TR EMERITUS

To be objective and for the sake of the economy, I would agree that importing FTs are incredibly helpful to a nation’s growth. But the gov should also consider very carefully on what kind of FTs they are actually accepting. An owner of a feed producing company from Europe, who comes to Singapore to open a factory and providing jobs that are reasonably well paid to Singaporeans, and then becoming a PR, is what I would consider a benefiting FT to accept. I agree with this kind of FTs not because of their skin color or nationality, but because they contribute to a better life for those they employ and to the general economy as well. (I used to work for that company. It is a great company with wonderful staff benefits, and the boss is an Austrian) A PRC coming here to work in retail stores, food courts, hawker centres, bus drivers, hawker paddlers in Chinatown, toilet cleaners, etc…etc…are whom I wouldn’t consider FTs at all. They are the ones fighting for the jobs some of the elderly and the poor need. I know of some parents of my friends who need those jobs, but they were brushed off because the employer prefers the cheaper PRCs. These are real life examples that I’m stating. Not just from what I’ve heard. As for the 9K that will be given to our NS boys. I don’t think it is a suitable amount to compansate for the work/life experience that they have lost out compared to their foreign counterparts.In fact, I think the offer of the 9K seeks to cheapen the dedication our boys have put in, in their effort to train to defend their homeland. As for the low birth rates in Singapore, it is simply due to the exorbitant cost of living when one is burden with children. Look at how much they are charging at those nurseries, the fees for school buses or any products that has to do with children…they are very expensive. And the baby bonus? It is only barely enough to cover up for the hospitalization bills due to the birth of a baby, not enough to help with the expenses that will definitely build up as the child grows. As for the other 6K that the gov will match with the amount parents put in, it is also barely enough to cover their education funds. I don’t mean the money provided isn’t enough. It is better than nothing. But compared to the other ‘bonuses’ and benefits that I have read about in other countries (like Spain and London, which provides free hospitalization and other benefits), it seems a bit half-hearted on the part of the Singapore gov to encourage us to give birth to more children. Also, I have stopped working recently due to my pregnancy and missed out on the payouts that the gov handled out earlier this year. I do not understand the logic. Yes, mothers who choose to stay at home do not contribute to the economy, but we are doing our part to contribute to the birth rate. So why aren’t we rewarded for that? It’s a bit unfair isn’t it? This is not the first time this issue has been mentioned, I’ve read about it from other stay home mums in the papers before, and it seems the gov isn’t bothered about it since there are no actions to rectify this issue. Dear Honored Mr. Lee Hsien Loong, do you and your subordinates understand these simple facts that I have stated above? I believe these issues are not difficult to resolve at all. You may think that those FTs you are bringing in will contribute to Singapore’s economy, but more than 75% of the PRs & FTs I know personally would prefer to go back to their country in the end. Are you really sure their contribution will be enough to cover for what you think Singaporeans are lacking in?   Kathine Lau  Read More →

作者：新加坡文献馆 2010年李显龙国庆演说有几个课题，BBC中文网是以李显龙呼吁新加坡人接纳新移民为标题，报导了人民行动党政府对新移民的看法和解决相关社会问题的措施。 新加坡官方惯性的把移民与外劳的课题看成是人民反对新移民和反对外来劳工的社会问题，‘外来人口激增已成为新加坡的热门话题。人民对政府不断引进外籍劳工和 移民感到非常不满，他们抱怨工作和教育方面都出现激烈竞争，空间也变得越来越拥挤，使得人们的生活质量下降。此外，他们也认为，外来人口在短时间内大量涌入，对社会造成冲击，也削弱了人们的国家认同感。’ 这种流于表面征兆，忽略实质的官方说法有欠公道，完全没有反映社会问题的症结。 这一种说法在很大程度上，把这个课题的本质严重扭曲；实际上，这并非是新加坡人民反对新移民和反对外来劳工的社会问题；事情背后的真相是：人民对政府的经济与社会政策，以及社会基础建设如敎育和公共交通等等有所不满，以及人民对政府处理政策与行政管理的不良后果上有欠公正与不当行为有所反感。 换言之，这一种立论把人民对政府政策与公共服务的不满，变质为人民对新移民和外来劳工的不满；这种移花接木伎俩不仅隐瞒了政策与行政管理上的失败，并且轻易化解了相关的责任承担，更把解决问题的社会重担转嫁到人民身上。 以交通公共服务为例子，根据早些时候的海峡时报新闻报导，裕廊东地鉄站的过度拥挤已经有超过10年的历史，而目前赶建中的新月台要等到明年中才竣工。明显的，这个情况是行政管理上出现了问题，和新移民与外来劳工没有多少关系，虽然他们也加剧了拥挤的程度。 显而易见，这种政治手法成事不足败事有余。不对症下药，既解决不了现有的社会问题，反而制造了新的社会问题，那就是，激发新加坡人和新移民，以及外来劳工之间的社会矛盾。 当前新加坡社会所面对的一些问题，比如，低教育劳动者不能找到可以维持生计的工作，新加坡企业没有办法找到适当的本地员工。这些社会问题都是来自政策结果，和新移民与外来劳工没有太大的关系。 首先，新加坡之所以有着许多的低教育劳工是因为人民行动党政府在教育政策上的失败。吴庆瑞认为政府没有必要浪费宝贵的资源去培育没有机会成才的低能学习者； 新加坡的分流教育制度就是确保缺稀资源的有效利用。然而，这是一种缺乏人性的功利务实思维，其内隐藏着极大的社会成本。 新加坡在1960年代实施的政府小六升学考试制度就过早的淘汰了好些学习能力不佳的学生。如今面对就业谋生困难的年长低教育劳工，应该就是这一项急功近利与缺乏远见的教育制度下的受害者。 另外，对这些年长的低教育劳动者的一些指责，比如，挑剔工作，不愿意干清洁工等等说法有欠厚道，因为经济现实往往並非如此。 公积金制度对公民与外来劳工有不同的影响；从经济效益来看，雇主雇用公民与外劳有不同的劳工成本，相比之下，雇用外劳更具利润效益，因为不必支付公积金。 从个人可支配所得的角度来看，在同一薪金额下，新加坡员工的所得要比外劳来得少，因为新加坡人必须扣除公积金。 此外，外劳得益于货币兑换率，其在新加坡所得远比在自已国家工作来得高；外劳在新加坡工作数年后就有足够的储蓄回国另谋发展，所以外劳对新加坡的低薪金没有抗拒心理。反观新加坡员工，那一丁点的薪金未必能够带来三餐温饱。新加坡人在自已的国土上却要忍受如此窝囊的待遇，这能不令人沮丧吗？ 在外包制度下，业者以价格竞争，当业者所得越少，工资支付能力亦相应减弱，年长低教育者在别无选择情况下，只能接受以越来越少的工资干同一份工作。但是，在面对工资越来越少的同时，低收入者却面对生活费用，如水电与交通费日益高涨的压力。 新加坡人所面对的这种水深火热生活困境，并非因为他们好吃懒做，不能吃苦耐劳，而是客观环境下的必然制度结果。他们的困境之所以没有获得纾缓，是因为为政者没有看到问题的症结，又或者是对困境视而不见。陈如川现象不就是这种社会环境下的产物？ 政府与其既得利益集团伙伴为这种制度劣果做了些什么善后工作？ 有 人要求交通业者让年长者享有全天的优惠乘车价，公司的‘体恤’回应是清晨时分的光线不佳所以不鼓励年长者在这时段出门；不是为了吃口饭，谁会在清晨出门？ 对这些年长低収入者而言，多花费几角銭的车资不就得少吃几口饭？这是何等的无良冷血回应？这是否反映了新加坡精英有智商没有情商的社会现实？ 一名执政党议员，在提高年长者的工作信心和工作热忱时建议：穿球鞋戴球帽来提高职业形象。这种没有实质内涵与缺乏专业知识的思维，岂能为不幸的年长低収入者谋福利？这种不知民间疾苦的天真，再配搭傲慢官腔就难免会引发年长者的强力回弹。这是否亦是集选区制度的不良后果？让一些不入流的人物鱼目混珠？ 见一叶落而知秋，由此可知，人民行动党政府的政策失败，以及无能改善不良政策的恶劣结果是造成社会怨声载道的根本原由，这都和新移民与外来劳工没有多大的直接关系，虽然，新移民和外来劳工加剧了社会问题的爆发性。 其二，新加坡企业的人力问题亦是政府的政策结果。由于本地人力资源在质与量两方面都不能满足经济需求，于是雇用外劳是唯一选择。 比如，大幅提迅新加坡2010Q2GDP增长的赌场与药剂业就是依靠外来劳动力。赌场的建筑与经营，以及药剂生产都是依赖外来劳工与专业人才。 那么，何以会有这种经济结构和人力资源供应格格不入的窘境？ 这一现象反映了政府在展望经济方向，规划发展策略，以及制定其他社会与教育配套方案方面都出现了严重的不足和失衡问题。 新加坡在1960年代的工业化草创时期要依赖外来投资与外来技术是无可厚非的。但是，政府让本地工业担当补助生产经济角色的决策却局限了本地工业发展的空间。这是本地工业为何无能发展，累积经验，並进而创新工业技术的根本原由。 看看台湾电子工业的起步，发展，经验累积到技术创新的工业化过程，就可以知道新加坡经济发展策略有些什么缺陷。如今，台湾电子工业在亚洲经济体内有着举足轻重的地位，新加坡的本土电子工业又是如何呢？ 1979年政府用高工资淘汰中小制造业，以释放劳动力到外资的高科技制造业，这也是造成新加坡本土工业科技无法滋生与成长的主要因素。 此外，政府的一些财务补助计划只照顾高资本额的大企业；这种歧视政策使到小本经营的中小工业求助无门。政策为何要厚此薄彼？政策为何不优先照顾本地的中小工业？ 这种资源分配准则和分流教育同一模式，都是来自吴庆瑞的政治思维：不要把宝贵资源浪费在没有前途的中小企业上。这种思维抹杀了小本创业的激情和契机。另外，城市重建也消灭了新加坡原有的低成本经济环境。 新加坡没有办法培育本土的工业科技，也就没有能力主动掌握自已的生产经济发展方向，换言之，新加坡的生产经济必须持续的依赖外来投资与外来技术。这也就基本上解释了新加坡为何要持续的进口外来劳动力去推进GDP增长。 从新加坡的经济发展历史可以知道，新加坡之所以要长期的依赖外来投资与外来劳动力，是因为政府的经济发展策略缺乏应有的前瞻性与智慧性。 然而，有鉴于李光耀和吴庆瑞都是天赋异禀的罕见人才，所以把新加坡政府政策看成一无是处的观点是极具争议性的，或许，人民行动党政府秘而不宣的真正目的就是要把新加坡建立成为一个西方资本世界在远东的政治与经济代理。 在新加坡历史里，二战前后英国政府的原本政治目的就是要保留一个‘独立’的新加坡以作为西方在远东的军事与经济堡垒。当然，这是另外一个有待考证的历史议题，不过，这是解读新加坡政策的一个必要注脚。 总而言之，新加坡的社会问题是源于政策失败以及行政管理上的偏差，和新移民与外来劳工无关；新加坡人民是不满意政府的执政能力，他们并非反对新移民和外来劳工。  Read More →

I am Edwin, a local born citizen, and am now in my twenties. I acquired a CAT certificate from Singapore Accounting Academy (SAA) in 2005, and a diploma in Computer Engineering from Temasek Polytechnic in 2006. Due to the employment market condition back then, I chose to pursue a degree in Banking and Finance instead of continuing to complete the ACCA with SAA. This marked the beginning of my predicament. Singapore was, and still is, vigorously marketed as an education hub by our government. As a loyal citizen in support of the government’s movement, I chose to take up distance study via a private education institution at home instead of pursuing other options such as going overseas for further education. My decision was based upon the following expectations/assumptions which, in my opinion, are not unreasonable- A good government will take good care of the basic needs of its citizens, such as, amongst others, housing; education; employment; food, water, energy; and security. Education means imparting of knowledge, inculcating values. Therefore, education institutions are perfect venues for extremists to inculcate their values. For this important security reason the education ministry should take great interest to tightly control all education institutions, as extreme thinking can and will destroy a nation. A good education ministry will take good care of the well being of all students. Local born students will get the same, if not better, protection from the authority than foreign students since the top leaders stressed repeatedly that “Singaporeans will come first”, “No Singaporean will be left behind” etc, etc. The basic duty of a student is to study, pass examinations and acquire the desired certificate. The rest of the arrangements should be the responsibility of the school(s)/authority(s). In October 2006 I was enlisted into the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) under the national service requirement. By May 2007, I had completed the basic military training and a trade course, and was posted to an operational unit where I was a staying out personnel. In order not to waste away the daily evening hours, I decided to sign up for a part time course with Brookes Business School (Brookes) for a University of London (UOL) degree course in Banking and Finance (Course) in July 2007. Registration was done after checking and confirming with the Education Ministry’s website that Brookes was legally registered with the Ministry of Education (MOE), and approved by MOE. Brookes was also registered as a member of CASETRUST. The Course was further listed on the MOE’s website. Besides MOE and CASE, DBS, our national bank too lend support to Brookes by offering to provide study loans to all suitable/eligible Brookes’ students. As military personnel doing part time courses, I had to dash from camp to class after my duty hours and from school to home after class, most of the time having my dinner late at night. In order to catch up with my studies and course assignments, I had to sacrifice many precious sleeping hours to ‘burn the midnight oil’. Yet in the day I had to perform my utmost to serve the SAF and the nation. I received thumbs-up from my superiors for my service and they rewarded me with an excellent testimonial at the end of my service as their appreciation. After spending ten over thousand of hard earned dollars, not to mention two years’ worth of hard work, blood, sweat and tears, including attending lectures, completing project assignments and taking examinations, I finally graduated in April 2009, but yet to receive my well deserved certificate.   After the breakout of the Brookes saga in July 2009, the education ministry has done nothing to aid the innocent yet helpless students, like myself. The first reaction from the ministry was denial of its mistakes and responsibility, by making ridiculous statements such as “assuming everything is in order” (quoted from news reports) and “it is a business deal between students and Brookes” (also quoted from news reports). I was surprised to learn that the authority had adopted a 'light touch' approach in regulating the education industry as mentioned in the parliamentary reply on 20th July 2009. I do understand that mentioning/explaining the ‘light touch' approach in any of the ‘education hub’ speeches will inevitably send many students packing, including myself. But deliberate exclusion of such vital information regarding this ‘light touch’ approach, shall be viewed as deceptive when the authority adopted the ‘hands off’ approach after the fall out of the Brookes saga.    All affected students were left to fend for themselves, seeking individual salvage solutions. I first approached CASE for help and was directed to the small claims tribunal (SCT), whose jurisdiction is to hear cases with claim sums of up to S$10,000 only (a sum which is far less than what we have spent for the Course alone). The next logical approach for me was to seek help from MOE. The person in-charge could not help me because the case was and still is in the hands of the police, to which I was directed. I managed to meet up with the police on 4th September 2009 and was advised to: write directly to UOL to confirm the authenticity of the Course and the related certificate; and engage a lawyer to make a full claim against Brookes.   I wrote several times to UOL but they fail to respond. I was back to square one again directionless.   In a recent discussion with an education industry expert, he questioned the legitimacy of the course and the related certificate due to the way Brookes conducted the courses.   This is beyond my wildest dream. How could this be happening in a nation that longed to be the education hub? I had spent two precious prime years of my life slogging in order to acquire the needed qualification for me to join the industry of my dream. Now, I may end up with a fake degree.  In view of this situation, I might need a further two years and further hard work to achieve the desired results, not to mention the added financial burden. By then, I will be approaching my thirties, and yet without any relevant working experience. It is a known, undeniable fact that no employers in this current day, who will consider let alone decide to hire a person without the relevant experience, especially in the industry I am seeking to build my career in. As such, it is foreseeable and indeed true that my life will go down the drain. Currently, without the required qualification and working experience, and after countless job applications, I managed to gain only a part time employment working 'graveyard' hours. I am puzzled and would like to take this opportunity to invite knowledgeable personnel to come forward and help me answer the question of legitimacy for the course/certificate. There were over twenty students in my class and many more in other similar classes, and I believe that these students are suffering the same fate as me. I look forward to these other students to step out and join in the support group I’m planning to start. Others who are interested are most welcome to participate. Please contact me at [email protected]. My parents are retired without any source of income. In order to help put me through the Course with Brookes, they had committed to a bank loan with DBS, and are still required to service it knowing that all these monies they had paid and have to continue paying, will go down the drain. Now they can no longer afford to support me financially for another course and the end result is obvious. Furthermore, engaging a lawyer for a full claim against Brookes does not guarantee money returned, successful or not, and worse still we have the legal fees to consider. Although I had received a paper judgment from SCT against Brookes for the claim sum of S$10,000.00, this judgment is worthless so long as Brookes and its management continue to ignore it or unable to comply with it. By 16th September 2009, there was no favorable news from the authority in term of aids to the Brookes’ students, myself included; I therefore decided to write to MOE seeking remedial solution(s). Since this is an education issue, MOE should be the right party to resolve it. The following table outlined the sequence of my letters to the authority(s) and their related responses: DATE FROM ADDRESS TO REMARKS         16 Sep 09 me Dr. Ng Eng Hen (by post) Letter to MOE to register our disappointment; highlighted our predicament and requested remedial solution(s) from MOE. Also stressed the importance of the time factor.         28-Sep-09 MOE me (by phone) MOE officer called and promised to give me a reply within one week but failed to fulfill his promise.         13-Oct-09 me Dr. Ng Eng Hen Reminder e-mail, also highlighting the failed promise. Again stressed the importance of time.         27-Oct-09 me Dr. Ng Eng Hen E-mail reminder sent to Mindef address. Liken the authority(s) as spell caster; Brookes as prospector who took advantage of the already dazed innocent victims (the students). MOE should understand the simple logic that “the best party to reverse a spell is the one who cast it”. Also brought home the point of the minister's moral obligation.         12 Nov 09 MOE me (by phone) Senior MOE officer called offering me to attend the same course in another private school at our own expense. He also implied that the installment payment to the bank can be terminated but fall short of advising us the proper procedure.         19 Nov 09 me Dr. Ng Eng Hen Highlighted our disappointment with the above offer and stressed our predicament again by emphasizing the authority's role as spell caster; Brookes' role as prospector and the sufferings of the victims (students and families). Also requested MOE to coordinate the termination of our bank installments payment.         30 Dec 09 me PM (by post) & e-mail After a long wait without reply from MOE, 1st letter to PM was sent repeating our plea(s) with attachment of all our correspondences with MOE.         20 Jan 10 me PM by e-mail Gentle reminder, trusting that the overlooking of our plea(s) is due to the PM's very busy schedules and not that we are viewed as an insignificant lot. Again stressed the time factor.         9 Mar 10 CPE me (by letter) Letter from CPE dated 4 Mar'10 but received by me on 9 Mar'10, see attached for details.         18 Mar 10 me PM; CPE Letter to reflect our disappointment with CPE’s proposal that did not address any of our concerns and sufferings and also the deliberate time wasting by the concerned authority(s). CPE's proposal coming EIGHT MONTHS after the fall out of the Brookes saga is definitely too little too late. 19 Mar 10 MOE, QSM me (by e-mail) See attached for details.         30 Apr 10 me PM/SM/MM/MOE As CPE failed to react, I decided to send a final letter to the PM. By now I had more questions for the authority(s) than answers from them. In this last letter, I raised a total of THIRTY TWO questions that are still unanswered.         19May10 MOE-HED me (by e -mail) See attached for details.         4 Jun 10 me MOE.HED/PM/SM/MM Reiterated my position and requested the authority to be more responsible. 1 Aug 10 me MP - Mr. Mathias Yao Without further response from the authority, I wrote to the MP as my last possible official resort. A total of 26 attachments were sent, trusting that he will read through the contents and contact me soonest possible  Since time is of the essence and we have wasted too much of it contacting the ‘wrong’ party, we believed that  he could secure a viable remedial solution, that is fair and just, to this matter within the next fortnight.          5 Aug 10 me MP-Mr. Mathias Yao Sent the same as above. Hitherto, there is no response from the MP. A ‘natural death’ situation will now result if the matter is not pursued any further, and this is exactly what the authority(s) are pinning for. After over a year and exhausted all possible official avenues, I turned to the more responsive other party(s), the alternative voices (the oppositions), for help hoping that they can assist to draw the authority’s attentions towards this outstanding issue. In another related concurrent event, just like stoning a fallen man in the well, DBS, the bank which approved Brookes study loan, harassed us relentlessly for the repayment of the loan, even though we had written in to them on several occasions, including a letter to their chairman, to explain our situation. We had been making timely repayment of the loan before the Brookes saga happened. DBS had refused to take neither this timely repayment nor our explanations in our letters to them into consideration at all. They have turned a deaf ear and even blind eyes to the situation. They had even engaged a law firm Yeo-Leong & Peh LLC and a Credit Management Consultancy company to join in the foray of harassments.   Their best offer so far was to work out another repayment plan, this fall far short of the termination of the installment payment that we are seeking.  We are ordinary folks with average intelligence, whereas DBS has all the financial big wits. We believe (and this is the obvious) that prior to entering into any form of agreement between DBS and Brookes, to provide Brookes’ students with a study loan, DBS would have performed all the necessary thorough checks on Brookes. The authorities namely MOE & CASE provided the references, and DBS provided the added confidence that Brookes is a sound entity and education provider. Brookes’ students and their respective families were therefore being lured into this ‘death trap’. Upon the fall out of Brookes, the authorities cleaned their hands and kept a safe distance (which they still do now). DBS in turn, turned around and bit us. We, the innocent victims are left to fend for ourselves without direction(s). Where is the justice and equality that we have pledged since we were kids? We were encouraged recently to join in the mass pledge on National Day. What good is this pledge if we fail to practice what we pledged, especially so when such failure is top down? In conclusion, I merely wanted a higher education (degree) as a stepping stone to build my career upon at home. However, due to this foul up which is not caused by me, I ended up with this unnecessary predicament.   Edwin  Read More →