yawningbread defended PAP's FT poilcy

As to survey, Alex did qualify himself and I thought - very smart bloke, having his cake and eating it.

The point is that the PAP itself did not deny that there is discontent. The PAP which has the habit of massaging statistics, surveys and opinion polls did not come out with something that was different from the opinion on the ground.

Alex would have done well to find value with the current immigration practice. But he did something that was wholly unexpected. He made claim that none of the people who he talked to found the policy unsound or there was an element of discontent and that only the internet spoke differently.

Is he living in a bubble or a different planet. Or plain dishonest.

I know loads of people who find the policy sound and necessary but everyone of them without exception have told me that many people including family members and friends find it discriminatory to citizens, drives wages unreasonably low, displaces Singaporeans out of work and the obvious social issues of overcrowding, short tempers, cultural heatspots and other issues.

Being a fan of Alex, I found this to be absolutely disappointing and shocking. Especially the dishonest part. Remember he did something that the PAP did not even claim or deny.

heartlander said:

I don't deny there's a groundswell of discontent. I don't think Alex was confident of saying his survey sample was representative either. That wasn't his whole argument.
.

.

Click to expand...

scroobal said:

As to survey, Alex did qualify himself and I thought - very smart bloke, having his cake and eating it.

The point is that the PAP itself did not deny that there is discontent. The PAP which has the habit of massaging statistics, surveys and opinion polls did not come out with something that was different from the opinion on the ground.

Alex would have done well to find value with the current immigration practice. But he did something that was wholly unexpected. He made claim that none of the people who he talked to found the policy unsound or there was an element of discontent and that only the internet spoke differently.

Is he living in a bubble or a different planet. Or plain dishonest.

I know loads of people who find the policy sound and necessary but everyone of them without exception have told me that many people including family members and friends find it discriminatory to citizens, drives wages unreasonably low, displaces Singaporeans out of work and the obvious social issues of overcrowding, short tempers, cultural heatspots and other issues.

Being a fan of Alex, I found this to be absolutely disappointing and shocking. Especially the dishonest part. Remember he did something that the PAP did not even claim or deny.

Click to expand...

It's a frequently used tactic of his, when he wants to push an agenda of his own that he can't necessarily back up. He is usually very reasoned, so you know something is up when he qualifies himself so much. I don't think much of the first half of his article.

But I find his second half quite valid. People say FT here, FT there, but often when I probe further they end up showing they don't know what they're complaining about. While the effects of FT are real, his point was that they're highly overblown by empty complaints.

What were you referring to what he did but PAP did not claim or deny?

Dear Scroobal

The problem is that Alex is reflecting accurately the conflict in the people between the heart and the head and it is a conflict which the PAP is seeking to address.

What is telling in the questions that Alex has asked is how when asked by Alex about complainers or complaints what strikes Alex himself is that they are "some other people" or " other complainers" . That to me speaks volumes about how people are unwilling to be honest about the discomfort they are feeling from the presence of foreigners in the system.

They for whatever reason seem to be giving the politically correct answer, or the ST / Gov answer to all and present. The FT is good for the country, we could not function without it, but at a deeper level they are feeling and asking questions though possibly because of being afraid of seeming anti immigrants and being bad , they are afraid of being called prejudiced or wearing their prejudices on the shoulder.

I suspect the reason is because as Alex has stated that Opposition has not pined down their position and articulated it strongly holding the government to account. Who exactly are the foreigners we are against ? Why are we against these foreigners but are not being prejudiced ? And how this sudden influx has made life less tolerable ? What more can the government do to make life more tolerable ? And the need to link all of this to economic growth and income inequality without a protective social network




Locke

I have said, "Singaporeans feel anger because the PAP has screwed it up. Why werent the housing programmes aligned with the influx? Why werent there adequate jobs for foreginers as well as citizens? Why do the locals have to fight the foreigners for jobs, living space, schools, hospitals and recreational amenities etc? How does Alex expect people to feel grateful and happy and appreciative when their interests are trampled upon to accommodate these arrivals? More so, when news abound of how these new arrivals are just using Singapore as a stepping stone, are brought in to appease employers with cheap labour to protect them from losses at the expense of local workers, are breaking bonds after coming here etc. ...."

In some cases, we are personally affected because we bump into them everyday. Others, we hear about what others have said.

I suppose you want us to write a dissertation or research paper before you can call it concrete and of value?

I daresay that had the PAP managed the immigration better by making timely advanced preps, the disruption would have been eased and everybody would have been much happier. On the contrary, we have the usual arrogance and infallible and can't do you wrong attitude.

heartlander said:

On the contrary. I'm very confident that kingrant has said nothing of value in this thread.

Click to expand...

Methinks he is being asked to tea session at the Pyramid loh! If not, to become an NMP?

scroobal said:

As to survey, Alex did qualify himself and I thought - very smart bloke, having his cake and eating it.


Is he living in a bubble or a different planet. Or plain dishonest.



Being a fan of Alex, I found this to be absolutely disappointing and shocking. Especially the dishonest part. Remember he did something that the PAP did not even claim or deny.

Click to expand...

Besides NGOs, the Opp parties, and the outright lunatic, and forumers like this one where one can remain anonymous and faceless, Singaporeans generally do not confide in strangers or express their discontent openly, given the repressive climate for any kind of meaningful discussion. Even my friends, visitors, and family members would look over their shoulders, drop to a whisper before saying anything that can be construed as politically incorrect. So is it any wonder that Alex could not find people who can claim ownership of the grievances? Questions that he shld ask is "is the govt too defensive?", "do they even listen to those whom they take to be inferior in intelligence or capable of logical analysis?"

The govt obviously has the means to delve into the statistics and data to dissect where the problems are, but it does not want to or bother because they already know. To ask ordinary citizens on the streets to define the problem before they will look at it is so intellectually dishonest, or just plain stalling, and stonewalling. And I am afraid people like Alex and heartlander are just being difficult instead of being sensitive and empathetic.

scroobal said:

The issue is his claim that the people he talked to did not find FTs an issue.

Who then are complaining. Note even the oppressive PAP has not made the claim that no one is complaining.

Click to expand...

Most people can't articulate on the subject well because there is a dearth of information for them. On the other hand, the 154th and mediacorpse continuously hark on the PAPies propaganda messages.

After a while there seems to be more pro FT 'facts' at their disposal although internally, they know it's not correct.

The Web and each of us have to do our part to educate others on the true situation.

No other country has such a large number of FTs except Dubai and Bahrain. But those countries grew very fast on the back of their oil money and their lack of human capital and lack of widespread education in their homelands.

We've had 50 years of PAP education and yet we are told that our people are not good enough.

I always use the example of other developed countries not committing to FTs from less developed countries because of the dangers they impose on lowering wages, their overwhelming and consistent supply, loss of jobs for locals and stretching infrastructure capabilities. The $60 billion to upgrade the MRT is one that puts light on the costs of these FTs that the can relate to.

Many are unhappy. The only two who seem content are what I term as apathetic human beings consigned to receiving whatever comes to them without making an effort to make a difference.

6 months to see a government dentist. patients sleeping along corridors. school places being set aside for FTs. university scholarships set aside for FTs. housing prices caused by influx of FTs. the list goes on.

But generally, you only have 5 minutes to make an impact. So pick and choose the areas of coverage well.

My favs are YOG treatment of Singaporean volunteers. $60 billion to upgrade MRT to support FT population and CPF withdrawal.

Surprisingly, many feel that the government doesn't have the money to pay citizens their CPF and that is why only monthly payments are made. When told that ifthe money is not there then we should know the truth and find out why rather than letting matters stay as it is.

They day you gave Choo Zheng Xi of PAP a lift is the day that you lost your purpose and your focus. You have become a fence-sitter and your words and comments are rare but more importantly politically correct. You now feel the need to be accepted within intelligentsia of all political inclination. You are no different to Gillian Koh or Eugene Tan. Nice people but you know what I mean. The primary reason is that your identity is well known and you are in the company of like minded people who want to show they are engaged with society but do not want to step on toes. I aware that no malice or dishonesty is involved but the humans are after gregarious by nature and group dynamics are important. That is why the vote in a democracy is secret. The noble idea of transparency has no place and with reason.

Not many can be like Chua Beng Huat.

Would suggest the you lose your nick and get a new identity. That way you can be your true and incisive best that we know of you without compromising your social standing.

Sorry to be personal but the pattern has evolved is now firmly established.I gave it time to be sure.

I too know that I would have a hard time with the devil and have therefore have religiously and puritanically guarded my identity. I move in circles that are at the very top. I write in a measured way with errors and what have you with a reason. Sensitive info that I release are deep in threads or cryptic.

Till today, no one has a clue my age, my school, my discipline or any other basic demographics. Sam will tell you that he cannot nail my IP as well.

lockeliberal said:

Dear Scroobal

The problem is that Alex is reflecting accurately the conflict in the people between the heart and the head and it is a conflict which the PAP is seeking to address.

Locke

Click to expand...

Look at Ho Kwon Ping, Tharman and Viv B. James Fu is the first but he would not be the last.

kingrant said:

Methinks he is being asked to tea session at the Pyramid loh! If not, to become an NMP?

Click to expand...

Exactly. It is not a new phenomenon, it has been like that since 1963.

kingrant said:

Besides NGOs, the Opp parties, and the outright lunatic, and forumers like this one where one can remain anonymous and faceless, Singaporeans generally do not confide in strangers or express their discontent openly, given the repressive climate for any kind of meaningful discussion. Even my friends, visitors, and family members would look over their shoulders, drop to a whisper before saying anything that can be construed as politically incorrect. So is it any wonder that Alex could not find people who can claim ownership of the grievances? Questions that he shld ask is "is the govt too defensive?", "do they even listen to those whom they take to be inferior in intelligence or capable of logical analysis?"

Click to expand...

The PAP has not denied or claimed that was no discontent. Neither did they claim that it was only confined to the internet. Internal surveys done by them last and this year has found that it was perceptible to a high degree with no improvement. And it was not done on the internet.

Alex of course qualified himself.

heartlander said:

What were you referring to what he did but PAP did not claim or deny?

Click to expand...

scroobal said:

They day you gave Choo Zheng Xi of PAP a lift is the day that you lost your purpose and your focus. You have become a fence-sitter and your words and comments are rare but more importantly politically correct. You now feel the need to be accepted within intelligentsia of all political inclination. You are no different to Gillian Koh or Eugene Tan. Nice people but you know what I mean. The primary reason is that your identity is well known and you are in the company of like minded people who want to show they are engaged with society but do not want to step on toes. I aware that no malice or dishonesty is involved but the humans are after gregarious by nature and group dynamics are important. That is why the vote in a democracy is secret. The noble idea of transparency has no place and with reason.

Not many can be like Chua Beng Huat.

Click to expand...

Dear Scroobal,

I think you are just that a bit unfair to Locke.

Well, Locke might have been seen as "PAP apologist" at times here but in action, he is definitely providing valuable help to WP as and when he could. As for Remy Choo, although he has written speeches for PAP MPs but he is just another young chap with that kind of passion to become activist at very young age, though standing on the wrong side. Well, even I have, in my younger days in the teens, had in such a naive way help out in CCC as well. But after realizing that something is wrong with this country's political system, the awakening will be big enough for a total switch.

Locke is only partially right in this case. I guess for Alex, he is being misled by those people he met. Most people, for one reason or another, will not pour out their true feelings to strangers. But if you are like me, wearing the T-shirt of an opposition party, you will start to hear very different tunes on the ground. Even the coffee aunties and uncles will tell you how frustrated they are with the FT policy.

Goh Meng Seng

Locke has never even been a PAP apologist and I never suggested that he was one. He is just human like most of us. There is a keen sense to be recognised, accepted and to be sociable. He is not the first one and he will not be the last one. I compared him to Gillian Koh and Eugene Tan who are both not PAP apologists but are mindful not to step on toes and take the middle path.

I have told you before that TOC was formed with an agenda. And it has succeeded. It has managed to mute the critics that it brought in and socialised with.

Note he is seldom in here not because he is busy but he wants to spare us his middle ground analysis and be called out. I was not surprised that he came to the defence of another intellectual and a recognised one at that. Singapore politics the world over is not abstract neither is it objective. PAP is trying to make it one. That suits people who are keen in politics but do not want to offend the other side. He might be with the WP but the PAP knows that he will never push the envelope. He is essentially a captive ideologue. Remember you do not need to pass an exam to be an opposition member.

I hope you remember the old Locke. He was not overboard or cantankerous with his views. It was strong, incisive and measured. He would occasionally become a tad emotional like all of us over trivial issue but he analysis was also good and well grounded.

My job is not to convince you or anyone else. Its a message to him. He knows what it is all about.

I do not have to please anyone because no one knows who I am. I thus have never toed the line and never felt the pressure to do so.

Remember when former Head of the Civil Service commented that the ruling party should not monopolise talent, he meant the likes of Locke and company. We loose people like Locke and we lose the fight. Opposition parties can't be led by small time businessesmen and lawyers who run a single man practice. It needs to bring in the intelligentsia.

Goh Meng Seng said:

Dear Scroobal,

I think you are just that a bit unfair to Locke.

Well, Locke might have been seen as "PAP apologist" at times here but in action, he is definitely providing valuable help to WP as and when he could. As for Remy Choo, although he has written speeches for PAP MPs but he is just another young chap with that kind of passion to become activist at very young age, though standing on the wrong side. Well, even I have, in my younger days in the teens, had in such a naive way help out in CCC as well. But after realizing that something is wrong with this country's political system, the awakening will be big enough for a total switch.

Locke is only partially right in this case. I guess for Alex, he is being misled by those people he met. Most people, for one reason or another, will not pour out their true feelings to strangers. But if you are like me, wearing the T-shirt of an opposition party, you will start to hear very different tunes on the ground. Even the coffee aunties and uncles will tell you how frustrated they are with the FT policy.

Goh Meng Seng

Click to expand...

Goh Meng Seng said:

Dear Scroobal,

I think you are just that a bit unfair to Locke.

Well, Locke might have been seen as "PAP apologist" at times here but in action, he is definitely providing valuable help to WP as and when he could. As for Remy Choo, although he has written speeches for PAP MPs but he is just another young chap with that kind of passion to become activist at very young age, though standing on the wrong side. Well, even I have, in my younger days in the teens, had in such a naive way help out in CCC as well. But after realizing that something is wrong with this country's political system, the awakening will be big enough for a total switch.

Locke is only partially right in this case. I guess for Alex, he is being misled by those people he met. Most people, for one reason or another, will not pour out their true feelings to strangers. But if you are like me, wearing the T-shirt of an opposition party, you will start to hear very different tunes on the ground. Even the coffee aunties and uncles will tell you how frustrated they are with the FT policy.

Goh Meng Seng

Click to expand...

In fact Alex Au has committed the same sin as the PAP in this article of his - the sin of selectivity. That being said, I have a very good impression of most of his writings.

I do not like what Locke has posted in this thread and the PAP apologist label might be justified here, but there are far worse characters in this forum than him.

However, since you've revealed he is active in opposition circles, then I would say I expected MUCH more from a person like him.

As for the TOC editor Choo, everyone at some stage stands on certain sides of the fence. Nothing wrong. Its is by his current actions and words that we should judge him. I believe he is active in the legal cases Shadrake and Vui Kong.

scroobal said:

Remember when former Head of the Civil Service commented that the ruling party should not monopolise talent, he meant the likes of Locke and company. We loose people like Locke and we lose the fight. Opposition parties can't be led by small time businessesmen and lawyers who run a single man practice. It needs to bring in the intelligentsia.

Click to expand...

Dear Scroobal,

You are right that opposition parties needs to bring in the intelligentsia but... sometimes it is not easy to get good fighters from this group of people. It is not easy for this group of people to "connect" to the ground.

I think it is really inappropriate to compare Locke to Gillian Koh or even Eugene Tan. At the very least, Locke has contributed in whatever little ways to the opposition movement and he is ever ready to go all the way to provide some very niche but important aid to the movement. He may not be the one who will sweat on the ground (but hey, he did try to go knocking doors with me before!) and stand for elections but he is definitely more helpful in every other ways which is his strength. Gillian Koh on the other hand is providing think tank service to the PAP while on the nation's payroll.

It takes a good combination in a team to fight an win the battle. For every political starter, we just need more street fighters at this moment.

Goh Meng Seng

The opposition is best served by sharp minds and brave souls. Many can help by providing manpower and numbers and that is the role of those less capable. Locke should be in the first lot. I always had respect for him and I do think that he will do well giving good advice especially tactical advice.

Don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with knocking doors and sweating for the cause. He however has a more important role to play. If I needed Gillian Koh and Eugene Tan, I know I will find them. What we need is the old Locke. Not afraid to call a spade a spade. Not that short idiot who used the mantra but could not tell one end of the spade from the other to save his life.

I am reaching out to Locke and I rather be frank and direct. I am not seeking a response. Just a plea to stay the course. Don't cross the rubicon. There are very few that are like him. Do not work within the mould that the PAP has made.

Take the Yaw affair. This was a shock to many but if you look at it. Yaw had no clue about politics. There are many like him. He did not know what the value of secrecy in a vote is. Its the corner piece of democracy. It is to protect the meek and the gullible. And this clown is a close confidante of LTK. And he honestly thinks that he did the opposition a great service.

Goh Meng Seng said:

I think it is really inappropriate to compare Locke to Gillian Koh or even Eugene Tan. At the very least, Locke has contributed in whatever little ways to the opposition movement and he is ever ready to go all the way to provide some very niche but important aid to the movement. He may not be the one who will sweat on the ground (but hey, he did try to go knocking doors with me before!) and stand for elections but he is definitely more helpful in every other ways which is his strength. Gillian Koh on the other hand is providing think tank service to the PAP while on the nation's payroll.

It takes a good combination in a team to fight an win the battle. For every political starter, we just need more street fighters at this moment.

Goh Meng Seng

Click to expand...

Dear Scroobal and GMS

You scare me sometimes at the stuff u know. How in the world did u find out that I gave Remy a lift :_)).

Scroo how is looking for answers or seeking understanding in any way apologizing for the PAP ? Donkey years ago when the PAP first announced the relaxation of the S Pass , I stated openly and clearly within the party it was going to depress the wages of the skilled and it would lead to an uncontrollable inflow depressing wages for fresh grads and the like. I remain as always a pain in the ass of opposition parties because as always I refuse to have an agenda or to owe anyone anything or in the case of my own party, errr I doth criticize to much and do not sell enough hammers or knock on enough doors. :_))

I am against the FT policy but FT very strictly and carefully defined. I would not object if we brought in 50,000 PHDs or Bankers whose employers could pay them 100,000 USD a year in wages. or 5,000 FTs whose employers could pay them 100,000 USD a month in some form.

We have had an uncalibrated Foreign Worker Policy which has let in every tom dick and harry and when they shut they shut indiscriminately. thus the cases as reported by Temasek Review where qualified one's are shunted away.

The numbers need to be managed, the quality needs to be managed, but at the same time we need those foreign workers at the bottom of the rung those doing construction and menial work .

Hmm I am not paid by the PAP million's so thus I can say I did make an "honest mistake" GMS is right there is unhappiness but why the unhappiness and why the fear to articulate that unhappiness is something that must be examined. We are looking at differing end of the elephant and as we discuss hopefully we become less blind. I am also starting to believe that GMS has it right and that I might get a differing response from the same crowd if I was wearing blue or bright orange.


The PAP has deliberately lumped everything together, What Yawning Bread has suggested is distinction and seperation and examining and debating the argument within each categoary. The opposition would be wise to take the lead and do the same




Locke

Locke,

What you said here will help define the issues better.

Had Alex said this, we could all sleep better, instead of saying that if we cannot define it, then it was only a creation of our imagination for ranting?

Even the PM resorts to intellectual dishonesty by making invalid comparisons to win arguments, e.g. saying that we need the 80,000 blue collar construction workers to build the 20,000 flats to justify importing more employment pass white collar workers who will displace those jobs where Singaporeans are prepared to accept? Clearly blue collar banglas and low wage PRC should only be guest workers and not become PRs to compete for HDB flats?

Up till now, the PAP govt has not defined who are the talents that Singapore actually needs and is short of. We can start asking the govt to do this, and hold them to account for the numbers vs the quality of each type. They should put a moratorium on new entrants until this is claered up. I suspect it doesnt even know.

lockeliberal said:

We have had an uncalibrated Foreign Worker Policy which has let in every tom dick and harry and when they shut they shut indiscriminately.


The numbers need to be managed, the quality needs to be managed, but at the same time we need those foreign workers at the bottom of the rung those doing construction and menial work .

Click to expand...