soliciting for new citizens

Cheng Yoke Wah, a column writer for Today, has been here for 20 years. She married her husband who is also a PR. But when the question was raised, why not citizenship, it becomes a different matter. Her reasons, as she penned in the Today paper, is a matter of heart. Singapore is an adopted country, adopted parents, and her home country is where her biological parents are. In her view, it smacks of being ungrateful to disown her own parents by becoming a true blue child of the adopted parents. But she is loyal to Singapore. She sang the Singapore anthem with gusto and sincerity. Or is it a mixed up sense of being grateful to Singapore for giving her a good life, a fair and equal opportunity to live well and with respect? It is understandable that people have feelings. The bonds of the home, the memories of childhood and the familiar surroundings where one grew up are important bits and pieces of our emotional ties. To severe this link by taking up a new citizenship, is a big pyschological decision to make. There will be many who will instantly trade in their passports for our red passports when they compare what they could be as from what it would be. As we move pass this group, there will be many who will take the plunge for less desirable reasons. We should not buy citizenship. We should not prostitute ourselves to anyone. We should go all out to buy PRs and talents. Citizenship is still a valid concept today and has more intrinsic and psychological values than just a piece of paper or a red passport. Many who are from the more developed and established nations will not want to part with their citizenships for ours. Many will temporary part with their less desirable citizenships for ours and planning to swop it for even more desirable citizenships. What's wrong with the current policy of having PRs, WPs and EPs? If numbers is what we want, these schemes will continue to provide us the numbers when we want it and to cut down when we do not want them. We have the best of both worlds. To consciously push for citizenship may not be the solution even to hope for more NS men. More of the undesirable or uncommitted could be more dangerous than having less. We can get the numbers through the present array of employment passes and PRs. Many of the talented are highly mobile and are happy just to be PRs and live in any where of their own choosing. We need not rush headon into something that can have a lot of adverse consequences in the future, by taking in everyone willing. The wider the door is thrown open, the higher the possibilities of inviting more trouble.

myth 56

'Encouraging lateral thinking: Mee siam mai hum.' Another myth? I am not referring to mee siam mai hum but the progress of imbuing Singaporeans to think laterally. Singaporeans were told to think out of the box and not to look at things at face value. In anything, there is always the positive side to it if one bothers to dig it out. Many Singaporeans had a good laugh at the mee siam mai hum anecdote. Some stretched it further towards the negative. Look at it another way, this simple phrase has set many thinking. Why can't mee siam have hum? Or why can't hum be added to mee siam, maybe create a new recipe from adding hum. Better still, a completely new dish. After the laughter has subsided, it is time to sit back and see what can be gained from this new insight, mee siam mai hum. Citizenship mai National Service, PRs mai citizenship, want the privileges of a citizen but mai responsibilities. Or chenghu mai opposition, opposition voice mai opposition candidates and parties...or have a new concept of a piece of land for all the talents mai citizenship. No citizenship is needed. All are equal and the more talented the more equal. How about a little dosage of lateral thinking and think out of the box? Did Hsien Loong set the nation thinking? or at least the cyberspace thinking?

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.