TR EMERITUS

KUALA LUMPUR — Malaysia's premier made a plea for unity in the multicultural nation Monday, as celebrations to mark its independence anniversary were marred by fresh racial and religious rows. Najib Razak called on Malaysians to "repair the bridges and tear down the divisive walls" that exist between the races here even 52 years after nationhood and the end of colonial rule. "Bear in mind that what we have now will not necessarily become better. On the contrary, we can lose it all if we are not careful," he said in his first National Day address since coming to power in April. Najib has launched a "One Malaysia" campaign to address barriers between the nation's ethnic groups -- Muslim Malays who dominate the population, and ethnic Chinese and Indian minorities. The new premier is working to win back support from Malaysia's minorities, who swung towards the opposition in national elections last year that handed the ruling coalition its worst ever results. Racial and religious rows continue to erupt, including an incident on Friday when Muslim protesters trampled on a severed cow's head in protest at the building of a Hindu temple. Politicians from all sides condemned the explosive action, and police said they would launch an investigation over whether the act constituted sedition -- an extremely serious charge. However, the organisers were defiant, refusing to apologise and rejecting responsibility for the incident. Veteran opposition lawmaker Lim Kit Siang said that racial politics had only increased in recent times, and that the "One Malaysia" campaign had failed to unite the country. "There is a further polarization of race and religion, with the hardening of intolerant attitudes and stances, creating situations unseen or unheard of in the previous history of the nation," he said. "Let all patriotic Malaysians of goodwill recognise the danger signals to our plural society." Last month, the dramatic case of a Muslim model who was sentenced to be caned for drinking beer also highlighted concerns that the nation's secular status is under threat as Islamic law becomes more influential. Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, 32, was arrested at a hotel nightclub and sentenced to six strokes of the cane, in a rare prosecution using religious laws that ban alcohol for Malaysia's majority Muslim Malays. As concerns mounted that Malaysia's reputation as a moderate country was under threat, the authorities abruptly announced the case was to be reviewed and put the punishment on hold indefinitely. Source: AFP  Read More →

By Bhaskaran Kunju, Political Correspondent The ongoing debate over PRs balloting for places in schools with Singapore citizens seems to have once again deepened the divide between citizens and non-citizens. Readers have written in and commented online their thoughts on Mrs Sweta Agarwal’s letter which proved to be the catalyst in the debate. Most have taken offence with her insistence on PRs needing equal opportunities and questioned her intentions on not having taken up citizenship despite having been a PR for a considerable amount of time. The incident has had me recalling my own past and I had mixed feelings over Mrs Agarwal’s predicament. I myself was once a PR and my family moved here at the start of last decade when I was just 7 years old. Despite being born to a Singaporean father, Permanent Residency let alone Singapore Citizenship was hard to come by then. It was even more difficult to find a school to enroll in. Mind you, suitability and distance was not a factor in my parent’s consideration, getting into a school was the priority. Unfortunately restrictions were strict and I distinctly recall being rejected by more than half a dozen schools from Yishun all the way down to Yio Chu Kang. Some wouldn’t even consider speaking to us when the term PR came up. Nevertheless, out of a random act of kindness on the part of one school Principal, we did find a school to enroll my sister and myself in, albeit more than a year later. I have since received my citizenship, done all my years of schooling in Singapore, completed my National Service and am now enrolled in a local varsity. I can understand Mrs Agarwal point in wanting her child enrolled, as would anyone, but my sympathies end there. What Mrs Agarwal has failed to realise is that her child has not been denied the right to study and has never even come close to that situation. As someone who has come close to that, I hope, she realises how much more luckier her child is. The predominant sentiment has been that citizens should be given a clear priority when it comes to enrolling their child in a school. The balloting process is competitive enough as it is for citizens, throwing in non-citizens into the mix only further complicates the process. It is only fair that some amount of distinction is shown between citizens and non-citizens, be they PRs or foreigners, in every aspect of our system. It’s not discrimination but the most basic of principles that the rights, needs and wants of citizens should come before any other. As MM Lee pointed out in his speech at the National Day Dinner for his constituency, there are sufficient places in schools for citizens and non-citizens alike, so Mrs Agarwal and other PRs should take heart that their child will not be left without a school. The logical solution will be to include a separate round of balloting for PRs and non-citizens at the end. The onus on resolving this issue is on the Government and the Ministry of Education. Unfortunately no solution has been forthcoming, though this issue is not new, and has been brought up at least once a year for the past few years. PM Lee focused on social cohesion in his National Day Rally and assimilating non-citizens into our population was part of it. Despite our conservative culture, I think we have been tolerant in accepting people of all races, creed and nationality. But if there is a perennial issue of citizens not feeling at home in their own country then there has to be a deeper problem that has not been addressed. I strongly believe that despite complains of xenophobia as the reason from some quarters, the problem in fact lies in Singaporeans not being made to feel they are the priority and issues such as balloting for Primary 1 places only aggravates the problem. I recall some comments made by Prime Minister Lee in December of 2006, some 6 months after the last elections. He said: "While we have non-citizens here, citizens always come first. We have to treat them as the best, we have to treat visitors well too but citizens have to be treated better." He also added: "Right now, PRs enjoy the same subsidies as Singaporeans for education and healthcare, and in fact in healthcare, foreign workers also receive subsidised treatment. I think we should make a clear difference – PRs should pay more than Singaporeans but less than other foreigners, there is a distinction. If you are not a PR and not a citizen, you should be given good treatment but we will not give you special privileges." Mr Zaqy Mohamad, MP for Hong Kah GRC agreed by saying: “We got feedback from many Singaporeans and even from my own constituents that since everything's equal for Singaporeans, foreigners and PRs, what's so special about being Singaporean? To some extent, short of being nationalistic, PM's message of 'citizens first' is well overdue. It'll be much appreciated among Singaporeans who are wondering what's in it for me holding that red passport." The assurance for Singaporeans is there, and in terms of payments in healthcare and education there is a difference between Singaporeans and non-citizens. Some 3 years on, the same distinction should be extended to other aspects as well. As Mrs Agarwal pointed out, PRs pay taxes and contribute to society as well. While this is true I hope she is under no illusion that as a result Singapore or Singaporeans are somehow indebted to her. What Singapore and its population has given her in return is immeasurable. It was a different time when my family moved to Singapore. The population was predominantly of citizens with PRs and foreigners being a small minority. What Mrs Agarwal is asking for and is already enjoying was difficult to even imagine when I was a PR. As of 2000, 7.2% of Singapore’s population was comprised of PRs and 18.8% foreigners. In a reply to Ms Sylvia Lim’s question in Parliament in January 2007, on the number of immigrants that was expected to be added to Singapore’s population for the next 5 years, Home Affairs Minister, Mr Wong Kan Seng, provided the following figures. “From 2001-2004, an average of 35,250 new permanent residents (PR) and 7,130 new Singapore citizens (SC) were granted per annum. In 2005, about 52,300 new PRs and 12,900 new SCs were granted. The average numbers of new PRs and SCs are 38,700 and 8,300 respectively, for the period 2001-2005.  We could expect to add about 200,000 new PRs and 40,000 new SCs in the next 5 years if we get the same numbers of new PRs and SCs as in the last 5 years.” The figures are indeed staggering and the number of PRs is fast becoming proportionately significant in comparison with citizens. Over time it might become difficult to make a distinction in terms of privileges of and treatment between citizens and non-citizens. This leads to another part of the ongoing debate. Why PRs who have shown no intention of gaining citizenship are allowed to carry on with their status quo. In her last reply to the Straits Times, Mrs Agarwal said the matter was one of personal choice and presumably moot for discussion in public forums. While hers is, the matter in general is still debatable. In the same reply given by Mr Wong Kan Seng in 2007, he mentioned reasons for the increment in PRs and new citizens. He cited a falling birth rate among citizens and the need to augment our economy with skilled foreign immigrants as the reasons for encouraging immigration. For the latter reason, I think it is important to distinguish between, those who are coming here for employment and those who are coming here to set their roots. In cases like Mrs Agarwal where the PR’s allegiance is with their home country and they have no intention of taking up citizenship, it is rather disheartening to note that Singapore is being used as a hostel of sorts. A work permit with extended privileges should be sufficient. If a PR status is the best alternative then there must be restrictions in place when it comes to entitlements in healthcare and education for those who do not plan on converting to citizens. This is one reason why the issue has become such a hot topic over the past week. If immigration is necessary, then we have to be more stringent in issuing PR or even citizenship status. Why offer PR status if their allegiance lies elsewhere. It’s difficult to define this by rule of Law, which is unfortunately how our Government has functioned. This isn’t wrong. Rule of law is needed to ensure a stable and consistent framework of governance. But as I mentioned earlier, there is a also a need to take into account matters of principles. Principles of rights, needs and wants of citizens must outweigh all other protocols wherever possible to ensure a contented society exists. “Singapore must and will continue to welcome immigrants who can identify with our way of life and whose diverse talents can contribute to the vibrancy and viability of our country. The Government will monitor our population growth closely to ensure that the quality of life and well-being of Singaporeans will not be compromised as our population grows through careful urban planning and development.” That was the assurance given by Mr Wong Kan Seng in 2007 and it might be time that the Government discussed this issue at length.   Related articles: >> Sweta Agarwal proud to be Indian citizen and Singapore PR >> PRs competing with citizens for Primary 1 places >> MM Lee defends need for foreign talent >> PRC student supports government’s plan for more foreign scholars   Other articles by Bhaskaran Kunju: >> 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    About the Author: Bhaskaran Kunju is currently a political science undergraduate at the National University of Singapore  Read More →

By Tom Davenport from Harvard Business We often talk about judgment with regard to individuals, but organizations and countries can have good and bad judgment as well. I was recently in Singapore for a SAS customer event. Every time I visit, it has struck me as a country with good judgment. Singapore just celebrated its forth-fourth birthday as an independent country, and it deserves to congratulate itself (although it rarely engages in self-congratulation — another aspect of good judgment). In fact, I'd argue that in many ways Singapore is a great example for the United States. Why? Here are a few reasons: 1. Singapore is a hardworking, disciplined country. It decides what it needs to do, and then does it. Every year for National Day, for example, the government publishes a list of challenges it needs to overcome. This year's list included such bracing issues as "How to maintain high economic growth and improve living standard?" and "How to stamp out new diseases and keep health-care costs down?" There is also the lighter, but sociologically problematic challenge of "How to get younger Singaporeans to marry and have children?" The list of challenges is enormously appealing in its clarity and directness. 2. Singapore is obsessed with education — not just for children, but throughout life. Another of its declared challenges is, "How to design job-training programmes and wage supplement schemes for low-income older workers?" The country tops the ranks of educational achievement regularly. While it was once justifiably criticized for emphasizing rote learning, it has introduced programs that encourage creativity. 3. Singapore is a highly capitalist society, but its government plays a strong guiding role. Some of the country's smartest citizens go into government. The government creates industrial policy and actively facilitates growth and capability-building in those areas. It did a masterful job emphasizing IT and building up that industry, and now it's actively pushing biotech and services. For example, in services the government wanted to build on organizations with great service like Singapore Airlines and Raffles Hotel. So it encouraged Singapore Management University (a private university that was established by the government) to start an Institute for Service Excellence, and stimulated the development of a Singapore Customer Satisfaction Index that would be applied to all service industries. 4. Like the US, Singapore is a highly diverse society, with lots of citizens with Chinese, Malay, Indian, and Arab backgrounds. Yet they all seem to get along pretty well, and the country's culture is greatly enriched by the diversity. Public housing is ethnically and religiously integrated. Other countries could probably use a version of its "Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act," which prohibits religious rabble-rousing. 5. Singapore invests heavily in infrastructure — housing, roads, IT, airport (only one, but Changi is a very impressive facility). 83% of its citizens live in public housing, but it's clean and well-maintained. The country is rolling out a new high-bandwidth fiber optic network. Buses and subways are clean and run on time. 6. Singapore's economy is doing pretty well. It does anticipate a decline in GDP of about 5% this year, but there are signs of a strong recovery. Its stock market is booming. Its banks didn't go crazy with subprime lending or bizarre derivatives. One economist told me that the Asian financial crisis of 1997 was worse than the current recession for Singapore. Okay, it's not a Utopian society. The government is a bit authoritarian for my tastes, but not as much as in the Lee Kuan Yew (its first prime minister from 1959 to 1990) days. The prohibitions against spitting and selling chewing gum are a little much — though I really like the clean streets. Yes, you may be caned if you misbehave, but it might be better than locking up the world's highest proportion of citizens in jails. I feel that Singapore destroyed much of its interesting architecture in the headlong rush to modernize. And it seems to me that too many of its citizens are obsessed with luxury brands and conspicuous consumption. These are relatively minor concerns, however, compared to the country's strengths. And many of the seemingly autocratic regulations might be justified by the ethnic diversity and high population density of the country. Singapore is tiny compared to the United States (and most other countries, for that matter), but that doesn't mean it can't be a model. Barack Obama keeps saying that we need to buckle down and work hard to build an economy based on real production, not hollow financial chicanery. We need a little more social order, and a little less individualism. Singapore has already pulled off both objectives, and continues to provide a good example of good judgment for the United States and the rest of the world. Source: Harvard Business  Read More →