Screwing up LKY’s legacies

Many people could not understand why I am harping on LKY’s legacies and in a way praising him indirectly for his ideas. Many would just want to let him disappear from their memories and do not want to be reminded of him. What I can say is that put your sentiments and emotions aside. LKY had done many things, good, bad and ugly, just like anyone of us. We are all human beans and did many things that were not too flattering ourselves. Just bear with me as I go through the legacies of LKY, looking at the good that he had contributed and show you how people who professed to be his followers, believers and whatever shit, but really screwing up his legacies, distorting his ideas and leading people to screw up LKY as a result. And they are drumming that we should preserve and cherish his legacies. My oh my!
 
Read this statement by LKY spoken in 1960 on the role of foreigners and how they could be part of our society, contributing but not screwing up the people in the process. There could be a balance, a state of mutual coexistence for mutual benefits. The wisdom of this man is unparalleled if you look at the pretenders that were given a blank cheque to turn his views and policies upside down. Now read carefully…
 
"National sentiment desires the riddance of all expatriates as agents of the exploiting colonial government, but the practical needs of making the national economy work requires that expatriates be employed. Such a situation must contain the seeds of inner contradiction. A plain straightforward nationalist line by the government which results in the expulsion of all expatriates may lead to a sagging of the whole complex of the economy, as indeed has happened in some newly independent territories. But to ignore the anti-colonial sentiments of our people will be to store up trouble for the future. The only practical solution is to acknowledge our need for the time being for expatriates, be they members of the former colonial power or otherwise, and to continue to use them. But at the same time, national sentiments will be satisfied only if increasing numbers of our local men are being trained here and abroad to replace these expatriates and do their
jobs in the near future. This aspect of the problem of government would be made easier if expatriates understand some of these emotional factors which a representative government has to consider. And also it helps to make clear that expatriates carry out the policy decided by the government and do not decide on policy as they did in the past.” - LKY 27/2/1960.
 
From this statement it is very clear that this man was building a nation of Singaporeans and with Singaporean’s foremost in his mind. He would allow some foreigners to be here to contribute to our economy, but the govt, the Singaporeans, would take over and decide what is best, not the foreigners.
 
A very good example of how foolish the new team in govt is doing can be seen from the exchanges between Lim Biow Chuan and Indranee Rajah in Parliament on the employment of foreigners in our universities. MP Lim Biow Chuan wanted to know whether the government requires Singapore's public universities to hire eligible Singaporeans, priority for academic employment, and whether the universities' human resource departments should be headed by Singaporeans to ensure that eligible Singaporeans are duly considered for employment. At least his mind and heart are in the right place.
 
And this was Indranee Rajah’s reply. "It is important that our autonomous universities recruit academic staff based on merit, to ensure that they hire the best talent able to deliver high quality education and conduct research that will benefit our students and Singapore."
 
And last year, Seah Kian Peng said he was shocked by the number of foreigners who have staffed the faculties in Singapore’s tertiary institutions.
 
“So, through Parliament, I asked MOE for some figures. I found out in the Political Science department of NUS, 28% of the 25 faculty members are Singaporeans. In NTU’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, 41% of the 29 faculty members are Singaporeans. In the NTU Wee Kim Wee School of Communications and Information, 44% of the 48 faculty members are Singaporean. And in the NUS Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, 46% of the 82 faculty members are Singaporeans," he had said.
 
From her reply, Indranee is very comfortable with the number of foreigners in the universities even when Singaporeans are now in the minority. As far as she is concerned, they are hired on merits, ‘the best talent able to deliver high quality education and conduct research that will benefit our students and Singapore.’ If this reasoning is applied to Parliament, I think many MPs including herself would be replaced by more meritorious foreigners. But that is not important.
 
The issue is the position she is taking, which must be the position of the present govt. Bring in foreigners as long as they are good and better than Singaporeans, never mind if Singaporeans are displaced and in a minority. Is this position in line with the thinking of LKY?
 
LKY was very concern and very particular about the number of foreigners working here and that it should not become a national problem, and that the Singaporeans should be eventually taking over from the foreigners. If no one is getting it, let me quote LKY again, ‘But at the same time, national sentiments will be satisfied only if increasing numbers of our local men are being trained here and abroad to replace these expatriates and do their jobs in the near future’.
 
Today was the future LKY talked about. The big question, has LKY changed his views about employing foreigners in large numbers to replace Singaporeans, to take over all the important positions and ignoring the nationalistic sentiments of the people? Or is the new PAP leadership dismissing LKY’s concerns and very happy to replace Singaporeans with foreigners like the pathetic numbers in the academia and elsewhere? LKY understood the nationalistic sentiment of the people and that this island is a country belonging to Singaporeans and not a hotel. Does the present leadership has any inclination of what these mean and how important they are to the existence of Singapore and the well being of the Singaporeans? Replace them with the best foreigners?
 
Who is to be blamed if trouble brews eventually because of the changed mindset and policies, of ignoring the legacy of LKY, when nationalistic sentiment, not xenophobia, breaks out into the open?