- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]Sim Ann should stop politicking and review policies prejudiced against native Singaporeans[/h]Posted by temasektimes on September 10, 2012
I refer to an article “Of wrongful pride and prejudice” by Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Sim Ann, on Sep 7, It was disappointing, for I had expected better from Ms Sim.
It was disappointing that because she mentioned in her letter that there are so many potential pitfalls whenever the subject of local-foreigner relations is raised, that few are motivated to talk about it and that she is exactly what she did, sidestep the issue to grossly misinterpret her political opponent.
Nowhere in his article has Mr Giam justified the online vitriol against anybody, he offer a reasoned attempt to explain and address the source of the online vitriol.
Interpreting such explanations, as Ms Sim does, as vile intention to justify hatred is deeply questionable, when Mr Giam stated specifically that making prejudiced remarks against foreigners is objectionable, un-Singaporean, and should stop. Ms Sim appears to have conveniently confused offering an explanation and making an excuse.
“Conveniently” because surely a President’s scholar and Senior Parliamentary Secretary know better than to confuse a positive statement with a normative statement.
It also strikes me as disingenuous, for Ms Sim to state that people have every right to express their view on the Government’s immigration policy, yet at the same time portray those who offer critical opinions in negative light through obfuscation and labels.
Mr Giam spoke frankly about the issue, dong something which Ms Sim pointed few are willing to do because of the potential pitfalls. At the same she opportunistically chooses to take advantage of these pitfalls to misrepresent his view for political mileage.
Her article serves only to reinforce self censorship among the netizens with the underlying message that the Government’s immigration policy is sacrosanct and its possible ill effects cannot be discuss in a manner that may remotely suggest aspersions at the government.
I may not agree fully with Mr Giam’s interpretation, but if we are not allowed freely to discuss all possible causes, how else can we hope to address the root of it?
Above all, it raises the question of choice and responsibility. The Prime Minister and then Director of the National Population Secretariat, Ms Sim chose to open the floodgate to the foreigners at a rate unprecedented in history of independent nations, therefore they are entitled to both credit and responsibility for the policy consequence of their social engineering project.
To try and cast it as a moral test of Singaporeans’ characters signify a shrinking of responsibility, an unwillingness of the Government to accept the negative consequence cause by their decision. Instead, the onus is now on Singaporeans to live up to the moral standards set fore by Ms Sim so that we can enable her population polices to work.
For the minority who are not morally strong enough to suppress their grouses, it goes therefore to imply that they do not have the moral fortitude enough to fathom the wisdom of Ms Sim’s population policies.
Social harmony and strong community relations in the country no longer depend upon a national consciousness and shared experience such as going through NS, instead it depend on the moral fibre of its citizenry to endure entire supplantation of natives.
It s therefore rather fortuitous that the immigrant issue have unite native Singaporeans who now share common concerns about national identity, job security and housing affordability, no doubt thanks to the polices implemented by Ms Sim, during her short stint at the National Population Secretariat
I sincerely urge Ms Sim to stop the politicking and please review unequal policies for locals and foreigners, polices such giving scholarship to foreign students when they are in secondary school or polytechnics, these foreign students do not serve NS even though they have enjoy the safety, free education in Singapore since young. There is no indication that talents can be identified at such young age or any guarantees that they will stay in Singapore to contribute.
Other policies inflammatory to Singaporeans includes dependant pass holder circumventing S Pass and Work permit quotas, cheap foreign labour depressing lower income wages, liberal giving away of citizenship to less qualified immigrants and PRs allowed to buy flats while singles citizen below 35 can’t.
TAN T H
I refer to an article “Of wrongful pride and prejudice” by Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Sim Ann, on Sep 7, It was disappointing, for I had expected better from Ms Sim.
It was disappointing that because she mentioned in her letter that there are so many potential pitfalls whenever the subject of local-foreigner relations is raised, that few are motivated to talk about it and that she is exactly what she did, sidestep the issue to grossly misinterpret her political opponent.
Nowhere in his article has Mr Giam justified the online vitriol against anybody, he offer a reasoned attempt to explain and address the source of the online vitriol.
Interpreting such explanations, as Ms Sim does, as vile intention to justify hatred is deeply questionable, when Mr Giam stated specifically that making prejudiced remarks against foreigners is objectionable, un-Singaporean, and should stop. Ms Sim appears to have conveniently confused offering an explanation and making an excuse.
“Conveniently” because surely a President’s scholar and Senior Parliamentary Secretary know better than to confuse a positive statement with a normative statement.
It also strikes me as disingenuous, for Ms Sim to state that people have every right to express their view on the Government’s immigration policy, yet at the same time portray those who offer critical opinions in negative light through obfuscation and labels.
Mr Giam spoke frankly about the issue, dong something which Ms Sim pointed few are willing to do because of the potential pitfalls. At the same she opportunistically chooses to take advantage of these pitfalls to misrepresent his view for political mileage.
Her article serves only to reinforce self censorship among the netizens with the underlying message that the Government’s immigration policy is sacrosanct and its possible ill effects cannot be discuss in a manner that may remotely suggest aspersions at the government.
I may not agree fully with Mr Giam’s interpretation, but if we are not allowed freely to discuss all possible causes, how else can we hope to address the root of it?
Above all, it raises the question of choice and responsibility. The Prime Minister and then Director of the National Population Secretariat, Ms Sim chose to open the floodgate to the foreigners at a rate unprecedented in history of independent nations, therefore they are entitled to both credit and responsibility for the policy consequence of their social engineering project.
To try and cast it as a moral test of Singaporeans’ characters signify a shrinking of responsibility, an unwillingness of the Government to accept the negative consequence cause by their decision. Instead, the onus is now on Singaporeans to live up to the moral standards set fore by Ms Sim so that we can enable her population polices to work.
For the minority who are not morally strong enough to suppress their grouses, it goes therefore to imply that they do not have the moral fortitude enough to fathom the wisdom of Ms Sim’s population policies.
Social harmony and strong community relations in the country no longer depend upon a national consciousness and shared experience such as going through NS, instead it depend on the moral fibre of its citizenry to endure entire supplantation of natives.
It s therefore rather fortuitous that the immigrant issue have unite native Singaporeans who now share common concerns about national identity, job security and housing affordability, no doubt thanks to the polices implemented by Ms Sim, during her short stint at the National Population Secretariat
I sincerely urge Ms Sim to stop the politicking and please review unequal policies for locals and foreigners, polices such giving scholarship to foreign students when they are in secondary school or polytechnics, these foreign students do not serve NS even though they have enjoy the safety, free education in Singapore since young. There is no indication that talents can be identified at such young age or any guarantees that they will stay in Singapore to contribute.
Other policies inflammatory to Singaporeans includes dependant pass holder circumventing S Pass and Work permit quotas, cheap foreign labour depressing lower income wages, liberal giving away of citizenship to less qualified immigrants and PRs allowed to buy flats while singles citizen below 35 can’t.
TAN T H
