Tag: Singapore

Random Discourse – Post Presidential Election

Leave a comment

The Presidential Election is over and Sunday is a rather disappointing day for me because Dr Tan Cheng Bock didn’t win. 83.44% of 2.27 million eligible voters cast their votes and Tan Cheng Bock was beaten by a hair thin margin of just 0.33%. Tony Tan’s supporters can ungraciously say that even if Tan Cheng Bock had won, he would also be another 35% president. But the difference is that a Tan Cheng Bock win would be a lot less abrasive and a lot more acceptable to some of those who voted for Tan Jee Say. That is a fact because when Tan Jee Say has fallen behind, the hashtag #AnyonebutTonyTan starts making its rounds on Twitter. In other words, Tony Tan is a 35% President both in name and in fact while Tan Cheng Bock will only be one in name.

Personally, I had expected Tan Cheng Bock to win. It was not by detailed analysis. It was simply gut feel. I went to a customer site with a colleague and on the cab, the colleague said he would vote for Tan Cheng Bock. I was drinking myself silly in a pub and one of the usual patrons came up and asked me who I would vote for and toasted me for saying Tan Cheng Bock. Among my two drinking partners, one has already decided to vote for Tan Cheng Bock while the other said he would go with that as long as that is the popular choice. I asked someone who I haven’t spoken to in a long while and she said Tan Cheng Bock. Tan Cheng Bock was so overwhelming a choice among the majority of my friends and that was in spite of the online propaganda by the likes of Temasek Review Emeritus. To me, “Doc” (as his team on Facebook affectionately calls him) is simply the people’s choice outside the online community and it was something spontaneous and not orchestrated. If there was a movement online canvassing for votes for Tan Cheng Bock, all of that effort appeared to be individual and uncoordinated. In my case, I had simply forwarded what I liked to my Facebook wall, and to those friends who have not decided on who they would vote for. To me, Tan Cheng Bock is the black horse which would come from behind and surprise everyone. In fact I had generally refrain from criticising the other candidates publicly and when I had to post anything critical of them I had make it clear I regarded them as ‘political smear’, so that anyone who wants to read them would read with a pinch (or a bucket) of salt.

A day before the polling day when I met an ex-colleague for lunch, he spoke of tactical voting and has advised that the votes for Tan Cheng Bock and Tan Jee Say be consolidated to deny Tony Tan the presidency. He mentioned that if we failed to do so then Tony Tan would definitely win. In fact, it was a foregone conclusion even then that Tan Kin Lian is finished and we were hoping for a last minute miracle in which he would pull out of the race to avoid humiliation and to throw his support behind either Tan Cheng Bock or Tan Jee Say.

I understand the concept of tactical voting, but I find it difficult to abandon Tan Cheng Bock for Tan Jee Say. The reason is rather simple. I knew very little about Tan Jee Say. All I have is just what he had said during the campaign period and I would be a fool to take all that at face value and give him my vote. On top of which, a Tan Jee Say win would be as bad as a Tony Tan win since they stood on the opposite end of the political divide. While it maybe said that Tan Jee Say is being true to himself by aligning solidly with the opposition camp, it simply reinforces the impression that neither a Tony Tan nor Tan Jee Say win will do anything to bridge the politcal divide. So even though it was a risky (if not painful) decision, I stayed my course and voted for Tan Cheng Bock. My ex-colleague said we might as well have voted for Tony Tan. I had told him to stand firm and vote for the candidate he believed in all the way to the end. To vote against one’s own preferred candidate simply because one thinks the candidate is unlikely to win is just making one’s vote meaningless.

On hindsight, perhaps I should have convinced him to vote for Tan Cheng Bock instead. I should have told him that it is rather impossible for Tan Jee Say to win. After all, while the national average for the opposition vote is 40% in the recent General Election [GE], that average is generally boosted by the overall good showing of the Workers’ Party [WP], and the good showing of the Singapore Peoples’ Party [SPP] at Bishan-Toa Payoh and Potong Pasir. That means the die-hard opposition base is actually much lower, and I estimate it to be around 35% due to the resentment over public transport, housing and the surge in foreign labor.

It may have been logical for Tan Jee Say aligned himself primarily with the opposition. Unfortunately, that almost certainly sank his bid more so than his confrontational stance in the debates. His deliberate, pointed barbs against Tony Tan did nothing to endear him to the PAP camp at all. While that may present his supporters an impression of self-confidence (i.e. the impression he is already running neck and neck with Tony Tan), it also made him looked arrogant. It may play very well to the rabidly anti-PAP camp, but it does nothing to endear him to the middle voters (a part of those who has chosen to vote for any opposition only in the recent GE) because he had treated the other two candidates as just also-runs and insignificant. By failing to engage the other candidates, it really leave very little room for voters to engage in tactical voting because there is very little common ground (if not none at all). It also means he wouldn’t be able to win all of that 35% of the opposition votes. In my case, that arrogance and disrespect was simply offensive. It was as offensive as Tony Tan interrupting Tan Jee Say when he was speaking on the ISA. I am dismayed that someone of Tony Tan’s stature had rudely interrupted before Tan Jee Say finished speaking.

I hadn’t bother to write anything of these things down on my blog or any social media platform, nor speak to any of my friends or colleagues about these because I didn’t want to influence how people decide on their choice BEFORE the Presidential Election. Above which, I really don’t relish the idea of being flamed by the rabidly anti-PAP camp even though I could delete all such comments at my discretion. Furthermore, offending the supporters of the other candidates would leave very little room to convince anyone to change their decisions or to convince those who are undecided. That’s not mentioning that since I want to vote for a President who would unify the people, and I don’t think criticising the other candidates will help Tan Cheng Bock win at all. It was rather unfortunate that the supporters of the other candidates are not so restraint.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock, you have fought the good fight. You have inspired some of us and given us hope. You are right that even though we lost, we have also won.

Then again… I still preferred it to be your photo hanging on the offices of all government department and civil services in Singapore. On Sunday morning, I finally understand the anguish of SPP supporters in Potong Pasir. It is definitely a loss that is really, really hard to swallow.

Random Discourse – New Citizens? Or Foreigners with Singapore Passport & IC?

Leave a comment

One of my complaints about new citizens (or immigrants) has always been this: They have different aspirations and are indifferent to our values and traditions. I shared this view with a number of people and a fellow Singaporean (not one of those new ones) asked me – Just exactly what are our “traditions” anyway? Do we even have one?

He has a point. For the longest moment, I couldn’t think of an answer. Even after weeks, I couldn’t think of one. We have Singlish, we rush into the train and the lift without waiting for others to come out, and we queue for so-called “free stuff” even though the queue is so long that the time cost no longer make it worthwhile. But none of these are our traditions. In fact, Singaporeans may not even share common values across racial lines. The term “Asian Values” is really a misnomer, because Asians are so diverse that the values and traditions of those in East Asia will differ from those in the godforsaken winter wastes of Siberia.

So we really don’t have any traditions, and I can’t even say we have common values. A friend thus pointed out that it would be more correct to say: they have different aspirations and are indifferent to our way of life. I had attempted to argue that National Service [NS] can be considered one of our traditions but our women don’t serve NS. Above which, Chillycraps pointed out in a private conversation that a tradition is not something forced upon us. A tradition would be something we would want to keep and proud of. Not something that we find to be a burden.

Either way, it cannot be denied that immigrants have different aspirations. Their first and foremost: an opportunity to better their lives and that of their family. While that might sound absurd, since Singaporeans also aspire for better lives for themselves and the family, the fact is that Singaporeans want something even better and not have people coming from another place to reap the fruits of our forebears at our expense. Very much like some white Australians in the 90s who wished that Asians would just stay home and not mess out their great nation.

Furthermore, the aspirations of these immigrants may not necessarily come with any attachment or loyalty to Singapore. To some of them, the Singapore pink IC [Identity Card] and red passport is nothing more than a “key” – perhaps to open other doors to yet another place which could provide yet better opportunities. I have no doubt some will leave for greener pastures using their new found convenience in a few years.

But what irks me the most is when some of them speak so passionately against Singaporeans raving and ranting against foreigners, as if those who complained are making a point against them in particular. While I cannot expect them to completely detach themselves from their land of birth (or forsake it completely), their reaction suggests they still think of themselves as if they are still foreigners! There appears to be a complete lack of regard to their new status as Singaporeans. I seriously question their loyalty to this country. Their passionate defense as if they are foreigners themselves is puzzling. It makes me wondered whether they have given a really serious thought when giving up their original citizenship. Don’t all of them have to take an oath of allegiance to this country or some kind of pledge when they take up our citizenship? Does that mean nothing to them? (Talking about that, I found it ironical that for failing to give his pledge, a Mr Ogawa Ryuju became stateless for about half a year even though he has served NS.)

Singapore has clearly been giving out citizenship as cheaply and as quickly as a streetwalker agrees to provide sex service for the right price. After all, a recently elected Member of Parliament [MP] is a new citizen who has not served NS. It is clear that while NS used to be a valued rite of passage for Singaporean boys into manhood, these days it is considered a liability, and a waste of time by employers and Operationally Ready National Servicemen [NSmen] alike. It would appear to me that life in the army has improved so drastically, that even new citizens who did serve NS think very little of it (see screen shot). Although I clearly detest the dehumanisation and abuse during my NS days, the experience is something we Singaporean men commonly shared and at times the most common topic among those who met for the first time. Not to mention, what I got in NS was already far milder than my predecessors.

Certainly, while new citizens may not be indifferent to our non-existent common values and traditions, I am quite certain they are indifferent to our way of life. A life in which we would like a little more living space in our lifts and trains, a smoother ride on the road or even a voice with an accent that sounds much more familiar and at home when we called a help line. I recalled the joy of a Singaporean working for the Thompson Reuters Help Desk in Australia who happily spoke to me in Hokkien. Some of us would prefer a life where there is less competition, less hectic and more harmonious even when most would consider such a life to be mediocre and uninspiring. The fact is, if the government want us to live more graciously and learn to appreciate life, then it can’t expect us to continue to do so in an environment where we constantly fight tooth and nail for our very own survival. Who gives a damn about the arts when losing their job means losing the roof over their heads because they have still another 20 years of housing loans to service?

Thus, I am not surprised that many local-born Singaporeans (including myself, during the May 2011 General Election) are in the opinion that the People’s Action Party [PAP] deliberately “imported” these foreigners to “dilute” our votes. I remembered that one of the points made then was that this is the election to make a difference because if we don’t, the floodgates will be opened to yet another 900,000 foreigners and by 2016, our votes will even be more “diluted” and our collective voices drowned out be “foreign interests”. It doesn’t matter there is no evidence whatsoever that new citizens will do so, and truth be told I suspect they might actually even vote against the PAP for any opposition party that would make it a lot more like the place they left believing they could yet retain the economic and political stability which they liked about Singapore. In other words, not only will the demographic distribution of this country will be screwed up, our way of life are going to be messed up in more ways than one!

Personally, I don’t want to treat new citizens as outsiders. However, if new citizens continue to set themselves apart, then it is almost certain that will be reciprocated. Perhaps they have bought too much into the PAP’s propaganda of them being talented, to the point that they think of themselves as elite. I have no doubt that some of them already looked down upon us and think of us as stupid. After all, the elitism oozes out of every spore of that person who wrote that load of crap in the screen shot.

Commentary – Post 80’ers and Tin Pei Ling

4 comments

It is baffling why Tin Pei Ling is getting more attention than the other new candidates introduced. I dare say she is probably the most talked about person, and has more attention online than all the cabinet mini$ter$ put together.

Frankly, I didn’t really cared about the candidates that the Tali-PAP have introduced. Why do I want to care about more of the same shit? Had her name not flooded my news feed on Facebook, I wouldn’t give a damn about her either. Anyway, my first comment when I saw her picture was this – Singapore is not Japan, the Tali-PAP is not the Liberal Democrat Party (LDP), and PM Baby Lee certainly isn’t Koizumi Junichiro. After all, while Koizumi had sent his party’s pretty candidates as ‘election assassins’ against his opponents and win, Ms Tin probably would have not stood a chance if she ran alone in an Single Member Constituency [SMC]. In fact, it makes one wonder if she would stand a chance even against aunty Lina Chiam. Let’s not forget that this is not 1976 so stop comparing with the respected ex-Speaker Mr Tan Soo Khoon already.

I wonder what goes on in the mind of the those who made the decision to field her. After all, it reflects poorly on those who made the decision to chose Ms Tin as a candidate. No matter good she is, there will be a perception that in part she received the call because of her husband’s connections. If those who chose her thought that she could pass scrutiny, they may have overestimated her ability. Worse of it all – which many netizens felt – they may not have cared if she could pass scrutiny. To quote one of them, “Tin Pei Ling looks suspiciously like the PAP’s way of giving Singaporeans the middle finger.” I am not surprised if it is not too far from the truth, and probably we haven’t seen nothing yet because they might even make her a mini$ter.

On the other hand, there are those who pointed out that the over-reaction is unnecessary. Consider countries like Brazil or Venezuela, where it is not surprising for beauty queens to contest in elections. Or even in Italy or Japan, where a porn star / AV actress managed to win. While these voters may still question whether Ms Tin has the political acumen to be a candidate, they do not really care whether she’s a ‘sweet young thing’ or not. I felt the reaction to her is because that Singaporeans are not only particularly annoyed with the certainty that she will enter Parliament as part of a Tali-PAP GRC team, but over the fact that some good opposition candidates (such as Sylvia Lim) may possibly never made it into Parliament thanks to the thrice damned and accursed GRC system thought out by a dog-mother snake.

I’ll leave it to the other cyber-carrion eaters to pick Ms Tin apart for whatever other reasons they can think of – for e.g. too young, no substance, showing off, or acting cute. Personally I object to some of the things done to drag even the other aspects of her personal life through the mud – such as the attempt which suggests that she broke a previous relationship with another man and be with her husband for political reasons. If the Straits Stooge Times were to accuse anyone of ‘gutter-journalism’, let me remind everyone what it have done to Josie Lau and her team when they attempted to take over AWARE in 2009. Even before the whole affair was over, we knew more about the personal and private life of some of these people – the kids they have, where they worked, their spouse, the church their worshiped in etc. As such, I find it rather hypocritical of Siew Kum Hong to speak in defense of Ms Tin, when he sided with the side that brought the matter to the press in the AWARE affair. Seriously, where the hell was he when the local media drag the privacy of private citizens through the mud? Oh… he was helping Dana Lam and frankly I am not sure how much we know about her.


Mar 6, Hong Kong – Citizens march in protest

But I digress… A friend showed me an old article in 2007 on the Tali-PAP site and I do not really like what I read. On what basis can she justify that the poor have not gotten poorer? I doubt her perspective has changed in the past few years, and I wondered how is she going to position herself in the position of the people and serve them with this kind of perspective? That’s not forgetting a recent video where she said that healthcare costs is ‘low and manageable’. Seriously, was she aware of the hoops of fire we need to jump through to attain Khaw Boon Wan’s ‘$8 bypass-operation healthcare nirvana’?

I believe it was Mini$ter Ng Eng Hen ‘Eng Eng’ who said that the party isn’t looking for ‘Yes Man’ when they select their candidates. So far Ms Tin has failed to show us that she is anything but. In fact, while some Tali-PAP backbenchers would at times speak eloquently and even passionately (such as Lily Neo) against certain issues, when have they voted against or even abstained when their votes are counted? Frankly, all this talk about serving the people are empty promises to me, when Tali-PAP MPs would vote for policies that are forced down our throats.


Post 80’ers lying on road in protest

I also recalled that one of the Tali-PAP ‘old birds’ – can’t remember who, since I can’t find that article – who said that the online flaming of Ms Tin isn’t helpful and it will deter young people from coming into politics and to serve the people. At the age of 27, Tin Pei Ling would classify as one of the “post-80’ers” [八十后]. As far as I am concerned, I personally don’t think she is too young to dabble in politics since it is a trend in this part of Asia – in Hong Kong in particular, and even in China for the young to step forth and fight for greater equality and better future for themselves.

Globalisation and unfettered capitalism rapidly marginalises not only the ageing, but even the young. The entire economic climate has been made worse by ‘Quantitative Easing’, in which the U.S. simply just print money without any backing and export its inflation to the rest of the world. The young are looking at a bleak future in which they would find it almost impossible to obtain a roof over their own heads, and also to bear the ever increasing burden in the form of high costs of living while wages remained stagnant or even depressed just to stay employed. But compared to those in Hong Kong who needs to lay down on the road in their political struggle (in the recently protests on March 6), Ms Tin’s political path is a paved, unobstructed 4 lane expressway. At least she didn’t have to go on the streets and brave water cannons or the truncheons of riot police compared to some of her contemporaries in other parts of the world. Stick and stones may break my bones, Ms Tin. If someone needs to speak up for you over all these nasty comments, then go back to your comfort zone and stop trying to amuse us.

All said, it is my considered opinion that it is not Ms Tin who need to see a trauma specialist. But rather Singaporeans in her ward who needed one because she would get a free ride on Senior Senile Mini$ter Goh’s shoulders into Parliament and earn at least $15,000 a month, while many fresh graduates would have to struggle with getting a starting pay of $2,500. That reminds me of someone who actually scoffed a year back when a fresh graduate talked about how he has been struggling for almost half a year or more looking for job because he can’t obtain even that starting pay on Plurk. Personally, I have no idea why this person would think that requesting for a starting pay of $2,500 would be too much, when a new HDB flat would cost $350K, and it would take up $1000 a month just to service the loans!

Recommended Reads:
InsanePoly: The Modern NS Experience
Senang Diri: Singapore’s defence burden – Something no maid can carry

Commentary – Rony Tan (II)

Rony Tan is in the news again. This time, he was reported to the police for comments which offends homosexuals in another sermon video.

The video, which is believed to have been uploaded to the church’s website in May last year but was removed from the homepage just one day after the apology was issued, had a new lease of life after it appeared on a blog maintained by Kenneth Tan (no relation to the pastor), a Singaporean working in Shanghai. In the video, the pastor attributed childhood abuse as a cause of homosexuality and linked homosexual people with paedophiles.

He further linked homosexuality with bestiality saying: “If you allow [homosexuality], next time people will want to get married to monkeys. And they will want rights. They’ll want to apply for HDB [a colloquial term to mean a government subsidised flat]. With a donkey or a monkey or a dog and so on. It’s very pathetic.”

Even though I don’t believed in it as a Christian, I joked with my friend that Rony Tan this year 犯太岁 (meaning: in conflict with the Chinese deity ‘Tai Sui‘) considering the kind of ‘bad luck’ he is getting. I even jokingly mentioned that he should hire the services of old ladies in Hong Kong to 打小人 (literally, ‘beat the vile character’) – a pagan ritual in which a paper effigy is beaten with wooden clogs and cursed. In fact, I even wondered if he was born in the year of the Tiger.

But jokes aside, I haven’t watch the video and I don’t intend to. After all, it is not uncommon for Christian pastors to speak out against homosexuality. From just what is quoted, it would appear to me that to accuse him of linking homosexuals with with paedophiles is a deliberate mis-interpretation of his words. The argument that the acceptance of homosexuality will open the door to the acceptance of paedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality has been a common point for many pastors, Christians and conservatives. Everyone should be aware that if Rony Tan is convicted for such an argument, everyone who has presented this argument in their rejection for more rights to homosexual, bisexual and transgendered (HBT) people will be in danger based on precedence.

While I do not know the entire context of his sermons, I will leave my comment regarding this remark at this. He could have been mean in presenting his views or even dismissive HBT people, but I do not intend to join the chorus of condemnation. Beyond that, I will question the motives behind digging out a 9-month old sermon, hot on the heels of his recent ‘coffee meet’ with the Internal Security Department [ISD]. As a Christian, I cannot help but feel there is a political agenda and objective here. Unlike what happened in AWARE which was a clear cut ‘power grab’ by Christians, this is outright persecution of what Christianity can teach as moral or immoral.

I believe the person who pirated the video from the Lighthouse Evangelist site and posted it on Vimeo also made the following commented on Fridae.com to justify his action:

“The Sedition Act prohibits speech that promotes ‘feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore’. This will be a good opportunity to test the government just what it means by ‘different classes’. Are sexual minorities considered ‘class’?”

Perhaps. But this person should be wary that everything can cut both ways. Someone jokingly commented after he read this comment: ‘They’re considered a criminal class, last I checked the statutes…’ While I do not endorse this statement, I do however find it funny when I considered it in the context of Section 377A – a law against sodomy between two males. Anyway, I am not sure whether anyone charged under Section 377A will be considered a criminal.

Now that I am on the point of sodomy (and in particular male sodomy), I must point out that fellow Christians generally loses the argument against the HBT activists the moment they are rapped with a discrimination clause. Though Christians won’t go so far as the Free Community Church in their view on homosexuality, most Christians failed to stand firm and argue that Christianity does not discriminate against homosexuals. It simply has a very strong moral stand against the act of sodomy. I will not go into specifics, since one can easily obtain these so-called ‘hateful’ Bible verses on pro-HBT websites on the topic of ‘homophobia’. (A word which I consider a misnomer since homo as in homo sapiens simply means man. I am not afraid of all mankind and homosexual-phobia would have been more apt.)

To put it in an analogy, I do not discriminate against smokers, but I am certainly against (and I object to) second hand smoke being blown in my face. In a debate on smoking, am I thus discriminating if I stand and speak up for policies that limits or prohibits smoking? Similarly, we must not discriminate against Muslims when we speak up against the acts of terrorism committed by terrorists and extremists who profess to be one. (Not that I even consider the terrorist a person practising Islam to begin with!)

To condemn Christianity for their moral stand against sodomy as being discriminating against the HBT, is the equivalent of meat eaters demanding from religions with teachings against killing animals not to discriminate against them. In short, HBT activists and lobby should stop taking Christians as a convenient punch bag to further their own personal agenda. Christians in Singapore have no quarrel (and do not intend to quarrel) with HBT persons. Simply, most Christians want to say is:

We fully respect those with homosexual (or bisexual / transgendered) tendencies who manage to withstand the great trial that we not required to stand, but we will not legitimize those who do not overcome their ‘instincts’.

On top of which, after the fiasco at AWARE, some Christians here are now increasingly wary and alert to some of the tactics used by the HBT activists and lobby in the U.S. Christians like myself will not yet claim persecution of Christians for the action taken against Rony Tan, but we will make no excuse to condone sodomy.

The HBT lobby in Singapore should be reminded that if they push the Christian community too hard, they might not like it when the Christian community collectively pushes back. Note that a collective effort by conservatives in the U.S. has resulted in 31 states repealing homosexual marriage laws.

I would like to remind my fellow HBT Singaporeans of the freedoms they already enjoyed in Singapore. Do not forget that other than Thailand, Singapore is probably the most HBT-friendly and tolerant in the whole of South East Asia. Take Rony Tan to task for all I cared, but be careful when you start questioning why no Christians object to it. After all, setting a fire may produce warmth, but when out of control a fire might also consume the person who set it.

Recommended Read:
SG BOLEH: Black Sheep of Insurances – Why people hate insurance agents
Terence69: Rights Aren’t Always Right

Random Discourse – Vote the PAP Out?

3 comments

Found this group on Facebook called: “Vote The PAP Out”. While I am no fan of the Tali-PAP (aka the People’s Action Party [PAP], which I called the political mullahs of Singapore Politics), I am not joining this group either.

I’ll admit there used to be times when I would be gnashing my teeth and showing a irrational hatred of the Tali-PAP. But getting older caused me to mellow down on political issues which I am certainly not an adept nor do I have a full grasp. Furthermore, as time goes by I slowly learn to look at things from a wider perspective and gather more opinions which in turn has caused me to ‘drift’ more towards the ‘political middle’ rather than towards the opposition. Rest assured however, that ageing ‘the process of dying’ won’t make me a pro-government pro-gahmen or a Tali-PAP lackey / apologist yet.

While I may object to how certain things are done by the Tali-PAP, I will not be party with elements of so-called non-partisan self-proclaimed ‘pro-Singapore’ opposition movement that will put in power another political faction which I perceived will work against my personal beliefs one way or another. I will have nothing to do with the so-called liberal and pro-opposition elements within this movement which I perceived to have an anti-Christian agenda. That’s not mentioning any group that is unified by their common hatred of the Tali-PAP, is nothing more than an ‘alliance of convenience’ which failed to recognise the often self-conflicting agendas and self-interests among its members. Assuming that they were to take the Tali-PAP down, internal squabbling among them will pull the nation in many different directions and rip it apart. I would rather be party with a group which not only has the goal of overthrowing the Tali-PAP, but also a plan on what the do when the Tali-PAP is gone (and not just because of their common hatred).

Some might want to ask what has my Christian beliefs got anything to do with politics since the matter of Church and State should always been separated. The truth of the matter is, Christians have always been in the forefront of politics. The martyrdom of many early Christians ultimately turned Christianity into the state religion of the Roman Empire. When the Western Roman Empire collapsed, Christians found that kings of successor states have too much power and then sought to curtail it through the religious leadership – i.e. the Pope and Bishops. When there was too much corruption from within the clergy of the Roman Church, Christians step forth to call for reform from within. When that failed, they did so from without as Protestants. Subsequently, when Christians felt that the English Monarchy has corrupted Protestant Christianity, the Puritans left for America in ships. Simply put, separating Church from State doesn’t cut just one way. While the State tells Christians not to enforce their morality on State matters, the State should not decide for Christians what they should or should not believe in.

It is the moral obligation of any Christian to at least ensure their religious freedom is not taken away under such a pretense. Thus, if a group of people want to put in a gahmen with the intention of curtailing the Christian belief so that certain forms of immorality and warped view of religious tolerance will be considered as liberal, progressive and acceptable, then I will have nothing to do with this movement as much as possible. After all, I would hate the irony of finding out at the end of the day I prepared the very rope to hang myself on. It doesn’t matter that I might actually agree with some of the points put forth by the group.

Personally speaking, some of the points raised in the description of the group I do agree with. I will address them individually.

  • Over-influx of foreigners – There are 2 parts in this problem.

    First, employment. This would breakdown into the employment of cheap foreign labour for jobs that Singaporeans won’t do, and employment of foreign labour to fill positions which Singapore does not have enough manpower to provide. I have mentioned previously that I understand the need to take it foreign labour to bring investments to Singapore, and I have also mentioned that jobs that Singaporeans won’t take up has something to do with the cost of living. I must ask this, if we are to throw all the foreigners out, or at the very least put in some kind of limits to their numbers, how do we realistically achieve that without serious impact to our economy and society? Some of us have one parent who is a PR.

    Next, foreign students. 2nd generation PRs or children of expatriates who will compete with us for positions in primary schools to universities. As a matter of fact, the Tali-PAP has begun to give more priorities to citizens with regard to education. If this isn’t enough, what else is needed here?

  • NS disadvantages – I will admit that the Singaporean male is disadvantaged by National Service [NS]. We spent 2 years in the army while some of us lose employment opportunities (and even girlfriends) to foreigners. Furthermore, 2 years away from what we learn makes everything ‘rusty’. I have known some cases in which some of us can’t even put to good use what we have learn in school, because the rapid shift in the focus of the economy has made those skills obsolete. The only upside of NS is nothing gives you a bigger network than a stint as a reservist soldier. I would also agree that women should do NS, in non-combat roles such as nursing, or even logistical positions in the SAF to address the imbalance that is current aggravated by the Women’s Charter. There is no real equal rights without equal responsibilities. But I doubt any gahmen, not even a non Tali-PAP one would want to venture anywhere near this.

  • Skyrocket property prices – I have called this a form or modern slavery. I don’t really give a damn about private housing if it’s out of my reach. But why should we slog through 30 years of our useful life for a so-called ‘affordable’ HDB pigeon hole which prices are derived by some arcane formula that none of us understand? Above which, I had also previously raised the point that we don’t really have subsidies to our housing but rather just discounts.

  • High Medical Costs – Yes. Getting old and getting sick is a fearful prospect for Singaporeans. We’ll rather be dead than sick or old here. While the basic Medishield cover may indeed ‘cover no shit’, we can get better coverage from private insurers at a higher cost. That being said, I would prefer that I can use my Medisave to cover any amount for my medical insurance (and also that of my parents), and not be capped at a certain amount like $800 or so and then have to pay the rest by cash.

  • Low dispensable income – A yes for the low income earners. Anyone earning less than $2000 a month will have only a take home pay of $1600 after CPF deduction. If he wants to get medical insurance cover and pay his bills he would be working hand to mouth. It will be a life of all work and no play. Not to mention that according to some statistics, Singaporeans probably have one of the lowest wages in developed countries even for those who earn more that $2000 a month.

  • Low CPF Interest rate – This is something you shouldn’t be complaining about if you are still servicing your HDB mortgage loan. This is also something you shouldn’t be complaining about if you have used your CPF to pay for your property. Remember, when you sell your house, the money from the sale will first be return to the CPF and that includes accrued interest. Higher CPF interest rate means less profits when you sell your house. But you won’t be complaining about what’s next if you can sell your house.

  • CPF unable to provide retirement – Can’t have my cake and eat it. On top of which, this whole thing including skyrocketing property prices, low CPF interest rates and CPF being unable to provide for retirement are all part of a ‘Gordian Knot’. I’ll leave it to a wise guy to provide a ‘Alexander the Great solution’ to this.

  • Inflation due to GST 7% – I have heard this argument often, and in fact have used it myself. For e.g. hawkers raising the price of a plate of Char Siew Rice from $3 to $3.50. That would have been way more than the operation overheads hawkers have to bear as a result of the increase in GST. However it would be hard to argue directly that GST is the real cause behind all the inflation. Coffee shops have raised the price of coffee by 10cents when the price of sugar goes up, and it will never come down after that.

  • Singaporeans unemployment rate not declared – Well, I do think it is higher regardless whether PRs are included in that figure or not. After all, if you leave employment for further studies (or take up further studies when you are unemployed), you wouldn’t be part of the unemployment figures anymore. Neither are homemakers. Furthermore, I have always considered some ‘self-employed’ taxi drivers to be a part of the unemployment figures as some of these drivers have no other skills to make them employable.

  • GIC and Temasek Losses – Yes. Definitely some heads should roll for this. They can use a Wakazishi and the Padang for cutting their bellies as part of their final atonement. And while we are at this, even those who approved ridiculous large bonus packages for town council staff, and those who lost millions in town council sinking funds should be made accountable.

  • Heavy shortage of subsidized university places for qualified Singapore students – Ok, define qualified. If the ‘shortage’ has something to do with those who just didn’t quite make the mark to qualify, don’t try and blame foreigners for taking up those positions at all! Even if this is true, I really don’t expect much of a solution to this anyway. The danger of setting a quota for foreign students would make us like Malaysia – where there are places in the universities but they can’t be given out because of the quota. The next best thing the gahmen can do would be to raise the fees of foreign students. But the fees cannot be make so prohibitive that foreign students stop coming. And seriously, while I would prefer some of these foreign ingrates to be thrown out of our universities (and our country, along with certain foreigners working here) for their not so flattering view of our country, I wasn’t aware that we have run out of subsidised university places because foreigners have taken them.

All in all, what I want to say is this: While I agree that all of the above are problems that need to be addressed, are they reasons enough to actually vote the Tali-PAP out of power entirely? Deny them a 2/3 majority to wake them up so they take us more seriously, definitely! To vote them out when there isn’t yet a political power ready to take up the reins? Please, spare this old man here the drastic changes and the chaos that will follow there after. Unlike some of the young punks who think they have nothing to lose other than their PSP or iPhones, or even a few nights of clubbing at St. James or Zouk, there’s really much more at stake for me here.

Anyway, while none of us are paid millions like our mini$ter$ to come up with solutions, and there is certainly no obligations for anyone to do so, I would really like someone to talk about hypothetical solutions to all of the problems above. Getting rid of the Tali-PAP is not the solution to it all. Thank you very much.

Recommended Reads:
Growing your tree of prosperity: Why foreign talent will trounce your asses.

1 2 3