MDA – Loosening the G string

I sat through the live telecast of Talking Point on the issue of new licensing of online news sites. The most unbelieveable thing to happen in the programme is that the MDA personnel was not there, not Yaacob or Koh Lin Net but the Minister of MOM, Tan Chuan Jin. Isn’t this odd? Don’t tell me the new regulation was initiated and approved by Chuan Jin and he has to kuai kuai come out to explain his stand? Quite possible isn’t it? If I were Yaacob or Lin Net, even if my name is named after internet, I would not want to explain anything so unpopular if I have nothing to do with it. Your guess why Chuan Jin has to front this show.

What came through very clearly was that the regulation was rushed out without much thought, with many blanks left unanswered. Now they are going to relook at the details and to fill in the blanks. The main purpose is to target sites that are reporting on Singapore news and not so much about the right news. But right news still came out for some discussion and by the end of the show, no one really knows what is the right news or what is the right news all about.

The other point that came out clearly is that bloggers or individual websites will not be targeted. Then why was this not spelt out in the first place? Or is this an after thought, that bloggers were originally in the scheme of things? Imagine how much venom would have been taken out from the bloggers if from the first move the MOM clearly said bloggers will not be affected by the new regulation. It is still not too late to make an amendment to make it official that bloggers will not come under this regulation. Will the MOM just do that?

The truth is that MOM was not sure how things would develop and they wanted the provision that when blogs take on the characteristics of news site, reporting on Singapore news, then they will come under the regulation. Then I must say many bloggers will eventually come under the regulation despite the denial. Don’t trust me, let me explain. What if I keep reporting on the number of crocodiles in Sungei Buloh Wetland? Is that not reporting on Singapore news? What if I keep reporting about MRT jams or breakdowns as I take the train daily? Is that not reporting on Singapore news? There is no where to run when the definition of news is everything under the Singapore sky. Would MDA want to make this ‘Singapore News’ more specific?

Bertha Henson kept asking the minister what was the real intent of the regulation. And some callers asked a very simple question, ‘Is there anything that is not covered by existing regulations that made the rushing out of this new regulation that necessary and urgent?’ Anything criminal, defamatory or inciting violence on racial and religious issues are fully covered by existing laws. Then why ah? Why in such a hurry to rush out this regulation without making sure that the G string is properly tied and in the right place. Now the G string is found to be too tight and a lot of loosening and readjusting will need to be done, exposing many embarrassing holes and parts that should not be exposed.

What is the real intent of pulling this G string?

Let’s continue to deceive the stupid Singaporeans

‘Banks lead push for local talent pool.’ This is the title of an article in the ST on how ‘serious’ the banks are in pushing for the development of a local pool of banking and finance talents. The point that they are still using the term local instead of Singaporean is a give away warning sign. And when you read the statistics, the Singaporeans and PRs are all lumped together as local talents. Fuck it, PRs are not Singaporeans, and even new citizens are Singaporeans only for a few months or a few years.

Let’s be serious and say the RIGHT thing about Singaporeans and not PRs as locals. Among the local banks that are serious in employing Singaporeans are UOB and OCBC. Period.

Citibank and Stanchart are well known for hiring more foreigners than the other banks. And they claimed to employ 80% and 90% locals respectively. Would they give a breakdown on the number of Singaporeans among the locals, and the percentage of Singaporeans in top management? I am not sure of the Number One local bank, DBS, as no numbers were given. DBS must set a good example as the employer of Singaporeans and not locals which means primarily PRs. I hope DBS will show some nice numbers about how many Singaporeans are in top management. 12 out of 19 in management committee are locals or 63%? How many are Singaporeans?

The more the banks refuse to tell the proportion of Singaporeans and kept hiding behind locals, the more wary Singaporeans should be. Singapore must be for Singaporeans first. It must be that way. Fair employment practice must still emphasise Singaporeans first as being fair. No silly govt in the world would adopt fair employment opportunities for citizens and non citizens. It cannot be fair employment opportunities when citizens are concerned, in our own country.

Ramp-up in supply of new flats not sustainable: Khaw

What? Ramp up supply of new flats not sustainable? What about not building enough, sustainable? What about ramping up the population to 6.9m, sustainable? What about having more foreigners here?

What about rising property prices? Sustainable? What about ever higher salaries for the elite, sustainable? What about car prices and COEs, sustainable? Higher minimum sums in CPF sustainable? Higher hospital fees sustainable?

What is sustainable?

Dr Ker Sin Tze - Hongkong as role model for population growth

Dr Ker, an ex PAP MP and Consul General to Hongkong wrote an article published in the ST yesterday. The gist of his argument is that what Hongkong can do we can too. And the principles can be summarised by this statement, “As the economy of a territory or nation grows and expands, more manpower is needed. Successive inflows of immigrants contribute to the growth of the economy.”

Dr Ker conveniently lumped a country’s economy and its polity together as an inseparable entity. A country is not just the economy with only economic interest and no other interests. The political interest and consideration of a country, of its people, is far more important than just the economy and economics.

Dr Ker can be right in describing a commercial organisation, a business concern. When an enterprise grows and expands, it needs more manpower and other factors of production to grow even bigger. A country is not just an enterprise but also a home. When the owner of a home gets richer, he does not fill up his home with more outsiders/guests to occupy every room and share all his wealth. A country is like a home to its citizens. The guests may be needed to work on the economy but never become part of the owners of the home. The home must never be taken over by the guests.

What Dr Ker has said reflects on his economic mindset. He is only thinking economics. And this is a dangerous premise to start with and that is where the PAP has fumbled and getting itself into bigger problem, losing its bearing and purpose, losing the confidence of the people and losing the country to foreigners. The party thinks that it is running a corporation and as such citizens, PRs, foreigners and what not, do not matter as long as they contribute to the economic pie. How dreadfully wrong can the party be? How blind can the party be that it cannot even understand that it is walking down a slippery road of building an economic enterprise but losing the core interest of its people and the country in the process?

Singaporeans will be turned into a stateless people, with no country to talk about, if this grave mistake is not dealt with immediately. Growing the economic pie is important, economic growth and well being are equally important. But blindly pursuing economic growth and losing the country is a great tragedy that only fools, economists and corporate honchos will do without a single care if there is a country and a citizen to care for. Where are the politicians, the political leaders of a nation?

And they are all so blind to this simple political consideration, the primacy of the state and its people? Unbelieveable!

When are they going to stop selling this snake oil of bigger population?

Shangrila Dialogue - China must take the initiative from the USA

For the past decades, the US has been setting the agenda and taking the initiative to attack China under the vague concept of human rights and hegemony. They have, in every opportunity, launched attacks against China on these two issues and forced China to be on the defensive. The irony is that the US is the greatest violator of human rights and hegemony. The rights of many innocent civilians are violated, maimed or killed by the Americans are mounting daily through so many wars started involving the Americans. And the Americans, as the Empire, the biggest hegemonic power of the day is accusing the Chinese of hegemonic ambition.

It is time the Chinese seize the initiative from the Americans and put the Americans on the defensive. China should announce to the world that it is against hegemony, against interference in another country’s domestic affairs, against war, against violation of human rights and killing of innocent civilians, and against deployment of military bases outside one’s territory. China should then take on the Americans every time the Americans violated these principles.

China should rally world opinions against the Americans. There are many countries that are victims of the American hegemony and will be most willing supporters of such principles. Put the Americans on the defensive instead of being defensive and submissive. China should act and behave like a responsible big power and hold the Americans to such principles and challenge the Americans on such principles. China cannot be on the defensive for all the wrong reasons when the Empire is violated every principle it claims to hold and claiming China is the violator.

The ball game must be balanced on the grounds of principles and actions. China must start to take the offensive against American rhetoric and game of misinformation. The next Shangrila Dialogue China must set the agenda.