May Day Rally – What is it about?

Gilbert Goh was unable to attract 200 people to his regular talks at the Speaker’s Corner in Hong Lim. Things took a dramatic turn on Feb 16. Under heavy rain and a muddy field, the Singaporeans came, mothers and fathers, little children and all, they came to listen to Gilbert and his friends. Some were just there to give the moral support for a cause that vibrated in their hearts. Why did they come in the most inhospitable circumstances was intriguing.

The White Paper on a 6.9m population was the theme of Gilbert’s Rally. It was all about Singaporeans and Singapore, about Singaporeans wanting to protect their country and the lives of Singaporeans. There was fear, concern, misplaced or whatever, the Singaporeans were worried of their future, the future of their country and their children. There was nothing political about the event. It was a Rally of Singaporeans who came as one people to want a better Singapore for themselves, their children and NOT about foreigners. What is a country or govt when it neglects its very own people?

Subsequently some fuck heads sneered at the slogan ‘Singapore for Singaporeans’ as empty slogans. But no sooner, the MPs were echoing this call in Parliament, calling for more to be done for Singaporeans and protecting jobs for Singaporeans. So, are these MPs also blurting out empty slogans, falutins, like the fuck heads?

Another Rally is being organized on May Day. Gilbert is expecting a bigger turnout this time, 10,000 or 20,000. The events that followed the first rally, the disclosure of more and more foreigners flooding into the island, the high cost of living and the most disgusting issue of all, foreigners ganging up to discriminate and victimize Singaporeans for jobs and in the work place, this last bit must be the last straw that breaks the camel’s back. How could these ugly foreigners come to our country to bully our people, take away our jobs and live better while our very own citizens ended up jobless or under employed, replaced by questionable foreigners?

What would be Gilbert’s main theme for the May Day Protest Rally? Is the 6.9m population a dead issue? Would more Singaporeans turn up and what would they turn up for? I saw the first Rally as a precursor that set the tone for this follow up Rally. The Singaporeans will come to reclaim their country for themselves and their children. This is our country and this is our land. There is nothing about being xenophobic but being owners of our country and our future. No one should take this country from us and give it to undeserving foreigners. Such an act is treason. Any politician that thinks it is ok to bring in the foreigners to replace the less able citizens got to think very carefully in what he says or does. The politicians must be there for the citizens, to improve the lives of the citizens, not for the good of foreigners. The Rally must be one to tell the politicians what the people want, do the people want a 6.9m population, or 5m or 4m, it is the people that should decide. Do they want more foreigners to be here to take over their jobs, to kick the citizens around? The Singaporeans must be at the Rally to make this point clear. They cannot continue to sleep around, boh chap, and let the politicians do as they like.

This Rally must be about Singaporeans and about the kind of Singapore that the Singaporeans want for themselves and their children. This must be the rallying call. It was 4,000. It could be 10,000 or 20,000. And if the Govt is not listening, the next round could be 100,000. But this can only happen if the Singaporeans feel threatened, feel as one people, with the same destiny, to make this country a better place for Singaporeans, not for foreigners. The presence of foreigners must be incidental and must complement the existence of the citizens, to make the lives of citizens better and not worst.

The Rally must make this point clear to the Govt and the foreigners, the latter are welcome, up to a point but not to take the generosity and hospitality of the Singaporeans for granted. Singapore is for Singaporeans. Foreigners can come and share our growth, not to deprive Singaporeans of a better life in Singapore. Foreigners must know their place in this country. There are also OB markers for foreigners and politicians.

Sleeping your way to the top

I honestly confess that I have not been following the high profile cases in the courts involving great guys and great women, all very successful in their careers. Just by reading the headlines and a couple of paragraphs would give one the full story of how success can be had in this wonderful land of opportunities.

Sleeping your way to the top is now a management secret recipe being shared around by the corporate climbers. Just study carefully and see which guy is able to give one a lift to the top. It doesn’t take much effort, just be more observant and be nicer and more willing to please. That is all it takes to be successful, for the feline kind. It doesn’t need much intelligence, at worst, just pretend to be intelligent is all it takes.

Of course not all dignified ladies with some pride in themselves and knowing their own abilities would want to take a lift from the dominant guys. But the thought is sexy and attractive and many weak minded and unthinking ones will easily subscribe to such a philosophy of success in the corporate world.

Who says sleeping on the job is bad? The squeaky clean image of this uptight city is in need of a rework to fit the new realities.

Questions about China’s role in Africa

Yesterday there was this mischievous article by AGENCIES in the Today paper on Africa. It quoted Botswana’s Ian Khama and Nigerian Central Bank chief Lamido Sanusi ‘questioning whether the trade relationship with China has benefitted Africa as much as it has China’. China’s trade with Africa doubled since 2007 to more than US$200 billion and with a US$20 billion investment by China in the continent.

It is amazing that these stupid African leaders could know how to question the trades benefit to each country and who benefits more. How is this measured is a matter of great science and art. Both parties may be making a dollar each, but one could save 70c while another could squander the whole dollar. So who is benefitting more?

But that is not the main issue. China went to Africa to invest and trade and both parties negotiating their terms of trades apparently must be doing it in favour of themselves before signing on the dotted lines. China did not bring in the armies and the fire power or to put a knife at the neck of these African leaders? So what is there to question who benefitted more or less?

Looking back to the colonial days, the silly and daft African leaders could not even negotiate or question what they were going to benefit from the White men’s presence. The White men came, put a gun on their heads, and took everything, including their women, pride and dignity. Many were hunted down as slaves for the Americans and Europeans. Everything overnight became White men’s property, whole countries and continent. Were the African leaders in a position to ask for a penny? Where were all the western media to report on what happened when the White colonialists invaded Africa and robbed the continent of everything?

And now with China going there as businessmen, investors and even philanthropists, donating generously to Africa, and treating the African states and leaders as equals, what question is there to trouble these thinking or unthinking African leaders?

May I suggest that China skip Botswana and Nigeria since they are so unhappy with their trades with China? Or should these two countries return to the fold of their former colonial masters to get a fairer deal? With China they could negotiate for a better deal as equals. They could sell their raw material to anyone that offers them the best price. Or they would rather let their ex colonial masters have them for free?

There are many such mischievous reports coming from western media painting China as the bad guy without carrying a knife, and the colonialists as the good guys that robbed and raped countries, every country in Africa, took what they wanted without paying a cent. And there are many jokers reading such articles without understanding the history and background of African nations and will jump at China for cheating the Africans as if the Africans are still illiterate and ignorant fools.

Singapore’s old order ready for fall by 2016 – Tan Jee Say

This is an interesting title in an article from the South China Morning Post by Toh Han Shih and posted in TRE today. This is what Tan Jee Say believed as quoted in the article. For those who are waiting eagerly for the demise of the PAP after a long rein as the undisputed political party in the island, this must be music to the ears. Jee Say made this conclusion after his recent involvement in main stream politics as candidate for the Presidential Election and also in the last General Election.

Jee Say’s reasoning is mainly drawn from the electoral results of the GE and the by election which did not really prove much except for a bigger dent in PAP’s image of invincibility. To be fair, losing a few electoral seats is not a big deal, really. In the case of Singapore, somehow this is read as a major breakthrough particularly for the WP to take a GRC with an exceptionally strong PAP team.

Things are a bit shaky but would anyone really believe that the PAP will lose power in three years’ time? According to the oracle, PAP should be good for another two terms minimum. And no one would doubt this prediction before the last GE. But then, though there were a couple of slips, notably the poor showing of the Presidential Election in terms of popular votes for the PAP sponsored candidate and the trouncing of the last two by elections, things are not that bad right?

The swift and efficient passing of the White Paper on population increase to 6.9m was an easy victory for the PAP. And the handful of opposition MPs in parliament are unlikely to make any significant impact to say they have arrived and are ready to take over. Low Thia Khiang too did not feel too optimistic about being the PM of Singapore in 2016.

Could there be anything or event that could make such a great impact in the political scene to bring down the powerful PAP? Could the protest rally at Hong Lim be big enough to reshape the mindset of the electorate to vote opposition? A change of regime is highly possible given a 10 to 15 per cent swing in the votes as was seen in Punggol East. With bad leadership, bad policies and bad candidates, PAP will not be able to pull away with another resounding victory again.

So, is Jee Say’s prediction a likely turn of event comes 2016? Objectively and factually, PAP can lose 40 per cent of its candidates and still be returned as the ruling party. There are of course many imponderables that could upset every political scientist’s forecast of what could be possible. And if one is to look at the difficult problems that the govt is facing, problems that have gone from being mere irritations to intolerables, the exploitation of these issues and blowing them up in the face of the PAP intentionally or otherwise, could prove deadly to the ruling party. These problems have 3 years of gestation to become full blown crisis events and for the people to make up their mind to change or not to change the govt in 2016.

Never has Singapore domestic politics been at such state of uncertainties that a regime change is actually possible in three years time. Jee Say may be hoping for the moon, but it is not really that unreachable, really. The dark horse in the computation is actually the foreign element. They could prove to be the game changer, for good or bad, for the ruling govt.

Does the Govt respect the people’s elected representatives?

Apparently this is so. It must be, the MPs are elected by the people to represent them and their interests and rightly or wrongly, the Govt has no choice but to work with the MPs, to show some respect to the people. Anyway, this is only an issue when the MPs are from the opposition. An article by Chua Mui Hoong over the weekend raised this relationship between the Govt and the opposition MPs.

The problem is that many Govt initiatives are backed and funded by public money and the Govt cannot deprive the residents of opposition wards of the public funds. Allocating the funds to grassroot advisers smack of impropriety in the sense that the grassroot advisers often are the rejects of the people. The people did not want the grassroot advisers to represent and did not want to work with them. If the Govt is spending party funds, the opposition MPs have nothing to say and the Govt can make love with the grassroot advisers for as long as it wants.

This tricky problem arose again in Parliament when Chan Chun Sing announced that his ministry would be setting up 20 social service offices across the island. These offices are to provide social assistance to the residents and would require the combined effort of social workers, agencies and also the MPs. Chan went on to ask the MPs to work with his officials to identify suitable sites for such offices. Innocently an opposition MP stood up saying she would love to work with the Ministry of Social and Family Development,MSF on this, and Chan’s reply was that he would work with the grassroot leaders. Wasn’t it awkward?

Chua Mui Hoong did not let this matter go away. In her article she posed the question whether it is time that the Govt should put the money where the mouth is, and seriously work with the elected MPs of both sides. The past practice of ostracizing the opposition MPs did not work and was done in bad taste. Should there be a new start to our all inclusive society trumpeted by the Govt, inclusive of opposition MPs when delivering services to the people using public fund?

Does the Govt respect the people and their choice of their MPs and would the Govt show its sincerity to work with them, and be answerable to the people?