TR EMERITUS

There have been four peaks in the property market (Q2 ’86 to Q2 ’96) and no turning point since then apart from intermittent slides. The Government's attitude has been this is part of the economic waves and generraly a good thing, and have been sky-high since, and everybody else just go along. A case of intellectual paralysis? Many politicians in other countries are also of the opinion that broad home ownership makes for a more stable, easily-controlled political system, since people are loath to do anything that could conceivably risk their ability to make their mortgage payment next month. The Singapore Government here is obviously fully aware of this operating principle and takes the fullest advantage imaginable to exploit it to remain in power. Tying HDB ownership to CPF accounts was and remain a political genius, rendering some more than 90% of Singaporeans utterly dependent on a Government that completely and non-transparently exercise massive control over both sides of the transaction. Perhaps no other country has been so close-mouthed about how much it costs to build, operate and maintain public housing. No government that I have seen since Soviet times has so tightly controlled housing transactions, with “owners” technically buying from and selling to the Government at official prices set by the Government without transparency (and without terribly high fidelity to “market” prices, since almost every transaction closes with an unofficial payment over valuation changing hands). If you can only buy from the Government, and the Government grant themselves the right to force you to sell at a time and price of their unilateral choice, then, as those political thinkers I mentioned earlier would say, the Government has a complete choke-hold on everyone not rich enough to live in private housing. (No doubt the Government has means of control there as well, but certainly different and more subtle than for us common rabble.) It’s not the sellers’ turn to complain, as an earlier commenter put it. It’s not the buyers’ turn, either. It’s the turn of anybody and everybody who cares about the future of Singapore as a more open, free society managed for the benefit of all to stop complaining and get organised. The problems won’t be solved in one GE; they won’t be solved completely in two or three or possibly even five. But if people of good will work together, openly and honestly, they CAN be solved. Majulah SIngapura!     Papbubu  Read More →

In response to this article (SM's statement that some 50,000 PRs would be asked to take up citizenship otherwise their PR status would not be renewed). This is exactly the kind of policy I have been dreading for a while, and now it’s finally here. Singapore with regards to this latest immigration policy: You’re doing it wrong. This is no different from setting an ultimatum to permanent residents saying “join us or leave”. Such a policy is already setting off alarm bells. One, what if the permanent residents do not want to give up their original citizenship? Should Singapore simply give up on these people and watch the ‘foreign talent’ she has been harping on finally leave? Two, what happens if these reluctant permanent residents such as the French national in the above article finally decide to relent and take up Singapore citizenship? Are these new citizens the same as the ones born and bred in Singapore? Will they possess the same nationalistic pride as the so-called ‘native’ Singaporeans? Or perhaps the lack thereof, indeed just like their native counterparts? If the SM’s remark is ever to be introduced as a future policy, then it would join the ranks of other previous policies that had only served to exacerbate Singapore’s increasing migrant problems. One obvious policy would be the increasingly more relaxed immigration controls over the decades in order to accommodate the economy’s transition from manufacturing to service and financial sectors in the 1980s, and finally to IT and R&D in the 1990s. Between 1990 and 2000 the number of permanent residents and non-resident foreigners doubled, a significant increase compared to the relatively small rise in citizen population. As the government has always said, migration is crucial to Singapore’s economic growth, and as much as many Singaporeans would like to refute this, migration is an important by-product of globalisation that drives a capitalist economy like Singapore.  However, uncontrolled immigration is a different story altogether. My family applied for the PR status for the first time around the early 2000s. My father belongs to the blue-collared skilled worker level, but a tax-paying, CPF-contributing worker nonetheless; my mother a housewife and both their children in relatively higher educational levels in the national system. It took us about five times of application before we were finally granted our request in 2007. Nowadays, it is no longer a surprise for newly arrived foreigners of the same level in the workforce to receive the PR status after merely 6 months of stay in Singapore. Such lax immigration policies would only serve to inflame local discontent simmering at ground level as well as hinder any progress at integration for new citizens. That said, the dilemma faced by Singapore is understandable and in fact, not limited to only Singapore. Migration issues remain a problem even in countries with centuries of established history and sense of nationalism. In Germany there is currently a huge controversial discussion over the migration policies of the government. A renowned politician and economist recently remarked that “Germany Is Abolishing Itself” with the increasing migrant population. Sarrazin’s comment that the significant Turkish population would decrease the average intelligence of the German people has been compared to Hitler’s application of racial genomics, but surprisingly there has been a lot of responses in the affirmative from ethnic Germans in the media, highlighting the problems faced and brought about by Turkish immigrants in Germany, who are much more integrated in German society in comparison to permanent residents and foreigners in Singapore. Personally, I give props to the government for considering such a bold policy with good intentions of confronting migration issues (I shall pretend not to see the political motivations of such a move) but I feel that the Singapore is missing the point of what citizenship really is. To me, it seems that they perceive the material things to be the sole determinant of a migrant’s decision to take up Singapore citizenship. Sure, a comfortable lifestyle, more affordable housing, better education system and overall social benefits that cannot be found in their homeland country are prerequisites of attracting new citizens. But whatever happened to sense of belonging? Singapore should ask herself: What is a citizen, really? How long does it take before a migrant becomes a native? For me, being a citizen means not only do you have property and financial investment in the country, but also emotional investment in the form of intangible connections and relationships to the society itself. Being a citizen means you have the desire to improve the society you’re living in and actively try to act on this desire. And I believe that Singapore should aim to attract such kind of citizens, not people with a symbiotic business relationship of convenience with the nation and who use Singapore merely as a stepping-stone rather than earth to sink roots in. The first step is confronting the issues surrounding migration problems at the ground level. A look at some local political websites online reveals alarmingly backward xenophobic sentiments among the netizen community. I’m sure this is a close enough representation of Singaporeans’ view towards the increasing foreign population in the country. It is probably useful to ask ourselves why there is even such a sentiment. I believe it has less to do with ethnocentric tendencies but more to do with economic discontent. A common grouse among Singaporean workers is the general feeling of discrimination in the workforce to the disadvantage of locals. Personally I think there should be major obvious distinctions in socio-economic benefits between citizens and non-citizens. According to the social contract, the state should give the citizens benefits in exchange for the latter’s loyalty and patriotism. But herein lies the dilemma of reconciling the social contract with the spirit of meritocracy, which is one of the cornerstones of Singapore’s success. Making such a distinction between citizens and non-citizens is a double-edged sword. Foreigners may feel discriminated and leave the country altogether, or they may be enticed to take up citizenship and contribute to the society permanently. However, it seems necessary at this point in order to allay locals’ feelings of being neglected by their own government. Government policies aside, we must also remember that it is the employers who decide who they want to employ, not the government. Why do employers insist on discriminating against employing local Singaporeans? Capitalist employers would choose foreign labour who are willing to work longer hours and be paid cheaper wages, that is understandable. But what about white-collared discrimination against Singaporean workers – is this a case of colonial hangover? In 2006, skilled workers and professionals accounted for 13.4 percent (about 90,000) of Singapore's total nonresident population. Most of them are from Malaysia, China and India, not the typical ‘whites’ portrayed in Jack Neo films. Is this a reflection of Singapore’s changing mentality that anything foreign is better? What of Singapore’s pride as an economic success then? Language is also another barrier that prevents acceptance of foreigners by local residents. However, I might say that language is not so much a problem in Singapore as in Germany. A large population of ethnically foreign long-term permanent residents in Germany still does not have the basic grasp of the German language, necessitating the need for integration courses at local town offices. The difference lies in that the majority of Singapore’s migrants still hail from the same countries the ancestors of the local residents did, namely Malaysia, China and India. The foreigners from countries besides these three are forced to pick up the official language, English, in order to function in Singaporean society, whereas Turkish is a second language in Germany, therefore the same need does not exist for the major migrant population. Which brings me to the point that the migrants themselves should share some blame for the immigration problems of the country. There are two types of immigrants: first, the immigrant who clings onto their native culture and assimilate into the host country (this is usually the first generation immigrants); second, the immigrant who is more emotionally attached to the culture of the host country than his ‘native culture’ and therefore more integrated in the host country (this is usually the second generation onwards). Learning the language is one of the actions that show willingness to integrate into the host society, a reader commented in Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper regarding immigrants in Germany. Of course, ethnic groups will always congregate to their own kind naturally, but there must be some effort on the migrant population’s part towards integration. There is a common misperception that an increasing migrant population automatically increases the crime rates of the country. Since 1986, the year of the infamous amnesty for illegal immigrants, the U.S. murder rate has plunged by 37 percent. Nevertheless, there is still some correlation between crime and migration. But at the root of the high tendency of migrants committing crime are the problems faced by the migrants themselves in society. We have heard too many horror stories of employers withholding migrant workers’ pay, uninhabitable accommodation such 10-20 construction workers squeezing into a 30sqm container. Many residents with recent immigrant roots also face a glass ceiling in the education system, brought about by the disparity of their socio-economic background in comparison to the natives, and other problems with integration. Thus, majority of the children of immigrants go into the workforce equipped with very low or no educational qualifications to help them assimilate into the economic job market. And it has been proven that high unemployment rates lead to increased tendencies to commit crime. Admittedly, it is not easy to solve all the problems with one fell swoop of a miracle national immigration policy. But forcing PRs to take up citizenship reduces citizenship to a mere piece of paper. The concerns of the local Singaporeans should be first and foremost addressed, such as the forgotten poor minority living on the fringes of society, and the seemingly contrived grouses of the natives, namely National Service (which seems to be viewed as a downside of citizenship rather than expression of patriotism), foreign benefits like scholarships granted to foreigners, rising costs of living which prevent young Singaporean couples from getting married and starting their families early. Lastly, I believe the CMIO model is starting to be irrelevant in today’s Singaporean society. Not only does it overemphasise the racial differences among the people, it is an obstacle to integration for new citizens. I, for one, should know how alienating it feels to be an “Other” for my whole stay in Singapore. In 2007, 16.4% of all marriages in Singapore were inter-ethnic. That’s one in five marriages. Ethnically mixed children should be allowed to choose their race. Would the people forget their racial identity if it is no longer stated on their Identity Cards? I doubt so. Migration would remain a point of contention for government policies and for the people in Singapore for years to come. Singapore achieved its success through globalisation, and that same unstoppable force would continue to penetrate the society. Instead of closing its doors to outside influence a la North Korea out of xenophobic sentiments, or taking extreme ‘forceful’ policies like setting an ultimatum on foreigners, Singapore should aim to attract and develop citizens who willingly take the up the responsibilities of citizenship. Otherwise the concept of nationhood is merely just a pragmatic legacy of history that no longer holds the intangible sentiments and passion it is supposed to invoke in the people.   K. Reyes  Read More →

The Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) under the leadership of the embattled Dr Vivian Balakrishnan found fit to launch an investigation against the two Integrated Resorts (IRs) for providing free shuttle bus services to the HDB heartlands, but did nothing to investigate the many scandals which has erupted during and after the much maligned Youth Olympic Games (YOG). The YOG was blighted by a series of problems and controversies such as ticketing glitches, food poisoning outbreaks, safety lapses at venues, poor commentaries during games and allegations of mistreatment of volunteers. Even in its aftermath, the Bolivia team which won the soccer gold was accused of fielding over-aged players on the pitch. Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, who has earlier promised to investigate the food poisoning scandal involving 22 YOG volunteers, had disappeared from the limelight completely as if nothing has happened. If MCYS has nothing better to do, it should conduct an audit on the YOG accounts to investigate how the budget was exceeded by more than three times to a shocking $387 million dollars. It should also conduct a detailed study and inform Singaporeans if the YOG is indeed "value for money" and whether we will be able to recoup our investments as proclaimed by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan. The latest "wayang" by MCYS against the two IRs are no more but smoke-screens to divert public attention from the real issues plaguing it and to show its mettle at a time when many are questioning its relevance. With no opposition in Parliament to take Dr Vivian to task, we will never know the answers. Is this the "honest political system" which Dr Vivian claims the PAP is trying to run? Where is the accountability? Where is the transparency? Dr Vivian should walk his talk by being completely being upfront, open and honest with Singaporeans about what really went wrong in the YOG. It is completely unacceptable to splurge so much money on a so-called international sporting event only to turn it into a flop and worse make Singapore a laughing stock in the eyes of the world.   Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us  Read More →