TR EMERITUS

From our Correspondent Singapore netizens are reserved and sceptical about PM Lee's promise to slow down the intake of foreigners during a speech made recently at NTU. Over at the Straits Times discussion forum, some forumers questioned the sincerity of the Prime Minister while others called for concrete action instead of mere empty rhetoric. Kokoobird was the first to retort: "Are you doing it because the election is near about 1 year or less from now ? After that what happens ? - Back to the old policy ?" Followed by Wannamen: "Sounds like election is coming next year - a speech made to appease a growing number of unhappy Singaporeans? Maybe a tad too late." Refugees added: "PM is listening, which only meant 1 thing... election is coming, better make your demands now with your MPs..." Some wrote that they are supportive of bringing in talented foreigners, but not at the government's faulty implementation of its open-door policy. Misnomer wrote: "By all means, bring in real talents - people with skills which Singaporeans lack. Let in those too, who would do jobs which locals will not. But not the in betweens, liberal granting of "S" passes. These people mostly have secondary school education, even if with a uni degree, are no better than our ITE/poly grads, but they are willing to slog for meagre wages which Singaporeans cannot survive on. Easy access to foreign workers will not goad local employers to improve their work process to be productive or to hire locals. Our chronic unemployment is on the rise, so will social problems." lowsukling concurred: "There was always going to be a problem with the FT policy. The problem is there seems no way of weeding out the FNTs (Foreign No Talent), who seems mostly to have a golden rice bowl at the expense of his more hardworking local colleagues, largely due to the patronage of his boss who shares the same skin colour. This is especially prevalent in the financial sector. The government must have a mechanism of a) making sure that talented foreigners pass on skill sets, and b) that FNTs are not taking up positions at the expense of better qualified and capable locals. And dont be fooled into believing that there are no more expat packages. These FNT bums have the audacity of making Singapore sound like the hardship tour while commanding to locals' wages." Karaokeking disagreed with the government's definition of "talent": "It's perfectly right to continue to attract real talents. What's wrong is our govt's definition of 'talent'. The foreigners we commoners come into contact with every day are more trash than talent. And it's this 'mismatch' that causes frustrations." While Singaporeans acknowledge the importance of recruiting talented foreigners to work in Singapore, they disagree with the government's policy of opening the floodgates indiscriminately to semi-skilled foreigners to compete directly with locals for jobs. A few forumers quoted examples of other countries to highlight the flaws of Singapore's immigration policy. Stevewu77 wrote of his personal experience in the U.S. "Personally, I have nothing against any foreigners. I believe every Singaporean would like to be treated with civility when he/she works and lives in a foreign country. I have had a pleasant stay in the US for a decade. I would like to contrast the Singapore approach with an example from the US. The STAPLE Act calls - To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize certain aliens who have earned a Ph.D. degree from a United States institution of higher education in a field of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics to be admitted for permanent residence and to be exempted from the numerical limitations on H-1B nonimmigrants" http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1791 The point is that if a country really wants talent in a particular area, there is an appropriate way to do it." Harokitty recounted his experience in UAE: "Me too, just returned to our motherland from the UAE. It is true, the total percentage of locals is less than 2% of the total population in Dubai. Nevertheless, the gahmen there has never loss focus of who is their main core, who will be there for their country. We, foreigners know that we are there to make some $$ and send those $$ home to our homecountry that is not our country and that is not where our loyal lies, the gahmen there has policies to ensure that we know our place. Locals there will always be special to their gahmen and we foreigners respect that and respect their gahmen for taking good care of their own people. Coming back to Singapore, damn - now I feel like a fool for proudly hanging my country's flag in my living room when I was in the UAE, what so big deal about being a Singaporean?!?! It is so cheaply and easily available to certain undesirable national! I do not understand, do we not have any standards in accepting and when offering our citizenship or permanent residency? I agree on the welcoming on talents that Singapore is lacking, but what I see so far are far from it! Why are students from China so special? What nonsense is Peidu-mama? What kind of contribution can this group of people contribute to our country besides opening a door for them to easily enter and create social problems and 'conning' away some stone-in-the-head old men's CPF and life savings? There are many talented people in China, but how many of them are here? We are getting the spits that China itself does not particularly care about. Just take a walk down Chinatown or Bugis, just throw a pebble and you'll hit an entire village of them." A young mother, mickey08 shared her difficulties of getting a proper job due to competition from foreigners and expressed her worries for future generations of Singaporeans: "I used to be working, but phase out of work because of FTs. I have 2 diplomas.. one from Ngee Ann Poly and another from the US , but worked as teacher assistant in an international school. I worked half a day, ie. 8 to 12 to accomodate my children......but I was retrenched due to the FTs. Not that they are better, as I was more hardworking and more efficient... that was what the chinese teacher told me.. The FTs can do anything, they left their home country, and so can even work round the clock, but we are different. We have families and that spell responsibilities and time ! It is not that Singaporeans are fussy, but we have family commitments. How to find keep work and family in balance when what employers want is give-give-give since there are easily available, foreigners? Put the flexi-work scheme in law, and more housewives will be delighted to work half-day while the children are in school, than to depend on FTs ! You see, if the employers can employ FTs easily, why rely on Singaporeans ? It is so hard-pressed to be parents in Singapore. Now, get the link.. that is why many young couples do not want children no matter what kind of carrots are dangled in front of them. If I can turn back the clock, yes.. I would say NO to children, after having to sacrifice my career, and sanity to race through the stressful education that we are having, and to think again, my children will face the same dilemma that I am facing...FTs will easily available to take their work.. that is a frightening tot. Maybe one of the solution is.. to get out for good.. because as I experience now, there is no advantage to being a Singaporean in our own home country ! What an irony ! The country should take care of his citizens first, but fails to do so because all the top brass PAPpy are lopsided - all supposedly made up of very smart and intelligent men/women who are too smart and extraordinary to understand the life and struggles of the average Singaporeans ! Isn't it the people who made the nation, and not the other way around ? To those who are doing well now. What can you ensure that your children will be able to earn a decent living here ? Frightening tots. See our govt does not listen to us. They inform us . You either take it or leave it... so we die la.. fighting with the FTs ! Anyway the PAPpy need not fight with FTs, their job is theirs to keep for life, with tons of money thrown in !" Be reasonable replied: "Hello mickey08, I feel your heartbeat. I can't agree more with you that our government is not being reasonable and fair to the locals. First they want every able Singaporeans to work to power our economy. They tell the old, don't retire but take half your previous pay. Then they tell the educated women to have more babies and still hold on to their jobs. And they design the maid's policy in such an unfair way to penalize employers in every situation and rob the maid's pay partially in the form of levy, saying it is not desirable to have too many of them here. So, who is going be to look after these babes? Infant care is ~$1,200 per month and is likely to be out of reach to many lower-middle family. Worst of all, if they have a few young mouths to feed at the same time. Next, they open the floodgate to allow the influx of FW to compete for jobs at a lower cost and subject them to exploitation. As such, it makes the locals less competitive due to family commitment. When the locals are out of jobs, they claim that Singaporeans are choosy, must lower our expectations!" nicholas_lah is worried for his children: "I think quality of life is more important than always being number 1 in everything. Look at the French or the Australians - theirs is a contented life w/o the needless pressures since young. I don't want my kids to grow up going to schools with huge workloads and committing suicide because they got a B instead of an A...(that's a true story)" It appears that PM Lee's clumsy attempts to assauge the rising disgruntlement and anger on the ground has not quite gone down well with the online community who continued to vent their frustrations and poured scorn at the govenrment. Forumer Misnomer reminded netizens that PM Lee did not promise he will change the policy, just that he will "tweak" it by quoting his words: "This is why Singapore continues to open its doors to foreigners - they enlarge the economic pie as they have skills that locals lack and take up jobs that locals shun. This policy will not change. Singapore will need new immigrants for the indefinite future." The government's pro-foreigner policy will never change as long the PAP remains in power. Singaporeans who desire real change should know what to do at the next general elections. Source: http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=24634 EDITORS' NOTE: Dear readers, we have made it easier for you to assess our old articles. Just type www.tremeritus.net/year/month/day and you will be able to read all the articles published on that particular date.  Read More →

One needs to look no further than the river running through Shangba, Guangdong, to understand the extent of the heavy metals pollution that experts say has turned such hamlets into cancer villages. The river's flow ranges from murky white to a bright shade of orange and the waters are so viscous that they barely ripple in the breeze. In Shangba, the river brings death, not sustenance."All the fish died. Even chickens and ducks that drank from the river died. If you put your leg in the water you'll get rashes and a terrible itch," said He Shuncai, a 34-year-old rice farmer who has lived in Shangba all his life. "Last year alone, six people in our village died from cancer and they were in their 30s and 40s." Cancer casts a shadow over the villages in this region of Guangdong, nestled among farmland contaminated by heavy metals used to make batteries, computer parts and other electronics devices. Every year an estimated 460,000 people die prematurely on the mainland due to exposure to air and water pollution, according to a 2007 World Bank study. One needs to look no further than the river running through Shangba, Guangdong, to understand the extent of the heavy metals pollution that experts say has turned such hamlets into cancer villages. The river's flow ranges from murky white to a bright shade of orange and the waters are so viscous that they barely ripple in the breeze. In Shangba, the river brings death, not sustenance."All the fish died. Even chickens and ducks that drank from the river died. If you put your leg in the water you'll get rashes and a terrible itch," said He Shuncai, a 34-year-old rice farmer who has lived in Shangba all his life. "Last year alone, six people in our village died from cancer and they were in their 30s and 40s." Cancer casts a shadow over the villages in this region of Guangdong, nestled among farmland contaminated by heavy metals used to make batteries, computer parts and other electronics devices. Every year an estimated 460,000 people die prematurely on the mainland due to exposure to air and water pollution, according to a 2007 World Bank study. Read rest of article on East Asia Review: http://www.eastasiareview.com/?p=88  Read More →

By Seah Chiang Nee from The Star LAST month was one of those times when my personal story became enmeshed with a wider phenomenon of today’s Singapore. I am referring to the buying frenzy that has swept across the property market even as the economy remains in crisis, prompting a worried government to intervene to cool it. As I was pondering over why so many Singaporeans, who were still facing a job crunch, were rushing to buy properties, I received an unexpected telephone call. It was from a real estate agent who made an offer to buy my home in suburban Singapore for the last 22 years for a professional wanting to redevelop for his family. His was a case of pent-up buying which was put back because of recession. The 50-year-old property was valued at seven-and-a-half times what it cost me in 1987, another crisis year. It was by no means a unique deal. Property remains one of the best long-term investments in Singapore. From viewing to signing, the sale was done in only one-and-a-half days. I was told there had been quite a number of chequebook-in-hand purchases. In the days that followed, I had a busy time turning away other offers. Elsewhere, crowds thronged new property launches or made a beeline for resale homes like mine. When I was house-hunting last Sunday, I encountered a little of the frenzy. In one house (offered for S$1.25m (RM3.1mil)) which was situated near a train station, I saw several families taking turns to view it. As I left, another group was waiting to go in. Days later it was sold. The traditional Chinese fear of the Ghost Festival month was no deterrence. This inexplicable demand which began in June has driven up prices to levels that analysts believe are unsustainable before the year with the government determined to stop it get out of hand. So far this year, some 10,000 new private homes have been sold, compared with 4,300 in the whole of 2008. This obsession for property among Singaporeans, which has created many individual fortunes, is based on a strong fundamental. The supply of land cannot be increased beyond some small reclamation, while the demand for it will increase as long as Singapore flourishes. “Over the long term, anyone who has a plot of land will be sitting on a gold mine,” said a real estate executive. (Foreigners cannot buy landed property here unless with special approval, but many investors from Indonesia, Malaysia and Hong Kong who have bought apartments have profited.) “Tokyo’s Ginza today costs US$15,000 (RM52,000) per sq ft. This could be a reality in Singapore if there’s continued stability and growth,” he added. However, not all Singaporeans hold long-term views. Speculation remains strong despite the poor economy, with people frequently buying and selling properties for a quick profit. Short-term investors are helped by low interest rates and friendly payment terms offered by developers that allow them to “churn” or “flip” them for small quick profits. Others “upgrade” into bigger properties or “downgrade” them because of changing financial circumstances or retirement. The proportion of citizens buying property here every year is – in normal times – among the highest in the world on a per capita basis. The recent recession put a dampener on the practice. Several years ago, a report said that during the preceding 10 years, more than half (or 52.2%) of Singapore’s total households had changed residence. Some 62% of people moved to bigger homes, while 18.4% shifted to smaller places. These ratios would now likely have changed because of the recent recession. Statistics have shown that young-er households and higher-income households have a higher propensity to move to bigger houses. In recent times, when Singapore experienced a severe downturn with more business failures and jobs being shed, there had been an increase in the number of down-graders. This sub-community of down-graders of which I have just become a member is set to rise as the number of retirees keeps rising. Singapore is one of the most expensive cities in Asia to retire in, and some elderly without sufficient savings often downgrade to be able to afford a middle class life. In the New Singapore, an additional factor has appeared that partly explains the property rush: The massive influx of foreigners. Singaporeans predict an eventual population of 6 million to 7 million people. “Think of the number of new homes needed!” exclaimed a businessman, who has accumulated several landed properties in the northeast. “People are hitching a ride into the future that could come in 20 years’ time,” he added. In 1987 when I bought my house, the population was 2.77 million; today it is 4.84 million – a 75% increase. Few countries in the world undergo such rapid rises. Wealth has risen even more. Singapore’s gross domestic product (GDP) per person is now US$53,200 (RM185,500) – a four-fold rise from the US$12,560 (RM43,793) some two decades ago. Under such circumstances, a 750% rise in the price of a property is not extraordinary. In the next few years, the speculative fervour is likely to cool following last week’s measures to prevent an asset bubble. This includes the release of more land for housing. The government is caught be-tween two unpalatables. One is a sharp market collapse that will hit 80% of the population which own their homes. The other is prices moving beyond the dream of the new generation to own a home. LAST month was one of those times when my personal story became enmeshed with a wider phenomenon of today’s Singapore. I am referring to the buying frenzy that has swept across the property market even as the economy remains in crisis, prompting a worried government to intervene to cool it. As I was pondering over why so many Singaporeans, who were still facing a job crunch, were rushing to buy properties, I received an unexpected telephone call. It was from a real estate agent who made an offer to buy my home in suburban Singapore for the last 22 years for a professional wanting to redevelop for his family. His was a case of pent-up buying which was put back because of recession. The 50-year-old property was valued at seven-and-a-half times what it cost me in 1987, another crisis year. It was by no means a unique deal. Property remains one of the best long-term investments in Singapore. From viewing to signing, the sale was done in only one-and-a-half days. I was told there had been quite a number of chequebook-in-hand purchases. In the days that followed, I had a busy time turning away other offers. Elsewhere, crowds thronged new property launches or made a beeline for resale homes like mine. When I was house-hunting last Sunday, I encountered a little of the frenzy. In one house (offered for S$1.25m (RM3.1mil)) which was situated near a train station, I saw several families taking turns to view it. As I left, another group was waiting to go in. Days later it was sold. The traditional Chinese fear of the Ghost Festival month was no deterrence. This inexplicable demand which began in June has driven up prices to levels that analysts believe are unsustainable before the year with the government determined to stop it get out of hand. So far this year, some 10,000 new private homes have been sold, compared with 4,300 in the whole of 2008. This obsession for property among Singaporeans, which has created many individual fortunes, is based on a strong fundamental. The supply of land cannot be increased beyond some small reclamation, while the demand for it will increase as long as Singapore flourishes. “Over the long term, anyone who has a plot of land will be sitting on a gold mine,” said a real estate executive. (Foreigners cannot buy landed property here unless with special approval, but many investors from Indonesia, Malaysia and Hong Kong who have bought apartments have profited.) "Tokyo’s Ginza today costs US$15,000 (RM52,000) per sq ft. This could be a reality in Singapore if there’s continued stability and growth,” he added. However, not all Singaporeans hold long-term views. Speculation remains strong despite the poor economy, with people frequently buying and selling properties for a quick profit. Short-term investors are helped by low interest rates and friendly payment terms offered by developers that allow them to “churn” or “flip” them for small quick profits. Others “upgrade” into bigger properties or “downgrade” them because of changing financial circumstances or retirement. The proportion of citizens buying property here every year is – in normal times – among the highest in the world on a per capita basis. The recent recession put a dampener on the practice. Several years ago, a report said that during the preceding 10 years, more than half (or 52.2%) of Singapore’s total households had changed residence. Some 62% of people moved to bigger homes, while 18.4% shifted to smaller places. These ratios would now likely have changed because of the recent recession. Statistics have shown that young-er households and higher-income households have a higher propensity to move to bigger houses. In recent times, when Singapore experienced a severe downturn with more business failures and jobs being shed, there had been an increase in the number of down-graders. This sub-community of down-graders of which I have just become a member is set to rise as the number of retirees keeps rising. Singapore is one of the most expensive cities in Asia to retire in, and some elderly without sufficient savings often downgrade to be able to afford a middle class life. In the New Singapore, an additional factor has appeared that partly explains the property rush: The massive influx of foreigners. Singaporeans predict an eventual population of 6 million to 7 million people. “Think of the number of new homes needed!” exclaimed a businessman, who has accumulated several landed properties in the northeast. “People are hitching a ride into the future that could come in 20 years’ time,” he added. In 1987 when I bought my house, the population was 2.77 million; today it is 4.84 million – a 75% increase. Few countries in the world undergo such rapid rises. Wealth has risen even more. Singapore’s gross domestic product (GDP) per person is now US$53,200 (RM185,500) – a four-fold rise from the US$12,560 (RM43,793) some two decades ago. Under such circumstances, a 750% rise in the price of a property is not extraordinary. In the next few years, the speculative fervour is likely to cool following last week’s measures to prevent an asset bubble. This includes the release of more land for housing. The government is caught be-tween two unpalatables. One is a sharp market collapse that will hit 80% of the population which own their homes. The other is prices moving beyond the dream of the new generation to own a home. - The Star  Read More →