Anonymous said...
Why are Singaporeans so upset about FTs coming to this little red dot? Is it because Singaporeans are jealous when they see others earning good salary? If you are as good as these FTs then you too will be able to earn that kind of money. The fact that they are here means these FTs are needed to do the jobs that are beyond the capability of Singaporeans. Let us look at banking. The FTs from India are definitely much more capable that Singaporeans. They are better in the banking sector. Also in technology, the Indian and the PRC FTs are miles better than the Singaporeans. Singapore often boasts that the country has the best education system. But when it comes to thinking out of the box, Singaporeans are miles behind the lean and mean FTs from India, China, Malaysia and most Asean countries. So, please remember that FTs are needed to oil the machinery of Singapore. Without FTs Singapore cannot survive.
The above post by Anonymous merits serious reflection on the fate of Singapore and Singaporeans. If what were said are true, a mismatch or outdated education system that could not prepare our young for the new world, unsuitable for employment, that all the boasts about how good our education is, how expensive it is and value for money, are all hogwash.
If it is true that the foreigners are better than Singaporeans, because their education system are better or they are better, then the future of Singaporeans is cooked, finito. There is no fight and Singaporeans should rightly choose to take on jobs as hawkers, PHV drivers, food deliverers, security guards, cashiers, sitting at the entrance of buildings and shopping centres to take temperature and check in people. These are about the best jobs remaining for the unsuitably qualified Singaporeans.
If it is true, then with these neighbouring countries overflowing with talents that are better than Singaporeans, these countries would be more developed and better managed than Singapore. Is that the case? And the talents that came to Singapore are not their best as these are the unsuitable talents in their home countries, unable to find jobs there as their jobs are taken by their better talents. These are their rejects.
Can you imagine that Singapore is only taking their rejects and their rejects are better than many Singaporeans. And the funny thing is that their countries are still struggling to climb out of the third world label, many still filled with slums and dysfunctional govts?
Singaporeans are doomed, and so would Singapore when these rejected talents take over this island, for sure they can't do better than their home countries. They could only pluck the low hanging fruits and after these are gone, they would run out of ideas, like the one trick ponies. Singapore will then join their home countries as third world slum countries.
What do you think?
In the eyes of Western elites, Westerners can have the privilege to eat meat while Chinese should just eat grass.
Time magazine on Friday posted an article entitled "How China could change the world by taking meat off the menu." The author draws a connection between Chinese eating meat and global environmental problems. It said: "Livestock farming produces 20 percent to 50 percent of all man-made greenhouse gases… Halving China's animal-agriculture sector could result in a 1 billion metric-ton reduction of CO2 emissions."
In 2018, the Atlantic published a piece with the headline of "China's love for meat is threatening its green movement." In 2019, the Economist released an article entitled "The planet needs China to curb its appetite for meat." It is reported in June 2020 that Pat Brown, chief executive of Impossible Foods, a company developing plant-based substitutes for meat products, even said, "Every time someone in China eats a piece of meat, a little puff of smoke goes up in the Amazon."
Chinese people's eating patterns remarkably differ from people in the West. Chinese mainly eat grain and vegetables, supplemented by meat, while for Westerners, meat has been their staple food. The proportion of meat in the diet of Westerners is much higher than that of Chinese.
The Time article states that China consumes 28 percent of the world's meat. This data has been cited by Western media outlets since 2016. Western media tend to criticize China by referring to the total amount. As China is the most populous country in the world, using a total figure as a benchmark is unfair to China. Yet based on meat consumption per capita, the West far exceeds that of China.
In terms of beef, the OECD shows in 2020 that China's consumption of 4.2 kilograms per capita lagged behind the world average at 6.4 kilos. The figure for Argentina was about nine times as much as that of China, and the US more than six times that of China. The consumption of many Western countries, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK, was also much higher than China's.
According to media report, beef production causes five times more climate-warming emissions than pork. If having less meat is essential to "change the world," it is more than fair to urge the West to reduce its beef consumption. The US consumed far more meat per capita in 2020 alone, so how can they pass the buck of Amazon destruction to China?
When interviewed by an Australian media outlet in 2010, former US president Barack Obama said, "If over a billion Chinese citizens have the same living patterns as Australians and Americans do right now, then all of us are in for a very miserable time. The planet just can't sustain it."
In the eyes of some Western elites, Westerners can have the privilege to eat meat while Chinese should just eat grass. They are reluctant to see Chinese are living an increasingly abundant life, and that the living standards of the Chinese are getting closer to the Westerners. They feel their sense of superiority including the one toward their political system challenged when they see Chinese, whose political path and values sharply differ from them, can also enjoy a better life.
January 25, 2021 12:20 pm
By Anonymous