TR EMERITUS

By Henri Ghesquiere , For The Straits Times DOES immigration enhance Singaporeans' gross national happiness? I would suggest that it does, though not without cost, and it could do so even more. First, immigration has boosted Singapore's economic growth. While money does not buy bliss, improved living standards, such as better health and education, enhance citizens' well-being. Gross domestic product - an imperfect but useful gauge of a country's production - grew by 6.7 per cent a year on average during the 2003-2008 period. More than one third of this growth occurred through an increase in the labour force of 5 per cent annually. Overwhelmingly, newly arrived expatriates, including permanent residents, accounted for this rise. Expatriates create income-earning opportunities for Singaporeans. They hire their services when, for example, they take a taxi. With inexpensive kitchen help, a Singaporean entrepreneur may be more willing to open a restaurant, creating demand for local accountants. Immigration improves the labour force. Hiring a prospective Nobel Prize winner raises the average level of education and capabilities. Domestic helpers relieve Singaporeans of the need to do household chores, enabling them to work outside the home. Average income per inhabitant grew 3.5 per cent annually in the period 2003-2008, though the increase was not distributed evenly. But does higher income via immigration make Singaporeans happier? The fourth King of Bhutan, during his enthronement in 1972, proclaimed that gross national happiness was more important than gross domestic product. His philosophy sought to balance material well- being with social equity, spiritual awareness and environmental sustainability. Immigration is not without its costs. Singapore's population will rise from five million today to seven million by 2020 if the pace of growth of the past six years is maintained. By then, expatriates will outnumber citizens unless naturalisation or the birth rate accelerates sharply. Rapid immigration raises a number of issues, including availability of space, heightened competition and identity. Crowding begets stress and the living environment can deteriorate. Competition for housing and school slots intensifies when supply lags behind demand. The recent recession stirred anxiety. The individual and collective selves undergo redefinition when citizens confront large numbers of culturally different, often more affluent, and internationally mobile expatriates. Some Singaporeans say that they feel like second-class citizens in their own country. Misgivings about immigration are common globally. As with foreign trade, the benefits of immigration are substantial but diffuse, whereas its costs tend to be concentrated and impact people unevenly. No doubt, there are legitimate issues of pace, integration and national identity. Singapore has implemented policies to better equip its citizens. Dependence on foreigners can be lessened if more Singaporeans work longer. Productivity gains are another avenue. Purposely lowering economic growth objectives seldom appeals to governments. The booming 2003-2008 period, however, saw above-trend economic growth that does not appear sustainable. If so, population growth could decelerate. Immigrants present not only challenges but also opportunities. Nowadays, some 40 per cent of Singaporeans who marry find an immigrant spouse. Viewing immigration through an us-versus-them lens has limited use. Jointly solving problems holds better promise. The image of expatriates as footloose opportunists ready to jump ship to the next lucrative assignment elsewhere is exaggerated. Many are committed to Singapore. Besides, Singapore can benefit even from those who do not stay here long, just as Singaporeans who study or work abroad add value to the places where they reside. Expatriates are a resource beyond the narrow economic sphere. Can the benefits of immigration make citizens happier? Managing conflicting emotions would help. To think one is happy can be an important part of actually being happy. Research finds that once basic survival and health-care needs are satisfied, income becomes less of a factor. Trusting and reciprocal relationships with family and friends then gain prominence. People want the opportunity to realise their potential and lead purposeful lives. Cultures differ but most humans crave security, appreciation and control over their lives. Citizens and expatriates interact daily as producers and customers, employers and employees, students and teachers. Take the last. Clear two-way communication about what students are expected to learn, and why, increases their sense of security. Encouragement and feedback on ways to improve make them feel appreciated. The workplace can weave habits of goodness into production, as opposed to instilling fear. Incentive structures can be set up that reward joint problem-solving, keeping in mind workers' need for security, appreciation and a sense of control. A mixture of cooperation and competition can produce excellence. Staff may actually come to enjoy going to work. Enabling citizens and expatriates to pursue fulfilling lives will contribute to the happiness of all. - ST The writer is a visiting professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.  Read More →

By Janet Steele from Malaysiakini [This article is republished in full here with kind permission from Malaysiakini Chief Editor Steven Gan] "We certainly lost the Internet war, the cyber-war... It was a serious misjudgment. We made the biggest mistake in thinking that it was not important." - Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, 2008 On March 8, 2008, the BN ruling coalition suffered a stunning upset, losing its two-thirds majority in Parliament along with five of peninsular Malaysia's 11 states. With opposition parties falling only 30 seats short of winning a majority in Parliament - and widespread rumours of parliamentarians in Sabah and Sarawak bolting BN to join a coalition led by opposition figure Anwar Ibrahim - this was a loss of unprecedented proportions. Journalists, commentators, and parliamentarians themselves credited - or blamed - the Internet. With five well-known bloggers elected to Parliament, the election of 2008 seemed to spell an unambiguous victory for the power of online media. As Malaysiakini editor-in-chief Steven Gan later said, if the Gulf War put CNN on the map, the election of 2008 did the same for Malaysia's only independent news portal. On election night, with key states falling to the opposition and BN's customary super-majority in question, state television was uncharacteristically silent. But Malaysiakini was posting live updates, many of them sent in by recently-trained volunteers. Finally, at about 1am, the Election Commission announced that the government had won a simple majority. Gan recalls that at about the same time Umno, the backbone of the ruling coalition, called an emergency meeting. The meeting broke up at about two in the morning, and there was a short press conference in which Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi stated that the ruling coalition still had a very strong majority. As he was leaving and journalists continued to press him, he said why ask more questions? "We have lost, we have lost." This became Malaysiakini's final headline for the night. They posted it in red. Although some researchers have rejected the conventional wisdom that the Internet is an inherently democratising force, there is still widespread popular support for the notion that the Internet is an automatic threat to authoritarian regimes. The government of Abdullah certainly thought so. In March 2007, the Internal Security Ministry issued a circular to newspapers warning them not to quote and publish "anti-government articles" from online news portals and blogs. One week later, the Information Ministry issued a similar warning. With the government deliberately confusing Malaysia's approximately 20,000 bloggers with the online news service Malaysiakini, it is perhaps not surprising that many people would consider the two to be the same thing. In a country where the proper role of news media is seen as reporting "good news about government leaders [and] cooperation between races, while promoting a single national identity", the government was clearly trying to discredit Malaysia's fledging independent news organisation. However Malaysiakini is anything but "just another blog". What makes Malaysiakini unique is not only its willingness to report on political news that would not otherwise be accessible, but also the high standards of journalism that it upholds. Malaysiakini was launched in November 1999, less than one year after the arrest of former deputy prime minister and leading opposition figure Anwar. The news portal was the creation of Gan and Premesh Chandran, two young journalists who got their start in print journalism at the The Sun. Believing that political control had corrupted the values of good journalism in the mainstream media, their plan was to bring independent news, investigative reporting, and in-depth analysis to the Internet. Launched in November 1999 Gan and Chandran timed the launch of Malaysiakini to coincide with the country's 1999 general election, and almost immediately gained notoriety by exposing that a Chinese-language newspaper had digitally manipulated a group photo of ruling party politicians to remove an image of former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim. In a country where all publications are licensed, and journalists must work under the restrictions of the Internal Security Act, Sedition Act, and Official Secrets Act, Malaysian journalists are highly constrained by the law. Yet in Malaysia there is an unlikely loophole for online news organisations and bloggers. In a 1997 speech in California, where he was courting overseas investment for high-tech industries, then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad pledged a no-censorship policy for the Internet. Although online journalists and bloggers are subject to harsh defamation laws regulating content, they need not fear losing a license to publish. At a time when mainstream media had lost credibility for their pro-government slant, Malaysiakini gained immediate attention and international accolades for its independent reporting. As Anwar said in a 2007 interview, "Malaysiakini has independence, credibility. It's the only avenue we have; the other media have an instruction to block us out." Malaysiakini has received a significant amount of scholarly attention since it was established a decade ago. Magazine and newspaper articles have also pointed to its independence, gutsiness, and willingness to "[tell] it like it is without having to resort to coded messages". But to date, no one has closely examined how Malaysiakini actually functions as a news organisation. For example, how do journalists at Malaysiakini conceive of "independent journalism", and how is this understanding related to broader questions of democracy and social change? This lengthy article focuses on how Malaysiakini uses the ideology of journalistic professionalism not only to challenge the status quo, but also to create a "pocket" of resistance to authoritarianism in Malaysia. Drawing on first-hand observation of newsroom practices, close reading of the website, and extensive interviews with editors and reporters, I argue that it is the norms and values of independent journalism rather than the technology of the Internet per se that make Malaysiakini so threatening to government authorities. Unlike previous research that either traces the history of Malaysiakini within the context of the political movement known as reformasi, or describes it as an example of cyber-activism, this article takes an ethnographic approach and analyses the specific newsroom practices that Malaysiakini uses to challenge authoritarianism, as well as the values that underlie these practices. I argue that Malaysiakini uses the norms of good journalism - covering both sides, providing documentary evidence, and giving voice to the voiceless - to legitimise alternative views of events, thus challenging the authoritarianism of the BN. I conclude by suggesting that in creating a space where citizens are free to express their opinions, Malaysiakini deliberately promotes a blueprint for democratic civic discourse in Malaysia. About the Author: JANET STEELE is an associate professor of Journalism at the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University. Her most recent book 'Wars Within' focuses on Tempo magazine and its relationship to the politics and culture of New Order Indonesia. She is a frequent visitor to Southeast Asia, and writes a weekly newspaper column called 'Email dari Amerika' for Surya daily in Surabaya, East Java. EDITORS' NOTE: Malaysiakini is celebrating its 10th year anniversary on Saturday, Nov 28 with a gala dinner at the Sime Darby Convention Centre in Bukit Kiara. Be there! Seats available from RM100. Click here for more information.  Read More →

By Tan Tian Yan from Sin Chew Daily Malaysia wishes to become a high-income country. x x x The following are true stories: A Malaysian political leader had a heart surgery in Singapore. The operation was successful. During his recuperation period, the political leader would like to thank three skilful doctors, including an anaesthesiologist. He said: “Thanks to the Singaporean doctors...” “I'm sorry, sir. I'm from Malaysia,” interrupted a doctor. “Me too.” “Me as well.” x x x A Malaysian company wanted to develop a new town abroad, it entrusted the project to a Singapore multinational company. The first time when they met, the Singapore company sent a team of seven people, including the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Architect and Chief Finance Executive. The meeting went smoothly. They relaxed and chatted. The Malaysian company's Director said: “Durians from my hometown Kuala Pilah, Seremban taste the best. I'll treat you all next time when you come.” “Really? What area in Kuala Pilah? I'm from Kuala Pilah, too!” said the Singapore company's Chief Executive Officer. Next, one by one, the other six from the Singaporean team revealed their identities. “I'm from Malacca.” “I'm from Kuala Kangsar, Perak.” “I grew up in Segamat.” “My hometown is...” And all of them were actually “made in Malaysia”. x x x There are countless similar stories around us. And there is always another story behind each story. Some were rejected by domestic universities while some were rejected by the government scholarship. They couldn't get it even with 10 As while others got only 10 Bs. As leaving might be better than staying, they just went to a different world after crossing the bridge. There is a deep feeling for every story. x x x According to the Malaysian Employers Federation (MEF) statistics, a total of about 785,000 Malaysians are currently working abroad and 44% of them are working in Singapore while the rest are working in other countries, including Hong Kong, China, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. And two-thirds of them are professionals. At the same time, most of the 2 million guest workers in Malaysia are from Indonesia, Bangladesh, Myanmar, India and Vietnam. They are engaged in labour industry which does not require high educational background but just a little bit of brains. Low skill, low knowledge and of course, low wages. Malaysia has become a country that exports brains while importing labours, resulting in a serious deficit in knowledge trade. x x x The government started to call on talent backflow in 2000 by offering a variety of incentives, including tax concessions and other conditions. It has been nearly 10 years of time but only 770 people responded, with an average of 80 talents return a year. The 770 people are just a small number of the total number of people working abroad. However, many of the small group of people still choose to leave again even they have returned. While many young people are not able to realise their dreams here and thus, they are packing and preparing to pursue their dreams in unfamiliar countries. x x x And they said that Malaysia wants to become a high-income country. - mysinchew.com  Read More →