http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood

This paragraph could be describing Singapore instead of the UK:

/// … For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions. ///

More good ppl need to walk the talk and fight for the next ….

Ideas cannot be destroyed but muscle have power …..

Go Molly go …..

Examples:

TCH: our policies are for the benefits for Singaporeans (truth)

The whole truth: the 0.01% of Singaporean elites who are beneficiaries of plutocracy, nomenklatura and amakudari.

TCH: As a citizen in 2030, you will have good quality jobs and opportunities, have access to services to support your family needs, and enjoy a high quality living environment.

The whole truth: That citizen in 2030 is currently a citizen in China, India, US, UK or Timbuktu. They will become citizen by 2030, or way before 2030.

TCH: The Singaporean core will be 55% by 2030.

The whole truth: Those 55% so-called Singaporeans include the new citizens, instant citizens and GIP citizens. The actual true blue born-and-bred-in-Singapore core will be less than half (if we are not already there).

My response is emotional and I make no excuses for it. I am concerned about the quality of life and the cost of living for ordinary citizens like myself.

Back in 1991, when the population was 3.1 million, the planning parameter was four million and this figure was projected to be reached by 2010.

In 2000, when the population was four million, the figure of 5.5 million was used in the Concept Plan review as an estimate for the total population over the next 40 to 50 years.

Then National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan said worries that foreigners would swamp Singapore were baseless because the 5.5 million figure was not a target but an estimate for long-term planning purposes.

It will take a much shorter time than 40 years to reach the projected 5.5 million figure – the population last year stood at 5.3 million.

The latest White Paper projects a population of 6.9 million by 2030.

National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan has stressed that the projection is not a forecast or a target, but a “worst-case scenario”.

Being part of the ageing population, I worry if I will still be able to live in my small HDB flat that I bought as a retirement home some 15 years ago.

A few years ago, my friend, who is my age and suffering from Alzheimer’s, was relocated from the HDB flat she had been living in for almost 20 years.

The older flat was taken over by the HDB for redevelopment. She is not the only one to suffer the consequences of dislocation at her age.

I understand that 90 per cent of our population has been relocated and displaced since independence. I am grateful that my estate has not suffered the same fate as my friend’s.

But Singaporeans have lived in a permanent state of upheaval, both physical and emotional, since independence.

So I am not comforted by the Prime Minister’s assurance that he is “confident that Singapore will continue to offer a good quality living environment, and be one of the most liveable cities in the world” (“Plan to grow space for rising population”; last Friday).

What exactly does he mean by a “good quality living environment”?

Constance Singam (Ms)

I thought this letter from Ms Singam was very good