position paper

short rant.

while i may strike some as being, occasionally xenophobic and atavistically protective, to the point of being sometimes racist, of what it means to be "Singaporean", i'd like to take a few cues from the oft-despised Americans, who have successfully integrated diverse immigrants from beyond the traditional base of Europeans.

i think why there is a groundswell of popular discontent against "foreigners" in Singapore is that many of them are but transient workers who take up PR-ship, enjoy many of its privileges, but get around to actually being "Singaporean" and setting up roots here. many of them maintain links to their motherland of have ambitions to use this place as a stepping stone to "first-rate" countries like (almost uniformly among these so-called "Singaporeans") the USA, Canada, the UK or Australia.

i personally don't have a problem with "diversifying" beyond the usual base of (southern) Chinese, Malays and (southern) Indians. hell, i wouldn't mind being in a trench with a white devil during NS or reservist. maybe they can teach me some exotic sounding swear words as well.

but what i resent are foreigners that come in, get all the jobs, but do not participate in institutions that define national identity like serving NS, complaining, food, Singlish (which the gahmen is unwisely still trying to eradicate), kiasuism, government criticism and retaining some of that homely rural generosity, hard work and common sense (the "kampung" spirit) which helped our nation be what it is today.

"bloody ang moh. come here, take my job, take my woman, take my seat on the MRT train."

i'm not afraid of out-competing or being out-competed by such types, but it matters a lot what they give to the society in return, rather than veni, vidi and vici-ing.