Screwing up LKY’s legacies

Many people could not understand why I am harping on LKY’s legacies and in a way praising him indirectly for his ideas. Many would just want to let him disappear from their memories and do not want to be reminded of him. What I can say is that put your sentiments and emotions aside. LKY had done many things, good, bad and ugly, just like anyone of us. We are all human beans and did many things that were not too flattering ourselves. Just bear with me as I go through the legacies of LKY, looking at the good that he had contributed and show you how people who professed to be his followers, believers and whatever shit, but really screwing up his legacies, distorting his ideas and leading people to screw up LKY as a result. And they are drumming that we should preserve and cherish his legacies. My oh my!
 
Read this statement by LKY spoken in 1960 on the role of foreigners and how they could be part of our society, contributing but not screwing up the people in the process. There could be a balance, a state of mutual coexistence for mutual benefits. The wisdom of this man is unparalleled if you look at the pretenders that were given a blank cheque to turn his views and policies upside down. Now read carefully…
 
"National sentiment desires the riddance of all expatriates as agents of the exploiting colonial government, but the practical needs of making the national economy work requires that expatriates be employed. Such a situation must contain the seeds of inner contradiction. A plain straightforward nationalist line by the government which results in the expulsion of all expatriates may lead to a sagging of the whole complex of the economy, as indeed has happened in some newly independent territories. But to ignore the anti-colonial sentiments of our people will be to store up trouble for the future. The only practical solution is to acknowledge our need for the time being for expatriates, be they members of the former colonial power or otherwise, and to continue to use them. But at the same time, national sentiments will be satisfied only if increasing numbers of our local men are being trained here and abroad to replace these expatriates and do their
jobs in the near future. This aspect of the problem of government would be made easier if expatriates understand some of these emotional factors which a representative government has to consider. And also it helps to make clear that expatriates carry out the policy decided by the government and do not decide on policy as they did in the past.” - LKY 27/2/1960.
 
From this statement it is very clear that this man was building a nation of Singaporeans and with Singaporean’s foremost in his mind. He would allow some foreigners to be here to contribute to our economy, but the govt, the Singaporeans, would take over and decide what is best, not the foreigners.
 
A very good example of how foolish the new team in govt is doing can be seen from the exchanges between Lim Biow Chuan and Indranee Rajah in Parliament on the employment of foreigners in our universities. MP Lim Biow Chuan wanted to know whether the government requires Singapore's public universities to hire eligible Singaporeans, priority for academic employment, and whether the universities' human resource departments should be headed by Singaporeans to ensure that eligible Singaporeans are duly considered for employment. At least his mind and heart are in the right place.
 
And this was Indranee Rajah’s reply. "It is important that our autonomous universities recruit academic staff based on merit, to ensure that they hire the best talent able to deliver high quality education and conduct research that will benefit our students and Singapore."
 
And last year, Seah Kian Peng said he was shocked by the number of foreigners who have staffed the faculties in Singapore’s tertiary institutions.
 
“So, through Parliament, I asked MOE for some figures. I found out in the Political Science department of NUS, 28% of the 25 faculty members are Singaporeans. In NTU’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, 41% of the 29 faculty members are Singaporeans. In the NTU Wee Kim Wee School of Communications and Information, 44% of the 48 faculty members are Singaporean. And in the NUS Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, 46% of the 82 faculty members are Singaporeans," he had said.
 
From her reply, Indranee is very comfortable with the number of foreigners in the universities even when Singaporeans are now in the minority. As far as she is concerned, they are hired on merits, ‘the best talent able to deliver high quality education and conduct research that will benefit our students and Singapore.’ If this reasoning is applied to Parliament, I think many MPs including herself would be replaced by more meritorious foreigners. But that is not important.
 
The issue is the position she is taking, which must be the position of the present govt. Bring in foreigners as long as they are good and better than Singaporeans, never mind if Singaporeans are displaced and in a minority. Is this position in line with the thinking of LKY?
 
LKY was very concern and very particular about the number of foreigners working here and that it should not become a national problem, and that the Singaporeans should be eventually taking over from the foreigners. If no one is getting it, let me quote LKY again, ‘But at the same time, national sentiments will be satisfied only if increasing numbers of our local men are being trained here and abroad to replace these expatriates and do their jobs in the near future’.
 
Today was the future LKY talked about. The big question, has LKY changed his views about employing foreigners in large numbers to replace Singaporeans, to take over all the important positions and ignoring the nationalistic sentiments of the people? Or is the new PAP leadership dismissing LKY’s concerns and very happy to replace Singaporeans with foreigners like the pathetic numbers in the academia and elsewhere? LKY understood the nationalistic sentiment of the people and that this island is a country belonging to Singaporeans and not a hotel. Does the present leadership has any inclination of what these mean and how important they are to the existence of Singapore and the well being of the Singaporeans? Replace them with the best foreigners?
 
Who is to be blamed if trouble brews eventually because of the changed mindset and policies, of ignoring the legacy of LKY, when nationalistic sentiment, not xenophobia, breaks out into the open?

LKY’s last wish – demolish his home

The children of LKY have come out in the open to plead with the Singaporeans to fulfill their father’s last wish, that is to demolish the house that LKY lived and where the history of Singapore was crafted. And if the house cannot be demolished, no outsiders should be given access to it except his children.
 
If there is a monument worth preserving, it must be this house in Oxley Road. It definitely has more historical value than the House of Sun Yat Sen that was beautifully preserved for posterity or the Alkaff Mansion. It definitely has more touristy appeals than Sentosa or the Garden by the Bay. There will be more long queues to see this house if it is open to the public. This is where everything happened in the past that is Singapore today. Every stone, every nook and corner in the house is of great value to the people of Singapore and those who are interested in the life of LKY. His grandfather’s house in China has been turned into a shrine to worship a new deity in the name of Lee Kuan Yew.
 
It would be a real pity and a real loss to this country, his country, to destroy something so precious. This crime will be in the league of the Talibans demolishing the ancient Buddhist statues in the mountains. Historians and archaelogists are digging the grounds of Empress Place for bits and pieces of our history of yesteryears. Here there is a whole monument intact that deserved to be preserved and protected at all cost. It is so sad that it has to be demolished.
 
The last wish of a dead man must be respected. And this is no ordinary man, the founding father of modern Singapore. Let’s grant him his wish, even if we have to sacrifice a very important piece of our history. Find a another monument to name after him or built a new one, like a 100 meter statue at the Marina Barrage in the likes of the Statue of Liberty in New York to welcome the migrants to our shore.
 
Let the man rest in peace, let the house go. I am saying this with a heavy heart. Many would like to sit in deep meditation in the house to feel, to touch the walls and floors, furniture and crockery, sit on the chairs, lean on the tables, to breath the air and reconnect to the days and moments when the pioneering fathers were drafting out the future of this city state. How they argued and fought and how the best views prevailed. How the likes of LKY, Goh Keng Swee, Toh Chin Chye, Rajaratnam, Byrnes, Othman Wok, Lim Chin Siong, Lee Siew Choh etc etc and the whole gang huddling together to overthrow the colonial masters
 
Your wish shall be granted. RIP. No need to get up. It is a queer wish, but it is his last wish. Respect ok.

An American Japanese joke

The Pew Research Centre came out with a report that the Americans and Japanese trust each other than they trust China. And the report also reminded the readers that this is despite the trusting Americans believing that Japan was trustworthy and negotiating for peace before they launched a sneak attack against Pearl Harbour without declaring war on the Americans and decimated the American Pacific Fleet and thousands of soldiers who were still sleeping after a night of partying.
 
And of course the Americans were so furious that Roosevelt vowed to do anything he could to avenge the dastardly attack by the sneaking Japanese. And the Americans went to do flatten Tokyo but not before dropping two atomic bombs into Nagasaki and Hiroshima. And the Americans believe that they can trust the Japanese to rearm itself and would not do another attack on the Americans to avenge the two atomic bombs on its people.
 
Immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbour, all the Japanese in American soil were rounded up and put into detention camp, because they were untrustworthy. Now they are all trustworthy. Good for the Americans and definitely good for the Japanese to be allowed to rearm, to reject the pacifist Constitution imposed on by the Americans not to even allow the Japanese to repeat what they did in Pearl Harbour. And Abe is happily provoking the Chinese to drag the Americans into a total self destruct war with China.
They said fools would never learn and history would repeat itself.
 
And the Japanese did not trust the Chinese. Why? Did China invaded Japan or was it Japan invaded China? Did China seize Japanese islands or Japan seized Chinese islands?
 
And did China attacked or invaded the US or the US attacked China? Who is the world’s biggest lender to the Americans? Who is lending the Americans in the trillions to buy weapons to threaten China?

The unbridgeable divide between govt and people

The govt on its part, believing that they are the brightest and cleverest human beans in the island, could do as they like while the people, the daft Sinkies, would blindly go along, unable to think and would simply accept whatever the govt decided for them without protesting. It is extreme arrogance of the highest order to even think it out loud that it is alright to act like deaf frogs and to do what they think best, assuming that the daft would accept everything as fait accompli. If the govt is really the most talented, and the people are really daft, then it would be a holy union, with the brightest leading the dullest. If this is not true, if the self professed brightest are really dull and the daft are really not stupid but bearing with it, this contrived holy union would be an unstable formula.

What is happening now is a situation where the two parties are having different dream and pretending to be moving along fine, sleeping in the same bed in the same sampan. The truth is that both parties are drifting apart tangentially but in a state of denial.

The rapid population growth is the idea of the govt, bulldozed through in Parliament but knowing very well that it did not have the blessing of the people. Even the unprecedented mass protest in Hong Lim was ignored by the deaf frogs, thinking that they can ignored the will of the people without any consequences. And the influx of foreigners continues unabated and even hinting that the population should grow even bigger, instead of 6.9m the target should be 10m with antiques being dragged out of retirement to drum for 10m population or more.

The most immediate and painful consequence of the influx of foreigners is the displacement of middle age PMETs. Many have been forced into early retirement, unemployed or underemployed with some desperately sending out application forms looking for a job that proved elusive. The painful part is to see foreigners waltzing in on social visit passes and landing jobs like a given. The problems faced by these PMETs, their psychological wellbeing and self worth, their failure to support their families financially, are starting to take their tolls.

What is more frustrating is their complaints of being displaced, being cheated of their jobs by fake and poorly qualified foreigners, fell on the deaf ears of deaf frogs. And over a short space of one week, the NTUC and TAFEP announced that these PMETs lost their jobs because of their own fault, no relevant skills and not because they were discriminated by employers and foreigners. And the Minister of MOM confirmed that this is the truth. In other words, there is nothing wrong with the employment and job market. It is normal, no matter how loud the displaced and unemployed PMETs are screaming it is no use.

If the govt and NTUC version is the truth, then the PMETs only have themselves to blame. If there are indeed discriminations due to the influx of foreigners, it is like crying for help but no one listening. It is a hapless plea, being wronged and disadvantaged but without anyone wanting to listen or acknowledge their pathetic plight. Whichever is the truth, the divide is going to widen and will never meet.

The govt is like singing ‘My Way’, or is it ‘Don’t worry, be happy’. And the poor down and out PMETs singing Les Miserables’ version of ‘Do you hear the people sing’, or is it ‘The end of the world’? The govt is very comfortable singing its chosen songs. Does the govt know and understand, or want to understand what the people are singing? Maybe this is a wrong question. The govt knows that there is no problem and the complaints of the PMETs are unjustified. Would the two parties ever get to sing the same song? If not, the divide will never be bridged.

Case against forgiving

My previous post discussed the pros and cons on forgiving the wrong doers. The generous and kind would want to forgive and let the asshole go in peace with a lesser sense of guilt. Those who were hurt badly would find it difficult to forgive and would not want to forgive. It would be too easy for the asshole after what he had done to the victims.

Is there a case against forgiving? Forgiving a child is easy for the child did not know what he has done. Ignorance or innocence could be a reason to forgive when there is no intent or not knowing the harm that could be inflicted on the other party.  But when the asshole is a smart ass, knowing very well what he was doing and the pain inflicted, why should the asshole be forgiven? Why must the victim be the generous and kind one, to take the whacking and to let the asshole go free?

There are many instances of assholes bullying, taunting and torturing their victims right before our eyes. And the arrogance, the abuse of power and position and wealth to oppress, to hurt, to ridicule, to bankrupt or to put people behind bars, all done with a clear intent to harm the victim, why should the asshole be forgiven? There is another way of looking at this. A politician is like a man in ‘Jiang Hu’,  人在江湖，生不由己，he just had to do it knowing very well the consequences or it is ‘you die or I die’. So be it. I think this is bull. Modern day politics in a civilized society should be civil.

Another point, why forgive when the asshole did not see anything wrong in what he did? And why forgive when the asshole did not even ask to be forgiven? When the asshole is repentant, remorseful, and regretted for what he had done, and come begging for forgiveness, there is a case to forgive, to be kind and generous.
 

Why forgive an asshole that may even call you daft or silly to forgive him and may want to shit on you one more time if given the chance and walk away strutting around like a vain cock, telling the world how clever he is?

And for those assholes that are still cocky like hell, and seeing all the pleas to forgive but still go about bullying others, ridiculing others and harassing their victims, let there be no forgiveness when their turn come. They know, they knew what they were doing and what they are in for. Live by the sword die by the sword, like a man. There shall be no mercy to the evil and wicked, especially the very clever ones.

God also believes so. He said he would come, one day, to judge and would judge fairly. The evil ones would be burnt in the sea of fire. No amount of confession or forgiveness would save him. Many clever ones do not believe in such nonsense or they would not be doing what they did.

There is another big reason not to forgive when politicians are wicked. They are not supposed to, and there is no good reason to be so. The first premise of going into politics is to serve the people, to do good for the people. Another person or party too has the same idea, to do good and to serve the people. What is so wrong, so objectionable and unforgiveable for another person or party to step out to want to serve the people that they must be destroyed? They may have different ideas and ways to serve the people and it is up to the people to choose or reject them.

There is no good reason to what them dead, to want to crush them like cockroaches at every opportunity.  What is there to be so cruel and wicked, to adamantly want to harm them for wanting to serve the people, to want to fix them? They are just like you, to serve the people. They are not gangsters out to kill. Politicians are not gangsters, right?

Going into politics is an altruistic endeavour. Going into politics is not about grabbing power, for personal glory and interests, to destroy other people who want to do the same and not allowing them do serve the people. Why is it necessary then to destroy other people who also want to do good? It simply means that the intention is not altruism but personal, about protecting selfish interest, power and glory.

For this reason, there should not be forgiveness as the intent is not good, not about serving the people but self serving. You are depriving the people from being served by better men and women with better ideas.