Govt’s response to Hong Lim Spring

So far only two ministers, actually one minister and one ex minister have commented on the Hong Lim Rally. And as expected, nothing flattering. One said the unhappiness to the White Paper was expected but forgot to complete the sentence…would go away after the venting of anger, nothing to worry. Another, just rhetoric, or another way of saying, all sound and fury but no substance. He added, the views were one sided and appealing to emotions.

The PM and DPM have not said anything, or maybe it was nothing important and not worth talking about. What can 5,000 people standing under the rain do? Standing under the rain actually has a very significant meaning. Hsien Loong recalled proudly the National Day Parade when he was a drum major, I think, and how the whole parade, soldiers, working adults and students, stood under a heavy downpour at the padang. So too were the ministers and MPs, and the President, all braved the rain to make a point, a proud nation and a people that would not be subdued by a little rain, a little difficulty or discomfort. They stood their ground as one proud people, united and resolved to face the future and whatever difficulties and challenges there be.

Hong Lim Rally was not a National Day Parade, no national leaders, no parade commander or regimentation. The people were there on their own accord, and could walk away freely. There was no need to brave the rain, no compulsion to get wet all over, with mud under their feet. But they stood the ground to make a point. They were unhappy, angry and wanted change.

Can these people be ignored? Are they alone, or each one has a family and friends that shared the same thoughts? And there must be many more that would like to be there but could not be there for some reasons. It was not 5,000 people that opposed the flooding of the country with more foreigners and a bigger population. There were more.

I am sure the political leaders know that the unhappiness was not limited to those present at Hong Lim. Many who were overseas too wrote to express their support for the movement. How widespread is this movement and how serious are they to want to oppose the White Paper?

My gut feel, there are many more not there that felt the same way. Ignore them if you dare and want to be re elected in 2016. Dismiss them as mere noises, rhetoric, lunatics that thought it was fun to stand under the rain, or plain stupid. Just do that. No need to bother with these lunatics. Less than 3 years to ignore them.

The seed of a new Spring has been planted in the mud of Hong Lim, and watered by the Spring rain on 16 February 2013. It will sprout roots and new shoot, and take a life of its own.

Sinkies, please be nice to foreigners

When every one other person is a foreigner, it will also mean that your neighbor is likely to be a foreigner turned new citizen. Maybe both sides of your immediate neighbours will be new citizens. This is a very high possibility if the ration is 1:1 or worst. When that day comes, you better be very nice to foreigners who are holding pink IC or PRs. You will then be a minority in your own country and would be at their mercy if there is any neighbourly dispute or disagreement.

In such a situation, your Sinkie neighbor would be of no help. They would probably close their doors like they are doing now, with more urgency. And you will have to face the new citizens all alone. And knowing their attributes and penchants for being rough, be ready to be roughened in your own neighbourhood.

My advice is to be nice to foreigners in your own country should Sinkies become a minority. Sinkies are very friendly people, they are not prone to violence, not xenophobic. Can you bet your new neighbors will behave like meek Sinkies?

Frankly I dunno what life will be like for Sinkies then. What would you think? But it will not be a life time crisis I am sure, just some personal crisis to deal with individually. By then there will be no need for campaigns to break in and help the new citizens to assimilate to the local Sinkie culture. There will be campaigns to help Sinkies break in and live harmoniously with their new neighbours and foreigners.

There is a bright and challenging future awaiting Sinkies with the help of the talented foreigners.

Why CECA?

The Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CECA) between Singapore and India came into effect since 2005. In this agreement, if I can recall, both govt recognize the degrees of both countries and to allow their graduates, mostly PMETs, to work in their respective countries. How would a tiny country like Singapore with 3.3m citizens going to benefit is such an agreement with a country with 1b people? And how are the qualifications of the respective universities, probably several hundreds in India and a handful in Singapore going to be equitable?

The new changes in Employment Pass requirements to work in Singapore is drawing cries of foul play by India. And the Indian Govt is thinking of taking the Singapore Govt to the WTO for violations of the CECA.

’This stance by the Singapore Government is expected to affect Indians working as middle-level managers, executives and technicians.

Speculations are rife that India might take up the issue with World Trade Organization’s (WTO) dispute settlement body. However, according to Singapore such a decision was imperative in the interest of the natives as the share of the foreign workforce is rising very rapidly….

Currently, there are about 200,000 non-resident Indians in Singapore working in ITES, financial services and scientific research sectors among others, according to one estimate.’ Source from business -standard.com.

Why would Singapore sign such an agreement with India to allow, theoretically, several hundreds of millions of Indian graduates to work in Singapore when there are barely a handful of Sinkies that would want to work in India? It really beats me.

Talking cock about meritocracy

Every joker, Sinkie or new Sinkie or non Sinkie, is waving this thing called meritocracy to justify the existence and influx of foreigners into our country. Indeed meritocracy is a pillar in our social economic system, but it must not be taken out of context and spoken in vacuum. There is more to just meritocracy about the people of a country, just like children of a family, there must be a line drawn between us and them, between family and outsiders. Once this line is blurred or removed, meritocracy on its own is treacherous with no other attachments. It becomes hardnosed economics, emotionless, devoid of feelings, ties, attachments, nationhood and other aspirations. Everyone is dispensable if he is not good enough. The concepts of nation, sacrifices, citizenship, NS, defending or dying for a country with little pay or even no pay, will just be degraded to rubbish, irrelevant, stupid and hogwash. It becomes what is the price!

Anyone talking about meritocracy without reference and consideration to the interests of nation and citizens is purely talking cock, talking through his arsehole.

Nationhood, citizenship, the well being of a nation and its people cannot be compromised by simply farting about meritocracy. If meritocracy is the uno factor, then it is rightful to get rid of all the oldies and inepts, the sick and disable, and the unproductive and not so intelligent, those that are not meritocratic.

Any joker talking about meritocracy, please be reminded that this is a country with citizens and the interests of the citizens is top most priority. Meritocracy with no regards to the citizens is as good as survival of the fittest. Let’s be careful in what we are talking about, and know what we are talking about. Meritocracy must also be about citizenship at the same time.

Meritocracy? Would you dump your children for someone more meritocratic because your children are dull, disabled, sick, have Down’s Syndrome or dyslexic or less able?

And make sure we are comparing apple with apple and not apple with potato. The kind of pressure cooker education that our citizens had to go through, the degrees from our world class universities, versus some unknown universities or fake degrees, what kind of meritocracy are these people talking about?

How many people were at Hong Lim Spring?

I was there for nearly two hours. I walked around the whole park taking photos along the way. My estimate is that there were at least 5 to 6,000 people there at its peak. But I don’t think anyone will trust me because I am not a reputable newspaper like Reuter, AFP, AP, CNN or the ST.

Who is the most authoritative or suitable party to give a good estimate of the number of people on the ground? A foreign media or a local media, an interested party like the organiser or a non interested party like me?

The number of people present and quoted by the various media ranges from 1,000, 1,500, 2,000, 3,000, more than 4,000, 5,000 etc etc…. I am just a blogger, with no official credential and professional tag on my chest. And my estimate is just layman and subject to error or not as good as the professionals. But when I look at the numbers quoted by the professionals and their media, they were so silly and hilarious. Anyone quoting a number below 3,000 obviously did not know what he/she was talking about. One can guesstimate but cannot be so far off. How could these authoritative media and professional journalists or reporters get their numbers so wrong and so wild?



And bearing in mind that many are foreign journalists, not that counting the number of people is rocket science, I would rather believe the local professionals than someone from another corner of the world. This is Singapore, and we are reporting news in our own backyard, and shouldn’t we be the most authoritative on such matters? Do we need to depend on the foreigners that came from afar to tell us what to report and what was the number of people present?

On this basis, other than trusting my own estimate, I should rightly quote the numbers from ST as the most authoritative media on this issue. Unfortunately ST did not commit any number and instead quoted a number from AFP! ‘…Straits Times reported the event with the following headline today (17 Feb) – “White Paper protest draws big crowd”. … No official figures on the number of people were available as police said they were not monitoring the crowd size, though organisers claimed close to 5,000 turned up. An Agence France-Presse report put the number at 1,000 to 1,500.’ And why AFP and not another foreign media with a bigger number? AFP more credible than the rest?

This ST quote was lifted from an article in TRE. What is happening? ST did not send anyone there and needed to use a number from AFP which is as good as another estimate? Would it be better for ST to make its own estimate and let the foreign media quote from ST? After all this is Singapore and Singapore news and ST must be the authoritative source for foreigners to fall back on in a local event. If not, there is another authoritative Singapore news source, mysingaporenews that is a local source of news. : ) It would be nice if one of the major foreign news agency quote my estimate in their reports. Heh heh.