educating foreign nationals

Many have spoken about our generous contribution to the education of foreign nationals by granting them scholarships to study here. And many of these students have left our shores after benefitting from our generosities. Would there be some statistics on how much this project costs, how many have been trained and stayed and how many have taken us for a ride? If the numbers do not support that this programme be continued, by now the trend should be quite evident, then it should be scrapped and the money put to better use by training our own children. We do not have to be the international Santa Claus. We are too small to play that role. We have many children of citizens who are more deserving for such financial assistance. We need to be more charitable to our citizens than to foreign nationals who have no reason to want to be with us to deserve us throwing money at them. Would we see a report on this? Would our well paid investigative reporters take up this cause and do some research and analysis on the cost benefits of this programme?

myth 8

'Singaporeans are not creative.' First let me qualify this statement by saying that it is a generalisation and some section of Singaporeans can be very creative. I will prove that later. But overall we are not very creative. Just look at the shapes and colours of HDB estates will be enough to tell anyone that conformity is the key. One shape or thing that is deemed good or ok, just duplicate. Entering some HDB estates is like entering Legoland. Now this is little contradiction. Lego bricks are creative bits for children. Yeah, for children. But when adults are good at Lego bricks and build flats like Lego bricks, then can't be too creative in that. Where then is Singaporean most creative. Numbers. Singaporeans are absolutely fantastic with numbers. They used numbers so creatively to explain things. From complicated and difficult to explain issues, all these can be reduced to a few simple numbers and appear to be reasonable. Let's look at the accusation we heard everywhere that govt salaries are too high. How can it be when it is reduced to say a few plates of kway teow? Looks so cheap isn't it? And this can be further reduced to say 10c per citizen per day. Now that will make it even cheaper. Definitely affordable by everyone. Even a school children can set aside 10c a day for a good govt. Why didn't other countries think of using this formula? They can't. In third world countries, their leaders are mostly gangsters or unschooled soldiers. So not much grey matter to think of such clever ideas. Why not America? But America is run by a president that would probably be in the normal stream of our education system. Can't expect miracles from him either. If only the American president could persuade his people to pay him 10c per person daily, that's $36.50 a year multiply by 260 million population...wow, it is in billions! No need to covet the oil in the middle east. If this is not creative what else can be? So Singaporeans are not creative is a myth.

myth 7

One of the most talk about myth is perhaps this, Myth 7. 'Corruption is rampant.' Many have talked about corruption in Singapore either openly or in their whispers. They said you can feel it, or scratch it a little and all the ugliness of corruption will surface. Some political parties and individuals have also been attacking the govt on corruption. Unfortunately, all these are just accusations and wild accusations. So far none has been proven. Now there is a world of difference between accusation and proving it. Unless proven, one is innocent. Then take the case of NKF. Where is the corruption. No, there is no corruption. And that is why the authority finds it so difficult to pin a charge that can stick. The charges that finally came were more in the line of negligence, not doing due diligence, poor management judgement or oversight, or errorneous practices. It is lucky that these charges can be framed. If not, maybe they will have to look at over claiming bus fares or taking paper clips for personal uses. Then there is the infamous website against a minister. If the evidences are all there, as claimed, why didn't they take it to court? Our justice system is world best and manned by men of unquestionable honesty and integrity. Sue whoever for whatever wrong doings. Let the impartial court of justice decides. But they could not or dare not. They have to post the site from overseas and it becomes a rumour mongering machine. We are first world and must deal with issues like the first world. Facts, evidences, proofs, courts of laws, justice etc are what matters. If one cannot prove it, then it is all gossips and rumours and libellious allegations. Why are facts so unbeliever than fictions? This Myth 7 is one of the greatest Singapore myth.

myth 6

'People who voted for the opposition will be penalised.' The evidence so far is that no one has ever been penalised for voting against the PAP. And also everyone, from the govt to the opposition, is saying that the vote is secret. Well, it seems that this myth is advantageous to some and disadvantageous to others.

Telling the truth like they never did before.

Lately I can sense a shift in the way truth is being generated in the media. Our local press are now churning a different kind of truth from the west after a series of rubbish from the Robert Kagan type. Today there is a shift, a paradigm shift of a sort, from Tom Plate, who once used to churn up Kagan type of craps. He wrote a piece in the Straits Times looking at the American hang up over an emerging China. He was equally appalled and astonished that the Americans did not know why the Chinese have a need to beef up their military capabilities while the Americans kept on 'warning regularly, through periodic reports and episodic statements, about its(China) relentless ferocity.' And he pointedly say it in no simpler terms why the Chinese need to build up. "What precise theory of exceptionalism would allow the US to forge ahead militarily, spending far more of its national treasure on arms both proportionately and aggregately than other countries, but would also forbid other nations from doing the same?....Is it that it is okay for the US to possess a vast stockpile of weapons but it is not okay that others have them, precisely because the US would never use them but the others might?...Guess which superpower has consistently refused to offer the world a 'no first use' policy?( ie first to use nuclear weapons)" His final statement, a simple advice to the American leaders, is "If we want others to build down their forces, then we have to downsize ours too so that we can then righteously insist that others follow our lead." He should have asked the Americans to revisit the SALTs they had with the Soviet Union in the 60s and 70s, and the underlying principle behind the SALT talks.