Thursday, December 27, 2007

从申办青奥看行动党


社会发展青年及体育部政务次长张思乐对于申办青奥是否成功有三大要素,既良好的基础设施,人际关系和支持。


对于这几点,我想没有人会否认。但我认为政府似乎偏向注重于形式化和表化多于实质的行动。
张思乐的谈话不禁让我回想起在约几年前,政府曾讨论是否应该开放学校的跑步场地和体有设施给公众,以方便老百姓,尤其是在那些附近没有体有中心的居民。

公众对于这建议做出极积的反应。但很可惜,这建议最终只闻楼梯响,不见人下来。行动党政府给人的印象是当它对某个课题提出讨论时,其实就己经铁定了。但为何这原本得到很多公众的支持却最终胎死腹中?

我认为这与政府多年来给于精英份子过多的权力与及把公共部门私有化有关。

其实,开放学校的跑步场地和体有设施的慨念并不是来自政府。我猜测这慨念源自台湾,原因是它们己经实行很多年了,并且非常成功。

在台湾,当局规定每天从黄昏开始,各学府必需开放它们的体育设施,如跑道、篮球和诩球场等等,给公众作为段练身体和休闲之用。台湾政府从来就不提他们拥有世界级的教育制度,却对于他们的老百姓信心满满,丝毫不担心他们会破坏学校的设施。

我认为主要原因是思维上的差异。从台湾当局的角度,校长只负责把学校管理好,但到了下课时间,对学校的管理权便自动归还政府。由于学校的建设和维持费源自纳锐人,也就是老百姓,因此让老百姓充份利用学校的设施一点也不为过,甚什合情合理。

事实上,台湾的土地面积比我国大60倍,但人口只比我国多五倍。但台湾当局依然充份利用现有的资源为它们的老百姓提供便利。

但在新加坡,思维却完全巅倒。我们的精英,包括部长和校长却对国人完全不放心。他们似乎认为,让公众进入学校可能导至学校设施被破坏造成不必要的财物损失,而校长可能最终必需写报告给教育部。在这些所谓的精英看来,多一事不如少一事,他们较关注的是谁必需对财物损失负责,甚什会不会因而影响自己的前途。我要提醒教育部和各学校校长,不要把自己当成是那些建立得富丽堂皇象五星级学校里的主人。毕竟,这些学校是利用每个纳锐人一分一毫建立起来的。
我不禁要问,既然政府声称我们佣有世界级的教育制度,那为何政府却一直对国人缺乏信心,认为我们不懂得纪律而不会保护公物?


公共医院不再"公共"?

且让我以正在建设中的邱德拨医院作为例子。

卫生部长许文远说邱德拨医院的收费会比其它公共医院高,因为它将提供更好的服务和环境给病患者,并指出一些公众己表明不会介意。他甚什指出新医院的经营摸式与其它医院有异,因为它并不完全是家公共医院,而如果这经营模式成功,可能会运用在其它公共医院。

笔者对于许文远的谈话感到非常担心。我认为这经营模式不但隐臧了一个危机,也表明行动党己经逐步把政府的责任逐一推到民间和私人企业,而不愿意负起责任。

许文远说如果MediShield, Medisave, 和 MediFund 不够,到时会动用邱德拨基金来应付医药津贴的不足。

对于这点,我有一个疑问:(一)基于邱德拨基金出自私人捐款,许文远能不能保证其基金能否保持每年有足够的数额以应付可能必要的开销?打个比方;如果我原本在一般公共医院只须花三十块的珍费,在扣除政府的津贴后只须付二十块,那我在"不再完全是公共医院"而又被强迫接受不需要"更好的服务"下,我是否还是依然付二十块?如果邱德拨基金巳无法承受更大的津贴,那行动党政府是否会宣怖提高Medisave?

许文远的谈话不禁让我联想我国的交通问题。


为何交通问题一直无法解决

只要到网上查证谁是我国交通业者的股东,就不难明白为何我国的交通问题一直无法解决。
且让我以新捷运为例子。根据它的网站显示,它的二十大股东占了84.33%的股权,而排名第9至20的"大股东"所占的股份平均只有区区0.19%。然而,淡马锡却占了54.47%的股权,而排名第二至第八的股东都与政联公司脱离不了关系,包括第九至二十的股东。既然大家都是"自己人",那为何每次行动党政府不反对交通业者提高车资,并说这是个别的商业决定,而政府必需在乘客与"私人股东"之间求取平衡?

这也就是为何政府不管在巴士、地铁和德士的问题一直都无法妥善的解决,因为行动党的前提是政府一定要赚钱,不是百万或千万,而是加起来一定要数以亿计。

虽然申办青奥、邱德拨医院和交通问题是风马牛不相及的课题,但笔者想说的是;只要行动党不愿正视问题所在,一直强迫人民接受它的种种的理由,甚什把问题推给民间而不愿负起政府的责任,那我们将永远无法解决我们的问题,更不用说如何面对全球化的课题。

回到申办青奥的课题。当我写这篇稿时,我不知我国是否申办成功。但不管申奥成功于否,笔者希望张思乐能够同教育部进行建设性的对话,以便让我国的运动与活力熔入社区,而不只是做表面功夫而己。

Friday, December 21, 2007

Transport Dilemma

The following is a rejected letter which i wrote to the Straits Times on 17 Dec 2007 for publication. I thanks TOC for published this letter. (Here)

I refer to the article “Transport Dilemma: bus or car?” published on 15 Dec 07.

I can’t help but recall a similar article, “ComfortDelGro to review its domestic operation” published in the Straits Times on 22 Nov 2006. (See below)

In the report, it was cited that public transport company ComfortDelGro, which is the largest transport operator here, will do “some soul-searching” and the ministry is embarking “on a review of the industry and the operator too, will embark on a self-examination exercise”.

Ironically, what was mentioned a year ago is now unearthed again, and it seems that all the suggestions that were brought up led to nowhere.

In light of this, I feel that the author missed out the most important thing which could be the reason why this teething issue is bought up from time to time and is yet unresolved, i.e. who the main boss behind the two transport operators is - which is Temasek Holdings.

Based on the two transport operators’ websites, Temasek Holdings owns more than 50% of the shares in both transport operators – SMRT and SBSTransit, and the rest of the shareholders are believed to be Government-Linked companies (GLCs).

Hence, could it be that Temasek has set a target on how much revenue they need to contribute to the “shareholders ” annually?

I would like to remind our leaders that not all issues can be resolved under a win-win situation.

In fact, the reason for allowing public transport to be converted from public service to GLC is to avoid falling into the red and becoming a burden to the government.

But it seems that after being privatised for more than two decades, it has been overdone and has caused a lot of headache for the politicians and the commuters.

Thus, may I suggest that Temasek buy over all the shares from the shareholders and merge SMRT and SBSTransit. Then work out a justifiable revenue that is enough to provide for maintenance cost, bus/train upgrading and overhead cost.

I urge the government and transport operators to focus on how to serve commuters better by all means possible, which is the best way to discourage people from owning cars.

I think Singaporeans should decide whether they want to read articles and reports about our transport dilemma every year-end and hear about “self-examination” exercises which results in nothing but increases in fares every year - or send 10 to 20 opposition members into the parliament to get the teething problem solved.

Ong Tiong Ling


SBSTransit
Shareholding Statistics as at 1 Mar 2007 (pg 96)




SMRT
Shareholding Statistics as at 21 May 2007