Xue Jianyue and Terence Lee
The Reform Party recently introduced a series of economic proposals touching on areas like minimum wage, productivity, education, foreign workers and housing.
Many Singaporeans have expressed concern about the rising deluge of foreigners coming into the nation. As such, the Reform Party has unveiled a slew of economic proposals which it hopes will “level the playing field” between locals and foreigners.
(From left — Secretary General Kenneth Jeyaretnam, along with guest speaker Leong Sze Hian. Photo credit: Terence Lee)
A key suggestion by the party is to provide a minimum wage of $5 an hour, said Secretary General Kenneth Jeyaretnam at a Reform Party discussion session held last Saturday at the RELC International Hotel.
This was among an extensive list of suggestions offered to protect local workers amidst the current liberal foreign worker policy.
The $5 minimum wage, which is “a bare minimum for survival”, would help Singaporeans bring home at least $1,000 monthly for 200 hours of work, preventing their wages, especially for the bottom 20% of income earners, from falling to levels of countries like India and China, Mr Jeyaretnam said.
However, older workers will be exempt from the minimum wage, while younger workers below 25 years of age will have a lower minimum.
The minimum wage will also not apply to foreigners in sectors which Singaporeans are minimally involved in, such as the construction and domestic worker industries.
Strong reaction against exemptions
The exemptions, however, were met with some disapproval from the attendees. A lady questioned Mr Jeyaretnam’s point about exempting foreign domestic and construction workers.
“What’s the rationale behind their exemption given that they form a large minority of our workforce and that they contribute significantly to the economy?” she asked.
“Because they’re not Singaporean,” he replied, “and there is low substitutability – given that Singaporean workers don’t work in that sector, so it is unlikely to affect the wage rates of Singaporeans and pull them down.”
Another lady was also against this exemption, arguing that by applying the minimum wage to these industries, these jobs will be become more attractive to Singaporeans, thereby lessening the dependence on foreign labour.
In response, Mr Jeyaretnam said that he would not be so certain that Singaporeans would be interested in the construction and domestic maid sector. Furthermore, if locals were to work as maids, costs would escalate and this would hurt the pockets of many families who need domestic help.
“That would be very unpopular among Singaporeans,” he added.
Another attendee approached the topic differently, arguing that employers will still hire foreign workers as they are still cheaper. Singaporeans, at the end of the day, are still disadvantaged, he added.
Addressing his concerns was financial consultant Leong Sze Hian, who was a guest speaker. He said that even if the minimum wage were applied to foreigners, it would still not solve the problem of inequality.
“If I am a foreigner, I don’t have to pay CPF. Employers still prefer to hire foreigners. If you employ a male foreigner, he doesn’t need to do NS 14 days a year. If you employ a foreign lady with lower skill and lower pay, she won’t get pregnant – and there would be no maternity leave problem.”
Therefore, policies have to be fine-tuned to give the advantage to locals, he said.
Agreeing with him, Mr Jeyaretnam added that the Reform Party is recommending an additional set of measures to minimise existing disadvantages against Singaporeans.
Protecting Singaporeans
One such measure is to bring foreign workers within the CPF scheme. They should also be taxed at a higher rate to compensate for the fact that they are not required to do National Service and attend subsequent In-Camp Training.
The party also suggested that Singaporean workers should receive more education and training to increase their productivity, as this would raise their living standards more effectively than increasing GDP growth merely through bringing in more foreign workers at a lower wage –rate to expand Singapore’s workforce.
Other measures include ensuring that employers fill positions with locals first, and disallowing employers from sacking Singaporean workers and replacing them with cheaper foreign workers. Exceptions will be made for failing business cases.
The party will also push to privatise CPF after part of it is used to fund a public health insurance scheme and a basic pension for all Singaporeans who have contributed to the fund after a certain number of years.
On top of these, the party is proposing a transparent, cost-benefit analysis of the foreign labour policy to study how they are affecting Singaporeans.
Addressing the point about exempting older workers, Mr Jeyaretnam admitted that nothing is set in concrete yet. However, the idea is that this would encourage employers to hire the older workers as they might have difficulty getting jobs.
He also highlighted other areas of concern such as education, housing and investment issues.
Housing, education and investment policies
For housing, the party hopes to make flats more affordable for first-time buyers and low income earners. Besides pushing for increased transparency of HDB accounts, the party will either require HDB to build more of the cheaper two and three room units, or request the URA to release more land for private developers of low-cost housing.
Instead of accumulating unproductive overseas assets, the party suggested increasing domestic investment and consumption in areas such as education and health which have a high social rate of return, while cutting taxes and fees for the less well off.
They include GST reductions or exemptions, reduction in HDB fees, or even abolition of school fees.
Mr Tony Tan, who is the party’s shadow spokesman for education and defense, said that the party hopes to increase investment in education beyond the current 2.8% of the GDP. The increased spending could be funded by saving in other areas, including defense, or by a smaller surplus and borrowing from reserves. This would improve quality of teaching and reduce class sizes.
The money would also go to expanding tertiary education and increase loan schemes for Singaporeans.
The party’s proposals on education, however, are still being studied and remain a work in progress. Mr Tan extended a call for interested Singaporeans to contribute to the study.
Besides the rising tensions between locals and foreigners, the party is also concerned about rising global temperatures. As such, the party will place greater emphasis on green and energy-saving technologies than present government efforts, and help local SMEs seize opportunities from carbon reduction efforts worldwide.
Privatisation of SWFs and GLCs
The party also called for increased disclosure and transparency of Government of Singapore Investment Corp’s (GIC) and Temasek Holdings’ accounts.
To enable this, the party would set up a committee to examine the possible privatisation of the two companies. Singaporeans could either be given some shares, or benefit via a direct linkage between returns on investments and CPF returns.
There is “no convincing reason for the government to continue to hold controlling stakes in most of the major companies as these are now largely mature and slow-growing,” according to Mr Jeyaretnam.
Government-linked companies (GLCs) could also be sold off and privatised, reducing the state sector in favour of focusing on the private sector as a source of growth. To prevent foreign takeovers against national interest, the government can retain a “golden share” in these companies.
For a complete list of proposals offered by the Reform Party, click here.
Related posts:
- Level the playing field for locals and foreigners in employment
- Tilting the playing field in favour of lower income group?
- Leveling the playing field for residents and non-residents
- Reform Party: Discussion session on Singapore’s economy
- Reform Party outlines its labour policies in May Day message
47) tan seng kang on December 11th, 2009 11.01 pm
This is because not everyone can be bought by money and not everyone is motivated by money. Look at RP, SDP and even non-partisan groups such as TOC and MARUAH. They exist despite that there is no monetary benefit in running such groups. This also extends to religious organisations and voluntary welfare organisations too. The PAP thesis for motivation is so flawed.
some very, very good ideas… and kudos to you.
make sense make sense…
those with extra spare cash can consider to be a towkay to see whether it work.
tan seng kang’s “How can the Reform Party policies better than PAP where PAP can easily attract the best, talented ministers, poltical scretaries and scholars to work for them at extremely well paid salaries, allowances and other employment benefits and status”
This is a very PAP’s kind of ideology. Huge salaries = Best talents. The problem is that PAP is not interested in getting the best talents. They just want people who can score straight ‘As’, and these are essentially people who can obey and follow instructions well. Why do you think retired army officers are being put to chair our GLCs and statutory boards? And military guys being assigned to education or arts portfolios? Simple, because they are damn good followers! And package it with big money, they will definitely say ‘yes, man’.
The fact that Singapore’s macro socio-politic-economic environment is so difficult to change is because we have all these hard-heads heading major institutions that formulate policies. And these heads listen to one ultra-egoistic ‘ah peh’ at the helm. Singapore is a one-man’s laboratory. And its people are the white mice used in their experiments. Never mind the huge losses, because as long as we can show that the GDP continues to grow. Yet GDP growth is not = money in the hands of ordinary citizens.
Because it is so difficult to change Singapore, we need to support any dare-devil Singaporeans who seek to challenge the establishment and put their career and family life at stake. This attitude is well deserved enough for us to give them our vote of confidence. For many citizens like myself, we can only resort to being apathetic or getting ready to pack up and leave this country. Why not give these parties and idealistic individuals a chance to make a difference?
Politicians make politics look more complex than it really is. It’s elementary, my friends.
Step 1: Get as much money as possible from the people. Not through taxes but through service charges. Give people the liberty to have no security. That’s when they’ll pay instead of rebelling using tax avoidance schemes and public protests. Money is power, in the crude sense that is.
Step 2: Disarm your citizens. Uphold the capital punishment for all violent crimes and decriminalize drugs.
Step 3: Sterilize the “undesirables” of society. Legalize gay marriage.
Step 4: Now that you’ve the power, through the money invested in you and an unarmed citizenry, start controlling the minds of your citizens. Standardize the school curriculum with an emphasis on humanities. Impose mandatory education up till adulthood.
Step 5: Abolish compulsory conscription. Pay high salaries to those who want to sign up for military positions.
Step 6: Allow for a laissez-faire economy. Let the free market rule.
Step 7: Replace democracy/ochlocracy with meritocracy. Get rid of elections and use national objective testing instead.
Step 8: Allow for freedom of expression. Give people the right to air their stupid views for all to discredit.
And voila! Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the ubermensch society. One founded on elitism, individualism and intellectualism.
moderator please remove kickjoff’s comments! not unless u want terrorists and murderers roaming about or some ISD people doing their jobs and looking for you.
Original Resonance has a unique way of reasoning, not to be found in the East or West. Not sure which points he mentions he himself agrees with, but no one is advocating DECRIMINALIZING of drugs. Sloppy assertions abound..
LKY has a big problem with democracy as with his comments on one man one vote and hasnt all social engineering been for ubermensching. Too bad the breeding program did not achieve the targets. Instead America’s democracy has produced the very ubermensch he wanted. Ironic.
Dont get PAP, anti free market, elitist, pro free market, egalitarian, all rolled into one. Makes Hegel proud.
In the case of some drugs, the scientific jury is still out on their purported harm to the human body. Besides, I’m not encouraging drugs. Because of the education the citizens will receive in my utopia, they will see no point in taking drugs. They would have understood the ontology of human pleasure and would see no purpose in eliciting an artificial dopamine release in their bodies whilst suffering the social polarization and apathy that it produces. I’m giving people the freedom to make choices while keeping them informed. It’s a political ploy to convince the people that my government is not oppressive. But they would never know of their limited choices because all of them have been indoctrinated since young. But indoctrination should not be perceived as a pejorative here. Otherwise, all of our parents are culpable of such a transgression for imbuing in us their moral code and forcing us to adopt their language. When a Christian parent takes his/her child to the church to learn more about the “almighty”, is that indoctrination?
LKY’s failure is down to the fact that he was looking in the wrong places. He had this fallacious thinking that “educated” parents will give birth to educated children. He also believed that East Asians are smarter than the rest, which is science fiction at best. The intent was good but the methodology was flawed, to say the least.
I think the reform party’s attempts at equalizing the competition is artificial at best. You either promote multiculturalism or you restrict immigration. If companies can apply the logic of employing cheaper labour from overseas without the liabilities that Singaporean citizenship entails, for manual work, why cant the bigger companies apply the same logic for their respective highly-skilled sectors? It’s a cop-out to say that Singaporeans will never take up jobs as maids or construction workers. We are a pragmatic, cynical lot. If we can grudgingly perform manual labour in the mandatory ns, why can’t we do the same for our employment choices? Let the market decide. Choose either nationalism or pragmatism. Centrist ideals won’t work in this particular instance.
A long way to dislodge PAP I guess. Next pls.
It’s OK that a leader of the state made mistakes. In a democracy, his fallacious thinking would have been challenged and moderated by the house members. Don’t you think if the world would be very different if Hitler didn’t have the ultimatum?
The difference here is that the leader’s ideas get dogmatized by the house, worshipped by the policy makers, trumpeted by the media like prophecies, permeate through the populace like a mantra. The consequences can be long-lasting and damaging, and may take generations to remedy these social evils. Evils such as ‘banana’ Chinese Singaporeans, grandchildren who cannot utter a word of their grandparents’ mother tongue, no-retirement first world nation, saturation of VWOs and charity fund raising activities, just to name a few.
I give up. After grow up in my beloved country for nearly half a century, my heart is drifting further and further apart from home…
Join me then, Spongebob. I know of a place where they value intellectual debate (ALOT) and they are prosperous without being mercenary. Their cuisine makes our chicken rice and laksa look like pig gruel in comparison. Their women are beautiful and take great interest in looking so. They’d rather walk in heels all day than to opt for comfortable sneakers. They would also value your personality as opposed to the number of zeros in your bank account that our local women value. There’s also freedom of religion although the country is one of the most atheistic countries in the world, simply because many of them are too enlightened to buy into the mythologies of religion. The religious belong to the minority and they are usually the marginalized Muslims (hey, no country is perfect). Hint: They also happen to have the best healthcare system in the world, according to WHO that is.
“I know of a place where they value intellectual debate (ALOT)”
Untrue. There is no “debate” when there is only one guy doing all the dictating. And with only one ideology / party to choose from.
Fidel and LKY have a lot in common.
Original’s “Let the market decide. Choose either nationalism or pragmatism. ”
What is government? What is laissez faire? I think you’ve missed the point from start. A government exists because it can intervene and provide essential products and services which the private sector (profit consideration) cannot caters, especially to the less privileged citizens. If the basic government function of providing social security to its vulnerable citizens cannot be upheld, then aren’t we no different from that of a laissez faire? Take the recent case of concessionary fares for the physically disabled. An example of profit maximization at work!
Original casually ignores any democracy where issues are debated on a DAILY basis, whether on an intellectual plane or an emotive one.
Even in other authoritarian governments, there is room for debate.
Original, you sounds very S-T. I sincerely hope that you can be a volunteer or work in a VWO. Get to the ground and feel our less privileged Singaporeans. This is the only channel one can appreciate the term “empathy”. If you do not know how and where to start, just drop me a note.
It depends on one’s definition I suppose. I’m an idealistic anarcho-capitalist. I believe that the market is best placed to decide what is good for the society and what is not, with the proviso that the market is made up of well-informed, intelligent citizens (this is the idealistic part). Which reduces the government’s role to nothing more than maintaining social order e.g police, legislation, military. In this instance, the government is simply a service provider, not a nanny. Surely there must be something wrong in society when you can’t even chew gum? If left to their own devices, I’m sure educated citizens can resolve this problem by themselves and possibly create jobs in the process e.g higher salaries for cleaners?
No country is perfect. Did I say that I want to live in a perfect world. What is wrong with making the world a better place to live. What’s wrong with lending a hand to the weak? What’s wrong with being religious?
No problem if that someone has a uncaring face. I can still remember that kind of attitude displayed by a SJI boy whom I taught years back. Oh, that’s education, a totally different subject here.
“This is the only channel one can appreciate the term “empathy”.
There are many empathetic societies in this world where it’s encouraged to be a drone. Think not about yourself but only the nation, the collective group. I’d suggest North Korea. Or if you want empathy without losing your freedom, I suggest England (stick to the London area). People there are always afraid of offending minority races. They don’t celebrate Christmas, in a nation traditionally Christian. They call it “winter celebrations”. You claim to be someone who has lived for nearly half a century. Isn’t it high time you wake up and smell the coffee? It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there. Empathy is a human construct designed to serve self-interests.You don’t want to hurt others because you don’t want them to retaliate. You don’t want to hurt others because you need them to help you. That’s the core of empathy for you: selfishness.
But maybe it was disingenious of me to assume everyone thinks the same. Maybe you have no reservations in helping criminals achieve their illicit ends, out of empathy? Wouldn’t the world be a better place if we do not take it upon ourselves to deprive paedophiles of the freedom to watch the sorta sick videos they enjoy? What happen to human rights?
Original, just be a volunteer or work for a VWO. Just like the establishment, there’s no point in arguing.
1. Start by browsing through the VWO list on NCSS’s website – http://www.ncss.org.sg
2. Contact the volunteer management department or social work department to enquire about the opportunities available.
3. If possible, try the smaller VWOs, because they do not depend very much on government funding, and so can stay independent.
Hope these will help.
It’s just like anti-war activists who have no problem with pelting police with bricks. LOL
That’s right. You’ve admitted, pelting police. Thank you so much for policing here on TOC.
56) OriginalResonance on December 12th, 2009 8.35 am
You are a joke.
You try to paint a picture that populistic policies will lead to mediocre results.
Are you are indirectly supporting the current policies?
Are you suggesting opposition take over will lead to poor economy?
Let me tell you.
The economy depends on many things not just 1.
It depends a lot on the entreprenuers, creativity, world economy and USA if not China.
Thanks for your joke.
“Instead, we end up with a few self-righteous souls momentarily step down from their pedestal to pontificate about how selfish and cruel our society is.”
Excuse me don’t PAP ministers advocate charity while paying themself millions and not even donating 10% of that income after tax? In fact the people who are less well off than PAP ministers are the more generous, both relatively and in absolute terms. And they are also the people paying the ministers their multi-million wages as well.
Which politician / ethical person will advocate killing the weak and helpless? Unless they are seeking NOT to be elected/reelected.
Agree with #76 .
Taiwan changed president and opposition took over control and power.
Its economy continues to run.
People around the world continue to buy Made in Taiwan.
Malaysia Opposition winning and winning more and more.
Has malaysia economy collapsed?
What has changed in Malaysia since?
So many Opposition around the world took control in the last 2 years or so.
Is the world economy not picking up?
someone, pls rebut me. i beg you.
I have not seen any 1st world country’s economy collapsed or crashed due to change of control.
Can someone name me 1?
Remember , i am talking about 1st worlds.
Now that makes it difficult for you right?
hahaha
So the main rebuttal now is this: Look at other countries. They manage to survive a change of command, didn’t they? Therefore, our opposition is good enough to replace PAP. In the first place, there shouldn’t even be a rebuttal considering how there wasn’t an argument against the feasibility of having an opposition party in power per se. But let’s assume I did argue against having any party other than the PAP. The response still fails to hold up.
L O L
It’s just like a certain PM once argued that Singapore can get into the World Cup because France won it using an assortment of immigrants. “Over-simplistic” springs to mind. I hope it was just propaganda on his part. The most powerful man in Singapore(then) can’t be this dumb.
How about we introduce the “let’s-get-fat” campaign? Anyone overweight by 20% or more get subsidies in McDonald’s so that they may get even fatter. Why, you might ask? Because the most powerful nation in the world was also once the fattest. Shouldn’t we learn from them? I didn’t see them become poor just because they were very fat. Surely we can consider to grow fat like them, no?
80) OriginalResonance on December 12th, 2009 1.31 pm
“It’s just like a certain PM once argued that Singapore can get into the World Cup…”
talking about world cup, have a look at this article :http://redsports.sg/2009/11/19/singapore-2010-world-cup-football/
I quote “At one time, Singapore also had the same dream.
It was “GOAL 2010: Singapore at the World Cup”.
Can bala comment on this dream ?
Its still a dream and not a dream that was right?
I suggest how to win lah . Remember ping pong?
there you go. if can lah, offer citizenship certificate to beckham and all top players in the world. If like this no win world cup, then can stop dreaming.
Thank you Original. On rebutting ((Look at other countries)), you’ve just proven yourself to be contradictory. Here’re your quotes:
“They also happen to have the best healthcare system in the world.”
“Think not about yourself but only the nation, the collective group. I’d suggest North Korea.”
“Or if you want empathy without losing your freedom, I suggest England (stick to the London area).”
The problem with online public spaces that carry majority voices is that we have all these paid cyber ‘moderators’, mostly psychology graduates, to hop in at times to push their agendas. And to use cognitive psychology (e.g. Wason selection task) to corner readers into submission.
BTW, please stop using MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) in attempt to understand human feelings.
Question yourselves… Did you have a chance to work with Foreigners and Singaporean? Iy is showing obvious signs that the foreigners working here are “hungrier” and have better attitude. If there are too much barrier for the better workers, Singaporeans will get worse at work and productivity spiral downwards rapidly. After reading this, do objectively take observe quietly see if it makes sense…
#85,
“… obvious signs that the foreigners working here are “hungrier” and have better attitude…”
Do you mean all foreigners? Have you assessed Each and Every foreign worker?
Did you point out the foreigners who have bad attitude?
Did you point out those who cannot speak english and yet get job as sales assistant ?
Is this not a Sweeping Statement? If there are such foreigners why have you not pointed out? Would this not mean that you selectively choose a good example to suit your rhetoric?
Are you not biased?
If so, what credibility do you have if you use sweeping statements?
//kiasu.n.kiasi
The funny thing is with the current loose rules from the pigs @ parliament, productivity is decreasing at a phenomenal rate.
So what you say don’t hold water.
Be realistic, they are so kiasu and the rules changed every now and then. PAP would not lose 50 seats in next election, so dont lets not talk about a sweeping change of government in Singapore this soon.
Be down to earth… Lets talk about losing 2 single seats and 2 GRCs for now!!! Lets target to bring down some goondu ministers who leech on our blood ie MBT?
The Reform Party and all other Opposition Party leaders & members should pay a visit to the Fairprice supermarkets to see how hypocritical PAP has become. Fairprice is under NTUC which in turn advises on national labor issues.
Opposition can use NTUC as whipping boy as one of their themes during election rallies if they really want NTUC to look like stupid fools, here it is. If more of you readers can corroborate what I have seen at Fairprice then tell it. Do NOT let NTUC pull wool over your eyes by letting them claim these are PRs, of course they can get away with it ifthe govt award it to them. But I am very certain that they are on work permits.
At my neighbourhood Fairprice supermarket, I have noticed a gradual increase in the number of China citizens taking up jobs, they wear the Fairprice uniforms. They do NOT understand English sentences at all. I tested one of them for their English skills. It went like this:
Me: What is the price of this? (I noticed the China lady packing canned drinks on the shelves but there was no price tag yet so seized the opportunity to test her English)
China Fairprice worker, grasping at straws & could only identify the one word she knew…..
China worker said: Er, PRICE, ah… PRICE…ah PRICE ah…….等一下…….等一下… PRICE ah….
I knew she was clutching at straws as she kept repeating herself so decided to use another word in place of PRICE.
Me: How MUCH is it?
China worker looked at me again, gave up & fled.
NTUC my foot, whatever policies they have expounded is laid bare in all its hypocrisy at their Fairprice outlets. All these China workers can only think of is to go to YA LONG after work to eat their northerners dumpling food, often hear them conversing amongst themselves at Fairprice while working. Even Geylang is no longer sanctified for its Malay name & has been Sinozed to Ya Long. What are these China workers destroying to our multi lingual culture.
Honestly, I am disappointed. Had hopes for Reform Party but this is disappointing. I thought Kenneth has good ground training. $5 minimum ? Do RP know how much is it needed to survive ? There is the family. Please do your calculations again.
Privatise GLC ? How do you ensure we won
lose our jobs ?
How to level the playing field in terms of cost of living ? Lets start with cars.
Toyota wish new one costs about SGD85,000.00 in sg.
Porsche Cayman (brand new, made in Germany) costs SGD100,000 in uk.
where is the level playing field?
I am curious to know how have , if at all, the super high pricing of cars affected the cost of living in singapore? Compare this to the pay level.
As the world gets smaller, the distance (emotional) between us got bigger. Something is very wrong.
When the majority in a country are in debt (house loans, car loans, credit cards etc) and yet the country is considered rich,
something is very wrong.
When a country near the equator is a small land surrounded by the seas, but yet it’s inhabitants rarely feel the beautiful aura of a tropical island, it is a real shame and something is very wrong.
When the people of a nation are living in close proximity to each other should develop communal spirit and friendship, but yet neighbours created are usually strangers, something is very wrong.
When a person has a fear to speak his mind, something is very wrong.
When many children are not taken care of by their own parents who are not in poverty, something is very wrong.
When the people of a nation are convinced that to achieve happiness and personal well being is to put material and status gains as top priority, something is very wrong.
When a nation has to resort to campaigns, instead of many other ways, to spread the message of courtesy, something is very wrong.
When children’s playtime are replaced by more school work, and all possible future ‘career’ extra cirricular lessons, something is very wrong.
When a child (or anyone) has his or her worth judged by grades and tests, something is very wrong.
When the old of a nation has to work, and cannot enjoy the sunset of their lives, and are not celebrating to their success of their surviving with joy, something is very wrong.
When a nation in all it’s modernity and easy access to education and knowledge, still has majority of her people turning superstitions of all kinds for answers and comfort, something is very wrong.
When the aspirations and reasons of the young to want to migrate (there are many good reasons to be nomadic) is dominated by the lacking of belonging, the feeling of rootlessness, something is very wrong.
When people of a nation is identified by their race, something is very wrong.
When racial tolerance (we are tolerating one another are we? Or should we understand and engage?) rather than understanding is viewed as a virtue, something is very wrong.
When a nation sees the need for very young (and supposedly fit) and impressionable men to carry firearms to maintain law and order or to protect themselves, in a country that bans firearms, something is very wrong.
When a supposedly wealthy nation’s health care and services (old age homes, hospitals, clinics etc) are ‘addressed’ on many levels by foreign hands (whom we should thank without the need to be cynical), something is very wrong.
When ‘retired’ ministers are still on the payroll of tax payers, when they could do a lot more sincere good by entering the private sector.. if that is what they want.. the doing good bit.. something is very wrong.
When a nation is only obsessed with success and medals, when a nation is only behind a (potential) winning sports team and not to ride the journey together with a losing or trying one, when the NATIONAL media only cares about dollars and cents, something is very wrong.
When a nation lies to itself that all is fair and just in its land, but is divided by skin colour (and you reminded about that again and again not just the moment you get your identity card, yes, that is YOUR identity), divided by status, divided by material wealth, divided by grades, divided by class, something is very wrong.
When a person’s unwillingness to litter is because of his fear of monetary punishment instead of many many other good reasons, something is wrong.
When so many of a nation takes pride in looking up to people of ‘richer’ nations and looking down on people of ‘poorer’ nation, something is VERY wrong.
When a person’s view of identity has so few dimensions and very general dimensions; race, gender, poor or rich, good or bad, drunk or sober, etc
Something is very wrong.
Can we start to make it feel a little ‘right’?
I suppose its a start, cannot say I agree with everything that they say but they still have time to refine their thinking I suppose.
We have to wait to see what the other parties have to say, WP, SDA, SDP.
Would one rather encourage the policy of indiscriminately reducing foreign workers (or talent) in Singapore, rather than employ a more meritocractic method of choosing an employee, regardless of nationality. Being in such a globalized economy, would it not decrease our ability to compete if we adopt such xenophobic policies? Would it not be better to employ someone due to his capabilities rather than reserving jobs for Singaporeans, who might thus view it as a given and therefore work less hard?
Care must be taken to not swing to either side.
95) JH on December 14th, 2009 5.33 pm
The extremes you’ve painted are valid (albeit obvious…). Having said that, you have not mentioned which end, on the spectrum of extremes do you think we are now?
don’t forget about the recent couple of years cost increments for property tax, utilities, medical bills etc,, not to mention getting into every business…… and the need of 3 seniors to caretake …… there are so many to discuss about…..and maybe limiting the same PM to maximum 2 terms in office just like limiting the same President for 2 term in office……
Did you have a chance to work with Foreigners and Singaporean? Iy is showing obvious signs that the foreigners working here are “hungrier” and have better attitude. If there are too much barrier for the better workers, Singaporeans will get worse at work and productivity spiral downwards rapidly