Monthly Archives: May 2012

Researchers had asked this question involving 1001 Singapore-born citizens and 1000 foreign-born naturalised citizens. The results? 69% of Singapore-born citizens agreed that it was a key factor that determined “Singaporeaness” whereas only 43% of foreign-born naturalised citizens surveyed agreed. The study also found that citizens in the study who were less receptive and inclusive are better educated, and live in bigger and more expensive housing.

At a parent’s point of view, I truly understand why foreign-born naturalised citizens do not want their sons to go through the hardship of National Service (especially the higher educated and richer ones) but then again, I believed Singapore-born citizens also do not want the same for their sons. But Singapore-born citizens do not have a choice because NS is mandatory to all men unless they are proven to be unfit medically. So why do foreign-born naturalised citizens have the privilege to be exempted from NS (unfair)?

I am not sure how many new immigrants are converted to citizens every year but assuming that the figure is quite significant (since the influx of immigrants are in millions over these years), it seem insufficient and imbalance to have just Singapore-born citizens’ sons to serve NS, protect our country and people? Don’t forget they have to protect the additional foreign-born naturalised citizens and their sons too.

By exempting from NS, it also means the foreign-born naturalised citizens’ sons are able to start their tertiary education and work life earlier as compared to our Singapore-born citizens’ sons who have to serve NS for two years. Our Singapore-born citizens’ sons lose their competitiveness against the foreign-born citizens’ sons (as they are lagging behind) because they took up the duty to protect our country and people (which includes the foreign-born naturalised citizens)! Isn’t this ironic?

So in my opinion, if it is mandatory for Singapore-born citizens’ sons to serve NS, the same should apply to foreign-born naturalised citizens’ sons as they are also Singaporeans (in substance) who have a duty to protect the country and it’s people (including their own family here in Singapore).

How do we make this workable?

It is not compulsory now for foreign-born naturalised citizens to convert their young children into Singapore citizens (if they were born overseas before their parents became Singapore citizens). Maybe we should have this criteria included when parents want to take up Singapore citizenship. We can make this criteria compulsory for children below 18 years old who are not of a legal age yet and have relocated to Singapore together with their parents. Anyway, these children who will be brought up and educated in Singapore should feel more Singaporean than being a citizen of the country they are born in? These foreign-born naturalised citizens’ sons who became Singapore citizens together with their parents will then have to serve NS together with our Singapore-born citizens’ sons.

Some immigrants may wait till their sons pass 18 years of age (to avoid having to serve NS) before taking up Singapore citizenship but this will also mean they do not enjoy the benefits of holding a Singapore citizenship earlier. It’s a lose-lose situation here so I believe no one will want to do this.

PRs are not mentioned here because they still hold a foreign citizenship and therefore not considered Singapore citizens, and PRs do not enjoy the same benefits as Singapore citizens. It will be difficult to enforce mandatory NS on PRs since they can easily give up their PR status and return to the country where they hold citizenship. But it is not easy to renounce existing citizenship and apply for a new citizenship elsewhere. So there must be a distinguished difference between the benefits of a holding PR and a Singapore citizenship to attract more immigrants to take up citizenships.




Came across a mass recruitment ad from NTUC Fairprice looking for cashiers, storemen, sales promoters and fish cutters from China to work in Singapore.

Looking at the salary and benefits provided, it seems like a good deal. Apart from a reasonable pay, the employee receive a $200 monthly housing allowance and 14 days annual leave (which is similar to an executive)!

The Singapore government has been encouraging senior citizens to continue working beyond retirement age and the lower educated workers to upgrade their skills so why are priorities not given to them? See link: NTUC U Portal – Re-employment of older workers

I believed trainings will be given to the chinese candidates before they come over to Singapore to work, then why can’t we train the lower educated local citizens to fit into the jobs? The lower educated workers are constantly encouraged to upgrade their skills but how can they do that if employers do not give them a chance?

Furthermore, isn’t NTUC a government related body and hence should take care of local citizens first? Singapore government has been asking organisations to give job priorities to local citizens but did they practice what they preach?

NTUC Fairprice may argue that no Singaporeans want to be cashiers, storemen, sales promoters and fish cutters but this reason sound weak. These jobs are not the typical tough (physical) and dirty jobs that locals shunned. And indeed, NTUC’s response to the mass recruitment in China is because they could not fill these positions in Singapore!? See link: NTUC’s response to the mass recruitment ad in China

Is this what we call “Say One Thing, Do Another Thing”?


Much hype have been going on about the latest fatal Ferrari accident that had claimed 3 lifes. Most media articles and netizen comments evolve around who are the people involved (their life stories) and who should be blamed for this fatal accident.

What’s done been done so I think rather than going on and on about the nationality of the Ferrari driver, the identity of his female passenger (whether she’s a student or a nightclub hostess) and criticising the Ferrari driver’s family for not providing any condolences to the victims’ families, why don’t we think of how to prevent such tragedies again.

So how did this fatal accident occur? It has been reported that the Ferrari driver was intoxicated and was driving at a speed around 207km/hr! Common sense will tell us that this is an accident waiting to happen!

So how can we prevent this from happening again? We already have strict laws on drink driving, offenders are jailed and suspended from driving. But for speeding, offenders are punished merely by demerit points and how much points will be deducted depends on how much has been exceeded against the speed limit of the vehicle and road.

But why are we allowing supercars that can go up to 335km/hr on our roads if the maximum speed limit on our expressways is only around 90-100km/hr? Nobody should drive up to that kind of speed if it’s not allowed anywhere anytime?

I am not suggesting to ban supercars because people should still have a choice on the cars they want to buy and drive if they can afford. However, shouldn’t there be a law to modify the maximum speed of cars to comply with local speed limit? A supercar with a maximum speed of 335km/hr should be driven by a licenced racecar driver on a race track and not ordinary people on the roads. Surely we can get the manufacturers to modify the maximum speed before importing to Singapore? If we can have a movie censorship board to make film makers remove scenes that are unacceptable to local viewership, why can’t we have a car censorship board to make car manufacturers’ modify parts or specs that are unacceptable on local roads?

Nobody can speed if let’s say the vehicle’s maximum speed is 100km/hr? Our traffic police has one lesser crime to catch? And definitely lesser lifes lost caused by speeding?

I came across this moneylender shop at a HDB void deck in my neighbourhood few days ago. How do I know it’s a moneylender business even though it’s closed? Guess it’s obvious from the company name?

I understand that all moneylending businesses have to apply for a licence to operate as one and I assume this shop at my neighbourhood is a legal one, even though this is the first time I saw such shop? I had thought we would normally loan from banks and financial institutions. Borrowing from loanshark is illegal!

What I felt inadequate is the location of the moneylender shop, it was located right in our neighbourhood at a HDB void deck which is easily accessible by residents. Shouldn’t moneylending businesses be located in the business or commercial district?

The worrying part is if loan becomes so easily accessible, will it encourage gambling and other bad habits?

I personally feel that shops that are allowed to operate at residential area should be those that will bring convenience to residents’ daily needs and activities, such as minimarts, eateries, hair salons, clinics.. So can we continue to keep our neighbourhood simple?



I am actually a little confuse when our Ministers said Singapore need more immigrants because the locals did not reproduce enough? I am confuse on the timing on when we need more immigrants.

Singapore’s population has grown by millions over these years and the immigrants who came are around my age (30+). So does this means that it was our parents’ generation that did not reproduce enough? However during my parents time when they are at the reproduction age, there is a “Stop At Two” policy and having more than 2 children are penalised. So if it is true that our parents’ generation did not reproduce enough, are we saying the “Stop At Two” policy was a MISTAKE?

If our Ministers are saying that our current generation did not reproduce enough and in 20-30 years time, there will not be enough young ppl to support the old ppl like us, then shouldn’t we get in more immigrants 20-30 years later and not now? The immigrants that comes in now will grow old too and won’t they increase the no. of old ppl 20-30 years later and worse if they also did not reproduce enough?

The timing of the influx of immigrants just doesn’t seem right.