anti missile shield for singapore

This is the headline by a Defence Correspondence, David Boey, in the Straits Times today. The main point in the article is that it is prudent for Singapore to have anti missile shield now that it is within the range of ballistic missiles from North Korea, China, Russia and the USA. Now let me see, does any of these nations has a reason to shoot missiles at us? North Korea does not even know that we exist. China is our good friend and has publicly stated that it will not be the first to use nuclear weapons on any country. Presumably firing an ICBM and to be cost effective, it must have a nuclear warhead and not 20 kilo of TNT. Russia, well, think it will be too busy with Eastern Europe. The USA? Our closest allies, but could be a threat if they decided to leave us out in the cold when they found a more valuable friend. It has all the capabilities and has been threatening everyone they don't like with pre emptive nuclear threat. So shall we buy an anti missile shield from the US to defend against American missiles flying at us? And if they do so, I don't think any anti missile system can hold them back. What about the others, including potential new enemies from the Middle East? Now, why would we have enemies who would find us so naugthy of deserving a missile strike? Possible, if we keep perching on top of our HDB flat and show our two fingers to people we have nothing to do with or showing them monkey faces. I would think it is more prudent to take a low profile, be friends to everyone, and use the money to build a few more IRs. PS: In the case of Malaysia, by the time the missile is airborne it will be in Indonesia.

taxi woes and passenger woes

Siew Kum Hong raised the issue that in the forthcoming review of public transport systems, the taxis are being left out? Is it because the system is working efficiently and nothing else needs to be done? Or the people on the right side think that everything is right while the people on the wrong side think that everything is wrong? And while one side thinks that many things ought to be done, the other thinks otherwise? We have heard many complains and the woes of the taxi drivers and passengers. One complaining not enough passengers and the other not enough taxis. The only people not complaining are the taxi companies. I was waiting at the roadside last sat morning, before 6am, for my golf kaki to pick me up. Were there any taxis at that hour? During that 15 minutes while I was there, with my golf bags on the roadside, there were at least 20 taxis hovering and hopping that I wave my hand. All of them were empty. They were so hungry for passengers. And can't complain that they were lazy, waking up so early in the morning to drive their cabs. What is wrong? Those who can afford it will have their own private cars. Those who don't have private cars cannot afford the taxi fares. That is the problem. Very fundamental problems. Now who is hooting that our taxi fares are cheap compare to other big cities and should actually double it so that the taxi drivers could double their income? Insanity!

myth 57

'Open door to welcome new talented citizens' I thought this was for real. But after thinking about it a little deeper, it is clear that it is a message for Singaporeans to wake up, a wake up call. For if they don't, then they must be prepared to face another few million foreigners to replace them. And this is where the myth lies. Look at it this way, without any incentives or promotions, there are already a few millions queuing to be our citizens. These are the hairdressers, the waiters and waitresses, the masseurs, the talented construction workers, the environment specialists etc. To these people, there is no incentive needed. Just open the door and say welcome, and we will have 3 millions signing up. Of course these are not the talents that we want right? Other than the special attributes that are needed for masseurs, the rest of the jobs can be done by our very own Dad's army. Ok, construction workers is another issue. And the highly talented foreign talents will see no need to be citizens of any country. They are welcome anywhere they wish to go. So thinking of attracting this group is a fallacy. What about the in between, the not so talented talents, mostly PRs? Would this group be interested in becoming citizens? Why should they when they are so happy just being PRs? There are no real benefits in becoming citizens than what they are enjoying now. And worst, they are likely to be worst off after becoming citizens. If the govt is serious, it is only expected that they will make becoming citizens so attractive that all the PRs would also want to change their status. So, is this welcoming more citizens thing a myth?

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?