Singapore owes its success to Pinoys and foreigners

This appears to be the message that foreigners are trying to tell the Sinkies. Never mind who planted this message in their heads. I chanced upon this Pinoy, Nathan Allen, writing this to his countrymen in response to a hate post by a Sinkie.
 
‘It kills me that Filipino workers are being treated with so much disrespect - even though for decades they have helped Singapore become the economic powerhouse that it is today. Reportedly, even the nationalists who fought for independence and helped build the Singapore we know today were influenced by the national hero of the Philippines - Dr. Jose Rizal.’
 
I am not blaming Nathan Allen for thinking so, that Singapore owes its success to the foreigners here for turning it into an economic powerhouse in the last decades. The assumptions here must be that the foreigners are very talented and without them Singapore would not be what it is today. If this is true, the same foreigners, with their talent and hardworking nature, must also have turned their own countries into economic powerhouses as well. This is straight forward logic. If they can make Singapore a power house, they must also be able to do the same to their poor and 3rd World countries.
 
The truth is that they are mostly the third or fourth rate talents of their countries. The top talents of their respective countries are doing very well at home as their elites, and there is no need for them to leave their countries to eke a living elsewhere. Many of the foreigners that are here are those that could not find decent jobs at home, not good enough. Shouldn’t they be grateful that Sin City found them so good to give them good jobs and good pay? Or maybe Sinkies are so untalented that these third and fourth rate foreigners are better than them and could easily find employment here than Sinkies?
 
Another strange phenomenon is that the top talents of these foreigners remained in their home countries but could not turn their countries into economic powerhouses. How could these third and fourth rate talents managed to turn Sin City into an economic powerhouse? Maybe these third and fourth rate talents are the real talents of their countries and if they were given a chance to replace their top talents at home, they could turn their countries into economic powerhouses just like they did for Sin City.
 
Do I sound logical? Why are these foreign talents so able to turn Sin City into an economic powerhouse while their countries remained as struggling economies, economic slum houses? What is the problem? My logic is flawed? Third and fourth rate talents could turn Sin City into economic power house but their first and second rate talents at home could not do the same to their countries?
 
Funny logic? Or 3rd World third and fourth rate talent’s logic?

Kopi Level - Green

Irrelevance of qualifications and skill sets in politics

There is no specific qualification or skill set needed in political office. The closest in terms of relevance would be some social science disciplines and public administration, but still inadequate as some ministries could entail and demand very specific and professional skills, eg Defence, Home Affairs, Health, Housing, Education etc etc. It would be difficult to cast a specific academic qualification for appointments like the President or the Prime Minister. The presumption that anyone as long as he is an elected politician is good enough to helm any ministry is the biggest flaw in a democratic system.
 
Hsien Loong is a mathematician by training and he is the PM. Chee Hian is an engineer, Tharman an economics grad, Eng Hen and Vivian are in medicine, and there are some from law, the hard sciences etc etc. In political offices, the academic or professional qualifications needed are non specific except for a few ministries when professional qualifications are very useful like law and health or defence. The common denominator actually is that nothing is relevant.
 
What then is the qualification or skill set needed to be a politician? In my view, other than a basic academic qualification to show that one has the ability to understand the 3 Rs, the other important attributes are the intangibles. Leadership, trust, integrity, honesty, compassion and a heart of gold, to want to look after the interest of the people are more important attributes than academic qualifications. Our obsession with super talents ended up wasting supertalents but having to pay supertalented pay for skill sets that are totally irrelevant to the jobs.
 
Political office is about country, nation and people and their well being. From these aspects, it is clear that super talents in the professions are not a necessary requirement and irrelevant in many cases to the appointments. It is the man and his mission and his heart that make a good political leader. Political leaders must be clear that it is all about country and people, to prosper the country and people. It is not about how good one is a doctor or lawyer or engineer or how much one is earning in the profession. It is not about self and how well they should be compensated.
 
So, what is the relevance in making a case for super talents to be better politicians and demanding ‘out of this world’ salaries? Where is the relationship in a super eye surgeon and a ministry like defence or the environment? Where is the relationship in a super lawyer and the education or health ministry? Broadly, the only relation is a good heart, a good mind and a mission to serve the interests of the people.

A good leader is priceless but not demanding to be paid ridiculously. His value is not in his qualifications or profession but the lifting of the quality of life of the people and the people's interests.

Kopi Level - Green

China, Trying to Bolster Its Claims, Plants Islands in Disputed Waters

‘By EDWARD WONG and JONATHAN ANSFIELD; Bree Feng and Chen Jiehao
contributed research.

June 17 (New York Times) -- BEIJING --

....China has been moving sand onto reefs and shoals to add several new islands to the Spratly archipelago, in what foreign officials say is a new effort to expand the Chinese footprint in the South China Sea. The officials say the islands will be able to support large buildings, human habitation and surveillance
equipment, including radar....

Chinese actions have also worried senior United States officials. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel scolded China for "land reclamation activities at multiple locations" in the South China Sea at a contentious security conference in Singapore in late May....

"By creating the appearance of an island, China may be seeking to strengthen the merits of its claims," said M. Taylor Fravel, a political scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology…

China says it has the right to build in the Spratlys because they are Chinese territory. "China has indisputable sovereignty over Nansha Islands," a Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Hua Chunying, said last month,….’

Why is China wasting so much effort to bring sands and equipment to the islands? China should find a large piece of continent like North America, kill all the natives and just take over the land. It would be so easy, quick and fast and cheap.

Chuck Hagel and Taylor Fravel, what do you think? The Americans are experts at it, please go and teach the Chinese how to do it and don’t waste time filling up little islands with sands in the ocean.

Kopi Level - Green

PRs versus citizens – taking a cue from Jeff Cueller

‘Yahoo! Finance Singapore, 17 Jun 2014
What enrages you more? The fact you can’t cash out your CPF account unless you renounce your citizenship, or that Singapore PRs can withdraw all of their CPF funds And HDB sales proceeds with them when they leave Singapore.
 
Understandably you’re pissed off because it’s not fair that someone from another country cant take part in your social security program(CPF), use it as a glorified savings account, and withdraw all of it when he/she moves back home.
 
Let’s not forget the property issue as well. A PR flipping his/her property before leaving Singapore can easily make several hundred thousand dollars – more than enough to buy a huge landed property in 75% of the world.’
 
And to cap this with a little more icing, PRs that have withdrawn their CPF could return to work and start the whole process all over again. And the Sinkies are banging their heads against the wall, crying and begging for the return of their life savings locked up in the CPF. Why PRs are so privileged and citizens are not?
 
What Jeff Cueller did not mention are the advantages attached to citizenship, like the minimum sums schemes in the Medisave and Retirement Accounts. The Govt is so worried that the citizens would squander their life savings away if they allow for premature withdrawal and thus depriving the citizens the orgasm they duly deserved for staying in for the full duration. This satisfaction is not extended to the PRS. The PRs can take out prematurely and miss all the fun or they die their business. The PRs think they are very smart. The Govt is only thinking of the good of the citizens, to ensure that they will all retire very rich, if they ever retire at all. The PRs are likely to end up poor by squandering their CPF savings in the casinos or in Batam and Bintang. If Sinkies were to squander away their monies, the Govt would have to help them out at least with hawker food.
 
Many citizens are so enthralled by this great saving schemes that they do not mind keeping their money in the CPF to feel rich and safe, with no fear that their savings will run away. Oops, many mean 60% who are strong believers of this great scheme and are happy to leave their savings there forever. Jeff Cueller is misinterpreting the values of PRs versus citizenship.

Kopi Level - Green

The Art of Good Communication

Taking a leaf from Apple, Hsien Loong wrote in his Facebook exhorting his super talented colleagues to use simpler words when talking down to the people or the message may not get through. It is as simple as that. For Hsien Loong to say this, it must be something that his talented colleagues have been doing and resulting in miscommunication or poor communication of govt policies. They would not have so much problems with the CPF if they have said things in simple and clear words.
 
The honour of saying or speaking simply to the people must go to Lim Swee Say. He has coined many fabulous words and phrases that are uniquely Singaporean and very easy to undertand. The more frequent he uses his catchphrases the betterer he communicates.
 
In my view, communication is a very simple process involving two parties. One speaking and one listening. The one speaking must speak the language the listener can understand. But more crucial is the listener. Does he want to understand? Many failures in communication were not that the speakers spoke in bombastic languages or using high falutin words that no one understood. The words could be simple and easy to understand. The problem is that the listener refuses to listen, intentionally.
 
A good example is the phrase, ‘Return My CPF’ or ‘Return My CPF at 55’. Not simple enough? Any school children would also be able to understand. But the message is not getting across simply because the listeners refused to listen.
 
Has anyone heard of the philosophy of the deaf frog? It is not that the frog is deaf. The frog chooses to be deaf. In such a situation, no matter how simple one speaks, how simple the words are, nothing goes in, nothing heard, and no understanding.
 
How to communicate when the listener is not listening?

Kopi Level - Green