TR EMERITUS

Adelaide Now, 24 January 2010 Two-thirds of respondents - 66 per cent - think the Federal Government should cap immigration rates. Of these, 72 per cent of Australians polled favour an immigration cap, while 55 per cent of those who live here but do not consider themselves Australian also favoured an immigration cap. Leading immigration expert Dr Bob Birrell said the figures show "the tide is turning". "It's a significant finding because it suggests public discussion of congestion and house prices may be beginning to bite," Dr Birrell said yesterday. In the past four to five years, polling indicated Australians were reasonably comfortable with immigration levels, which are based on a Government target of around 190,000 a year. The results come as Opposition Leader Tony Abbott used an Australia Day Council address during the week to raise immigration issues, stand by the tough stance on boat arrivals in the Howard era and suggest he favoured more migration to boost our population. "My instinct is to extend to as many people as possible the freedom and benefits of life in Australia," Mr Abbott said. Dr Birrell said the economic shock of the global financial crisis, increasing house prices and continuing controversy over illegal immigration would have played a part in changing opinions. He also pointed to the fact that only 55 per cent of non-Australians were in favour of an immigration cap, compared to 72 per cent of locally-born Australians. Dr Birrell said Australian-born people took a more negative view of immigration, because they did not like their culture threatened by change. "(Many people) like things the way they were when they came into this world. Some see it as a threat to their inherited culture," he said. More than half the respondents felt Australia had changed for the worse in the past 20 years. But the poll also shows we're basically happy with our flag, our national anthem, and with the standard of living. Galaxy polled 1000 residents nationwide on Thursday and Friday, and found that we rate meat pies as our favourite national dish and think Australian history lessons should be compulsory in secondary schools. And the poll, taken when Prince William was in Australia, shows we are confused about whether the nation should remain under a monarchy, with 44 per cent in favour of a republic, 27 per cent opposed, and a whopping 29 per cent undecided. And, perhaps reflecting recent controversy over the violence inflicted on Indian students in Melbourne and Adelaide, 52 per cent of respondents think we are a racist nation, 45 per cent say we're not and 3 per cent are undecided. And while 63 per cent rate the standard of living the best thing about Australia today, only 5 per cent rated multiculturalism the best thing. Read rest of article here  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent Stung by an increasing number of complaints from both locals and tourists alike on the level of English proficiency of Singapore's service staff, the Manpower Ministry will be introducing an English proficiency test to "improve standards and productivity in the service sector." The Straits Times reported that "from July, foreign workers in the hotel, food and beverage, and retail industries must pass it in order to get a work permit as a skilled worker." However, according to Mr Lee Yi Shyan, Minister of State for Manpower and Trade & Industry, the government is not making the test compulsory. "We will continue to allow employers to make their own business decisions and determine language requirements according to their needs," he said. 'We do not expect foreign workers to be able to speak perfect English after passing the SLT. However, we do expect them to be able to understand and be understood by most Singaporeans and tourists,' he added. An employer who hires a worker who passes the test will pay $150 a month in levy, as long as the worker also possesses the relevant skills certification. The $150 levy is hardly a deterrent for employers to employ foreigners as they cost much less than locals. Due to the ruling party's liberal immigration policies, foreigners now make up 36 per cent of the population, up from 14 per cent in 2000. Two out of three PR applicants are successful, out of whom are a number of construction workers, cleaners, masseurs and even prostitutes. In 2008 alone, there are over 90,000 PRs and 20,ooo new citizens. According to a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, the relentless influx of foreigners into Singapore has depressed the wages of ordinary Singaporeans, increased the cost of living, especially that of public housing, decreased labor productivity and led directly to an overall decline in the standards of living. Despite much frustration, resentment and anger on the ground, the ruling party continues to insist that foreigners are necessary for Singapore. During his New Year Day's message, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong tried to reassure Singaporeans that they remain a "priority" for his administration, but other than some cosmetic changes to its pro-foreigner policies, the fundamentals remain unchanged. Slowing the inflow of foreigners is no longer sufficient, we need to reverse the inflow to retain our unique Singapore identity which is fast being eroded by economic migrants from elsewhere who do not share our values, culture and heritage. Singaporeans have only one last chance in the next general election to toss out this despotic, repressive and tyrannical regime before the floodgates are opened wider to swarm our nation with their new pets in a desperate attempt to retain and perpetuate their political hegemony.  Read More →

OPINION There is an interesting debate in Singapore's blogosphere lately on civil disobedience in Singapore. Prominent socio-political blogger Alex Au argued that Singaporeans are not ready for it and blamed the Singapore Democratic Party, a strong advocate of civil disobedience in Singapore for "letting itself down" for its frequent brushes with the law. The conventional thinking is that Singaporeans are too obedient, orderly and timid to express their displeasure against the ruling party publicly in the form of rallies, protests and marches. Indeed, the SDP's supposedly decline over the years is often attributed to its association with civil disobedience against the ruling party which lacks mass popular appeal. SDP's Secretary-General Dr Chee Soon Juan stood firm and defended all it takes is a "few good man" to spark off a mass civil movement to topple the ruling party, quoting the examples of India's Mahatma Gandhi and U.S.A's Martin Luther King. The reality on the ground lies somewhat in between. While Singaporeans are still not ready for the organized movement envisioned by Dr Chee, the concept of "civil disobedience" is becoming more palatable to them with each passing day as evident by the public display of online "protest" against the ruling party. 10 years ago, it would be unimaginable to read any critical comments/posts by netizens about the ruling party and its leaders. Today, they are ubiquitous everywhere even in forums owned by the government. The majority of Singapore's socio-political bloggers adopt a clear stance against the establishment and the few pro-PAP blogs suffer from a dearth of readership. There is far greater political awareness and openness now compared to the past and with more and more young Singaporeans being hooked up to the internet, it will serve as a catalyst to political awakening in Singapore. In the past, young Singaporeans are mostly concerned about their studies, careers and futures. Nowadays, an increasing numbers are expressing concerns about the governance of the nation, the absence of political competition in Singapore and the lack of accountability and transparency in the system. Online activism is becoming more prevalent in Singapore cyberspace with netizens having no qualms making use of social media tools to organize themselves and get their message across. Petitions are a popular tool to garner public opinion and to feedback to the authorities though their actual impact is suspected. In last year alone, there are a dozen petitions set up on a variety of issues from calling HDB to reduce the prices of public housing to the Romanian embassy to make ex-gratia payments to the families of the victims of a hit-and-run accident involving their vehicle. Facebooks are set up to campaign various causes from helping the homeless in Singapore to advocating for a repeal of the death penalty. The most notable Facebook was set up by a 22 year old Mr Alex Tan to vote the PAP out of power. Within a week, it attracted more than members than the YPAP Facebook itself and now has nearly 3,000 members. Such an overwhelming response from Singaporeans will be unthinkable a few years ago. One can infer from its success as an indication that Singaporeans have slowly shed their perennial inhibitions and fears of speaking out against the ruling party. They have become more aware of their civil and political rights as citizens of Singapore and they are not afraid to assert them. The key question to ask is: when will Singaporeans be ready to make the gigantic leap from online disobedience to civil disobedience in real life? Having 2,000 netizens signing on a petition to call for the resignation of a minister is quite different from having 2,000 Singaporeans doing so at Hong Lim Park. In Singapore, all forms of public dissent are quickly covered up to prevent "loss of face" for the ruling party which prides itself as having the popular "mandate" of Singaporeans to govern the nation. It will be a major PR disaster for the PAP if 2,000 young Singaporeans turn up at Hong Lim Park one day demanding free and fair elections for it will shatter the myth that they enjoy wide support from Singaporeans once and for all. Right now, the ruling party can only depend on draconian and repressive laws like the Public Order Act to keep prospective "protesters" at bay, but even then, its oft-cited propaganda to maintain social security and order is fast wearing thin. Singaporeans have witnessed for themselves what civil disobedience can achieve in other countries such as Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan and they know this may be the last resort to toss out the dictatorial regime. Unfortunately, there is a huge gulf between "thinking" and "doing". Most Singaporeans still prefer to agitate for change anonymously behind the screen than to do the dirty work on the ground like what Dr Chee and his colleagues have done. Despite the odds stacked against them, there is a silver lining over the horizon for Singapore civil activists who have been struggling to attract fellow Singaporeans to join them. With frustration, resentment and anger rising on the ground against the ruling party, an increasing number of Singaporeans are gradually accepting the idea of civil disobedience. Though it may not resemble the mass civil movements we see in other parts of Asia, the fundamental principles and goals will remain essentially the same. What we need now is more brave souls to step forward to lead the way to spark an avalanche of support for the movement. The police may be able to arrest and charge a few civil activists easily, but if we have more than a thousand, two thousand and three thousand of them in the streets, they will surely be overwhelmed. Singaporeans are fast running out of options and time to rid themselves of this despotic regime which was lampooned as a "textbook example of a repressive state" by Human Rights Watch lately. With the ruling party mass importing foreigners into Singapore to become citizens, our voting rights are being diluted as each day passes. Perhaps only when Singaporeans finally wake up from their slumber and realize one day that civil disobedience is the only way out for them that they will throw caution against the wind and lend their full support to it.  Read More →