TR EMERITUS

From our Correspondent In the face of mounting criticisms from Singaporeans over its lop-sided liberal immigration policy, the ruling party has found a rare voice in support from former counsellor and perennial ST Forum contributor Mr Gilbert Goh, writing from Sydney, Australia. In a letter published in My Paper today, Gilbert warned that if Singapore is not aggressive in trying to woo talented migrants, it will face a serious brain drain. Though Gilbert admitted that Singapore has become a more stressful society compared to the situation five years ago due to overcrowding and the struggle to make ends meet, he is of the view that there is a role for foreigners here. "It would be ideal if these foreigners remain in Singapore and become citizens here, so that they have a stake in the success of our country as well. As Singapore continues to bring in more foreigners, let us try to welcome them. Doing otherwise will only make them temporary stayers. More can be done to ensure that foreign talent remain in our country," he added. The rising unhappiness and resentment on the ground over the rapid rising number of foreigners in Singapore has prompted senior leaders to speak up on the issue lately one after another. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said last week that foreigners are needed to keep the Singapore economy growing. Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong assured Singaporeans that the government will safeguard their rights even when it tries to boost Singapore's declining birth rates via immigration. The ever omnipresent Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew implored Singaporeans to "bear" with the tide of foreigners, ‘even if it’s making Singapore a little uncomfortable and cramped’. Foreigners now made up about 36 per cent of Singapore's population. According to the National Population Secretariat, there were over 20,000 new citizens and 90,000 PRs last year. The ruling party has been very generous with the newcomers to the extent of setting up a $10 million Community Integration Fund to make them feel "welcomed" in Singapore. Singaporeans are urged to "embrace" foreigners and help them "integrate" into Singapore society. In another country, the ruling party would soon be kicked out of office for the shabby treatment it has dished out to the locals, but not so in Singapore where there is no viable alternative to challenge its hegemony. At the rate the ruling party is "importing" foreigners en masse, it is not inconceivable that Singaporeans will find themselves in the minority one day.     Related articles: >> MM Lee urged Singaporeans to bear with tide of foreigners >> Singapore Indian shocked at daughter being a minority in Indian kindergarten >> SM Goh mused about allowing immigration enclaves in Singapore >> PR asked ungrateful Singaporeans to wake up >> Singapore PR complained that Singaporeans are not proud of their country  Read More →

By Bhaskaran Kunju, Political Correspondent On November 6 Senior Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong spoke at the Deepa Thirunal 2009 ceremony held at the Bradell Heights Community Club. In what was supposed to be an extended celebration of Deepavali, SM Goh discussed the topic of immigrants and social integration. It can be read here. By now it would not be of any surprise to anyone that this topic gets reinvigorated at every event possible all the way till the General Elections next year. There is of course an underlying reason for this, and it has been discussed before in my previous articles. But there are some points that SM Goh had raised that I think needs to be discussed. Firstly, SM Goh drew comparisons of ‘successful’ social integration with two events he had attended. He recounted a Deepavali function with items put up by children of new Indian migrants who in his words “could easily pass off as Singaporeans” and his visit to Fujian, his ancestral village where he was welcomed as a Singaporean and not as a returning Chinese. For the latter, he noted that he himself was the son of a first generation Chinese migrant yet he was a Singaporean in every aspect. The obvious flaw in his argument is that his father would almost certainly have been part of the first few waves of migrants, since SM Goh himself was born in 1941. Being born before Singapore was even forged as an independent state, he would have been part of the process of nationalisation that would have instilled in its population the core identity and value of the country. It would have been quite a feat had he been immune to it. To compare his path to becoming a Singaporean with that of the migrant children he had seen perform in the function is completely off the mark and takes lightly the difficulty and hardship the earlier generation of Singaporeans had to endure. SM Goh then goes on to discuss the effect that PRs and migrants have had on Singaporeans and calls it an ‘emotive issue’. But he emphasises the stance of the Government by explaining his views on it. He said, “To me, whether we should have more immigrants and migrant workers or not boils down to whether they help us to sustain and enrich the quality of life of Singaporeans.” Of course there is irony in his statement, since it is Singaporeans who seem to feel the opposite of having their quality of lives sustained and or enriched by immigrants. With this however he recites three main reasons for the policy of bringing in large number of immigrants; low birth rates among Singaporeans, the need for migrant labour to sustain our standard of living and for enriching our society. For the issue of low birth rates he states the following, “For all our effort in encouraging marriage and procreation, our total fertility rate climbed only marginally from 1.26 in 2004 to 1.28 last year.  This is still far short of the 2.1 needed to replace father and mother.  In absolute terms, we need about 60,000 babies per year. Last year, we had only 32,400 citizen babies!  How do we make up for the shortfall? Without PRs and new citizens, Singapore will go the way of the dinosaurs.  If we do not take in any more new immigrants, our population will begin to shrink in 2020.  That is only 11 years away!  Let me give you another statistic.  In the last 10 years, the number of people aged 65 and above has grown by about 100,000 while the number of children aged below 15 had shrunk by about 50,000.  This is an unsustainable demographic structure” The statistics are of course worrying. With an ageing population that is far short of it’s natural replacement rate the impact it would have on the labour pool as well as on society could very well be devastating.  But there are inherent flaws in this ideology of supplanting the problem with immigrants. Firstly there is a gross assumption here that somehow, PRs and new citizens would repopulate our country with more newborns and hence meet our shortfall for the natural replacement rate. Existing Singaporeans aren’t genetically deficient in reproducing. The reasons for a shortfall in birth rates are due to socio-economic reasons such as high cost of living, the same set of reasons that new PRs and new citizens will have to face. Unless we Singaporeans are indeed somehow genetically predisposed to not having children, then the idea that PRs and new citizens will help in reaching our natural replacement rate is one that appears to be a quick fix with little thought put into it. SM Goh states how government policies of encouraging Singaporean to have more children have ‘failed’. But shifts in social attitudes, especially ones that have been entrenched for decades, take time and should not be measured in just a few short years. The fault of course lies in the administration for not having the foresight to diagnose the problem much earlier. Additionally is there a policy in place to prioritise giving PR or citizenship status to families with more than one child? It would not seem so and in this instance wouldn’t more immigrants merely contribute to the problem of an ageing population? It isn’t population replacement anymore, it’s population displacement. Actually it inadvertently could be replacement, with Singaporeans choosing greener pastures. For the argument of immigrants to top up our labour pool SM Goh had the following to say, “Without them, my guess is that our growth rate would be easily 1 to 2 percentage points lower.  Well, you may say, let us do without this extra boost of 1 to 2 percentage points from foreigners in future and be satisfied with our present quality of life.  But it is not that simple. Without the foreign workforce, our flats and MRT will not be built, our buses will come to a standstill, our healthcare services will degrade, and many investors, including Singaporean ones, will uproot and go where talent is abundant.  Instead of sacrificing just 1-2 percentage points of growth, our economy will shrink, and our quality of life decline.” Surprisingly, there appears to be a lack of sync with public sentiments and government perceptions. Foreign workers building MRT and flats is not a new phenomenon and has been around for decades. In fact most of the earlier MRT underground lines were built by Irish tunnelers. Factually, it would even be wrong to lump this group of migrant workers in when most of them are in fact merely transient workers as explained by PM Lee Hsien Loong in a speech at NTU not too long ago. The real issue over immigrant workers lies in the added competition to Singaporeans. Competition is good, and it ensures that each individual functions to his best for survival. But the question is how much competition is too much? Going by anecdotal evidences it would seem we might have touched the threshold. However I feel the real issue lies in how or why immigrant workers are being given PR or citizenship statuses. How, because once again we are giving away citizenship and PR statuses much too easily without the slightest concern of integration or their interest in actually settling down in Singapore. Why issue PR or citizenship when a work permit is sufficient for those who have no interest in settling down in Singapore? This would bring to the why part. I was watching a debate a few months ago on the issue of foreigners and one of the reasons given for issuing PRs or citizenships to foreign workers was as an added bait to entice more talents to work in Singapore. I personally think it’s about time our government stopped acting like an insecure teenage girl who feels she needs to put out to get a date. The opportunity to pursue a career plus the well promoted social stability and security of our nation should be more than sufficient for any individual to choose to work here. If it isn’t enough, then perhaps we shouldn’t be so desperate as we simply do no fit their criteria. I think most moderates, including myself would agree that the issue of immigrants itself is not the problem but rather the extent of it and the incredible ease of attaining PR or citizenship. Of course we do need migrant workers and talent to enrich our society, economy and way of life. But when there are more than 100 000 new migrants each year then there are certainly a lot of questions to answer for. In 2008, 20500 new citizens, an increase of 18 percent from the year before, were welcomed. Additionally the number of PRs rose from 63,600 in 2007 to more than 79,000 in 2008.  These are staggering figures that are rising by the year, though PM Lee assured there would be a decline in coming years given the uncertain state of the economy. SM Goh concedes that there are worries and anxieties that need to be engaged and discussed given the sensitivity surrounding the issue of immigrants. But he also states, “The government must take all views into account, and then persuade and win over Singaporeans.” In other words, opinions are futile. About the 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 upon graduation.  Read More →

From our Correspondent An irate Potong Pasir resident Thomas Teo has written in to the Straits Times Forum expressing his disappointment and anger at being "taken for granted" by its MP Mr Chiam See Tong! Singapore People's Party (SPP) had earlier written to the Forum via its Councillor Wilfred Leung rebutting claims by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong that Potong Pasir residents are "short-changed" by the SPP. In a recent interview with the state media, Singapore People's Party Chairman Mr Sin Kek Tong said that Potong Pasir's veteran MP Chiam See Tong may relinquish his long-held seat in Potong Pasir to contest in a group representation constituency (GRC). Mr Chiam had not indicated who will replace him as the SPP candidate for Potong Pasir should he decide to contest in a GRC. There are rumors that his wife Ms Lina Ng will contest the seat. Mr Teo felt "short-changed" by the latest public remarks made by SPP: "The ease with which the SPP appears to discard our loyalty fills me with sadness and anger. We have supported Mr Chiam since 1984, believing Singaporeans need an opposition voice in Parliament." He also disagreed with the SPP's self-assessment that it has done a "wonderful" job in Potong Pasir: "The SPP is wrong to take a narrower view that Potong Pasir residents voted for Mr Chiam because Potong Pasir Town Council has done a wonderful job. To be frank, Potong Pasir has aged more quickly since voting in an opposition MP and the constituency is in need of major upgrading." Mr Teo ended his letter with an ominous warning for SPP: "The SPP should not take the ardent support of some 50 per cent of Potong Pasir residents for granted. There is no guarantee that voters will give the same level of support to a new SPP candidate." A street interview conducted by Chinese paper Lianhe Wanbao in Potong Pasir last week revealed that most residents will not automatically transfer their support for Mr Chiam to his anointed successor should he decide to leave Potong Pasir. Mr Chiam first won the seat during the 1984 elections when he defeated current National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan by a margin of 10 per cent of the valid votes. Mr Mah was later elected into Parliament via Tampines GRC in the next election. Though Mr Chiam is the longest-serving opposition MP in Parliament and is held in high regard by Singaporeans, he has so far failed to build a credible alternative to challenge the ruling party. The next election to be held by 2011 may his last which explains why he may be leaving his stronghold of Potong Pasir to contest in a GRC. The opposition has never won a GRC since the system was introduced in the 1988 elections. The closest they came to winning one was in in 1988 when the Workers' Party team led by Francis Seow won 49.1 per cent of the valid votes in Eunos GRC which was subsequently dissolved and absorbed by neighboring Aljunied and Marine Parade GRC after the 1991 elections. The PAP claimed that the GRC was needed to ensure minority representation. Critics lambasted it as a ploy to perpetuate their political hegemony indefinitely. Before the GRC system was implemented, minority candidates were able to win in single-seat constituencies. The late J.B. Jeyaretnam won against Chinese opponents twice in the Chinese-majority ward of Anson in the 1981 by-election and 1984 general election. Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong made a freudian slip when he admitted that the GRC helped ensure the electoral victory of first-time candidates who may otherwise not be keen to take part in the elections on a PAP ticket. Given the perennial weakness of Singapore's divided opposition, it will be an uphill task for them to capture any GRC in Singapore from th PAP.   Related articles: >> SPP rebukes PM Lee >> Chiam See Tong leaving Potong Pasir: a political suicide? >> PM Lee: PAP will not be taken advantage of again in Potong Pasir   EDITORS’ NOTE: If you like our work and would like to support us, please transfer your donations via paypal to our account ([email protected]). Any amount will be greatly appreciated! Alternatively, you can also help boost our advertising revenue by clicking on the ads displayed. Thank you! Join our tweet at: http://www.twitter.com/temasekreview  Read More →