Whilst the result in Ireland has been described as a landslide with the YES votes outnumbering the no votes in the ratio of 2:1, there still remains about a third of Irish people who are homophobic. But I am so glad that Ireland has resolved this the democratic way by putting it to the people, so the homophobic third of Irish people have to simply shut the tell up because they are in the minority. What do you mean you're not happy with the results? Tough shit, this is democracy at work and you may not have gotten the result you wanted but this is the will of the people. Wake up and smell the coffee. This is why I hate the way Singaporean politicians use the excuse that there are homophobic religious people in Singapore to keep section 377A: I wish they would take a lesson from the Irish. Put it to a referendum and if it is a yes, then that's society (note, not the government) giving a big middle finger to the religious bigots and most of all, to the Catholic church which has always been homophobic.
Some people have asked, why the referendum on gay marriage now? Isn't it going to cause divisions in Irish societies by opening up such a debate? That's a stupid excuse to perpetuate the injustice and discrimination that gay people in Ireland face - there are already divisions in Irish society and they have been there for decades. Why pretend that they are not there? Are you telling me that everyone in Ireland actually are in complete agreement with each other on all issues? Hell no. There is a huge divide between the more liberal, progressive urban dwellers in the cities and the more conservative, religious rural folks who live in the countryside. Refusing to talk about these divisions isn't going make them go away - rather, putting it to a referendum is the most sensible way to let the people decide once and for all and the losers will just have to accept the rule of the majority. Such is the nature of democracy - of course you can never have 100% consensus, there is simply no way you can please everyone in this process so the only sensible way to make a decision is by letting the majority have their way and the minority will just have to accept the will of the majority.
I am so pleased to be living in a part of the world where I can see change happening, change for the better and it is happening around me; I can see my Irish friends on Facebook being so involved in this referendum and I am share in their joy this evening. This is why I am so glad I left Singapore a long time ago: I can see why someone like Amos Yee is so frustrated with the way Singapore is, but his online rants are only going to get him into more and more trouble and he is not going to change Singaporean society. There is so much to be optimistic about in Europe today, I am not saying that things are perfect (far from it), but in amongst the chaos I see find many reasons to be optimistic. I feel myself filled with so much joy when I see good triumph over bad:optimism blossoms where I see beauty in the human spirit (such as in the Greek hero Antonis Deligiorgis who saved over 20 migrants from drowning).. Singapore may be far richer than most of the countries in Europe, but my heart is filled with despair when I see the way Singaporeans treat the Rohingya refugees. I am nearly 40, I am glad I chose to spend my adult life in a place which has made me so happy, not in a place which will only frustrate the hell out of me. The world will continue to change and become a better place - just make sure you're on the right side of history when that change comes.
I like a tweet I saw tonight: "Whilst Sweden may have won Eurovision tonight, but the real winners are Ireland for voting for equality. Congratulations Ireland!" Oh I am happy tonight. I hope you are too. Many thanks for reading.
Hi LIFT, may I know what are your thoughts about air stewardesses' jobs? Ie. The disadvantages of the job are over-exaggerated? or the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
Hi Alex. It is truly enlightening that even a major Catholic place like Ireland will have a whooping majority voting for access to equal rights for the gay people. Of course I am happy that people are enlightened. However, I am still personally uncomfortable with the concept that the majority can legitimise the access to equal rights of a minority and it becomes all too easy and a dangerous practice that can set the precedent for other nations where public opinion may not be as tolerant or progressive.
The reason I am feeling rather upset and disappointed is that on the day where Ireland made history in rights of people, a very economically progressive first world nation called Singapore showed that it is socially regressive and third world. An MV and song by Jolin Tsai which sounded totally innocuous got banned (http://www.iduobo.com/2015/05/21/jolin-tsai-ting-songs-banned-gay-contradict-the-laws-of-singapore-40258.html). Sadly, a scan of the MDA's website found no public announcement. So much for transparency and accountability in preference for stealth and opacity.
You may judge for yourself how "offensive" the actual MV is, albeit one that was based on a real life case in Taiwan - another Asian state. https://vimeo.com/115105259
The MDA (read: state censors) loves using the statement that "Singapore is conservative and still hold a negative view of homosexuality" as justification, but I seriously doubt that they will dare hold a referendum like the Irish to justify it. I am very curious what sort of Sarah Palins are lurking within the midst of the MDA when even LKY himself (when he was alive) was pragmatic enough to state that anti gay statuettes like the infamous 377A eventually has to go. It is getting clearer that our state censors have no clue about the real world and about human behaviour. Someone from the radio or media must have been sufficiently upset with MDA's "instructions" that they leaked the info to their counterparts in Taiwan. Now it is all over social media and it is not flattering PR - unless people really think Singapore can afford to exist in a bubble wrap. Perhaps they do not want to believe we are all different because they want everything to remain the same.
By the way, here in Singapore, the Catholic church is a lot less homophobic in comparison to the personality driven megachurches like Laurence Khong and co. I really have no issue with Khong and co to state their stance as it is his right and he at least is upfront enough to publicly state his homophobic beliefs. Big boo however to the stealth bomber snipe from the censors.
Hi Shane. Yes you've made a point that many others have as well - why should straight people get to decide if gay people should get to marry or not? That is why so many other countries have done this without a referendum but oh well, Ireland did it this way and I am still pleased with the result at the end of the day. I am aware of the censorship issue by the MDA and I have long given up hope on Singapore. People said things would change after LKY dies - well he has and nothing is going to change, not in my lifetime anyway. So many gay people in Singapore I know have either already left or in the process of trying to leave.
I really wonder where the idea that things will change after LKY came from. If I am of the ruling govt, no way will I change anything when life is so easy and cozy and the sheeps so easy to manage. Anyway, I was ranting. My real sore point was really that the state censors not being upfront and direct in their censorship, not that they actually censored an MV with lesbian overtones. For that, I will rather prefer the openly homophobic Laurence Khong and the openly extreme ISIS than the covert, slimy back door operators within MDA. Pity with the Singaporeans. In 2016, another one will uplift to US and leave behind the small island with a siege outlook.
Actually I believe that conducting a referendum in singapore right now or anytime soon would be a bad idea. Let us examine the demographics of this country. Approximately 13% are muslims and at least 18% are Christian (these are off the top of my head). Assuming compulsory voting, thats almost 30% of votes gone. I'm sure the remaining 70% consists of a sizable number of conservative voters and apathetic voters who will simply vote no because the status quo does not bother them or affect them in any way. This would quite obviously result in a decisive victory to the homophobes, and might even help promulgate their homophobic agenda, undoing years of work by gay rights groups such as pinkdotsg. I think we can only move forward when we actually become a full fledged democracy, where we can convince people that their archaic ways are not worth holding on to, and that we should move forward with this or that new idea. Unfortunately, one can be arrested for distributing flyers in this country, and you might even be charged with sedition for trying to convince a christian or a muslim to vote yes in a hypothetical referendum, because, you know, religious feelings are offended. SO as you have said many times, you can either stay here and try and change things, or gtfo. I know what my choice is.
As for the Rohingya refugees, I must say, and I dont disagree with you often, that not a single one should be allowed to set foot on our shores. Yes, we should give them food and water, fuel for their boats and perhaps even aid them in any repair work that might be required. Allowing even one boat would open the floodgates. They will all flock here. This is not a problem we need. Italy eased their policies concerning refugees seeking to enter the EU through Italy and look what is happening. More people risking their lives because they know they will be picked up by an European Navy. I think you probably know, things are so horrible now that the EU is considering using military force to take out the boats these people use to get to Europe.
Further, many of these muslim migrants fail to integrate into a secular democracy. Their views and their values are not compatible with ours, and they refuse to integrate into society.
Right more homophobia and sharia, just what we need. You have to accept that all these is the result of European kindness and generosity. Sometimes, the brain has to let the heart know who is boss.
We simply should not let them in, for our sake and theirs.
Now I have to say this in response to your stance on Rohingya refugees. Why not let them flock to Singapore? After all, your government has clearly stated that they want to grow the population of Singapore from the current 5.5 million to 6.9 million and beyond, possibly even to 10 million. Clearly they are so desperate to grow the population of Singapore that they are taking in so many PRCs who are unskilled and can't speak a word of English, not to mention zillions of Indians and Pinoys with fake degrees bought online from degree mills.
I accept that it is the PAP's choice to grow the population of Singapore if that's what they wanna do - so why not include a few thousand Rohingya refugees amongst that mix: are they any worse off than PRCs who don't speak English (and shit in public and are so incredibly rude) and Pinoys with fake degrees? There is already a fairly large Bangladeshi migrant worker population in Singapore already involved in the construction sector - the Rohingyas would easily find work in that community, they would not be sponging off the state but would be gainfully employed in that sector.
If Singapore is really not letting any new immigrants in, then fair enough - turn the Rohingyas away: but your gates are as wide open as possible, for anyone to wander in: from illiterate PRCs to Pinoys armed with no more than fake degrees. So I ask you: why not let the Rohingyas in as well? After all, looking at the quality of your new migrants (ref: PRC woman shitting in public), the PAP would let anyone in as long as they have a pulse. So why not the Rohingyas then? I would prefer the PAP letting them in rather than more disgusting PRCs.
Tsk tsk. Which was why I have basically not said anything about the Rohingya refugees. Our dear govt had said we are small and resource constraint as the reason. Unfortunately, they had lost the moral high ground since 2004 when they opened the flood gates to so many unskilled and semi skilled workers many of whom could hardly speak English. So the disagreement to the Rohingya's while logically sound on the surface, simply smack of inconsistency.
Exactly. It simply smacks of inconsistency. So you'll gladly let in PRCs with no skills, no English and are not toilet trained (ref: PRC woman who shat in public at an MRT station and left a big pile of poo and a puddle of piss on the floor in the middle of the station) and how are they any better than the Rohingyas, who would probably just be assimilated into the Bangladeshi migrant worker community and work their butts off in the construction industry.
That's why I say the PAP are a bunch of liars and that's not the worst part: Singaporeans are so fucking stupid in believing the lies of the PAP. And the PAP is probably thinking, "what a bunch of idiots, I don't even need to try too hard and they would believe anything, how bloody stupid are these Sinkies..."
Yes you have a point. But there is a fundamental difference between PRC, Bangladeshi workers etc, and Rohingya refugees. The refugees bring their entire families with them, while the latter are guests workers. They work a couple of years and go back. Also, unrelated but I believe most of the low skilled foreigners are here to do low skilled jobs. Fnb, retail, cleaners, delivery men, bus drivers etc. Basically things Singaporeans do not want to do. I dont know if you meant it or not but you gave me the impression that the act of letting in low skilled foreigners on its own is wrong, which is obviously not true. Yes, a sizable number of them cannot utter a word of English, and that bothers me a lot at times.
Alright to back to the Rohingya, it is simply impractical and cruel to expect their men to work as labourers and to use their meager pay to support their families, which are usually extremely large. Also, where are they going to live? HDB flats, the same ones that Singaporeans cannot afford? They could live in refugee shelters, or some other form of temporary accommodation, but how would that aid the long term goal of integrating them into society? What about healthcare? Education? Would their kids be able to cope, knowing many of them have never had any kind of education ever? If we are going to let these people in, I would want them to be like us, live with us, speak our language, be successful, independent and happy. I dont think most of these things are attainable, given the current situation.
Well guess what, all of those problems can be solved if the government pays. It definitely can. But will they? Of course not. The PAP may be a lot of things, but stupid isnt one of those things. Singapore is not a welfare state. Very little is spent on citizens. Imagine our government spending millions on people who are not Singaporean. It would be the final nail in the coffin for the PAP. No political party would dream of doing anything of such a nature. Its political suicide. It is probably easier for Europeans to accept the fact that the state spends money of the welfare of refugees because the state also spends huge amounts of money on locals. This concept does not exist here. Which is why I feel your criticism of SIngaporeans was a bit harsh. I've also noticed that many people here are calling for the refugees to be let in (with not much thought put into it though).
I would very much like to see and end to the whole Rohingya issue. That can be done by putting pressure on the Burmese government. Singapore never puts pressure on anyone. Not unilaterally at least. We can also patrol the 500km or so coastline of Myanmar and prevent these boats from leaving and taking the treacherous journey to Sg, indonesia or wherever. Thats definitely a lot easier than carrying out search and rescue missions in the strait of melacca.
1. Refugees are not automatically granted citizenship (or any kind of permanent residency status) - you seem to be unfamiliar with the way refugees are processed. Only those who can prove that they are genuinely fleeing persecution will be granted asylum - those who are merely deemed to be economic migrants (ie. escaping poverty, not persecution/danger) are rejected and sent back to where they came from. There is a compromise solution: whereby refugees are granted temporary asylum, where they are allowed to stay for 1 to 2 years and their case will be reviewed at the end of that to see if they are still facing persecution or if it is safe for them to return. So just because you allow these people to get off those sinking boats onto your land, it doesn't mean that you have to automatically give them citizenship - it doesn't work like that.
2. Many unskilled PRC migrant workers choose to settle in Singapore after working here for many years because life in Singapore is undoubtedly much better than in China and after working here for many years, they can apply for permanent residency. The same applies for other foreigners like Pinoys, Bangladeshis etc. Don't assume that they will go back - many do stay and become Singaporean if the opportunity presents itself. Would you want to go back to China if you were a migrant worker from some godforsaken armpit of China?
3. Is the act of letting in a large number of low-skilled or unskilled workers wrong? I am not questioning it - but at least allow the Rohingyas to do these unskilled jobs that Singaporeans don't want to do. How are the Rhoingyas any different from the migrant workers from places like China, India, Bangladesh or Vietnam?
4. Singapore has housed Vietnamese refugees back in the 1970s in basic accommodation - nobody is expecting the government to simply hand the Rohingyas keys to beautiful 5-room HDB flats, but there are always compromise solutions. These people came from total abject poverty and lived in horrific conditions - they would be satisfied with the kind of conditions that most migrant workers in Singapore have.
5. You cannot expect refugees to become totally assimilated within a few years - this is a process that takes many years and usually it is the next generation. I refer you to another post I did when I interviewed a refugee: http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/interview-with-refugee-from-isfahan-to.html Bahar's parents were Iranian refugees who ended up in Sweden, they are not well integrated but both Bahar and her sister are very Europeanized, fluent in Swedish and English, extremely highly educated and work in professional jobs. You are assuming the very worst of the children of refugees to build your defence on a 'worst case scenario' - but you only have to look at what has happened in other counties like the USA, Sweden, Germany etc where there are plenty of success stories of refugees who have established themselves very successfully in their new countries. Your 'worst case scenario' assumptions make you sound extremely racist in fact.
6. The Singaporean government is so rich that it pays itself a hideous, obscene amount of money. If you can afford to pay Singaporean politicians more than president Obama, then you can afford to show some charity to the refugees. I'm not asking you to pay for it, I'm asking the PAP to pay for it.
7. Even without a welfare state in Singapore, the Rohingyas don't come looking for handouts. They just want to flee persecution. If you allow them to work even as manual labourers in the construction sector, they will work from dawn till dusk with a smile on their faces without uttering a word of complaint. You are assuming that these people are unable to fend for themselves and will depend on the tax payer to bail them out - you are wrong: these people are probably quite happy and able to fend for themselves, even if it means having a standard of living much lower than your average Singaporean. It is still far better than the conditions that they were fleeing.
8. The Singapore government is in bed with the military junta of Myanmar and ASEAN is totally useless is stopping the crisis. Another major problem is the way the human traffickers are exploiting the desire of the Rohingyas to leave Myanmar. The Burmese government needs to do something about the situation but they don't give a damn what happens as they're extremely corrupt.
9. You have conveniently ignored my point that the PAP still intends to grow the population to at least 6.9 million if not 10 million - that means there is still plenty of space for new migrants. Why can't Rhoingyas be a part of this mix of new migrants coming from all over Asia? If you'll let in PRCs who are not even toilet trained, by not the Rohingyas? Are you telling me that the PRC woman who shat in the middle of the MRT station is able to "be like us, live with us, speak our language, be successful, independent and happy"? By your standards, the PAP should have never let in most of these PRCs - you seem to set the bar extremely high for the Rohingyas whilst the PAP has set the bar extremely low for the PRCs. By that token, your argument is totally flawed because you're ignoring what the PAP is doing in this aspect. You're not the government, the PAP is.
10. What good would patrolling the coastline of Myanmar do? Say a Singaporean ship catches a boat load of Rohingyas trying to reach Indonesia - what are you going to do then? Make them turn around and go back to Myanmar? Then what? They will just keep trying - changing their routes to evade the patrols.
Talking about this Rohingya refugee issue, it reminds me of one thing. Does anyone ever realize that no one--absolutely NO ONE--has ever been granted asylum in Singapore from another country, while a number of people from Singapore have been granted asylum on account of various reasons? This is a telling thing about how Singapore actually treats its own citizens and other incoming people so to say: capitalism at its finest, insofar as you throw someone away on a 'hire-fire' basis if the person 'outlasts' usefulness to the country's values.
I cannot remember the person who said that the people who believed in the lies of the PAP and the people who believed in the lies of Kong Hee and City Harvest Church associates concerning the fraud case shared the same type of thinking. (Melissa, isn't she?) She struck the nail on its head when she made that point. This is a similar kind of reasoning with the way they reacted to Jolin Tsai's song. So a song about acceptance of someone else who has a different lifestyle and sexual orientation becomes an assault on morals, but they themselves--the ones sitting on the moral high horse--basically ousted themselves with the inconsistencies of inviting people from other countries who have no regards for public manners, moral or ethics, and would go to all lengths such as stealing, killing and whatever crimes--I exaggerate here, but is falsifying your credentials any better as a crime--to get what they want.
Hi Kevin. It will be even more interesting to read the response from the MDA after all the news about their covert, censorship by stealth activities had been reported by overseas news media. They were basically force to respond. http://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/music/story/jolin-tsais-same-sex-marriage-music-video-not-banned-here-20150525.
They said that it is not banned but they simply "advised" local media broadcasters that "they should not air the song and music video on channels that are freely accessed by younger viewers due to its mature content." So in essence, you can still sell DVDs or CDs of that song and MV but you cannot broadcast on any media that younger viewers can access. Of course they were totally silent on what it meant by "mature content" and totally oblivious that everyone can go access the MV online and on youtube - by the way, their advice to not broadcast (not ban!) has directed even more traffic to the MV the past few days.
Honestly, I am pretty indifferent to jolin Tsai's music or the MV in question but the MDA response is just such a PR fail that I am amazed they don't realise how foolish and incoherent they sounded. It is just plain "sia suay" (embarrassing) that a public officiating body can come up with such poorly thought out responses that scored an F grade for transparency.
Shane, it is very similar to what happened many years ago with Sammi Cheng's music video and song of "Fei nan fei nu" (not man, not woman), a song related loosely to a "Bodyguard" type of movie in which Sammi Cheng was the pop singer being hounded by some psychotic fan who was closely tied to the world of sleazy or dingy nightclubs, the gay clubbing scene in Hong Kong, and her bodyguard (enacted by Leon Lai) who had to infiltrate that scene to find out the identity of the psychotic killer. Malaysia applied the method of banning the MTV from broadcast on their televisions channels, but you can virtually access the movie in cinema theaters, listen to the song on CDs which are sold legally, and then go online to watch the MTV for all you want! Singapore is using the same PR method (an epic fail at that)......
Hi Kev, but at least Malaysia was openly declaring it. MDA went about it in stealth mode and was forced to declare publicly after their "advisory" was leaked by news media in HK and Taiwan. Last year, they quietly informed Chang Hui Mei's (A Mei) manager that she could not perform the gay affirming song "Rainbow". Honestly if they want to "advise", then do so publicly, not by hiding behind vague statements and opacity. Sure, if they think all sexually explicit scenes need to be cut from general broadcast, they can go ahead but this is blatantly not the case in Singapore. Just look at pictures in FHM, HerWorld. Are kissing scenes on TV in Singapore being excised? The double standards which MDA is applying clearly showed that their objection is not sexually explicit scenes or kissing per se. Rather, who is doing the kissing is the issue. And in this internet age, what does their "advice" (not ban!) achieve? Those who are interested in seeing it will youtube it and those who are indifferent will just not see it even if shown on prime time TV. Lesbians and gay men are not interested in turning people homosexual but homophobes like MDA appear to be keen on turning others homophobic by "protecting" the public from the existence of homosexuality. Rather than paving the way towards enlightenment, censorship by stealth simply promotes more ignorance and does nothing to foster a more inclusive society. Guess my plan to uproot in 2016 has been further reaffirmed.
Hi LIFT, may I know what are your thoughts about air stewardesses' jobs? Ie. The disadvantages of the job are over-exaggerated? or the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
ReplyDeleteThat is a really good question - one that I will answer in my post for you okay? Akan datang.
Deletemerci beacoup!
DeleteFor you Yuko http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/q-cabin-crew-everything-you-were-afraid.html
DeleteHi Alex. It is truly enlightening that even a major Catholic place like Ireland will have a whooping majority voting for access to equal rights for the gay people. Of course I am happy that people are enlightened. However, I am still personally uncomfortable with the concept that the majority can legitimise the access to equal rights of a minority and it becomes all too easy and a dangerous practice that can set the precedent for other nations where public opinion may not be as tolerant or progressive.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I am feeling rather upset and disappointed is that on the day where Ireland made history in rights of people, a very economically progressive first world nation called Singapore showed that it is socially regressive and third world. An MV and song by Jolin Tsai which sounded totally innocuous got banned (http://www.iduobo.com/2015/05/21/jolin-tsai-ting-songs-banned-gay-contradict-the-laws-of-singapore-40258.html). Sadly, a scan of the MDA's website found no public announcement. So much for transparency and accountability in preference for stealth and opacity.
You may judge for yourself how "offensive" the actual MV is, albeit one that was based on a real life case in Taiwan - another Asian state. https://vimeo.com/115105259
The MDA (read: state censors) loves using the statement that "Singapore is conservative and still hold a negative view of homosexuality" as justification, but I seriously doubt that they will dare hold a referendum like the Irish to justify it. I am very curious what sort of Sarah Palins are lurking within the midst of the MDA when even LKY himself (when he was alive) was pragmatic enough to state that anti gay statuettes like the infamous 377A eventually has to go. It is getting clearer that our state censors have no clue about the real world and about human behaviour. Someone from the radio or media must have been sufficiently upset with MDA's "instructions" that they leaked the info to their counterparts in Taiwan. Now it is all over social media and it is not flattering PR - unless people really think Singapore can afford to exist in a bubble wrap. Perhaps they do not want to believe we are all different because they want everything to remain the same.
By the way, here in Singapore, the Catholic church is a lot less homophobic in comparison to the personality driven megachurches like Laurence Khong and co. I really have no issue with Khong and co to state their stance as it is his right and he at least is upfront enough to publicly state his homophobic beliefs. Big boo however to the stealth bomber snipe from the censors.
Hi Shane. Yes you've made a point that many others have as well - why should straight people get to decide if gay people should get to marry or not? That is why so many other countries have done this without a referendum but oh well, Ireland did it this way and I am still pleased with the result at the end of the day. I am aware of the censorship issue by the MDA and I have long given up hope on Singapore. People said things would change after LKY dies - well he has and nothing is going to change, not in my lifetime anyway. So many gay people in Singapore I know have either already left or in the process of trying to leave.
DeleteI really wonder where the idea that things will change after LKY came from. If I am of the ruling govt, no way will I change anything when life is so easy and cozy and the sheeps so easy to manage. Anyway, I was ranting. My real sore point was really that the state censors not being upfront and direct in their censorship, not that they actually censored an MV with lesbian overtones. For that, I will rather prefer the openly homophobic Laurence Khong and the openly extreme ISIS than the covert, slimy back door operators within MDA. Pity with the Singaporeans. In 2016, another one will uplift to US and leave behind the small island with a siege outlook.
DeleteActually I believe that conducting a referendum in singapore right now or anytime soon would be a bad idea. Let us examine the demographics of this country. Approximately 13% are muslims and at least 18% are Christian (these are off the top of my head). Assuming compulsory voting, thats almost 30% of votes gone. I'm sure the remaining 70% consists of a sizable number of conservative voters and apathetic voters who will simply vote no because the status quo does not bother them or affect them in any way. This would quite obviously result in a decisive victory to the homophobes, and might even help promulgate their homophobic agenda, undoing years of work by gay rights groups such as pinkdotsg. I think we can only move forward when we actually become a full fledged democracy, where we can convince people that their archaic ways are not worth holding on to, and that we should move forward with this or that new idea. Unfortunately, one can be arrested for distributing flyers in this country, and you might even be charged with sedition for trying to convince a christian or a muslim to vote yes in a hypothetical referendum, because, you know, religious feelings are offended. SO as you have said many times, you can either stay here and try and change things, or gtfo. I know what my choice is.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Rohingya refugees, I must say, and I dont disagree with you often, that not a single one should be allowed to set foot on our shores. Yes, we should give them food and water, fuel for their boats and perhaps even aid them in any repair work that might be required. Allowing even one boat would open the floodgates. They will all flock here. This is not a problem we need. Italy eased their policies concerning refugees seeking to enter the EU through Italy and look what is happening. More people risking their lives because they know they will be picked up by an European Navy. I think you probably know, things are so horrible now that the EU is considering using military force to take out the boats these people use to get to Europe.
Further, many of these muslim migrants fail to integrate into a secular democracy. Their views and their values are not compatible with ours, and they refuse to integrate into society.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality
http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/majority-europes-muslims-favor-sharia-over-democracy
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/15/5-facts-about-the-muslim-population-in-europe/
Right more homophobia and sharia, just what we need. You have to accept that all these is the result of European kindness and generosity. Sometimes, the brain has to let the heart know who is boss.
We simply should not let them in, for our sake and theirs.
Now I have to say this in response to your stance on Rohingya refugees. Why not let them flock to Singapore? After all, your government has clearly stated that they want to grow the population of Singapore from the current 5.5 million to 6.9 million and beyond, possibly even to 10 million. Clearly they are so desperate to grow the population of Singapore that they are taking in so many PRCs who are unskilled and can't speak a word of English, not to mention zillions of Indians and Pinoys with fake degrees bought online from degree mills.
DeleteI accept that it is the PAP's choice to grow the population of Singapore if that's what they wanna do - so why not include a few thousand Rohingya refugees amongst that mix: are they any worse off than PRCs who don't speak English (and shit in public and are so incredibly rude) and Pinoys with fake degrees? There is already a fairly large Bangladeshi migrant worker population in Singapore already involved in the construction sector - the Rohingyas would easily find work in that community, they would not be sponging off the state but would be gainfully employed in that sector.
If Singapore is really not letting any new immigrants in, then fair enough - turn the Rohingyas away: but your gates are as wide open as possible, for anyone to wander in: from illiterate PRCs to Pinoys armed with no more than fake degrees. So I ask you: why not let the Rohingyas in as well? After all, looking at the quality of your new migrants (ref: PRC woman shitting in public), the PAP would let anyone in as long as they have a pulse. So why not the Rohingyas then? I would prefer the PAP letting them in rather than more disgusting PRCs.
Tsk tsk. Which was why I have basically not said anything about the Rohingya refugees. Our dear govt had said we are small and resource constraint as the reason. Unfortunately, they had lost the moral high ground since 2004 when they opened the flood gates to so many unskilled and semi skilled workers many of whom could hardly speak English. So the disagreement to the Rohingya's while logically sound on the surface, simply smack of inconsistency.
DeleteExactly. It simply smacks of inconsistency. So you'll gladly let in PRCs with no skills, no English and are not toilet trained (ref: PRC woman who shat in public at an MRT station and left a big pile of poo and a puddle of piss on the floor in the middle of the station) and how are they any better than the Rohingyas, who would probably just be assimilated into the Bangladeshi migrant worker community and work their butts off in the construction industry.
DeleteThat's why I say the PAP are a bunch of liars and that's not the worst part: Singaporeans are so fucking stupid in believing the lies of the PAP. And the PAP is probably thinking, "what a bunch of idiots, I don't even need to try too hard and they would believe anything, how bloody stupid are these Sinkies..."
Yes you have a point. But there is a fundamental difference between PRC, Bangladeshi workers etc, and Rohingya refugees. The refugees bring their entire families with them, while the latter are guests workers. They work a couple of years and go back. Also, unrelated but I believe most of the low skilled foreigners are here to do low skilled jobs. Fnb, retail, cleaners, delivery men, bus drivers etc. Basically things Singaporeans do not want to do. I dont know if you meant it or not but you gave me the impression that the act of letting in low skilled foreigners on its own is wrong, which is obviously not true. Yes, a sizable number of them cannot utter a word of English, and that bothers me a lot at times.
DeleteAlright to back to the Rohingya, it is simply impractical and cruel to expect their men to work as labourers and to use their meager pay to support their families, which are usually extremely large. Also, where are they going to live? HDB flats, the same ones that Singaporeans cannot afford? They could live in refugee shelters, or some other form of temporary accommodation, but how would that aid the long term goal of integrating them into society? What about healthcare? Education? Would their kids be able to cope, knowing many of them have never had any kind of education ever? If we are going to let these people in, I would want them to be like us, live with us, speak our language, be successful, independent and happy. I dont think most of these things are attainable, given the current situation.
Well guess what, all of those problems can be solved if the government pays. It definitely can. But will they? Of course not. The PAP may be a lot of things, but stupid isnt one of those things. Singapore is not a welfare state. Very little is spent on citizens. Imagine our government spending millions on people who are not Singaporean. It would be the final nail in the coffin for the PAP. No political party would dream of doing anything of such a nature. Its political suicide. It is probably easier for Europeans to accept the fact that the state spends money of the welfare of refugees because the state also spends huge amounts of money on locals. This concept does not exist here. Which is why I feel your criticism of SIngaporeans was a bit harsh. I've also noticed that many people here are calling for the refugees to be let in (with not much thought put into it though).
I would very much like to see and end to the whole Rohingya issue. That can be done by putting pressure on the Burmese government. Singapore never puts pressure on anyone. Not unilaterally at least. We can also patrol the 500km or so coastline of Myanmar and prevent these boats from leaving and taking the treacherous journey to Sg, indonesia or wherever. Thats definitely a lot easier than carrying out search and rescue missions in the strait of melacca.
OK allow me to respond to your points:
Delete1. Refugees are not automatically granted citizenship (or any kind of permanent residency status) - you seem to be unfamiliar with the way refugees are processed. Only those who can prove that they are genuinely fleeing persecution will be granted asylum - those who are merely deemed to be economic migrants (ie. escaping poverty, not persecution/danger) are rejected and sent back to where they came from. There is a compromise solution: whereby refugees are granted temporary asylum, where they are allowed to stay for 1 to 2 years and their case will be reviewed at the end of that to see if they are still facing persecution or if it is safe for them to return. So just because you allow these people to get off those sinking boats onto your land, it doesn't mean that you have to automatically give them citizenship - it doesn't work like that.
2. Many unskilled PRC migrant workers choose to settle in Singapore after working here for many years because life in Singapore is undoubtedly much better than in China and after working here for many years, they can apply for permanent residency. The same applies for other foreigners like Pinoys, Bangladeshis etc. Don't assume that they will go back - many do stay and become Singaporean if the opportunity presents itself. Would you want to go back to China if you were a migrant worker from some godforsaken armpit of China?
3. Is the act of letting in a large number of low-skilled or unskilled workers wrong? I am not questioning it - but at least allow the Rohingyas to do these unskilled jobs that Singaporeans don't want to do. How are the Rhoingyas any different from the migrant workers from places like China, India, Bangladesh or Vietnam?
4. Singapore has housed Vietnamese refugees back in the 1970s in basic accommodation - nobody is expecting the government to simply hand the Rohingyas keys to beautiful 5-room HDB flats, but there are always compromise solutions. These people came from total abject poverty and lived in horrific conditions - they would be satisfied with the kind of conditions that most migrant workers in Singapore have.
5. You cannot expect refugees to become totally assimilated within a few years - this is a process that takes many years and usually it is the next generation. I refer you to another post I did when I interviewed a refugee: http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/interview-with-refugee-from-isfahan-to.html Bahar's parents were Iranian refugees who ended up in Sweden, they are not well integrated but both Bahar and her sister are very Europeanized, fluent in Swedish and English, extremely highly educated and work in professional jobs. You are assuming the very worst of the children of refugees to build your defence on a 'worst case scenario' - but you only have to look at what has happened in other counties like the USA, Sweden, Germany etc where there are plenty of success stories of refugees who have established themselves very successfully in their new countries. Your 'worst case scenario' assumptions make you sound extremely racist in fact.
Delete6. The Singaporean government is so rich that it pays itself a hideous, obscene amount of money. If you can afford to pay Singaporean politicians more than president Obama, then you can afford to show some charity to the refugees. I'm not asking you to pay for it, I'm asking the PAP to pay for it.
7. Even without a welfare state in Singapore, the Rohingyas don't come looking for handouts. They just want to flee persecution. If you allow them to work even as manual labourers in the construction sector, they will work from dawn till dusk with a smile on their faces without uttering a word of complaint. You are assuming that these people are unable to fend for themselves and will depend on the tax payer to bail them out - you are wrong: these people are probably quite happy and able to fend for themselves, even if it means having a standard of living much lower than your average Singaporean. It is still far better than the conditions that they were fleeing.
8. The Singapore government is in bed with the military junta of Myanmar and ASEAN is totally useless is stopping the crisis. Another major problem is the way the human traffickers are exploiting the desire of the Rohingyas to leave Myanmar. The Burmese government needs to do something about the situation but they don't give a damn what happens as they're extremely corrupt.
9. You have conveniently ignored my point that the PAP still intends to grow the population to at least 6.9 million if not 10 million - that means there is still plenty of space for new migrants. Why can't Rhoingyas be a part of this mix of new migrants coming from all over Asia? If you'll let in PRCs who are not even toilet trained, by not the Rohingyas? Are you telling me that the PRC woman who shat in the middle of the MRT station is able to "be like us, live with us, speak our language, be successful, independent and happy"? By your standards, the PAP should have never let in most of these PRCs - you seem to set the bar extremely high for the Rohingyas whilst the PAP has set the bar extremely low for the PRCs. By that token, your argument is totally flawed because you're ignoring what the PAP is doing in this aspect. You're not the government, the PAP is.
10. What good would patrolling the coastline of Myanmar do? Say a Singaporean ship catches a boat load of Rohingyas trying to reach Indonesia - what are you going to do then? Make them turn around and go back to Myanmar? Then what? They will just keep trying - changing their routes to evade the patrols.
Talking about this Rohingya refugee issue, it reminds me of one thing. Does anyone ever realize that no one--absolutely NO ONE--has ever been granted asylum in Singapore from another country, while a number of people from Singapore have been granted asylum on account of various reasons? This is a telling thing about how Singapore actually treats its own citizens and other incoming people so to say: capitalism at its finest, insofar as you throw someone away on a 'hire-fire' basis if the person 'outlasts' usefulness to the country's values.
DeleteI cannot remember the person who said that the people who believed in the lies of the PAP and the people who believed in the lies of Kong Hee and City Harvest Church associates concerning the fraud case shared the same type of thinking. (Melissa, isn't she?) She struck the nail on its head when she made that point. This is a similar kind of reasoning with the way they reacted to Jolin Tsai's song. So a song about acceptance of someone else who has a different lifestyle and sexual orientation becomes an assault on morals, but they themselves--the ones sitting on the moral high horse--basically ousted themselves with the inconsistencies of inviting people from other countries who have no regards for public manners, moral or ethics, and would go to all lengths such as stealing, killing and whatever crimes--I exaggerate here, but is falsifying your credentials any better as a crime--to get what they want.
ReplyDeleteHi Kevin. It will be even more interesting to read the response from the MDA after all the news about their covert, censorship by stealth activities had been reported by overseas news media. They were basically force to respond. http://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/music/story/jolin-tsais-same-sex-marriage-music-video-not-banned-here-20150525.
DeleteThey said that it is not banned but they simply "advised" local media broadcasters that "they should not air the song and music video on channels that are freely accessed by younger viewers due to its mature content." So in essence, you can still sell DVDs or CDs of that song and MV but you cannot broadcast on any media that younger viewers can access. Of course they were totally silent on what it meant by "mature content" and totally oblivious that everyone can go access the MV online and on youtube - by the way, their advice to not broadcast (not ban!) has directed even more traffic to the MV the past few days.
Honestly, I am pretty indifferent to jolin Tsai's music or the MV in question but the MDA response is just such a PR fail that I am amazed they don't realise how foolish and incoherent they sounded. It is just plain "sia suay" (embarrassing) that a public officiating body can come up with such poorly thought out responses that scored an F grade for transparency.
Shane, it is very similar to what happened many years ago with Sammi Cheng's music video and song of "Fei nan fei nu" (not man, not woman), a song related loosely to a "Bodyguard" type of movie in which Sammi Cheng was the pop singer being hounded by some psychotic fan who was closely tied to the world of sleazy or dingy nightclubs, the gay clubbing scene in Hong Kong, and her bodyguard (enacted by Leon Lai) who had to infiltrate that scene to find out the identity of the psychotic killer. Malaysia applied the method of banning the MTV from broadcast on their televisions channels, but you can virtually access the movie in cinema theaters, listen to the song on CDs which are sold legally, and then go online to watch the MTV for all you want! Singapore is using the same PR method (an epic fail at that)......
DeleteHi Kev, but at least Malaysia was openly declaring it. MDA went about it in stealth mode and was forced to declare publicly after their "advisory" was leaked by news media in HK and Taiwan. Last year, they quietly informed Chang Hui Mei's (A Mei) manager that she could not perform the gay affirming song "Rainbow". Honestly if they want to "advise", then do so publicly, not by hiding behind vague statements and opacity. Sure, if they think all sexually explicit scenes need to be cut from general broadcast, they can go ahead but this is blatantly not the case in Singapore. Just look at pictures in FHM, HerWorld. Are kissing scenes on TV in Singapore being excised? The double standards which MDA is applying clearly showed that their objection is not sexually explicit scenes or kissing per se. Rather, who is doing the kissing is the issue. And in this internet age, what does their "advice" (not ban!) achieve? Those who are interested in seeing it will youtube it and those who are indifferent will just not see it even if shown on prime time TV. Lesbians and gay men are not interested in turning people homosexual but homophobes like MDA appear to be keen on turning others homophobic by "protecting" the public from the existence of homosexuality. Rather than paving the way towards enlightenment, censorship by stealth simply promotes more ignorance and does nothing to foster a more inclusive society. Guess my plan to uproot in 2016 has been further reaffirmed.
Delete