創意。新加坡。香港

1. http://www.lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips/docs/events/ysc2008/Report_YSC2008_20-211108.pdf

這是關於新加坡走向創意城市之路研討會的撮要

2. 創意的蘊養最重要的一個原素或起始點是”包容”

3. 在新加坡, 有一種東西叫Internal security act(isa) (類似23條), 只要在任何場合發表新加坡的負面言論, 包括網上, 就可以有一個珍貴機會與政府聊聊天.

4. 還有一件有趣事, 在新加坡, 道德與法律的界線比香港更模糊. 因此, 色戒差不多有三分之一, 什至是三分之二被刪; 及後, 群眾相當不滿, 當局在幾個月之後才重新把色戒完整版上畫

5. 在研討會中, political liberation 好像不是重點. 重點是在talent: 如何從外地搬來有創意的人來.

6. 只靠外來人才, 問題可真不少:

• 本地人不滿: 今期Economists 就有相關報導.
• 外地人才流失率高, 因為他們大都視新加坡為轉車站
• 本地人發揮機會少, 因為有過多外地人才

7. 還有的問題是, 坡人覺得政府真捧, 事事懶得想, 懶得說, 再加上isa以及重重的道德管制, think out of the box就成了gucci 貸物. 在這個context下搬來外來創意人才就可以做到創意城市的目標, 我懷疑.

8. 香港的亂哄哄, 其實也可以是一種本錢—若然從這個角度看.

 

他們的言論自由

 

1. 新加坡海峽時報(Straits Times) 11月6日一篇關於言論自由與傳媒的評論, 有趣

2. 特點是文中忠奸分明:忠的是政府, 奸的是傳媒.

3. 似曾相識的調子: “新加坡地少人種多, 經濟又依賴外在環境, 所以不能出差錯”芸芸.

In defence of Singapore exceptionalism

 

THERE are three ways to respond to critics: ignore them, rebut them or engage them.For a long time, the Singapore Government’s preferred response to criticisms levelled at the Republic’s civil-political milieu has been to ignore them. Some ministers with a more combative nature – notably Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew – have chosen to rebut them robustly. Few have done the critics the honour of actually looking at their views and engaging them publicly.Law Minister and Second Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam did so, as did Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, during the recent meeting of the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) International Section in Singapore.This was most welcome. More intellectual leaders in Singapore’s public sector as well as its civil society should do the same.The head-in-sand response to criticism simply backfires these days. Bad press gets widely read online, and ignoring it won’t make it go away. Silence in the context of an activist state like Singapore can be interpreted as assent – especially since ministers here are quick to rebut domestic critics.Dismissing surveys that rank Singapore poorly on civil liberties (Freedom House) or media freedom (Reporters Without Borders) while pointing to surveys that heap praise on Singapore (lots) is not a good way to respond to bad press. The approach begs the question as to why Singapore should pat itself on the back in the case of the latter findings while dismissing the former.A better response to criticism would be to see if there is a basis for the views, and then engage the criticism.Former Straits Times journalist- turned media scholar Cherian George, for example, dissected RWB’s media ranking on his blog and found it wanting conceptually and methodologically.An attitude of sober soul-searching when criticised is always in order. But if the criticisms are shown to be wrong or unfair, then a strong, confident, robust response is called for.This in essence is what the few days of exchanges at the NYSBA conference amounted to. CJ Chan parsed the criticisms of Singapore’s judiciary and took them apart one by one, challenging the assertion that the courts here lack independence or that the rule of law in Singapore was flawed.His comments were learned and measured, like the man himself and as befits the office he holds. Yet anyone listening to or reading the Chief Justice would have been left in no doubt as to the firmness of his message: the judiciary operates independently to enforce the law as laid down by Parliament, without fear or favour to the executive or any other party.Mr Shanmugam’s speeches were even more direct in setting out Singapore’s unique position. His comments were the best I have read in many years in summing up the case for what I have termed ‘Singapore exceptionalism’ before: the notion that Singapore’s unique demographic mix, small size, history and geopolitical position compel it to prioritise communitarian over individual values, order over individual expression.Despite being a new Cabinet member, Mr Shanmugam has taken a leading role in defining the PAP Government’s political philosophy to both an international and domestic audience. It takes confidence and eloquence to do so. As a Singaporean who has chafed at unjust criticisms of this Republic, I read the transcript of Mr Shanmugam’s exchange with his interlocutors from the New York Bar with alacrity.I appreciated the way both CJ Chan and Mr Shanmugam located Singapore’s policy and political choices within the context of a larger philosophical debate on the proper balance society should strike between ideals and practice, order and freedom.This has the advantage of moving the discussion beyond the immediate but limited realm of whether Singapore’s laws on libel, elections, media and detention without trial are designed to maintain the PAP’s grip on power. (These laws may help the incumbent; but one should not confuse cause and effect.)When you frame a debate on these laws as solely about the PAP’s determination to hold on to power, you basically close off avenues for productive engagement. For you would be refusing to take into account the fact that laws do not exist in a vacuum, but are legislated and enforced in response to, and in accordance with, a society’s mores.The more pertinent question is whether the laws are good and necessary for Singapore society as a whole, and whether Singaporeans accept them.Mr Shanmugam’s own view is this: ‘I do not accept the notion that there are these restrictions, and they are designed to keep us in power. I disagree with that.’ On libel laws that give more weight to the protection of reputation than free speech, he said: ‘My position is yes, we need it, we want it and this is our political platform and let the people decide.’This is actually the point where the debate should get interesting – but the panel could not go there, because of time, and because it is a debate only Singaporeans have the moral authority to engage in.Foreign critics can cajole and try to browbeat Singapore lawmakers to change – by pointing perhaps to the incongruity of a sophisticated, successful society with a free economy, having a political climate that has restrictions on expression, assembly and contestation. But it is Singaporeans’ views that matter, and Singaporeans who must decide whether these laws are good for Singapore – or only for the People’s Action Party.Singapore is a work in progress, as Mr Shanmugam acknowledged. It has the paranoid tendency of continuously examining itself so as to get better. Whether decades-old laws curtailing freedoms are relevant today, in a free economy situated in a volatile region, remains an issue to grapple with.When speaking to outsiders in defence of Singapore’s overall political philosophy, which privileges the group over the individual, Mr Shanmugam may be said to be speaking for all Singaporeans. But as to whether Singaporeans support specific laws – on libel, for instance, as used in the political realm, or the laws on the media – short of clear surveys or a referendum, the jury is still out.muihoong@sph.com.sg

一則明報沒有報的新聞

1. 如下題: 中國送兩隻熊貓給新加坡.

2. 問題: 為何新加坡在中國外交策略上佔如此重要的地位?

China sending two pandas to Singapore From Straits Times

SINGAPORE is getting a pair of black and white furry envoys from China to mark the milestone of 20 years of diplomatic relations.

Visiting Chinese President Hu Jintao announced yesterday at an Istana state banquet that a pair of giant pandas will be delivered to Singapore, as he expressed confidence that Singapore-Sino relations will reach ‘a new high’.

The endangered creatures, which China rarely sends overseas, will arrive here in 2011 and Chinese diplomacy experts believe it is a sign of deepening friendship between the two nations.

‘It reflects the importance of Singapore in China’s foreign policy. Beijing does not send out pandas lightly,’ said international relations analyst Shi Yinhong of Renmin University.

Singapore joins an exclusive club of overseas panda hosts, becoming only the seventh country since 1994 to receive the black and white creatures from China.

The pair of pandas, a one-year-old female and a two-year-old male, are from the Wolong panda reserve in China’s south-western Sichuan province.

After a period of acclimatisation in Singapore, they will be unveiled to the public as the resident stars of the new $140 million River Safari, slated to open in 2012. The furry creatures will be here for a joint research on pandas and will stay for 10 years.

‘The presence of giant pandas in Singapore would deeply capture the hearts of Singaporeans across all walks of life,’ said the Singapore Foreign Ministry in a statement yesterday.

‘They would also be a fitting symbol of the close friendship and strong ties between Singapore and China as we celebrate 20 years of diplomatic relations next year.’

President SR Nathan, who hosted the five-course banquet in honour of Mr Hu and his wife, hailed the anniversary as ‘the cusp of a new chapter’ in bilateral relations.

‘Singapore remains committed to being a close partner in China’s developmental process. Our two flagship projects – the Suzhou Industrial Park and the Tianjin Eco-city – symbolise the close ties and deep mutual understanding between Singapore and China,’ said Mr Nathan, in a dinner attended by several Singapore Cabinet ministers, including Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong.

Mr Nathan added that Mr Hu’s three-day state visit – his first since he assumed the presidency in 2003 – is a significant milestone in ties between the two countries.

After congratulating Mr Hu on the impressive parade at the Tiananmen Square on Oct 1 during China’s 60th National Day, Mr Nathan assured the Chinese leader that Singapore wants an economically vibrant and successful China, playing a role in the region along with other major powers.

‘Singapore wants China to continue to grow and succeed in all its endeavours. We also believe China’s continued engagement with Asia will progress with shared understanding and consensus among the nations of Asia,’ he said.

Mr Hu, who arrived here yesterday after a state visit in Malaysia, said that he was ‘deeply impressed’ with the new developments in Singapore since his last visit in 2002.

‘With a government known for its efficiency, pragmatism and enterprising spirit, and a people hard-working, talented and constantly striving for improvements, you have made remarkable achievements in building a modern country that enjoys political stability, economic prosperity and social harmony,’ he said, after reviewing the Guard of Honour at the Istana.

Mr Hu also met President Nathan and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew for talks yesterday, with the Chinese leader praising Mr Lee as the founder of Sino-Singapore relations. Their meeting stretched half an hour longer than its scheduled 45 minutes.

Mr Hu will meet Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and SM Goh today, before giving an address at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation CEO summit tomorrow and joining a politically star-studded ensemble of Apec leaders at Suntec City and the Istana this weekend.

For now, though, the buzz is all about the black and white cuddly ambassadors from China. ‘I think the pandas will be great attractions, especially for families because kids will love them,’ said auditor Jasmine Koh, 23.

‘This is really exciting news. I can’t wait to see them.’

shpeh@sph.com.sg

Additional reporting by Lin Zhaowei

新加坡雜談(二)

給拉了去看國慶足球賽,

中國對新加坡

難以理解中國朋友為何能夠懷著興奮心情去看

最後祖國足球員沒有令人失望

把”且問國足有幾醜, 恰似一班太監上青樓, 全不能射”

這個對聯說的發揮得淋漓盡致

難忘的是

當國足可以在坡籠門前傳波給隊友

中國觀眾卻沒有崩潰

堅持整場比賽喊叫中國加油

更難忘的是,

坡人不少, 也有啦啦隊工具,

卻叫得比雞仔還要細聲

友人說

“那跟坐在家裡看電視有什麼分別?”

對.

友人又說, 日韓到上海比賽

日韓足球迷不多, 啦啦隊卻異常團結叫得大聲非常

又一次看到坡人對國家有多大歸屬感

不枉看完整場足球賽

***********************

從一條陌生路往ORCHARD ION (類尖沙咀的一個新商場)走,

問一個阿嬸如何走

“找些年輕的問吧”

再問一個年青人

“好像….是那邊吧”

崩潰

************************

總是有人說

新加坡是一個細小國家

我不信

在坡,

像從九龍灣到九龍塘這樣的距離

要四十分鍾

理由是我要先搭巴士再轉地鐵

而巴士我要等上半小時

或者如同學那般等了三班車因為太滿而上不了車

從我住的地方到大球場

要先搭巴士, 然後轉地鐵, 然後在地鐵轉線, 然後再轉巴士.

在香港

從九龍灣到天水圍,

一道巴士就到了

新加坡真是一個大得驚人的國家

這就是坡政府引以為傲的好PLANNING了

********************

那反映了什麼?

再談,

金名:出走新加坡繼續讀書

新加坡雜談

在這裡三星期
結論是: 我們他媽的過份神化新加坡

神化的意思是說
就如很多香港評論那樣
動輒就說新加坡是這樣這樣, 香港不是如此就很失敗落後於人
而沒有理會坡有什麼弱點限制
也沒有想到坡是怎樣的一個context, 究竟適合香港與否

************

如果說,
中國沒有言論自由
而張博樹王力雄大談六四西藏仍能安住中國的話
那新加坡是什麼?

聽說, 他們地鐵換上電子顯示器也是頭條之一.

當然, 可以問的是, 言論自由有mud 春用? 有, 這關係到sense of belonging 以至國人對國家loyalty的問題

以一個辯論隊為例, 如果mud春都係老鬼up sai, 細o既沒有發揮空間, 離心一定會較大

************

有一個有趣現象

走到哪裡問途人: 你知道XXX 在哪嗎?
9成的人都不知道

最經典的一次是國慶日我問警察”RAFFLES HOTEL 在哪?”
他們遲疑了一會
討論了一回
然後指了一個方向
當然
那是一個錯的方向

要知道, RAFFLES HOTEL 的著名程度就如半島一般
情況就如你在尖沙咀問警察你知道半島在哪嗎?
“應該在旺角那邊吧”

的士司機更過癮
放了部gps 作為裝置藝術
不懂用也不懂路

“請到college green, 在adam food center 旁”
他們問的不是”where is college green”
而是”what is college green”
adam food center 相當為人熟識, 總比說到college green 好
有些司機仍然會說”adam what?”
差點想說, “那是在馬來西亞的”
我想
原因大概是坡政府規定非路痴不能當司機

為什麼坡人蠢至這個程度?
可能是

原因1: 他們都自閉, 足不出戶
原因2: 有個的士司機說, 坡生活壓力大, 人人只顧掘金, 無暇閒逛
原因3: 族群主義厲害, 比方說, 印度佬只留在little india, 唔同中國人玩, 這就是他們引以為傲的racial harmony; 因為唔玩就唔會有打交機會
原因4: 他們對新加坡的sense of belonging 非常一般, 沒有興趣周圍閒逛. 差不多所有與我吹水的士佬都說新加坡悶, 只有shopping mall, shopping mall, 還有shopping mall; 花草樹木在旅客眼中就爽, 住得久了, 就跟動物園一般

原因四相當過癮, 因為它說的是坡人身份認同問題. 什麼是坡? 什麼是坡人? 很難答的問題. 他們的傳媒只有受政府管的, 以及叫你不斷購買名牌貨的雜誌. 沒有明報月刊, 字花, 信報月刊, 亞洲週刊, 沒有自己一套獨有文化生活. 簡單的說, 生活相當單調枯燥.

身份模糊會衍生loyalty的問題, 而每年坡有超過一萬人移居海外, 當中一定不乏人才; 這令坡政府相當頭痛, 於是用大筆錢引外國talent來.

還有很多想說
續談

***********

要理解一個地方
不能只看政府政策
還要看當地生活細節
就像菊與刀用的方法那樣

************

還有一些有趣問題

為何坡有giordano, 眼鏡88, g2000等港商, 但坡公司卻進不了香港?
為何香港地產商, 如新鴻基, 連orchard road 地段也可弄個新商場, 而坡地產商在香港卻沒有這樣的作為?
為何香港有美心, 大家樂, 大快活等大型連鎖飲食公司, 坡卻沒有?

金名: 出走新加坡繼續讀書

唐吉訶德式香港

香港總是說新加坡是競爭對手

而到了新加坡一星期以後, 發現談競爭的場合多, 但從沒有提及香港一詞

取而代之的, 是世界目光將轉而至亞洲, 世界趨勢, 新加坡在世界與亞洲中的角色一類的內容

簡單的說, 它看重的都是CONTEXT

相較之下, 我們的世界觀原來是如此割裂, 只知道世界上只有那幾個著名城市

也許兩個地方都自大

但肯定的是, 香港是唐吉訶德式的自大

金名: 新加坡國立大學李光耀公共行政學院碩士生