Policies against foreigners to appease Singaporeans
-
All these so-called changes or .... to appease locals is a big BLUFF. It is to simply gain votes. After the elections, they will revert back to their ways and squeeze more out of us.
Transparency, accountability is alien and always will remain so in any country with a one-party system. Ours is no exception and if there is any - it is they have been hoodwinking us for much too long that they are serving the people.
Local media - sadly in all its forms n shapes are utterly useless and need i say more as to what is going on.
wake up and as for the so-called foreigners - they are merely migratory birds. That is the reality.
As such vote and vote wisely otherwise it is the same old shit! It is voting for change and a two-party or multi-party system is much better than what is the state of affairs now. Transparency, accountablity possibly with a two - party or multi-party.
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
All these so-called changes or .... to appease locals is a big BLUFF. It is to simply gain votes. After the elections, they will revert back to their ways and squeeze more out of us.
Transparency, accountability is alien and always will remain so in any country with a one-party system. Ours is no exception and if there is any - it is they have been hoodwinking us for much too long that they are serving the people.
Local media - sadly in all its forms n shapes are utterly useless and need i say more as to what is going on.
wake up and as for the so-called foreigners - they are merely migratory birds. That is the reality.
As such vote and vote wisely otherwise it is the same old shit! It is voting for change and a two-party or multi-party system is much better than what is the state of affairs now. Transparency, accountablity possibly with a two - party or multi-party.
Yeah, all the good news always comes out before the elections.
After elections, it's back to the same old story.
People need to remind themselves what happened after the previous election (the past 3 years) to foresee what will happen after this coming election.
-
视频—æ–°åŠ å�¡é¤�馆：新移民æœ�务生和本地食客起争执
http://www.nanyangpost.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=142993
http://www.youtube.com/user/alvin8228
Please listen and comment.NOTE: POST ALREADY, BUT MIA! -
The recent move by the Ministry of Education to give an additional ballot to Singapore citizens in application for primary school places has won it much public approval and support.
In the past, PRs are able to compete directly with Singapore citizens for place via the Phase 1C scheme which has caused alot of resentment and anger on the ground.
The state media is quick to praise the government for making a clearer distinction between citizens and PRs without asking the fundamental question on why PRs are allowed to compete with citizens for coveted places in schools in the first place.
The additional ballot only gives Singaporeans a higher chance of getting into a school of their choice, but is likely to be diluted with the increasing number of PRs and new citizens.
So long as the government’s underlying liberal immigration policy remains unchanged, Singaporeans will forever have to fight with these newcomers for school places.
According to the Ministry of Home Affairs, there are over 90,000 PRs and 20,000 new citizens last year. Given that there are few good schools to go around, the demand is going to far exceed the supply soon.
To the Singaporean who has to compete with more and more PRs, an extra ballot is nothing more than scant consolation. If one still fail to ballot for a place, then one has to blame providence and not the government.
All primary schools are funded directly by taxpayers under the Ministry of Education. Since they are public institutions, their doors should be opened only to Singapore citizens.
The Minister of Education is an elected official. He should take care of the interests of the voters first and not PRs who do not have a stake in the country.
PRs can be allocated left-over places only after Singaporeans have made their pick. The best schools such as Raffles Girls Primary School, Nanyang Primary and Roseyth Primary should be reserved solely for citizens.
The children of PRs may not be settling down in Singapore after all. They may pack their bags and return to their homelands or study overseas when they reach 18 years of age. They should not deprive locals of chances to pursue a quality education in a school of their choice.
Besides, there are international schools which can cater to the needs of the PRs and they provide an education on par with Singapore schools.
Granted that PRs pay taxes as well, but they should not forget that they are here for economic opportunities in the first place and they should be thankful that Singapore is generous enough to accept them.
If they truly want their children to enjoy a first world education in Singapore, then they must be prepared to take up Singapore citizenship and sink their roots down here.
Perhaps the new rule should be applied to differentiate between old and new citizens as suggested earlier by a writer to the Straits Times Forum.
Singapore men has to sacrifice two most productive years of their lives to serve the nation where they are exposed to all sorts of risks and dangers.
Upon the completion of National Service, they still have a 13-year reservist obligation to fulfil. Surely it is not too much to ask the state to grant preferential treatment to their children?
The new immigrants who flock to Singapore are enjoying the fruits of our National Servicemen without having to pay the price. As such, their children should not be entitled to the same rights and privileges as NSmen.
NSmen are given an income tax exemption of $3,000 in recognition of their contributions to the nation. Why not extend this to primary school application as well?
The superficial changes introduced by MOE are hardly enough to make a “clearer distinction” between citizens and PRs which should be made not only more acute but extended to differentiate between old and new citizens as well.
Singapore citizens should not be competing with PRs for primary school places at all which is hardly heard of in the rest of the world.
We propose that MOE make the following changes to better reflect the contributions of NSmen and Singapore citizens:
1. Two ballots for citizens whose fathers have served National Service.
2. One ballot for citizens who fathers did not serve National Service.
3. PRs are only allowed to ballot only for left-over places in selected neighborhood primary schools after Singaporeans have taken their pick.
Not only will it appease rising disaffection and angst on the ground among citizens that they have been unfairly treated by the government, it will also give PRs more incentive to take up Singapore citizenship.