singaporeans can lose their heritage

I read with trembling fear a letter posted by a Pavin Limanont in the forum page of the Straits Times. He was lecturing a Mr Quek as being xenophobic for standing the ground that political leaders in Singapore must be Singaporeans. Pavin's position is simple and rather naive, claiming that we should accept talents as they are and he would rather be led by a foreigner who is good than by a Singaporean. Theoretically I can agree with this kind of thinking. But in reality, I will strongly oppose such thought. Not that I am xenophobic. For the world is structured in a way that is less than idealistic. The real world is still a world of tribes, race and religion. Once a people slips and loses political control over their lives, they will become subservient to another group. Singaporeans must not be lulled into living in hollywood, that the whole world is their oyster and the world loves them. One wrong step is all it takes for Singaporeans to become extinct. We should invite talented foreigners here, as citizens as well if they want to. We must not have the idea that we should take in ship loads of rubbish and call them Singaporeans at the expense of Singaporeans. If Singaporeans cannot feel passionately as Singaporeans and claim this piece of real estate as theirs, and fight to keep it as theirs, they deserve to lose their heritage.

Would Singapore become another IBM?

Would Singapore become another IBM? We are number one in many fields. So was IBM before. But IBM is now Lenovo. Would Singapore become something else? The path taken by IBM is quite similar to what we are taking now. From private ownership to international company. Singaporeans become International citizens. IBM started as a privately owned company. But as it grew, it started to give shares to all its employees. Every employee becomes a shareholder. Eventually when ownership was so diluted that no one thinks about the company but about themselves and their pockets. IBM is just a commodity, a product for the highest bidder. Singapore can end up as a product for sale if no one wants to take ownership of the island or thinks passionately that this island belongs to him/her. If everyone just thinks that this is just a corporation, then it is only a matter of price. It can be sold en bloc or in bits and pieces over time. We have sold Raffles Hotel, SIA building, what's next? PSA, Keppel, SIA, PUB, LTA, HDB, Parliament House, the Istana? It can be done. Just think commercial or profits. Another way of selling Singapore away is by giving away citizenship freely. This is more deceptive and less obvious. Imagine with 6 million new citizens and 2 million original stocks, Singapore is as good as being sold. The ownership is passed to new citizens who were actually foreigners but given the pink ICs. And they can do whatever they want with the island if they assumed political control and see this as a piece of real estate without any loyalty or emotional attachment to it. Then people may ask, what's wrong with that? It is the continuity and existence of Singapore as a nation that is more important than its people. The people will come and go, born and die. But Singapore will go on. So if this is the logic to abide by, then Singapore's existence and survival is more important than its people. Forget about the people or citizenship.

budget 2007

After listening to the brief over the news, the 2007 budget came across as a pleasing budget. And all the MSM are painting glowing reports on it. So it will be a waste of time for me to write another glowing report here. I will need to spend a little time to digest what the budget is all about. My immediate disappointment is that I am not getting the 10% of what they gave to the President. But please don't blame me for my little indulgence in fantasy. It is a very good package. But what Zulkifli Baharuddin said needs a little reflection. 'We're are not giving away anything for free.' What is it that we have not seen? What is the catch? So far I have not heard of anything about using the GST increase to set up a research centre to study on how to help the lower income group. Neither did I hear any tie up with Harvard or Cambridge to lend credibility to the increase in GST. And no setting aside of the excesses for the future. The govt is collecting $1.5 billion more a year and spending $4 billion over 5 years. Now how much of a dollar collected is returned to the low income group? Let's enjoy the feel good sensation for a while and look at the details carefully. Nothing is given away for free.

brain dead or not? so scary

Andy Ho wrote a very informative article in the Review page of the Straits Times on brain death. And it is chilling to read the findings. There are many issues that are not conclusive and even after a person is declared brain dead, brain activities still can be detacted in 20% of the cases. And what is still debatable is whether the brain is the sole authority on all bodily functions. Biologically, many body functions are still working even after a person is declared brain dead. So is the person still alive or already dead? Is organ harvesting on a brain dead person actually be the final act that kills a living person, though brain dead?

myth 114

Myth 114 Old means out or pay cut We have heard of the pathetic state of the PMETs. What caused them to be in such a postion? The policy of old is useless or FTs or a combination of both. These were our former local born talents, high salary, high value, high esteem, high flyers. Today they are low salary, low value, low esteem and low flying. The fault of globalisation? Lim Boon Heng is the best man to tackle this problem. He is a walking and living example of old is good and should be paid well. The way he goes, he will work till 90 and still smiling and still in demand, and getting an increment every year. What Boon Heng can do is to use the political profession as the perfect model for all to emulate. In this industry, salary is paid according to the appointment. As long as one holds the appointment, no matter what age, talent or not so talented, man or woman, everthing else is irrelevant, one can look forward to annual increment and big bonuses practically every year. The private sector need not look further to adopt this model for their employees. After all, what is profit for? And this is particularly pertinent to govt link companies. These organisations can't be making profits and profits to be stashed away for a tomorrow that never comes. It is the people and their well being. To feed the people and feed them well. Govt and govt linked companies should review their missions and look at how best to look after the people all the way from the President to the heartlanders. Everyone should see that this is a country that looks after them from cradle to their death bed.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day Prof Cohen pointed out on a public lecture in LKY-school on 13 Feb 2007, that the 6.5 million population is risky and will have dire consequences. "Singapore does not grow its foods, so it is dependent on a world economy that permits trade. If there is no trade, Singapore is SUNK!". Maybe the govt can consider giving the people and new citizens an option. Since everything here is run like a business and with bottom line the main consideration, let us compute the wealth of each citizen in Singapore, using the value of the piece of real estate and all the monetary value of the nation's assets. With this figure, every citizen be allowed to opt out of this country and be paid that amount. Funny that I use the term opt out so naturally. And any new citizen coming in can acquire a citizenship by paying an equivalent amount. I think this is fair as he/she will inheriting the wealth of a nation built up over the years by several generations.

the 6.5 million paradox

The 6.5 million paradox What is the relationship between a citizen and a country? Theoretically, the citizens own the country. We, the citizens, not all locals by the way, own this little piece of real estate and everything that we have not sold to private ownership. We, the citizens, not all locals, are part owners of all the monetary wealth of this country. At the moment, with about 2.5 million citizens, each of our share of this real estate and all the reserves and investments is 1/2.5 million. Do we then have a say if this real estate and reserves and investment are going to be divided by 4 or 6 million? Our representative system of govt means the election of ordinary citizens to form the govt to look after our welfare and real estate and national coffer. If our elected representatives said they are going to share our real estate and national wealth with foreigners who are accepted as Singaporeans, do they need to ask for our consent? This is like planning the use of our CPF money or our salaries.