idiots at at the national CONversation round tables.

[leetahbar]

the whole thing is one BIG JOKE! a national joke!!

we have the IVORY TOWER residents talking down on the ground dwellers - that would be us the majority. if u read between the lines of what they ve leeported, it boils down to benefits for the new residents, i.e., the pirated singaporeans and not us, the true blue ones.

the conspiracy now is to please the new citizens who have been bestowed with the voting rights. so no guessing which party shall win again during the next GE. :(

“Our Singapore Conversation” insults Singaporeans’ intellect

“Our Singapore Conversation” insults Singaporeans’ intellect
August 12
07:30
2013
Print This Article
Share it With Friends
by Editorial
 5 Comments

By Philip Ang

I refer to CNA’s “PM Lee to address healthcare, education and housing issues at National Day Rally”.

The headline indicates the government has prioritised health care and education over housing. This is wrong. Where CNA had wrongly prioritised Singaporeans’ concerns, fortunately, Yahoo Singapore got them right. (link)

Housing has always been the main issue because high property prices have enslaved Singaporeans to banks for 30 years for public housing. It has also resulted in all goods and services being more expensive i.e. drinks and food at coffee shops, tuition fees, doctor fees, salaries, etc. because businesses pass on their costs to consumers and it continues in a vicious circle.

As the biggest landlord in Singapore, the PAP government will never be in favour of lowering land prices.

Our Singapore Conversation (OSC) is another numbers game which the PAP has embarked upon to impress – 660 dialogues, 47,000 participants, 40 organisations involved etc. This begs the question – what have our 1800 grassroots organisations and $15,000 per month PAP MPs been doing all these years?

The OSC is again confirmation of PAP’s systemic failure and a huge waste of public resources.

The PAP has shown its preference to continue listening to itself by shutting out true blue Singaporeans who are opposition voices. Being partisan, it would be more appropriate to name it OPC – Our PAP CONversation.

The OSC will eventually turn out to be a big joke on those Singaporeans who continue to believe our problems will be resolved because the PAP appears to be listening.

It is not so much of the PAP not wanting to resolve them but are unable to because PAP’s key to growing the economy hinges on only one thing – growing the population. This is a fact which is evident since the last decade of the last century. Every problem (housing, transport, jobs, education) is related to this mindless increase in population and we should realise it is impossible for the PAP to throw away the key.

The PAP has invested tens of billions from our reserves into building infrastructures not for our benefit but to cater to future increase in immigration. Every investment, to the PAP, must yield monetary returns.

One example would be public transportation. After adding 200 or so public buses with taxpayers’ money, overcrowding has not eased. This is due to a simultaneous increase in the population which should currently be about 5.42 million. (extrapolate from past increases) Future additional buses are meant to cater to an average yearly increase in population of about 100,000. The $1,000,000,000 plus ‘investment’ generates monetary returns for PTOs and the reduction of overcrowding for commuters is merely incidental. This is the PAP mindset.

Another example would be the increase in the number of HDB flats for similar reason stated above. Higher immigration numbers translate into high property prices which benefit the government directly or indirectly through GST, personal and corporate taxes, etc.

All issues are related to a mindless immigration/population policy and when the OSC ignores the elephant in the room, it really makes a mockery of Singaporeans.
The OSC is merely about tweaks and treatment of symptoms of a system which in already in the ICU.

 

[leetahbar]

if we ever to point this out to the gahmen that those are pirated singaporeans they are truly concerned about, the gahmen would reiterate us with this lame repetitive reply:

The Fallacy of the “Our Forefathers were FTs Too” Argument

Posted: 11 Aug 2013 04:11 PM PDT

This letter was submitted via the Readers’ Contribution page.

Having perused through several articles touching on the FT issue from various sites, some of which admittedly containing obvious political slants towards both ends, I have encountered what I shall term “Our Forefathers were FTs Too” Argument, “OFWFT Argument” for short.

The OFWFT Argument usually arises as a rebuttal towards a comment or post disparaging either the Government’s immigration policy or the FTs who enter Singapore through such policies. It seeks to debase a critique (whether sound or not, that is not the issue here) on grounds that we should not be adverse to FTs because our forefathers were FTs themselves. The OFWFT Argument dismisses an opposing view by criticizing the inconsistency of the person presenting it rather than the view presented. However, the presentor’s inconsistency should not discredit his position. The OFWFT Argument is hence an example of an ad hominem argument.

Even taking into account the ad hominem nature of the argument, there are (what I believe to be) sound reasons why the OFWFT Argument should fall.

Firstly, the culture we have in Singapore is different from that which our forefathers experienced. Despite being a melting-pot-nation, formed from immigrants around the world, the Singapore we know of today is vastly different from the Singapore that started out when our forefathers first stepped foot onto Singapore. Although we are only a young nation, most of us perhaps only third or forth generation immigrants, the culture we have now is although not entirely different, it is distinctively different from the yesteryears when police still wore shorts. If culture were to revert back to what we had 48 years ago, many present day Singaporeans would feel out of place and alienated by this “Singaporean” culture.

With modern day experiences vastly different from what our forefathers experienced, we now have an immensely differently culture from before. I have no anecdotal evidence to support my next statement, but I personally am of the opinion that many of our immigrant forefathers experienced culture shocks when they first entered Singapore as well. How this weakens the OFWFT Argument is simply this: The myriad of reasons why our forefathers were tolerant and accepting, perhaps even welcoming of fellow immigrants simply do not apply in modern day Singapore due to the difference in culture. Yes our forefathers were immigrants, but we of today are not our forefathers. We do not identify ourselves with the various villages our ancestors hailed from; we identify ourselves as Singaporeans, for better or for worse.

Secondly, our forefathers had the choice of immigrating into Singapore. Our forefathers entered Singapore knowing of all the challenges they may face. The Government of the day did not thrust into their faces an immigration policy favouring newer migrants. Admittedly, this argument would be vulnerable to attacks such as, “you have the choice of emigrating out of Singapore if you don’t like it here”, but such arguments do actually stretch the truth.

The “choice” most Singaporeans have to leave Singapore is illusory at best. Considering that for one to make an informed and rational decision regarding such a “choice”, one should minimally be a functional adult (well, maybe a functional adult makes that decision for you), the opportunity costs invested by that individual into Singapore up until that point in time, could possibly make it too unfeasible to subsequently leave Singapore.

Take the example of your average Singaporean male who’s life is disrupted by NS (I understand the importance of NS, but at this juncture, lets consider NS as an opportunity cost invested by the individual). With most Singaporean males entering NS between the ages of 18-20, it is safe to assume that with minimal prior working or real world experiences, the ability of such individuals to make an informed decision to emigrate is improbable. Even if the individual is remarkably mature enough to make such a choice, he would be restricted from immigrating into another country for economic reasons. With NS disrupting the pursuit of further education at a University, and minimal prior work experiences, it is unlikely that another country would accept such an immigrant. Hypothetically, even if a country accepts this individual who can contribute next to nothing to country, this individual risks leaving behind all his friends, family, and culture. Apart from NS, there are other opportunities costs ranging from the relationships formed with other Singaporeans, to the emotional bond to the Singaporean culture. Male of female, NS or not, I am of the opinion that most Singaporeans are too heavily invested into the nation whether we like it or not, making the choice of emigration merely illusory for the average Singaporean.

Before ending this piece, I would like to insert a caveat that my writings are inevitably influenced by my political opinions. Furthermore, despite being unhappy with the influx of foreigners, I understand the necessity behind such policies. With globalization and the world moving towards a borderless economy, protectionist measures are unreliable in the long-run, especially for a nation like Singapore. Hence, I hope this piece is taken merely a rebuttal of the OFWFT Argument rather than the usual angst riddled post against the immigration policy in general (I have tried to avoid commenting on the immigration policy’s efficacy in addressing our national needs). Also, in line with the exposé of the OFWFT Argument as an ad hominem argument, I do hope that the rebuttals towards this piece do not fall foul of such fallacies. I admit that my grammar and writing may not be up to scratch, but do try (and I completely welcome you) to find faults in my opinions and discuss them further, rather than to resort to personal attacks.

 

[leetahbar]

the great difference between our forefathers and the present citizenship piracy is:

1. forefathers ventured here with bare necessities. everything was unknown, unprepareed and came with very great risks of even losing their lives.

2. pirate citizens like the name suggested come here with all the goodies laid out for them. there is no losing chance but all the winning ones made darlingly available to them by our lame gahmen.

for the singaporeans, we only get cramped public transport becos of their overly presence. those pirate citizens landed here with hoards of cash and as a result drive up all the properties prices to the state of out of reach for the real citizens.

who benefit in the end?

definitely not us but the gahmen.