When would you consider losing your country?

Every country guards their independence and the right to live according to what they believe is the best way for its citizens zealously. They built a strong military force to keep foreigners out of their country so that their people can enjoy what they have built and what is in the country. And every citizen has a duty to fight and die for the country, to defend the country and its people and its way of life.

We have gone down this hazy road of filling our country with foreigners. Other countries also have done so for different reasons and under different circumstances and conditions. The European powers went on a path of conquest and colonisation, to own countries and people. After WW2, many of the colonised countries were returned to the natives who declared independence from their colonial masters, to decide the fate of their countries and peoples.

In some countries like Australia and New Zealand, and some islands where the natives are insignificant in numbers, the colonialists seized the countries for good and imposed their own laws on immigrations. Australia and New Zealand have been very careful in letting the right type of people they want into their countries and at a number they are comfortable with. They ensure that they are the owners and the dominant people in the new countries they seized from the natives. Countries like Australia and New Zealand would never allow immigrants to swarm their countries and turn themselves into a minority.

The colonialists conquered countries by forced and ruled the natives with the gun. They may be small in numbers, but they controlled the population as their subjects and with lesser rights than them. The end of WW2 found that colonialism was no longer acceptable as a way to conquer and rule over the natives of the land. But in countries like Australia and New Zealand, and the USA, their overwhelming majority allowed them to continue to be the masters of the land and with the natives existing as a subgroup in the country.

We gained independence and we called ourselves the people of a country called Singapore. We are the majority, the four major races as one people of a nation.

The unrestrained immigration policy in recent years by the govt has filled the island with so many foreigners, that in absolute numbers, the Singaporeans are now a minority. The govt thinks it is ok. The people did not think and did not care if it is ok or nor ok as long as their lives are not too adversely affected.

It is not too far wrong to say that there are 50% foreigners here or more, if new citizens are included. This seems ok for the moment. What if the percentage of foreigners goes higher, 60%, 70% or 80%, will it be ok? What if the foreigners turned citizens seized political power and become the new leaders and start to change the rules of citizenship and discriminating against the original Singaporeans? Not possible?

Take a hypothetical case for a mental exercise to see if it is acceptable and putting aside the question of possibles. Are Singaporeans comfortable with the foreigners turning new citizens cum PRs forming more than 70% of the population. This is not counting the transient workers and Employment Pass holders. What about 80% or 90%?  If Singaporeans are not bothered with the numbers and percentages of foreigners and new citizens here, and if the govt also thinks it is a good thing, a right thing, and this state of affair really happens and Singaporeans become like the insignificant natives of Australia, New Zealand and USA, is it ok? Would it be too late to rewind the clock?

At what point, at what percentage of the population becoming foreign/new citizens would it be considered that the country has been taken over by foreigners, invaded?

Or does it need to reach a stage when the new citizens/PRs start to discriminate against the original Singaporeans and with the latter unable to resist anymore, would it then be called an invasion and the lost of the country to foreigners?

As it is today, some foreigners have already started to practise discrimination against the Singaporeans and with the Singaporeans unable to do anything about it, hapless, and the govt not sure what it is thinking and doing about it. Are we already invaded and on the verge of losing our country to foreigners? There is no need to invade a country by military forces or to raise a different flag to take over a country, especially if the people are willing to give it away freely, or did not know what is happening.

What is the definition of an invasion or a country taken over by foreigners? Or is it something that is not important, no need to think about, will not happen or let it happen, a natural trend of globalisation.  Some tweets are crowing about globalisation, states being irrelevant, and borderless. While they are blowing their loudspeakers, they are raising barriers against free immigration. But silly countries believes this propaganda and went head in, opening up their countries to foreigners and allowing foreigners to take over their industries and countries in blissful ignorance of what lies ahead. Leave it to market forces? Globalisation is the in thing. Borderless is the way to go. We are just a hotel and so be it?

What do you think? Have we lost our country or on the way to losing it?

The impossibilities and impracticalities of MPs running town councils

The AHPETC case exposed the huge flaws embodied in the town council system whenever a new political party wins an election and a management change. The sheer tediosity of handing over the administration of a town council and its accounts to another party is enough to disable the process for months or years.

A town council must conduct a full audit of its accounts before it can hand over to the new management, with all the outstanding matters as well, plus its operating system. How long would an audit team take to complete such an audit for a GRC? A month or 6 months or a year? No political party/town council management would conduct such an audit prior to an election to prepare to hand over to a new political party. They cannot be assuming that they would lose an election. But a General Election is a general election and every party/MP must presume that they can lose. So it must become a necessity and mandatory to do such an audit a few months before a GE.

How much will it cost for such an audit and who is going to foot the bill?  What if the new management insists on bringing in their own auditors, not trusting the incumbent’s auditors? Is this fair or a good thing for the residents to pay for such a system to test if an MP can run a govt by running a town council first? Better still, all candidates standing for election should be sent to IMH for a thorough check up on their mental health and also a full medical check up on their medical conditions to certify they are fit to be an MP.

In the AHPETC case, we also read about a $20m or $24m computer system being sold for a few thousands and re leased to the town council and subsequently withdrawn and the new management had to pay for a new system. Does this mean that theoretically, all town councils would face the same administrative problems and to pay for the cost of a new system? And how long would it take for a new system to be developed and implemented, another 6 months or more? How would all these affect the efficient running of the town council and the resident’s interests?

The handover and takeover procedures of a town council is not as simple as one would think. If there are discrepancies in the audit, in processes and outstanding matters, the successor may not be willing to take over unless they are sure that all things are in order, which means more delay and haggling.

And who adds on this unnecessary task of demanding a potential MP to hunt around and prepare a team of town council management and operation staff to be ready to take over after an election even before he wins an election. Is this a fair requirement? Is it a fair requirement for the independent MPs or small parties that would not have any fair chance of running a govt to have to prove themselves to be able to run a town council? Would someone needs to prove that he can be a minister or PM before he is allowed to be one?

There are huge time constraints, practical problems and issues in the handing and taking over of a town council, and the very serious consideration of cost. Why are all these necessary? It is simply impractical and very tedious to change the management of a town council every time there is a change of MP and incurring huge cost and time and an interruption of the services to the people.

How can this be a good thing when many of the problems faced by AHPETC would not be there if it is run by a stats board like it was done previously by the HDB? Is this really a good idea, a clever idea?

What about the idea of emptying the surplus fund and transfer them to an untouchable reserve and the new management have to start from ground zero? Is this fair and functional, operational sound? The money belongs to the residents and should be retained by the town council for the needs of the residents. Is this not daylight robbery? Whose money is that? Why are other town councils allowed to retain and hold on to the money for the residents and a new management not allowed and like AHPETC, ended short of fund?

The town council system is effectively compromising and sacrificing the interests of the residents for this nebulous objective of testing the ability of MPs to run a govt. 

Really?

What do you think?

Pasir Ris GRC – The biggest upset in the making

Many voices are heard in the social media about Desmond Lim and his SDA. Some even accusing him of being a mole but no one knows. What is this Desmond Lim may become irrelevant for many reasons. It could be the biggest victory for the PAP in this election in Pasir Ris. The voters, from reading the social media, are now one head two big, not knowing what to do. Some were saying they did not want to vote for both.

In desperation, some anti PAP activists are calling voters to vote for anything except PAP. Even if they have doubts about Desmond Lim and his SDA, they are encouraging people to vote for him and SDA just to vote out the incumbent party and Chee Hian.

What would be the contest in Pasir Ris be like assuming that it is status quo with no opposition party willing to step in to put up a 3 corner fight? Would it be opposition versus PAP or as some were rumouring, PAP Team A versus Team D?

There were comments that it is better to have a mole party than the PAP in Parliament and the voters should just blindly vote for Desmond Lim and the SDA.

Another angle to look at this battle will be to vote SDA in and to knock out Chee Hian and his team which may have office bearers or potential ministers in them. So, would the battle cry for Pasir Ris voters be to vote out Chee Hian and his team. This is equally a very significant loss to the PAP and would cost a very big upset in Hsien Loong’s cabinet. It would be unbelieveable but a very strong message that it is all over for the PAP. Actually if this were to happen, it is likely to be the same across the island with PAP suffering a serious defeat.

Chee Hian is a DPM and said what you like he is still a big chess piece in the PAP camp. And facing him is a no hoper party led by Desmond who managed only a few hundred votes in Punggol East by election and lost his deposit as well. This team is about the weakest the PAP can hope to face short of a walkover.

Losing Pasir Ris is as good as losing the whole game. Would there be so much discontent and cross overs in Pasir Ris to deliver such a heavy blow to the PAP? Could a perceived D Team beat an A Team?

And the SDA has also come up with a Singaporean First agenda for the election. This would put those parties that are anti Singaporeans or foreigner first in a corner. Anti Singaporeans parties will be put under the spot light. They can keep on shouting foreigners good, foreigners to help daft Sinkies.

More bright and crazy ideas for cyclists

The ST forum pages have received more suggestions on how to regulate cyclists and make cycling more convenient. One suggested licensing all cyclists and making them to sit for safe cycling courses, something like driving licence for cars and highway codes. I am not going to comment on this as it would make me even more stupid to do so.

Another suggestion is to provide conveyor belts so that cyclists can travel on it with their bikes. So convenient. How many conveyor belts will be needed and how much will it cost? How many technicians will be needed to maintain and service these belts? Don’t ask me, ask the one who suggested it.

And SMRT is restricting folding bikes into the trains to off peak hours. A 20 inch folding bike would take up less space than a pram or baby strollers or even a large travelling suitcase. Why is SMRT so kiasu when a folding bike is very necessary and compliments the commuters going to office. The distance to the stations, from home and office, can be quite taxing on the seniors.

Shouldn’t the SMRT also relax a bit on this ruling, to allow folding bikes that are 20 inch or less to be allowed in the trains to promote cycling and taking public transport?

Maybe got to wait for a minister to suggest it before they think it is a good change, a right thing to do. Go green, taking public transport, but no bikes in the trains except off peak hours? Holy shit.

2/3 Singaporean core workforce

Reading the paper today is quite refreshing and pleasing. I feel like Alice being in Wonderland all over again, with all the right things that I would like to hear. Swee Say fired away with a new policy shift that he said would be for the medium and long term, a govt goal for the workforce to have a two thirds Singaporean core.

Swee Say also noticed that ‘Not everybody from all over the world can just go to New York or London, take up a job and settle down. Management of foreign manpower in any global cities of the world, in fact, is a norm. So, Singapore is no different from anybody else.’ Oops, Swee Say, can I just disagree with this last part? Singapore is different from everybody else with our open leg wide wide to let every Tom, Dick and Harry to come in with all kinds of fake degrees from funny universities that no one would want to know. And many of these fakes and cheats are likely in high places and holding high positions.

Never mind, please continue. Swee Say also said that one reason why foreign multinational companies are here is ‘that they can tap on local talent’.  Sure or not? I dunno how true it is, many people are complaining that many foreign companies are here and operating with a whole company full of foreigners, some 100% foreigners, many more than 70% foreigners, because they cannot find local talent good enough for low level, mid level and top leve executive jobs. Who is telling the true?

Ok, this two thirds Singaporean core is a good thing even if it may not last after the GE. Medium and long terms could have different definitions as time span is relative. It is good that foreign companies should follow this govt policy. Is there a time limit for them to make this happen or they can suka suka take their time since this is a medium to long term objective? Would the govt ask them to pack up and move off if they insist on hiring foreigners and telling the daft Singaporeans they could not find local talent and fill the whole company with foreigners?

What about local companies and GLCs, do they need to follow this two thirds policy? Do they really need all the foreign talents that are doing works that Singaporeans can do better, with local knowledge? What is the advantage for local companies and GLCs to hire foreigners to work in the local environment and local business? I heard some high powered HR directors said that in the local environment hiring Singaporeans has a big advantage because of local knowledge. There are now so many foreigners in middle management jobs in GLCs that do not need foreign talent and skills. At these levels, do they really ‘can bring the expertise and know how to complement and supplement what we have in Singapore’?

It is nice to read such news in the morning. But as the day wears off, reality sets in. What is the beef? What is real? What is nice to hear during an election season?