I don't propose to be always right in my stands or opinions, and are always willing to admit mistakes or a different view.
Now, there is a comment to my post: Foreigners, and the declining birth rate in Singapore. Normally I would reply inline, but the reply for this would be lengthy, and so I felt that it should instead be turned into a blog post.
The comment is as follows:
"And I am definitely not saying that getting rid of foreigners would solve our problems. Remember, our ancestors were foreigners once too. If they had been rejected, we would not be here..."
You siao ah or orang bodoh? Our ancestors are pioneers of Singapore. What do you mean if they have been rejected. Back then, Singapore is a no-man land. Anybody can come. Put it this way, without our ancestors, there are no Singapore too. Siao.
There are two points in there that I would like to reply to. First off, I totally agree that Singapore is a result of the hard work our ancestors had put in. Without them, Singapore could not be what it is now (although some might argue of 'what if' another group come, but that is not what I want to address now).
So yes, we had to give them the respect they are due. Whatever we have now, would not be possible without them. Respect your elders, please. They had labored long and hard to help give us what we have. I totally agree with the person on that.
But, that does not imply that, as descendants, we are entitled to special privileges and entitlements. To be fair, the commenter did not imply anything to that extend, but I felt a need to state my stand.
Just because our parents are great, does not imply we are great immediately. Just because our parents are respected, does not mean that the others must respect us, regardless of what we do. Respect is earned. Success requires hard work. Opportunities should be given to those who worked hard for it. Forgiveness should be given to only those who are truly repentant.
Disagree with that stand? Then perhaps you like a world where respect is given because you are born in the right family. Things had to succeed because you are born in the right family. Opportunities should be given only to those who are born in the right family. Forgiveness should be given because you are born in the right family.
Ignore, for a while, what you feel this world is like. Be it the first option above, or the second. If you had to persist in thinking the second opinion is what this world should be and obey, then we are on different stand. I am definitely on the first option, regardless of how this world is now.
So, while you are on the second option, you might be better off living in a place where they still had kings or dictatorships. They could rule badly, or be tyranny. Too bad, because they are born in that position. You, if being unlucky to be born in the suffering end, will never have a chance for a better life. Because you do not deserve it, just simply because you are born in the 'wrong' family.
Again, I stress that that was not what the commentor said nor imply, just a seperate issue that I thought up of when I read the comment.
Now, the part on the comment that I disagree on is this. Back then, Singapore is a no-man land.
Back then? How far back are we talking about? As far as I know, Sir Stamford Raffles discovered the island of Singapore in 1819 (or remember, if I'm wrong I'm really sorry about that, I forgot most of my history lessons, and yes, you can shame me all on how lousy a Singaporean I am). There were natives living on this island when he was here. To the natives, Raffles IS a foreigner. Along with all those he brought.
Or are we talking furthur back? Even before the people Sir Stamford Raffles met? Well there seemed to be some records of settlements tracing back to 2nd century AD, with the island known as temask. So, perhaps the no-man land was referring to before that?
My point here is, to call this island no-man land is to deny that the original natives here. Denying that this land had belonged to a group of people. And when we think down that line, we become nothing but invaders.
But that was not what happened. Sir Stamford Raffles acknowledged that this land had belonged to the natives. And the natives had every right to reject anyone. And Sir Stamford Raffles persuaded and signed an agreement with them, to turn this island into a critical port of call in the south east asia. The natives allowed the foreigners in.
Again, when William Farquhar was in charge of the colony, he could, again, chose to enforce who comes and who does not. Disregard the fact that it is in their best interest to allow anyone to come so that it could grow, it is again, a matter of choice. He had every power and right to reject entry to anyone. Once again, hardly, what one would call 'no-man' land.
If, Sir Stamford Raffles was to call this island 'no-man' land and simply settled down, the natives would be extremely unhappy. The results could be bloody. We had to look no further than america, who had had long bloody wars with the native indians. Look into Africa too. Early colonization efforts were resisted. Again, a case of the natives rejecting the foreigners. The foreign powers probably think of it as 'no-man' land too. After all, the foreign powers were mostly european, and only see each other countries as people who could 'own' land.
Sure, one could argue that, in the long run, the people in the countries had benefited. But personally, I felt that to be too presumptuous an opinion. Every person should be given the freedom to choose what they want. They could be persuaded to change their mind. Nothing should be imposed on them. If we are to go down that road, that to think one could impose a 'better life' to another without a person's consent, we are going down to a path of danger.
Just imagine. I could cut your left arm off, because I am convinced that if you only have your right arm, you would be a more efficient worker. Nope, I don't need your consent. I believe that this is really a better life for you.
See where that leads us eventually?
Again, to think that this island was 'no-man' land, and anybody could come is not doing justice to the natives who were already here. And they were good enough to not reject the foreigners.
These are just my belief. I could not force nor impose this on you. I could only persuade you. These are my views. They need not be yours. If anyone still disagree after I state my view, then prove your case. I am willing to listen. And willing to agree as long as it is logical, which I had already proved by agreeing to the point on how our ancestors had helped to build this nation.
Posts
