Am I amused?

I got this impression that foreigners are much more politically savvy than Singaporeans after reading an article in the ST yesterday. It was about the slowing down in giving PRs to new applicants. The rejection rate is growing and the criteria for acceptance have gone up. Official statistics said the number of PRs approved last year was down to 29,265, less than half of 2009’s 59.460, much less than 2008’s 79,200, and 2007’s 63,600. Nothing was mentioned about the comparative numbers for new citizens. I bet that must also have gone down. But I may be wrong. So more unhappy applicants are going to threaten to apply for PRs in other better countries? Horrors! How can we lose all these talents to other countries? Quick, quick, reverse the flow, accept more or else… they will leave. I can sense the panic of those clamouring for more talented PRs to join our workforce. Some applicants are more sanguine about the situation, or maybe smarter. They knew that it is the election year. No sweat. After the election things will be back to normal. The govt is now appeasing the anger of the people and closing the door a little. After the election they will apply again. Is this amusing? The foreigners know exactly how the system works here. They are bidding their time now and know that they will get their PRs in double quick time after the election. How come Singaporeans don’t understand or never understand how the game is being played? Things before an election and things after an election will be poles apart. Maybe they are hoping that the leopard will change its spots. Maybe this time it will be different, or from now on it will be different. So, who is smarter, the foreigners or the citizens?

Old and New PAP

When one put up a topic like that, it simply implies that there are issues between the new and the old. Definitely there are and many, both good and bad. What distinguishes the old from the new is that it was a highly respected party, with a few rough corners for making tough decisions for the people. It was a lean party and the people knew that whatever it did, it was really for the good of the party. And the leaders lived by the principles that they shared the woes of the people and would carry them and walked a long with them through thick and thin. The people might not be too happy with some of the policies but went along, and elected the party to power elections after elections. The leadership was impressive. Not that all of them were super talent material, but their hearts were together with the people. The ministers were well regarded, each a tower of strength. Any GRC that was deemed to be weak or facing tough opposition, just threw in a minister and the GRC would be as good as in the pocket. What is the situation today? The party is still doing a lot of good work for the people. I perceive that in spite of this, the ground has shifted. The people are angry, really angry. OK, not everyone is angry. There were many policies and decisions that were seen as bad and unacceptable. It may be only a perception, it may be real too. On the party side, it thinks and sincerely, honestly believes that it is doing everything for the good of the people. They forget that it is the people that is the judge. Why is there such a big gap in the people’s perception and the party’s own thinking? An erroneous perception can be easily explained away with some effort. Bad decisions and policies don’t go away, no matter how much trumpet blowing, and will end up as sophistry. They said you cannot bluff the people all the time. Too many untruths propagated as truths would surely back fire. It is no longer palatable to take the position that the people are stupid and unthinking masses, can be easily manipulated, or unable to see the goodness of good policies. Our superb education system must at the least do some good, make the people more knowledgeable and critical of the things they see or are happening to their lives. They cannot be unthinking people with all the exposure to the world and the high educational level they have attained. Are the people with the new PAP? There are hard core supporters and oppositions on both sides. The important segment is the middle ground. Has this moved? If the anger expressed in the new media is true, forget about the views of the old media as we know what they are, then the writing is on the wall. But it is not just the perception of the people that has changed. The leadership in the new PAP is quite fragile to be polite. Many ministers today are liabilities to the GRCs they are helming to the extent that fielding them will guarantee that the GRC will be lost. I know some may read this point with eyes popping out. Believe me, quite a number of ministers no longer carry the ground. The only thing that has never changed is that the PAP, old and new, is still led by one man, the same one man that started it. Even though LKY does not hold any decision making position directly like a ministry, he is still the man. It is still his party, his Singapore. Can the man carry the party again one last time, really, that he will stand for one more election? Or is the party coming to an end together with the fading away of the man that is synonymous with the PAP from day one to his last days?

US lawmakers rip into Hu Jintao

MR HU GOES TO WASHINGTON: ‘MONSTER’:Members of the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs did not hold back as they focused on human rights abuses in China under Hu Jintao’s leadership By William Lowther / Staff Reporter in WASHINGTON Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) came under an unprecedented personal attack at a US congressional briefing on Wednesday at the very same time he was being welcomed with a 21-gun salute at the White House. Members of the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs referred to him as a “monster” and the committee chair, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican, said that it was estimated that his regime was holding close to 7 million people in labor camps. “It is as if the entire population of Switzerland were being held behind barbed wire,” she said. It is highly unusual for visiting heads of state to be subjected to such biting criticism while they are guests in the same city. However, analysts said that feelings were running so high about Hu’s human rights record that some US lawmakers simply couldn’t contain themselves. Representative Christopher Smith, a Republican who on Tuesday held his own conference on Chinese human rights abuses, said: “Who is Hu Jintao? In 1989, just a few months before the massacre in Tiananmen Square, Hu was Beijing’s iron fist in Tibet.” “This was the man who ordered the savage beating of Tibetan nuns and even children were pummeled to death. He presides over a gulag state — clearly a dictatorship. He has been directly responsible for the systematic detention and torture of millions of Chinese,” Smith said. “Cattle prods are put into prisoners’ armpits and at their genitals.” “I believe Hu ought to be at The Hague being made to account for his crimes rather than being treated with a state dinner,” Representative Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican, said. “We should not be welcoming the world’s worst human rights abuser to our White House. It is wrong. We should not be granting respect to this monstrous regime,” Rohrabacher added. “I think the Chinese have a hidden agenda — world domination. We seem to be helping them in their goals. We just don’t seem to get it,” said Representative Albio Sires, a Democrat. “There is this monster developing right before our eyes.” The American lawmakers think that they were the saints of modern history. I am wondering how many of those named above were descendants of slave owners and Injun killers? Or were these small town law makers descendants of the Jeremiahs or the hill billies? Does anyone of them remember Kunta Kinte?

The 3 blind men and China experts

Every time I read an article from the China experts it never fails to remind me of the 3 blind men and the elephant. Yes they all claimed to know the elephant very well, a kind of expert. They have touched the elephant and smelt the elephant. One claimed that the elephant was like a tree trunk. Another professed that it was like a snake. And another swore that it was like a rope with loose ends. The beauty of it all is that they all believe that they were right and the elephant is what as they described. If only they could go pass beneath the skin of the elephant, if only they could look at the whole picture. But China experts are plentiful and of different degree. Then again, most of them are just like the 3 blind men. The betterer part is that they are propounding their theories of what China is all about and trying to con everyone of their expertise. Put it in another way, how about a Malaysian asking a Singaporean who visited JB once on where to buy cheap and good Malaysian local products? And the Singaporean happily went about explaining like an expert of Malaysian local produce and where to get the best deal!

Bodyguards and Assassins 2

The movie has many angles to look at, and lessons to be told. The Qing Dynasty was decadent and had lost the mandate to rule. But the Dowager was bent on keeping the Dynasty going for as long as possible, and with all means and resources available. Suppressing the opposition at all cost was her only way. The Dynasty had run out of ideas on how to rule the country. The country was in disarray and controlled by foreigners. The foreigners were calling the shot. It was a pathetic scenario, even in modern society, should the foreigners ended calling the shot in a country. The dangerous part about this ‘foreigner’ thing in modern history is that they could pass themselves off as citizens by simply acquiring a citizenship. And overnight people believe that they are one of them, no longer foreigners. Instant trees and instant citizenship have their merits and dangers. The Qing Dynasty was oppressive and deadly. They just killed off any opposition. Under such a political culture, when the rulers were ruthless and ready to demolish anyone trying to stand up to voice their opposition, the patriots could not hope for a peaceful change of the power elite. They were compelled to meet force with force, a rebellion. But for such an endeavour to succeed, there would be many sacrifices of lives. For every martyr that was taken down, more must stand up to replace the fallen. It was a bloody time. The unassuming doctor in Sun Yat Sen stood up. And so were many pen pushers, academics and students, all wanting a new China for the people. Many were mowed down by the soldiers who wielded the sword and the gun. The pen pushers provided the leadership and ideas, the brain. And the soldiers provided the muscles and the brawns to take on the ruthless Qing regime headed by an ageing Dowager. The rest was history. An empire of several hundred years, with all the elite in power, with guns and money, was overthrown by the will of a desperate people. History repeated itself. No empire can survive forever, no matter how powerful, how long it stayed in power, and how ruthless is the suppression of the people’s will. There will always be a new dawn and a new era.