Nurture local talents to become global talents, says who?

When I heard this over the news I thought it was someone quoting the old guards. The newsreader said this was Lim Swee Say’s call. To me it was a wake up call, a wake up call in the sense that a minister has woken up to realize that it is important to nurture our local talents to compete internationally, to become global talents. Have we been doing this? There have been so many news and complaints that the govt has been spending billions to nurture foreign talents and telling our local talents to fend for themselves, got money go overseas to get the degree of their choice. No money ask papa and mama to sell homes to finance them, and all ended up in debt.

And to take it one step further, the govt has been blowing their trumpets about how many foreign talents they have attracted to our shores to replace our degenerating local genes. Just open your eyes and cannot miss the foreign talents everywhere, in GLCs, in ministries and in Parliament.

What would happen to our local talents if this process continues unabated? What would happen if no minister is going to speak out about nurturing our local talents? Or what would happen now that Lim Swee Say is saying it? Would it matter, would it make any difference? Would the no need to grow our own timber policy continues?

Take a step back to some 30 years ago when the policies of the old guards were still in place, that was, to nurture our own local talents. If that policy was not in place then, ministers like Lim Swee Say and many other ministers, our CEOs in the GLCs, permament secretaries, deputy secretaries, generals, commissioners, judges etc etc, would they be where they are today? Or would their places be filled by foreigners and they be like the PMETs of today, being replaced prematurely by clever foreigners and have to be retrained to be cleaners or security guards? Or would they be self employed, be their own bosses as taxi drivers?

How many of our ministers and natural aristocrats benefited from the old guards’ policy of growing our own timber, nurturing our own talents to be our own leaders and head honchos? Why would those who benefited from the nurturing own talents policy turned around to say, better to nurture other people’s talents and fill our top positions with foreign talents? Why are they so ungrateful, that after crossing the bridge they cut the bridge, to say our local talents no good, no need to nurture them?

Is Lim Swee Say the proverbial one swallow in winter, or was he making a politically correct statement and with no intent to follow up? Would there be other ministers coming to say the same thing and then come up with policies to nurture our own talents for real?

Just wait and see.

Lawrence Khong – Belief versus Conviction

It is a message to the Church that we must arise and move as one on our convictions regarding personal purity and public morality, Marriage and Family. Howard Hendricks said: “A belief is something you will argue about. A conviction is something you will die for.” This was quoted by Lawrence Khong in his sermon on the LGBT.

I am not going to discuss Lawrence Khong’s crusade against the LGBT in Hong Lim Park and the wear white movement, to wear white as a sign of purity, as a sign of support for the PAP, family and morality and all the jests. I will just touch on the difference between belief and conviction as quoted by Lawrence Khong. He rightly said that a belief is a belief and is something that is for people to argue about. A belief is never the truth and you can argue till the cow comes home, it is still a belief.

What is important is a conviction, something that one can die for. One can have a conviction to want to defend a country like being a Singaporean and believing that this island belongs to Singaporeans. On the other hand one can have a contrary conviction that this island belongs to anyone that comes here. There are thus two elements, believing and conviction. Of course conviction is more important. If Singaporeans only believe but do not have a conviction to want to defend this island, the island will go to those who are here to take it. And the job would be much easier if the Singaporeans are willing to give the island away, or happily inviting the foreigners here to share their island.

One can also have a conviction on the right to free speech and may even die for it. One can have a conviction against gambling or any kind of crimes and wanting to fight and die for it. And of course one can have a conviction for a belief and wanting to die for the belief, like the crusaders and the IS believers.

The important thing is the conviction, not the belief or the cause one believes in. No conviction there will be no cause, no belief to die for.

China warns G7 to stay out of South China Sea dispute

The G7, group of nations comprising Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States are meeting in Japan, is told to stick to their economic agenda and stop meddling with China’s affair in the South China Sea. Co incidentally, the G7 countries, other than Canada, were the same mafia group that invaded China and splitted China into concessions under their control after defeating the Manchu Dynasty. And these same countries are telling China to observe the fundamental importance of peaceful management and settlement of disputes without commenting on the Americans’ provocations in sailing warships to within the 12 nautical miles of Chinese islands. The European Council President Donald Tusk even said, ‘the G7 should take a “clear and tough stance” on China’s contested maritime claims.’ Is he suggesting that the G7 should launch another invasion of China like the 8 allied powers under the pretext of the League of Nations, invading China in 1901?

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has warned the G7 to ‘adopt impartial and fair positions, and not apply double standards or strike alliances, and especially not take actions to escalate or provoke regional tensions’. He should remind them of their crimes against China of the 19^th Century and that China would not forget this evil deeds. China would not tolerate a repeat of their gunboat diplomacy.

Under Obama and Abe, the G7 is being led to challenge China and thinking war with China is a good game to play. Abe and the Japanese have not learnt a thing about the tragedies of war despite the recent reminders of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the sufferings and pains of the young Japanese victims of the atomic bombs. The Japanese only think that they were the victims of the atomic bombings and wanting the Americans to apologise but totally wiped away the memories of the millions killed by them and the many more millions that were wounded and suffered under their brutalities.

Abe and the Japanese are preparing for war and eagerly wanting to go to war. The only few Japanese that regretted the war were those victims of the atomic bombs who felt the pain and saw the pain. The rest of Japan still think war is a glorious thing and are tearing away their pacifist constitution and getting ready for another war.

They are so wild and crazy that they did not know the world has changed. The victim countries of WW2 are no longer hapless and weak. If Japan is to start a war, these countries, particularly China and the two Koreas would be landing in Japan to exact the revenge of their forefathers that suffered under the Japanese brutality. They would do everything the Japanese did before and more. No Japanese would be spared. There will not only be Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but Tokyo, Kyoto, Osaka and all the big Japanese cities would experienced the fate of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Japan and the Japanese must repent and not indulge in another war. Make peace and live peacefully with their neighbours. Do not remind their neighbours of the Japanese barbarism and give their neighbours a chance to inflict the same on the 100 million Japanese of today. Make peace, not war.

If China shuts its door to the Little Red Dot

Up to the 70s, Singapore citizens could not visit PRC freely. There were conditions like being seniors or getting special approval from the govt should Singaporeans want to visit China. Likewise it was not easy for a Chinese citizen to visit Singapore unless being sponsored. What we have taken for granted today, the free movement of people and trade are not normal during the days of Cold War when communism was Enemy Number One and China was a communist country, and also very poor.

Things changed in from mid 1970s and after the visit of Deng Xiao Ping in 1978. Diplomatic relations took a dramatic change with LKY making visits to China and a special relationship and rapport were developed between the two leaders. There was an understanding to work closely for the benefits of both countries. Singapore was a shining example of what a new country could do and to transform itself into an economic miracle. Many Chinese delegations came and gone, to study how Singapore did it, and Singapore delegations too visited China to share our experience.

Singapore was special to China and Lee Kuan Yew and his senior ministers had very close relationships with their counterparts with Goh Keng Swee stationing himself in China as special economic advisors after his retirement from political office. Today, both these men have gone. Relations between the two countries are still very good. But no one in Singapore has the same kind of rapport and relationship that LKY had with China’s leadership.  There were a lot of admiration and respect and deference to LKY when he was still around.

With the departure of LKY, would the relationship between China and Singapore still be on the same level or plane, that China would still have a special place for Singapore, to listen to what Singapore is saying? LKY could say anything he wanted about China, encouraging the Americans to be in the region to counter the influence of China to the chagrin of China’s leadership. They kept quiet and at times gave a silent smile to the position of Singapore, standing up to China and snuggling closely in bed with the Americans. Could this state of affair continue without LKY?

If we are to read the media and the speech by Bilahari Kausikan, the position of Singapore towards China and the balancing act with the Americans are still the same, business as usual, only the personalities have changed.

In the absence of LKY, in the absence of that special rapport between the top leaders, is Singapore taking China for granted, that this lovely state of affair, the special place of Singapore, to stand up to China and expect to be embraced warmly by the Chinese leadership will continue? Who in China is going to embrace who in Singapore, to be able to engage in deep four eye discussion at the highest level on the most sensitive issues?

Would the new China leadership turn around and say that things are getting out of hand, that Singapore is taking them for granted, that Singapore thinks it can still ruffle up China and challenging China’s core interests, taking the side of the Americans, that this has to stop? LKY could get away with anything he said and done. He was no ordinary off the mill politician or political leader. Leaders of the world listened to him and tried to make out what he was saying, not necessarily agreeing with him. Does Singapore today have the same kind of politician with the same stature and deference to say the darnest things, and get away with it?

IS War of Words

The IS and terrorist organizations are getting smarter and making full use of modern technology and cyberspace to conduct wars cheaply and very effectively. Eng Hen’s disclosure of the IS training children from Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore, burning their passports and taking up arms and the message that these countries are potential targets of these young terrorists have a lot of implications. In the first instance, it shows how sophisticated the terrorist organizations are in the art of psychological warfare.

The revelation of the presence of these young terrorists from the three countries is to give notice to the countries that they better take the threat seriously. And these countries have no choice but to bolster up their defensive mechanism and organisations to prepare and counter the threats. Manpower, equipment and time would have to be allocated to prepare for the inevitable, and as they said, it is a matter of when. So, a simple act of flashing the video in cyberspace would have the effect of making countries tying down their resources and manpower for something in the dark that may or may not happen and without any idea when or where they will hit. The IS is having the upper hand, they have the initiative, when and where to strike.

On the international scale, such wars of words would put big countries like the USA and its allies, participants in the Coalition of the unWilling shitting in their pants. All IS needs to do is to post a few threats in the net and their anti terrorist organizations would be kept very busy shadow fighting. And it would be worse when the threat is more specific, with time and place revealed.

This psycho warfare could drive many countries crazy, wasting time, resources and manpower for apparently nothing. The cost to IS and other terrorist organizations is practically negligible, but not to the countries they are targeting. No country can ignore the threats and Singapore is deploying the Army boys and the Home Teams and NSmen and whatever available to be ready, and cannot afford to be caught with the pants down. Then everyone will be pointing the finger, they told you. Why didn’t you do something?