Immigration is a policy, prostitution is a choice

A prostitute has a choice, unless forced by some adverse situation or being victims of the mafia world. Many have resigned to the knowledge that they could not become ministers, professionals of knowledge based trades, and thus chose to be a professionals by trading their endowments. All they need to do is to dress up, powdered themselves to look good and they are in business, just a little skin deep packaging. And as prostitutes, they have little choice but to please. They have to accept everything from their clients who pay them the money. The moral of the story, if one chooses prostitution as a trade, you have no right to set the terms, the customers dictate and you adapt.

France and other European countries are having second thought on their immigration policies after the Hebdo Charlie shooting. Europe in general and France in particular, have a serious immigration problem, of having too many foreigners of diverse culture and faith in their midst. When the immigrants were small in numbers, it was easy to be generous, and the immigrants were easy to toe the line, to live in their little corners, not to be seen and not to disturb the peace. When the numbers are big, they want a say, they want to be accepted, they would not take no for an answer, and ridiculing them, making fun of them are not acceptable. When the host went overboard in the so called freedom of expression, to insult and shame the immigrants, they could be killed by the very immigrants they took in out of compassion and generosity.

The Europeans are now questioning if they should change this policy, that the immigrants adapt and be like them or they adapt and be like the immigrants as some said. They have a choice in their immigration policy, to open or close the door. If they choose to open the door, then they must accept the consequences, to be a bit more like the immigrants when the immigrants did not want to be like them.

Singapore too has a choice to open or close the immigration door. Actually it is not as simple as that. The political rulers decided for the people. The govt has a choice, the people did not. The people objected to the indiscriminate immigration policy and did not want the 6.9m in the PWP. The govt decided to go ahead with more immigrants against the wishes of many Singaporeans, like deaf frogs. But this is one major part of the immigration policy.

The second part, to open legs wide wide, like a prostitute, Singapore is in a way given up the right to dictate to the new immigrants how they should behave. There are just too many of them and Singaporeans are already a minority in the island. It is very difficult to impose the Singaporean way of life on a minority of new immigrants. It is futile to impose on them when they are a majority.

Singaporeans can no longer hope for the new immigrants to be like them but more to be like the new immigrants. And is there anything good in the new immigrants that are worthy to emulate or be like them except by being hungrier, looking hungrier and willing to work for a couple of dollars, to slog day and night for it. What is there that is so good that the Singaporeans should give up their first world way of life to trade with the 3rd world way of life? How about punching taxi drivers and hitting cyclists, shouting everywhere, shitting everywhere and smelling everywhere?

Why should Singaporeans want to be like the new immigrants, integrate with them and be like them when these people were running away from their shitty way of life to be like us, to enjoy our quality of life, our way of life? Are we stupid or what?

Are we that stupid? Or have we really become prostitutes and have to take everything the new immigrants offered, including VD, that we have no choice and must be grateful and say thank you to them, to become like them? Oh, I forgot, we are daft and they are the talented ones, coming here to help us.

Prostitution is a choice. And since we are good for nothing and have come to the conclusion that prostitution is the only way to make a living, we should not be complaining.

Huffington Post is unfair

How can Huffington Post be so unfair and published only articles written by Dr Chee Soon Juan, an opposition party leader? Even if the articles were well written, Huffington Post should be wiser and fairer, and be more balanced to post a few articles by leaders of the ruling party. In that way, the paper will be seen as more even handed, like our local media that published the govt’s articles and also those of Dr Chee. I did not check on this and so please forgive me if my information is not accurate. But quoting from a minister, Chan Chun Sing, who said that the Straits Times has been fair and has published Dr Chee’s articles, it must be true. Our ministers would not dare to lie in an official letter to a western media like the Huffington Post.

The ball is now in Huffington Post’s court. It would be seen as a biased news media if it does not publish some articles from the govt to give its side of the story, or the right to reply. I am also not sure if the Govt has asked for the right to reply or want to make any reply. Just curious, has the govt tried to rebut Chee’s points in his articles and rejected by Huffington Post? Huffington can take the example of our local media to publish two sides of a story, both sides count. I don’t think Huffington Post is that unfair and would only post articles from one political party and ignore the rest or selectively post articles that are irrelevant or inconsequential when it does so.

Or is Huffington Post exercising some kind of censorship, to print only what it deems fit and decide what its readers can read and what its readers should not read? There is a need for more transparency, accountability and honesty from a reputable media like the Huffington Post. If our local media can be transparent and fair, why can’t the Huffington Post?

Where is the fairness? Or is it that fairness is selective? Huffington Post has a good reputation and so has our local media, except of course the social media, the latter only spread misinformation and lies, and drumming, completely unreliable.

You people agree with my chastising of the Huffington Post? Ouch, don’t anyhow throw stones can?

Are you a ‘no body’?

Please don’t say yes. Being a no body is a very shameful and depressing thing, that you would be despised and looked down upon, maybe not in your face but surely behind your back. Some were too unfortunate that they were told right in their face that they are no body and better shut up and go hide in a corner. As a no body, as a failure, you should not even be talking to the public, to the world. Only successful people, people that are not ‘no body’ has the right and honour to blow their trumpets, to stand on high pedestal to lecture to the no bodies.

Some say failure is the mother of success. Many entrepreneurs, professionals, even world leaders, were no bodies until they achieved fame and glory over their failures. And many successful some bodies ended in oblivion, in shame, in disgrace. But that is not the moral of the story. The wise always say things to encourage the losers, the failures. Do not be dismay or despair if one is not making much headway in life. Life is full of up ups and downs, unpredictable. At your worst moment one could turn around and be helped by some fortuitous events to make it good. And they have been many instances of people born with golden spoons but ended in the gutters of life.

The moral of the story is that when you are down, you are not out if one is willing to fight on. On the contrary, when you are up and successful, be wary that you could trip and fall very badly. Nature likes to poke fun at people, especially very successful and arrogant people. The pride goes before the fall.

How many of you are no bodies? How many of you used to be some body? No need to kee chiu. We see you, especially the PMEs and the pioneer generations. Many used to bathe in glory, money cannot finish, chauffer driven, calling the hot and cold when they were around and sending shivers down the spines of those in their company.

Life is full of surprises and upsets. A little humility will go a long way. Don’t ever be cocky. Don’t write people off so easily. Do not be dismissive of people who are still struggling to make their mark. Until your last breath, there is time to right the wrong, to be successful after a life of failures.

Ha, my Sunday sermon.

Counting the 24 to go

Hsien Loong in his press interview confirmed that 24 new candidates would be introduced in the next GE, which also means that 24 of the current batch in Parliament would have to quit. Actually not, only 17 would be quitting if we count the 7 seats taken up by the WP.  Again it may not be 17 if the Gov thinks this country is too big and needs another few more MPs in Parliament. This is still an unknown variable.

Assuming that the Parliament remains at 87 seats then we can count on 17 PAP incumbents to vacate their seats and stand down in the next GE. Now who would be the lucky ones that could step down on a winning card, and not stepping down because they lost in a GE? Let me make a wild guess starting from the slate of ministers. If membership to the CEC is an indication, those ministers that were not in could be likely candidates to miss the boat when it leaves the port.

Of the 18 ministers, only 4 were not in the CEC, Lim Hng Khiang, Vivian, Lui Tuck Yew, Grace Fu, and Iswaran.  Lim Hng Khiang looks like a very tired minister after having been in office for more than 20 years. Vivian and Lui have been in the hot seats and affected by many bad publicities. These 3 could very well be stepping down. Iswaran is new and being out of the CEC is quite normal. On the other hand some ministers in the CEC may also offer to step down for health or personal reasons. Boon Wan and Swee Say have openly talked about it. So, all in we can count on a max of 3+2 ministers to leave politics.

This leaves 12 MPs to be let go. And again, those in the CEC are likely to be favoured MPs and can safely be counted to be in.  Assuming that the oldies would be the first on the list to retire, this would count MPs like Charles Chong, Arthur Fong, Cedric Foo, Chok Tong, Inderjit, LKY, Teo Ho Pin, Lily Neo and the ex ministers Wong Kan Seng, Mah Bow Tan and Raymond Lim, making a group of 11.

And we have a balance of 1 left to be dropped. Who is the possible candidate? Who is the likely one to make up the last of the 17? Anyone offering to step down for personal reasons? Anyone involved in controversies and bad publicity? Baey Yam Keng and Seng Han Thong have been heard to be considering retirement. That would leave the rest safe to stay on for another term.

I think the above list is likely to be the candidates that would be laid off in the next GE. Some may think of a few newer candidates that social media were unhappy with would likely to go, but I think they will be safe as there are already too many candidates that are due to quit politics for the above considerations. Intan would be safe, Tin Pei Ling, Lee Bee Wah, Irene Ng, Alvin Yeo, Lim Wee Kiat, and whoever that drew fierce criticisms by the social media would also be safe.

This is just my guess and I swear that I am likely to be wrong in 50% of these guesses. The above considerations do not take into account the Aljunied factor that may need a few of the existing MPs or Ministers to be specially retained just to take back the GRC or to spare the agony for being chosen to fight there.

GE2015/16 – Rules of Engagement defined?

Everyone is in anticipation of the next General Election that could be called anytime now, if not in 2015 then must be in 2016. All the political parties have been busy making plans and arrangements and strategising on how to engage in this once every 5 year battle for the right to form the govern and run the country. PAP, being the ruling party and the one in the know on when the election would be called, is in the best position to execute its election plans as it is calling the shot. Everyone is watching and second guessing what is in the mind of the PAP and the election date that is closely guarded. Their best hope is to watch the moves of the PAP, what they are saying and doing, to have a feel of when the GE will be called. And there are many signs surfacing over the last few months.

The latest political move is the letter by Chan Chun Sing to the Huffington Post attacking the Post for allowing Chee Soon Juan’s letters to be published. What is more important is the text of the letter, what it said and what are the implications. Chee Soon Juan is going to play a central figure in the next GE if he is qualified to contest and all the big guns of the PAP will be trained at him. This letter is perhaps the first cannon shot fired ahead of the GE and would set the tone of the debate, the mood, tactics and rules of engagement.

Taking the hints from this letter, the PAP has in a way set the standard of what can be said, what would be said, and what is fair game. Let’s take a look at the content of the letter, I have deleted the less relevant to allow the key items to stand out.

“Your website has given Dr Chee Soon Juan considerable but undeserved attention and space. You perhaps believe that he is a weighty political figure in Singapore. He is nothing of the kind.
Dr Chee has stood for elections thrice – and lost badly all three times, once receiving just 20 per cent of the vote.
The party he now leads, the Singapore Democratic Party, was once the leading opposition party in the country. …
Indeed, it was Mr Chiam who brought Dr Chee into the SDP in 1992. He mentored the younger man and promoted him. Dr Chee then proceeded to betray Mr Chiam, isolate him and force him out of the SDP, ….
In 1993, Dr Chee was dismissed from the National University of Singapore for misappropriating research funds and for other serious misconduct, including surreptitiously recording conversations with university staff.
He has been sued for defamation not only by ruling party politicians,…
And in 1996, Dr Chee and three of his associates were convicted of perjury by Parliament tor submitting false statements to a Special Parliamentary Committee. … It is because of these and other failings that Dr Chee is a political failure – not because he was persecuted,… voters do not regard its leader as an honourable man.
Dr Chee was disqualified from contesting the last two General Elections because he was declared a bankrupt in 2006 for failing to pay damages for libel to former Prime Ministers Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong. ….
Sincerely,
Chan Chun Sing
Minister for Social and Family Development, Singapore”

Some commentators have called this name calling or character assassination. (Full test of the article is available in all the main media and also at TRE). The letter was about Chee Soon Juan as a person and his character in question. It was about him as not honourable, a bankrupt, ungrateful, and misconduct. It related his affairs and encounters with politicians, govt officials and his employers that are negative.

As they said, food for the gander is food for the goose. Are these the lines drawn by the PAP as acceptable fodder for the GE campaign whereby political parties can dig out everything they could find about their political opponents and to use them freely in name calling and character assassination to win the votes? These were thought to be the OB lines in the past where anyone crossing them would be condemned as mean, unethical, hitting below the belt, dishonourable or unacceptable.

Now that Chan Chun Sing, signing off as the Minister for Social and Family Development and using them to attack a potential political opponent, does it signal to the opposition parties that they can do likewise? Of course they need to say things that are factual or risked being sue for defamation. Maybe immortals are flawless and blameless and there is nothing that the opposition parties could find to use in the GE. That may give Chan Chun Sing and the PAP the confidence that they could widen the OB markers to accommodate more juicy stuff and the washing of dirty laundry during the heat of the election rallies.  

The election rallies are going to be very interesting and going to be very well attended when all kinds of personal information would be aired to down an opponent. Insults, insinuations, name callings, sneerings, badmouthing, exposing personal gaffs etc etc are permissible? It would be good if the rallies could be put on live telecast. One thing for sure, youtube and webcast, mobile videos etc etc would be made available in all the blogs and websites to share the good stuff and great stuff of the election one upmanship, with many red faces to show.

This GE election rally must be something to look forward to, could be more exciting and part of the SG50 celebration.