5/07/2011
Protecting our shared assets
This little rock is all we have. Theoretically all the infrastructure and assets belong to the citizens. I say theoretically as some will say no. The future generations shall inherit what is being left to them.
My question is whether there will be much left for them if we keep on selling our assets/landed properties to foreigners, or keep inviting foreigners to become citizens to share these shared assets. By doubling the foreigners, who then turn citizens, what is left for the original citizens will be halved. If this process keeps going, the pie and the share of our children will keep on decreasing.
Yes, we need to protect our shared assets by not selling them in the first place. And secondly, by not bringing in more foreigners to share with us. If these two processes are not stopped, there will be nothing much left to protect in the future.
When we were someone's colony, we have no say as to who shall come and go. We too were visitors. Now that we are owners of this piece of rock, we must decide who we want to welcome and how many we would want to welcome.
We are not a land mass, a continent. We are just a piece of rock. Many even sneer at how small we are. Only we are crazy enough to think that we have such a big piece of land and we can bring in the people of the world.
Singaporeans have never been xenophobic. We have welcomed foreigners and made them feel very welcome and comfortable here. But when the number gets too big, we already have more than 1m foreigners here, and some are thinking of bringing in another 900k. Is this a good thing, a wise thing to do?
It is like living in a 4 rm flat. It is quite tolerable and can be fun to share a room with a foreign guest. Do we want to give up two rooms to the foreign guests and squeeze ourselves into one little room, and share our common room, our toilets and kitchens with so many strangers?
There is a limit that we can do. People living in big bungalows would not understand what it is like to share your little flats with strangers. And if they are going to make this kind of decision for you, they will, against your interest and comfort, while they stay happily in their spacious mansions.
We have nothing against foreigners. But we must guard our assets for our families and children. We do not want to be squeezed into a little room and make our foreigners happy in our little flat.
We have to decide our future for ourselves, the little people living in little flats.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
When a country is big, like the USA or Australia, high importation of foreigners is tolerable. But they too are wary of the effects of too liberal policies affecting their own citizens.
We are small, yet our rulers think little of the problems brought about by the mass import of both the talented and trash, just so long they can help to grow the economy.
Tying rewards and bonuses for ministers to growth is a very bad idea. Why would they want to clamp down on foreign workers when their rewards, based on growth, is so lucrative?
George Yeo thinks that the way they govern must change. I think the first thing to be changed must be the way they reward themselves. It is absurd and immoral.
Thanks for putting this so nicely.
It is an urgent national concern that traitors cannot understand.
Lest Singaporeans are not aware; those who stay in big bungalows and mansions are the people likely to own multiple properties. Many bought them for investments and some to collect rentals of many thousands per month.
And
of course there are those that used the profits to buy more properties overseas.
Can we expect the better off Singaporeans to empathize with the average citizens?
Me does not think so.
Anyway, i am of the opinion that our leaders are also investors like any fellow Singaporeans. They too will want to make as much as they can to secure their good live(life) and be able to buy safety when the need arises. They are just as human as anyone else. So, there is no need to think that the Leaders are any more noble than us the average joe.
patriot
a taxi driver had this funny, yet not so funny encounter to relate.
a passenger asked to be driven to Chinatown, and when the taxi ah chek asked him whether it was to Kreta Ayer, the fella said: No,I want to go to 'our Chinatown'. He was referring to Geylang which he and his people have seemed to regard as their own now.
News said the number of voters increased from 1m to 2m this time, an increase of over 1m in 5 years. Our pop grows by abt 40k annually, ie 200k in same period.
Where are the 800k from?
There is no such thing as 'public ownership'.
Ownership is a concept which relates to individuals -- i.e. individuals own their stuff.
If you actually own the stuff, you ALONE decide how to use it -- whether to keep it, dispose of it, destroy it or gift it to another party.
If you cannot exhibit that control, you probably don't own the article in question.
A cuntry is bounded by specifically located border lines. No one 'owns' that territory. It is controlled by another entity called The State. The claim that people make: "That's my country" is not a claim of ownership, but more like MEMBERSHIP.
redbean (and many others) confuse ownership and membership. You don't own the cuntry -- no one does. Until you understand that, you are likely to continue making cognitive errors.
However, you do have the right to be wrong ;-)
Post a Comment