Pritam Singh / Founder of OpinionAsia.com
The overall perception is of a poorly articulated, poorly communicated and poorly understood FT policy that incites questions of loyalty, nationhood and national unity for native Singaporeans.
The Straits Times’ report on 14 Aug 2009, “MM: Foreign talent is vital” of MM Lee’s Tanjong Pagar GRC National Day 2009 dinner speech did not reveal anything substantively new about the Singapore government’s foreign talent (FT) policy.
Its flavour was slightly different from usual reportage on the issue insofar as it buttressed the importance of foreigners in supplementing the country’s low birth rates – an argument which could potentially resonate more deeply than one which portends the decline of the Singapore economy in the absence of foreign talent.
The lacunae in the latter argument has been variously exposed over the last few years with a broad, data-backed consensus indicating that Singapore’s low-income workers did not see a rise in their median income in line with the rest of the economy. While various government ministers have over the years accrued this to the impact of globalisation, for a significant minority of Singaporeans, the perception continues to dominate that the FT policy does not benefit them, but instead squeezes prospective job opportunities and drives their real wages down.
More recently, the government argued along the lines of worker retraining and e2i, but preceding these reactionary initiatives has been a lack of information, debate and communication concerning the ramifications of what the FT policy entails for Singapore society and our low-wage earners; evidently, the most vulnerable group of Singaporeans affected by the FT policy.
Compounding the less than enthusiastic public response to the FT policy is the term ‘foreign-talent’ itself, which has hitherto been loosely and sometimes interchangeably employed with the word ‘foreigner’ in the public domain and media. The word ‘talent’ also obfuscates, especially when MM Lee was quoted as saying, “We accept only immigrants who increase the average level of competence of Singaporeans” only for ST to report immediately thereafter, “(t)hey [immigrants] must have skills and at least, secondary, preferably tertiary education.” Clearly, in the context of the MM’s words and the subsequent reportage of the ST, ‘talent’ is a very loosely defined word, not necessarily synonymous with conventional definitions found in a dictionary.
But more importantly, the ST article’s focus on MM Lee’s remarks covering population regeneration as a goal of the FT policy, involve two separate prongs to it. One element deals with population regeneration, a goal which many Singaporeans can appreciate, until the question is posed – what is the optimum population level for Singapore?
If the goal is to maintain the population of Singapore, which for a long time stood between 3-4 million, it is rather likely that the public vitriol against the FT policy would be more subdued. It would take either a brave man or a soothsayer to conclude economic decline would as a result ensue, if Singapore’s population stabilizes around the circa 4 million figure. Even the example used by MM Lee in his speech on Japan’s falling population and the future impact on its economy was instructive – it was based on a dire economic situation in Japan contingent on a declining population, not a stable one.
It is precisely this second element of the FT policy, the very prospects of economic decline and the necessary pre-emptive measures to meet this alleged challenge, which compounds the discomfort among Singaporeans. For some, the FT policy underwrites a population surge on a very small island to a population figure Singaporeans have little clarity about. As a result, the FT policy has given birth to the very real heartland reality of a more crowded Singapore, where infrastructure, on the surface of things, does not seem to have grown in parallel with the volume of foreigners allowed entry from 1998, when the effects of the FT policy began to be felt in earnest, particularly from 2002-2007. This sense of overcrowding has subsided somewhat, thanks to the latest recession. But even today, the unusually large number of linen and work wear hung out to dry on bamboo poles from some, ostensibly let-out HDB flats and even condominiums, offer leading conclusions to the number of occupants in each apartment. The perception of stresses on public facilities like the police force and separately, on the transport system by way of jam-packed trains and buses, have been but some of the more tangible and direct repercussions of the FT policy on heartlanders so far.
On a tangential, albeit worrisome note, class distinctions have taken root under the cloud of the FT policy, since the vast majority of policymakers and ruling politicians are likely to reside in districts and estates that do not deal with the day-to-day realities of the FT policy faced by heartlanders. Even relatively well-off Singaporeans are likely to host at best, mixed feelings about foreigners living in their immediate environment with the Serangoon Gardens episode of 2008 a primer of this deep emotive.
Arguments concerning class distinctions are brought into sharpest focus when some laymen opine that the real beneficiaries of a larger population in future are big business and corporate interests, with the bulk of Singaporeans having to readjust to smaller homes, congested roads, crowded public spaces, unintelligible service staff, and the worry of a real drop in living standards as a function of the preceding compromises.
The effect of these optical and cognitive realities creates a genuine feeling of unease and insecurity among a potentially large number of Singaporeans, who viscerally cannot make sense of a ST headline which reads, “MM: Foreign talent is vital”, especially when it is they who are perceived to be paying for it. Compounded by occasional government feelers suggesting the relocation of old-folk homes to Johor Bahru, the overall perception is of a poorly articulated, poorly communicated and poorly understood FT policy that incites questions of loyalty, nationhood and national unity for native Singaporeans.
While MM Lee sounded as if he was at pains to reinforce the importance of foreign talent to Singapore, the debate and concerns of many Singaporeans have arguably moved beyond those covered by the ST report’s ambit. In fact, MM Lee hinted at this himself, although these were not expatiated upon in the aforementioned ST article. After reporting that the total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.91, 1.19 and 1.14 for the Malay, Indian and Chinese communities respectively, MM Lee was quoted as saying, “If we continue this way without the new immigrants and PRs and their children doing national service, the composition of the Singapore Armed Forces [SAF] will change. So please remember that.”
Without prejudicing other interpretations to the TFR figures juxtaposed against MM Lee’s remark, one interpretation conveys the prospect of the Chinese community’s demographic percentage dropping below the current 76%, as the community hosts the lowest TFR rate of all the racial groups in Singapore. The curious lack of rigorous public debate in the mainstream media over this prospect and the FT policy in general is noteworthy. Would the essential character of Singapore society be so fundamentally altered if the envisaged percentage for the Chinese population existed within a band say from 65-80%?
Superficially, the preceding point comes into distinct relief especially when Singapore’s population is anticipated to rise to between to 5.5 to 7.5 million, or whichever figure is eventually pursued by the Ministry of National Development. One would have thought that any change in the character of Singapore society ought to hold greater relevance for Singapore’s racial minorities, rather than for the majority community.
Separately, what the ST report did not mention was that even for the Malay community, TFR rates have been steadily dropping from 2.48 in 1998 to 2.1 in 2003. Clearly, the problem of population replacement is affecting all Singaporeans, regardless of race, since all three major racial communities are below the magic 2.1-population replacement figure.
An arguably more significant take-away from MM Lee’s remark was the reference to the SAF and the projected prospects of more Malays in uniform, because of the TFR figures in question. Speaking on a similar subject in 1999, MM Lee (then SM) opined “(i)f, for instance, you put in a Malay officer who’s very religious and who has family ties in Malaysia in charge of a machine gun unit, that’s a very tricky business. We’ve got to know his background… I’m saying these things because they are real….” While those remarks proved controversial then, on balance, at least they contained caveats in that they identified potential religious overzealousness and family ties as determining factors for military deployment, not that of being Malay in itself.
But MM Lee’s more oblique and open-ended references this time need to be unpacked, something the ST article did not do, for whatever reason. Critically, the crutch-like reliance on race-based arguments throws a wet blanket on the progress of Singapore’s nation-building efforts since independence. Should such thinking continue, the FT policy will raise even more uncomfortable questions akin to those which question the loyalty of a Malay (or any other race for that matter) soldier whose family has stayed in Singapore for generations, against that of a newly-arrived Chinese or Indian who may claim to be as loyal as a Pavlovian dog but who cannot sing the Majulah Singapore without looking or sounding like an oddball. That the insinuation of a Malay soldier’s loyalty may even be raised, is testimony to the deep, intense and unsettling emotions engendered by the FT policy. This is not to say that the racial factor is irrelevant and that MM Lee’s latest remarks were totally disingenuous. But it is hard to imagine Singaporeans enthusiastically playing their part integrating new foreigners when elements of the political leadership appear to intuitively speak the language of race as the argument of last resort.
More broadly, framing the FT policy solely through the lenses of race also threatens to roll back progress made by Singaporeans since independence in the national unity and political maturity arenas in particular. Feedback in the ST Forum over the last few months recommending the induction of English tests and other qualifying criteria for new immigrants are indicative of a public attempt at determining a minimum set of hoops future citizens ought to pass through before succeeding in their application for citizenship.
Taken further, one wonders what sort of values new citizens would bring to our shores should they come from corruption-ridden, authoritarian countries and host nary a spark of talent and with no experience of living in a multi-racial society. Singaporeans ought to welcome these immigrants if they display a desire to cast away or replace the narrow and self-serving values picked up in their former countries of domicile and commit for example, to absorb the values defined by our pledge, crafted by our first foreign minister, S. Rajaratnam.
It is for this very reason that some qualifying criteria – beyond educational standards – for citizenship based on Singapore’s shared values and a reasonable competency in English, amongst others, stand out as more nuanced and realistic requirements for citizenship, rather than an overly rigid adherence to the racial balance.
In a final message to Singaporeans, MM Lee rightfully observed that the speed at which foreigners integrated into Singapore society depended on how Singaporeans treated them. But the question remains of how far the government is willing to go to alleviate the very real concerns, repeatedly made in a variety of fora, in addressing the immediate and future social costs of the FT policy on native Singaporeans.
According to the same ST article, MM Lee asserted that the government safeguards the interest of native Singaporeans, highlighting education, housing and hospitalization policies favouring citizens over PRs. If this defence is employed to justify the government’s FT policy, it must be a highly specious one, as Singaporeans do not benefit from education, housing and hospitalization policies because of the FT policy. Therein lies the principle reason accounting for the largely insipid reaction of many Singaporeans to the FT policy – a lack of acknowledgement by the government of the very real sacrifices Singaporeans of all strata, but especially the nation’s lower and middle-classes, have to make and will likely need to make in future, to accommodate more foreigners into Singapore.
The very deep and all-encompassing changes to Singapore society as a result of the FT policy call for not only fresh approaches in dealing with concerns of the Singapore public but the slaughter of some sacred cows as a result. Significantly, a relationship based on transparency and openness with the public vis-à-vis the FT policy must represent the central pillar of the government’s efforts rather than one that sees the intermittent release of government data providing selective details on the FT policy, with no interest in revealing the guidelines that has and will shape that very policy. In the circumstances, it is unsurprising that Singaporeans continue to exhibit indifference to the FT policy. In this regard, it may serve the longer-term interests of government to appoint an ombudsman for the National Population Secretariat and National Integration Council, the two central bureaucratic organizations that oversee the government’s FT policy.
In addition, it would be in the government’s interest to develop a more inclusive policy formulation mechanism specific to the FT policy and even invite and encourage opposition parties, civil society groups and NGOs to form committees to provide regular feedback. Not only would this attract the focus and attention of Singaporeans to a policy that is likely to have a profound impact on their lives and those of their fellow citizens, it would expose Singaporeans to the realities of policy formulation in a larger way and promote the building of cooperative bonds between the executive and the populace at large. Both the government and Singaporeans at large stand to gain from such inclusiveness with the larger objective of citizen participation in the national integration project more likely to succeed.
In the final analysis, the fact that the government, through MM Lee no less, sees a need to repeat the ‘foreign talent is vital’ mantra every so often, is indicative of the mixed results of the FT policy so far. While it must be regarded as a success from the perspective of sheer numbers, the overt public skepticism against the policy for a variety of reasons alluded to earlier and other reasons this writer is uninformed about, seem to resonate more than any desire to help new immigrants integrate into Singapore society. If left unchecked, such a reality could force new immigrants to constitute one half of a bifurcated Singapore polity in future, a state of affairs that bodes ill not just for Singapore society and national unity, but also for the same SAF MM Lee frets about.
——
Pritam Singh can be reached at pritam@opinionasia.com
—–
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
100 gemami 19 august 2.57pm….how true, ur last line..well said!
78 foreigner august 19….oh, yes, btw, mr foreigner, u said u were doing ur bit for sg..well, here are some suggestions that would really really help, if u r really really honest about doing ur bit for sg….how about helping those families who have lost their jobs, donate part of ur big pay packet towards their basic needs, how about donating part of ur pay to the old folks who had to rummage through the rubbish bins for cans to sell, how about donating part of ur pay packet..maybe u can leave ur address on this website, and us housewives will pass the word around? then maybe u can understand just how we singaporeans truly feel when u see the big line of queue outside ur nice flat/condo. and if u live in hdb flat like most of us, good on u, but it still doesn’t make u one of us, k?
I have came across Early Malaysian now SG citizen. (PAP member). Every now n then, they always ask me when this old man going 2 die. what’s hurrying him.
He said, everything has prepare to emigrate to Perth. once the “Old Mentor” collapse. No more future for him & his Family. U Get Cheated
ica should get its house in order..stop issuing these long stay visas to FTs to enable them to look for another employment should they not be satisfied with their current employer…and PR status should be limited to a few years, and after that if the PR wants his status extended, he/she should show he is ready to give up his own country citizenship, then he be granted citizenship..this way, we can gauge whether he/she is genuine in making this country their country and not just a stepping stone, where he gains experience working here, and then leave after earning enough to retire or seek a better place to live somewhere..i honestly don’t understand why anyone would want to settle in this country for good, with the current situation, and the current govt who has gotten arrogant and uncaring..this reminds me of the obama admin, who think they can push whatever legislation through without the citizens’ ok..look what is happening now, with the town halls meetings on their pet project healthcare, and all the genuine anger expressed by the citizens..and the citizens who protested were labelled nazis, trouble makers, extremists, skinheads, racists…is this how our gahmen will label us if we make our voices known? it is like a mirror image, our situation and the obama admin’s treatment of the ordinary american citizens..they just don’t want to listen, they just want to push through their pet projects, and this is what is happening in this country..we don’t exist in the eyes of the gahmen any longer, only the talented FTs and people with money and power matter these days…the ordinary folks can rot for all they care! sad really.
Damn the crowds. The PAP pushed in tonnes of people without sparing a thought for the natives. MRT doesn’t care about people’s comfort & allow long intervals between trains that led to overcrowded, uncomfortable trains that make me feel like going on a stabbing spree. Can’t help feeling this way ‘cos I am demophobic. I have a fear & intense hatred of crowds. & being in god-damned crowded Singapore only worsens my mental condition. Can’t help but to take the god-damned public transport to work 6 days a week.
Government’s worried about race proportion in SAF? Screw that! National service should not even exist! It is an act against human rights & denies the freedom of choice. It is slavery, simply put.
It’s not foreigners’ faults that they are all flocking here to crowd up the island. The government strongly encourages this & offers incentives for that. If Aussie government were to be as loose as Singapore’s, tonnes of Singaporeans would flock over to Aussie & we’d be looked at there as foreigners here by the locals.
But no. Aussie, England, New Zealand, have much stricter policies when it comes to letting in foreigners. They do not want to crowd up their countries blindly, unlike Singapore, the mighty loose mother harlot.
The Government asks you to welcome the foreigners.
I ask of you, dear Singaporeans, to be hostile and repulsive towards all these dirty foreign scumbags.
Do not hire them.
Do not help them in any way.
Do not talk to them.
Isolate them and make their stay in Singapore an unpleasant one.
When you see them and their kids in the shopping mall or the playground, ask them to get the hell out of Singapore.
Please please please do that. This is our only way left.
Some of the comments posted here are disturbingly xenophobic, bordering on bigotry. I understand the issue is heated one , and many pple feel passionately one way or the other. That doesn’t mean that we have to lambast somebody for havingh a different view. What’s the point in complaining that we have no freedoms, if we can even deal with the ‘semblence’ of free speech? We must learn to not live in absolutes. Just because a foreigner says good things or bad things about Singapore, doesn’t mean that he must become a citizen or leave. Learning to accept that pple can have different views is the mark of a society that is ready to exercise certain freedoms responsibly.
I am a Singaporean whoi has been away for 12 years. Over that time, I read about our Great Leaders calling for the return of foreign based Singaporeans. That the skills and experience we have accrued would be valuable to Singapore. After being abroad for so many years, I felt perhaps it was time to return, if not permanently, then at least for a few years. Singapore, after all, heolds many memories for me. All my family and friends are here. I served my time doing NS, willingly, and proudly. And I always took pains to explain to foreigners that even though Singapore has a harsh political regime, it also has a top class healthcare service, and it’s citizens are provided for. Oh….after years of being away, even I bought onto that drivel, not realising that it was what I would like to think of Singapore, instead of the reality that exists.
So, I returned in March, after having chucked in a perfectly good job, in London. Thinking that I’m sure that i would be able to find something here. After all it’s meant to be home. My first shock was that Singapore was so different from the Singapore I left. It seems to have regressed in social graces. everybody was so upset or miserable at something or other. Not surprsing, once I learnt that minor details like jobs and 3 sqaure meals were not actually as secure as they once were.
I also soon found that we were swamped with pple who looked suspiciously like Singaporeans, but who couldn’t speak English, or Singlish for that matter. It was this group that seemed to set itself apart and seemed to actually have a haughty view of Singaporeans…..and they didn’t seem to have much manners either. Most Of course, I met other foreigners here who were very happy with the Singapore experience. admittedly they were on fat wages. But I could see that they made genuine efforts to fit in. Falling short of actually changing one’s skin tone, most of them have learned a smattering of words in the national languages, don’t complain so much about the cleanliness of hawker centres (some of them have actually developed a passion for spicy food), and can count singaporeans amogst people they would call their friends. These are pple who have come here to work, and I really don’t see them lording it over us in any way. It is not them, but the system that keeps Singaporeans in their proper place.
Let me tell you what I mean. On my return, I started applying for jobs, got registered on all the recruitment sites and all. Guess what? In 3 months, I only got calls from insurance companies. Now, this started to get me worried slightly. after all, in england, when I put my CV online, I normally start getting calls within 5 mins. Perhaps there was a specific Singapore Template, one must follow here. Well, after awhile, I was told by a few recruiters that type of jobs my experience would be suitable for is normally the sort reserved for expatriates. The cheek! I couldn’t believe that jobs were reserved for anyone, except those that were qualified to do them. And I was told that they are the expats, by virtue of the fact that they have worked abroad and have international experience. So what was I doing for the last 12 years….starting a nudist community on a pacific island? I was told that even though I lived abroad, I’m local. Shocking! The government departments and ministries, which I applied to, weren’t so brash in their feedback. They just never got back to me. So here I was, back in singapore, after all these years, and unwanted by Singapore to help in it’s onward march. Well, thankfully, I remembered, that I was actually quite sought after, back in london, for my professionalism, and so secured a job with a firm I used to work for, which had a branch here. Luckily they still followed their london hiring practices.
The point I’m trying to make…well there are a few points, but the main one is that is not all the expats’ fault for the fact that they have jobs here. There seem to be specific jobs which will only be filled by expats, because of the presumed experience they bring to the job. They apply in good faith, dazzle the silly HR person and management (who steadfastly have decided not to be dazzled by Singaporeans), and get the job. The fault lies in the system and mindset. A friend recently commented that ‘we get government we deserve’. Until we honestly feel we deserve better, we’ll keep having to deal with these stupid practices. I hope it changes for the better (My wife keeps asking what happened to the Singapore we used to see on holiday). How is it going to change? I’m not too sure. They’ve probably got an expat heading that community. I’m only a local.
among those who affected by FTs and FWs snatching our jobs or businessess, i am one of them now.
i am f**king pissed with system here dont give a damn on our own people when comes to bread and butter issue.
just make sure that my constituency is walk over othwise any dick, tom and harry for oppt party, you can count on me for 1 vote.
it’s been ten years liao since the last asian crisis i went through umpteen job fairs still no job.
I agree totally with fireblade’s comments dated 19 Aug.
glad that still got so many people with a brain still working….
even malaysia PR is tougher to get them singapore PR. no wonder i seldom see malaysian convert into singaporean
100) gemami,
I was thinking of the same stuff just now too. In the first place, here’s a culture of bringing something instant from point A to point B. Think of how we ‘implant’ instant trees from 1 part of the island to another part. Think of how we ‘import’ instant FT in sports, after many years of failed attempts to groom local ones.
I don’t think they can even get past the stage of having outstanding ratios of :
(a) (# of foreigners granted PR and converted to Singapore citizens)/ (total # of foreigners who are PRs)
(b) (# of foreigners as PRs)/ (total # of foreigners excluding tourists)
Seriously, sometime I can’t help thinking Singapore is a prostitute with both legs open wide wide with welcome sign to foreigner
Hi Fireblade,
I am glad that the comments posted here are xenophobic and borders on bigotry. It shows that Singaporeans do care a lot for their country – built by their parents’ bare hands and life of toil – and what is becoming of it.
Many have lambasted Foreigner for his comments and I am sure you know why since you have correctly pointed out that the system here favours the foreigner more than the locals. Instead of sympathizing with our plight, this fair-minded foreigner decided to pour scorn on us and our society. What’s even more unacceptable is his provocation that we should do something about the injustice and ‘protest’ (which I read as taking to the streets).
Supposing Singaporeans do take to the streets, I can bet my last dollar that this foreign chap will be sitting in the comfort of his high-rise dwelling laughing at us while shitting in his pants at the same time. Do you honestly think he cares for what we are going through? Why would he want to change things if he is so well-taken care of by the Singapore government? That is why some of us felt so insulted and have told him to sh** off.
“Learning to accept that pple can have different views is the mark of a society that is ready to exercise certain freedoms responsibly” : Fireblade
We can accept differing views if the views expressed are properly deliberated after careful reflection, and not wantonly echoed from some dubious sources, like the other table in a coffee-shop.
When you left Singapore 12 years ago, I believe you left with the echoes of LKY’s words ringing in your ears – that smart people like you should venture abroad so that when you return, you will bring along with you a vast set of experience that would benefit the country. Unfortunately, after you left, the GCT era took over and while you were happily toiling away – with LKY’s words still buzzing in your ears – our nice guy GCT decided to prostitute himself and the country away for extra dollars and dubious talents.
Now that reality has sunken in when you realized that you have been hoodwinked – like most of us are coming to realize about LKY – the least I would expect of you is to understand the plight of your fellow countrymen. If you can do this, then you will also realize that we do not give a damn about the sentiments and feelings of the foreigner standing or sitting next to us. To hell with them and get the hell out of MY home. They are not welcomed, not even for the tourist dollar. We want our home back, that’s all we are asking. This is our ‘proper place”….
“It is not them, but the system that keeps Singaporeans in their proper place”: Fireblade
On a lighter note, your account of the struggle you faced looking for employment here just serves to underline the xenophobia and bigotry of Singaporeans. However, they is not misplaced.
The solution? As someone pointed out – we should all give the foreigner a real hard time and get them out. This will be the most telling message we can give to this government and it is better than taking to the streets.
in the earlier days where the immigration rule was not so lax, do you see/hear pple being xenophobic? then, it was hard to get s’pore PR, must less the citizenship. i remember we were very welcoming to them coz it was rare to have foreigners around us.
but suddenly, the floodgates opened and everywhere you go, there are more foreigners than s’poreans around. can you blame s’poreans for developing this supposed xenophobia? this is a shock to us. moreover, govt kept telling us these are talents. but in fact, many of those that i have encountered, esp those from middle kingdom, are all trash! they have no respect for this country. they do not make an effort to assimilate to our culture. if you take public transport, you will realise that most of the time, pple who took up the reserved seats are foreigners, not s’poreans. many of them are crude and brash with no sense of hygiene. impressions count and when you have met one too many, it becomes fixed.
honestly, i hate the foreigners, but i hate the pap even more for subjecting us citizens to these. i no longer feel any bond to this country and does not think this is my country. i can admit that i’ve become very sceptical and sneer at anything the pap says. i believe they have a hidden agenda in everything they do, their concern is not for the pple, it’s all money talks.
On these bashings of Foreigner, firstly, has anyone consider this person may not even be a foreigner in the first place? Just a punching bag to divert energy from the real issues?
Secondly, who actually caused this xenophobic mentality? What is the root cause for such “us” vs “them” issues? Pls read my posting at #15 — it is deliberate policies starting from the Stop-at-2.
We can beat the brains out of each other, have high unemployment of locals, low wages, need-for-talents-so-must-import argument, etc… Classical divide and conquer that have absolutely no ill-impact for the ruling class. As long as GDP is upwards, the garhem won’t give a shit to either locals or foreigners. The people just have to live with the effects of the policies as best they can.
In effect; it’s all about dollars and cents – not scholars and sense.
RE 116)
Hi there Gemami,
I do understand the plight of Singaporeans. I have returned to finf that we are not the priority anymore, as we don’t produce enough children. The government, in all it’s wisdom, thinks that the solution to this is to open the floodgates and let anybody in, willy nilly. Somehow, I get the nagging feeling that our well renumerated politicians didn’t actually consider how this shift in priority and the susequent imbalance in the makeup of the population, would be received by Singaporeans. Or maybe they just didn’t care about us.
However, that is no excuse for being bigotted. Yes this is our country. But to completely want to rid it of all foreigners sounds frighteningly like Nationalistic Socialism. And the last time that school of thought was taken to its near conclusion, quite a lot of Jews found themselves on the wrong side of a gas chamber.
I reiterate, the foreigners come here, cos they have been welcomed by our government. In most countries, the government are more or less representative of its electorate’s wishes. it’s not the foreigners’ fault for thinkingh this may be so here as well. However, the whole situation has been handled badly from the word go. If our Parliamentary representatives gave a damn about us, or perhaps were even slightly concerned about whether they would return after the next GE, they may considered integration policies. or even this very revolutionary idea: Jobs for citizens first…Foreigners 2nd. And of course the foreigners themselves are not without all blame…there are those amongst their numbers who think they have no need to integrate with the locals. It’s not surprising that Singaporeans are pissed of. But that doesn’t mean that we have to become bigotted. I thought prejudice was something we didn’t aspire to. Oh by the way, I think we all found out yesterday that ‘based on justice and equality’ is just an aspiration, not something that’s actually practiced. But that’s a completely different thread.
I get your point about the ‘taking to the streets’ issue. Nobody wants to see running battles with riot police on our streets. But a protest doesn’t have to be violent. More often than not, it’s a bunch of pple marching to show the government that they are unhappy about something, and that they have enough numbers behind them, for it to be considered seriously. But i suppose our S’pore system is different. One of our Ministers previously mentioned that if you want to change a law, then you have to get elected to parliament, and then try to get it changed there. That’s going to prove a bit difficult as there are only 84 seats going, and some of them have got long term reservations (not by expats). It’s a sad state of affairs, when citizens can’t show their disagreement to certain legislation or policy. Even worse, when the elected representatives don’t care.
To be perfectly honest, I don’t really blame Singaporeans for being so emotional about this. Good leaders shape good society. But we seem to have the highest paid clowns as ours. If they had given a damn about us they wouldn’t have mismanaged the situation so insensitively. The PM waxed lyrical about racial harmony. But he seriously must be on another planet, if he doesn’t realise that his government’s policy with regards to flooding S’pore with foreigners, is leading to all kinds of tension, including racial tension. But I do hope that Singaporeans do not somehow get pushed towards an Ultra Right Wing stance or a national Socialist one. Be rude to the foreigner who can’t be bothered to integrate…..or better still try and get them to integrate (ok that might be a bit too idealistic at this point) But don’t completely shun all foreigners. Some of them….just like some of us….can be quite pleasant actually. Being known as a racist, bigotted country, is not a very nice thing. It reflects very badly on us. And whatever mistakes the clowns at the top make, we should not allow our society to become globally despised .
Dear FireBlade
Honestly, if all your reasonings had worked, we will not be getting into this situation of repetitive complaints on the matter to MPs, ministers, and blogging mindlessly through sites like this.
Obviously, nothing had worked.
If things can be done just by being sensible and calm, even in Singapore, do we need to to resort to jailing Mas Selamat? Should we not talk sense into him? Does USA need to attack Iraq?
Obviously, the matter has gotten out of hand. No one up there is listening. Something has to be done.
I support the argument to take real action by voting down the Government and being real nasty to the foreigners. We need to let them think twice about coming over. By the way, the great salary package, safe environment, friendly people who loves foreigners are the core reasons why these guys love coming to Singapore.
If we wipe out the points on being friendly and making them feel safe, then the only reason they would choose to come over is for money. We can safely wipe out many of these fxxxing FTs.
A NIGERIAN man from a West African drug syndicate has been placed under criminal law detention for using Singaporean women as drug mules.
Okemawalan Ugo Buchi and a Singaporean woman accomplice were arrested last month after investigations by the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB).
The 31-year-old, also known as “Malik”, “Michael” and “Ugo” among his associates, is an organiser of the syndicate, which comprises of members from all over the world, spanning China, Nigeria, Spain, Greece, Guyana to Puerto Rico.
CNB, in a statement on Thursday, said the Nigerian’s plan was to court women at Clarke Quay nightspots and coffeeshops around the Bencoolen area. After picking them as girlfriends, he would live off them until they could no longer support him financially.
Then, he would lure them with offers of high paying jobs with free travel opportunities to deliver bags supposedly containing clothing samples to China and Europe. The bags actually carried drugs.
The women were paid between US$500 (S$723) to US$1500 for each delivery, depending on their destinations. The women usually started out on drug runs to nearby countries, and then eventually to Europe and Latin America.
Between December 2008 and March 2009, he organised at least 10 drug runs by making use of his girlfriends.
Okemawalan Ugo Buchi’s Singaporean accomplice is being detained for her involvement in drug smuggling activities with the syndicate
Initially, i thought that the gov was introducing foreign TALENTS, ppl that could help improve the conditions in s’pore, boost our economy and contribute to the society as a whole. Yet, all we see outside are disgraceful acts. I wonder what are the requirements for ppl to immigrate to s’pore. able to give birth to more than 2 kids? ironic that locals are having a hard time getting jobs here. the gov’s complaining about brain drain but isn’t that what they themselves caused? though i wouldn’t really want to vote for the opposition right now. (they might end up worse than PAP. the smart guys all went for PAP. bleh.) strange that the society embraces foreigners but pushes locals away. what has the country became now? i see a bleak future for singaporeans…
Very informative article.
Hmm, every single one of you Singaporeans here who talked bad about foreign talent:
I understand why you may be unhappy, but Singapore is a meritocratic system, meaning if you are better at a job, you get it regardless of race, religion or even gender. The agenda behind Singapore’s government placing such emphasis and revenue in inviting foreign talent into Singapore is that in Singapore, we may not be able to find people with certain capabilities and in order to develop and compete with the rest of the rapidly developing market, we have to get such people to work for Singapore. I am sorry if you lost your job to a foreigner but that is just too bad isn’t it? Take that as incentive to motivate your next generation to work harder as in not to lose out to the rapidly advancing market around you, and if you claim that you see a bleak future for Singaporeans, all you are saying is that we are incompetent and not able to compete with the global market.