As expected this discourse will be boh liau, with
additiional issues introduced. I will be brief.
Which topic were you keeping to ?
What has my "scorn for LKY and
his party" to do with your reiterated stand ?
Or is this a sly allusion to elevating your
status to being equal with LKY - hence qualifying for my
scorn in not registering your reiterated stand ?
This remark shows your comprehension ability. Also your
memory must be failing as you can't remember what you asked me in
the previous posts about my stand.
If statements can be absurd - can
they be true ?
If not true, should absurd statements not be false then
?
Regretably, in countries that are consistently manipulated
by autocrats - even false statements can be made to be reasonable,
or to be even palatably acceptable to those who are ignorant
to the facts - or continuously fed with "half-truth".
Can your statement offered for public consumption not be
false ?
Your premise goes not true = false is too simplistic and
is formulated for your audience here.
True and false are comparision against existing
records. A match would be a true return, and a mismatch
would be a false return.
You only have to find my statement agreeable of
disagreeable.
What possibly can give you the idea that the details of
the heavy dependence on foreign labor by Middle-eastern
countries - is privy to yours truly alone ?
Was the knowledge of the fact - that Middle-eastern
countries can be held ransom to the massive foreign labor - the
motivation for the PAP to make the statement that is now the title
of this thread ?
If your position is true - it is remarkable that the PAP has now
fallen backward to a "policy of appeasement" - to make
foreigners secure so as to serve Singapore in ever larger numbers
despite the fact that they can hold Singapore's Economy to
ransom by sudden withdrawal of their services in one form or
another.
Can this make Singapore more resillient and achieve the ideals
of Total Defence - or was that another PAP propaganda that has
served its time and no longer relevant and inconvenient to the new
real circumstances ?
This again shows up you comprehension ability. Did I say
knowledge is privy to me only?
And also your If your
position is true........ gobble de gook. How did you arrive at the notion
that the PAP has fallen backward ot a policy of appeasement.
Was there a previous policy? Perhaps you know and have it in your
vast archive.
This passage looks good, but it is
an IF conjured by you to confuse the issue.
The fact that horror stories exist can only be attributed to
the haphazard and poorly thought out policies being implemented
without the safeguards being put in place before
implementation.
Has this not been the characteristic manner in which the PAP
Government work even with policies and legislations made towards
governing Singaporeans ?
The worker that was injured and thrown into a drain, and
other such dispicable acts, was the work of unscrupulous
employers, not the government.There are already procedures in
place, for these workers to work only in their designated
workplace, so that they would not be exploited to work or multiple
employers.
If you are as knowledgeable as you claim to be
with the foregin labor situation in the Middle-eastern
countries - can it be assumed that you can
be aware that the citizens of those Middle-eastern
countries named are well looked after by the respective governments
- in ways unheard and unseen in Singapore ?
The foreign workers - that migrate to those Middle-eastern
countries - are there for short-termed contract, and do not
compete with the locals for jobs, nor do their presence result
in the wages being suppressed for the local citizens, nor
do they compete for the resources and infrastructures
built to benefit the local citizens.
Did you miss out also the national policies that change
with each change of the government from which these
foreign labor come from ?
I did not claim to be knowledgeable about ME countries.
Again this is characteristic of you to "Put words into my
mouth".
But nevertheless, I find this passage informative. Yes I missed
out change of government as one of the possible reason for an
exodus.
Does the Singapore Government know about the many dangers
posed ?
Hardly, considering the typical rush to implement a poorly
thought out policy, and then tinker with it as "works in progress"
- which explains for the flip-flop policy changes over the last
decade, and the many belated admissions even by MM LKY to past
policies viewed with hind-sight.
One danger that did not dawn on the Singapore Government is that
with so much emphasis on the foreign workers - it was
not obvious that it is the Singaporeans bearing the brunt of
all the negative effects of a misguided policy.
Singaporeans are now seeing the belated actions being
taken to remedy the situation - and done so only with the view of
the up-coming General Election.
This is you expressing your view, I will have no quarrel
that.
It is not a surprise that you will emphasise
"to take all the
opportunity of the present circumstances to move ahead and to
progress as much as possible" - when you have not been able
to see the pitfall suffered by Singaporeans, which the present PAP
Government recognised belatedly only because of the upcoming
Elections.
It is also obvious that your position is a by-product of the
PAP's characteristic ways of rushing out the policies no matter the
cost, fixing it as 'works in progress', dropping it quietly when
the policy is a failure without any further accountability to
the social, economic and financial costs incurred.
You are a product of all the excesses that was made
possible from the successes accumulated by the early
generations that toiled, and have no idea as to how to conserve and
focus on what we can do best.
I am a by product of the PAP rule, ironically you and all
of us are by products of PAP rule. What we have today is the result
of PAP rule. We may have been better off, or worse off, if
Singapore's political history has been different. We will never
know for sure. Just being a critic of all the PAP's policiey
does not mean one is not a by product of PAP's rule.
Is there any surprises left in the callous attitude to the
loss of $100 Billion - without any further squeak by all concerned,
and the continued pseudo-bravado with the more excesses in new
foreign investments ?
It is not smart to work on a high speed train while at the
same time laying tracks ahead as you plan its next
course.
Can the high speed train work any faster, when you are uncertain
what lies ahead, even as you have no clue as what the plan
should be as to where you intend to lead the tracks
to ?
Not knowing what the meaning of the word "fear" - does
not necessarily mean that one is brave, it merely show that one is
either ignorant of the language used, or plain dumb.
The billions lost, yes, and this would bring this exchange to no
end. It would be a digression.
Rest are good philosophical material.
PS: Sorry about the italics, after a while I can't get the whole
paragraph to be in italics.
