TR EMERITUS

Written by Our Correspondent Public anger against Lighthouse Evangelism Senior Pastor Rony Tan for making disparaging remarks about Buddhism and Taoism is fast turning to the PAP for its apparent double standards in the handling of the case as compared to the arrest of three Chinese youths a week earlier for posting racist remarks on Facebook. Pastor Rony Tan was called up by the Internal Security Department (ISD) for questioning on Monday after his comments were made public via three video clips uploaded on his website and Youtube. While many Singaporeans have expressed a willingness to forgive him and move on, they still feel he was let off too easily with only a slap on his wrist including prominent new media researcher Tan Tarn How who opined that further action should be taken against Pastor Tan as he is an opinion leader in an interview with TODAY. His views were shared by an irate Singaporean Melvin Tay, who wrote a letter to the Straits Times Forum today asking why the authorities have refrained from prosecuting Pastor Tan. He contrasted the differential treatments dished out by the police in the two closely related cases: "The racist remarks seem to have been made in the heat of the moment as a discussion turned into an online spat between teenagers. In contrast, Pastor Tan's interview of the two believers was a prepared delivery that took place on stage to engage and entertain an auditorium of believers, presumably as part of a sharing that lasted many minutes. The teenagers were relatively unknown to people except in their immediate social network circles and hence the reach of their wrongful words was limited. Pastor Tan, on the other hand, is a mature adult, a senior pastor with thousands of church followers, and the videos were widely circulated by his church, and later by others via the Internet." Though police reports were lodged against Pastor Rony Tan, the police did not take any action on him contrary to what was said by Commander of Bedok Police Division and Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Police Teo Chun Ching after the prompt arrests of the three polytechnic students: “Police take a very stern view of acts that could threaten the social harmony in Singapore. The Internet may be a convenient medium to express one’s views but members of the public should bear in mind that they are no less accountable for their actions online.” [Source: Straits Times, 4 February 2010] Like many Singaporeans, Mr Tan wonders why Pastor Rony Tan was let off with only a warning when his words carry far greater weight and impact than that of the three teenagers: "It is also clear from the videos that Pastor Tan and the people he interviewed had numerous erroneous views of Buddhism and Taoism that promoted ignorance and harm to inter-religious understanding. So, notwithstanding his apology, adequate action should be taken against Pastor Tan for exposing the religious fault lines of the nation." Angry readers post comments on Temasek Review, lampooning the authorities for their blatant double-standards in the application of the law. Zelphon felt the root cause of the problem lies in the system: "Double Standards is RAMPANT la..Every Singaporean Male who served NS will know about the term “WHITE HORSE”…The term refers to sons of parents with certain connections and political influences… and these sons get preferential treatment in SAF during the NS period…No matter how lousy and poor attitude they are…They still get a comfy life in NS and get posted to OCS and become F*&KED UP Officers in the end…This should be pretty familiar to many of our ministers..In this Rony Tan’s case, it is also similar…This pastor is a rich guy and probably have certain connections (Since his church has 12,000 members)…That is why we are seeing distinct double standards being displayed here…Wong Kan Seng Mas Selamat Incident … Deja Vu?" Jeff is obviously unhappy with the way the authorities have handled the two cases: "Lets put it in this way…3 youths of race A, said disparaging remarks about race B on the internet (On the internet, if you don’t like it, you can choose not to read it). They were arrested, released on bail and are awaiting charges. 1 older person of religion A, said disparaging remarks of religion B in a public setting to thousands of listeners (who btw, are ‘forced’ to listen, in that they cannot shut their ears while inside). He was ‘invited’ for questioning with the ISD and let off with a warning. The 3 youths will have a permanent police record, regardless if they are charged or not. The older person will not. The 3 youths were jailed. The older person was not. The 3 youths may have acted irresponsibly, but they are youths after all. Their statements were posted online, probably, without pre-meditation. The older person’s speech was pre-planned, probably rehearsed, with accompanying witnesses/interviewees to maximise impact. The 3 youths posted the comments anonymously, giving little credibility to their statements. The older person has an established reputation, and his statement bears the full weight of this reputation. If we take all this into account. Which party would have made a greater impression? The 3 youths or the older person? Shouldn’t the result have been opposite? The 3 youths should have been ‘invited’ for questioning and let off with a warning. Whilst this older person should have been arrested and charged for sedition. And I finish with ‘regardless of race, language or religion’" saycheese is ready to move on, but is still perturbed by the shifting OB markers: "I am a Buddhist/Taoist, who have never placed much store in what a Christian pastor says. He has apologised, good let’s move on. Even if he insists that what he said was the truth and refuses to apologise, so what? Surely he should be entitled to his beliefs and have the right to articulate them to his congregation, however disagreeable others may find them to be. However, the perception that the same one set of Laws are applied differently to lesser mortals is the conundrum, what with ill-defined and shifting OB markers." As one commentator puts it succinctly, Singaporeans will be more ready to move on from his unfortunate episode had not for the arrests of the three teenagers which occurred only a week earlier. Despite DPM Wong Kan Seng's assertions that being called up by ISD is not "less serious" than being arrested by the police, there is a pervasive perception among the public whether rightly or wrongly that there is double standard in the application of the law in Singapore - that the rich, powerful, influential and well connected elites will be able to get away with a lighter punishment as compared to ordinary Singaporeans. The public backlash against the PAP is building up and should the Attorney-General Chambers decide to charge the three youths later, it will probably translate to the loss of some votes for it in the looming election ahead. With public sentiments against it, the PAP can ill afford to alienate young voters further whose opinions are becoming increasingly important and influential. EDITORS' NOTE: If you encounter the "duplicate post" error when posting comments on our site, post again by clicking on the "submit" button and hold it for at least 5 seconds. We are still working to resolve the problem and we appeal for your kind understanding and patience. Related articles: 1. Rony Tan's Facebook closed after being flooded with comments from netizens 2. Rony Tan’s views on homosexuality 3. Perceived double standards in the application of Sedition Act 4. Facebook group set up to demand punishment for Rony Tan 5. VIDEO: Pastor Rony Tan’s comments on Buddhism 6. Hardwarezone forumers up in arms over Pastor Rony Tan’s remarks 7. Pastor Rony Tan issues public apology on his remarks about Buddhism  Read More →

By Bhaskaran Kunju Framing is a writing device that helps to put into focus a story or event in a manner that the writer wants the reader to be able to identify with. Every article that you read has been framed to put forward and emphasise a specific perspective. A few days ago, Mr Vikram Khanna of The Business Times wrote an article, “The foreign-worker link in growth, productivity”. In it, he suggested that the media reports on the recent Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) report were incorrect in the analysis and coverage of the key recommendations. (read Vikram Khanna's article here) While Mr Khanna has taken issue over the framing of the story by the media, the reality isn’t far from what’s already been discussed in the media. Let’s get straight to the point on this. In page one of the ESC report itself, under point 6 it is stated, “Our specific recommendations are summarised under three broad priorities. First, we have to boost skills in every job. We should develop an outstanding nation-wide system of continuing education and training, to give everyone the opportunity to acquire greater proficiency, knowledge and expertise, from the most basic jobs to the most complex. Employers and industry associations, unions and government will also have to work together to redesign and create better jobs. We recommend a progressive increase in foreign worker levies to incentivise companies to improve productivity.” The direct recommendation and conclusion by the ESC in boosting skills in every job is to increase foreign worker levies. There are 3 conclusions that can be drawn from this: 1. Foreign workers are being used as cheaper alternatives to local workers by companies and this currently is/has been/will be a hindrance to the productivity levels that are being expected; 2. More should be done to train Singaporean workers as opposed to now, when the influx of foreign workers has made it easier to hire them instead of training locals; and 3. The level of skills possessed by foreign workers at the present is not up to the high standards that have been initially expected. I am willing to concede there might be counter arguments over the conclusions drawn here, but I do believe they are on the mark. In the main press release, the ESC summarised this portion of the report as such, “Manage our dependence on the foreign workforce by raising foreign worker levies in a gradual and phased manner. Also raise the quality of the foreign workforce and encourage employers to retain skilled foreign workers by increasing the skilled levy differential.” Mr Khanna actually seems to suggest that all foreign workers will be retained en bloc when he says, “incentives will be put in place for companies to retain foreign workers so that their skills, too, can be upgraded.” As one can infer from the press release statement above and in careful reading of the report itself, it is only the skilled foreign workers who are to be retained. Of course it will also be untrue to suggest that there might be mass culling of foreign workers in light of the ESC report. This will be economical suicide. Which is why the ESC has recommended steps that will alter the current landscape gradually and over the long run. Mr Khanna generally argues that an increase in foreign workers, or at least the current numbers are justifiable and are vital for the growth of Singapore. He cites a few lines from an Economic Review Committee (ERC) report from 2003 to assert the necessity of foreign workers. He states, “But, first, let’s recall another report that was released almost exactly seven years ago, in February 2003, by the Economic Review Committee (ERC). This is what it said about foreign workers, on page 142: ‘Without foreign workers manning the night-shifts, there would be no day-shift jobs for Singaporeans. Production costs would go up and companies would be forced to move elsewhere, where workers are cheaper and more readily available.’ The ERC had a point, and it’s even truer today, when there are more ‘elsewheres’ for companies to move to than in 2003.” But as he has correctly pointed this was 7 years ago. Logically the release of the latest ESC report automatically supersedes all such previous reports, as it is a revised outlook. Furthermore the ERC was a precursor to the ESC. To point out the ERC, and its report, as a separate process is misleading as it gives the impression that there are conflicting views being put forth by the government. Also the ERC was set up in 2001, with its first and only report being published in 2003, at a time when the Singapore and global economic climate was much more different than it is now, even in terms of foreign worker numbers. It is true of course that foreign workers are needed to supplement the labour force. This is a given in any economy. But the general consensus as derived by the media and the people from the ESC report is that there is a shift in perception by the government on how foreign workers are to be utilised and the management of their proportional numbers in the work force. The main purpose of the ESC report is in fact on broader issues of maintaining the competitiveness of Singapore’s economy. The reinvestment in the labour force is a portion of the main crux of the ESC’s suggestion in keeping the labour pool on par with Singapore’s economic targets. Improving the skills of Singaporeans and the management of foreign worker numbers are the main suggestions put forth. Couple that with the broad recommendation of reducing the reliance on foreign workers and the main idea of reducing foreigners being bandied about in the media is no longer incorrect as Mr Khanna had suggested. It is however another question as to why just this portion would receive more coverage in the media ahead of the rest of the report. The reason is simple. It is of the biggest concern to the average Singaporean at present and at the individual level has more relevance. Mr Khanna, has chosen to provide arguments that are heavily weighted in personal opinion and have little to do with the general consensus or the facts of the ESC. Even the Straits Times framed the story as ‘The Big Shift” in reference to the shift in foreign worker reliance by the government. Mr Khanna worries that people might think that cutting back on foreign workers “will magically raise productivity”. Generally no one has made this leap in judgment. But the inverse that he is arguing, that is including more foreigners in the workforce means an increase in productivity is also wrong. Singapore’s productivity has only increased by 1% the past decade and according to Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnman, the Finance Minister and the ESC Chairman, it is too low.  Mr Tharman does however contend that despite the low increase in productivity of the past decade compared to the decade prior, Singapore then was at a lower stage of development and hence there was more room to grow. But the past decade has seen the largest influx of foreign workers. So Mr Khanna’s stance fails unless you were to contend, that the inclusion of foreigners in the Singapore work force was what was needed to even keep afloat that bare 1% of growth. But even this is now debatable, given the contents and suggestions of the ESC report in reducing the reliance of foreign workers to improve productivity. Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong in his recent trip to Bahrain said, “While foreign worker numbers may still rise, it will now grow more slowly,” This seems to echo what Mr Khanna stated, “In absolute terms, the number of foreign workers could well increase, at least in the short term. Over time, as new skills are developed, the reliance on foreign workers would go down.” But the problem here is that the ultimate target as put forth by the ESC and as recognised by Mr Khanna is still the same. The ESC proposal is for the long run, and is not a short-term solution. Absolute numbers may rise but the rate of intake will still slow, with the ultimate target being less reliance of foreign workers. The matter is not so simple as to dismiss either side of the argument but Mr Khanna’s position is still heavily generalized and does miss the point altogether. One also has to acknowledge the context in which SM Goh’s statements were made. It is unlikely that a Minister will go to a foreign nation and expect to improve bilateral ties by telling them you wont be taking in foreigners anymore. Both sides of the arguments have to be fed so that there wouldn’t be a severe conflict of interest. After all there is still what Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said on January 28, “We’ve grown in the last five years by just importing labour. Now, the people feel uncomfortable, there are too many foreigners. Trains are overcrowded with foreigners, buses too, property prices have gone up because foreigners with permanent residence are buying into the market. The answer is simple: We check the flow of foreigners, raise your productivity, do the job better, so that instead of two workers, eventually you’ll do it with one worker, like the Japanese do.” How ironic then that Mr Khanna would use the Japanese as an example in his argument. He has cited that country’s homogenous labour pool as the reason for their recent shortcomings. Mr Khanna preaches caution in over simplifying and misreading the ESC report but his Japan example is severely generalized and dangerously irresponsible in its own right. Japan’s economical problems run deeper than that of a lack of foreign workers. The rise of more competitive nations, specifically China in the last decade and a half, who have adopted more efficient means of production, has challenged Japan’s economical position. An insufficient productive labour force is one of the reasons for Japan’s economic misery as well, but the addition of foreign workers will only further lower wage rate and hence reduce consumption as well as incapacitate a work force that is already lacking in efficiency. This is of course only the tip of the iceberg in addressing the economic situation of Japan, but it is still far removed than the generalised account given by Mr Khanna. One can gather that the main point behind Mr Khanna’s article is to re-enforce the importance of foreign workers but this isn’t the concern of the ESC or for that matter Singaporeans in general. It is rather the proportion of foreign workers and their relative efficiency that is of concern to most if not all. Finally I would like to thank Mr Khanna for taking the time to post a comment in an earlier article on this issue. I think it is common sense to accept that the comments posted by readers shouldn’t be taken personally. I have received my fair share of negative comments too but even though I’m in no position to speak on behalf of the site, I would like to state that it is not right to assume that what you find in the comments here is a reflection of this site. Feel free to look through the comments and forums at any SPH site and you would find similar exchanges of ‘vitriol’ (though most comments there are heavily moderated out while TR has a more liberal policy). The Internet has only made it so much easier for instant reflections by readers to be made known. Fortunately (or unfortunately) the Internet affords this convenience to readers unlike the print media. Just because you do not hear or read comments as frequently in the print media, it doesn’t mean there aren’t any. For every unintelligent comment that gets posted on the net there are easily dozens more that will go unsaid in print. It is up to you as a journalist to discern between what is engaging and what isn’t. After all that is what’s required of you in your job scope as a journalist in the first place. Copyright © The Temasek Review, 2009 EDITORS' NOTE: If you encounter the "duplicate post" error when posting comments on our site, post again by clicking on the "submit" button and hold it for at least 5 seconds. We are still working to resolve the problem and we appeal for your kind understanding and patience. Other articles by Bhaskaran Kunju: >> How much immunity for a diplomat >> The saga of (dethroned) beauty queen Ris Low >> Is there room for more foreigners in Singapore? >> Why social cohesion is at the forefront of the Prime Minister’s National Day Rally >> Changes in political system to allow more alternative voices >> The untimely departure of Chip Goodyear >> Should universities be re-politicized? About Author: Bhaskaran Kunju is a Political Science and Communications and New Media undergraduate at the National University of Singapore. He is a regular contributor to the Straits Times Forum and TODAY Voices. He also writes for NLB and FAS and hopes to be a full-time journalist.  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent After pussy-footing for the last few months and finding scapegoats to deflect blame from HDB, finally one person from the establishment dares to step forward and say the truth about the real reason behind the sky-rocketing HDB flat prices - former ISD officer and now Senior Writer of the Straits Times Chua Mui Hoong. In an editorial published in the Straits Times today, Ms Chua wrote: "The way I see it, rising resale flat prices reflect genuine pent-up demand spurred by high levels of immigration. They do not seem to be driven by speculative frenzy. Those priced out of the market may find it emotionally satisfying to finger PRs or speculators as scapegoats than to acknowledge that the market is moving faster than one's income and savings can keep up with." She cannot be more right: though PRs are partly responsible for the spike in prices, they should not bear blame because they need a roofs over their heads as well. The blame should like entirely on the government for allowing too many foreigners into Singapore within too short a period of time without building adequate number of new flats to house them thereby leading to the situation we are in today. Young Singaporean couples are being priced out of the HDB market and either have to rent their own places or stay with their parents for the time-being, hardly ideal conditions for them to start a family of their own. Common sense tells us that an increased population will definitely increase the demand of housing and prices will only go up if the demand is not met. Since the new flats need a few years to construct, the onus is on HDB to plan way ahead and build adequate number of flats to meet future needs and not to be "caught offguard" by building more flats only now which does not relieve the shortage in the housing market at all. According to figures from the Ministry of Home Affairs, there are nearly 100,000 immigrants including both new citizens and PRs in the year 2008 alone, but only 3,183 new flats were built in 2008: [Source: HDB Financial Report 2008/2009] It doesn’t take a statistician to come to the conclusion that the number of flats built were grossly inadequate to meet the demand of a rapidly increasing population. The decrease in the number of new flats built by HDB coincides with the sky-rocketing prices of resale flats as Singaporeans needing a roof over their heads are forced to purchase a more expensive flat in the resale market thereby contributing to the overall price inflation: Though HDB is now “ramping up the supply of new flats”, it is too late to meet present demand and Singaporeans will have to pay a hefty price for its lack of foresight in building more flats earlier to cater to the needs of a growing population. The ruling party has been finding all kinds of excuses to cover their most glaring mistake from pinning the blame to fussy Singapore buyers, speculative frenzy and some people are buying HDB flats for rental income which all do not explain the astronomical prices: 1. If Singaporeans and PRs are indeed "flip-flopping" HDB flats for profits, why is HDB not taking any measures now to prevent the situation from spiralling out of control? 2. Unlike private properties, there are strict rules governing renting HDB flats with a minimum occupancy period of 5 years for new flats and 1 year for resale flats. It doesn't make sense for an investor to fork out so much cash to buy a resale flat for rental purposes due to the time lag when he can well invest in private properties with higher rental yield. The prices of HDB flats have doubled in the last five years or so: this is not "asset appreciation", but a property bubble - the HDB flats are valued much more than they are actually worth because of a gross lack of supply in a market monopolized by one single provider. The laws of economics dictate that the prices will not go up indefinitely, they will have to come down at one point or another because it is impossible for wages to catch up with it and when it comes crashing down, Singaporeans who have paid ridiculously high prices for the flats now will be plunged into financial distress as banks come calling in for them to top up their mortgage loans. Singaporeans should start demanding answers from HDB: give us the exact breakdown costs of each unit of HDB and explain why so few flats were built when the population has been expected to grow in the next few years. EDITORS' NOTE: If you encounter the "duplicate post" error when posting comments on our site, post again by clicking on the "submit" button and hold it for at least 5 seconds. We are still working to resolve the problem and we appeal for your kind understanding and patience. Related articles: >> Why HDB is unable to reveal break down costs of new flats now >> HDB blames Singaporeans for not selecting flats when given the chance >> Singaporeans worried about retirement after depleting CPF to pay for over-priced HDB flats >> Mah Bow Tan acknowledged that rising HDB flat prices has sparked “fresh concerns” >> PM Lee: Govt does not have control over prices of resale flats” >> COVs of resale flats shooting through the roof >> HDB resale price index hit record high in 2009 >> Singaporean wants PRs to live in rented flats instead of buying resale flats >> Singaporeans wants PRs to be banned from selling HDB flats at a profit >> Shanmugam: Singaporeans likely culprits for driving up HDB flat prices >> Mah Bow Tan: HDB flats remain affordable >> Means testing for PRs to buy resale flats >> Immigration and public housing: should the govt or people plan ahead? >> Grace Fu: hard to predict demand for housing >> Indonesian PR bought 4-room flat at $653,000 >> Mah Bow Tan asks home buyers to be realistic >> PAP MP blames young couples who cannot get a flat for not planning ahead >> Home affordability: HDB versus the public >> Demand vs supply: so many applicants, so few flats >> Number of applicants exceed number of flats >> HDB to increase supply of flats >> Mah: don’t compare with prices in the past >> ERA: 40 per cent of HDB flat buyers are PRs  Read More →