foreign talents, balancing perks and privileges

The policy for foreign talent is as good as being cast in stone. Not that it is a bad policy per se. People are disagreeing with how it is being done, how far it is being carried out and undermining the interest or privileges of Singaporeans. I would just try to discuss on two points. Cost of living and privileges of being citizens versus PRs and the rest. The two points are interrelated and may overlap in many areas. While we welcome the new citizens with more attractive perks, and as their number grows and become a significant factor in all our activities, it may be opportune to factor in the difference between being citizens and PRs to favour citizens. Essential services like education, medical, transportations can be fine tuned to a point where citizens pay lesser than PRs. The difference may not be too big to become a disincentives but enough to make citizenship more respectable, valuable and attractive. As an example, the cost to PRs and the rest could be 10 or 20% higher than a citizen. If becoming a citizen marks the end of the honeymoon or romance as in a marriage, when the sweetness and fairy tale of courtship are transformed into more responsibilites, it becomes questionable for logical and rational people to want to become citizens. Being PRs is that much more interesting and attractive. Or like living together and having all the funs and not getting hitch and share the chores. The privileges of citizenship with respect to housing subsidies, taxation, even preference for employment in the govt sector can be modify to make citizenship a more desirable status than just being PRs. And when all the privileges of citizenship are cumulated, and found to be worth the while to compensate for the responsibilities and liabilities to serve national service, a life long commitment and sacrifice, taking up citizenship may make more sense for the PRS and at the same time sooth the people's anger.

a need for alternative views in cyberspace

The MSM is flooded with articles by any living reporters and journalists on the foreign talent issue as if they are singing in chorus to the wave of an imagery baton. All singing the same song, complimenting every point. No one is out of tune. Now is this classical, pop or jazz? Anyone hoping to hear rock or country and western will be disappointed. I tried scanning every piece of article hoping to fish out some alternative views or some disagreement with the policy, but as expected could not find any. They said wise men all think alike. This only leave the cyberspace for views that are contrary to conventional or official thinking. The trend of development for MSM and cyberspace is very natural, one adopting the views of the power that be and the other pulling away to express alternative views which associated with the disgruntles. The question that is left to be answered is whether the MSM can present a balance view or whether there is a place for alternative views in cyberspace? I think, after reading all the MSM reports on the foreign talent issue, the answer is pretty clear.

what george bush and prince charles have in common

In an article written by David G Myers fo the Straits Times Myers described Bush as a leader that made decisions, especially foreign policy decisions, based on his gut feel. He quoted Bush as saying, 'I know there's no evidence that shows the death penalty has a deterrent effect, but I just feel in my gut it must be true.' Very much like he got this gut feel that Saddam Hussein must have WMD and he launched a war in Iraq. Bush was also quoted to have told Larry King in an interview: "If you make decisions based upon what you believe in our heart of hearts, you stayed resolved.' The other leader of compatible leadership quality and wisdom is none other than Prince Charles of the British throne. This was what Charles said, 'Buried deep within each and everyone of us, there is an instinctive, heartfelt awareness that provides - if we allow it to - the most reliable guide.

we have decided. this is the way to go

This issue of throwing the door wide open to welcome foreigners as citizens is a case where people can agree or disagree with the govt's policy. The govt has made its calculations based on its own premises of what is good for Singapore. No doubt that the govt has done its homework and think that this is the only right way to go forward. And looking at how the main stream media jumps into it so quickly to support the policy wholesale, one begins to doubt the sincerity of the MSM in this issue. Are they just towing the official line or they really believe in it? But this is besides the point. The MSM has its right to believe and throw its weight behind any issue. What is interesting to note are the voices that disagree with this policy. Hopefully disagreeing with it or criticising it is not seen as anti govt or undermining the govt's policy. This is applicable to many issues. The people agree with many govt policies but pick on some that they don't agree. Often this little divergence of views is looked at with great disapproval though the mantra today is that the govt agree that they did not have all the answers. We have seen many policies that have gone wrong but continue to be pursued relentlessly. And any opposing views are frown upon and viewed at unkindly. The concerned Singaporeans are also interested in the wellbeing of the country and people. And every Singaporean has a stake in this country and has a right to air their concern. The only difference is that they are not in power to decide to go for alternative options. Just because the govt is empowered to make decisions, does not mean that decisions are always right and good for the people. The people are seeing the issue differently and can be right and the govt wrong. And unfortunately for such a decision, and with everyone singing hallelujah for now, the disapproving views may be drown. But the consequences of such a decision will only surface in the long run and it will be too late to turn back the clock.

let's recall the dad's army to serve the nation

Why do we need so many headcounts? Never heard of computerisation, mechanisation, multitasking, job redesign and restructuring? Also, if everyone is made to work until 80, we would have increase our productive population by a few hundred thousands, and with little development cost. With the stroke of the pen, retirement age at 80, we can put many people back into the job market