Jump to content

Docno

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    3,198
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Docno

  1. 9 hours ago, SEtonal said:

    Singapore awards citizenship and  permanent residency based on race in order to maintain a resident population of approximately 75% ethnic Chinese, 15% ethnic Malay, 7% ethnic Indian, and 3% other.  So yes, it is easier for Chinese to become permanent residents.

    Yeah, we all suspect that but I don't think that the Singapore government has ever publicly admitted that race place a role in the citizenship process. It would not be acceptable to the Malay and Indian minorities for the government to be explicitly trying preserve the Chinese majority status (which they do because their birthrate is so low compared to the other two). When you are rejected for citizenship (or PR), there is never an explanation nor do any official websites list the criteria you must meet. I have an American friend who has been in Singapore for 30 years, is a PR, ran a consultancy, still has a good income, has a Vietnamese wife and two kids (including a boy who would be eligible for national military service). He has been rejected for citizenship three times and can't even get a dependents pass for his wife. Another friend, European, in his 40s, single, (sort of) Muslim, university prof, in Singapore for 10 years... obtained citizenship on his first attempt. I can guess the factors, but it's only guesswork

  2. 2 hours ago, EricTh said:

    True, it is easier to get PR in Singapore.

     

    But problem with Singapore is that you have to live in those crowded small government flats (with nasty neighbours) and Singaporeans are known for being demanding and strict. Not a good place for retirement.

    Not sure where people get their info from. Lived in Singapore for 20 years, 15 years as PR. Never lived in one of those 'crowded small government flats'. In fact, I'm not allowed to purchase an HDB flat and there are quotas limiting how many foreigners (including PRs) can rent such flats. I've only ever lived in condos and I don't know anyone renting an HDB flat (they are government subsidised flats designed to help Singaporeans own their homes). The problem is not what you say, it's that everything is so damn expensive … and crowded. Not a place to relax. Would be like moving to Manhattan to retire.

    p.s. it may be 'easier' to get PR in Singapore than Thailand--I'm not sure--but it's very hard these days 

    • Thanks 2
  3. Hmmm... Singapore has been working hard on this since early on. Almost complete lockdown now. They've had about 1600 cases in total, with 7 deaths. Well over 100 new cases a day for the past couple of weeks. And I'm supposed to believe Thailand, with a much bigger population, has already managed to bring the new cases down to about 50 a day? Tip of the iceberg, I say...   

    • Sad 1
  4. 20 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

    Let us wait, and see if this story has some validity. Could be a Smollett kind of deal. Or there could have been some sort of provocation. Or it could be real. If it is real, let us hope they catch this guy and lock him up. There is no place for this kind of thing here. 

    If this is a Smollett-type case, he's a more convincing actor than the former Empire star. This student was covered in blood and had to be sent to hospital for his injuries (including, presumably, to the back of his head). Smollett was walking about with a rope around his neck. A little different...  

  5. 3 hours ago, webfact said:

    This was not as bad as countries like Brazil, the USA and India, said the media.

    This statement is misleading.

     

    The slide referred to doesn't make the assertion that 'Thailand is not so bad as these other places'. It simply lists the supposed top three countries in terms of gun violence. It may not be excuse-making, as some of the sensitive Americans here have assumed. Just as likely, it's also intended to give some perspective to the numbers. If I tell you that alcohol consumption in Thailand is about 8.3l per person annually. You may not know if that is high or low. If I also tell you it's 12.2l for both Australia and France, and 15.1l in Russia, you have better idea of what the stat for Thailand means.     

  6. 1 hour ago, LomSak27 said:

    Playbook tactic #1 If it is bad, try and drag the USA into it. However  .. 

     

    In 2016 Thailand's rate of violent gun-related deaths stood at 4.45 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants. In comparison, that of the Philippines was 7.42; the US, 3.85; Cambodia, 0.96; Myanmar, 0.56; Malaysia, 0.46; Indonesia, 0.10; and Singapore, 0.03.

     

    Coconuts had this story on TV a couple years back back

     

    NPR ran the data from the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation after the recent mass shootings in California, and found Thailand had 7.48 violent gun deaths per 100,000 people in 2013. That’s over twice the gun death rate in the US, which had 3.55 deaths per 100,000 people in the same year. Thailand also has the highest gun death rate in Asia, the data shows. It had 50% more deaths than the Philippines, which also beat the US gun death rate with 4.64 deaths per 100,000 people.

     

    Maybe they should not have included ... but the USA is worse
     

    Not sure where you get those numbers. The NPR piece I find (from last year) has the rate for the US at 4.43 while the comparable rate for Thailand is 3.71 and the rate for the Philippines is 9.20(!). 

    https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/08/05/743579605/how-the-u-s-compares-to-other-countries-in-deaths-from-gun-violence

     

    So it seems they were technically correct in placing the US ahead of them... 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  7. 1 hour ago, Gweiloman said:

    I hope you have advised the Singapore government that masks are useless in stopping the spread of the virus lol

    You're not quite correct. The purpose of the mask is to prevent spreading possible infection to others, not to avoid getting it yourself. You are only supposed to wear it if you feel unwell. To avoid infection, they recommend avoiding crowded places, washing one's hands frequently, and not touching one's face. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  8. Apparently, before his FB account was taken down, he had written, “being rich from taking advantage of others, do they think they can use money in hell?” Sounds like he was <deleted> at anyone he considered to be "rich" because a rich lady had (in his mind) taken advantage of him. Probably thought his best chance of finding other rich people to wreak his vengeance on was to go to a higher end shopping mall. Not a shred of rationality ...  

    • Like 2
  9. 18 hours ago, The Deerhunter said:

    So why were no Thai's arrested as well?  They know the consequences as well................

    None, for them except for "Don"t get caught doing it again."

    As I've said earlier, the Thais involved should also face consequences. Whether that includes 'arrest' is another question - in many countries, people who hire illegals are fined, not arrested, but those illegals are arrested and deported.  

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  10. 1 hour ago, Tchooptip said:

    Her employer probably left her no choice and this poor woman was breaking the law employed by a Thai for 300฿ per day so she was mainly trying to survive. 

    There are many poor people surviving back in Laos who are not breaking the law. She did have the choice not to break the law. I don't know her story, so I can't judge too harshly … I'm only saying that there are often consequences for knowingly breaking the law. I have had a number of Thai friends who knowingly broke the law by working illegally in Singapore. They were poor by Singaporean standards (as many Lao are poor by Thai standards), but they also knew the risks they were taking and were prepared to face the consequences if caught. They did not indulge in self-pity nor would want the pity of others. I would have felt bad if they were caught, but I would not have blamed the authorities for enforcing laws that all knew were in place.   

  11. 2 hours ago, silverhawk_usa said:

    A recent report on U.S. television stated that masks are not effective in preventing a virus. It said it could possibly be of some aid as a person is less likely to touch their nose or mouth with their virus carrying hands while wearing a mask. 

    I think it might depend on the type of mask. The cheap, light surgical masks can be useful to stop one touching one's nose and mouth, as you say, and it prevents small droplets of others' mucous (yuck) from getting to you. But it's usefulness is probably limited. I was in Singapore during SARS and still have an N95 mask from that time (my university distributed them for free). They worked much better, and they are what emergency medical workers are wearing now in the field. But they are very uncomfortable to wear.  

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...