Protect lawyers from foreign competition

A bill was passed to allow foreign lawyers to practise in Singapore. This will encourage more competition and raise the standard of local lawyers. But some lawyers and MPs were against this even if foreign lawyers were limited to commercial and international arbitration. Domestic legal matters will still be protected from foreign competitors. My reaction is that why should our legal profession be protected when other professions are not? Liberalisation and allowing better talented foreigners to practise here will be good for everyone. The standard of legal practice and the legal profession will have everything to gain. This is a laudable move. The next phase of our liberalisation should be allowing foreigners to stand for election to Parliament. This must be good for the country and people too as better foreign talents would be able to serve the people better. I fully support such liberalisation. Before we go ahead with all these great liberalisations, I would like to propose selling the whole country to the highest bidder. Then the money be shared equally by all Singapore citizens. Subsequently these ex Singaporeans can choose to stay or leave this island since it is no longer their country. Yes we are moving into a borderless world and country, nation or citizenship has no meaning and no relevance anymore. There is no need to protect the interest of citizens. This is a boring and tedious thing for any govt to do. By selling this island, everyone will have to take care of himself and be self reliance. It is meritocracy at its best. Survival of the fittest. The weak and poor will no longer be a burden to anyone or the govt. Just give them a fair share of the sale and everyone can do anything they want. Would that be nice?

Unbecoming to mean test lawyers

A bill was tabled in Parliament to put lawyers to a medical test to determine their mental soundness. This iss necessary as some may be quite advanced in age or may be having psychiatric problems that may render them unfit to handle legal matters anymore. Ellen Lee spoke against this motion on the ground that it would put undue pressure on these lawyers and also embarrass them. There will also be a stigma against them and very difficult for them to face the world again. I think I can support this as learned lawyers should be treated with due respect and should not be put under the microscope. It is very humiliating. Mean testing the ordinary people should be ok. They have lesser feelings, lesser pride and will not be embarrassed, and neither will they protest. And definitely no social stigma. And they would not have MPs to speak for them in Parliament. It is regrettable that the bill was passed and the dignified lawyers will be subject to such humiliating test. Shanmugam argued that the interest of the clients that must be protected from medically or mentally unsound lawyers. I can also agree with this.

New business - making effigies

With the opening up of HongLim Speakers Corner for demonstration and effigy burning, those people in the trade making paper cars and houses will have a new business niche, making effigies of political figures for burning. They can have a push cart stall at HongLimg peddling effigies for burning. Should be good business. I think this is not prohibited.

Learning from Hongkong?

There are many things we can learn from Hongkong. But there is one thing which I think we have done far better than Hongkong and should be proud of this achievement. Don't look at me like that can? I am talking about public housing. I heard that we are sending a team to study how Hongkong manage their public housing problems. We used to have the best public housing programme. But with all the tweakings, we are sliding down. Maybe a few years more, we can learn from Hongkong as we forget the main objectives of public housing. The other perplexing thing is that with the quality of our supertalents, at least that is what we claimed, couldn't we work out our problems ourselves? Anyway, anything happening here is unique to us, Uniquely Singaporean. What is happening in Hongkong or Japan is peculiar to them. A better alternative is to pay for some international consultants to study our system and tell us our problems. Just hand them our watch and let them read the time for us. That will be simpler. If we do not know our own problems, cannot understand our own problems, something is amiss.

30%, 40% or 50%?

How much do you want to cover, 30%, 40% or 50%? This was the response from Foo Yee Shoon when Lily Neo when the later asked for more assistance for the poor. This reminds me of the same kind of response in the last Parliament sitting. You want to eat in hawker centre, foodcourt or restaurant. And both reponses came from the MCYS. That must be their style of discussions. Lily Neo was right to reply that that was not what she was asking. And I think she deserves a more appropriate reply than a challenge to her request for more help for those who need it. What she did not expect was a retort when all she did was to ask for more help. But some people may disagree with me that the response was a challenge or a retort. Fair enough. It is all a matter of interpretation.