itu, diantara pendirian dan misi yang diperjuangkan parti pembangkang, terutama Parti Pekerja (Workers’Party) adalah pembangunan memerlukan kedua - duanya "hard-ware" dan "software".

Minda Pemerintahan sepatutnya bukan hanya diterajui oleh kepintaran IQ (kecerdasan akal fikiran) tetapi juga oleh sentuhan EQ (budi-perasaan).

Gabungan ini menjadi akal-budi; pemerintah yang cerdas lagi budiman. Dan dilowongan itu, kita bergerak mengisi kekosongan sentuhan EQ dan selepas tiga dekad, Pembang-kang memberi tekanan kepada. Pemerintah PAP terhadap dasar-dasarnya, kita telah dapat meraih sedikit kejayaan - Permerintah PAP cuba menunjukkan sedikit keprihatinan dan simpati terhadap derita dan keluhan rakyat tetapi masih terikat dengan belenggu dan kekakuan dasar-dasar gubalan perintis-perintis PAP.

Ada benarnya kekata yang mengatakan kita perlu "think out of the box" (keluar dari kotak pemikiran) atau seperti kata pepatah Melayu keluar dari mentaliti "katak bawah tempurung" - maknanya kita perlu keluar dari belenggu tempurung kekakuan dasar-dasar PAP.

Demi Negara, PAP perlu dorongan sentuhan EQ yang tinggi. Apabila ini berlaku semua dapat meraih manfaat-nya, termasuk mereka yang berpihak kepada gembung per-mbangkang.

Negara dan kesemua rakyatnya akan bertambah makmur kerana rakyat yang lebih bersatu dan patriotik kepada Sin-gapura, lebih kepada Parti, adalah bersesuaian dengan fal-safah yang baru-baru ini dicetuskan PM Lee agar memban-gunkan "inclusive society" (masyarakat yang kesemuanya ditampung). Kalau ini tidak dilakukan ianya hanya merupa-kan "slogan kosong" semata-mata.

Kita perlu ingat gembung pembangkang bukan sedikit. Di-antara 1 juta rakyat pengundi, pembangkang biasa mem-bentuk sebanyak 340,000 - 400,000 penyokongnya dan telah menunjukkan potensi dalam beberapa perlawanan sengit dalam agregate 4.5:5.5 dan 49.1:50.9 dalam perla-wanan demokrasi pembangkang - PAP.

Bukan sesuatu yang mustahil apabila rakyat bertambah matang dan lebih berinformasi; kerana tekanan informasi sedunia menjurus ke arah ketelusan dan penyebaran mak-lumat, neraca demokrasi di Singapura akan menjadi lebih seimbang dalam aggregate 5:5.

Apa nak jadi kalau begitu? Alah. Kita kongsi kuasalah.

Kita perintah dengan adil dan seksama, penuh dengan sen-tuhan akal dan budi selaras dengan saranan Parti Pekerja (Workers' Party) bahawa perlu ada perkongsian kuasa ber-landaskan konsep perwakilan proporsional dalam Parlimen - yakni perwakilan Parlimen berdasarkan undi peratusan yang diperolehi setiap pihak yang bertanding.

Oleh Mohammed Rahizan bin Yaacob

10

Semenjak kebelakangan ini, kita mendapati bahawa kos kehidupan seharian rakyat semakin hari semakin meningkat dengan pesatnya. Kita melihat bagaimana harga-harga barangan asas seperti minyak, tepung, beras dan sebagainya melambung tinggi. Mengambil contoh, harga beras yang melambung diantara 15 den-gan 25 peratus! Keperitan kenaikan harga barangan-barangan asas ini dapat dirasai di semua peringkat masyarakat, daripada si miskin sehinggalah si kaya.

Menyedari akan hal ini, mengenai keperitan dan be-ban yang terpaksa diharungi dan ditanggungi oleh rakyat, pemerintah dengan segera telah mengambil beberapa langkah/inisiatif untuk meringankan be-ban rakyat. Contohnya, para penerima bantuan awam menerima rawatan kesihatan secara percuma, sewa rumah bersubsidi dan rebat bayaran perkhidmatan dan penyenggaraan.

Seorang penerima bantuan awam yang tinggal send-irian kini akan mendapati $330 sebulan berbanding $290 sebelumnya. Malahan, pada belanjawan yang lalu, rakyat Singapura secara kesuluruhannya telah menerima habuan sebanyak $1.8 bilion tahun ini, sebuah belanjawan yang disifatkan sebagai “ penuh belas kasihan, menyeluruh dan memandang ke hada-pan,” oleh Menteri Kanan, Encik Goh Chok Tong.

Memang tidak dapat kita nafikan, bahawa belanjawan kali ini memang ada unsur-unsur belas kasihan dan sebagainya, tetapi pemerintah, pada masa yang sama, harus diingatkan juga agar tidak mudah mendabik dada. Harus diingatkan juga kepada semua bahawa pemerintah mempunyai lebihan belanjawan sebanyak $6.45 bilion pada tahun lalu, tetapi hanya $1.8 bilion yang diagihkan kepada rakyat. Masih banyak yang boleh diambil dan dilakukan oleh pemerintah untuk meringankan beban rakyat dan memperbaiki serta diperhalusi bantuan-bantuan yang diberikannya.

Disebabkan itu, saya berasa agak terkilan dan kecewa sedikit apabila Menteri Kanan, Encik Goh Chok Tong, menggesa rakyat agar lebih bersifat realistik dalam jangkaan masing-masing. Saya percaya dan saya ya-kini, rakyat Singapura memang sebenarnya bersifat pragmatik dan realistik dalam jangkaan mereka. Apa yang dimahukan oleh rakyat ialah agar pemerintah lebih memahami secara mendalam akan keperitan dan kesulitan yang terpaksa mereka alami dan tem-puhi disebalik bantuan-bantuan yang diberikan, yang sememangnya sudah pasti tidak mencukupi.

Kita mengambil contoh, seorang penerima bantuan awam yang kini mendapat $330 sebulan, berband-ing $290 sebelumnya. Kita akan lihat ada kenaikan sebanyak $40, tetapi, bagaimanakah jumlah $40 itu dapat menolong dan memperbaiki kehidupan si penerima, yang sudah tentu mahukan kehidupan yang lebih sempurna, dan bukan dengan penuh keperitan dan kedaifan?

Memang kita tidak dapat nafikan, si penerima juga akan mendapat bantuan-bantuan lain dari segi sub-sidi dan sebagainya, tetapi jika difikirkan dan dire-nungkan dengan teliti, ia tidak mencukupi. Lihatlah kos kehidupan yang tinggi di sini. Dengan kadar GST yang terus meningkat tinggi, kos pengangkutan awam, kos makanan dan sebagainya yang terus men-ingkat, bagaimanakah kenaikan sebanyak hanya $40 itu dapat membantu si penerima? Bandingkan ini den-gan kenaikan gaji beratus ribu dolar oleh para Menteri dan juga Presiden kita. Fikirkan dan renungkanlah.

Bagi saya, bantuan seperti inilah yang dapat dan harus diperbaiki dan diperhalusi lagi oleh pihak pemerintah. Saya ingin mengesyorkan agar bantuan yang diberi-kan kepada si penerima bantuan dinaikkan kepada $500. Saya rasa ini tidak akan membebankan pemer-intah mahupun rizab negara kerana perlu ditekankan sekali lagi di sini bahawa pemerintah mempunyai lebihan belanjawan sebanyak $6.45 bilion tahun lalu, dan jumlah ini belum dicampurkan lagi dengan jum-lah simpanan yang sedia ada dalam rizab negara. Ha-rus diingatkan juga bahawa hanya $1.8 bilion yang dikembalikan kepada rakyat.

Dengan itu,saya ingin ulangi sekali lagi seruan Parti Pekerja agar pemerintah menurunkan kadar cukai GST kepada 5%. Dihapuskan juga sama sekali cukai bagi barangan-barangan asas seperti tepung, beras dan sebagainya. Selain daripada itu, untuk membantu rakyat mengharungi masa-masa sukar ini, kos-kos tambang pengangkutan awam dan sebagainya juga tidak harus dinaikkan sama sekali. Saya juga ingin menggesa agar diadakan semakan semula gaji-gaji yang diterima oleh Presiden dilantik dan para Menteri kita yang tidak munasabah itu. Jika mereka jujur dan ikhlas ingin berkhidmat, biarlah kerana rakyat dan negara, bukannya disebabkan oleh gaji yang tinggi. Wang yang berlebihan dapat disalurkan kembali ke-pada rakyat yang memerlukan.

Akhir sekali, saya percaya, jika saranan-saranan yang disebutkan diatas dilaksanakan dengan penuh keikhla-san, dan mereka yang memerlukan dapat dibantu dengan sewajarnya dan sebaik mungkin, barulah pemerintah ini boleh dikatakan sebagai pemerintah yang berjiwa rakyat, yang benar-benar belas kasihan, menyeluruh dan memandang ke hadapan.

上午。。。

老板：为什么这段日子你总是迟到？

洪先生：没办法，因为汽油和ERP都涨价了，所以我听从部长的话，避开繁忙时间进入ERP所以就迟到了。

老板：那么你也应该听部长的话出售你的汽车而改用公共交通！

洪先生：可是公共交通费也涨价了，而且很不方便。

中午。。。

洪太太：现在东西样样都涨价！听从政府的话改买冰冻肉，可是米和糖也涨价了。真是头疼！

林太太：你为什么不使用本地的品牌？

洪太太：有啊！。可是这些品牌也涨价了几分钱。米和糖总不会有冰冻的吧？

午饭时间...

小贩：先生，$2.50！

洪先生：消费税上调，你的食物没涨价啊？

小贩：没有，不过份量减少了！

下午...

护士：老先生，您下周二上午九时回来复诊。

洪祖父：我不能在上午时段复诊。可以帮我换到下午的时段吗？

护士：对不起，我们下午的时段已经排满了。为什么您不能在上午时段复诊呢？

洪祖父：因为我通常是乘搭德士来的。可是现在早上繁忙时段德士收费很昂贵。

傍晚...

洪太太：儿子，你怎么自己洗了衣服后还是这么肮脏？

儿子：因为您没有多给我额外的零用钱。妈妈您可以多给我二元吗？

洪太太：你为什么需要额外的零用钱呢？

儿子：妈妈，您误解了我的意思。部长说，薪金按业绩来计算。您给我较多的零用钱，我的衣服就会洗得清洁。楼下洗衣店的阿姨收费是三元。我只不过要求市价的三分之二罢了！

晚间...

儿子：爸爸，我要求增加零用钱！

洪先生：为什么呢？

儿子：因为您的工资增加了！

洪先生：没有啊！你听谁说的？

儿子：新闻报道，部长们的薪酬都增加了。所以你的薪金也应该有增加吧！

爸爸：部长加薪，但我的薪水没有增加。部长说，如果工人增加工资，会导致成本增加，物价上涨。

儿子：你们成年人真搞笑。增加工人的薪酬会导致物价上涨，可是为什么部长的薪酬增加就不会导致物价上涨

呢？

Oleh Abdul Salim bin Harun

11

今年三月八日，马国执政党国阵一

下子失去了五个州的州政权，十五

个正副部长在安全区落选。这无疑

是马国政局的大海啸，也是足以影

响东南亚政治的一次大地震。这是

个振奋人心的结果，它赤裸裸地打

破了部长出马包赢的神话！

以马国的反对党来说，也几乎没料

到会有这样好的成绩。对于在2004

年几乎全军覆没的公正党来说，真

的可以说「山穷水尽疑无路，柳暗

花明又一村」。这也说明了一个颠

扑不破的真理：这世界上没什么是

不可能的。所谓「沉舟侧旁千帆

过，病树前头万木春」。这世界上

绝不会少了某个人或某些人，地球

就不再自转了。

自1967年以来，国阵连续执政了四

十多年，一直以来一党独大，一向

来只有巫统老大说了算。这回反对

党能一举攻下五个州，除了安华效

应和国阵执政“成效”的后果，首

相阿都拉也承认忽略了互联网的重

要性。不过最终还得归功于选民民

心思变而把选票投给反对党，加上

反对党策略上应用得宜，以一对一

竞选，避免三角战，尽量不让执政

党有机会不劳而获。

先谈民心思变，由于物价高涨，民

不聊生，贪污弊案连连，司法制度

也备受质疑。大选时，执政党仍然

以旧瓶装新酒的排阵，以为有部长

出马的都是安全区，没把人民的诉

求当一回事，结果人民用选票狠狠

地教训了国阵！

接着，反对党以一对一，不让执政

党有不战而胜的机会。使那些在冷

气房里享受惯的高官必须在日晒雨

淋下露了底。即使是安全区，他们

也得努力争取更高的支持率来证明

他们的政绩，这可有得他们忙的

了。这时候也更可以让人民以雪亮

的眼睛看清候选人的真面目。

随着民怨民反一下子有如排山倒海

而来，反对党于是轻易地夺取了五

个州政权。这说明了人民对民主诉

求的成功，也发挥了民主制度制衡

政府，并使选民能做出有效的选择

以促成政权转移的功能，也提早催

生了马国民主政治的两线制。

在分析马国大选结果后，回头来看

我国的政治局面。所谓「他山之

石，可以攻玉」，我们尽可借镜邻

国的经验加以改进，以便在我国展

开新的政治局面。

四十多年来，行动党一党独大。反

对党能否在来届大选有所作为，攻

下集选区，正是所有关心民主政治

的国人所密切关心和期盼的。

日月谈

当我在2007年7月

加入工人党时，

家人并不十分支

持我的决定。我的祖父母甚至奉劝

我退党以免生惹是非。这也许就是

大多数新加坡人的心态，当问题牵

涉到反对政府的时候，我们会因为

怕惹“麻烦”而拒绝坚持自己的信

念。

不过，我在加入工人党之后唯一碰

到的问题是在用生物认证系统的护

照进入马来西亚时出现故障，但这

跟我在工人党的活动又丝毫没丁点

关系。我的生活依旧，并没有遇到

什么“麻烦”。

当我告诉我的亲朋戚友我是工人党

的一份子时，他们大都对此感到震

惊。但是，和我的家人一样，他们

今年接二连三的天灾，在缅甸开了

头炮。强力的龙卷风夹带着大量的

雨水造成许多城乡镇被淹没，死伤

惨重，许多人无家可归。但由于缅

甸军政府封锁新闻，也不让外国记

者入境采访，人们对真正的景况所

知有限。从有限的新闻报导看来，

我们所看到的惨剧只是冰山一角。

国际社会和各个非政府组织站在人

道的立场撇开缅甸军人政府过去的

种种恶行，纷纷伸出援手，自动自

发，满腔热忱扣门要前往赈灾但却

料想不到被缅甸军政府赏了闭门

羹。更绝的是军政府把其所要通过

的国家宪法摆在最重要的位置，不

论天灾如何折腾人，死了多少人，

还是要人民继续去投票以确保其起

草的宪法如期通过。看来似乎伟

大，为了民主进程不顾一切，说穿

了也只是为了军政府以后能有一个

较体面可以面对国际社会的面罩。

其实，这种不分轻重、本末倒置的

做法也正暴露了这个统治政权的真

面目，草民的命不重要，保住政权

最重要。如果想问这些高高在上的

统治者其良心何在，他们也许会堂

而皇之地告诉你为了国家的利益，

我们必须如期投票通过宪法以取得

国际社会的尊重；我们必须保卫国

家主权的完整，不能在外国施压下

大开门户,让外国人随意进入灾区；

更何况，人民应该吃得起苦，自力

更生，不能让人民养成依赖外援的

习惯，以免破坏了辛勤劳作的价值

观等等﹍﹍这些大道理听起来也耳

熟能详。

因此，我认为，如果不讨论一个国

家的政治制度和民主的准则，单单

衡量一个政府好与坏的基本指标就

是人民的生活和一个人的生命在政

府的眼中到底有多重要。如果人民

从年轻到老都必须在生活线上挣扎

而得不到政府的援助以能有喘息的

机会，如果到年老病弱时还得面对

医药费没着落或因医药费会成为家

人的负担而干脆不求医，如果政府

医院的医生必须劝请或向年老病人

的家属施压别把病人送进加护病房

以免浪费政府宝贵的有限资源；我

想，对人民来说不论这个国家是否

富有，或者有多少储储备金做为后

盾，也不论这个政府是否属于世界

级；这一生的付出，落得如此下

场，这一切已经没有什么意义了。

看到我入党好一段时间都没有什么

不好的事件发生，也就渐渐接受

了；甚至还好奇地问我对政府的政

策有怎样的看法和期待，其中也有

向我询问如何才能加入工人党的。

然而，为什么对反对党政治的这种

固有的恐惧感会存在呢？也许是60

年代政府主导的茅草行动所引起的

后遗症吧！当年，有117名反对党成

员及工会领袖在内部安全法令下被

逮捕，他们当中有的在未经法庭的

审讯下被囚禁了长达17年之久。身

为社会主义阵线的党员暨前国会议

员谢太宝则被拘留了长达32年。

事实是，尽管新加坡声称自己是“

第一世界”的民主国家，许多人都

知道我们的媒体所支持的是执政的

人民行动党，在许多时候，媒体的

然而，要能寻求突破，谈何容易，

笔者认为反对党要打破行动党一党

独大的局面，必须步步为营：

1. 假设美国次信贷危机持续发酵，

我国粮食物价持续高涨，到达人

民忍无可忍的程度时就会产生民

怨，到时选民就有可能会使用手

上的一票给当权者一个教训。

2. 反对党必须要有鸿图大计，早日

定下促成政治两线制的计划和政

策，如成立影子内阁之类，也必

须积极吸收更多人才入党，必须

逆流而上。笔者不相信有志之士

会投身于一个被边缘化的反对

党。

3. 对执政党所提出的政策，成立资

料库，尽量多思考多分析，寻找

它的错误所在，並谨慎提防对方

的奥步。表面看来，政府的家长

式政策似乎无瑕可击；但是一个

铜钱都有两面，没有任何事是十

全十美的，最近公积金的改革就

是把双刃剑。

虽然这些年来，反对党在吸取精英

分子上並没取得多大的突破，进行

招募有一定的困难，但笔者认为反

对党应该把目标放得更远大些，相

信要成大业者，必先有大志。 要敢

敢以捍卫民主为大目标，舍弃不是

原则性的成见，团结所有志同道合

的反对力量，众志成城，早日实现

有政党交替功能的民主制！

覆盖面和舆论的支持都向执政党倾

斜。举例来说：报纸和电视台常会

在有意无意之间报导这个执政党政

府的生气勃勃，描绘新加坡前景的

大蓝图，吹捧它是一个能干又清廉

的世界级政府，而不仅仅只是个关

心人民的政府。

然而我所知道的是，好些政策并不

受新加坡人欢迎。不过，你是否注

意到这些不满的情绪和言论都难以

见报呢？

随着新媒体的出现，许多新加坡人

在互联网和博客中吐露各种各样的

不满，也有公开地在新媒体中表态

支持反对党的。但我认为，仅仅在

网络上发表个人的观点和支持是不

够的，应该付诸实际的行动，参与

政党政治以便为我国的民主进展尽

一份力。

对我来说，加入工人党是希望能为

国家做点事。如果能跨出第一步，

你将会觉得其实恐惧只不过是自己

吓自己。

彭建雄

横眉

12

马士沙拉末逃脱的报告书终于出炉了。

报章刊登的是经过了小心删剪后的部分内容。这

是调查委员会尽了很大努力的成果，实属难得。

报告书的内容虽然有些因为涉及内安局的机密而

无法对外公布，让公众疑点重重。然而在公布的

部分，却也暴露了内安局拘留所是个充满搞笑的

部门。而且搞笑水准还真比电视台的搞笑行动要

高出好多好多。。。

以下几个疑点既不是机密也不敏感，但报告书却

没有加以解释或提出批评以及向相关单位提呈建

议。

1. 厕所窗口没用铁花封死，那是因为装修商“误

解”了。一个吃装修行业这行饭的，竟然可以

听不懂装铁花这种小事而误解。

2. 事件报告上去就更精彩了，上头指示把手柄锯

掉。这是一个重要保安单位官员正常的反应与

决定吗？以前的皇帝为了害怕众多妃妾给他戴

绿帽而规定所有进入皇宫工作的男性都得阉割

当太监，这很相似，很有创意。

3. 闭路电视正在测试中，还没有投入操作，所以

拍不到逃跑的过程。请问如果拘留所大门的

守卫临时闹泻肚子而必须上厕所，这可以拿

来当“没有人看守大门”的理由吗？现在的科

技这么发达，装台临时备用的闭路电视有困难

吗？这应该要比找人临时顶替看守大门来得容

易吧。难道政府不断的调高公务员薪金就是怕

这种人离职不干吗？

4. 无法拍到逃跑的过程，所以委员会发挥惊人的

想象力。从报章刊登出来的图像说明，推测马

士沙拉末是爬上一个密封有盖走廊的顶，再飞

跃篱笆。拘留所一般篱笆的高度大约2.5米到3

米，顶端加有刺铁丝网。从报上看到的图片，

一个人要以站住的姿势顺利从3米高降落在结

实的地上都有困难，一个脚有残缺能办得到而

且不受伤甚至还能继续逃跑，真是奇迹。

5. 报告书两次强调，马士沙拉末在换衣服及上厕

所时，两度离开守卫的视线。拘留所的硬件管

理这么糟，视线却成了借口。

6. 报告书肯定了警方和内安局事后的反应行动是

及时的。政府也为警方没有出动警犬是因为当

时人多，狗干不了事，作为辩护。但我们却在

第二天从电视上看到很多军警人员带着警犬做

寸土搜寻。最令人遗憾的事，委员会是否忘了

警方为何不出动直升机从空中侦察追踪？难道

又是以“油价高涨”为借口放弃这项行动？

我国的房地产市场自2007年首季起，就开始上

扬。私人产业售价狂飙31%，政府组屋的转售市

场也上升了17%。虽然在去年底市场有降温的迹

象，但总的来说，房屋价格仍然维持在偏高的价

位。许多新建的政府组屋售价提高，组屋的实际

转售价格也几乎都高于估价。

日益高涨的产业价格无可避免地加重了购买新住

屋者的负担，尤其是刚踏入社会工作，有意成家

的年轻男女更大叹吃不消。申请政府组屋预购计

划（build-to-order/BTO）下的新政府组屋是一

个比较负担得起的途径，然而，由于组屋转售

价格的上涨而造成对组屋预购计划的反应异常热

烈，申请者平均都得等上三年才能入伙。

因此，如果等不及的话，人们往往还是被迫到转

售市场购买政府组屋。

2008年2月18日报章报道，国家发展部部长马宝

山认为转售组屋的价格仍然在新加坡人负担得起

的水平。他指出政府已经通过住屋津贴，优惠利

[作者陈健辉是后港选区委员会的助理秘书，他是名房地产经纪人。]

吴成顺

除了逃马事件，让我们来看看这一两年来内政部

出了多少差错。前年中国女童黄娜命案中的卓良

豪轻易的就从关卡走出去。去年把一名囚犯拉去

打错鞭数。今年则是头号重犯马士沙拉末逃到连

过程都没人知道，需要以推测来解读。这三个不

同的单位都属内政部所管。阿豪逃走，相关单位

表示要确保类似事件不重演，请问马士沙拉末逃

跑是不是“类似事件”还是更严重？受鞭刑犯人

可以挨错鞭数，然后拿纳税人的钱去赔偿。有谁

敢保证不会有一天，不是死刑的犯人也像装铁花

锯手柄一样，被糊里糊涂的推上绞刑台“正法”

？到时怎么办？这一连串的严重错误难道还不足

以成为一个撤换最高负责人的理由吗？

总理在为内安局局长和部长辩护时说：“他们曾

经为国家的安全作了很大的贡献，功不可没。”

请总理不要忘了，他们领取的是高级公务员的薪

水，部长甚至是百万元年薪，难道不应该把份内

的工作做好吗？一个医生曾经救过很多人的性

命，难道他就可以疏于职守医死人吗？他能说这

跟他救活的人相比只是微不足道的小数目吗？过

去的贡献功不可没吗？

率的贷款和公积金房屋津贴等措施帮助国人购买

政府组屋。

不过，这些措施并不能解决一个基本的问题，那

就是许多首次购买组屋的年轻人都因为溢价过

高，手头现金不足而购买不起转售组屋。一间地

点不太理想，低层的三房式组屋，现在所开出的

溢价(Cash Over Valuation - 超出估价的额外

现金）已经高达一万元。至于装修精致，靠近地

铁站与市中心的高层五房式组屋，更是可以要求

高达八万元的现金溢价。

马宝山部长指出“近期向当局购买新组屋的国

人，大多只利用每月家庭收入的20%来偿还房

贷”。这一点並没错，但他随后说人们不必拿出

现款来买屋，却不完全正确。在政府现有的种

种协助国人购买政府组屋的政策中，并没有针

对溢价的措施。对负担不起高溢价的买主来说，

再高的购屋津贴也于事无补，因为一没现金支付

溢价，屋子就买不成，甭谈享用政府所提供的津

贴。

因此，有人建议放宽津贴的条例，将溢价包括在

房地产贷款的上限之内。不过，这么做的冒险是

国人或许会在不慎重考虑是否能够长久负担得起

每月更高昂的贷款偿还数额的情况下，购买更大

间，更贵的组屋。

我认为，政府应该慎重考虑的一个建议是把现有

的公积金房屋津贴转换成一定数额的现金津贴以

让买主在购买组屋时可以有能力支付组屋溢价。

这笔现金津贴可先由建屋局扣押，在买主选定了

组屋，并签署了购买的文件之后才发放给买主。

这种做法和公积金房屋津贴有异曲同工之效。现

金津贴帮助买主减轻溢价的负担，公积金房屋津

贴则帮助买主减轻组屋售价的负担。如果溢价还

是比现金津贴的款项来的高，买主就得自掏腰包

支付两者间的差距。如果现金津贴高于溢价，剩

余的现金津贴则转换成公积金津贴来支付组屋的

售价。若买主购买的转售价格低于估价，津贴则

以公积金组屋津贴的形式减轻买主对组屋售价的

负担。

总的来说，政府如果能够允许公积金津贴转换成

现金津贴来支付日益高涨的溢价，将会使国人，

尤其是手头上现金不足的年轻男女，更有能力购

买组屋。

陈健辉

13

受亚洲各地区甚至是世界许多国家

关注的台湾大选终于尘埃落定。在

选前或选后，我们都可以从媒体中

看到大量的针对台湾大选朝野政党

的各种论述。举凡从台湾的过去与

今后的对内对外社会，经济，政

治，以及海峡两岸局势等的发展动

向。可谓百家争鸣，各就其说。

刚在一年多前，当台湾人民面对执

政者的贪腐弊案闹得沸沸扬扬时，

有人对台湾的民主似乎失去信心，

更有人以为像台湾的民主要不得。

抱有这种论断者所持理由是，这种

民主会给社会带来动乱。是的，台

湾民主政治是有过乱像，但应该说

是这种乱像在民主社会发展过程中

是健康的。它其实是乱中有序。因

为人民还是理性的。所谓的乱，有

者是离不开媒体的炒作，只见其

乱，不窥其序。

事实上，同四年前比较，台湾的民

主制度已是进一步趋向理性化，比

过去更成熟了。在这过程中，它或

可称之为亚洲民主制度的典范。这

或许就是它的大选会引起世界各地

关注的原因，而其发展的结果也受

到了一定的肯定。至于那些说台湾

式的民主要不得的人，恐怕正是心

中有鬼。这种人动不动就是以一

个“乱”字来恐赫人民，其目的就

是要人民乖乖就范，永远驯服于专

制。说别人的民主有过多的政治乱

像，那反观我们所处的岛国，难道

不是太过欠缺众声喧哗？任由一党

独大所摆布。无独有偶，台湾的大

选是二度变天，邻国马来西亚的大

选也引发政治上大海啸。这些都让

人感染到在人民有理性的喧哗选择

下，所产生的没有一党独大，只有

人民最大的民主选举。

回头来看我们这里，再过两三年又

是新加坡的下一屆大选了。以目前

的情况而言，由于长期以来，执政

的行动党政府对异己设置了种种障

碍与压制，例如自1988年以来实行

的阻挠反对党获胜的集选区制度，

就是一个“奥步”。其次，也是人

人皆知的，在世界民主体制里少有

的对媒体实行绝对的控制。在新加

坡我们是无法看到媒体能像台湾的

选举，朝野政党都能在媒体上分庭

抗礼，发挥它们的效用。这里的媒

体实际是成了执政党独霸的宣传机

器。偶而可看到对反对党的切割报

道，也是做个小意思粉饰。这就是

我们所谓的有新加坡特色的你民我

主的社会制度。

除了在政治上进行压制阻挠，在民

生问题上，它在榨取之余也摆出“

体恤”之心。例如在不能令人信服

的理由下，强行调高消费税，加重

生活费，再来搞出令人难于相信

它可抵消通货膨胀的回扣或增长配

套，以此转移人民的不满情绪。

政府不时通过媒体阐述它的政绩，

也向海外展示它的高效率管理。既

是如此，却对自己没有信心，不敢

于放手给予较大的民主政治的空

间，让人民有机会作出选择。行动

党政府若能尊重人民的意愿，给予

人民民主的空间，那在它的政绩下

赢得人民的信任委托，这才会令人

信服。

其实，要改变长期被压缩到一贯的

噤若寒蝉，欠缺激情的政治环境，

不能对行动党政府会为民主而开放

存有幻想，只有靠你我的自觉性。

我相信只要在下屆的大选反对党若

能攻克一二个集选区，往后的选举

或许就不会那么单调了。要如何打

开这样的局面，完全掌握在你我手

中的选票。

从现实上来看，未来一段时期，在

未能形成两党政治局面下，行动党

仍然会是执政党，继续它的一党独

大操控。虽然我们无法看到像台湾

人民应用手中选票去改变“换人做

做看”的局面，甚至也不可能像邻

国那样，执政党受到政治上的海啸

冲击，但至少我们可以做到的是改

变行动党控制的集选区堡垒，至少

应该做到“给它颜色看”。这种形

势一旦实现，虽然谈不上激情，至

少会在我国政治上的一池死水掀起

涟漪。这种局面将更有利于人民，

因为它加强了反对党在国会里对执

政党的监督力量。

让我们共同努力，发挥新加坡人民

的民主自觉吧！

阿星

2006年6月，我加入工人党，当时我

未曾思考过我周遭的朋友或同事对

我参与工人党的活动会有怎样的反

应和想法。对我而言，加入工人党

是正确的，因为这使我能够有机会

为新加坡做出一点贡献。

不过，我发现许多新加坡人并不这

么想，他们甚至把加入反对党或和

反对党有关联当成是一种禁忌。

记得有一天，我在巴士上阅读工人

党出版的“铁锤报”时刚巧遇到我

的前同事。当时他很好奇，想知道

我在阅读什么，我因此把铁锤报“

亮”给他看,接着，他的脸上清晰

地显出了“不敢相信”的表情。接

着他说，“这是我第一次知道有铁

锤报，很想读一读，可是不好在巴

士车上阅读，因为有很多人在看着

我们”我感到困惑不解，难道巴士

车上有规定不允许阅读某些刊物的

吗？

然而，同样的事情又再发生了。这

一次, 我在前往参加党的活动途中

遇见了我的邻居。她知道我是工人

党的党员，便告诉我她希望看一看

工人党的党报“铁锤报”。在我

们步入电梯时，她很自然地轻声

说：“你可以把铁锤报借给我读

吗？… 噢，不过请把它放入信封

后才交给我。”电梯里只有我们两

人，她为什么需要放低声量对我说

话，并且要我先把铁锤报放入信封

后才交给她呢？

但是，接下来所发生的才使我了解

到这只不过是冰山一角。在跟一群

朋友聚会时，我们聊起了大选与工

人党的课题。我们的年龄大都介于

28 至 33岁之间，有些在政府部门

就职，也居住在阿裕尼集选区。他

们都对投票的秘密性有所质疑，并

且担心他们的上司或执政的人民行

动党会发现他们投票支持反对党。

我目瞪口呆。在巴士车上碰到的伯

父辈的前同事和电梯里的邻居婶婶

可能因所受教育不多或对政治并不

了解而对支持反对党有所顾忌。但

在这里的是一群年轻和有学问的上

班族，连他们对投票是否秘密也有

所质疑！真是匪夷所思。我的一位

朋友甚至还说，“如果早知道投票

是秘密的，我就会把选票投给工人

党”。

到底新加坡的教育制度教导了怎样

的国民？为什么人们会有这样的想

法？为什么这些人会对任何与反对

党有关联的事感到恐惧？也许他们

从小就受到不正确的学前教育的教

导？或许教育部应该考虑在我们的

学校课程里加入“你有投票的权

利”一课，作为国民教育的一部

分。

投票是秘密的，实实在在是秘密

的，这是我所获得的答案。我有幸

见证了2006年大选的选票在大士焚

化厂被焚化的过程，我对选票的秘

密性没有疑问。

再深一层思考，假设你的上司或政

府知道你投票支持哪个党,并知道你

把选票投给了人民行动党，难道就

会因此加薪给你吗?或者说如果知道

你投票支持反对党，他们就会排斥

你或撤你的职或你就没升级的机会

吗？如果负责政府公务员的公共服

务委员会或你上司真的是以此来衡

量工作表现的话，那么政府的所谓

选贤与能 (Meritocracy)的原则就

是自欺欺人，也没资格当政府或上

司，我们更不应该用选票去支持他

们的作为。事实是，不论是政府或

是你的上司，他们根本不可能知道

你把选票投给哪个党。投票的过程

和选票的秘密性毋容置疑，所有的

选票和有关的纪录都会被焚烧掉。

我不明白人们为什么还捕风捉影，

心存顾忌。

在下次大选要投下神圣一票之前,

我希望新加坡人先花点时间思考有

关的问题，清醒清醒一下头脑。

李丽连

14

青年团执委

陈家喜，23岁

背景

家喜从小就在一个充满关怀与爱的家庭中成

长。他的父母现年四十来岁，父亲是一名制造

业蓝领工人，母亲是一位把孩子的福利与安全

放在第一位的家庭主妇。他的妹妹目前在美廉

初级学院就读。家喜自豪地说，“家是我的喜

悦和动力，家人都佷支持我加入工人党以对新

加坡政治作出贡献”。

学历

家喜在淡滨尼北小学就读，毕业后升上巴西立

中学。之后,他在淡滨尼初级学院就读了两年，

目前在理工学院就读休闲和度假胜地管理学。

他也希望能实现到新加坡国立大学就读历史和

政治学的梦想。服兵役时，他是第二步兵团的

一名上士，受委为机关枪指挥官。

为何加入工人党

家喜在2006年6月正式加入工人党，过后当选为

工人党青年团执委。

家喜认为，既然他决定献身反对党政治,就应该

在工人党内长久保持活跃，扮演他的角色。在

空闲时，他喜欢阅读，也探索现行政策的优点

和缺点。他特别感兴趣的是如何引起新加坡青

年对政治的兴趣。

他说他希望通过参选并成为工人党青年团执委来

激发年轻人对反对党政治的反思和政治的觉醒。

他说：“我在21岁时就加入工人党，希望借此表

明政治属于所有的新加坡人，不分年龄与阶层，

参与政治应该是人们生活的一部分”。

参政的理念

家喜坚信不应该由一个政党独霸思想的主导与

指导来影响民众，它认为工人党提供了一个可

靠的平台，使群众可以表达与传达他们的观

点。他也认为，虽然新加坡的经济在向前迈

进，但在政治上却停滞不前，这是行动党政府

未能有效利用新加坡人的观点和创造性的结

果，而工人党提供了他一个发表对我国未来的

想法和顾虑的管道。

他总结：“工人党提供了我一个丰富和可贵的

政治历程，我盼望面对更多的挑战”。

青年团团员

彭建雄，23岁

背景建雄是家中的老大，下有弟弟和妹妹。父亲是个工厂经理，母亲则在托儿所担任厨师。身为长子，父母亲对建雄的管教没有如对弟弟妹妹一样严厉，自16岁起，他就拥有体验许多新事物的自由。他为人有耐心又富幽默感，所以朋友很多。

学历建雄在文礼小学和丰嘉中学受中小学教育，之后自淡马锡理工学院毕业，获得法律与管理学系的文凭。中学时期的他，在上课之余，也活跃于童子军的活动。与此同时，他也是一名下棋好手，曾多次代表学校参加国际象棋比赛並载誉而归。

事业建雄十五岁就开始在快餐店打工，之后也做过各行各业的工作。他说：“我相信一个人应该不断的尝试，才能找到自己理想的行业。”建雄现在在SMA管理学院就读业余课程， 选修大众传媒学士学位。

为何加入工人党？在2007年7月完成国民服役后，建雄有一段空闲的时间。消磨时间的方式包括上网浏览维基百科，以及其他网页。从中，建雄对2006年的大选有了进一步的了解。

他说：“我所居住的选区没有反对党参选，我也不必投票。也因为这样，当时的我并不关注政治。一直以来，我和父母长辈们都有同样的想法，那就是…政府会照顾我们。”

不过，近几年来的种种课题，包括部长大幅度加薪、消费税提高至7%、公共交通费的不断增长、以及将公积金最低存款提取年龄调高到65岁等的政策，撩起建雄心中的种种问号。他开始阅读网上论坛和部落格，所取得的结论是：虽然报章经常报道经济一片美好，但市井小民的生活並不一定如此美好。

网上论坛和部落格中不满的情绪此起彼落，也让建雄深思；在新加坡，生活的确越来越困难了，他觉得应该有人挺身而出，也自问与其等待其他人挺身而出，为何自己又不出来做些事呢？

他在细读了工人党的党纲后，觉得和自己的理念非常吻合，在出席了工人党每逢周一的开放日后，他在2007年7月正式成为党员。

参政的理念建雄希望能够吸引更多年轻人参与政治。不过，每当他和朋友讨论政府的政策时，朋友的回应不是一脸的茫然就是：“哎呀，不就是投票给PAP罗，我爸爸妈妈就是这样做的嘛”

虽然建雄在不久前也持有相同的想法，但他认为：“这种想法非常危险。我希望能够帮助我的朋友认清每一张选票都是神圣的。他们应该用选票做出明智的选择，而不只是跟从父母亲的决定。”

建雄的嗜好是阅读科幻小说﹑玩电子游戏﹑和朋友一起出外看电影和卡拉OK。

伍新

杨先生和林小姐是同事。他们对政治都颇有兴

趣，也对一些政策有自己的见解，但却有不同的

政治理念。

有一次，在回家的途中，杨先生和林小姐看到两

条小鱼被困在就快干涸的水池中挣扎着。林小姐

见状，马上把它们放入她的水瓶里。“幸庆我没

把水喝完”，林小姐欣慰地对杨先生说。接着，

林小姐问两条小鱼能帮它们做些什么？“如果能

把我们带回原来生活的地方，我们将感激不尽”

，其中一条鱼开了口。“这当然没问题”，林小

姐笑着回答。

“且慢！”，杨先生急促的向正准备把小鱼带走

的林小姐说，“我建议让我领养这两条小鱼，这

样一来它们就不会被比它们更大的鱼吞下”。林

小姐还来不及反应，那条看起来较主动的鱼便

说，“谢谢您的好意，我心领了，但我还是喜欢

回到我原来生活的地方过着我自由自在的生活，

做我“鱼”应做的事。可以的话，我还要繁殖后

代。虽然我的确可能被比我更大的鱼给吞掉，但

我也无怨无悔，至少，我知道我曾经过着属于自

己的真正生活，就己经满足了。但如果我跟了

你，被当成庞物，失去了自由，就不是我要过的

生活了”。

杨先生听了很不是味道，但看它这么坚持，也无

可奈何，于是便对另一条鱼说，“你跟着我吧，

我会保护你，确保你相安无事，并提供世界级

的环境，更重要的是，我有PAP - program and

program，各种各样的项目可让你尽力发挥你的

潜能”。就在杨先生看这条鱼犹豫不决时，杨先

生续继说，“我会帮你付年金，确保你将能安享

晚年”。这条小鱼或许担心刚才水池干涸的遭遇

会历史重演，不禁开始心动。由于抗拒不了诱

惑，终于被杨先生说服。林小姐于是把这条小鱼

转交给杨先生，然后语重心长对这条小鱼说，“

选择在于你”。于是，杨先生和林小姐分道扬

镳，各带着一条小鱼往不同的目地的。

到了河口，林小姐小心翼翼的把她的水瓶浸在水

中，“去吧！去做你想要做的事，去完成你还未

完成的任务，愿你做条快乐的鱼，过着自由自在

的生活”。“谢谢你，林小姐，是你让我恢复自

由身，让我了解到自由的可贵，非常感激你。

。” 小鱼感激地对林小姐说。林小姐目送小鱼

渐渐游去，直到离开她的视线。

于此同时，杨先生一回到家，便把小鱼放进看来

已有污垢的鱼缸。小鱼自言自语的说，“这就是

所谓世界级的环境。。” 杨先生听了，不高兴

地说，“至少你在这里不会被大鱼吃掉！”说

Source: by everyskyline (flickr.com)

15

(文接自第16版)

的标准放低，或许可能把标准定在全国收入者

第五十百分位，也就等于以月收入2,300元为标

准。这使国人在苦恼中、情绪化地不断推测可获

得全面住院医疗津贴的月入工资标准。最终，

标准是定在3,200元的月收入，让不少人感到庆

幸。看来，部长在这之前所发表那些让人不安的

揣测，起了影响人们心理的作用。

值得注意的是许文远部长在国会回复工人党秘书

长刘程强的提问时表示，支付能力调查的每月收

入标准是可随着情况而改变的，例如全国收入增

加。更令我们感到不安的是许部长在早些时候也

说：“短期內，多数的新加坡公民将能继续享有

与现在同等的津贴而不受影响”那是什么意思？

是否一旦住院支付能力调查计划被国人所“接

受”，标准就会订得更严呢？我们不可忽视这个

可能性，尤其是在我国面对人口老化的情况下，

寻求医药服务的退休者数目将大为增加，成为政

府医药开支的一大成本要素。

第四，医药费上涨可能性高。由于通货膨胀，加

上医学科技的发展，医药服务价格的上涨会持续

下去。随着医药费的上涨，病人所须要支付的数

目即使在扣除津贴后也会跟着上升。若政府继续

调整津贴标准，你将面对更高的医药费。结果，

国人将同时面对医药费上涨和政府津贴减少的双

重打击。

你可以接受吗？

总的来说，新加坡的医药开支以国际标准来看算

是很低的。己发展国家一年至少花费国内生产总

值的八到十巴仙在医药开支上，新加坡则花费大

约三点八巴仙，政府花费在医药服务的开支只占

国内生产总值的零点九巴仙（据卫生部提供的资

料）。时下政府通过住院支付能力调查的方法来

减少国人的医药津贴，是否因为政府不愿意增加

医药的开支？这与目前的国际趋势背道而驰。

卫生部也知道国人一般上都不会滥用医疗服

务。2004年，卫生部发布了一份资料，“国际主

要医药服务的使用趋势比较”，对照了我国与其

他已发展国家对重病医院的医药服务使用趋势。

结果，调查显示在和各国比较下，我国的入院指

数低，而住院病人也没有住院过久的情况。

卫生部对施行住院支付能力调查计划的辩证是为

了“公平分配有限的资源”。意思是高收入者不

应获得这有限的资源。但别忘了，高收入者也得

支付较高的税款，并且在任何政府分红的计划中

所得到的回扣都比别人少。真正的争论点不是高

收入者在有需要时是否应获得政府的医药津贴，

而是政府是否应该通过这种支付能力调查的手段

剥夺国人的医药津贴？一个负责任、又有经済能

力的政府是否应该提供人民基本医疗所需？

工人党认为，政府没有必要刻意作出这样的决

定，使国人得面对更高的医药费负担的压力，我

们为此深感遗憾。以政府丰厚的税收和真正数目

被保密的储备金来推算，我们不认为保持目前的

医药津贴标准会造成国家经済崩溃。

你是否感觉成了不幸、无助的受害者呢？李显龙

总理不久前提供了有关的答案。媒体问他为何卫

生部长须要先公开探讨可能把住院支付能力调

查能获得政府全面津贴的标准定在每月收入少

过2,000元，后来又逐渐调高，最后才定在每月

3,200元的收入。

总理回答：“这你得去问许文远部长…我想如果

他先说月入3,000元者（可以获得政府全面住院

医药津贴的标淮），最终是只有月入1,500元的

人才可获得（政府全面医药津贴）的话，公众就

不会接受。”

由此可见政府在实施政策时，考虑国人的承受力

和不至于在大选时投反对票的极限 — 这就是政

治的基本原理和选举赋予你政治权力的明证。

完，把饲料丢进鱼缸便掉头就走。“怎么答应

了跟着杨先生后他的态度就前后两个样？早知

道我就跟着林小姐。。”小鱼心里在想。它不

禁开始感到后悔。小鱼心里有数，这一切己不

可能挽回了。就在这时，小鱼听到不远处传来

一阵 “喵。。喵。。”

小鱼一看，原来是淡马锡，是杨先生所养的一

只大猫。小鱼从没看过猫，因此对它而言，大

猫是个怪物。小鱼开始坐立不安，因为它觉得

淡马锡总是用不怀好意的眼神望着它，让它倍

感压力，浑身不自在。

光阴似箭，小鱼渐渐长大，但杨先生却没有随

着它的需要而转换饲料的类型和份量。小鱼终

于按耐不住饥饿和千篇一律的饲料，于是要求

杨先生给于不同的食料并增加它的份量。杨先

生冷冰冰地说，“你每天所吃的饲料己经从过

去的 29元涨到 33元，况且，饲料就是饲料，什

么牌子都一样，只要吸取足够的养份便足以延

续生命，重要的是我不会让你挨饿！”小鱼还

来不及反驳，杨先生便转身与他的家人享受丰

盛的晚餐去了。

过了几年，小鱼觉得空间越来越小。原来小鱼

己变成大鱼，但杨先生却没有把鱼缸提升以容

纳体积越来越大的小鱼。

在一个闷热的下午，小鱼实在再也按耐不住苦

闷的环境和狭小的空间，便不经意使劲地伸了

个大懒腰来发泄。由于力道过猛，小鱼竟然腾

空翻越了鱼缸，落在地上。小鱼慌了，使劲挣

扎着，就在这时，它听到“喵。。喵。。”小

鱼抬头一看；是淡马锡，一步步向它逼近。可

怜的小鱼知道大势已去，它不再挣扎，只是无

助、瘫痪地躺在地上，不久，淡马锡向小鱼扑

了过去。在刹那间，小鱼回忆起在几年前林小

姐对它所说的一句话：选择在于你。小鱼悔恨

当初做了错误的选择，才会落得今天的下场。

这时，淡马锡狠狠一咬。。。。。

杨先生下班回到家，看到淡马锡圆鼓鼓的肚子

并懒洋洋地趴在一堆鱼骨旁，然后望着空荡荡

的鱼缸。他心知肚明发生了什么回事，耸起肩

膀，亳不在意的自言自语，“What to do, it

has happened, let’s move on. ”

(文接自第14版)

Get your subscription to The Hammer today!今天就开始订阅！

Yes, send me a subscription for 10 issues for only S$20.00!是的。兹随函附上$20/-，以订阅10期的《铁锤报》。

Name 姓名: _______________________________________ Occupation 职业: ___________________

Sex 性别: ___________ Age 年龄: ______________ Telephone 电话: ____________________

Address 住址: __________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

Email 电邮: ____________________________________________________________________________

Please make cheque payable to “The Workers’ Party” and mail it together with this form to: The Hammer支票抬头请注明 “The Workers’Party” 并连同本订阅表格寄交:《铁锤报》

Toa Payoh Central Post Office, P O Box 15, Singapore 913101

THE

Your alternative voice言论的另一渠道

Keep yourself informed of issues and • policies. These will ultimately affect your life.

Share your views and thoughts with • us. Contact us at editor@wp.sg.

请提意见 • 欢迎来稿

Source: tahitianlime (flickr.com)

MICA (P) 256/10/2007 Issue No: 0802 www.wp.sg $2.00

Published by The Workers’ Party. Printed by Targa Lithography Services0213

(文接第15版)

在2006年5月的大选热潮中，卫生部长许文远在

工人党施压下透露政府对实行住院支付能力调查

的计划。他说：

“支付能力调查本身并没错，但如何正确推行是

个相当棘手的问题且需要时间。三年前当我回到

卫生部时，我原本雄心勃勃，我以为我们可以实

施支付能力调查的计划。不过，在和人们讨论

后，我想还是先推行其他的建议。只有行得通我

才会推行，因为在理论上虽然是合理的，但如果

实施的成本偏高。。。就不值得。。。因此，我

们是否会推行，我不知道，得看看是否有行得通

的主意。”

虽然部长本身有如此的顾忌，但政府于2007年继

续谈论住院支付能力调查，并在2008年和各有关

团体商讨该课题及寻求反馈。2008年2月15日，

在国会未正式辩论有关课题时，财政部长尚达曼

却在财政预算案时突然宣布住院支付能力调查已

经过彻底辩论。。。也就是说已经决定并被人们

所接受的政策！2008年3月3日，卫生部长掀开了

将于2009年1月全面实施的住院支付能力调查的

计划，包括决定支付能力的基准。

本文论述住院支付能力调查的主要辩证的论点，

有关的批评和对政府提供住院津贴的顾虑以及你

为何应该对这项会影响你在紧要关头时所需的医

疗服务的政策保持警惕和小心应变。

住院支付能力调查的内容

目前，政府医院依据不同的病房级别提供严重病

患者和住院病人医疗服务，也同时依据不同的病

房级别提供病人医疗津贴。津贴率如下表所显

示：

在实施住院支付能力调查之前政府所提供的医疗津贴

如下：

病房级别 A B1 B2 C政府提供住院医疗津贴

的百分比0% 50% 65% 80%

目前，政府所提供的津贴率不依据支付能力。任

何病人，不分贫富都可选择任何级别的病房并获

得政府所规定的一致医疗津贴。

自2009年1月起，住院支付能力调查将影响选择

入住C 或 B2 级病房的病人。你会获得政府多少

的医疗津贴取决于支付能力调查的结果。你所可

能获得的津贴如下:

2009年1月起施行住院支付能力调查之后政府所提供

的医疗津贴

病房级别 A B1 B2 C

2 0 0 9年 1

月之后政

府提供的

医疗津贴

百分比

0% 50% 50%-65%

(注)

65%-80%

(注)

(注) 实际所能获得的医疗津贴的百份比将依据住院支付能

力调查的结果来決定。

许文远部長在国会公佈将于2009年1月开始推行

住院支付能力调查时的基准如下：

1. 如果你每月收入低于3,200元则能继续获得像

目前一样的津贴，也就是B2级病房65%，C级病

房80%的政府津贴。

2. 如果你每月收入在5,201元或以上，你则必须

支付相等于更高级病房的收费。比如入住B2级

病房者须支付B1级病房的收费，入住C级病房

者则须支付B2级 病房的收费。

3. 如果你的每月收入介于3,200元和5,201元之

间，你所能获得的政府医疗津贴的百份比则如

上表，津贴率依据收入的多寡下滑。

4. 至于没有收入的家庭主妇、退休人士或未成年

的孩童，则根据所居住的房屋年值来评估。如

果年值不超过11,000元，政府所提供的医疗津

贴则如过去一样。年值超过11,000元的居所包

括大多数的私人住宅，政府在提供住院医疗津

贴时将把居住在这些产业的病人当成和月入

5,201元的病人有一样的支付能力。

政府对住院支付能力调查的辩解以及对国人的影

响

对于政府何以需要推行住院支付能力调查计划，

许部長概括地提出了以下的理由：

1. 政府的医疗津贴已经随人口老化而增加，但资

源有限。

2. 随着B2级和C级病房服务的改善，其与A级和B1

级病房的差异将缩小，这将会吸引高收入者入

住B2和C级病房，使低收入者别无选择。

3. 住院支付能力调查促进公平的资源分配，使政

府可以把津贴集中在低收入者。

利用这些理由来推行住院支付能力调查使我们费

解，也令我们担忧。首先，你所能获得的政府所

提供的基本住院医药服务津贴的保证己经缩水。

患病严重到必须住院治疗是人一生中很无奈、不

愉快的事。随着平均寿命的延長，许多国人在各

项调查和对话会中，不断对是否负担得起医药费

表示担忧。

可是，政府现在却以个人的支付能力来限定津贴

的数目，这使两个住在同等病房获得相同服务的

病人所支付的医药费可能差别高达将近两倍。换

句话说，住在C级病房的医药费如果是一千元，

获得80%津贴的病人支付200元，而另一个只获得

65%津贴的病人则须支付350元。政府难道真的穷

到必须在至关紧要的医药服务津贴上出此下策

吗？

海峡时报记者Salma Khalik 在其评论中说 “支

付能力调查计划……背弃了人人都能以最低的价

格获得基本住院医疗照顾的原则。

第二，支付能力调查削弱了个人对财务策划的能

力。在支付能力调查计划推出之前，你可以估计

自己与家人大概在医疗方面可能须花费多少钱，

但在支付能力调查计划实行后，你所须支付的医

药费将依据你每月的收入或所居住的房屋年值的

多寡而“由政府来决定”你所应支付的医药费。

况且，虽然两个人同样每月收入5,201元，但其

支付能力却可能截然不同。例如一个也许有病缠

身并且有亲人需要他抚养，而另一人则没有其他

的负担。

因此，单凭个人的每月收入，政府真的能了解一

个人在未来对医药服务的需求、奉养父母和养育

儿女、或是在处理各类负债方面的担忧吗？从支

付能力调查计划所使用的简单标准看来，政府似

乎并不在乎这些。事实上，卫生部长曾清楚地表

明过，比起“正确而复杂”的调查，他宁愿选

择“不那么正确但简单”的！

第三，住院支付能力调查是个恶梦的开端。在

2008年3月宣布正式实施之前的几个月，部长表

示可能考虑将住院支付能力调查可获得全面津贴

林瑞莲