Briefly reported in the Courier Mail, and expanded on by David Flint in 'The Spectator Australia', the possibility of productive Queensland farming land being compulsorily acquired so that a foreign power (friendly though it is at the moment) might carry out war games here, has received very little attention. Singapore has little space for such things, but why should Australian food producers be penalised for it? We are talking about 200,000 hectares of “prime agricultural land” here; not your old vast tracts of desert in the Northern Territory and South Australia; and it won't be used by the Australian military forces; none of the usual joint exercising, just Singapore, which, as far as I know has never pledged undying loyalty to Australia or our way of life – given us a lot of lip, actually, under the despot Lee Kwan Yew, old dad of the current 'emperor'.

China buying up land here just to feed their own people – where's the benefit to Australia? Now, ripping productive land from Australian food producers so that foreigners can play with guns. What is going on in this country?

Dear ttbn,

Here is a link that gives a bit more information
on the major defence and trade deal with Singapore:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-06/singapore-to-expand-queensland-defence-bases/7389168

There are other links on the web that explain things
even further. It's worth reading all sides of the
arguments.

On the face value it seems ok, we should take their 2 Billion.
Would be interested to see a link to the alleged resumption of farming land?
If anyone can provide one it would be appreciated.

Foxy,

Why do you insist on sending me Left wing links? You surely must know that I do not read them as I have no truck with them. Express your opinions by all means. Express you disapproval and dissent by all means. But I am never going to read Left-wing nonsense from the ABC, the Guardian or the Fairfax press. I love the ABC for entertainment, but there is no way that I would look to it for political instruction. The other mobs you serve up, I simply loathe.

AC,

Somewhat surprised by you. If the prolifigate government wants money, it should start cutting spending and reducing government and stupid programmes instead of whoring us to a foreign government like Singapore.

Dear ttbn,

I had no idea that I was wasting my time with the
links. I was just trying to broaden the discussion.
However it shan't happen again. I'll leave you to
discuss things with like-minded people and for you
to Google your the links that agree with your
viewpoint.

I shan't bother you again.

A few years back, when the Abbott government were trying to sell the 5% cut to the ABC, Barnaby Joyce told the ABC that, unless Australia got its finances in order, in a decade's time the discussion wouldn't be about the size of the cut but about whether we could afford an ABC. His time-frame was too short but the point remains.

When a family hits economic trouble it starts selling off the family assets. Australia is hitting economic trouble and selling off bits and pieces to those who are smarter and more economically successful is all but inevitable.

Welcome to the future. You'll see a lot more of this and it will eventually become the norm. Tough for those immediately affected but these will be tough times.

We are in an economic tailspin and while we refuse to do what's necessary, selling off this and that to rich others is required.

When Hemingway was asked how he went bankrupt he replied "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”. We are in the gradual phase.

I'm neither in favour of nor oppose this proposal - its just necessary.

There are also geo-political issues. In the coming showdown with an expansionist China, Singapore is a friend. We should help our friends.

ttbn,

"But I am never going to read Left-wing nonsense from the ABC, the Guardian or the Fairfax press."

No one's suggesting that you accept or believe what comes out of these organisations. But refusing to even read/hear the views from the other side means that you are no longer searching for the truth but instead searching for confirmation of predetermined prejudices.

I rarely agree with the viewpoints expressed or espoused by Foxy through her links, but I always want to follow them to see where 'the other' is headed. And if that reading doesn't ameliorate your views even at the margins, you aren't doing it right.

Mhaze,

I have read it all. I cop it all the time without having to actively seek it out. I was brought up in a Left-wing household. I have two Loopy left brothers.

Believe it or not, I do not want everyone to think the same way I do. Apart from the fact that I would be bored stiff, there would be no democracy. I think that I have made it clear that I believe in freedom of speech and, although I sometimes tend to get personal, I bear no ill-will towards any individual who doesn't agree with me. I do, however, have an abiding dislike of the organised Left. I hate 'it' with a passion.

I think Foxy is a caring, open-heated woman with, I suspect, all of the feminine warmth I admire. She is, of course, entitled to cite whatever she likes to me and others. Perhaps I should start laying a few references from Quadrant and The Spectator on her doorstep? I won't refer her to my favourite bad guy, Larry Pickering; she doesn't deserve that.

Foxy,

I have only just managed to get a copy of Andrew Bolt's 'Worth Fighting For', and I certainly won't start quoting him to you. But his introduction to the book has , I believe, a truism in it. “We like to think we're all reasonable people, doing rational things. But reason doesn't really guide people most. Values do.” Without values, we are nothing, in my book.

Hey ttbn,
Don't get me wrong, I agree 'on face value' because I thought about 2 billion worth of spending on education, healthcare, infrastructure and jobs.

I want to know more about this 'resumption of land' from farmers; because I sure as hell am not happy about it, and those details if true might kill the deal for me.

I still agree with your cuts of excess spending.

Dear ttbn,

I don't like labels. I never have because they tend
not to allow for individual differences. Therefore
the labels of "Left" or "Right" I feel don't apply
to most people that I know. Most of us tend to vary
depending on the context and situation. We can be
quite liberal in some instances, and quite conservative
in others. Very few voters nowadays stick strictly to
the old fashioned "party lines." BTW - I was raised in
a Liberal voting household. My parents were extremely
conservative. My husband and brothers still are.

When I cite a link in discussions on this forum - I don't
check whether it's "Left" or "Right." That does not
interest me. It's the content of the link that matters
to me. And if it makes sense and I consider it of value,
I will cite it. I believe that in a discussion forum we
need to hear a variety of views - that's what makes the
forum interesting and adds to its challenges. Also, there
is the question of misinformation.

A democracy requires its citizens to make informed choices.
If citizens of their representatives are denied access to
the information they need to make these choices, or if
they are given false or misleading information, the
democratic process may become a sham. It is therefore
important that the media not be censored, that citizens
have the right of free speech, and that public officials
tell the truth. That's why we need not only the media that
runs along predictable lines, but alternative media sources
as well. Of course the choice is ours which we prefer to
read.

cont'd ...

Talking about values?

Albert Einstein stated: "The value of a person should
be seen in what they give not in what they are able to
receive."

Or put another way, as someone else stated -
"To add value to others,
one must first value others."

Probably the troops won't fire live ammo? Then cattle will be able to co-exist in a multi-cultural battle-field . Fences , houses and wandering stock-men will be authentic scenery for tactical combat operations. Stockmen could add to wages by being double agents spying for both sides with ear-muffs. Singapore is in Malaysia with jungle swamps and stuff . So a jungle national park is the way to go. Tourists will pay big for the action.

Bob Katter says that the Crown has no right to resume farmland because Magna Carta forbids it. However, because George III wanted to get everything including Trump land , he told Capt Cook to give new lands to George. Gov Philip gave 1/2 Oz and the South Pacific to the king so all the farms and minerals on the sea-bed are the Crown's. It used to be that freehold title just reserved gold and silver but now all minerals under your floor-boards and coal is the king's property.

Prince Philip is now an Australia knight with horse and all the gear and Rockhampton peasants need to bow when the landlord comes knocking.