Some facts & dealing with Frankie Png, again!

Hi readers. I have had 52,604 hits on my blog yesterday, that's a record! Thank you for visiting my blog. 10,298 hits in one hour this afternoon - unreal! I have a lot to deal with (which I can't do right now as I want to rush this out) in response to the first and second post on the topic of the Rohingya refugees but before I go any further, let me deal with some of the totally wrong bullshit that some people have claimed on Facebook about me. Yes I am reading all the comments there but choosing not to get involved in the discussions there. I have enough to cope with just here on my blog and it's been a busy day. The howling gales in London doesn't help as I had to dash around with an umbrella that was threatening to do a Mary Poppins on me. Warning, I'm still in Limpeh Sibeh Buaysong mode, so there will be swearing in this article - but hey, at least there are more graphics and videos to entertain you.

Fact 1: I live in London, UK. I hold a British passport. I don't have a Singaporean passport. I have worked in Singapore as a foreign talent in 2011, but returned to the UK at the end of last year after my company decided to scale down our business development in Asia and focus on Europe instead. I was born and bred in Singapore, went to a Singaporean primary school, secondary school and JC and served NS before leaving Singapore on a scholarship to university in the UK. I have since taken on British citizenship and renounced my Singaporean passport. So to the salah woman Rachel Suleng who goes on and on about me in Singapore, hello woman, Limpeh is in London as we speak. Get your facts right Rachel. Hate me by all means, just don't make up shit about me.

Fact 2: I have done a lot of charity work in my life - it was something that I started as a student in Singapore as a form of rebellion. My mother is religious but she doesn't believe in charity - I found that to be very wrong. She goes to church, sings in the choir, does a lot of bible study and gives a lot of money to the church but hasn't done any charity work in her life before. I know she helps care for her autistic grandson, but I define charity work as helping strangers, people you don't know, helping them out expecting nothing in return. Helping another member of your family is not the same as charity work. I loved annoying my mother by saying, "I can't go to church, I am way too busy doing charity work." But that's another story for another time.

Religion vs charity 

I started in secondary school and never stopped since. It's not something I boast about or brag about and I have done it in Singapore, the UK and when I had my hiatus, I spent a lot of time and effort volunteering with various charities in different countries. I don't like to talk about it because I believe I get so much out of my charity work that I should be grateful for being given the opportunity to do charity work. Besides, the moment I mention my charity work, I know some Singaporeans will accuse me of having a holier than thou attitude. My company also takes corporate responsibility very seriously and we sponsor two charities in Africa - one helping refugees and another dealing with children born with deformities.These charities are achieving great things in Africa and are making such a difference.

As a working professional at the age of 36 who does not (and never will) have children, I do give quite a lot of money to charity. I think that is a far more worthwhile exercise than the lottery of raising children. I am leaving the bulk of my estate to charity when I die as I have no children.

Since you've asked, yes I do give a lot of my money to charity. 

I love being involved in any kind of charity work. It makes me a better person - so for the fuckers who say, "wah you care so much about refugees you go and help them lah". I've got news for you assholes, Limpeh believes that action are louder than words and my actions over the years speak for themselves so please go do at least 20 years of volunteering with charities and let's see you give away as much money as I have to charity before you have the nerve to try to judge me for what I do. Have these assholes ever one a day of charity work in their lives before trying to judge me? Take that fucking plank out of your eye before trying to point out the speck of sawdust in mine.

Fact 3: I am a proud atheist. I don't believe in religion, I am very anti-religion because I think that we should express our basic humanity by helping those less fortunate than us in our society and around the world. Praying in a church, mosque, synagogue or temple is so bloody self-indulgent. It's like masturbation, you're just doing it for your own pleasure and no one else is helped by that process. It's like my religious mother - I have used my 20 years of volunteering with charities as a mirror to her last 20 years of praying in the church.

I don't believe in religion, I believe in science. 

Fact 4: For the idiots who claim that I am hiding behind a pseudonym - ha! I am anything but hiding - I regularly post videos of myself on my blog from Youtube! I talk about my past in Singapore in great detail and often post photos of myself smiling at you, whenever I go on holiday. I am so blatantly honest, I am even talking about problems ranging from my balding head (yup, Limpeh's going botak, help I need to go to Beijing 101), my disabled nephew and arguments I have with my parents in great detail sometimes. My blog however, is not Facebook - Facebook is where you update your friends about the more mundane details of your life. I don't believe my readers are that interested in that - they are far more interested in social commentary, which is what I do.

I have created a space where my readers can read my social commentary and respond to what I say about current affairs. It is not a popularity contest, I am not trying to show you how hip, sexy, intelligent or wonderful I am - I want you to hear what I have to say about these issues which are important to me. You don't have to like me, but I would appreciate it if you read my work and if you don't agree with me, then feel free to talk about it. This is the nature of my blog in case you haven't realized it by now.

This is my blog, this ain't Facebook.

And now, I shall return to Frankie Png whom I had featured (and scolded) in part 1, can someone tell him to look that up please? He's still sounding off on Facebook and hey, it's not like I wanna censor him in any way, he has his right to voice his opinions and I have the right to respond as I see fit. And look, he's found himself a friend Adrian Tan who agrees with him.

Frankie Png It just reminds me when I was in a third world country where beggars are everywhere. The moment you take a few coins to give out to these poor and the destitute out of compassion, the whole community rushed at you with their hands asking for money.
Now the question is? If Singapore let in this few, what will happened to rest if the world refugees? Are we going to take them in?

Frankie Png @Reyonce Jafir, when the world refuges know that we open the doors to the refugees not just the Rohingyas, all will start to come. Our infrastructure has limitation and it is best for government to act prudently and come out with a plan that will not give Singapore a bad name

Adrian Tan What exactly do people expect? Take in this load of 40+ refugees, then how about the next load of refugees? And I guarantee you that if we take in this load, there WILL be another load. And another. And another. So we take them all in? In the name of compassion? Can't be, right? 

Have you no compassion for the Rohingya refugees?

Oh Frankie, you need to check your Facebook privacy settings man. Anyone can see all your photos. Let me just deal with insecurities Frankie. I live in the UK and we actually have quite a liberal and generous policy when it comes to refugees - they show up and we process them, give them shelter and review their case. If they are genuine refugees, we let them stay - they are given housing, money and help to integrate into British society.  We had 238,150 refugees turn up in the UK in 2011 -  you think that refugees think, "oh yeah UK is a generous place, let's go there."

Many probably want to - but few actually manage to make the journey from Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan or Myanmar to the UK! It takes money and resources to make that journey. Imagine if you are a Rohingya refugee for a moment, your home has just been burnt down and your family has just been murdered. You fled your home in the middle of the night with nothing more than the clothes you are in. How the hell are you going to get yourself to a country like the UK or Singapore for that matter? Are you thinking this through Frankie? Do you know anything about what these refugees have to go through to be put in such desperate situations? 

The total number of refugees in the whole world in 2011 is 10.5 million. If the UK is so generous to refugees, why didn't all 10.5 million come to the UK? Why did only 238,150 come to the UK - did word not get round to these refugees of the generosity of the British government? Let's look at the practicalities Frankie, since you obviously have not thought this through, much less look at some of the hard facts about refugees. 

The refugees won't come to Singapore for the simple reason: they don't have the means to make the journey to Singapore. Most refugees flee on foot and will only go as far as they can walk - that is the bleak reality of these refugees and the kind of desperate situations they find themselves in. The countries with the highest refugee burden (refugees per 1000 population) in 2011 are as follows:

1. Jordan 72.88 (refugees fleeing the Syrian civil war)
2. Syria 49.26 (refugees internally displaced as a result of civil war)
3. Congo 32.92 (refugees internally displaced as a result of civil war)
4. Chad 30.99 (refugees fleeing the Darfur war)
5. Montenegro 25.91 (mostly refugees who fled from war in Kosovo along with some Romas)
6. Djibouti 17.00 (refugees fleeing the civil war in Somalia)

I could go on but you can see the full list here. Let's look at Jordan and Syria at the top of the list - these account for the bulk of the refugees displaced as a result of the civil war in Syria. Most of the refugees sought refuge in Jordan, others were displaced internally in Syria - a smaller number went to Lebanon, Turkey and other countries in the Middle East. Only a very small number actually made it to countries in Europe and further afield for the simple reason: refugees are often in very difficult and challenging circumstances, forced to flee their homes, often with very little notice and thus don't have the resources to go very far.

Here's a stunning statistic: Jordan received 450,915 refugees last year. That is just for 2011 and with the war in Syria intensifying, that number would be far bigger this year. For the same year 2011, the number of refugees received in all of North America was just 430,123. America and Canada are fairly generous to refugees too - so why didn't these Syrian refugees go to America or Canada instead of Jordan, a state which is barely able to cope with this massive influx of refugees from across the border in Syria? You know the answer - these refugees simply cannot make it to somewhere like New York, Toronto or San Francisco.

Don't you think that refugees want to come to New York?

In the case of Singapore, you have to look at the geography of Singapore. It is very hard for refugees to actually get to Singapore by land as the land route to Singapore involves passing through Malaysia. Anyone who has visited Malaysia recently will realize that Malaysia actually takes border security very seriously, as does Thailand. The air route is impossible as airport security is so tight - you need to prove that you have the right to enter the country you're flying to before you are allowed to board the plane, so again, that's not a route open to refugees, even if they can afford the cost of the plane ticket.

The sea route is the only one that is open to them - but it is an extremely treacherous one. Unscrupulous people smugglers overload small fishing vessels with desperate refugees - these fishing vessels are designed for short journeys not far from shore to catch fish, rather than long voyages across the ocean. Once they run into bad weather, many of these vessels often sink - causing hundreds to drown. The conditions on these vessels can only be described as hell on earth - there isn't enough food or fresh water, there is so little space and toilet facilities are inadequate. There is sickness and diseases all around and many die during such journeys. Even if they don't meet storms, they risk meeting pirates who will gladly rob these defenceless refugees of what little belongings they have.

The chances of such a fishing vessel actually reaching Singapore under such conditions is very, very low. The Rohingya refugees are far more likely to aim for a friendly country like India, Malaysia or Indonesia rather than risk sinking or meeting pirates en route to Singapore. Such are the practicalities - every day spent at sea in these fishing vessels is a huge risk. These people want to live - not drown - that's why they have a strong sense of self-preservation and usually sail for nearer countries, not Singapore, which is much further away.

These refugees didn't manage to sail all the way to Singapore in anyway - their vessel the Nagu sank in the Bay of Bengal and they were picked up by the Vietnamese vessel Nosco Victory. Given how it would be highly unlikely for any Rohingya refugees to make it to Singapore by any route: sea, land or air - why not show some compassion and allow these 40 refugees to come into Singapore? Refugees from wars further away from Singapore - in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Congo - these people simply cannot make the journey to Singapore. Sure there are some with means to reach further destinations, but these kind of refugees are in the minority.

Most refugees have no money to very far. 

Just look at the logistics Frankie for crying out aloud - you don't look stupid but fucking hell, you sure talk a lot of stupid shit before even checking the facts out. There won't be boat after boat of refugees showing up in Singapore for logistic reasons. There are so many countries in the world like America, the UK, Canada, Holland, Sweden, Germany, France - too many to name. There are already so many countries who are so generous and welcome refugees with open arms - but these refugees are still not coming to these countries for logistics reasons. Groan. Are you really that fucking stupid Frankie, for crying out aloud? Do you spout such bullshit before even checking your facts? Aiyoh.

What they do in Holland is this: if the Nosco Victory turned up in a Dutch port, the 40 refugees would be allowed to land in Holland and given a temporary visa of 3 months - this can vary from a case by case basis but it does give the Dutch authorities a deadline to process their case. If they are found to be genuine refugees, they will be allowed to settle in Holland (or sent onto a third country by mutual agreement). If they are not, then they will be repatriated (or sent onto a third country by mutual agreement). Why couldn't Singapore have allowed these refugees to come into Singapore for a few weeks or months whilst a solution is sought for their future? Some individual Singaporeans may not be rich, but the government of Singapore is stinking rich and has all the resources in the world to help these 40 refugees.

Do you think the Singaporean government is so broke they can't help 40 refugees?

Singapore has a terrible track record when it comes to dealing with refugees during the era of the Vietnam war. Allow me to quote someone off Facebook who lived through the era of the Vietnamese Boat People. The Singapore government sanctioned the murder of so many Vietnamese refugees. Are you proud of this Singapore? Are you proud of what your government did?

@Michael Chin- how old are you? I think you've never lived in the era of the Vietnamese Boat People who were pushed out to sea by the Sg Navy, when it is obvious that many of their vessels were on their last legs, and there were women and children aboard, knowing that they would never make the trip. Many died, others were killed by pirates. I wonder how people went back home to look at their families while they did that as their jobs."

Oh and for those of you who say, "Oh I am just a citizen, criticize the government if you want when it comes to their policies on refugees, but what has this got to do with me? Scold the PAP but don't scold me." Allow me to quote someone else from Facebook who has explained it brilliantly.

"@Elle Toh, we as a nation deserve to be scolded for the actions of our heartless govt., since we are the ones who elected them to represent us, not only in Parliament, but also to the whole world! So, how our govt. behaves, reflects on ALL Singapore!"

This incident should be on the conscience of all Singaporeans. 

Lastly, I want to deal with the fuckers who used the example of Tampa when the Australian government turned away the Norwegian vessel the Tampa which was carrying 438 refugees who were picked up in the Indian Ocean. It was wrong of the Australian government to have done that and this is a disgrace to Australia. Many decent Australians feel deep shame about their government's actions in the Tampa Affair. However, there are a lot of governments who do a lot of very bad, very cruel and very evil deeds - and here's the punch line: two wrongs don't make a right.

"Oh just because Myanmar indulges in genocide and has been for years, then it must be okay for us to have genocide in the streets on Singapore too."

"Oh just because Syria kills and murders political opponents, then it must be okay for us to do the same kind of thing in Singapore to the opposition."

"Oh in North Korea, women prisoners are regularly raped and if they become pregnant, they're usually executed by the guards to cover up the rape - so I guess it must be okay for us to do that in Singapore too."

You get the idea. There are bad governments in the world who have done horrible things that have resulted in the death of thousands, even millions. It defies logic to think that you Singaporeans can pick one of the most shameful moments of Australia's modern history to justify your government's shameful actions.

"Oh just because the Australians were fucking evil, then us Singaporeans can be fucking evil too, just like the Aussies."

I swear, some of you Singaporeans are either fucking stupid or fucking evil. Probably both. Okay, I am going to post this now and work on part 4. Comments, as usual, are always welcomed.