| Media |
|
|
| Friday, April 28, 2006 |
| Who's that CHIC chick? |
From the NewPaper
She mixes a mean drink, but minces no words. Workers' Party's Glenda Han answers our questions - straight
By Sylvia Toh Paik Choo
April 17, 2006
POLITICS is a tough number.
Once you decide to stand, there is no way to run, ever, from legitimately probing questions, among which are: What is your mother's maiden name? Do you have a pet? Where do you cut your hair? And, of late, tell us something about yourself that no one else knows.
Miss Glenda Han is 30 and single, and pretty cool in the way some men would describe as 'hot'.
If one of the Dove shampoo ad girls ran for election, she'd be Glenda Han.
The deputy secretary of the youth wing of the Workers' Party is No 2 of four sisters. One sells cars, another is in the garment industry and the youngest is entering NUS.
Miss Han used to have a stake in Ig's Heaven, a shop stocked with quirky lifestyle objects.
She cashed in her quirky chips, took off to see the world (except South America), went to roost in Montmartre, the artists' colony in Paris, loved it and stayed two years.
'My arty-farty side,' she said, with a flick of her lustrous black hair. No, she was not a Dove shampoo girl...
'I like to paint. Still life, portraits mostly, in oils.'
When she is not flaring.
Flaring is what double-jointed bartenders do with liquor orders when they have an audience, you know, make a Cirque du Soleil juggle just to serve a Bloody Mary.
'Sure I can do flaring,' said Miss Han, a shareholder in Les Chameaux, a cocktail bar in Robertson Quay. But she does stop at bartop dancing.
Les Chameaux is 'camels' in French for her sojourn in France, and camels because she wanted 'something Middle Eastern'. She said: 'We have shisha.' (Scented smokes.)
Miss Han can mix 30 cocktails, and her favourite drink is the Cosmopolitan; but of course, it's Carrie Bradshaw's (Sex and the City) preferred tipple.
If you had to concoct a WP cocktail what would be the mix?
'Vodka base with citron for zest,' she said without a comma, exuding confidence.
Why am I not suprised that the slim urbanely dressed Miss Han shares an apartment with three single girls, but has no love life to speak of.
Pictures: Alvin Toh, Choo Chwee Hua
Her day job is in money brokerage, nights at the bar counter, and all the in-between time is given over to family and her pet cat.
'At first they were apprehensive, at the idea of my going into politics,' she said. 'But they did not dissuade me. Now they are supportive.'
CHILD OF THE REVOLUTION?
It was her years in the French capital that fired her political sensibilities. Home of the Revolution, the Rights of Man, the 1968 student riots heard around the world.
'In France, they debate over every single thing. The culture of politics is strong. Here, all people care about is the pursuit of wealth, bigger house, bigger car. They forget the small things.'
Like taking time out to chill rather than climb the corporate ladder? Like having the passion and the energy not to be apathetic?
'Many people don't dare (to take risks), because they think of what they have to lose. I follow my gut.'
And when her gut feels bloated - from one Cosmopolitan too many, she heads to the gym.
And the one thing no one knows...?
'Well, I bought a violin when I was in Europe. I should learn to play it.' |
posted by Nobody @ 5:41 AM  |
|
|
|
|
| Singapore opposition denies ruling party walkover election win |
AsiaOne
By GILLIAN WONG
Associated Press Writer
SINGAPORE (AP) -- Singapore's opposition parties on Thursday denied the ruling party a walkover victory in the May 6 elections by contesting more than half the seats in Parliament for the first time in nearly two decades.
The People's Action Party will be fighting an election to form the next government, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said on state television Thursday, the day candidate nominations were submitted.
"The opposition is contesting 47 seats, and we don't have a majority," Lee said.
In the past three general elections, the small, fragmented opposition gave the PAP a guaranteed majority before even a single vote was cast because they were unable to rustle up enough candidates. The last election in which the opposition contested more than half the seats in Parliament was in 1988.
Only 29 seats were contested in the 2001 election, which meant just a third of eligible voters were able to cast their ballots.
On Thursday, the country's main opposition parties - the Singapore Democratic Alliance, the Workers' Party and the Singapore Democratic Party - collectively fielded candidates to run for 47 seats in the 84-member Parliament.
Nominations closed midday Thursday.
"Opposition parties have galvanized this time around to give the incumbent a good fight," said Jeanne Conceicao, a researcher at the Institute of Policy Studies in Singapore. "They want to give Singaporeans a choice and have decided to field as many candidates as they can."
Prime Minister Lee, whose multimember constituency of Ang Mo Kio is being contested by a team from the Workers' Party, said: "We are eager to fight them, we're going to work hard and make sure we win convincingly."
Hundreds of party supporters stood outside nomination centers across the island, waving flags and banners as they cheered.
Even with greater opposition participation in the poll, the PAP - which has ruled Singapore uninterrupted since its separation from Malaysia in 1965 - is likely to win an overwhelming majority.
The PAP has won praise for transforming Singapore from a tiny, resource-scarce territory into an affluent economic hub, and says it delivers on its promises of giving Singapore's 4.2 million citizens financial and social stability.
"This is the system that has delivered for Singapore," Lee said.
Singapore's economy enjoyed relatively strong growth in the past two years, with efforts to diversify the economy away from electronics and manufacturing following a recession in 2001 having some success. The government says the economy will likely grow 4 percent to 6 percent this year, after expanding 6.4 percent in 2005.
The government also recently announced a national budget with handouts to the city-state's citizens worth 2.6 billion Singapore dollars (US$1.59 billion; €1.34 billion).
In a replay of events during previous elections, Lee and his father are suing the SDP for articles in the party's newspaper that they say accuse them of covering up corruption at a local charity.
Critics say the ruling party's use of defamation lawsuits against opposition leaders and influence over the local media make it difficult for opposition parties to present their views to the public. PAP leaders say they welcome debate and file lawsuits only to protect their reputations.
|
| posted by Nobody @ 4:57 AM |
|
|
|
| Monday, April 24, 2006 |
| Workers' Party's Low says PAP 'not First World government' |
Yahoo
SINGAPORE : Workers' Party Secretary-General Low Thia Khiang has accused the People's Action Party of not being a First World government, and challenged the ruling party to benchmark itself politically against other mature democracies.
He was responding to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's charge that opposition members are not of First World standard.
Said Mr Low, "Yes, we are not First World standard. We are not shy to say that, we are realistic. We are not trying to blow a trumpet, we accept what we are today but we are progressing the younger generation, offering choice to them. But I believe that MM Lee is a fair person. I believe he must know that PAP is not a First World government as well.
He added, "All of us are aware that the PAP is benchmarking a lot of things, benchmarking ministers' salaries to market, so you always talk of international benchmarking. Perhaps it is time that the PAP should benchmark itself politically against international mature democracy standards."
Attacking the PAP's promise of upgrading in estates like Hougang and Potong Pasir if the residents vote for the ruling party, Mr Low accused the PAP of resorting to short-term carrot-and stick politics.
Mr Low said, "If I don't vote for the PAP, I will have no upgrading or if I don't vote for the PAP, I might lose something, my children may not be able to go to kindergarten -- these are very short-sighted and short-term interests. The election is supposed to be about macro issues, the future of the nation. You are deciding the future of the nation." |
| posted by Nobody @ 10:08 PM |
|
|
|
| Sunday, April 23, 2006 |
| 引导年轻人参与有意义的沟通 |
联合早报
● By Jeremy Cai
蔡自勉
You are trying to find your place in the world. You've just graduated, found a job, and achieved some form of financial independence and even a little success in your career. You believe that to be hostile is to be strong and to be anti-establishment is a sign of superior intellect and moral strength.
This is true for a group of 4th generation Singaporeans who engaged Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in a dialogue that has drawn much attention. It was an unpleasant awakening to what such a deluded psyche could signal about the future state of our country and society.
What appeared on the television was an appalling display of the participants lynching the Minister Mentor with a horde of well-gathered political rhetoric.
They were not there to quench a thirst for insight on issues that were close to their hearts.
They were not there to seek the opinion of someone who was in a unique position to give them a refreshing perspective; one that may potentially open up a new window for them to look out of, and to look down from the tower they had locked themselves in.
Their intention at the dialogue was stark - to carpet-bomb their target with carefully accumulated munitions and to make a statement with their new-found prowess.
It was particularly appalling because their target was an indomitable man who is held with the highest regard by people abroad, and at home, a man who is no less than a father who is concerned about the holistic growth and development of his children.
It is disturbing that some of his children had decided to make a statement for themselves by attempting to abuse him on national television.
Worse yet, these few children clamoured over each other to get a go at him even as the indulgent father stood by, tolerating his disrespectful children's tantrums and even humouring them.
Undeniably, our society is an Asian society that, for all its westernisation and modernisation, is Asian in heart and mind.
The respect we accord to our seniors and our parents, the moral values we hold dear and our economic and social development are not mutually exclusive. Recent experiences with the new generation have shown how much we have deviated from the fundamental cornerstones of polite society.
Is it an indication of something that we have overlooked in the education of our future generations?
Not according due respect to the chief engineer and father of modern Singapore is not an indication that we have reached a new level of media or political freedom.
It merely illustrates, essentially, how far we are away from grasping the essence of a mature society capable of engaging with matters that will influence and shape the country for generations to come.
The Minister Mentor's indulging of the unruliness during the dialogue highlights a new era that we have entered–an era where there is a clear attempt to guide young Singaporeans towards civil, well-meaning engagement that is aimed at furthering the growth of the country.
It is ironic that even as the participants tried their utmost best to show the country the way to political freedom and expression, it was the person they were attacking who showed the path through his calm, collected air of a veteran statesman.
It is time we reflect on the paths we've travelled over the past few years and where it is leading us. The dialogue could be a big step forward if we recognise what we have missed and take positive actions towards rectifying it, or a big step backwards if we become disappointed and despondent, yet carry on with what we have been doing as if the advancement of economy will result in the advancement of society and its people.
May the dialogue not be an indication of where we are heading. The consequences are unimaginable and yet so tangible - a prosperous country with all its sparkling splendour and gaudy glamour and the decadence of the heart that will slowly eat out the facade and finally leave us with a hollow shell that will crash to the ground like a pyramid of cards with its base knocked in.
The writer is a twenty-something English-educated graduate student.
引导年轻人参与有意义的沟通
你还在为自己的人生定位。你刚毕业，找到了工作，在经济上开始独立，在事业上也已经小有成就。你认为采取敌对的态度是坚强的表现，对现有体制表示不满则是具有过人智慧和道德勇气的表现。
最近同内阁资政李光耀进行了一场引人注目的对话会的十名第四代新加坡人，大概便有这样的想法。他们的这种心态，不禁让我们对国家和社会的未来感到担忧。
在电视上，我们看到这些早有准备的年轻人纷纷向李资政发问，用中听但不中用的政治语言提出看法。
他们并不是要对自己关心的课题有更深刻的了解，也不是要聆听一名具备独特经验的智者为他们提出看待问题的独特视角。这视角可能为他们开启一个新窗口，让他们往外看，或者从他们把自己深锁在内的塔里往下看。
他们的用意很明显——用小心储存的弹药对目标进行地毯式轰炸，和刚获得的机会发表他们自己的意见。
他们的做法让人感到吃惊，因为他们的目标是具大无畏勇气，在海外备受推崇的李资政。在新加坡，李资政就像个慈父一样关心国家和国人的发展。一些人为了表达自己的看法不惜在电视上对他出言不敬，确实让人感到不安。
更糟的是，这些人争相与他交锋。对于他们无礼的态度，李资政却非常宽宏和包容。
尽管受到西化和现代化的影响，我们的社会终究还是个亚洲社会。我们对长者和父母应有的尊敬和我们的道德观，同我们的经济和社会发展并不是相互对立的。
对话会让我们看到我们乖离礼仪之邦这个社会基石有多远。在教育新一代国人时，我们是不是忽略了什么？
没有给现代新加坡的创造者和奠基人应有的尊敬，并不表示我们已经享有更多的媒体和政治自由。它基本上只是显示了，一个能够讨论影响和塑造国家未来的课题的成熟社会要具备什么素质，我们的理解还远远不足。
李资政对于对话会出现的无礼行为的包容，凸显了我们已经进入一个新的时代——政府努力尝试引导年轻人，为国家取得进一步的繁荣，同政府进行诚恳和有意义的沟通。
讽刺的是，虽然参与对话的年轻人尽全力尝试向国人展示通往政治和言论自由的途径，面对来势汹汹的问题的李资政，却以平和及泰然的政治家风范，让人们了解政治到底是什么。
我们现在应该反思我们过去几年所走的路，和它将把我们带往何处。如果我们认识到过去所忽略的，并采取积极的补救行动，那对话会可能让我们向前跨出一大步。
相反的，如果我们因此感到失望和沮丧，却依然固我，以为经济上的成就会带来社会和人民的进步，那我们可能会向后退一大步。
希望最近的这场对谈并不代表着我们未来要走的方向。因为其结果将是难以想象却又非常真实的——一个耀眼辉煌的繁荣国家，内部的衰败慢慢地腐蚀了亮丽的外表，最终只剩下一个空壳，一旦基础被打破，就会像叠成金字塔形的纸牌一样，彻底的倒下。
·作者是一名20多岁，受英文教育的高级学位学生。叶琦保译。 |
| posted by Nobody @ 12:19 AM |
|
|
|
| Saturday, April 22, 2006 |
| can you see where I'M coming from, Mr Lee? |
I Say
Lee Ching Wern
chingwern@newstoday.com.sg
WHEN I walked away from the recording of the television forum with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew on Monday night, I couldn't help thinking that a lot of what he said was true.
As we bombarded him non-stop with questions about an unfair political playing field, the lack of a strong Opposition and the issue of apolitical Singaporeans, he addressed our frustrations one by one with such clarity that you had to wonder for a minute whether your arguments held any water to begin with.
Young Singaporeans rant about a tilted political playing field, he said, but whoever said that politics was fair?
You lament the lack of a strong Opposition, but are you prepared to leave your comfort zone and join one?
Mr Lee's point was, because we are well taken care of, there is no motivation for most people to make such a sacrifice; those with the ability to step up to the political plate would rather make more money.
And should the party whites be tainted one day, the People's Action Party (PAP) will naturally be displaced, said Mr Lee. Because then, competent people will inevitably feel the impetus to come together and fight the PAP for the sake of better lives.
Above all, politics is not about elections or voting. Politics is about life, the Minister Mentor said.
I can see where Mr Lee is coming from.
But even as I try to look at things from his perspective, I wonder if he is doing the same to understand where we are coming from — that what young Singaporeans like me want, does not necessarily clash with what the PAP Government wants.
As a young Singaporean, I want an opposition — not to bring the PAP down, but to provide an alternative. A healthy dose of competition always benefits consumers.
I want checks and balances — not because the PAP is not doing a good job, but because I'd rather not get to the point-of-no-return before a group of people rise up against a rogue Government.
I want to talk about party politics freely without having to join a party — not because I want to slander the PAP, but because I yearn for a lively discourse that can lead to a greater political and social consciousness.
And surely our Government, which has the best candidates available in Singapore and an impeccable track record, can withstand a few biased comments?
I resent the restriction on podcasting — not because we are all avid fans of Dr Chee Soon Juan; most of us probably haven't even listened to his recordings offered on the Singapore Democratic Party website — but because I think we should not be deprived of the right to judge for ourselves what's gibberish or not.
I accept the fact that there is no such thing as a completely level playing field anywhere in the world, but surely there exists varying degrees of fairness?
Politics is about life and bread-and-butter issues, but surely having fewer unnecessary restrictions adds to this quality of life?
I do not think the pursuit of intangible wants such as more political breathing space necessarily has to be at the expense of tangible needs such as my job, my Medisave and my children's future.
Do a good job, and I will vote for you whether I watch Martyn See's Singapore Rebel or not.
What we need is for the PAP to have more confidence in its own merit and record, and to understand that what we young Singaporeans want, really, is not so sinister.
Otherwise, even if we go through another 10 candid forums, we will still be running along parallel lines that will never converge.
The writer is a journalist with Today. She was one of 10 Singaporeans under the age of 30 who participated in the forum, "Why my vote matters — A dialogue with the Minister Mentor", broadcast on Channel NewsAsia on Wednesday. The repeat telecast is at 6.30pm today on MediaCorp Channel 5. |
| posted by Nobody @ 7:39 AM |
|
|
|
|
| Speak up ... but politely please |
Today
Wednesday • April 19, 2006
Yvonne Lim
Voices & Commentary editor
SPOILT brats, ingrates, whiners, disrespectful upstarts.
These were accusations hurled at the 10 young panellists of last week's Channel News-Asia dialogue with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, as they found themselves under fire for both their questions and the cut-and-thrust manner in which they had asked them.
One was Today's own senior reporter, Lee Ching Wern, who followed up last Wednesday's broadcast with a commentary, "Can you see where I'm coming from, Mr Lee?" (April 14) — on the same day an older generation Singaporean, Mr Hazra Osman Ghani, called the panellists "shallow" and "ungrateful" in an emotional letter.
William Teo Jui Wah could not agree more. "They 'know not Caesar' and where the water flows from!" he declared of the participants, all under 30 years of age and most of them journalists.
"It is perfectly all right to have different views. But the way the questions were asked and what we saw in their body language, suggested that they are no better than kids and should be sent back to school.
"MM Lee was too kind to them. If they were foreign journalists who conducted themselves in such a way, they would have been 'grilled'."
Not that they weren't. Mr Lee's questioning of reporter Ken Kwek on his comments about a climate of fear made Dionne Kho uncomfortable. She quoted the part of the exchange when Mr Lee said: "I allow my grandchildren to speak back to me but from time to time, but when they are out of bounds, I put them in their place."
But out of the 30 or so readers who wrote in, at least 10 felt the participants had it coming.
Wrote Sunny J: "It seems you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth, and it is for 35-year-olds like me to put you back in your place. You should be humbled by the fact that a great iconic leader such as Mr Lee is giving you a lesson in politics and life … Learn open-heartedly from the elders who built this nation with blood, sweat and tears."
Another "post-65-er", Kwan Foon Sim, observed: "The panellists obviously wanted to be heard, but not to listen and learn from MM Lee. I was ashamed that many didn't even exhibit basic courtesy when asking their questions."
But were the participants being unnecessarily rude to Mr Lee, or simply being candid and open? There were those, such as Mohd Rosle Ahmad, who hailed the young Singaporeans' "gloves-off" approach (April 14) for dispelling the myth of the "fear factor" in Singapore politics.
Anne Lim Siew Kim commended Lee Ching Wern for daring to voice the observation: "There is an impression that the PAP is arrogant." Lim felt she was "presenting a point of view that could have provided valuable feedback to the PAP. It is a pity she was not given a chance to say more on the issue".
Boris Chan thought the panellists showed "they have a good understanding of a public segment that sees the need for political diversity".
But Foo Kok Jong thought their arguments for a level political field were shallow.
"These are not arguments. These are simply ideals, not necessarily shared by everyone."
After all, Foo said, what is there to stop any citizen from voting for the Opposition or talking about politics in the kopitiam, online or at Speaker's Corner? "Walk the talk," the self-described PAP supporter told the participants. "You want an active Opposition? Go join an opposition party and strengthen its resources and ability to compete. Until the Opposition parties match PAP in terms of calibre and reach, there can be no viable alternative."
Steve K Ngo felt what the forum showed was that young Singaporeans "want choices, like the variety they get when shopping for their favourite dresses or computer gadgets". "They have grown bored of PAP … But politics is not the same as fashion or food. A wrong decision about clothes and restaurants is unlikely to critically affect the future," Ngo adds.
"I doubt most young Singaporeans today know what is real suffering and challenge. They are raw and naive but aggressive — this is a formula for disaster. Although many are highly educated, that does not mean that they are necessarily wise."
But others felt much good came out of the controversial forum, even if it highlighted a generational gap.
Acknowledging that the reason for this divide was that today's youth could never fully understand the struggles and uncertainties of the 1950s and 1960s, 16-year-old Jessica Nobes wrote: "The dialogue was an appropriate avenue to let doubts be cleared, for better mutual understanding. I was glad that some of the views I shared were voiced and some of my questions answered.
"If we do not have mutual understanding with the Government now, what good will it bring in the future? Muffling opinions will only encourage youth to find other platforms (often undesirable) to voice their opinions. Maybe it will turn into anger, without clear understanding."
Ephraim Loy applauded the Government for engaging the youth. Also noting the number of young new candidates in the PAP's line-up, he said this showed "the young are not forgotten. And knowing that the tagline of the PAP's manifesto was inspired by a student shows how much our views are valued". |
| posted by Nobody @ 7:04 AM |
|
|
|
|
| forum meant to provoke |
Today
Thursday • April 20, 2006
Lee Ching Wern
chingwern@newstoday.com.sg
A FEW days ago, my father was having dinner at a coffeeshop near our home when he overheard this conversation between two middle-aged uncles about me.
"You got watch the Lee Kuan Yew programme on TV or not? That girl say PAP hao lian (arrogant). How can?! Those youngsters have no respect for elders," said the first one angrily in Hokkien.
His friend replied: "Bo dua bo suay (too big for their shoes). How do their parents teach them?"
And the other day, on my way to work, I spent the entire cab journey listening to some "experts" on a Chinese radio programme slam us for being rude, lacking in public decorum and Asian values.
These views are echoed in a number of scathing letters written to me as well as to the newspapers (mostly by Singaporeans in their mid-30s and 40s) in the days following the telecast of Why My Vote Matters — the forum with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew that I participated in together with nine other young Singaporeans.
Apart from saying we were rude, some people accused us of trying to impress our friends. Some even questioned our upbringing.
I am deeply puzzled and disturbed by the reactions.
This backlash shows not only the vast gulf that exists between the generations, but also how far Singapore is from opening up and how close-minded many still are.
Did we question Mr Lee the way we did on TV because we are a bunch of disrespectful ingrates who are blind to his contributions to Singapore?
If you thought so, consider this: All television programmes are produced with a determined angle and style.
Perhaps you were expecting something akin to the forum that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had with Singaporeans recently, which was a lot "milder".
But was the dialogue with the Minister Mentor meant to be the same? Ask yourself, why were there so many journalists on the selected panel?
Was it, perhaps, meant in the first place to be a more provocative, vigorous and spontaneous exchange that touched on the "unspeakables"?
If you had watched BBC's infamous HARDtalk programme, you would have seen its former host Tim Sebastian accusing, snarling at, interrupting and pointing fingers at political leaders from all over the world — Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong included.
Was Mr Sebastian week after week attacked personally for having no decorum and respect for these great people? No. And not because of his Western upbringing either, but because the show and its reputation was built on just such an approach.
The show's guests knew what they would be in for — if they didn't want the nasty debate, they would not have gone on it.
That is not to say our forum last week was anything like HARDtalk. And we are obviously no Tim Sebastians. But the principle is the same.
If MM Lee wanted to give us this leeway to "speak back" to him on national television, and if we were encouraged to be uninhibited and not to cower when he pointed out our ignorance — who is to say we behaved inappropriately?
To those viewers whose criticisms of us participants were motivated by their deep personal respect for the Minister Mentor, I ask: Is it not MM Lee's prerogative how he wishes to engage us?
Certainly, we had no intention of showing MM Lee any disrespect, but should we have censored ourselves so as not to offend viewers?
To those of you who felt we raised issues that were both unrealistic and unrepresentative, for goodness' sake, this forum had a specific scope.
We were not the ones who initiated the dialogue. We did not decide the rules of play. But it seems to me now that some people have chosen to penalise us for participating.
If you ask me, I think it was a great forum.
Not because our arguments were flawless or the answers were perfect, but because, suddenly, every Singaporean — young and old, including those who never did care about politics — is talking about it in the coffeeshops, on the MRT, in schools and on the Internet.
Isn't that precisely what we set out to achieve?
The writer is a senior reporter
with Today. The participants of last Wednesday's forum reunite to tell their side of the story on the programme, "That Dialogue - Was I Rude Or ... ?", tonight at 8.30 on Channel NewsAsia. |
| posted by Nobody @ 6:57 AM |
|
|
|
| Friday, April 21, 2006 |
| Why My Vote Matters |
The video clip.
 |
| posted by Nobody @ 2:19 PM |
|
|
|
| Wednesday, April 12, 2006 |
| 调查显示：取代东京 新加坡生活质量亚洲最好 |
联合早报
（伦敦综合电）星期一发布的全球生活质量最新调查显示，苏黎世是今年全世界生活质量最高的城市。在亚洲各大城市当中，新加坡的生活质量最好。
最适宜外籍人士
世界知名的美世（Mercer）人力资源公司最近发表全球350个城市生活品质评比报告，评量基准包括政治局势、社会条件、经济状况、医药和卫生水准、教育设施和水平、公共服务与交通、公共娱乐设施、生活必需品供应、住屋安排及个人安全等39项，评比结果显示瑞士的苏黎世（108.2分）是全世界最适宜外籍人士居住的城市。
今年新加坡取代日本东京，在亚洲各大城市中名列第一，在全世界排名则居于第34位。
新加坡获102.5分，比第35位的东京多出0.2分。除了东京外，日本的横滨和神户也挤进前40大；另外一个日本城市大阪则名列第51位。
中国的香港今年取得95.4分，排名从70位晋升到68位；上海位列第103，得分80.1。
印度城市的排名也渐渐改善了，孟买和新德里同时名列第150位。
排名前30名的城市，将近一半位于西欧。紧接在苏黎世之后的是瑞士的日内瓦、加拿大的温哥华、奥地利的维也纳。
被列进亚太区的纽西兰城市奥克兰排第五，澳洲的悉尼第九，澳洲第二大城市墨尔本名列17。
中非共和国的班基市（Bangui）和刚果共和国首都布拉柴维尔市（Brazzaville)，跟伊拉克的巴格达一起排在最后三名。
美国芝加哥是排名上升最快的城市之一，由于犯罪率下降，芝加哥从早先的第52位，窜升到今年的第41位；而开罗则是排名下滑最快的城市之一，排名第131，跌了九个位次。
美世说：“由于这些城市和周围地区发生政治动乱和恐怖袭击，所以排名下滑了。” |
| posted by Nobody @ 3:42 AM |
|
|
|
| Sunday, April 09, 2006 |
| “新加坡人笨”吗？――斥李敖“大师” |
联合早报
四月五日香港凤凰电视台，“李敖有话说”节目中，自称“聪明绝顶”的“思想家”和“历史学家”的李敖“大师”再答复新加坡观众的质疑时，使尽浑身解数为其“新加坡人笨”的谬论辩解。我不是新加坡人，作为一个旅游者，也深感必须写几个字，为新加坡人，为自己的良心。“不平则鸣”嘛！
其一，新加坡人“总体而言笨”是因为人“种”不好吗？不错，新加坡人的先辈绝大多数来自福建，广东的贫寒农家，目不识丁，靠做苦工过日子。但是这能说“人种”不好吗？记得我幼时读私塾时，书本上就有“朝为田舍朗，幕登天子堂。将相当自强”。这当然是封建统治者骗人的鬼话，但是自称“思想家”的李“大师”视流落南洋谋生者为“人种不好”，这种思想水平远在封建统治者之下，这算哪门子“思想家”？！其实，“文抄公”李敖先生的这种思想不过是照抄西方殖民主义者而已，实在“聪明”，令人“佩服”！记得美国前总统尼克松曾说过：世上有两个种族的人很聪明，一是华人，一是犹太人。他说华人聪明，主要以海外华人（包括华裔）为据的。其中，也包括新加坡的华人在内吧。虽然尼克松并未点明是哪些海外华人。
其二，我在新加坡生活的这段时间，目睹该国的经济，政治，社会，环境等很好，不少方面超过欧美，生态环境位居世界城市第一。如果“新加坡人笨”，他们能做到吗？李敖先生从未到过新加坡，就凭他聪明的内心觉得“新加坡人笨”，这不正是李“大师”在前一些时节目中所说的，笛卡儿和王阳明的哲学语言：“我感到它存在它就存在，不存在就不存在”吗？李敖先生再聪明，也不能仅凭自己的内心感觉来做结论吧？
其三，李“大师”总算表面上承认新加坡前总理、现资政李光耀聪明，但是实质上又做了否定。李“大师”认为，李前总理管得太严了，因而没有第二个聪明人。依法严管，有什么不对？当然，法制因国（地）而异。记得几年前有美国青年在新加坡偷东西，违法新加坡的法律，被法院判鞭刑。美国前总统克林顿为这个触犯新刑律的青年向李光耀说情，被李总理驳回，鞭刑执行。我在中国大陆为李总理喝彩，李“大师”您呢？顺便说一句，作为一个学术工作者，在与新加坡同行的学术交流中，我深感他们在学术上，言论上是很自由的。
最后，自称“历史家”的李“大师”，恰恰在一些历史问题上说了一些外行话。就在这一集的“李敖有话说”中，他说“管仲是法家”。其实管仲是公元前七世纪的人，时值中国周朝春秋时期，尚无真正的诸子百家，当然也没有法家。诚然，管仲相齐，做了不少改革，使齐首先称霸。到战国时期，才真正形成百家争鸣。法家分东、西两大派，东法家没有一个令人信服的代表人物，而管仲又主富国强兵，有些主张与战国的齐法家（东方法家）相近。于是东方法家就以管仲作为自己的一面旗帜。把管仲称为法家一员是不符合历史事实的。作为“历史学家”的李“大师”，不会连这一点历史常识都不知道吧？
顺便说一句，李“大师”对一些古文的解释也不乏值得商榷之处。例如，他在解释陶渊明的“好读书，不求甚解”时，把“不求甚解”说成不要做过多的解释。仅就字面而言，是勉强说得过去的。但是，作为一代文豪的陶渊明，对一般的书文又必要细读并且多做解释吗？再说，深受道家学说影响的陶渊明，即使“种豆南山下，草盛豆苗稀”，依然可以“采菊东篱下，悠然见南山”。他向其前辈庄周学习，“不为五斗米折腰”。这个“心远地自偏”的大文豪，对五花八门的政治纷争时充耳不闻。难道李“大师”不知道吗？
李“大师”的远祖辈李白在讥讽孔圣人时，尚敢直言“我本楚狂人”。在这一点上，李“大师”连老祖宗都忘了。我相信新加坡人是不会受“金榜题名空富贵，洞房花烛假风光”一类戏子的鬼话所骗的。
广东 陈山 |
| posted by Nobody @ 8:38 AM |
|
|
|
|
| 李敖又说什么了？ |
联合早报
● 严孟达
台湾名嘴、学者、作家、前明星胡茵梦的前夫、前总统候选人、现无党派立委、江湖上人称大师的李敖，去年九月完成神州之旅的得意之作回到台北后，回答记者的一个问题时，出人意表的冒出一句“新加坡人笨”的话。
对他这句话，我个人一直没有什么强烈感觉，因此从未在文章中作出反应，因为不觉得有必要反应，也没什么好反应，却没想到不少新加坡人一直耿耿于怀，时不时有人拿出来议论。著名导演、艺人梁智强在上个星期与李显龙总理的电视对话会上，甚至当作一个问题，“敢敢问”总理；总理的答复是“对李敖来说，很多人都很笨”，言外之意好像也是说李敖的话没什么好反应的。
却也没想到李大师本星期三在他的“李敖有话说”的电视节目里，用足了25分钟的时间，为他去年的这一句随口而出的话，“说文解字”一番，事缘有新加坡的大师崇拜者（用现代俗语叫“粉丝”）要大师向新加坡人交代清楚。
于是李大师又搬出一套“新加坡只有集体创作的成就，而没有出类拔萃的人物”、“新加坡人祖先的文化水平不高，种不好，跟不上领导方式……”云云，一句“新加坡人的种不好”，好像很难听的话，恐怕又要得罪很多新加坡人，难免又见一番对大师的口诛笔伐。
重新演译李资政的话
李敖说“新加坡人的种不好”，在我的理解，他也只是以李敖式的语言重新演译内阁资政李光耀说过的话。
李资政曾经不只一次在演说中比较新加坡人和香港人的素质，他说新加坡华族祖先基本上是躲避天灾人祸，由中国华南逃难而来的难民，文化水平不高，而香港则比较幸运，如在《李光耀回忆录》第34章“香港的回归”中，李资政就清楚的写道：“……当时我不曾意识到，中国共产党在1949年解放大陆，造成一两百万中国难民潮水般涌入香港，里头挟着大批来自中国最杰出的企业家、专业人士和知识分子，他们有来自上海的，也有来自浙江、江苏和广东的。这些大陆精英形成了一个厚实的人才基础……他们把香港转变成世界最有活力的城市之一。”
在这一章里，李资政也引述了一个移居新加坡的香港企业家一语道破新港之别的话。这位香港老板来新开设纺织厂和制衣厂，他从香港带来了几个管理人员，另聘几个新加坡的经理，一直到了90年代，新加坡的经理还在为他效劳，香港来的几个经理则早已离开，自己另起炉灶。
我相信李敖是参考过了他“十分敬佩”的李光耀资政的回忆录，才会说出“新加坡只有集体创作的成就，而没有出类拔萃的人物”这一番话。
话说回来，所谓“种”也者，就是所谓的DNA，科学上所谓的“基因”，人力部长兼国防部第二部长黄永宏医生两年前在批评新加坡人不懂得搞服务业时，便说“新加坡人缺乏服务的DNA”，用李敖式的语言来说，就是“新加坡人天生不是做服务业的种”，好像比较不是那样中听，但表达的是同一个意思。
也许有人会以为我在挺李敖，其实不然，因为李敖是大师，他有很大力气和本领可以自己挺自己，不须要别人来挺，我在这里也只是希望新加坡人不要动不动生气，小则伤了肝胃，大则损了新加坡的形象，让人以为新加坡人只能听恭维的话，只听得懂好听的话。很多人喜欢听李敖在电视上东骂骂西骂骂，冷不妨“骂”到我们头上来了，也该听了就算。真正心怀恶意来骂新加坡的大有人在，多注意一点本区域邻国报章的言论就知道啦！ |
| posted by Nobody @ 8:07 AM |
|
|
|
| Saturday, April 08, 2006 |
| 才子的地獄，笨蛋的天堂 |
星洲日报
作者：林寶玲
李敖先說新加坡人笨，再說新加坡人的人種不好、祖先沒文化，絕對語出驚人。但語出驚人早已是李敖的慣技，所以不管其言論如何聳人聽聞或令人難過，也再難收技（伎倆？）驚四座之效，加上新加坡人向來低調內斂，對於李敖那帶刺的言談雖有輕微反彈卻未真的放在心上。以李敖那喜歡挑釁的個性而言，恐怕最難忍受的正是對方的渾不在意，所以獅城的沉默不失為回應李氏的最佳策略。
說起來，新加坡確實是一個相當奇特的國家。整體而言，它在特定層面上完美呈現了現代化都市的理想面貌。它乾淨、整齊、安定、有條理、有秩序；政局穩定、經濟良好、教育水平高。縱觀世界各地所有華人社區的髒、亂、嘈、雜，新加坡社會的高度規範化以及新加坡人民的高度“馴化”，可以說是異於尋常的。要說當年一個李光耀政府就能把幾代新加坡人“馴”得服服貼貼，那麼新加坡仍值得被我們的觀察家和學者們當成獨特的個案來看待與研究。
說新加坡是個完美的都市化國家，它卻又讓許多其他地方的華人嗤之於鼻。三不五時總聽說有哪個名人或文人在說“幸好我不是新加坡人”。尤其是港台兩地以“自由”聞名的華人地區，有不少文化人都對新加坡沒甚麼好印象。也許正因為新加坡是那麼方方正正、循規蹈矩的國家，但凡追求創意、自由和天馬行空的文化人、藝術家和創作人，都會覺得難以忍受。
也確實如此，一直方方正正的新加坡，在文化、藝術和文學等創作領域上，似乎少見能人輩出的情況。可是若就此判斷新加坡人“笨”，未免失之草率和偏頗。因為一個由“笨人”主導的國家，若能在政經領域，以及社會規劃與管理上取得像新加坡那樣斐然的成就（別忘了新加坡是唯一在“全球最廉潔國家排行榜”前10名以內的亞洲國家），那麼其他華人地區的領導人真該好好自我反省，或甚至去做一次智商檢定測驗。
說新加坡人笨的李敖，肯定是個出類拔萃的才子，也是華人社會難得一見的聰明人。李敖解釋他認為新加坡人“笨”的理由是“新加坡人不會破格、也不會出格；只有集體創造的成就，沒有出類拔萃的人物。”這種主觀的言論效果駭人，十分討喜，容易在一個“集體愚昧”的社群裡產生震撼和獲得認同，但其實缺乏廣泛的觀察與思考的深度。因為在這世上確實也有“出類拔萃的笨蛋”，這些人以不可理喻的笨行為和蠢方法見稱，一次一次的“破格”給社會與人民制造一場又一場的鬧劇，儘管這才讓社會產生了不滿、憤怒、活力和生氣，但它就是無法給人民以安逸。
說到底，這其實只在於選擇─新加坡人選擇坐在星巴克咖啡座裡享受充滿西方風情的下午，一邊在看電視上許多聰明人擠在路上示威抗議的香港街景，或是更多聰明人在揮拳甩肘摑人扯頭髮的台灣立法院。這一刻，誰聰明誰愚蠢、誰尖拔誰平庸？也真耐人尋味。 |
| posted by Nobody @ 11:38 PM |
|
|
|
|
| 李敖释‘笨’ 新加坡人‘种’不好 |
联合早报
● 沈泽玮
台湾名嘴李敖说，因为新加坡“很完美地”实践了中国法家政治的理想，所以造成新加坡只有“集体创造的成就”，而没有“出类拔萃”的人物，令人感觉新加坡人好“笨”。他说，再加上祖先的文化水平低、新加坡人的“种”不好，跟不上领导方式，也形成了新加坡人只懂得循规蹈矩的现象。
因去年发表“新加坡人笨”的言论而引起一些新加坡“粉丝”的不满，向来言词犀利、语出惊人的李敖在其《李敖有话说》节目中花了25分钟、用足一整集的时间，来解释他为什么觉得新加坡人笨。这集“新加坡人的笨”的节目昨日通过凤凰卫视播出。
在开场白中，李敖亮出了忠实观众给他的一堆信和剪报说，“粉丝”要求他把话说明白，“因为新加坡已经有人在XXX你了，再不解释，会有更多的XXX文章出现!”。
为了更生动地阐明自己的论点，李敖在镜头前拿出了一张新加坡内阁资政李光耀年轻时的竞选照片。
李敖说，他非常佩服李光耀，因为李光耀在新加坡建国的时期，那样的艰苦的环境下，“能够使新加坡出人头地，在全世界出人头地，这是了不起的功劳”。
不过，他说，就像李光耀的曾祖父那样，很多新加坡人的祖先是两手空空从中国飘洋过海到新加坡讨生活的。虽然这些先辈们的努力和勤勉是值得尊敬，但就事论事的话，他们的文化水平却十分低落，就像台湾独派大老彭明敏的曾祖父，当年从福建到台湾，“只有一条内裤，什么都没有带，当然也没有文化”。
从“思想家”和“历史家”的角度来看，李敖认为，因为南来的祖先们没有什么文化，所以新加坡人的“种”也跟着受影响。
他拉高声调说：“一个重要的原因，大家注意啊！那个种不好。”
李敖说，李光耀要在新加坡建立英国式的民主体制，不过人民因为“种”不好，整体水平跟不上，所以造成新加坡人不会破格，但是也不会出格”的现象。
因为管得太严 出类拔萃人少
他认为，李光耀在新加坡实践了中国古代法家的政治理想，但因为管得太严，结果造成了一种类似共性压倒个性的局面；新加坡优秀的成就是在李光耀领导下的“集体的创作”，新加坡至今并没有多少个他认识的“出类拔萃的人”。
“如果你问我李敖啊，新加坡出类拔萃的人，除了李光耀、他儿子（李显龙），这些政治人物以外，我李敖只能想出一个人，我所知道的，就是一个可爱的女孩子，孙燕姿……不是没有，是我李敖不知道，没有多少个出类拔萃的人物。给我的印象，就是笨。”
“到处有牌子看到，要罚你多少钱，变成什么样？变成是在一个集体活动之下的每一个人，真正个人、出类拔萃的、能窜起来的不多。”
在节目中，李敖也一再强调，当他说新加坡人“笨”的时候，其实并没有恶意，只是很笼统地回答记者的提问，希望大家不要过分认真或严肃地看待。
“我的话其实是这样讲的，我是说，台湾人不是最坏的，台湾人他是最胡涂的，我说香港人比较坏，祖国大陆的人不可测，好坏我搞不清楚，新加坡人比较笨……有没有想到，当我说香港人比较坏的时候，另外一个意思就是说，新加坡人不坏喔，你只是笨而已。”
不过，李敖在节目最后也留下一个尾巴说，他的一番话之所以会掀起这么大的波澜，新加坡人和他自己本身都需要反省。
“这么聪明的一个人李敖都会有这个印象，他在新加坡也无冤无仇，为什么他有这个印象？”
“我也要反省，说得更细腻一点……没有那么多的恶意。”
|
| posted by Nobody @ 11:29 PM |
|
|
|
|
| 李敖「神州之旅」自打滿分 |
【大公報訊】綜合台灣媒體報道，李敖三十日中午自香港返台，結束為期十二天的「神州文化之旅」。被問到如何為自己的大陸行打分數﹖李敖不改狂放表示，自己的表現，當然是一百分﹗
李敖今天中午抵達中正機場，面對歡迎人群及前往採訪的大批媒體，他讚揚台灣人好，但又火砲四射，既說「要消滅新聞局」，又說「要牽制馬英九」，也說了些宋楚瑜的好話。
與接機的好友陳文茜、李永萍、李慶華、鍾榮吉等人握手言歡，五十六年來首次離台訪問大陸的李敖以「很快樂」表達回家感受，表示畢竟台灣是熟悉的地方﹔覺得台灣人雖然混蛋，但是可愛，香港人比較壞，新加坡人笨，大陸人則是比較不可測。
笑言已克服搭機恐懼症
而訪問大陸多處，又到香港停留並轉機，李敖笑說，自己早就已經克服搭機恐懼症了。
李敖誓言，他回「立法院」會致力通過「通訊傳播委員會條例」（NCC），消滅新聞局，消滅姚文智，這些都是他要做的事情，此外，還要阻擋軍購案，但他擔心國民黨會放水。李敖自喻，大貓回來了，「立法院」的小老鼠還敢不敢作怪。
稱是玩笑性選台北市長
他說，親民黨的宋楚瑜主席最能幹，親民得沒話說，改過向善的宋楚瑜能擁抱台灣人，縱使委屈一點也是為台灣人好。言談中很支持宋楚瑜競選台北市長。
李敖是今日上午從香港出發返回台灣的，他行前表示，此次行程非常豐富和圓滿。當被問及此行之後，自己的人生構想是否會有所改變，李敖答曰會繼續為緩解兩岸關係努力。至於他回到台灣「立法院」後，最關心的事情應該還是軍購案。
對於李敖好友陳文茜向對媒體爆料，表示李敖已經向她透露，準備在明年底參選台北市長。李敖昨天在接受記者查證時並沒有鬆口，笑說「陳文茜在胡扯啦﹗」李敖強調是玩笑性考慮參選台北市長，對於放話的陳文茜，他玩笑性的考慮要與她斷交。
成龍夜訪多添一份驚喜
李敖昨天在香港的行程安排的很緊，白天正式活動之後，晚上還坐船欣賞了一下維多利亞港的風光，可謂豐富多彩。然而，昨夜著名影星成龍到訪，實為他香江遊多添一份驚喜。
十點多鐘剛下飛機的成龍抓緊時間到酒店看望李敖，兩人相見恨晚，惺惺相惜。成龍說，你在北京，我也在北京，但是知道你一定很忙，所以在北京就沒有找你。知道你要來香港，我也趕著回來，我每天都在追你。
李敖說，我也在追你，看你演的戲，很過癮。
成龍表示，在他的辦公室裡還掛著李敖在報紙上發表的文章，他們也都希望有機會再次聚會。 |
| posted by Nobody @ 8:34 PM |
|
|
|
|
| About Me |
Name: Nobody
Home: Vietnam
About Me: Not important.
|
| Previous Post |
|
| Archives |
|
|
| Links |
|
|
|
