|
親愛的馬先生：
這是來自新加坡的問候。我知道你正訪問新加坡，我在此表示歡迎。同時，我還想要借此機會恭喜你獲得明年台灣總統大選的候選人資格。
不過，2007年6月2日新加坡聯合早報刊登的一則新聞令我十分震驚。在新聞裡提到，「馬認為新加坡是台灣的榜樣」，你說「新加坡不同於我們（台灣），它的重點不在於民主化。雖然如此，但它專業、無貪腐和有效率，值得我們學習」，你又說，「新加坡政府非常有效率。他們能輕易達成共識，不會爭吵或者打架。」
報紙也說你舉新加坡部長的高薪作為國家實用主義的一個例子。
或許，你所讀到或者被告知有關新加坡的消息是來自官方管道。然而，政府做的很多宣傳其實是誤導大眾。允我提供一些事實真相︰
人民行動黨（PAP）政府給予國際「無貪腐」的印象，其實，來自國家領導人是以嚴厲的法律禁止人民發出批評的聲音。那些反對派政治人物因為對新加坡政府的作為提出批判，不是被搞得破產、監禁就是趕出國門。
針對國家領導人和政府對他們的反對者提起的許多民事訴訟和犯罪審訊，法庭總是對那些被告做成有罪判決。
當局控制這裡所有的媒體，報紙、雜誌、電視和無線電網路都是國有。即使互聯網服務供應商（ISP）也一樣。
PAP從1960年代起統治新加坡至今。這個政黨的支持者可能少於百分之70，卻總是在議會獲得超過百分之95的席次。新加坡的選舉並不是自由和公平的。選舉部門聽命於總理辦公室。1988年，為了因應對執政黨的不滿日益升高，而有了多席代表選區（GRC）的成立。
政府在選舉期間發放可兌現的股票。這在許多新加坡人眼裡，是買票。李光耀先生和該黨其他領導人多年來不斷以訴訟對付反對派候選人，並且他們從來沒輸過。這些不過是PAP政府在每次選舉過程中用來保證它勝選的手段。
如你所注意到的，新加坡的部長薪水很高。新加坡總理的薪水是台灣總統的12倍。即使這裡的一位資淺的部長的薪水也超過陳水扁先生的七倍。但是，實用主義和貪婪是不一樣的。我恐怕你已經混淆這兩者之間的差異。當金錢最有發言權時，良心保持沈默。或許這可以解釋為什麼在新加坡，政府單位之間很容易達成共識的原因。
有一些國家把新加坡視為經濟成功的一個典範。泰國（在逐出的Thaksin Shinawatra總理時期）、香港（前首席執行官董建華時期）、中國、柬埔寨、俄羅斯和委內瑞拉，他們都把新加坡視為經濟發展的一個楷模。
不過，經濟和政治並非二選一的選項。在追隨新加坡模式的過程中，政治和社會型態也將受到嚴重並且負面的影響。沒有對人權和基本自由的壓迫，就不會有新加坡的「富裕」模式。
你說新加坡的重點不在於民主，你又說這個政府是無貪腐的。然而，我確信你知道民主才是確保一個政府負責並且無貪腐的最有效方法。
我確信台灣人珍惜他們好不容易爭取來的政治自由，並且很驕傲他們是生活在一個民主的社會，一個他們都有所貢獻並正在繼續塑造的社會。事實上，台灣從戒嚴到成為一個真正的民主國家的過程，在很多方面都讓新加坡民主運動者從中得到啟發。
我很震驚，一個在亞洲擁有傲人民主發展國家的領導人居然會引用PAP作為一個典範。我真誠希望在新加坡的訪問期間，你將對新加坡 追求民主的奮鬥表示支持。
致上最高敬意
Chee Siok Chin（女士）
新加坡民主黨 中央執行委員
Dear Mr Ma,
Warm greetings to you from Singapore. I understand that you are visiting Singapore and would like to welcome you. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your candidacy in Taiwan's presidential elections next year.
However, I read with great dismay in Singapore's Straits Times dated 2 June 2007, that "Ma cites Singapore as an example for Taiwan ". In the report, you were quoted as saying that "Singapore is different from us (Taiwan) as its emphasis is not on democratization.
Nevertheless, it is professional, corruption-free and efficient, which is worth our learning" and that "The Singapore Government is very efficient. They can reach consensus easily and there is no squabbling or fighting."
The newspaper also said that you had cited the high pay of Singapore s ministers as one example of the country's pragmatism.
Perhaps what you have read or been informed about Singapore is the official line. There is much misinformation and propaganda that the government puts out. Please allow me to reveal some truths:
The "corrupt-free" impression that the People's Action Party (PAP) government gives to the world stems from the fact that the state's leaders have used draconian laws to silence its critics. Opposition politicians have been bankrupted, imprisoned and run out of the country for trying to hold the government responsible to Singaporeans.
In the numerous civil lawsuits and criminal trials which the country's leaders and the government have brought against their dissenters, the courts have always ruled against the defendants.
All forms of media here are controlled by the authorities. Newspapers, magazines, television and radio networks are owned by the state. Even internet service providers (ISPs) are government-owned.
Singapore has been dominated by the PAP since the 1960s. The party has always had more than 95 per cent of the seats in parliament even though it might have less than 70 per cent of popular support. Elections in Singapore are far from free and fair. The Elections Department is answerable to the Prime Minister's Office. The Group Constituency Representation (GRC) was established in the 1988 to with deal with the rising unpopularity of the ruling party.
The government hands out money in the form of shares that can be encashed during the elections. This, in the view of many in Singapore, is vote-buying. Mr Lee Kuan Yew and other PAP leaders have been suing opposition candidates over the years, and they have never lost a case.
These are but just some tactics that the PAP government uses to ensure that it wins with a overwhelming majority in each election.
As you have noted, Singapore's ministers are highly paid. The prime minister of Singapore is paid 12 times that of Taiwan's president. Even the salary of a junior minister here is more than seven times that of Mr. Chen Shui-bian's. There is a difference between pragmatism and avarice. I am afraid you have mixed the two up. Perhaps this explains why consensus is reached easily in the government. When money talks, consciences keep silent.
There are other countries that are looking at Singapore as a role-model for economic success. Thailand (under ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra), Hong Kong (under former Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa), China, Cambodia, Russia, and Venezuela, amongst others, look to Singapore as a model for economic development.
However, economic progress and political development are not mutually exclusive. In trying to follow the Singapore model, political and social landscapes will be severely and negatively affected. The type of "affluence" achieved in Singapore, cannot be made without the suppression of rights and basic freedoms.
While you say that Singapore's emphasis is not on democracy, you also say that the government is corruption-free. Yet I am certain that you are aware that a democracy is the most effective way to hold a government accountable and ensure a corrupt-free system.
I am sure that the people of Taiwan cherish their hard-won political freedom and are proud to live in a democratic society, a society that they contribute towards and continue to shape. In fact, in many ways democracy advocates in Singapore draw inspiration from Taiwan in its transformation from martial law to a bona fide democracy.
I am perturbed that a leader from one of Asia's most vibrant and proud democracies should cite the PAP as a model-of-sorts. I sincerely hope that during your visit to Singapore you will express support Singapore's struggle for democracy.
Most respectfully yours
CHEE Siok Chin (Ms)
Central Executive Member
Singapore Democratic Party
| http://www.southnews.com.tw |
2007.06.12 |
|