TR EMERITUS

Written by Our Correspondent Dr Tan Khee Giap, an economist from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, who sparked a massive outcry in cyberspace with his recent speech at a seminar criticizing Singaporeans for complaining about foreigners taking away their jobs is adamant that Singaporeans "readjust" themselves to the reality on the ground. An increasing number of Singaporeans are blaming the easy availability of cheap foreign workers as a reason for them not getting a job which pays well. Due to the PAP's liberal immigration and pro-foreigner policies, foreigners now make up a third of Singapore's workforce and 44 percent if PRs are included. In his speech, he blamed Singaporeans for being “voluntarily unemployed” and suggested that “every resident worker who is unemployed for more than three months should be made to register with the Workforce Development Agency (WDA), which will have to help him find a job based on his last drawn pay.” “The WDA can then track how many times each unemployed person turns down a job – much like the statistics the Housing Board recently revealed of new flat buyers turning down flat options,” he was quoted as saying in the Straits Times. [Source: Straits Times, 23 March 2010] A netizen Kojakbt has written to Dr Tan expressing his disagreements with his speech: "Rather than just blaming Singaporeans for rejecting the jobs found by WDA, perhaps WDA should do more analysis for the reasons of objections by these Singaporeans?  I suspect that salary is the main issue here. How do you expect an over 40 years old retrenched Singaporean with 2 schooling kids and a HDB loan to pay off to survive on $1K+ salary? $1K+ may be alright for foreigners but certainly it’s not going to be enough for Singaporeans with families," he wrote. Attached below is Dr Tan's reply: Dr Tan replied that what he said was based on facts and that salary is not an issue with Singaporeans not taking up these jobs: "You suspect that salary is the main issue here, but I do not suspect because I am actually based on facts, the salary level is certainly bot as you suspect because if you take income supplement in and others it is closer to 2k per month and there are many job types too." He also urged Singaporeans to face up to the truth:   "Very often it is easier to be popular rather than telling the truth, because the truth hurts. Some Singaporeans must rethink and readjust." PAP leaders have always insisted that foreigners are needed to take up jobs shunned by Singaporeans. However, the truth is: foreigners are competing directly with Singaporeans for positions which can otherwise be filled up by them. Some companies, including a GLC even put up job advertisements in neighboring countries to hire their workers. In other countries like Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea, their governments take extra measures to protect the livelihoods of local workers. For example, Australian companies are only allowed to hire foreigners in instances when they are unable to employ local workers. In Singapore, companies are free to employ as many foreign workers they like so long the dependency quota is filled, but it can be easily circumvented by applying PRs for earlier arrivals since PRs and citizens are lumped together under the same category of "locals" under the Manpower Ministry's labor regulations. According to a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, the recentless influx of foreigners into Singapore has depressed the wages of ordinary Singaporeans, increased the cost of living and led to an overall decline in the standards of living. An authoritative report published by UBS last year revealed that Singaporeans have the lowest wages and domestic purchasing power among the Asian Tigers and have a standard of living closer to Russia than Switzerland. Even as PAP ministers prepared to give themselves a massive 8.8 percent pay rise, the real earnings of Singaporeans have declined by 3.2 percent for the second consecutive year. Perhaps Singaporeans should really "rethink" about voting for the PAP again and the PAP itself should "readjust" to possible changes in the political landscape after the next general election when it is expected to lose a few additional seats including a GRC due to fast rising public anger against its discriminatory policies against Singaporeans.   EDITORS’ NOTE: Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so and help us exceed the number of fans on the official YPAP Facebook page.   The UBS Series: >> Part 1: Singapore has lowest wages and domestic purchasing power among Asian Tigers >> Part 2: Moving towards a Russian standard of living >> Part 3: Why Singaporeans are paupers in a first world economy   Related articles: >> LKY school prof: Singaporeans complaining too much about foreigners taking away their jobs >> Immigrants will exert heavy burden on limited public resouces 20 years later >> How immigration can destroy a nation: Balhae versus Silla >> Why the present wave of immigration is different from the past >> Wong Kan Seng: We should remember that immigrant children will one day be like us >> 8 reasons why foreign workers will always be preferred in Singapore >> Declining wages of Singaporeans and the continued denial by PAP leaders >> Halimah Yacob refutes UBS study findings >> Halimah Yacob: Productivity drive will be derailed if foreign worker challenge not addressed  >> Exposing the six major flaws in the PAP’s immigration policies >> Wong Kan Seng promises to tighten immigration policies >> SM Goh: Foreign workers numbers may still rise >> Malaysian car mechanic applying for Singapore citizenship >> PAP launches Singapore Citizenship Journey to help new citizens integrate >> Compulsory for new citizens to attend “sharing sessions” with grassroots leaders >> Wong Kan Seng urged Singaporeans to be more tolerant of foreign workers >> Tharman: Foreign workers increase income of low-income families >> Sylvia Lim: Pace and influx of foreigners over last few years is wrong >> Amy Khor urges Singaporeans to welcome foreigners >> PAP MP wants more money to be spent to make new citizens feel welcomed in Singapore >> Shanmugam: Foreigners generate jobs for Singaporeans >> Vivian happy there are 4,500 new citizens serving as grassroots leaders >> Cosmetic changes made to immigration policy >> SM Goh: New immigrants needed to make up population shortfall >> PAP ministers hailed contributions of foreigners >> SM Goh expressed support for Zhang Yuanyuan >> State media: citizens have more rights over PRs >> Zhang Yuanyuan got her Singapore PR in only 2 months >> Official reply from government on the Zhang Yuanyuan fiasco >> Singapore PRC PR proclaimed loyalty to China publicly >> PRC resident hung China flag to celebrate its National Day >> PRC student in Singapore wants more scholarships for foreigners >> PRC prostitutes solicit for customers on Singapore’s cyberspace >> ERA: 40 per cent of resale flats buyers are PRs  Read More →

By Chua Yuan Kai I refer to the article ‘‘8 Reasons Why Foreign Workers Will be Preferred over Our Local Ones” by Mr Gilbert Goh (read article here) and published by the Temasek Review on 19 March 2010. This article is a good summary of explaining why locals face difficulty in employment and career advancement. The main topic had been the attraction of hiring foreigners as they were relatively cheaper and having lesser non work-related commitments. Two of the reasons stated by Mr Gilbert Goh had a particular interest. The first was reason 6 (Foreigner – more than just a worker) and reason 7 (Political Agenda) The cheaper foreigner viewpoint had not explained how many younger and single locals had problems securing and developing careers. Therefore, l would elaborate on understanding the mentality of the ruling People’s Action Party Group (PAP Group). My definition of the PAP Group included not only the PAP itself but also its core supporters in the Government-linked corporations (GLCs), the civil service bureaucracy and the grassroots organizations. 2)Globalist Mentality When Prime Minister (PM) Goh Chok Tong took office in 1990, the PAP Group had been increasingly dominated by Anglo-American scholars. They were strong proponents of relatively free flow of trade of finance, trade and people. The economic success of Britain and the United States of America (USA) was the basis of their inspiration. To them, the Republic of Singapore had succeeded in “transforming from a 3rd World economy to 1st World” economy. It was time for the republic to upgrade to “running the next lap”   This upgrade would be as described by Mr Gilbert Goh’s reason 6. The PAP Group implemented a massive population growth plan through immigration. This influx greatly exceeded population replacement levels. PM Goh emphasized bringing in “critical masses” of “foreign talent” with the “right skill sets”. His reasoning was organizations which welcomed diverse people of different skills would be able to create more value compared to their single-source counterparts. This large intake meant foreigners did not just come in to take up positions in certain specific sectors. Instead they became prevalent in all aspects of society. While locals complained certain foreigners brought in their “entire villages”, the PAP Group was delighted that more people were coming in to fulfil its vision of a “cosmopolitan hub”. The problem of unemployment among local professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) did not cause much concern within the PAP Group. It felt that the foreign influx would somehow create greater value for everyone.   3) Changes in the PAP Group mindset to locals The current series of economic problems actually began in 1997 during the Asian financial crisis. In 1999, a PAP Member of Parliament (MP) Dr Tan Cheng Bock urged the government to “think Singaporean first”. His argument was that existing older locals above 45 or 50 years old had job search difficulties at a time when immigration levels were rising. His idea was flatly rejected by PM Goh. For a regime which had talked about the older generation as the nation builders, this was a change in position. Mr Gilbert Goh’s reason 6 had also mentioned commercial entities having to follow the PAP Group policy to reserve jobs for foreigners. This policy might not be in the form of a written directive. Many companies and non-commercial organizations were actually part of the PAP Group. In the private sector, the PAP Group enjoyed high prestige among multinational companies (MNCs) and could influence their decisions. Some pro-PAP older people thought the younger post-independent generation born after 1965 (P65) had been too soft and weak. They argued that the P65 had not experienced the earlier bad times and therefore P65 had taken the good life for granted. These older people naturally included the company senior managers and human resource directors. They were genuinely supportive of the PAP Group policy. In addition some older people felt the economic downturn would be short-term as in the 1985 economic recession. While the 45 year old pro-foreigner job recruiters thought of themselves as people who went through tough times, history suggested otherwise. The PAP came to power in 1959 when the population had experienced a prolonged period of poverty, chaos and the Second World War (1939-1945). As of 1997, a 50 year old was only 12 years old in 1959. Many existing older people were actually beneficiaries of the 1971-1997 economic growth. The PAP Group felt less indebted to the more recent old folks and less sympathetic to their problems. 4) Changes in the voter base In reason 7, Mr Gilbert Goh had expressed scepticism on the claim of the PAP Group bringing in immigrants to maintain the voter support base. I am inclined to think otherwise. Between 1980 and 1988, the PAP’s share of the popular vote dropped from 78% to 63%. After 1990, PM Goh tried to reverse the trend. He personally went on a series of high-profile constituency visits and promoted the idea of “greater consultancy”. An early General Election (GE) was called in 1991. However the PAP Group’s vote share dropped to 61%. A parliamentary opposition had materialized which could put the PAP Group out of power in the long run. Therefore, the PAP Group increasingly became concerned about decreasing support. Pro-PAP grassroots organizations were gradually becoming a club for people above the age of 60. There was a growing perception that the P65 was more inclined to vote for an alternative party. Some PAP Group leaders tried to revitalize the grassroots organizations to win over the P65 with unusual actions. Mr Lim Swee Say held a forum at discotheque Zouk while Mr George Yeo held one at fast food restaurant chain MacDonald’s. (With Mediacorp actress Ms Joanne Peh as an added attraction.) Mr Teo Ser Luck ‘s promotional activities since 2006 included dancing hip—hop at Chingay Parade 2007, singing at National University of Singapore Cultural Centre, playing beach netball at Sentosa Island and recruiting “good-looking” young ladies to spread the PAP message. It remained unclear whether these unconventional actions had any real impact.  However it was clear that resentment of the immigrant policy grew among the P65. The PAP Group increasingly viewed the P65 in the same way as the older people. The new immigrants, especially those who had come from less advantaged backgrounds, would be more likely to be “grateful”. Therefore immigrants became a strategic source of votes. This explained the continued high profile ad promotion of the term “foreign talent” which culminated in the 2009 announcement $10 million community integration fund to increase links to between the PAP Group and the immigrants. 5) Weaknesses of certain locals Economic problems did not cause people to pull back their spending plans. From 1997 to 2009, credit card debit continued to increase. Leisure travel agencies continued to thrive. The food lovers ate and drink merrily. Private property prices shot upwards as more buyers desired to upgrade. Donations to charities especially based on television shows kept exceeding previous records. On the surface, the general population did not seem to be poor and needy. While some of these people were definitely newer immigrants, we could safely say existing locals were largely responsible for it. Some locals failed to realize they had limited competitive advantage at the workplace. Once the PAP Group started to back the foreigners, these locals were quickly marginalized. The combination of globalist mentality, voter support base changes and local weaknesses had a negative impact on how PAP MPs viewed their constituents. When a rise in foreign worker levy was announced at the Parliament Budget debate of 2010, the MPs who spoke about this issue in Parliament did not seem very concerned about protecting local employees. For example Ms Jessica Tan from East Coast GRC seemed more interested in whether the increase would “discourage foreign talent”. In an earlier report from another Pro-PAP Group Today newspaper, she declared she would not retrench employees. The Information Technology sector which she worked in had long become globalized. Any retrenchment or its equivalent would affect the “foreign talent” which the PAP Group had wanted to attract. I once saw her in East Coast GRC sometime in 2008 leading 2 columns of presumably grassroots leaders in a walkabout. The first impression was that of a 35 year old woman leading 20 men who were twice her age. Certainly the PAP Group was simply not going to rely on winning over the P65 to maintain power and would want to look for an alternative external source.    6) Conclusion The firmly-entrenched globalist mentality was that people would simply come and go. This was reinforced by the fact that after 1997, the PAP Group had largely reversed the earlier falling vote trend. It won 75% of the valid vote in 2001 GE and 67% in 2006 GE. It would be difficult to believe that the newer naturalized citizens had no impact on these results. Meanwhile the older people began to feel the negative impact on themselves and their families. For the locals, many had voted for the PAP for the past decade hoping it would come to the rescue. However, most marginalized people did not seem to understand the bigger picture as to what led to their problems. Instead of examining the problem in a cool and rational manner, they became emotional. As a result, the PAP Group tended to dismiss these expressions of unhappiness as irrational and frivolous.   EDITORS’ NOTE: Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so and help us exceed the number of fans on the official YPAP Facebook page.   Related articles: >> Why the present wave of immigration is different from the past >> Wong Kan Seng: We should remember that immigrant children will one day be like us >> 8 reasons why foreign workers will always be preferred in Singapore >> Declining wages of Singaporeans and the continued denial by PAP leaders >> Halimah Yacob refutes UBS study findings >> Halimah Yacob: Productivity drive will be derailed if foreign worker challenge not addressed  >> Exposing the six major flaws in the PAP’s immigration policies >> Wong Kan Seng promises to tighten immigration policies >> SM Goh: Foreign workers numbers may still rise >> Malaysian car mechanic applying for Singapore citizenship >> PAP launches Singapore Citizenship Journey to help new citizens integrate >> Compulsory for new citizens to attend “sharing sessions” with grassroots leaders >> Wong Kan Seng urged Singaporeans to be more tolerant of foreign workers >> Tharman: Foreign workers increase income of low-income families >> Sylvia Lim: Pace and influx of foreigners over last few years is wrong >> Amy Khor urges Singaporeans to welcome foreigners >> PAP MP wants more money to be spent to make new citizens feel welcomed in Singapore >> Shanmugam: Foreigners generate jobs for Singaporeans >> Vivian happy there are 4,500 new citizens serving as grassroots leaders >> Cosmetic changes made to immigration policy >> SM Goh: New immigrants needed to make up population shortfall >> PAP ministers hailed contributions of foreigners >> SM Goh expressed support for Zhang Yuanyuan >> State media: citizens have more rights over PRs >> Zhang Yuanyuan got her Singapore PR in only 2 months >> Official reply from government on the Zhang Yuanyuan fiasco >> Singapore PRC PR proclaimed loyalty to China publicly >> PRC resident hung China flag to celebrate its National Day >> PRC student in Singapore wants more scholarships for foreigners >> PRC prostitutes solicit for customers on Singapore’s cyberspace >> ERA: 40 per cent of resale flats buyers are PRs  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent Singapore Democratic Party's Secretary-General Dr Chee Soon Juan has replied to a posting by Lianhe Zaobao journalist Ms Yew Lun Tian on her Facebook who clarified that she did not misrepresent Dr Chee in an interview she conducted with him three weeks ago. Dr Chee alleged that Ms Yew had portrayed him as being "evasive" about his source of income during the interview with the intention of implying that he was funded by foreign agents to work against the interest of Singapore, prompting him to write a letter to the Straits Times Forum which was published last week. His reply prompted Ms Yew to post a partial transcript of her interview with Dr Chee on her Facebook to clarify herself. In his latest posting on the SDP website, Dr Chee repeated his assertion that he had been "sabotaged" by SPH again. He explained that he sounded evasive as he was hesitant to reveal details of his personal life to Ms Yew: "I had fielded several questions in the hour-long interview with her during which I was asked about the SDP's development, the schism with Mr Chiam See Tong, and the upcoming elections. While I readily answered these questions, I was less willing to talk about my personal affairs such as the kind of flat that I lived in as well as my personal income. I hesitated when Ms Yew asked me those questions not because I had something to hide but because they were intrusive (in her own words "rude"). But she chose to put the worst possible spin on my response, that is, that I was evasive." He stated clearly again that he was never funded by any foreign agent and that his main source of income is derived from his writing: "I work hard - very hard - for the little money that I earn through my writing. I chose, a long time ago, to marry my writing with my political work......To be certain, it has been a struggle financially. We live in a three-room flat. We don't go overseas for costly holidays, and we don't buy each other expensive gifts. We eat simple meals and don't dine in fine restaurants. I don't play golf or indulge in expensive hobbies, my only recreation is my morning jogs." Netizens remain divided about who to believe. While some questioned Ms Yew's intentions, others defended her. Andre laid the blame solely on Ms Yew: "I think the reporter/interviewer was at fault here. She should not jump to conclusions — she should be reporting things objectively. To say that the answers were vague and to imply that the interviewee was not answering her questions satisfactorily after many promptings — she is judging her interviewee." SDP Out felt that the problem lies with Dr Chee instead: "CSJ sense of guilt and his self-consciousness of being a traitor was the issue. There was no issue with the original article written by Ms. Yew, which to me, was in fact trying to influence readers to get out from their stereotyping of CSJ. Unfortunately, CSJ reinforced the perception and impression of him through his rebuttal!"   Related articles: >> Zaobao journalist posts clarification on her Facebook  Read More →