Deport the undesirables as a deterrent

Last week Dudley Au, a senior gentleman, wrote in a forum letter in the Today paper calling for deterrence against crime. He was referring to the rioting in Little India and how important it is to make sure that the perpetrators and potential rioters would think very hard should they want to riot again. Singapore has done well in the past by using deterrence effectively to keep criminals and violators of the law at bay by strong punishment as a statement.
 
Death penalty for kidnapping and for drug smuggling were made very clear that there is no chance for ignorance. At one time long hair was not welcomed to the island and posters were put up at entry points to get the message across.
 
The need for deterrence to stop foreigners from turning this island into a wild wild west or a 3rd World lawless country is becoming more urgent with the high numbers of foreigners here. The Little India riot just broke the camel’s back. The govt has been very tolerant of the mischiefs committed by foreigners to the extent of being too soft to the ire of the citizens. Rude and hooligan behaviours of angmohs and other foreigners thumping down the law abiding citizens were often reported but taken too lightly.
 
It is time to put the message across that foreigners are here as our guests and at our pleasure. Misbehaviour, rude behaviour, criminal activities etc are not acceptable and foreigners exhibiting such unruly and unacceptable behaviour will be ruled as underdesirables and will be deported immediately, without going to the courts of law in light cases, while serious offenders will be charged in court and subsequently deported in serious cases. Cases like foreign cyclists taunting and threatening law abiding Singaporeans are cases that deserved deportation. The govt cannot be seen as a lame duck or tacitly supporting such wild and uncivilised behavior of foreigners against the citizens.
 
Sign boards on the deportation of undesirables shall be prominently displayed at entry points like those long hair posters of the past. Let there be no mistakes that foreigners can shit on the citizens or behave like hooligans and thugs here, and definitely will be dealt with serious in criminal cases. We have millions queueing to come here and throwing out a few pariahs will not affect the attractiveness of this paradise island for making a fortune and a good life.
 
We need this deterrence to ensure law and order and safety of the citizens. We do not want to become another 3rd World with 3ed World normals. 3rd World normals are just not acceptable here.
 
Seriously, will the govt even dare to consider such measures against the angmohs? The days of caning Michael Fay is over. We don’t have anyone strong enough to talk to the angmohs as equals and to treat them as equals and the bad as bad. Our ministers even have to make callings on the foreigners instead of summoning them to wait outside his office.

Characteristics of a 3rd World country

I would not attempt to define what a 3^rd World country is as the definition would be as controversial, subjective and debatable. But I think many would agree that there are some features that are common to 3^rd World countries that we can agree with. Let me throw up some of these features here and see how many of them are already happening in out 1^st World city.

 

1.     Exceptionally wide income gap or high Gini coefficient number.

2.     High inflation and diminishing monetary value.

3.     High numbers of poor and uneducated people in the population(foreigners included).

4.     Fancy for forms or vanity projects.

5.     Fancy for mega projects that cost billions of dollars.

6.     High crime rate with murders and death happening almost daily.

7.     Cheatings and scams quite prevalent.

8.     Rioting and burning of vehicles in the streets.

9.     Littering.

10.   People eating and drinking on the streets.

11.   Sense of insecurity. This is increasing daily.

12.   Govt leaders only talking cock about grandeurs.

13.   Self serving govt leaders.

14.   Control of the media.

15.   Suppressing dissent.

16.   High corruption, legal or illegal.

17.   Govt squandering public money foolishly on parties after parties.

18.   Top jobs taken over the foreigners.

19.   Govt trusts foreigners more than the locals.

20.   High unemployment or graduates being jobless.

21.   Govt leaders using public money for useless state visits.

22.   Abuse of govt authority and govt offices and officers.

23.   Cronyism and nepotism.

24.   Some kinds of dictatorship or authoritarian state.

25.   Control of media and freedom of expression.

26.   A deep sense of fear of authority.

I think there are many more features but suffice to say that the main features above are adequate to define a 3^rd World country.

Shame on Sinkies

I read three comments in ST Premium or online on the degeneration of the state of affair in the city. A point made by a Pavithran Vidyadharan on our poor social behaviour, and I quote,  ‘Our poor social graces in MRT trains and on the roads may be a result of our material success - we have unwittingly become arrogant and self-centred.’

Though I may take this with a pinch of salt as the majority of commuters are foreigners rather than Sinkies, it still highlighted the fact that social behaviour in trains and roads are much to be desired in this city. In the case of behaviour on the road, we have crazy and rude foreigners thinking that this is their colony and daring Sinkie motorists to run them down with their cars when they rode wildly on the roads. Then we have mad drivers in their Ferraris and Lamborghinis turning the roads into their race tracks.

The second comment was by a Murali Sharma who said, ‘It is appalling
that despite all the rubbish bins around, the tarmac could not be seen for the litter after the New Year countdown party ("After the party ends... there's the rubbish"; Thursday).

Singapore has held cleanliness campaigns for at least 4 decades
and there are anti-littering measures, including fines, in place.

Yet, people still throw vast amounts of rubbish with abandon at mass functions.’

Again I am not sure how many of those littering or throwing killer litters from the flat were Sinkies or foreigners, but it is a strong point that a 1^st World country cannot have people behaving like those in 3^rd World when such things are normal.

And the third writer, a M. Lukshumayeh said that patience and intolerance were lacking in this city and he said, ‘Taking a lift in Singapore really highlights the lack of patience, tolerance and consideration in society.
Many lift users would enter the lift and immediately press the "door close" button.’
I think he has his point. But being new here and coming from somewhere where lifts may not be a common feature, I am presuming, just like him, he needs to understand why people would want to close the lift quickly than to wait for the crowd to squeeze into the lift. There is a safety consideration especially for the women folks who are uncomfortable alone with strangers. There are other factors too that make people want to close the lift quickly. In countries where people are comfortable squeezing with strangers in a crowded lift or train, they may find Sinkie behaviour unfriendly.
What is notable is that the three writers are highly likely to be new here, other than Sharma, and already find such behaviour unacceptable. They must have been living in 1^st World cities and got used to the graceful behaviour of what a 1^st World should be like and take offence at 3^rd World attitude. They may not know that Sin City has returned to the 3^rd World in many aspects as it is not easy to integrate or educate 3^rd World people to behave like 1^st World. And the thing is that Sinkies are integrating and becoming more like the 3^rd World instead of the 3^rd World people coming here and becoming like 1^st World. And in many parts of the island, you won’t even think that you are in Singapore.
I must thank the three writers for their observations and Sinkies must feel ashamed of themselves. And greatly so too when visitors or new residents could find the behaviours offensive and have no place in a 1^st World city. Or shall I say actually the unruly and offensive behaviours are committed by the 3^rd World people here and shitty Sinkies got the blame?

What the future lies for Singapore?

‘Ivan Heng criticised the national broadcaster for a show which he felt was not inclusive of Singaporeans from different races and cultures.

Describing the programme as “cheena”, the Singaporean theatre actor and director also said in the post that he “kept flipping channels to double-check to see if I was watching Channel 8 or CTV (referring to China Central Television)".

He also mentioned that “Malays, Indians, Eurasians, Peranakans and not to mention the dozens of other races and nationalities who today call Singapore their country and home” were left out.’

The above comment by Ivan Heng is a reflection of the type of Sinkies we have here. Some Sinkies have morphed into another breed that is definitely not ‘cheena’ but kind of a half breed, a bit angmoh and a bit dunno what. It is important that Mediacorp understand this development and that not all Chinese Sinkies are Chinese or see themselves as of Chinese origin. In some sense they even feel infuriated to be associated with anything Chinese or cheena. The sensitivities of this breed must be taken into recognition to avoid offending them and their pride as a different breed.

But this is only a small deviation from the norm. What lies in the future is the influx of so many foreigners that would make demands on any national events or TV programming. If we keep on prostituting ourselves and allowed all kinds of foreigners to become citizens, our four official languages or racial groups, now plus a ‘non cheena’ group appearing, would have to be expanded to include PRC or cheena Chinese, Northern Indians and Pinoys and maybe Thais and Myanmar as well. These new citizens would, in a matter of time, demand to be treated equally, and the content of our National Day Celebration or TV programmes or TV Channels must accommodate their existence, and their rights to them.

Is this what we want, more than 4 official languages not enough, more than for major racial groups not enough problems, that we want more and more, especially of the shitty kind? Where are we going as a country, as a nation? Are we being led by the blind or by the daft? Is the silly Pied Piper leading us to the edge of the cliff of no return?

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.