Wow, it's been awhile! Happy new year y'all!
To the title of this post, what sparked my thoughts was a dire (future inevitable) problem of Singapore. A country where its population, the key resource to a healthy social economic climate, could be dwindling in the near future. Already the locals aren't very happy with the government's decision to import foreign workers to fill up vacancies - you watched Singaporean football team in action? Or Singaporeans in the Olympics? Well, um. Sorry to break your heart, but they aren't exactly Singaporean.
Anyway, back to my contention point. So citizens are against importing 'foreign workers' and government in dilemma because citizens are not producing little citizens enough and/or quick enough. I guess the real implication here, is the very real possibility for a country to lose its identity once overcrowded by foreigners over nationals. In the case of Dubai where locals make up only 2% of the population, it is hardly a destination that's culturally rich. This sense of identity is the very same cause for many wars - whose land does this belong to? And for those who reside in this land - whose moral codes and conducts should they follow? Ask any Malaysians and you get mixed response.
But think about this for one second. What if we treat a 'country' like any other 'product' or 'brand' where we understand the importance of keeping fundamental values but at the same time keeping up with the evolution of people's needs? Does Singapore need to be all Chinese Singaporeans? Will the fundamental values of governing parties and constitution change if let say Australians are now the new Singaporeans? How much does one attach their identity to a country? If we all believe in the same thing, wouldn't that makes us in some ways, many forbid, the same nationality? Because we invest the same interest in a certain political party and agree on the same constitution of a certain governed area?
Being born in one part of the world and not another, and then given a certain identity is to me no more than a practical logistic reason for crowd-control and to some extent, exert 'fairness'. Otherwise, it's pure luck. An Indian boy born in India or in the UK still has Indian blood running in him. But his opportunity and what he believes thereafter, differs widely. And clearly, he has no say in that. Well, not until he decides to risk a boatride to a better life elsewhere.
Now what if... what if we loosen our grip on formality and for once, view the situation from the perspective of humanity? Is a country not just a geographical divide of what's mine and what's yours? True human rights include the right to create equal opportunity for yourself like everyone else. But what if the grass is really greener on the other side? Face it, getting to the other side is at the end of the day, a luxury reserved for those who can afford it. There's no getting to the other side for billions and billions of other people. And that's the truth. Why let geographical circumstances decide the fate of humanity?
To the title of this post, what sparked my thoughts was a dire (future inevitable) problem of Singapore. A country where its population, the key resource to a healthy social economic climate, could be dwindling in the near future. Already the locals aren't very happy with the government's decision to import foreign workers to fill up vacancies - you watched Singaporean football team in action? Or Singaporeans in the Olympics? Well, um. Sorry to break your heart, but they aren't exactly Singaporean.
Anyway, back to my contention point. So citizens are against importing 'foreign workers' and government in dilemma because citizens are not producing little citizens enough and/or quick enough. I guess the real implication here, is the very real possibility for a country to lose its identity once overcrowded by foreigners over nationals. In the case of Dubai where locals make up only 2% of the population, it is hardly a destination that's culturally rich. This sense of identity is the very same cause for many wars - whose land does this belong to? And for those who reside in this land - whose moral codes and conducts should they follow? Ask any Malaysians and you get mixed response.
But think about this for one second. What if we treat a 'country' like any other 'product' or 'brand' where we understand the importance of keeping fundamental values but at the same time keeping up with the evolution of people's needs? Does Singapore need to be all Chinese Singaporeans? Will the fundamental values of governing parties and constitution change if let say Australians are now the new Singaporeans? How much does one attach their identity to a country? If we all believe in the same thing, wouldn't that makes us in some ways, many forbid, the same nationality? Because we invest the same interest in a certain political party and agree on the same constitution of a certain governed area?
Being born in one part of the world and not another, and then given a certain identity is to me no more than a practical logistic reason for crowd-control and to some extent, exert 'fairness'. Otherwise, it's pure luck. An Indian boy born in India or in the UK still has Indian blood running in him. But his opportunity and what he believes thereafter, differs widely. And clearly, he has no say in that. Well, not until he decides to risk a boatride to a better life elsewhere.
Now what if... what if we loosen our grip on formality and for once, view the situation from the perspective of humanity? Is a country not just a geographical divide of what's mine and what's yours? True human rights include the right to create equal opportunity for yourself like everyone else. But what if the grass is really greener on the other side? Face it, getting to the other side is at the end of the day, a luxury reserved for those who can afford it. There's no getting to the other side for billions and billions of other people. And that's the truth. Why let geographical circumstances decide the fate of humanity?
via 
Posts
