‘We, the undersigned, are alarmed by the recent surge of racism and
xenophobia in Singapore. They threaten the human rights of all
(especially migrants) and the health of our political conversation….We
see the widespread use of racist, aggressive and militarised rhetoric on
social media, as well as a trend of blaming foreigners for social ills.
Ordinary people have been threatened in public spaces with nationalist
and/or anti-foreigner language. …’
The above paragraphs were extracted from a statement by a group of non
govt organistions and individuals on the growing intolerance of
foreigners in Singapore. The organisations involved are: Association of
Women for Action and Research (AWARE), Beyond the Border, Behind the
Men, Function 8, Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics
(HOME), LeftWrite Center, MARUAH, Project X, Sayoni, Singapore,
Anti-Death Penalty Campaign, Think Centre, Transient Workers Count Too
(TWC2),Workfair.
The individuals that put signed on this statement are: Fikri Alkhatib,
Damien Chng, Ian Chong, Jean Chong, Chong Si Min, Kirsten Han, Farhan M.
Idris, Godwin Koay, Lynn Lee, Siew Kum Hong, Constance Singam, Alvin
Tan Cheong Kheng, Jolene Tan, Teng Qian Xi, Shelley Thio, Teo Soh Lung,
Vincent Wijeysingha, Mark Wong De Yi, Wong Pei Chi, June Yang Yajun, Yap
Ching Wi, Rachel Zeng.
These are high profile organisations and individuals coming together to
put up a case against their perceived growing racism and xenophobia of
Singaporeans. This comes shortly after a series of condemnation from the
govt sectors, including politicians who branded Singaporeans as
xenophobes for expressing their anger and unhappiness at foreigners,
particularly the rich PMETs who have acted disparagingly and
disgustingly against Singaporeans. There were little, almost negligible,
anti foreign sentiments against the foreign workers whom Singaporeans
acknowledged and welcomed to be here to do jobs that Sinkies have
shunned, mostly manual and construction jobs.
The Singaporeans felt outraged, offended at this unfair branding of them
as xenophobes as many did not see themselves that way. Their unfriendly
comments against the foreigners were not xenophobic and never meant to
be anti foreigners or racist but at the culprits that violated the
sanctity of Singaporeans in Singapore. Some counter argued that the govt
was trying to deflect the real issues of foreigners in the country and
pass the buck to them, to brand them as racist, making them the focus of
attention. Singaporeans were more angry with the govt’s policies to let
in so many foreigners to swarm the island and making their lives not
only uncomfortable but losing out competing for jobs, space and
facilities and crowding in the trains. Do the Singaporeans have a right
to air their anger and frustrations on the huge presence of foreigners?
Has any Singaporeans went out of his way to confront foreigners, to beat
or attack them like what had happened in xenophobic countries?
In fact, the rise in tension and anger in Singaporeans was more a
reaction to the abuses, provocations, discriminations and taunting by
the foreigners themselves. The foreigners brought it upon themselves.
The rioting by foreign workers, attacking Singaporeans and the police,
burning police cars, were taken in their strike by the Singaporeans
without much acrimony. Singaporeans took it as a once off event due to a
traffic accident. There was a total absence of outrage by the
Singaporeans against the rioters and no Singaporeans went out to hammer
or beat up any of the rioters as a result.
How can any Sinkie be so foolish to point the fingers at other
Singaporeans for being xenophobic? Where is the xenophobia? The only
sound or noise was in social media where some hot blooded young
Singaporeans used as an outlet to air their frustration. Do these
Sinkies who are accusing other Singaporeans of xenophobia know what
xenophobia is all about?
Many Singaporeans have travelled widely and have lived abroad. Many have
first hand experience of xenophobia themselves, personally, when they
were attacked, abused, spitted at, called names, even beaten, just
because of the colour of their skins. Have such things happened here in
this paradise? Yes, absolutely! But the victims were mostly Sinkies and
the xenophobes were the foreigners taking physical liberty at the daft
Sinkies. Ask the taxi drivers how many have been beaten by foreigners?
Remember who is Anton Casey? Remember the few angmoh cyclists
threatening Sinkie drivers in the middle of the road like this is their
grandfather’s country and the roads their grandfather’s roads? Or must
Singaporeans apologised the Anton Casey who cursing and swearing at him
for his bad racist behaviour? Or must Singaporeans apologise to the
angmoh cyclists for blocking their ways?
Are those organisations and individuals signing the statements
chastising Singaporeans as xenophobic and racists real? I think they are
out of their mind.
More than 50% of the population in the island are foreigners. How many
foreigners have been abused, insulted or attacked by Singaporeans for
the colour of their skin or because they were foreigners? If there were
any physical brawls involving foreigners and Singaporeans, the reason
often than not were anything but xenophobia. The huge number of
foreigners here and enjoying themselves is the best testimony that
Singaporeans are insanely tolerant of foreigners. What are a few kpkb
incidents by a few Singaporeans amount to but a hiccup or a yawn.
Xenophobic and racist Singaporeans because of them? How foolish?
Sinkies are called daft not for no reason. And this joint statement
about Singaporeans being anti foreigners and racists is a very good
reason for it. Many Sinkies were booted or sacked from their jobs by
foreigners so that the foreigners could replace the Sinkies with their
own kind. No? Fiction, fabrication? These are true acts of racism and
xenophobia against Singaporeans, not Singaporeans against foreigners.
Are these people crazy? I suggest they should admit themselves to
Woodbridge and have their heads checked. Singaporeans are victims of
xenophobia and racism in their own country.
Kopi Level - Green
5/28/2014
Singaporeans First or Foreigners First
When Jee Say and his comrades announced the birth of a new party I was a
bit uneasy. We don’t need more opposition parties but for opposition
candidates to gel together as a united front. My misgivings were kind of
softened when the name of the party was announced. It is called
Singaporeans First Party. And I was quite agreeable with his manifesto
that puts Singaporeans First. At least we have a political party that
values and wants to protect the interests of Singaporeans.
Yesterday in Parliament when Foo Mee Har called for Singaporeans First in employment opportunities she was shot down by Amy Khor. Amy’s position is the same as the PAP/Govt. Cannot put Singaporeans first and lost out on foreign talents. If there are better foreign talents, just too bad if Singaporeans were passed over. It is a competitive world and we must fight for the best foreign talents. This is the same as ST’s Fernandez position, regardless of nationalities as long as they are talents. This position also presumes that the foreign talents hired are really better talents than Sinkies and not otherwise, not because they are of the same kind or clan.
Foo Mee Har ended having to qualify her position that all things being equal, or something like that, Singaporeans must be given first right of refusal. I like that.
Is Amy Khor’s foreign talents preference against Singaporeans First the policy position of PAP? If this is the case, then we will have two parties with two different priorities with respect to jobs for Singaporeans. Singaporeans First Party would put the hiring of Singaporeans First as a major policy. PAP will be talents regardless of nationalities. Am I right to make this conclusion?
Would the PAP care to clarify its position on this new development in Parliament? Was Amy Khor spelling out PAP’s policy on the hiring of talents?
Kopi Level - Green
Yesterday in Parliament when Foo Mee Har called for Singaporeans First in employment opportunities she was shot down by Amy Khor. Amy’s position is the same as the PAP/Govt. Cannot put Singaporeans first and lost out on foreign talents. If there are better foreign talents, just too bad if Singaporeans were passed over. It is a competitive world and we must fight for the best foreign talents. This is the same as ST’s Fernandez position, regardless of nationalities as long as they are talents. This position also presumes that the foreign talents hired are really better talents than Sinkies and not otherwise, not because they are of the same kind or clan.
Foo Mee Har ended having to qualify her position that all things being equal, or something like that, Singaporeans must be given first right of refusal. I like that.
Is Amy Khor’s foreign talents preference against Singaporeans First the policy position of PAP? If this is the case, then we will have two parties with two different priorities with respect to jobs for Singaporeans. Singaporeans First Party would put the hiring of Singaporeans First as a major policy. PAP will be talents regardless of nationalities. Am I right to make this conclusion?
Would the PAP care to clarify its position on this new development in Parliament? Was Amy Khor spelling out PAP’s policy on the hiring of talents?
Kopi Level - Green
Constructive Politics in Parliament
Last night’s news on Parliament was dominated by a new find in
Puthucheary. He came across as the smartest MP in the house. He was on
his feet many times, even his speech on healthcare was allowed extra
time to expound on his wisdom. The ministers were in awe, mesmerized by
his grasp on the issues facing healthcare. He seemed to have all the
answers especially on what Gerald Giam had to say. And Gerald Giam was
as good as saying nothing but sound bites.
Gerald Giam made two points which I thought were very pertinent and should be seriously considered by the MOH instead of being brushed off lightly by some wise cracks. The first point was the American private healthcare system. Gerald told the house that the American govt made it a law for excessive profits from health insurance to be ploughed back to reduce the premiums paid by the insured.
This point was hastily dismissed by Puthucheary with no second thought. It was a private insurance scheme and should not be used in our discussion on a public healthcare scheme. Why not? Be it private or public healthcare scheme, excessive profits must be moderated and best returned to the insured. Otherwise the insurance agencies would be raising higher and higher premiums to make more and more profits. I think this is a very important point for our govt and private insurers to take note of and to prevent premiums from running away.
The second point by Gerald, actually related to the first, is that the claims made in our public health insurance scheme came to 63% of premiums collected, ie giving a huge surplus of 37% to the insurers. The American private health insurance’s claim was 82% and the American govt was already finding the profit too high.
This point was again pooh-poohed by Puthucheary. What is wrong with collecting more premiums and more surplus? What? Who said that? Nothing wrong with collecting unnecessary higher premiums from the masses? Puthucheary’s logic was that there were too many unthinkables and contingencies that could happen and could raise the claims unexpectedly. It was good to have a big cushion of excess premiums. Ya, I know that too, let’s add another 20% to the premium.
This kind of thinking I can agree if I am prepared to worry about when the sun would not shine again or when the next epidemic will hit. We must have a lot of extras, a lot of fats, just in case. No wonder the CPF minimum sums keeps going higher and higher. No wonder the nation’s reserves for a rainy day must keep increasing, even if we have 20 trillions will not be enough. No wonder some ministers are saying their salaries are not enough.
It is okay to collect more premiums. It is okay to increase the minimum sums to $1m. Who can dispute against such logic? But who is paying? Whose pocket will be hurt?
What is wrong with collecting more money from the people?
I am worried when we have so clever people in the govt who wants to worry about everything under heaven, every unknown, and wanting to provide for them and make the people pay for their concerns. I know their hearts are good and in the right place.
Who is indulging in constructive politics and who is indulging in destructive politics?
Kopi Level - Green
Gerald Giam made two points which I thought were very pertinent and should be seriously considered by the MOH instead of being brushed off lightly by some wise cracks. The first point was the American private healthcare system. Gerald told the house that the American govt made it a law for excessive profits from health insurance to be ploughed back to reduce the premiums paid by the insured.
This point was hastily dismissed by Puthucheary with no second thought. It was a private insurance scheme and should not be used in our discussion on a public healthcare scheme. Why not? Be it private or public healthcare scheme, excessive profits must be moderated and best returned to the insured. Otherwise the insurance agencies would be raising higher and higher premiums to make more and more profits. I think this is a very important point for our govt and private insurers to take note of and to prevent premiums from running away.
The second point by Gerald, actually related to the first, is that the claims made in our public health insurance scheme came to 63% of premiums collected, ie giving a huge surplus of 37% to the insurers. The American private health insurance’s claim was 82% and the American govt was already finding the profit too high.
This point was again pooh-poohed by Puthucheary. What is wrong with collecting more premiums and more surplus? What? Who said that? Nothing wrong with collecting unnecessary higher premiums from the masses? Puthucheary’s logic was that there were too many unthinkables and contingencies that could happen and could raise the claims unexpectedly. It was good to have a big cushion of excess premiums. Ya, I know that too, let’s add another 20% to the premium.
This kind of thinking I can agree if I am prepared to worry about when the sun would not shine again or when the next epidemic will hit. We must have a lot of extras, a lot of fats, just in case. No wonder the CPF minimum sums keeps going higher and higher. No wonder the nation’s reserves for a rainy day must keep increasing, even if we have 20 trillions will not be enough. No wonder some ministers are saying their salaries are not enough.
It is okay to collect more premiums. It is okay to increase the minimum sums to $1m. Who can dispute against such logic? But who is paying? Whose pocket will be hurt?
What is wrong with collecting more money from the people?
I am worried when we have so clever people in the govt who wants to worry about everything under heaven, every unknown, and wanting to provide for them and make the people pay for their concerns. I know their hearts are good and in the right place.
Who is indulging in constructive politics and who is indulging in destructive politics?
Kopi Level - Green
Low Thia Khiang’s constructive politics
Low Thia Khiang tried to expand Tony Tan’s call on constructive politics
in Parliament yesterday. He made many good points about what
destructive politics was all about. What he said made very good sense to
me. But to some it would come through like high falutins. And to those
who believe that his descriptions of destructive politics are
constructive politics, they would not bother one bit to listen to what
he was saying. Some may call him idealistic and his version of
constructive politics as an aspiration. Politics was not meant to be
constructive.
Though Tony Tan aspires for politics to be more constructive in his Presidential Address, he could really mean what he said and want it to happen, but how many people would listen to him and actually make politics more constructive? Maybe those who have been indulging in destructive politics believe that they were really constructive.
From the tone and emotion of the voices in Parliament yesterday, Tony Tan may need to visit Parliament again to explain what he really meant or his definition of constructive politics. The expression on the faces told all, who were being constructive and who were being destructive. I don’t think the house understood what Tony said or what he wanted. The mood, as usual, exuded contempt and hostility.
Low Thia Khiang’s effort to talk about constructive politics is more like 对牛弹琴。
Kopi Level - Green
Though Tony Tan aspires for politics to be more constructive in his Presidential Address, he could really mean what he said and want it to happen, but how many people would listen to him and actually make politics more constructive? Maybe those who have been indulging in destructive politics believe that they were really constructive.
From the tone and emotion of the voices in Parliament yesterday, Tony Tan may need to visit Parliament again to explain what he really meant or his definition of constructive politics. The expression on the faces told all, who were being constructive and who were being destructive. I don’t think the house understood what Tony said or what he wanted. The mood, as usual, exuded contempt and hostility.
Low Thia Khiang’s effort to talk about constructive politics is more like 对牛弹琴。
Kopi Level - Green
5/27/2014
Salute China for standing up to the bullying by Vietnam and the Philippines
Vietnamese ships have been encircling the Chinese oil rig inside Chinese
territory in the South China Sea to harass and ram the rig for several
weeks. Chinese coast guards and fishing boats have been defending the
oil rig and blocking the aggressive advances of the Vietnamese boats.
China finally lost its patience after weeks of persistence harassments by the Vietnamese boats. This also came after the killings of Chinese workers and the burning of Chinese factories in Vietnam. Yesterday, 26 May, one Vietnamese fishing boat attempted to break the Chinese defence line was rammed and sunk. The Vietnamese sailors were picked up by other Vietnamese boats in the area.
China has to act fast to stem the hostile actions of the Vietnamese. This sinking would also serve as a warning to the Pinoys that China meant business and would take on the Americans if provoked further. China would not yield in the presence of the American naval fleet and would go to war with the Americans if forced to.
China has no option and to remain defensive under such adverse provocations would be read as a sign of weakness and would embolden the Vietnamese and the Pinoys and the Americans as well.
The sinking of the Vietnamese fishing boat could lead to an escalation of tension in the South China Sea and even open warfare. China must be prepared for this scenario as the two pesky countries would be coming back more aggressively with the support of the Americans. The Americans would be pushing hard for the two belligerent countries to attack China and force China to retaliate. Like it or not, China would have to hit back as the Americans would not allow the Chinese in peace.
War is imminent in the South China Sea.
China finally lost its patience after weeks of persistence harassments by the Vietnamese boats. This also came after the killings of Chinese workers and the burning of Chinese factories in Vietnam. Yesterday, 26 May, one Vietnamese fishing boat attempted to break the Chinese defence line was rammed and sunk. The Vietnamese sailors were picked up by other Vietnamese boats in the area.
China has to act fast to stem the hostile actions of the Vietnamese. This sinking would also serve as a warning to the Pinoys that China meant business and would take on the Americans if provoked further. China would not yield in the presence of the American naval fleet and would go to war with the Americans if forced to.
China has no option and to remain defensive under such adverse provocations would be read as a sign of weakness and would embolden the Vietnamese and the Pinoys and the Americans as well.
The sinking of the Vietnamese fishing boat could lead to an escalation of tension in the South China Sea and even open warfare. China must be prepared for this scenario as the two pesky countries would be coming back more aggressively with the support of the Americans. The Americans would be pushing hard for the two belligerent countries to attack China and force China to retaliate. Like it or not, China would have to hit back as the Americans would not allow the Chinese in peace.
War is imminent in the South China Sea.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)