Defence of Singapore cannot be outsourced?

Desmond Lee, the Senior Minister of State (Home Affairs) said this. This is like a changing of tune. First we have Lim Swee Say saying that we must nurture local talents which is something they had forgotten. Now we have Desmond Lee saying another thing they have forgotten, outsourcing defence of the country to foreigners. What do you think the auxiliary police force are doing at the check points, and who are they? Are they defending the country and are these officers, or many of them, are foreigners?

We have people taking our national defence, Total Defence, for granted. In fact some of the policies are undermining the very precepts of Total Defence. Not only that foreigners, and many from highly terrorist proned countries, are brought in to work here, to live among us, in the heartland, and many were even working in sensitive positions and trades. We have this silly notion that all foreigners are friendly and would not do harm to Singapore. Oh, they have evidence that the foreigners are only using Singapore as a base, not to harm Singapore, like the discovery of Bangladeshi terrorist cells. They are only planning terrorist activities in their home country. So it is ok. Foreigners are very nice to Singapore and Singaporeans.

Why is Desmond Lee saying something so fundamental and crucial to our nation’s defence, that we need to rely on our own citizens to do that, not to outsource to foreigners? How many policies are there, like hiring and bringing in foreigners indiscriminately and employed in industries and positions that could compromise our safety, security and the defence of our nation?

We exposed our citizens by letting foreigners of dubious backgrounds to live among them, and plenty of them are now living in HDB estates. We allowed foreigners to be employed in highly sensitive IT jobs, to guard our checkpoints! How thoughtless can this be? The checkpoints are the first line of defence and these foreigners guarding them could be the holes to let the terrorists through.

What are the people in security and intelligence thinking or doing that today, after so many years of flooding the island with potentially dangerous elements, and many already in positions to do harm and damage to our defence, the damage could have been done, that we have a Senior Minister of State (Home Affairs) raising the alarm? Did he just realize that this is a dangerous path to go forward? Is he just another swallow and the rest are still happy dreaming or sleeping and allowing the foreigners to take charge or be in position to create trouble to the defence of our nation and people?

Do they know what Total Defence is all about? Have they forgotten or is Total Defence just an aspiration, not meant to be anything? No need to take Total Defence seriously? It may be too late now with half the population comprising of foreigners that have no good things to talk about us and would do us in if they could.

Defence cannot be outsourced, or should our defence continue to be outsourced? What do you think? The whole of Home Affairs and Defence Ministries, only one junior minister is awaken by this sorry state of affair and think it is necessary to talk about it. It is not a problem to the rest of them in charge of defence of the country? Can it be said that since they did not say anything about it, they are happy with the situation except Desmond Lee? Or is Desmond Lee expressing their concerns in the open as a politician?

The thing that pissed me off most, and I believe every NSmen, is to be checked and harassed by foreigners in police uniform at the check points like we are potential terrorists when we are the ones trained to defend this country, to fight and die for this country. Why are we subject to interrogations and checks and the rude glare of foreigners that could be the real terrorists or potential terrorists that would do us harm?  This is our country and our country trust foreigners to check on us, the defenders of our country?

How silly can we get? Yes Desmond, wake them up.

South China Sea gunboat diplomacy – A divergent establishment view

We heard Bilahari and Ong Keng Yong’s view, one official and one personal, attacking China for trying to divide Asean in the South China Sea island disputes. Last Saturday, the ST published a divergent establishment view about the South China Sea, this time giving it another spin. Instead of a dispute between a few South East Asian countries, claiming islands and coral reefs in the South China Sea, the veil was dropped and the naked truth was exposed. It was an open contest for control of the South China Sea by the Americans, to reinforce its hegemony over the region in the name of Freedom of Navigation.

Leslie Fong, the former editor of the ST, an establishment men, or used to be a part of the establishment. His views must still be a reflection of what the establishment is thinking. But he put it that what he wrote was not his views but the view of a Taiwanese lady by the name Ms Oh Beigong through a letter to the Japanese Admiral in charge of the American Pacific Fleet by the name of Harry Harris. A yellow banana for sure, very like the Singaporean banana, but a very dangerous one.

In brief, Ms Oh Beigong, or in Hokien Ms Black White Said, the Americans were just pretending about Freedom of Navigation but using it to pick on China while the American allies like Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam have been doing exactly what China is doing but no Freedom of Navigation to their reclaimed and militarized islands were conducted by the Americans.

The bottom line, in Leslie’s article, through Ms Oh Beigong, is this. ‘Might is right. The US is out to stymie the rise of China and prevent it from challenging American dominance, if not hegemony. We get that. So do us a favour, please stop talking about high principles and international law. However, if you wish to regain at least a modicum of respect from clear sighted people in this region, here is something you…can do. In the name of asserting freedom of navigation and upholding international law, send your destroyer or whatever to an atoll in the Philippine Sea which the Japanese call Okinotorishima and claim as their territory….the atoll lies 1,700km south of Tokyo, …but less than 500 km from Taiwan itself.’

The American hypocrisy in the South China Sea is exposed by this dear letter to the American banana now called Harry Harris, no Hiroshima or Nagasaki. It is all about gunboat diplomacy, about control of the South China Sea, about American hegemony.

What shit is the talk about splitting Asean countries by the other side of the establishment? What is the real issue? China claiming the islands, Asean countries claiming the islands, or the American claiming the whole South China Sea?

Thank you Leslie Fong. Oops, thank you Ms Oh Beigong.

Americans and American Exceptionalism – Some quotes

Below are some quotes on American Exceptionalism from the information clearing house that are self explanatory. In a few words, they are saying that the Americans are the overlord of this world and can do anything as they like. They are above the law.

In the case of the United States, seeming high-level leadership self-perceives that the U.S. is “exceptional” (i.e., unusual or unusually good in possession of the ability to act) and does not need to conform to normal rules or general principles. In worldly terms, the U.S. exits the brotherhood of nations and is empire among middling servant states.  see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44743.htm

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts -- not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln

"When the representative body have lost the confidence of their constituents, when they have notoriously made sale of their most valuable rights, when they have assumed to themselves powers which the people never put into their hands, then indeed their continuing in office becomes dangerous." --Thomas Jefferson

"The people are the ultimate guardians of their own liberties. In every government on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption and degeneracy . . . Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone." --Thomas Jefferson

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.