The top and foremost responsibility of the Govt is to provide good and affordable education for the people. Tsk, my first sentence is already flawed when people argued that with so many loans, financial assistance schemes and bursaries available, our students need not come out with any cash outlay to study in our universities. It would be better to say that they can study for free, like my mother used to say, govt hospitals are free, can pay by CPF, no need money.
Back to my first principle, the Govt’s responsibility to its people, the tax payers, the people that will defend this country in the event of war or crisis. It is very painful and disgusting to hear of Singaporeans, fully qualified, with distinctions, with very good grades but unable to find places in our local universities. And the parents, some are able financially, some have to sell their homes or take loans, to send their children overseas. And the sickening cause of this, many university places were given to foreign students.
What is our govt’s responsibility to these foreign students that ended with our children being pushed aside, our citizens being discriminated and have to suffer financial obligations when they don’t have to? Does our Govt owe an obligation or duty to educate the foreign students? Is the Govt doing an international social duty to provide some places to foreign students? Or is provision of university places for foreign students a way to up the rankings of our universities? Or is it a revenue generating source? This is unlikely as many were here on full scholarships, fees and lodging and allowances.
Look at the practices of the European countries, the countries that we always used as our role models. Why are they accepting foreign students? Are they doing so at the expense of their own people? If I am not wrong, many are doing so to generate revenue. And they have spare capacities to do so without compromising the interests of their citizens. The least thing in their mind in accepting foreign students is for their rankings to look good. If this is the reason, it is plain silly.
If we want to take in more foreign students, by all means, go ahead, to make money, to provide more vibrancy and diversity, but never do it at the expense of our own people. If the foreign intake is going to be big, increase the capacities. If this cannot be done, then don’t do it. There is no greater reason to take in more foreign students only to force our own to study elsewhere. For those who have the means and wanted to study overseas, as a matter of choice is irrelevant.
Let’s treat our people well. Our people are deserving of a good education at home, first. Foreigners must be second. If need be, build another university for the foreign students, and funded by the tuition fees. And whatever ‘subsidies’ the Govt chooses to provide.
Singaporeans first must be real and seen to be real. Talk is cheap and the Govt will have to pay the price for neglecting the interests of its own people and for frolicking with foreigners. The Singaporeans are not daft. They know what is good and what is bad for them, especially when their pockets are hurt real bad.
7/23/2011
Distorting an argument
Argue for argument’s sake. Argue just to win. Argue just to insist that one is right despite all the evidences proving against it. This seems to be the position many have taken in the issue of foreign talents in Singapore. We need foreign talents or else we will not be where we are today. Yes and no.
In a way, practically every Singaporean is a foreign talent. Our forefathers were migrants, so we are migrants. Up to a point, I may say yes, our forefathers were migrants. But we Singaporeans born and bred here are not migrants. We were the original people here on first principles just like the aborigines of every country were the first people. There were some locals but not many. Our forefathers built this place and we inherited from them as the first owners of this land. Subsequently the Johnnys come lately are the migrants, the foreigners. This is where the line I like to draw. We are not migrants in this sense. So for those who still want to push the argument that since our forefathers were migrants, there is nothing wrong with welcoming more migrants. I say bull. Our forefathers maybe migrants but we are not.
And neither are Singaporeans anti foreign talents. Which clown still harping on this point that Singaporeans are anti foreigners? No one is anti foreign talents. So anyone accusing Singaporeans for being anti foreign talents is talking through his arsehole. The crux of the matter, of why this foreign talent issue becomes such a pain, is that many were not really talents vis a vis Singaporeans. And worst, they were made to look better than Singaporeans and given plump jobs which otherwise would have been given to Singaporeans. The other issue is the over crowding which I am not addressing here.
Singaporeans would have no difficulty accepting real foreign talents. Singaporeans would have not difficulty if a position has to be filled by a foreign talent because of job specific needs or because no Singaporean is good enough for it. We need an angmoh face to look good. Ok, get an angmoh. The good examples are the CEOs of SMRT, DBS, SGX, OCBC, and even some positions in the academia. These are talents that are much superior to Singaporeans, or jobs that no Singaporean is good enough to do. I read in the paper that it took SATS 37 years before they were able to find a Singaporean good enough to fill the job of a CEO. Now he has just left, and very likely a foreigner will replaced him as Singaporeans talented in airline food is hard to come by.
And Mediacorp finally got a Singaporean to be its CEO, a President scholar, when they could not find a more talented man than him after months of search. If they could, this President Scholar Singaporean too will have to play second fiddle. Oh, I forgot, even MPs and Ministers, when they can’t find Singaporeans good enough, they can find foreign substitutes.
When and which Singaporean is against genuine and real foreign talents? Please lah, don’t talk nonsense and argue for the sake of arguing. Singaporeans will continue to be pissed off with ‘foreign talents’ when the foreign talents are not really talents or anything better than Singaporean talents. Singaporeans will continue to be pissed off when jobs that Singaporeans can easily filled but given to foreigners who are no better than them, which is a great insult to our own people.
Seriously, how many of the top jobs given to foreigners cannot be filled by Singaporeans? Seriously, do we need foreigner, or new citizens to be MPs? Oh, we have many great ministers that were foreigners. This was due to a different stage in our history when we were a new nation. Even Boon Wan has been living here and a citizen for many years and not really new. Now what is new? No need silly reasons to win this argument.
Can Singapore do better without the average ‘foreign talents’ or the many fake talents with fake papers? Having said all this, I am sure all Singaporeans will agree with me in showing our appreciation to all the real foreign talents that really make a difference to our economy and well being. No one will deny their great contributions. But please lah, nothing great about the average foreigners that are here to contribute to be the bread and butter in our society and to deprive jobs and university places that should rightly go to Singaporeans. This is like being sold out, betrayed.
I can only say one thing. They refused to listen to what the Singaporeans are saying and refused to understand them.
In a way, practically every Singaporean is a foreign talent. Our forefathers were migrants, so we are migrants. Up to a point, I may say yes, our forefathers were migrants. But we Singaporeans born and bred here are not migrants. We were the original people here on first principles just like the aborigines of every country were the first people. There were some locals but not many. Our forefathers built this place and we inherited from them as the first owners of this land. Subsequently the Johnnys come lately are the migrants, the foreigners. This is where the line I like to draw. We are not migrants in this sense. So for those who still want to push the argument that since our forefathers were migrants, there is nothing wrong with welcoming more migrants. I say bull. Our forefathers maybe migrants but we are not.
And neither are Singaporeans anti foreign talents. Which clown still harping on this point that Singaporeans are anti foreigners? No one is anti foreign talents. So anyone accusing Singaporeans for being anti foreign talents is talking through his arsehole. The crux of the matter, of why this foreign talent issue becomes such a pain, is that many were not really talents vis a vis Singaporeans. And worst, they were made to look better than Singaporeans and given plump jobs which otherwise would have been given to Singaporeans. The other issue is the over crowding which I am not addressing here.
Singaporeans would have no difficulty accepting real foreign talents. Singaporeans would have not difficulty if a position has to be filled by a foreign talent because of job specific needs or because no Singaporean is good enough for it. We need an angmoh face to look good. Ok, get an angmoh. The good examples are the CEOs of SMRT, DBS, SGX, OCBC, and even some positions in the academia. These are talents that are much superior to Singaporeans, or jobs that no Singaporean is good enough to do. I read in the paper that it took SATS 37 years before they were able to find a Singaporean good enough to fill the job of a CEO. Now he has just left, and very likely a foreigner will replaced him as Singaporeans talented in airline food is hard to come by.
And Mediacorp finally got a Singaporean to be its CEO, a President scholar, when they could not find a more talented man than him after months of search. If they could, this President Scholar Singaporean too will have to play second fiddle. Oh, I forgot, even MPs and Ministers, when they can’t find Singaporeans good enough, they can find foreign substitutes.
When and which Singaporean is against genuine and real foreign talents? Please lah, don’t talk nonsense and argue for the sake of arguing. Singaporeans will continue to be pissed off with ‘foreign talents’ when the foreign talents are not really talents or anything better than Singaporean talents. Singaporeans will continue to be pissed off when jobs that Singaporeans can easily filled but given to foreigners who are no better than them, which is a great insult to our own people.
Seriously, how many of the top jobs given to foreigners cannot be filled by Singaporeans? Seriously, do we need foreigner, or new citizens to be MPs? Oh, we have many great ministers that were foreigners. This was due to a different stage in our history when we were a new nation. Even Boon Wan has been living here and a citizen for many years and not really new. Now what is new? No need silly reasons to win this argument.
Can Singapore do better without the average ‘foreign talents’ or the many fake talents with fake papers? Having said all this, I am sure all Singaporeans will agree with me in showing our appreciation to all the real foreign talents that really make a difference to our economy and well being. No one will deny their great contributions. But please lah, nothing great about the average foreigners that are here to contribute to be the bread and butter in our society and to deprive jobs and university places that should rightly go to Singaporeans. This is like being sold out, betrayed.
I can only say one thing. They refused to listen to what the Singaporeans are saying and refused to understand them.
7/22/2011
Can the President speak?
Elgin Toh talks about the right of free speech by the Elected President in his article in the ST today. Apparently, the official position is that the EP has no right to speak independently as a President. This is what the Prime Minister’s Office said, ‘It is not the president’s role to support or oppose the govt of the day or to advance his own agenda or policies’. Shanmugam was also quoted as saying, ‘National policies and running of the Govt are the responsibility of the prime minister and Cabinet…’
So, if the governing of the country is none of the EP’s concern, does he have a right to speak for or against govt policies? It is not his role to support or oppose? What does this mean? He cannot talk about them except speaking neutrally or no comments?
He is not allowed to have his own agenda or policies. It is as good as saying, please shut up. Let’s gag the President. I am in favour of it as he is basically a ceremonial piece, good for waving hands during National Days or shaking hands with foreign dignitaries and the people visiting the Istana grounds and engages in the exchanges of pleasantries. No, he can be an extension of the govt, by speaking in favour of govt policies and agenda. He can also promote trades!
Why the hell is the President being paid $4m annually, and maybe another 10 or 20 mths of bonuses when he is just what he is constitutionally, a rubber stamp? How to justify this kind of obscene pay?
So, if the governing of the country is none of the EP’s concern, does he have a right to speak for or against govt policies? It is not his role to support or oppose? What does this mean? He cannot talk about them except speaking neutrally or no comments?
He is not allowed to have his own agenda or policies. It is as good as saying, please shut up. Let’s gag the President. I am in favour of it as he is basically a ceremonial piece, good for waving hands during National Days or shaking hands with foreign dignitaries and the people visiting the Istana grounds and engages in the exchanges of pleasantries. No, he can be an extension of the govt, by speaking in favour of govt policies and agenda. He can also promote trades!
Why the hell is the President being paid $4m annually, and maybe another 10 or 20 mths of bonuses when he is just what he is constitutionally, a rubber stamp? How to justify this kind of obscene pay?
UK more corrupt than it thinks
The mypaper picked a very interesting article about how corrupt the UK is though it looks clean and good in public. The choice is timely, as it seeks to expose corrupt govts hiding under the veil of legality and decency through the use of camouflage and control of the media. I will just quote some of the pertinent verses by Peter Apps, a REUTERS Analysis, below. Read them and reflect a moment on their relevance to present day context.
‘Britons love to lecture the world about integrity and the rule of law, but the News of the World phone hacking scandal has laid bare a web of collusion between money, power, media and the police.
Behind the façade of probity, London offers a haven for oligarchs and despots, a place where foreign media magnates have bought access to and influence over the govt….
In fact, it points to a bigger problem in British society – overly cosy relationships among elites that are ethically dangerous, even when they do not involve outright criminality….
“It is ….often a more sophisticated form of high level political corruption. It may not be strictly illegal – or it may be more subtle – but that does not mean it is not very costly for society or the economy,” said Dr Kaufmann, a former director of the World Bank Institute….If unchecked, “elite capture” of political systems can become “privatization of public policy”….
Transparency International published a report earlier this month titled Britain: More Corrupt than You Think, showing that the majority of people believed corruption was worsening in the country….”The long term result is likely to be a further erosion in the credibility of the British establishment, particularly the media and the police, in the eyes of the citizens.”
‘Britons love to lecture the world about integrity and the rule of law, but the News of the World phone hacking scandal has laid bare a web of collusion between money, power, media and the police.
Behind the façade of probity, London offers a haven for oligarchs and despots, a place where foreign media magnates have bought access to and influence over the govt….
In fact, it points to a bigger problem in British society – overly cosy relationships among elites that are ethically dangerous, even when they do not involve outright criminality….
“It is ….often a more sophisticated form of high level political corruption. It may not be strictly illegal – or it may be more subtle – but that does not mean it is not very costly for society or the economy,” said Dr Kaufmann, a former director of the World Bank Institute….If unchecked, “elite capture” of political systems can become “privatization of public policy”….
Transparency International published a report earlier this month titled Britain: More Corrupt than You Think, showing that the majority of people believed corruption was worsening in the country….”The long term result is likely to be a further erosion in the credibility of the British establishment, particularly the media and the police, in the eyes of the citizens.”
7/21/2011
Battlestar Galactica Episode 2
‘Funny how SIA keeps putting foreigners in charge at their ICC (low cost carrier). Don’t they have faith in Singaporeans. I do. My Commercial Head is a Singapore. Odd company. If I were a Singaporean, I would really be upset with SIA.’ Tony Fernandez. CEO Air Asia
What Fernandez is saying is part of the Battlestar Galactica plot. There can be several reasons for this. One is that Singaporeans are really inepts despite their great paper grades. Two Singaporeans lack confidence and need to hide behind a European face to do business. The colonial hangover is difficult to treat. Four, and this is like doing a Michael Jackson act. No I am not white. It is natural, or a disease. Not my fault.
Don’t be surprise the next President could be George Bush or Bill Clinton if they are willing to change to a pink IC. Anyone clamouring to have Queen Elizabeth II as our head of state again? We will have Prince William and Princess Kate gracing our community centres and flagging off our marathons. Nice, ain’t it?
What Fernandez is saying is part of the Battlestar Galactica plot. There can be several reasons for this. One is that Singaporeans are really inepts despite their great paper grades. Two Singaporeans lack confidence and need to hide behind a European face to do business. The colonial hangover is difficult to treat. Four, and this is like doing a Michael Jackson act. No I am not white. It is natural, or a disease. Not my fault.
Don’t be surprise the next President could be George Bush or Bill Clinton if they are willing to change to a pink IC. Anyone clamouring to have Queen Elizabeth II as our head of state again? We will have Prince William and Princess Kate gracing our community centres and flagging off our marathons. Nice, ain’t it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)