Who is confusing who in Parliament? Shanmugam kept saying that he was confused by Leong Mun Wai's position. Tan Chuan Jin also said the same.
What was PSP's motion? To protect jobs and the livelihood of Singaporeans, aka citizens of Singapore, not foreigners. What was confusing is that the govt side was talking about how well the locals and residents did because of CECA and FTAs. Anyone notice any difference in the two positions?
Locals and residents are not all Singaporeans or citizens. Locals and residents include foreigners that are PRs here. Not sure if they include EP holders. So, PAP has done very well for the foreigners and some Singaporeans. Not sure more foreigners benefitted from PAP's policy or more Singaporeans aka citizens. There is no attempt to show any statistics to separate Singaporeans/citizens from PRS/foreign citizens. To the govt, they are very happy to lump the two together with Singaporeans. Why?
If PRs/foreign citizens benefitted more, what is there to gloat about? Did the govt know that it is the Singaporeans/citizens that voted them to be the govt and their primary duty must be to look after the interest and welfare of Singaporeans/citizens? The benefits to locals and residents that are not Singaporeans, not citizens should be incidental and secondary?
It is unfair to Singaporeans/citizens for a govt that repeatedly use the misnomers 'locals and residents' to include foreigners as if they are citizens.
Stop treating locals and residents that are not Singaporeans, not citizens in the same level as Singaporeans and citizens. These foreigners are the responsibility of their respective govts and they have a country to scoot back to when there is a storm in the island. The Singaporeans have no where else to go and have to stick it out here for good or for back. When they are jobless, sacked, replaced by foreigners, they still have to survive and try to make a living here. Stop confusing the two into one and the same. They are not the same, they must not be the same.
The Singaporeans and citizens must be the top priority of a govt elected by the citizens. What the shit talking about non Singaporean locals and residents? If they are the responsibility of the govt, ask them to vote, give them the right to vote them to power.
Quack, quack, quack. Cock, cock, cock.
37 comments:
Not to misquote them, they said benefitted locals and residents.
Vivian Balakrishnan can be heard mocking Leong Mun Wai - “He’s illiterate”, “How did he get into RI?”
He seems to be getting the easy jobs. Environment and now FM. Should let him handle Transport or Health during crisis
Why debate when the decision is already dead and buried.
But Ahem, the show must continue, right?
There are more important topics to talk about in Parliament, like climate change, cruelties to animals, how to upgrade to become hawkers, copy rights, caning of sexual offenders.....
In the history of how kingdoms and empires fell, the traitors would all be saying they were doing for the good of the kingdoms or empires. Only historians would write and name the traitors after everything was over, end of kingdoms and empires.
I think animal rights is more important than human rights to talk about in Parliament. But, Uh oh, there are Hens, Horses and Sheeps in Parliament, so this topic is out of bounds, a red line not to be crossed.
PRs/foreign citizens benefited alot, and Singaporeans also enjoyed some of the crumbs, so the FT system should stay - that's what PAP 4G elite Lawrence Wong means . . .
Indranee Rajah in parliament said that it is ‘unrealistic’ to expect zero lapses on the use of public funds given the scale and complexity of government operations.
If Lee Kuan Yew is around, u think she, paid $millions, dare to talk like that ?
Making sweeping statements without statistics.
Show the breakdown in Singaporeans and PRs.
Why always used terms like locals and residents?
Who is cheating who?
Who is confusing who?
Well, this Indian Women should also consider the unrealistic expectation of the WP to have zero lapses, given the hurdles placed on their Town Council operations, with those cleaning contractors under PAP cleaning contracts not willing to bid for cleaning jobs for the WP for fear of retaliation. This was the unspoken truth and undeniable reality.
Who are those 61% so fearful of consequences voting for the PAP? Make a guess!
Good morning,
NCMP Leong raised 7 points during the debate ...
Uncle Redbean,
May Ai "seek your indulgence" and "beg to move" 7 "points/ clarification" (in this MSN post) of a marathon debate that started on Tue 14 September and lasted past mid night till the early hours of this morning (15 September) ?
Leo81
Bukit Batok Member of Parliament (MP) Murali Pillai said in Parliament on Sept 13 that serious sex offenders should be caned regardless of their age, as this would serve as a stronger deterrent against sexual offences.
He also proposed that the current cut-off age of 50 years for caning is “not fit for purpose”, as he made an observation that middle-aged offenders tend to target younger victims, and they should therefore be strongly deterred from doing so.
Why is Murali Pillai raising issue of sexual offence in Parliament ?
Because erh . . .
Hi Leo81,
From a non partisan and non political perspective, what we should be interested in the debate is what should be done to better the life of SINGAPOREANS/CITIZENS, and not how clever is the argument or how clever it is to split hairs to win an argument. Those things are best left to school debaters or lawyers that just want to score points without bothering about the main purpose of the motion in Parliament.
Winning an argument that did not improve the conditions of affected Singaporeans is a worthless pyrrhic victory, all good for nothing.
Both the govt and the opposition camps must be talking about the interest and welfare of Singaporeans as their main concern.
Debating about whether FTAs are good or bad, whether CECA is FTA is academic and could lead to confusion and missing the woods from the trees.
What is the motion all about, scoring brownie points? Paying millions to score brownie points?
Take care of the citizens, the Singaporeans, and fuck the locals and residents that are NOT citizens. Looking after non citizens but compromising the well beings of Singaporeans is a betrayal to the Singaporeans. Can they understand this?
Stop the topic if confused!
Confused will not solved motion.
(Because Is already gone off track)
Paid millions not to regard parliament as a school boy debating platform, to win an argument for the sake of winning an argument by splitting hairs, semantics and what nonsense.
The issues raised by PSP is real and affecting the people. Why not discuss seriously and try to work out a solution instead of trying to win an argument but not solving anything? Everything raised must be shot down, right or wrong, by hook or by crook?
This is very combative and not helpful, not collaborative.
CECA Is Indefensible! Period.
The disparity and unfair advantages to the India Indians are so clear and obvious, not only in writing but also in practical terms. It is totally indefensible! Period.
Any minister who attempts to defend it, in any way whatsoever, will just stand out like a sore thumb and looks stupid by unwittingly displaying preconceived bias, in the eyes of the public.
This CECA Pact with India is, in effect, a racist pact, allowing one particular racial ethnic group to dominate and control most of the important and lucrative jobs (217?) in our job markets, in favour of foreigners, against Singaporeans' livelihood and survival interests and the well-being of our future generations.
In addition, it is definitely against the aim of nation-building because it is divisive, disruptive, disingenuous and disharmonous. In fact, it is distrustful and destructive.
It doesn't matter whether the CECA Indians are carelessly, crazily or craftily lumped into a basket of "locals" made up of "rojak" ingredients including residents and citizens, they are factually and practically FOREIGNERS!
If ministers are unable to or refused to distinguish between the two, then something is very wrong with their mental faculties. If that is so, then they are not fit to be the ministers leading us. Therefore, the right thing for them to do is to step aside or retire from their present posts. It does no one any good, including themselves, if they stay on and continue singing for the foreigners' interests against Singaporeans' interests.
It is also a political suicide for the PAP as a political party, in the long run (next two general elections).
The correct remedy to this highly controversial CECA Pact with India is to terminate it immediately and renegotiate a new and more fair and equal trade agreement.
A trade agreement shall not and must not be able to be turned into a political ransom tool for the other party to call the shots over the integrity, security and sovereignty of Singapore and the livelihood and survival of Singaporeans, whether short or long term.
LIPS, At Your Service.
The silly fucks that negotiated, approved and signed this silly agreement did not think they are silly. They are praising themselves for doing such a good job for Singapore and Singaporeans are actually, really, believing that Singaporeans must be grateful to them and say a big thank you to them.
I will show them my middle finger.
KNNBCCB.
The CECA Debate In Parliament Separates The Boys From The Real Men
The 11 hours debate in Parliament that lasted until 12:30 am, past midnight, has brought out the characters of certain PAP MPs and Ministers. The background voices spoke even louder while opposition speakers were speaking. I take off my hat for the two PSP members who stood firm, steady and never loss their cool amidst the coordinated and concerted onslaughts of various PAP heavyweights and jeering jesters of the party in the background.
From YouTube snippets and TodayOnline's report, if you are alert and discerning, you can easily distinguish between the PAP's spoilt brats from the PSP's gentleman and lady.
Read the excerpts from TodayOnline:
"Mr Leong told TODAY that Dr Balakrishnan had indeed called to convey his apology for what was said on a “hot mic”, adding: “I accepted his apology. Let’s put our time to better use for Singapore and Singaporeans.”
He, however, said that he is curious as to who the other persons in the conversation are, and wants to know why they held the institution that he had attended “in contempt”.
PSP secretary-general Francis Yuen made a veiled reference to the incident on Wednesday evening in a Facebook post on PSP’s maiden parliamentary motion.
“Yes, (the motion) may have been rejected by Parliament. But we believe the public knows and understands why we had to table the motion and get this debate going,” Mr Yuen said.
"Unlike some quarters who may find dissenting voices illiterate, we have confidence that our fellow Singaporeans are enlightened and educated, and will not miss the woods for the trees.”
PSP chairman Tan Cheng Bock also weighed in on the matter in another Facebook post.
“Our two NCMPs fought hard. Despite difficult odds, they endured relentless attacks and even disrespectful insults from PAP (People’s Action Party) MPs. Yet with great courage and tenacity, they persevered – and I am very proud of them,” Dr Tan wrote.
Read more at https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/vivian-balakrishnan-apologises-leong-mun-wai-after-illiterate-comment-parliament-goes
Excuse me, who is illiterate?
Chua Chin Leng aka redbean September 15, 2021 2:02 pm
"Hi Leo81,
... ... ...
... ... ...
Take care of the citizens, the Singaporeans,......"
Dear Uncle Chua,
Thank you for your response to the comment made on Wed, 15 Sept morning but due to your moderation function turned on, the comment went live (only) in the early afternoon at 12.24pm.
To avoid being presumptuous for the answer on the "indulgence sought" in that comment, decided not to go ahead "to raise the 7 clarifications" that occurred in the mind originally ...
However, to "placate" some possible curiosity, being trained in Economics, the clarifications sought generally were Economics in nature...
Wanted to clarify as it appeared/ seemed that there were some (relatively strong economics) assumptions made in some points under discussion in the marathon debate.
Without those presumed (economic) assumptions (or possibly "misconception" in the economics under discussion), the debate might have evolved quite differently.
Was "surprised" that despite the many illustrious practising and teaching economists and even economic lecturers etc on both sides of the aisle, the small but rather significant difference in possible assumptions made in the economics under discussion were not "picked up", raised or noticed by those who participated. (However, compared to the far more prominent and illustrious practising and teaching economists etc who participated [in the debate] , have to concede am just an ordinary heartlander who just happened to have some interest in economics and trained in economics since school days.)
After much consideration, am inclined to believe that as the curtain had been drawn (on the debate) and the authority (and power) had made his (public) assessment on the debate, it may not be (necessary) in the interest of "TEAM SINGAPORE" to raise the clarifications anymore ... (atm unless in necessary future occasions that may involve the interests of our well being as Team Singapore etc).
Cheers,
Leo81
Because of vested political interest, most of the issues raised by the opposition in Parliament would not be fairly treated to end up in a better solution for a problem when one side regards opposition motions as hostile and every point must be shot down.
This is one of the weaknesses of democracy in practice.
When the Govt started to deflect the whole CECA issue to racism and even the Speaker joined in the questioning of Mr Leong, we knew they have lost the debate.
Parliament may have rejected the motion but PSP has registered the feelings of the people. Of coure, the State press continues to shill for the PAP with one opinion lady journalist calling Mr Leong disingenuous.
Hope this journalist lose her job to a CECA foreigner.
The minority of elites and their cronies benefited immensely from the current FT system and so it is in their interests to preserve the current system, while the majority of ordinary Singaporeans cried foul as their livelihoods are hit.
The Workers' Party under Pritam Singh can no longer be trusted to protect the interests of ordinary Singaporeans in Parliament after that office given to their chief. Their actions, or rather lack of, in Parliament is a sober wake-up call.
A foreigner's perspective on the CECA issue
I have been living in Singapore for over 4 years after moving here from India. For the most part, I have nothing but praise for Singapore. The city is beautiful and clean, the governance and organisation are great and public facilities are excellent. I especially admire the public transport system and the NLBs.
However, one thing that has been troubling me (especially in recent times) is the growing anti-Indian sentiment, not only against foreigners but also against locals. The recent incidents against Indians may have been prompted by an underlying animosity towards foreigners (worsened due to Covid 19) but in the end, more Indian-Singaporeans were on the receiving end of these racist attacks rather than Indian expats. The misinformation surrounding CECA is the primary reason for this in my opinion.
While I completely understand the rationale behind reviewing and updating policy/agreements periodically, singling out CECA out of all 26 FTAs seems racially motivated. In essence, I believe the increase in the number of Indians in high paying jobs after the policy was introduced is the primary issue. Some things I want to address about this:
Every country must prioritise the interest of its citizens first and foremost. Anyone putting the interest of foreigners ahead of its citizens is a traitor, betraying its citizens.
The CECA issue is primarily an issue of nationality/citizenship, NOT a racial issue. Singaporeans cannot blame the foreigners for doing well, for being imported in plane loads into this tiny piece of rock. They can only blame the politicians for allowing this to happen.
Before the flooding of the island with CECA Indians, Singaporean Indians were doing equally well and no one complained about it. It can be any nationality, when the numbers get too big and conspicuous, there are bound to be negative reactions from the Singaporeans. This is only natural. Singaporeans are not saints and neither are they stupid.
Only the saints and the stupid would not react to the flood of foreigners to steal their jobs and lunch.
I must admit that we have a bunch of silly leaders today. They need to be booted out. Period.
Overpaid, underwork are bad enough. Overpaid and destroying the livelihood of many Singaporeans is unpardonable.
Overpaid and destroying the livelihood of many Singaporeans and at the same time bringing in foreigners to steal good jobs that could be filled by Singaporeans is a crime against Singaporeans.
All the Singaporeans that are unemployed or underemployed is the result of this CECA. No other FTAs has such a huge negative impact on the lives of Singaporeans.
PSP's 'hard cap' policy would make conditions so hostile, no foreign investor will consider S'pore: Tan See Leng
Really? So where are the foreign investors moving to? India or which Asean state? If these countries are that attractive all the foreign investors would be there long ago. Everything in these countries are cheap, cheap, and cheap.
Stop dismissing the quality of life in Singapore, the convenience and stop ridiculing the first world system of government here. Don't slap your own face by rubbishing the government and ease of doing business in Singapore. The foreign investors are not here because it is cheap.
Blood is thicker than water. Kin from home villages is closer than strangers. Decisions to bring into the country or to hire will naturally be biased. Why no see Africans?
" . .no foreign investor will consider S'pore" : Tan See Leng
But Singapore got Temasek and GIC with plentiful investible money. If they invest their $billions in Singapore instead of in India, the city state will then have less need to attract foreign investors.
The WP MPs present eventually voted against both Mr Wong's and Mr Leong's motions. - ST
A foreigner's perspective on the CECA issue
I have been living in Singapore for over 4 years after moving here from India. For the most part, I have nothing but praise for Singapore. The city is beautiful and clean, the governance and organisation are great and public facilities are excellent. I especially admire the public transport system and the NLBs.
However, one thing that has been troubling me (especially in recent times) is the growing anti-Indian sentiment, not only against foreigners but also against locals.
Hi foreigner, India did not have anti Indian sentiment and also did not have everything you said above about Singapore. Would it be better for you to return to India if this 'perceived' anti Indian sentiment is something you cannot live with?
I think you will be happier in India.
They are so cunning that they can get into positions of authority without serving NS to lord over Singaporeans.
If India CECA is so good, how come no other RCEP countries sign FTA with India.
It is because India demand CECA-like clause to be included to allow India nationals to cannibalize jobs in the RCEP countries which would destroy RCEP citizens' livelihood.
Post a Comment