Friday, November 20, 2009 15:00
Deconstructing the Singaporean – foreigner and local alike
In Guest Writers, Main Stories • 3,011 views • 38 Comments
Note on posting comments:
Please do not post your comments entirely in capital letters. There is no need to “shout” so loud. Everyone can read you fine. And also, please keep comments to 500-words or less. Thank you.
Molly Meek
“Singapore, you are not my country.”
(Alfian Sa’at, “One Fierce Hour”)
*****
Pardon me for so audaciously trying to speak of us, like Goh Chok Tong claiming to know how Singaporeans feel about having their lives affected by immigrants. I do not speak with the condescension of presumed knowledge and pretended empathy. I shall not partake of the violence of beating incompatible splinters back into a collective stump. I can only speak of the unspoken and un-speak that which has been overspoken into common lexicology.
*****
Question: What if Singapore is not even mine to renounce?
It is odd that there is yet to be a Singaporean version of the Got Talent franchise. It would surely outshine all others. China’s Got Talent? India’s Got Talent? Ukraine’s Got Talent? Since we have bought them all, and more!
The only talents we lack are Singaporeans, but they can apply to work backstage on a meritocratic basis, subject, still, to competition from their international counterparts.
Is this funny or is it laughable?
Laughter is not always subversive, but for making such a narrow-minded joke, do sentence me to life imprisonment (or rather, imsingaporent?) for political xenophobic sedition.
Indeed, one area of public discourse (consistently kept subtle) that leaves a lingering bitterness, is the debate about the place of the Singaporean. His/her place in a country increasingly populated by locals who may be foreigners, and foreigners who are not really that foreign after all.
Perhaps not quite a debate. And not quite the Singaporean.
Not a debate as much as a pool of recurring discursive artifacts without real arguments, a stubborn stasis of alluring rhetoric.
Not quite the Singaporean for who is a/the Singaporean? (And I might as well drop the articles?)
We are perpetually trying to find words for ourselves, only to find our words and ourselves sinking into the mud, betraying words, betrayed by words, doomed to fail, damned to try, again and again.
We define ourselves as Singaporeans, against foreigners, as a response to the PAP’s foreign talent policy: we – the disadvantaged; they – the privileged.
Only to then be cautioned against xenophobia: We should not have an inflated sense of entitlement when jobs should be given to the best people. Not to citizens who are not good enough, who unreasonably ask for first-world salaries to keep up with the escalating cost of living, exacerbated by, again, the policies of the same people who have been engineering our lives according to their (or one man’s) vision.
A pool of recurring discursive artifacts without real arguments.
Nonetheless, we persist. We say, “Bestow National Service only on the international best too instead of conscripting Singaporeans who are chronic fitness test failures. Those Singaporeans are obviously ineligible in the spirit of meritocracy.”
But we will be accused of being irrational, for NS is exclusive to Singaporeans. It is a privilege to serve (and Singaporean women must be under-privileged then?).
Yet, some of us thus maligned, might instead speak of ‘locals’ versus ‘others’ who have come to be known as ‘locals’ by the authorities—citizens versus permanent residents. Why is it so easy for a foreigner to become officially local via permanent residency and enjoy privileges, privileges closed to us?
Nonsense, comes the retort, the government puts Singaporeans first, and even second-generation permanent residents have to serve in the military. How true. And they can even become citizens like us.
When that happens, would it mean that even citizens-who-were-once-foreigners can, like us, claim to be disadvantaged, strangled by the tender embrace of the state?
Singapore, in your arms, how do I become myself?
*****
There are those who speak of true blue Singaporeans, but we can never say who qualifies to be one. Must a true blue Singaporean be born in a certain era or have undergone specific experiences?
We need a definition of the true blue Singaporean that goes beyond myopic considerations of the immediate. The true blue Singaporean is not a dying breed. If it were, Singapore would be well on its way to being a utopian space even if it is at our expense.
Nevertheless, if we have to speak of the true Singaporean with a focus on disadvantage, there is the challenge of accounting for those who are apparently not disadvantaged. We risk merely coming up with another name for the marginalized as a collective, another misnomer of a label.
Given that the figure of the true blue Singaporean is often invoked to show how certain Singaporeans are being threatened, in their own country, by the presence of foreigners or new Singaporeans, many would find it unimaginable citing PAP ministers as examples of true blue Singaporeans. Yet, it is equally difficult to claim that PAP ministers are not true blue Singaporeans as though we are selecting members for a club exclusive to disadvantaged individuals.
Perhaps we are ultimately just some people, not true blue anything.
And yet, we try. In paralysis, we try. Whoever else there are out there, we struggle, always, to wriggle out under the feet of unreasonable, rhetorical retorts. Perhaps we ought to be more inclusive before we speak: offer foreigners the true blue Singapore citizenship.
In Singapore’s political space contaminated and made absurd, it makes marginal sense to even speak of foreigners. Like us, foreigners (this distinction merely linguistic) are expected to sacrifice selfhood, for Singapore does not want the best foreigners. They want foreigners to facilitate the continuation of Singapore as Singapore. Singapore wants them because they make Singapore more diverse and vibrant. Singapore is confident that “new immigrants to Singapore can become Singaporeans in outlook and loyalty within a generation” (SM Goh).
In short, Singapore’s logic goes that foreigners can become exactly like Singaporeans and contribute to Singapore’s diversity.
Let me contribute to Singapore’s diversity then. I am anything but Singaporean.
*****
Like us, foreigners might want to move on to another country. Like us, they may even buy into nonsensical ideologies persuading them to trade their humanity for things that should have come at no cost. They might even be taught to pay good money for air to breathe. Like us, they are merely functions of the utilitarian practices—we are all wanted because we help produce economic statistics in different ways; they are wanted because they make Singapore more vibrant, we are wanted because we can serve NS and loyally vote for the PAP. (A change of status allows them to vote too, so it really does not make a difference).
Singapore, I am not your citizen.
Foreigners come here, we are already here. Perhaps there is a difference after all. For the rest of the world, there’s Singapore to go to as foreign talent. For us, there is no the-rest-of-the-world to treat us the way Singapore treats its foreign talents.
Yet there is a difference – even if it is not between locals and foreigners. We may state the difference, but we often fail to coherently articulate who we are comparing.
Our terms of comparison cannot be locals, citizens, permanent residents, expatriates, and foreigners. Subjects of the government’s policies, perhaps. Privileged, disadvantaged. There are privileged foreigners, victimized locals, privileged locals, victimized foreigners and a multitude of different permutations.
Yet, if this appears lucid, we realize also that privilege is relative. Is the son favored by his father only because he contributes more to the family business privileged compared to his siblings? It is impossible to claim that one sibling is in a worse position than another. You can only observe the constant, the father that doles out privilege—the authority that bestows triumph and triggers jealousy.
Have we been banished by the rest of the world to this landfill as sacrifices to the ravenous soil, awaiting the end of decay, the total conquest of subsumption that sets us free?
Singapore, I don’t want to be your citizen.
“Get out if you cannot stand it!”
I would gladly oblige, if I could. I should not continue being an impediment in Singapore’s road to self-actualization, should I? Even Gregor Samsa could not get out of his house.
*****
Here I am, being raped and I am told that I ought to stay and fight the rapist who can effortlessly overpower me (or continue being raped—in silence—not strong enough to fight) instead of trying to run away from the rapist because only losers run away. How ridiculous.
But turn it into political rhetoric and it almost works—it certainly makes perfect sense to some of us. Yes, rapists sometimes provide us with a roof over our heads and might even throw some money in our faces to keep us quiet. Never bite the hand that feeds you even if it violates you.
Perhaps being trapped in a mute spot of public discourse, desperately calling out to the deaf is a trait of a true blue Singaporean.
So Singapore, how am I a citizen?
The General Elections will come soon. They come as quickly as our youth and lives are depleted. Our memories decay. Even their echoes vanish. Silent wretchedness lingers for an expectant hope, only to again meet with miscarriage. If we cannot crawl out of the landfill, we should at least give reshaping the landscape a shot. Is this not the spirit of survival that we are told to take pride in? No one is obliged to give opposition candidates a chance. We need to give ourselves one.
—–
Related posts:
38 Comments
Molly Meek
John Michael Connor
There is a storm on the horizon. A time of hardship and pain. This battle has just begun, but the war against tyranny races on. MIW’s network remains strong, but we will not quit, until all of it is gone. There is no fate, but what we make.
I knew it. I knew it was coming. But this is not the future i was warned about. And in this future, I don’t know if we can win this war.
We’ve been fighting a long time. We are out numbered by ignorance. Working around the clock,without quit. Singaporeans have a strength that cannot be measured. This is John Connor. If you are reading this,you are the resistance.
CelluloidReality
So if one is not suffering in Singapore, is he or she not a true Singaporean?
Point to ponder.
Who am i?
Very soon, Singapore will be like the Gulf countries where as many as 85% of the population are FT. From top management to the blue-collar labourer, there are more foreign residents than the local population itself.
However, that’s where the similarities end. In the Gulf countries, FT serves the locals, not the other way round.
You can even be a 2nd generation FT, born, bred and educated entirely in the gulf, yet will never get a PR; much less citizenship.
The locals will work above all the FTs. They get priority in schools, in shops, in restaurants, in hospitals, in government departments. It is a well known fact if a local get into a car accident with a FT, the FT is always wrong, whatever the case may be.
The gulf governments do not throw out PR/citizenship invitations. They do not have foreigners assimilation schemes. They do not make things easier for the FT. If anything, they make it more difficult.
Yet, people from all over the world, USA, Europe, Asia…flocks to the Gulf. Money and opportunity calls…
Contrast this with our dear Singapore.
We welcome FT with wide-open arms. We throw incentives at them. We educate them. We invite them to be PRs after a mere 6 months. We put them in charge of locals. We even disadvantage the locals via lesser education opportunities, NS, job opportunities, etc
What attracts FTs to S’pore? Just like the Gulf countries, money and opportunities call…
So, tell me, how did the Gulf turn that same money and opportunity that lures FT to their local citizen’s advantage and S’pore turn theirs into the local citizen’s disadvantage?
Is that what a multi-million parliament is supposed to do?
curious citizen
@4
well to go through the differences is a tedious task, but the answer to your last question is easy.
The multi-million parliament is supposed to do a lot of good, and if it is not performing there are quite a few resolutions, however two solutions do come to mind. One is to start digging deeper into our pockets so as to start better remuneration packages, the solution to any problem in this case is to pay for better and faster talent. The second would be to sit around and complain, till the cows come home, on the fact that this malaise that we are suffering is brought about due to people in their ivory towers. But i guess that both solutions could be done concurrently too, if you should choose to.
Also I find that the comparison used between Singapore vs the Gulf is focused on the differences in treatment of the FT. But it should be noted that Singapore is deficient in the Oil resource department. I have always thought that if you had the oil you have the money. Since the countries in the gulf have oil, it would mean that they are the paymasters and that they could give their citizens priority over others.
In Singapore, our leaders have always kept their distance from the idea of subsidy, it always will encourage a crutch mentality and force our citizens to depend on the government for everything. Though it might not be the case, since without subsidizing anything, we Singaporeans are still depending on our MIWs.
Off on a tangent here, seemingly that subsidy generates a crutch mentality, whilst not in effect for most of our public policies, how is it we still have to depend on government?
Singapore is a city without any natural resource. The money that we had was generated through prudent measures that were brought about by efficient budget planning resulting in surpluses. Opening the reserves when times are tough, like just after the recent financial tsunam we were able to spend our way out of the crisis.
It also begs the question of whether when the budget was being planned, did they have to generate so much surplus.
But complaining about the PR problem and the tackling of it is very hasty. What if by generating so much negativity, then we start seeing MNCs that used to be based in Singapore leaving for other places?
walau
I lurve u Molly Meek(MM) for u utter truths that I dare not and could not even imagine lest so to speak of.
gudrun
The root of our current immigration problem is declining birth rates. Yes increased education has contributed to declining birth rates but so have other negative government policies. In fact government economic policies, and the lack of a proper social safety network, and the removal of left-leaning public housing price controls have all made it less and less viable for Singaporeans to have children.
The immigration crisis singapore is facing should be dealt with in two ways:
Short Term:
create new visa conditions allowing workers to stay here longer etc , BUT make it much harder for them to get PR and Citizenship
Long Term:
give singaporeans more spending power, introduce limited and qualified social safety. rework our outdated economic model. We rely too much on Temasek Holdings. Diversify by concentrating more on domestic spending. This will correct the current imbalance which always unevenly favours employers instead of workers.
Let me just say that i’m sick of the blame being solely pinned on the world market, or Singaporeans. No matter how fast we row if the boat has holes, we are going to sink.
Who am i?
“But complaining about the PR problem and the tackling of it is very hasty. What if by generating so much negativity, then we start seeing MNCs that used to be based in Singapore leaving for other places? ”
Think through this statement. Doesn’t this sound very much like the MIW standard argument?
Can some-one put it clearly to the MIW that all sensible S’poreans understand and accept the importance of FT. No one is complaining or going against them. S’poreans has traditionally welcome FT through the years.
The only thing we ask for today is:
1. Bring in the FT. But, please ensure only the better FT comes in
2. Bring in the FT, But, please do not flood the job market
3. Bring in the FT. But please do not depress the wage level
4. Bring in the FT. But please only for jobs your own people cannot or will not do
5, Bring in the FT. But please do not dis-advantage your own people via lesser education opportunities, NS, job opportunities
6. Bring in the FT. But why are you spending money educating, subsidising and incentivising them?
7. Bring in the FT. But do spare a thought for your own people. FT has a country to go back to. We have none. This is our one and only country
8. Bring in the FT. But only if we have a real need. Not to jack up the population. Not to churn GDP. Just because the ministerial pay happens to be linked to GDP.
blackfeline
#9 You cant have the cake and eat it! For once…I will say…STOP BRINGING IN ANY MORE FTs UNTIL YOU HAVE TAKEN CARE OF SINGAPOREANS FIRST!
gemami
The choice of citizenship is not ours to choose. We have been entrusted with it the day our mothers gave birth to us in this land. So, to say afterward that; “I do not want to be a citizen of the land”; just cannot be.
“Getting out” must not be a consideration either when things do go the way we want it to go. It must not lead us to question ourselves whether we should stay or we should leave; or whether we have the means to leave. Would you vacate your home for an intruder? You wouldn’t, would you? The same logic applies.
Indeed, we are being raped in our own home. What should we do then? We are letting the rapist go scot-free if we run away and pretended nothing ever happened. No, we must bring justice to bear. We have to identify the rapist, stand up to prove his guilt, and bring about his conviction and punishment.
It all boils down to us. We have been told so often that being raped is part of the ritual of being born into citizenship. Like an incestual father who tells his children that being raped by him is part of the culture, we have come to believe and embrace such a culture.
How then do we bring about justice for ourselves? Yes, the general election is our supreme court of law. It is here that we must seek justice. It is here that we must prove them guilty. It is here that we must tell our side of the story. It is here that we must mete out punishment – a punishment that meets the crime.
And the punishment I am talking about is one that will bring about their downfall. We still hold and wield the power after all; only if we recognize this.
Ren
– “The choice of citizenship is not ours to choose.”
gemami, we (or our ancestors) all came from somewhere else. citizenship is for us to take it or leave it. Stay or leave, the choice is ours.
Die-hard Singaporean
MM – couldn’t agree more with your sentiments. Well put! Goh Chok Tong lost all credibility with me when he started spouting about EQ, something which he is totally clueless about!!!!!
Brilliant metaphor Molly.
gemami makes an excellent point. If we don’t fight the rapist, we can’t expect a random stranger to pop by and smack him senseless either. But here’s the twist. The rapist has weapons(trying to play the metaphor out as far as i can).
It is easy to stand up and say you’re not going to take anymore. Its a whole different story when they come knocking at your door. And that is what we fear the most. We fear for our future, we fear for our rights. But there should not be fear, should there? And unless we recognise that collectively, and start gathering up our balls, nothing is going to change.
The problem is, people don’t realise the amount of power they have.
Agents Provocateur
@John Michael Connor
Have a Heart, John Connor.
tiredsingaporean
sad to see so many singaporeans are being brainwashed by those MIW still today.
Online Shmonline
@ 5) curious citizen on November 20th, 2009 2.27 am
I don’t think you really answered the question. Your two suggestions of either paying more money or complaining uselessly sounds like current incumbent policy.
Which means that paying our leaders millions of dollars so that they can maintain their integrity while doing painfully little is the same as hiring my ah pek to sit at the top and do nothing. Honestly, i don’t mind getting a share of the parliamentary salary pie to do close to nothing if it means I have the moral high ground in the Singapore context…because it’s definitely not the moral highground from any other context.
*sigh*
we need more loyal Singaporeans who don’t ask to be paid 3 peanuts (3 * $600,000) to do a good job. Where’s the loyalty when our current troop of monkey leaders don’t know how to lead by example. Instead, they’re paying themselves huge amounts (with my tax contributions) and paying their lackeys the same so that those in power won’t do much for those without power (but who have genuine needs).
Ask not what your country can do for you. Instead, ask what you can do for your country. This should be the reason and drive for all political aspirants. Sadly, politics is a game played by gangsters and whores who’ll sell the souls of their fellow man to make another buck for themselves…time for an Animal Farm-like revolution. Time for the corrupt to be brought down and banished? Or perhaps, our leaders, so afraid of solitary confinement but unafraid to dish it out, should take some of their own medicine?
But if we did all that, wouldn’t my soul be tarnished too? How can that be a moral high ground if I do evil to evil men?
Time to ponder some more.
David
Itr reflects the true blue singaporean sentiments. I have never trusted PAP for generations and I still stick to my belief. Look what happened now? my belief is proven. I rather vote in an uncredible oppositions than having my head already on the chopping board of PAP. Life is at stake for every singaporean, we need to act swift without further hesitant.
Panda
The Panda (Foreign talent, FT) from China to SGP give me an insight on how our ZOO (govt) handle thinhgs.
1. You think Panda (FT) life better or yr local monkey life is better.
2. ZOO (Govt) put how much $$$ and effort so that this Panda (FT) really enjoy his stay. Zoo even ensure that he still enjoy four seasons during his stay in this tropical countries. My goodness, how many local monkey has even seen snow in their lifetime.
3. Did that monkey has any avenue to complaint, NO! He just shut up and if not happy, can dont eat the peanut given by the ZOO(Govt).
4. Actually, I was thinking why loan Panda to Singapore. Not give it to Singapore. Why some other countries, it was given as a gift? Singapore not worthy of it even though we co-develop in suzhou/tianjin etc? Is it because someone cant decide who to side (USA or China) during a US visit that was given a slap. The supposely Panda gift was change to become a LOAN? Then why ZOO has to suffer in this humliation. You think the local monkey cant figure it out?
5.ZOO, the amount you spent on Panda can feed many many monkeys. And, after all, you still need to return the panda. U may argue Panda wld bring in tourist to the ZOO. But, what it got to do with the moneky who continue to eat yr peanut! Dont make sense.
You sure or NOT
In every country, citizen comes first. Apparently, this is not the case in Singapore and this is why citizens are angry. Not just angry with this issue but a loaf of other issues such as extreme high cost of living, lack of opportunities, ineffective policies, exposed major blunders and the continual mantras that they are doing this for our good and we need to be cheaper faster lower. But on the contrary, they have built high fences around them, out of touch with common folks and reality and rewarding themselves excessively beyond recognition but repeating calls for common folks to continue to bite the bullets. And nepotism growing amazing speed, with wife, friends, class mates all stacked together in a pack, running the country.
And so the called new media being monitored and regulated, acting as a tick tag toe for every tricky issue, repeating reasons and excuses in the hope we continue to accept and “move on”.
There is something wrong with Singapore and its policies, everyone feels so but the votes are otherwise, you tell me. Maybe everyone just care about GST credits and upgradings and these reasons are credible according to Kopitiam Apek and his gang.
Chang Long Tong
No Foreigner should Owe any Singaporean a Living.
I welcome all foreigners.
Selamat Datang.
Contribute to our nation.
Our policies are the best.
Which country has policies been so much accepted in 50 years by its people?
You have come to the right place.
My salutes to singapore’s foreigner heroes.
Without whom, many of our jobs would have been lost even though they do not owe us a living.
walau
We should really be united, for we are all “subjects of government’s policies” where the paternal government is the only “constant”, “the father that doles out privilege—the authority that bestows triumph and triggers jealousy”.
Yes. There is a need to transcend the highly divisive state constructs of “local”-”foreign”, “privileged”-”disadvantaged”, “talent”-”others”, “stayers”-”quitters” etc and to deconstruct ‘pragmatism’ as an ideology – but what other kinds of discourse should we be engendering, without being shot down as ‘high-faluting’?
gemami
Hi Ren,
On any given day, your argument may sound logical with nothing to argue over. However, in the context of my comments, it does sound out of point.
I wasn’t talking about those who have decided for themselves that their lives would be better with adopted citizenship. Certainly they are free to decide to stay or to leave.
Now, the ‘we’ in your comment has two references, which you failed to recognize, when you lumped it as one in your parenthesized remark. Firstly, it is true that the ‘we’ of our ancestors may have came from a foreign land. Secondly, it is not true that the ‘we’, that is us, the children, had came from a foreign land. Like I’ve said, we, the children, were born into citizenship. This is the only land we knew while growing up.
Next, the topic of whether to leave or to stay and the choice we have. You are again correct to point out that we have a choice to leave or to stay. But then again, you failed to argue that those of us who choose to stay do not have a choice to decide who should come in, or whether we want them to come in. We are told to keep our doors wide open and to expect an influx of strangers entering our doorways. We have no choice.
So then, tell me is this a fair way to govern? On the one hand, the one who has decided to leave has a choice. On the other hand, the one who stays, have no choice. Thirdly, why does it even has to come down to this – to decide to stay or to leave?
Of course, the easy way out (not necessarily the best) to this is to decide to leave like some have done and are doing. But we must not forget the one who continues to feel an affiliation for his homeland and who wants to stay. This land will continue to be his home. Is it not right then to ensure that his opinion matters?
Why does the one who forces you to keep your doors wide open be the one to decide how you should live and who your neighbour should be?.
The only decision we should be making as citizens of a land is whether or not we are being taken care of with the dignity that citizenship brings. If we are treated with dignity, then all these talk about deciding to stay or to leave are nothing but – just talk.
But if we are not treated with the dignity of citizenship, then it is our duty to make sure that we regain our dignity before it completely disappears – which is what is happening now. This is the only decision we should be making.
gemami
Hi theinkhorn,
You are right to say that things are easier said than done. It is the same for a victim of rape, which we all are. The element of fear, whether others will believe your story; or, the haplessness, whether you can bring the rapist to justice; these are all very emotional and real considerations.
The biggest problem any crime-fighter faces is the readiness of victims to step forward to report the crime. Many of us are doing that right now – thanks to the Internet age. For more than forty years, our bodies are not the only thing that have been raped. Our minds, our hearts, our feelings, our languages, our choices, our freedom, our expressions, our entire being – from our names to our souls – have all been raped, not once, not twice, but over and over again.
Even in this modern age of advance technology, it is still finding ways and means to rape us. If a citizen cannot recognize this, then we are nothing but a society that embraces such a crime by being numb to it.
The question is this: even as we are given in to being raped – can we expect our sons and daughters to be raped too? What kind of parents will we be? What are we leaving behind for posterity?
Say no to nonsense
to Curious Citizen,
Why must there be only 2 solutions? There are many many solutions out there… to think that there are only 2 solutions (in fact the 2nd solution that you suggest is not even a solution) is plain unimaginative… and this further give rise to the shallowness in the next part of your analysis.
From your comment, it occurs to me that you are one of those that blindly believe what the MSM dishes out… Spore has no natural resources… Subsidy is a dirty word… etc…
However, what you have claim above, and in effect what the MSM has been regular chunking out, may not be the whole truth. Every country is unique in its own sense… we might not have natural resources… but we do not have natural disasters to deal with… also, our geographical location is so advantageous, that in itself it is a natural resources. In fact, natural resources might run out, but our geographical advantage wont run away, unless Thailand and Msia cut a channel across them.
The uniqueness in every country suggest that each have its own set of advantages and challenges… to just focus on Spore shortcomings to justify everything that the govt dishes out… is plain naiviety. If it is ever so simplistic, I can also claim that Brunei must bring in foreign talents in droves since they have nothing except oil. Simple isnt it?
I do agree that Spore is what it is today based on prudent measures and good planning. Hence all the more we should continue to practise such habits… instead of just taking it at surface value that we only have one and only one solution available.
curious citizen
@16
hi nice of you to have paid attention to me.
But I had instead suggested 3 solutions, 1. Pay them more. 2. Complain about them 3. Pay them more and complain about them. There might be more solutions, but offhand I thought of 3. You can choose to use them or not, that remains your choice.
I cannot agree about your analogy about “paying our leaders millions of dollars so that they can maintain their integrity while doing painfully little is the same as hiring my ah pek to sit at the top and do nothing”
Well simply due to the fact that your ah pek might not even be considered to be top talent, when we bring in questions about the pedigree (no offense intended), qualifications etc. In that possible scenario, the state of governance would be in question. Tell me if that does nothing to make us feel worried that if in the next 5 years, there would be no more Singapore.
Instead we can rest easily knowing that the painfully little that the multi million ministers (hereafter known as MMM)are doing, is a result of effective and efficient policies generated by their talents. And the fact when it comes down to the bitter and hard decisions, our MIW will bite the bullet and make those important decisions that a regular ah pek might not.
Lastly, the ah pek is doing nothing, but the MMM is doing painfully little. That has to account for the difference too.
In Animal Farm, after the Old Farmer was kicked out of the Farm, slowly the pigs supplanted themselves as the ruling elite. That state of affairs again is a whole cyclical shift back to the original instance, that power has left from a dictator back to another who might have the tendency again to revert back to the ways of old.
And truth be told, to compare Singapore as a dictatorial state that would in the end become communist in nature is just nonsense.
Hi Gemami:
i could not agree more to your #22 and #23 Comments.
Indeed, before independence, Singapore was liked a free land where people from elsewhere can easily settle down. Before the British took charge of it, the Malay Rulers before them did not have much of a system to control visitors or aliens from settling down.
And all those that came from foreign lands then were here either to escape from wars, poverty or simply just to find a better place to live and thrive. The early settlers worked for the British Ruler, the European, Chinese and Middle Eastern operated businesses or simply set up their simple trades of selling home-made foods, did repair works(shoes, utensil, machines etc), vendoring basic sundries and provisions or became fisherman and farmers.
In the older days, settlers ventured into unoccupied country-sides to set up their homes which resulted in self-sufficient villages which sprouted all over the Island.
After the 50s, visitor control(immigration) became more formalized and less aliens arrived. When the British handed over SIN to the Local Authority in the 60s, immigration was down to just a trickle. AND for the First Time, Singaporeans became formally SINGAPOREANS and not British Subjects. Personally, I define Singaporeans as those that registered themselves as Singaporeans from then on and those given birth by those citizens. Like to say that some then did choose to be British Subjects or prefered to be Malayans.
Most will be familiar with the History of SIN after independence and whatever the problems that SINGAPOREANS face today are due to the Administration of the Local Authority.
Me just like to try to make a distinction between local born(naturalized) citizens and ‘imported citizens’ in order to define the Singaporean Identity, in this comment. Hope it helps.
patriot
gemami
Hi Patriot,
Glad you agree. It is sad isn’t it, when the government continually attempts to diminish the efforts of our ancestors. I am glad that you are able to put things in its proper perspective for us to understand the deeper meaning of what it was like in those days of struggle – a struggle to create the identity that we can be proud of.
It is true also, that the Singaporean identity was at its strongest when we finally got rid of the British lords. Unfortunately, instead of building further on this strength, we began to wane in our effort and instead started giving in to a life of lazy bliss, trusting what we were told without proper reasoning.
Perhaps the blame cannot entirely be placed on our older generations because they were struggling to survive too, and we must keep in mind that it was a time, when being in tune with the government of the day, was the best way forward.
Singapore is what it is today because of the PAP. Some see beauty and greatness in it. Others see its desperate hold on power (GRC, political assassination of it opponents), with legalized corruption (cannot implicate TOC), and wealth-accumulation (salary). Some believe this is the trade-off for a life of peaceful ignorance, since no news is good news after all, so why fight it?
But whichever way you see it, it is not going to last, for as long as it remains on this chosen path – allowing new aliens to invade the land and dipping their hands into the contributions we had made to the treasure chest – the fruit of our hard-earned effort.
We, the citizens of Singapore, can accommodate the foreign talent – the way other citizens are accommodating those who arrive at their shores. What we cannot accommodate, is for them to come in droves, with not only their talents, but their dogs and cats, sarongs and spittoons.
Singaporeans subsidising the PAP govt.
“In Singapore, our leaders have always kept their distance from the idea of subsidy,..” curious citizen #5
We know that the PAP leaders like LKY, Goh CT, PM Lee like to blow trumpet that Singapore believes in free competition, free trade.
Recently coach companies operating between Singapore and Malaysia were fined for price fixing. http://news.coachbroker.co.uk/coach-companies-in-asia-fined-for-price-fixing-scam-123300/
But the biggest price fixing is done by the petrol companies and the PAP government is letting them off because the taxes derived from these companies are pretty good. When one of the petrol companies up their pump price, the rest are sure to follow within the next day.
Further more, there is the 3/4 tank rule to prevent Singaporeans from buying petrol in Malaysia. So much for the lies of free-trade preached by PAP government. The “3/4 tank” rule is obviously to help the petrol companies.
It is the Singaporeans who are subsidising the PAP government, or else where do there get such fat pay for doing so very little or else much harm to Singapore?
It is the government-linked-companies that are heavily subsidised. Almost all GLC can’t compete outside of Singapore.
We should not complain too much about the PAP government, just vote them out.
retiredgangster
just returned from cebu..sea of the paradisco…met spoke to a local filipinas lass who last worked in singapoor..upon her contract expired she departed singapoor without a 2nd glance..
here her story..she earned about average $1200 NET..pay for her tiny cabin bed 4-in-1 shared room in a hdb flat in queenstown @ a monthly rental of $200 not bad with full aircon as well…less her humongoose mrt fares/expenses she found out she is no better off livin in cebu…last night i asked her again..still wanna come to singapoor? she replied if you are payin me $1500 NETT with FREE boardin and food..i will say yes
and i asked her in 1 sentence
in return
what would i get?
tiredsingaporean
28) Singaporeans subsidising the PAP govt. on November 20th, 2009 6.47 pm
We should not complain too much about the PAP government, just vote them out.
No need, just mass praying every morning that those bandits die early. Mass prayer is very powerful, the more people start to pray the effect becomes reality, just pray hard that some of them starts to die and the rest would just back off, sway sway to all of them.
SpongeBoob
Dear curious citizen,
I beg to hammer your statement – “In Singapore, our leaders have always kept their distance from the idea of subsidy, it always will encourage a crutch mentality and force our citizens to depend on the government for everything.”
Unless you have some kinda social service background, your equation is definitely a self-fulfilling prophecy. I don’t want to throw in any statistics, as our MSM and authorities are always doing their part to paint a different picture. But I would want to suggest that, as I’ve always done so here, you get yourself dirty by doing some volunteer services or work for a VWO (Voluntary Welfare Organisation). See with your own eyes the many so-called “crutch mentality” minded ah peks and ah mahs who toil the streets daily to pay for their meals, in our self-proclaimed 1st world nation. Boy, I thought 1st world nations look after their old folks!
There are more juicy stories that you might dig up during your stay in the social service sector. But it will be a real eye-opener for someone who still believe in the accounts drawn up by our very own “Madoff”, “Stanford” or “Sunshine Empire” look-alikes. Well, it just takes big shake up before these worshippers have a wake-up call and start crying like babies.
Wish you a fruitful journey in social service.
Warmest regrets,
Your community worker
curious citizen
@28
At least one more free thingy that the ruling elites think of, but in a negative way; no free lunch. Its a wonder when they are going to charge us for breathing air. Imagine no free air….
But i digress, focusing on the issue of the 3/4 tank. Those profiteering petrol companies, damn them for building their happiness on our misery! Remember shell’s recent promotion which caused so much disruption and inconvenience that was ultimately billed to the tax payers. Now these oil companies should do the necessary and reduce the excessive profits in which their CEOs and directors get paid huge bonuses. Stop lobbying the government to impose a 3/4 tank rule, so that we can go to JB and pump cheaper petrol.
But on your next point, about GLC not being to survive outside of Singapore, I start to get confused. The reason a GLC is formed is due to an absence of local enterprises, reasons notwithstanding, so as to keep certain strategic goods and services from being monopolized. That being the case, it would mean that it is serving its role and functioning perfectly. Why complain about it? GIC, Temasek, SIA, DBS, SingTel etc had all their forays overseas, and they went in about their business for the realization of their investment in the long term. Now and then they sell certain stakes so as to rebalance their asset portfolio for strategic purposes, and that made a gigantic loss. We are still better off than when we had first started.
Voting is secret, (although there are some critics saying otherwise) it will be foolhardy to inadvertently blurt out that one favors another over the other.
SpongeBoob
Sorry, I get confused as well.
Can someone tell me if NTUC is a GLC? With its chains of transport cos, supermarts, convenience store, pharmacies, and even undertaker. I do not know if these goods and services are monopolized by the private entities?
And about long term investment. Many years ago, I invested in insurance policies, and the insurer kept me informed of its asset portfolios and financial accounts. Are GIC and Temasek disclosing their accounts, and I mean those types filed by listed companies you see on stock exchanges. If I tell you that my portfolio increased by 100% over a period of 6 months, and that this particular portfolio lost its value by 50% 12 months ago during the financial crisis. So, have I made a profit? No prize for making a right guess…
Kim
Maybe our Immigration dept should consider to restrict the number of years of Permanent Residency status that is maybe a foreigner should only be allowed to hold on to such a privileged position for only 10 years and thereafter they would have to decide whether to become a Singaporean or to start all over again.
singapore boy
Singapore, you are not my country
this shows the pap are ruining our country.
making it like a geylang hotel.
a place for tom dick and harry to come in, stay and enjoy.
Never bite the hand that feeds you even if it violates you.
we should cut off the pap cancer asap.
Realist
We need to understand that Singapore does not equate ruling party
For Singapore to remain our country, we need to get rid of dictatorships which have grown too powerful that they are no longer answerable to the people.
DuraiKiller
Time to change Party, Look recent incident taking so called “world class MRT” one foreign Phillipino girl (siao Kui Bu) talking loudly beside me with unbearable P-no asscend, so told her to shut up. Kown want, she turn to me shouted at me to fuck out then follow by her P-no language scolding me nonstop. I was terribly angrify but to maintain my gracious manner in public so hold my anger and ignore that P-no Siao Kui Bu.
Seriously till now, I am still can’t tolerated an 3rd world foriegners screamed at local to F out here. We ready got to stop this nonsense where our leaders brought to us,
Sidekick
I’ve been “forced” by my parents to partake in one of those FT-insemination programmes paid for by MCYS (& prob from tt $10mil funds to help FT integrate!) WTF!!! The entire prog were busloads of local aunties and uncles filling up the headcount … And of the 10 busloads or so, there were only less than a handful of MIC! And these 4 or 5 MICs out of over 200 who attended were obvously uninterested in the subject of discussion as they were simply mingling among themselves in a corner, chatting At the top of their lungs!
Can someone from the ministry actually show us the result of what KPI, other than number of busloads or headcount, has been met in such $$$-burning programmes that costs taxpayers like myself a whopping $10mil that could have been better spent on improving the lives of those living below the poverty line?
Molly has to acknowledge that the article which appears here has been edited by KJ. The Molly’s Cut lies elsewhere in the Net.