What would PAP be fighting and defending?

The PAP came out of a convention with a new resolution and a new resolve to fight for what they believed in. This was to be the news of the day but eclipsed by the Little India riot.  Everyone’s attention was diverted to the violence on the streets and this great convention just disappeared into thin air without attracting any interest other than Chan Chun Sing wanting to take the war to every corner of the island.  That was the juicy bit that still lingers in the air. The only article on this convention came from Dr Wong Wee Nam but still did not catch too much of an attention when there were so many exciting news event to capture the emotions of the people.

What was the convention all about? Other than the airy ideas of a 6 point resolution which was a brush up of the original resolution, the PAP made a war cry that they would defend what they believe in, their positions and policies. What are these beliefs in concrete terms?

Is the PAP going to defend the high influx of foreigners and the 6.9m population target in 2030?

Is the PAP going to defend the high cost of living, high property prices, high medical fees, high education fees?

Is the PAP going to defend the lost of jobs by local PMEs and being replaced by foreigners?

Is the PAP going to defend the ultra high ministerial pay system that is hanging like a giant millstone on the neck of an albatross?

Is the PAP going to defend the big numbers of scholarships given to foreigners?

Is the PAP going to defend the big numbers of FTs in high places, like CEOs and professorship/lecturers in the academia?

Is the PAP going to defend the diminishing Singaporean core by bringing in more foreigners and issuing them with citizenships?

Is the PAP still going to deprive true blue citizens from buying a HDB flat with all its nonsensical rulings?

How would all the above fit into the 6 point resolution? Or is the 6 point resolution another airy idealistic aspiration to be spoken and forgotten. What is real in the resolution that benefits the true blue Singaporeans? It is very important to use the term true blue as there are many new citizens conveniently given the pink ic to reap the fruits that our parents and forefathers have planted without sweating the small stuff, and got the gall to claim credit for everything here.

Secession in Thailand

This thought must be in the minds of the Thais for a long time but not spoken. Finally it is in their lips and openly spoken as an option to the political crisis. The Yingluck govt may be appearing soft and may be taken for granted by the Democrats and the Bangkok elite. But beneath this apparent weakness and inaction is a very powerful message. It exposes the real thugs and trouble makers and how these people are out to destroy Thailand at all costs. Thailand can be led into turmoil with blood and bodies on the street to achieve their political goals with the support of the minority in Bangkok. The protestors are ignoring all reasons and sensibilities and the welfare of the Thai people. They just want to grab power.

The Yellow shirts are proving themselves to be unreasonable political thugs. The Red Shirts, being the real majority, are now the sensible party, cool, composed, non violent and seeking a govt to be elected constitutionally and democratically by the people. They have been patient and restrained and avoiding a direct and bloody clash with the Yellow Shirts. They are not going to give the army a reason or a chance to stage a coup against a popularly elected govt.

What is the next step or change of event? There could still be a coup or a revolt by the Democrats and the Bangkok elite. What are the options available to the Red Shirts and the majority of the Thais in the rural north? A direct confrontation is possible but this would only lead to more bloodshed and lost of lives and properties. Bangkok and Thailand could be burnt down, shut down. This is an option that the Red Shirts have shown to want to avoid.

A possible option is secession and with Thailand breaking up with the North under the Red Shirts and Bangkok and the South under the Yellow Shirts. Such an alternative could or could not see a civil war. The military could be split and how they would make up is still uncertain. If they are willing to part the country to avoid an open conflict, this secession option could be an ideal option to the impasse. They could still opt to start a civil war that would destroy Thailand and the Thai people. The blood letting would be unprecedented. The cost is huge and would cripple Thailand and not desirable to all Thais.

Which course would the Thais choose if force to decide when the Yingluck govt is forcefully dethroned? The Red Shirts would not take it lightly and would be forced to take a stand. And they are in the majority and have the northern Thaliand on their side. They are playing their cards close to their chest and have so far refrained from posing a direct challenge to the Yellow Shirts. Would the Yellow Shirts believe they have the support of all the Thais and push for a climatic change through the use of violence?

Would Thailand turn into a battle ground for the Thais to fight one another, or would the lesser evil of a parting of the two camps in peace? The Yellow Shirts are stubbornly holding on to an unyielding position, either accept their way or fight. The Red Shirts are trying to negotiate for a compromise without resorting to violence. This only emboldens the Yellow Shirts to dig in thinking that they have the upper hand. Either the Red Shirts be forced to fight or to take the break away path to minimize the casualties on both sides.

What is the greatest blooper of 2013?

2013 shall be remembered as a very eventful year till the very last day with the massive jam caused by the most expensive crooked expressway in the world. This is kind of hard to beat really. But through the years there were several other outstanding events that really shook this little island like a little tsunami.
 
Let me recall, the two high level corruption cases involving top civil servants when money was still not enough to stop them from being corrupt. In both cases it wasn’t money that led them astray. This may call for a rethink on what else is needed to keep officers in public service clean short of recruiting monks and priests for the job.
This was followed closely with a long list of luminaries involved in underage sex with a nymph. Quite shocking that this happened in such a scale and involving so many prominent people, including the scions of famous clans.
 
The courts really were doing roaring businesses with God’s money being passed around in circles that were called round trippings. And poor God had to apologise to his dear messenger for the mess and putting him under the authority of human judges.
The headless body and the numerous crimes were pale in comparison to these events and the Little India riot that saw policemen running for their lives and their vehicles overturned and burnt. It turned out that the culprit was alcohol.
 
Would the challenge by a cleaner threatening to take the PM to court over some acts in the Election Law be considered another great blooper? Or would the Presidential Election when the elected President won by the skin of the teeth and with barely 35% of the popular votes be considered a bewilderment? The discovery of election boxes left behind in a school months after the Presidential Election did raise some eye brows and must surely be a worthy blooper of the year. Or would a top notch talent of the ruling party losing to an unknown ordinary female candidate be earth shaking enough to be included as a big blooper?
 
What about the Rolls Royce equivalent folding bicycles for the comfort of rangers to patrol the parks in the garden in a city? And to top the issue of corruption there was a deputy director of the CPIB being charge for corruption.
 
What else is equally worthy? The contents of a minute about cleaning of hawker centre or a $2 company buying a customized software and selling it at a friendship price may also be good choices vying for the blooper of the year award.
 
What other hilarious or nightmarish events that could draw the oohs and aahs from the people with comments like, ‘like this also can’? Would it be the PWP, Natcon, or the frequency of train breakdowns with the new Downtown Line breaking down on its first day of operation?
 
What do you think? Which event is truly deserving of being awarded the Blooper of the Year Award? I almost forgot about the Messiah, or is it the owl, and the sudden downtime of govt websites for maintenance, the Media Acts to control social media. There are just so many interesting and outrageous events that made 2013 a really eventful and memorable year. And the haze, oh it reminds me of you know what. And the list could go on.
 
What would you think deserve the honour of being the Blooper of the Year?

A lesson from the Rakhine state in Myanmar

There is a documentary serial in Channel News Asia hosted by a Dr Farish Noor called Cross Borders. His last episode was on Myanmar and he visited the Rakhine state where the Rohingyas lived. The Rohingyas are muslims and originated from Bangladesh. They are very different from the Buddhist Myanmese in look, culture, religion and way of life.
 
There is an on going war or persecution against the Rohingyas by some sectors of the Myanmese population. The Rohingyas are not welcomed by both states of Bangladesh and Myanmar. Many are running away, risking their lives as boat people rather than remaining in Rakhine. They are not wanted by Bangladesh as well. And they are lucky if they survived their journey by small fishing boats.
 
What makes the Rohingyas intolerable to the Myanmese is their claim for an independent state from Myanmar. No Myanmese govt is going to carve out a piece of their land for them for sure. They are not Myanmese but migrants from neighbouring Bangladesh, some kind of equivalent to the untouchables of India.
 
At the end of the documentary, Dr Farish expressed his gratefulness for having a country to go back to. The Rohingyas are people without a country.
 
What is the lesson to be learnt? Sinkies better treasure this little island they have and called home. And they deserved to be boat people if they are careless, complacent and disinterested in protecting their rights as citizens of this island. The silliness of inviting so many foreigners as citizens could one day be the source of their own downfall and be evicted out of this island, their homeland.
 
The lesson of Rakhine is that when a group of people becomes big enough, with a critical mass, they are going to demand for more rights as a group. They would demand for recognition for their way of life, language, culture, a TV channel and religion, and in the case of the Rohingyas, a separate state. If we mindlessly and irresponsibly allow so many foreigners to come into our homeland, one day they are going to make demands on us when they are big enough and to stake a claim to this land.
 
By then all the kpkb would be useless, futile. By then, Sinkies would have to fight for every inch of their land and every privilege as citizens of this island with these foreigners turned citizens.
 
Do not be complacent, do not be stupid and give up your rights to this land so easily. Do not be daft. Do not be conned by the daft against your interests. You will pay a very heavy price for it. Your children will curse you for your stupidity and indifference when you can stop the change, when you can stop losing your country to foreigners.

It is not easy to have a country of our own. Bringing in foreigners is as good as giving a part of our country to them, giving our country away. It is not as innocent as you think. The consequences are far reaching and very serious to our own well being.

PS: And don't forget your kopi. According to google my kopi level is at a critically low level. Just spare me 10 sec will do.

Thanks.

Time to be selfish

A new year and a new beginning. How many Sinkies are willing to share their homes with foreigners? How many Sinkies are willing to share their spouses with foreigners? There is a limit to sharing and some things just cannot be shared or be given away at our own expense. How many of you are willing to share the good jobs with foreigners while you end up jobless, underemployed? How many willing to share university places with foreigners so that you can send your children overseas? How many of you willing to share your country with foreigners and risk being kick out by the foreigners one day?
 
Tomorrow is not going to be better if Sinkies continue to be so generous in sharing everything they own or should be theirs with foreigners. Sinkies cannot keep doing charity to foreigners. The foreigners are not going to be charitable to Sinkies in return. Mark my words. We have heard so many horror stories of foreigners exploiting, abusing, discriminating and cheating Sinkies blatantly, right in their faces.
 
Sinkies have to be selfish for their own survival in their home country. Sinkies need to think of self first. When Sinkies are well provided only then can Sinkies afford to be charitable. Let the rich Sinkies and elite be charitable as they have the means and extras to be charitable. The rest of the Sinkies must think selfish if they are going to live better and if their children are going to live better.
 
Selfishness is good. Selfishness is a kind of defensive mechanism. What happens to Kiasuism? Selfishness is kiasuism in another form.