Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, Vivian Balakrishnan certainly pulled no punches in the week gone by. In an adjective laden tirade, he referred to some Singaporeans as “small-minded, unfair and very very selfish”.
What did Singaporeans do to deserve to be on the end of this tongue lashing?
The anecdotally popular explanation posits that Singaporeans were not euphoric enough about the victory of the Singapore table tennis team’s astounding achievements at the World Team Table Tennis Championships in Moscow at the end of May, where the threesome of Feng Tianwei, Wang Yuegu and Sun Bei Bei upset reigning world champions China and were crowned champions for the first time in Singapore’s history.
Born in China, Feng Tianwei began training in Singapore in March 2007 and became a citizen in January 2008. Wang Yuegu, another China-born athelete-turned-Singaporean is a Meritorious Service Medal recipient thanks to her silver medal winning performance at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Along with Sun Bei Bei, all three were head-hunted and given the opportunity of representing Singapore in table tennis. Some, like Feng, were already professional players before being coaxed to don national colours.
When asked by a student about the need to engage foreign talent in sports, particularly from China, the Minister responded with a textbook false dilemma.
“I believe that the survival and prosperity of Singapore depend on our remaining an open society – a society able to attract and absorb and integrate talent of all shapes, sizes, races, languages, religions, countries….In other words, do not judge people simply on where they are born.”
The Minister would have been better served uncovering the root causes of the largely insipid reaction of many Singaporeans with the table tennis team’s victory, rather than suggesting that Singaporeans were being xenophobic and instinctively unwelcoming of foreigners.
Firstly, Vivian must know that not all Singaporeans are desperate for the republic’s sportsmen and women to be world champions or even any sort of champion at whatever cost. And Singaporeans do not appreciate taking the short-cut route to medals or championships where only victory is the benchmark of success.
The minister must have some recollection of Singaporean sportsmen and women of the 1970s and 1980s. The Mah Li Lians, Fandi Ahmads, Ang Peng Siongs, Azman Adnans, Grace Youngs, Patricia Chans and C. Kunalans of this small nation never achieved olympic or international success like the paddlers of today. But they always had the support of Singaporeans in overwhelming numbers. A medal at the regional Southeast Asian games was reason enough for merry-making. Success at the Asian games was equivalent to success at the Olympics! For a small country with a limited sporting talent pool, a sparse trophy cabinet did not minify the self-respect of Singaporeans.
With our much-cherished sporting heritage as a backdrop, Vivian ought to resist the temptation of selective amnesia and admit to the debilitative effects of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP)-administered foreign talent-in-sports policy on Singapore and Singaporeans. The striking oddity is that success in sports often unites a nation like no other policy or social phenomenon can. In what must be a world-first, as Minister of Sports, Vivian has overseen a sporting policy that has divided Singaporeans sharply. By any stretch of the imagination, surely Singaporeans cannot be blamed for the poor political judgment of the PAP.
Secondly, Vivian’s diatribe conveniently ignores Singapore society’s discomfort at the PAP’s admission of large numbers of foreigners into Singapore from the middle of the last decade. This policy, ubiquitously referred to as the ‘foreign talent policy’ has in many cases led to job losses for Singaporeans and depressed wages for low-income Singaporeans in particular. The lack of enthusiasm for the victory of our paddlers, foreigners-turned-citizens themselves, has fallen victim to the public’s antipathy against a seemingly unconnected and larger phenomenon.
By feigning ignorance of the knock-on effects of the foreign talent policy, Vivian unsurprisingly, missed the woods for the trees. The PAP has been remiss in communicating the necessity of large numbers of foreigners into Singapore and winning over the public’s support for the foreign talent policy. While Singaporeans recognise and welcome foreigners to top-up the population numbers because of the country’s low total fertility rate (TFR), no PAP minister has come out to explain or justify with any conviction why the Singapore population must expand indefinitely, beyond the population replacement figure. A common metaphor heard among PAP grassroots workers is the Singapore pie will be enlarged and there will be more to eat for Singaporeans as a result of more foreigners. What they do not seem to appreciate is that a larger pie will have to feed a larger number of citizens as well.
Worse, the PAP has made little attempt at revealing to the public what sort of impact the foreign talent policy will have on infrastructure, and what sort of lives Singaporeans can expect to live in country that is already one of the most densely populated in the world. Instead, the PAP has showcased its blueprints for the future, such as the prospect of waterfront living public housing, while shrewdly avoiding any serious enquiry into the affordability of such apartments for the vast majority of Singapore society.
Thirdly, Singaporeans are already confirming their suspicions of the larger PAP grand strategy, as far as the foreign talent policy is concerned. With foreigners already comprising 36% of the country’s population, the party in government that offers citizenship to foreigners is likely to be assured of their vote. The PAP has offered citizenship very gradually from the 1990s, with the number of Singapore citizens rising, in spite of the country’s low TFR rates, from 2.6 million to 3.2 million today. The number of Permanent Residents, a stepping stone to full citizenship status, has also increased from around 110,000 to 530,000 over the same period. While the political impact of a larger number of foreigners-turned-voters cannot be understated, once again, it appears our paddlers have had to take the brunt of public misgiving by virtue of being recent citizens themselves.
By lashing out at Singaporeans for expressing their genuine feelings over the foreign talent in local sports, all Vivian succeeded in doing was to present in distinct relief, the poor political acumen of PAP politicians. A few years ago, a retired civil service stalwart, Ngiam Tong Dow, who was Permanent Secretary of six ministries in a distinguished public service career, prophetically observed, “I think our leaders have to accept that Singapore is larger than the PAP.” Indeed, Vivian would do well to recognise that Singaporeans have genuine concerns that transcend politics, and the PAP would do well not to ride roughshod over them. By transferring the burden of a poorly executed and communicated foreign talent policy back to Singaporeans, Vivian’s tirade was disingenuous.
But where does all this leave our paddlers? Between a rock and hard place it would seem, through no real fault of their own. Rather than castigate Singaporeans, Vivian should ruminate over the shortcomings, mistakes and failures of the PAP foreign talent policy both in general, and in the sporting domain specifically. And if he is willing to engage in candid and sincere introspection, he ought to accept the lion’s share of responsibility, rather than fob it off to Singaporeans whose only mistake it would seem, was revealing the truth to him.
_________________________________
Pritam Singh is the Founder of OpinionAsia and presently a Juris Doctor candidate at the Singapore Management University. He is a Workers’ Party member. The views expressed herein are his own.
_________________________________
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
#Say Yes to Foreigners
My comment above is for you.
THE SPIRIT ,PASSION , BONDING , UNITY & COLLECTIVE PRIDE BUILT IN THE PAST BY SINGAPOREANS FOR SINGAPORE IS SLOWLY ERODING DUE TO THE QUESTIONABLE IMPLEMENTATION METHODS OF THE FT POLICY IN THE PRESENT TIME.
#Say Yes to Foreigners, 29 June 2010
You may have missed the woods for the trees instead. Your tack on the need for FT is rather one-dimensional in that it assumes Singapore does not and will never have the talents to compete. Don’t get me wrong though; no country or organisation can be truly self-sufficient in all areas hence it is no shame to acquire some amount of “non-local” help/expertise/talent. But then to the extent of 36% of the population? Doesn’t that beg the question whether we have been incompetent to manage our limited manpower resources to produce talents that are essential to a country? What is our so-called excellent education system for then? Or is that because of a policy to growth all costs thru injection of cheap labor for past 10+ years (Mr Lee Yi Shyan, ST, 1 Aug 2009 – Creating a new buzz)? Or is it because we NOW desperately need strong, able-bodied workers who are in their 20-40s but which we had a policy that retarded making these workers 20-40 years AGO? This is pure cause and effect but accountability is never the garhem’s strong point despite being just self-voted the most liveable City in Asia.
As you see, the point some of us are trying to make is not anti-foreigner, which you assumes. It is about whether policies are so screwed up so that we are now in a situation where the only option is by wholesale import of FW/FTs in the (presumably) short term. But Singaporeans see long term if they don’t intend to retire to Johor in their old age. And what’s of our next generations?
To add, MCYS chief should read the newspaper today – the Chinese came back strongly on table tennis thrashing the World All Stars’ in Shanghai 5-0. Our golden girls are part of the All Stars.
So what now, pay them more and more, is it?
Dear Pretty Place
We agree on the following broad themes:
The world we lived in before and world we live in now has changed;
Jobs are cannibalised by migrants; economic growth does take place with such people. Not just that, cultural values and ideas are exchanged and improved. A new sense of global maturity takes root;
Vivian is trying to make Singaporeans accept and create a false sense of belonging with the migrants;
This is where we differ….
a. The migrants then and the migrants today are both economic migrants; they are all transient until they make a decision to plant their roots here. What has changed is the reasons for choosing to plant their roots in Singapore.
b. All migrants cannibalise jobs. This is a given. The issue is how do we cope with this transition to make it a better place. This is not easy to resolve and Singapore is not unique in this position; just ask yourself how many of your family and friends live and work abroad as migrants. Aren’t they cannibalising jobs? Should we have a quid pro quo policy that ensures equal number of Singaporeans working abroad as we have migrants in Singapore? Job cannibalisation is not a valid reason for saying NO to foreigners.
c. The nonchalant manner by which the FT policy is being implemented has created issues for Singaporeans. The PAP can do more to explain itself. Vivian certainly is NOT helping its cause.
d. It has not created a ‘tidak apa’ attitude – I do not see this in you nor in Pritam from the comments you both make.
e. You say that the FT talent that Singapore has attracted is “rather dull because of lower productivity, due to poor communication skills and lack of genuine innovative skills to improve.(this is becoming evident, in the service sector)”. I think you are comparing apples with oranges here. The service sector is flooded with foreign workers at the lower of the job scale – jobs which Singaporeans do NOT want to do but are essential to our daily functioning. I agree that the government can do more to ensure minimum English literacy etc before making jobs available to them. But the ‘talent’ Pritam talks about is at the other end of the scale and I disagree with you that they lack productivity or communication skills.
f. But mostly, I disgree with your assertion that by mere association with WP, it gives Pritam a window to the ‘base of our society’ and therefore a better understanding of FT issue – instead I would venture that Pritam actually meets, mingles and interacts with foreign talent both in academia and as an educated WP member at both ends of the scale. He writes with passion and knowledge and is well qualified to advice some of our better paid Ministers who have no sense for the ‘base’.
But that does not take away my right to disagree with him and to suggest that the larger issue is one pertaining to ‘sense of belonging’ and not really the foreign talent issue. I urge you also to reflect and focus on this real issue that will stay with us for some time to come.
Thank you for participating in this dialogue.
Dear Say Yes to Foreigners,
You have added much value to the discussion and I have learnt from you. This may sound patronising when typed out in words, but better for me just to state it and thank you for taking the time to share and disagree with me. One of the foremost things I have learnt from this discussion is that the FT policy needs qualification and greater nuance.
I think Pretty Place’s characterisation of the FT problem is actually spot-on. Security and Belonging are two separate issues. So thank you very much Pretty Place for putting into relief these two mutually exclusive categories. I would not have been able to break the issue down in this manner without your inputs.
Say yes to foreigner, my point really covers the security side of the argument. And I am not referring to the influx of foreign talent at the top end of Singapore society, but at the bottom and PMET end, because that is where it is hurting Singaporeans the most.
Let me give you an example, a true story. A Singaporean ran a transport business, with a couple of lorries some years ago. He had an ITE education, and his lashers included Indians, Malays and Chinese Singaporeans with ‘N’ level certification and below. When the government opened the doors to foreigners, alot of Chinese mainlanders (including PRs) entered the transport industry. Two hours to set up a company in pro-business Singapore, another day or so to purchase a second-hand lorry and wham-bham, they were in business.
Now the Singaporeans who had been in business for 20 over years with families to feed, mortgages to pay and 2 or 3 children to school, they needed a decent wage. And the economics and reality of labour decided that one lorry run from the port to the warehouse would cost $55. But the Chinese mainlanders (I can imagine other nationalities too, but this individual identified mainly Chinese mainlanders) decided to charge $35. They calculated that they could recover costs and earn a decent wage in Singapore on that price. No families to feed, no children to school – perfect economic logic as far as they were concerned. Big business and corporates must have been happy! Cheaper definitely, better and faster, I am not sure.
So while PRs and foreigners work hard (so did Singaporeans when we came to Singapore with nothing on our backs…we were not a nation then, just a place where people came to work with the intention of going back at some point by and large) and are willing to do o/t etc. without complain, Singaporean workers have other needs to fulfill – family time, children entertainment time (they are entitled to this surely), time to take care of parents etc.
So overnight, an entire industry was practically over-run by foreigners and PRs causing much hardship and dislocation to these Singaporeans.
The Singaporean SME lorry business owner, from drawing an average $3000 salary suddenly found himself squeezed out of the market. The PAP did respond. Retraining, e2i (and other measures whose success I cannot vouch for because the PAP is notoriously famous for playing up successes and sweeping failures under the carpet in the hope that these will be forgotten with more successes). But no amount of retraining is going to bring him back his $3000 salary (lets not even start to talk about his lashers / helpers / drivers who earned about $1000 to $2000. Thats an even more depressing story). Think of the knock-on effects viz. mortgage, children and you would see why there is so much frustration at foreigners in general in some middle and lower-middle income quarters.
Did Singapore need these PRs and foreigners in those industries which vulnerable Singaporeans sourced their income from? Could the PAP have done more to prevent this happening to the more vulnerable segments of our society? With the amount of intellectual capital vested in the PAP, I bet they could have. But I would argue they did not see the problem because they were too fixated on the top end of the equation, confident of trickle down effect of economic growth. And maybe they forgot what it is like to be poor and humble and/or to be stuck in a poverty cycle. They left some Singaporeans behind. And that is unacceptable.
Ultimately, the FT policy has affected our lower and middle income sectors most profoundly. I would argue property prices skyrocketing is also a function of the FT policy, but that is a story for a different day / time. In addition, it would be beneficial to look into the what the FT policy has done to Singaporeans in different industries in Singapore. In that way, we can target assistance and recovery (not welfare) programs better for dislocated Singaporeans. And this point I picked up after reading your contribution and perspective, so thank you again.
The point that I was most happy to hear was your right to disagree with me. This is critical for any society. It matures us, and it allows for the best ideas to come to the fore. Alternative views, criticisms and opinions are the lifeblood of any successful society. I sometimes wonder if the PAP believes in this, or whether their call for alternatives / feedback is just lip-service. Then I remember the words of George Yeo:
“Remember your place in society before you engage in political debate….debate cannot degenerate into a free for all where no distinction is made between the senior and junior partner….You must make distinctions – what is high, what is low, what is above, what is below – and then within this, we can have a debate, we can have a discussion.” – BG George Yeo, Straits Times, 20 Feb 1995 – “Debate yes, but do not take on those in authority as equals”
Millions paid for these foreign table tennis players.
Stadium? Still unfinished.
Local athletes? Underpaid.
National pride from them winning the prize? Near 0.
Vivian’s salary? Still S$1.6 million.
“small-minded, unfair and very very selfish”.
That describes PAP perfectly.
–
“Remember your place in society before you engage in political debate….debate cannot degenerate into a free for all where no distinction is made between the senior and junior partner….You must make distinctions – what is high, what is low, what is above, what is below – and then within this, we can have a debate, we can have a discussion.” – BG George Yeo, Straits Times, 20 Feb 1995 – “Debate yes, but do not take on those in authority as equals”
–
BG Yeo is another well fed dog that bites the hands of their real master.
Recognise your own place, you bad dog.
I am disturbed that the PAP has this idea that money can buy world championship or almost everything but not the loyalty of Singaporeans. Better not worship money so blindly as to miss the tree for the forest.
Pritam Singh
And the economics and reality of labour decided that one lorry run from the port to the warehouse would cost $55. But the Chinese mainlanders (I can imagine other nationalities too, but this individual identified mainly Chinese mainlanders) decided to charge $35
……………….
donkey years ago..what else is new? my broinlaw is a professional signbord maker
who makes ton$ of money…remembered those roadside parkin sign? he used to charge a minimum of $1,500 upwards..in returned he would do the sign with sticker cut and pasted hand on hand with a waterlevel ruler..his light is certified by a qualified pub isorated electrician(this must also pay a couple of $hundred$ hor..nothin is FREE)
the chinaman came..they charged onLEE $499 sticked the letters on the spot..most likeLEE they used sungei road signcutter to cut the letterins..they used unlicensed electrician to mount the box/wheels and do it within 4 hours on SITE…imagined a lone chinaman do the signboard on the nice shinny marble floor in takashimaya walkway…
so how to ean a decent wages/contract?
immediateLEE my broinlaw give up his trade (in which he spent his whole live doin it) now he drove a taxi…in the midnight hours…
for lashing out at Singaporeans because of no good reason at all, Vivian B is being “small-minded, unfair and very very selfish.”
VOTE HIM OUT!
Dear Pritam
It appears we have a fundamental disconnect in our arguments.
You have clarified that you are mostly concerned with PMETs and the loss of job security at the lower end of the scale.
Allow me to assume that you are in agreement that at the very base, there are jobs that Singaporeans dont really want to do and that you are happy for foreigners to take them on.
So really the concern falls somewhere in the middle. But this is where it gets muddled…
For example, there is demand for maids and construction workers but insufficient Singaporeans to take up these jobs. So we import them and everyone is happy except that it creates other social issues. But we tolerate it because we really need their services.
Critical services like police and army, we are pretty clear as a nation that only Singaporeans (and PRs?) can serve these roles. So we live with these limitations.
Somewhere in the middle we have nurses and teachers – certainly a shortage here! Lots of jobs but not enough Singaporeans to fill the vacancies. So what do we do – we open it up to foreigners.
The larger issue is where do we draw the line?
I believe that your concern for job security is misplaced. The role of government is to create jobs and not protect them to the extent that it creates inefficiencies. Where there is shortage, a free job/labour market will keep plugging the gap. We can regulate some indsutries because of social issues or because they serve a critical function but do we really want the invisible hand of the government protecting jobs for Singaporeans? Even if they are inefficient? Social welfare perhaps?
The fundamental disconnect we have in our arguments is I recognise that your concern is about job security and all I am saying is – that is NOT the real issue. The FT policy is not the real issue. (caveat: I do accept that the govt could have articulated its position better and that Vivian is no help to the cause).
We are a small nation; we are all foreigners in one way or another. We need a sense of belonging; an identity. Thats the real issue.
So the crux of the issue is simply the garhem is unable to articulate the FT policy to Singaporeans? What we need then is someone that can convince us that something black is in fact white? (I’ve seen such a person in action before, a FT, and the subsequent results on the organisation were DISASTROUS. But hey, he just used his other passport to jumped country). And having a 36% foreign-population is just our hysterical reaction to a global phenonmenon is every country with foreigners?
Sounds like the Greater Eastern Asia Co-prosperity Sphere. Of course the Japs didn’t articule that well too, maybe to only to the INA.
BTW, for understanding of the teachers’ issue, visit the hot posting at Yahoo site. Nursing problem, pls TALK to nurses; construction workers, just pay $2K starting salary and no bare-riding on back of pick-ups. Don’t assume Singaporeans don’t like to take on these jobs – there are real reasons for the high turnovers/shortages. Ask if having min. wage laws can eliminate murky labor issues amongst Singaporeans.
Finally, pay ministers an allowance that is pegged to NS levels; after all they are just (supposedly) doing what NSmen are doing – a sense of belonging – a service to the nation from the heart not pocket.
Dear Yes to Foreigners,
Thank you for your latest reply. I am not inclined to view the problem as an either or issue – identity or security. An almost overlapping venn diagram comes to mind. So we will have to agree to disagree on that. And crucially, both are a function of the FT policy, in some way, shape or form.
Re: the assumption that foreigners do jobs Singaporeans dont want to do (we do need a critical enquiry on this, rather than take employers at their word since it is in their self-interest to keep wages down). Its a convenient exposition (perhaps even true), but the quandary is still a chicken and egg dynamic. If Singaporeans were given a decent wage in lets say, construction, parallel to their skill set, would the same problem persist (maybe, maybe not)?
The recent Economic Strategies Committee chaired by MoF Tharman decided to up the levy for foreign workers, and made plain that it preferred employers to employ less foreign workers and more Singaporeans, and more importantly up-skill them (for wages probably). The analogy of the construction site in Singapore is a worthy comparison. You go to a worksite in UK/ US / Australia, and you assess the number of workers on site, in comparison to Singapore, and while at it notice their nationalities too. A mix of locals and skilled foreigners and paid respectability. Their work sites, are orderly, and with fewer workers milling about performing their roles and tasks precisely, because their workers are highly skilled and well-paid. So I would argue the problem is a little more complicated than saying Singaporeans dont want to these jobs. And it deserves closer scrutiny. Let me be clear, big corporates can afford to pay minimum wage to their low-income employees. The problem will be with our SMEs, where wages are a huge chunk of overheads. The government has good reason to be concerned about minimum wage, but I think it is not a tall ask to think out of the box for the future of Singaporeans, and assess what other measures can address the dislocations affecting Singaporean workers because of the FT policy, without penalising employers.
Nurses / teachers – A shortage. I don’t think Singaporeans are peeved if an employer hires a foreigner to top up/make up for missing numbers. They are peeved when a foreigner is hired because of lower costs and/or Singaporean availability. This more likely an industry-specific thing, so we need more nuance and clarity from the PAP government, rather than the painfully simplistic explanations we have got so far.
With regard to the invisible hand. Lets not become slaves to market efficiencies and the invisible hand. In the aftermath of the great recession, MoF Tharman spoke about how governments need to regulate / calibrate the invisible hand to prevent economies from going under. The PAP would do well to swallow some of its own medicine.
Any industry where Singaporeans are going to be unfairly disadvantaged is a strategic industry. Efficiency yes, but with equity and fairness firmly in mind. Any government has a moral responsibility to look after Singaporeans.
The point that we need foreigners (foreign workers? foreign talent? The PAP clearly needs to finesse this term now) is superfluous. Which country at the cusp of growth does not? Identity is part of the problem. Security is a big issue for the large chunk of lower and middle income earning Singaporeans. They are the spine of the nation. Any political leadership would be grossly negligent in ignoring their plight. Identity is an issue as well. The FT policy has unraveled the social contract in Singapore in more ways than we actually imagine. Its effect of property prices cannot be discounted with Mah Bow Tan’s dismissive remark that PRs only make up for about 20% of HDB sales.
Anyway, thank you for this opportunity to share my views with you. It is much appreciated. The WP believes a system of checks and balances can improve governance in Singapore. We will do our part.
Dear Pritam
We agree that Singapore needs a better system of checks and balances to improve governance.
The WP is a credible force to be reckoned with. Stay focused.
All the best to you!
Sports and Arts will distract the people from being slaves. PAP will import a few talents to keep the people entertained.
Vivian Balakrishnan can party all by himself.
He doesn’t need us surely???
The PAP should realise that two can play the game of being “DEAF”!
The Pariah, http://www.singaporeenbloc.blogspot.com
I pity this fellow Vivian. He grew up in Bt Panjang, his parents were teachers then.I grew up there too, met him once at a Remaking Singapore 21 discussion.
Funny how he got himself in this mess.
The problem with his ministry is that they are trying to stuff a sense of belonging into Singaporeans towards the Foreigners, whereas the other ministries like MOM,MHA & MND are screwing him from another side.
Like I mentioned, they take away security and ask him to fix the problem of identity in Singapore. How can Singaporeans dance to such a tune.
Perhaps, they(PAP) are targeting people like Say Yes to Foreigners. Those who are at a comfort level, yet to be affected, the upper middle class(assumption). Appeasing this group would be sufficient, they might assume.
It might or might not work during the next election. Judging from the response, I do not think it will and can for the next few elections.
I like to add this, What’s wrong with being selfish?
Capitalism is built on selfishness.
My teacher used to say, actions speaks louder then words. He nees to find the middle ground fast.
I think it is a good advise to Vivian at this point in time.
Hey Pretty Place
99.99% of Singaporeans did not get consulted on Remaking Singapore 21 discussion. But you were. That should have made you feel like you belong (assumption).
You sound very knowledgeable and secure in your job actually (another assumption). You write well which means you must be educated (clearly another assumption). If you are educated, secure in your job and were consulted by the PAP in Remaking Singapore 21, that surely puts you on PAP’s radar operating at a comfort level, of say, the upper middle class!
Far be it from me to say this to you, an argument is worth pursuing only if it has substance. Assumptions only make an ASS out of U and ME.
Make your point; do not personalise. if you do, the focus is on the personal comment and not the substance.
Online etiquette 101.
You are welcome.
#Say Yes to Foreigners.
I made an effort to go for the discussion. It happened, just for another wayang, remaking sg, that is.
It was just an examplary assumption.
Well, shouldn’t have included you, apologies, if you are offended.
Well, I would say Say Yes to Foreigners does have a couple of valid points and so do most others (ignore those who just grumble).
For one, we really cannot be “protecting” jobs to protect the level of salaries. I’ve stayed Down Under for some time and it costs an average of A$35 to “mend” a nail in a tyre in WA. And you’d have to make an appointment for that too! These years, also due to the throng of migrants, migration policies have been tightened to “protect” jobs for locals (same issue here – Aussie mend tyre: A$35, Chinaman: $15). I would say they can very well afford that kind of pricing and “protectionism” cos they probably rely primarily on export/mining to sustain their economy. We in SG most certainly cannot (self-explanatory). If goods delivery continue to cost S$50 per trip, it is only logical that our neighbouring countries north, south of us might look more attractive with RM50 or RP xxx (din estimate). Yes, we are more efficient and reliable, of course. But in a global economy, how much less competitively priced will we become if we maintain our S$50 operational cost considering we have to compete with the rest of the world?
In business (which SG is in for as far as I can remember), survival is for the fittest. SG doesn’t do mainly domestic trade, so we’d have to look larger/global. Just regionally, SMEs in SG don’t have an easy time competing prices with neighbouring countries. Yes, we can boast that we are very reliable, we are very safe and we are very efficient in delivering goods and services, etc. But bottomline in regional and global trade is firstly price, followed by service, etc. Take an example – China. More reliable than SG? More trusting business environment than SG? Better security than SG? (I’m putting a leg out to say “not”). But half the world buys from them cost they’re better priced.
While I am not rooting for the government stand totally, I do agree that more credible opposition voices is needed so that whoever is ruling does not take the easiest way out. Of course, the keyword is “credible”. Merely grumbling and damning policies is on the un-constructive side.
@TwisteX 3 July 2010
Allow me to add to your observed example on the repair of tyre. Perhaps due to space & time constraints, you didn’t mention 2 important aspects as compared to Singapore:
1) Down Under has a min. wage laws/system.
2) They have only about 23% foreign-born population, i.e. potential undercutters.
I agree that there will always be some amount of “job cannibalization”. But is the local charge of A$35 a cut-throat rate, or is the ‘foreign’ rate A$15 something more reasonable to the standard of living? This is where having a min. wage is important. If something must be charged at A$35 so that the local guy has a decent living, able to feed and school the kids, work reasonably 8 hours a day, etc…. then we can say A$15 is really undercutting the locals. But if A$15 is within the guidelines of min. wages, then perhaps A$35 is consumer-exploitation (e.g. you think our car insurance premiums are reasonable – going up & up?) Labour laws must protect consumers and workers, not just firms and govt.
If there is 1 foreigner charging A$15 to 9 locals charging A$35, then there may be “…merely grumbling and damning policies.” The ‘potential’ for your example is that Down Under has about 2 in 10; USA has 1.25 in 10, britain – 1.1 in 10, blah, blah….SINGAPORE HAS NEARLY 4 IN 10.
Not to “undercut” your example, but let’s put things in proper perspective. Singapore has no real protection for workers and the 36% foreign population is deliberate policy (the reason(s) of which we need another discussion). So, are we really comparing SG apples with AU apples then?
I have said this before and I will say it again: If PAP has its way, PRs will be allowed to vote in the near future, so as to keep them in power.
This is not as far-fetched as you may think. Do you know that UK allows all residents (including those on work permits) to vote? This is how Labour stayed in power for so long, through their immigrant-friendly policies, at the expense of jobs for citizens. The difference is that UK has a huge social welfare scheme for unemployed citizens, while Singapore has… NOTHING!
I am not sure whether the Singapore constitution permits this change to go through without a referendum. Hopefully it does or PAP can just push it through the parliament!
In many ways, UK experienced the same glut of immigrants from eastern Europe and elsewhere as Singapore did over the past decade. I would advice anyone studying the social-economic effects of bad immigration policies to look at UK.
Japan is also contemplating giving PRs the right to vote, but they only have an immigrant population of 1.6% whereas ours is 36%!!
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/permanent-residence-may-be-granted-right-vote-japan
#theforgottongeneration 3 July 2010
You do have valid points there which I agree, particularly about the protection of workers here.
To clarify things –
A$35 is “comfortable” price (mend 4 tyres a day enough to ‘survive’)
A$15 is “more hard work” price (need to mend many more tyres a day to ‘survive’)
However, we cannot ‘artificially’ maintain a $35 price when the region is charging mostly $15. I mean, things are hard for us locals (I’m a worker too) and I really enjoyed the min wage A$15 enjoyed in Aus though I didn’t eventually saved up alot (cos mending a tyre cost me about 2 hours of salary).
You see, one thing I kind of liked in OZ was that job salaries are quite tied to “demand”. For example, if noone wants to do the sweeping of streets, the the fella doing it naturally gets quite well-paid to do it. So plumbers, mechanics, carpenters,rubbish collectors, locksmiths do get paid quite well (comparable to secretaries, etc). That’s quite good…if you’re one of them. On the other hand, if you’re on the other end needing the services, be prepared to pay. What this translates in SG terms is probably: S&C charge increase 50% ($800/mth to $1,200/mth), mend tyre $15 (up from about $6-10), opening your house door at 9pm cos you forgot to bring your keys in the morning ($200 – that’s the real price in OZ).
Ok, I’ve probably digressed. Say we really set a min wage law. If we set it lower than the average ‘low-wage’ earner, no much point in there (of cos). If we set it higher, then we as consumers (which we all are at some point) must be prepared to pay more for some types of services. Somehow at the end of the day we never really saved much money or earn much more. At the same time, we just became a little less competitively priced in general.
I mean, as a “Trade” intensive country, we also don’t have the natural resources to sell in order to sustain such policies. I know that s*cks and feels very “pek check” but bo pian we LL gotta work double hard just to survive.
Having said that…some things can definitely change:
1. Have more alternative voices in parliament so that whoever is ruling does not choose the “easiest” way out (for eg. using satellites for ERP?!? Ok, i drive, but just a small van)
2. Reduce the number of conglomerates or GLCs. I mean, they control almost everything we essentially need in our daily lives. Wanna raise prices just raise. WTH?! (Though I drive, I still think essential services such as public transport must be for the public – affordable, efficient, etc) Making $$ still raise prices?
3. Control working permits (just like Aus) to professions that really require the manpower or locals really can’t survive on. This probably includes, sweepers, construction workers, etc. I mean, I’m not belittling these professions. The truth is that they dun bring enough dough for a local with family to survive, not that we dun wanna do it.
Oops… sorry. The S&C charge I was referring to was the sweepers salary ($800-$1200) which in turn increases the S&C charges. Of course, S&C charge is not $1200. :)
@TwisteX, 5 July 2010
Thks for the clarification. Like I said, don’t get me wrong; your mentioning of the $45 vs $15 example is not specific to S’pore or Oz – it is pure business and economy. No one can make it go away but then how to minimize or even negate it is up to the competency of “Management”. In short, the policies and way of thinking MUST first change; like you said, it is sad once leaders simply take the easiest way out (e.g. following past policies blindly). This will not work. Look at Japan – they are also highly dependent on trade and imports, yet is still the No.2 or 3 largest economy. Productivity to them means employing robotics (they are no.1 in world); to our MOM & labor chiefs, productivity means getting the cheapest labor armed with a $5 broom (and fanciful reflective vest) to sweep the roads while being transported point-to-point on back of pick-ups. How many of the Japan World Cup 2010 team players are “imports”? They didn’t win any trophy but are so PROUD of themselves; we won a TT cup but who gives a shit?
Min. wage law. Sorry, no experience in this area. But common sense says the wage level set must be in-line with the standard of living. If the min. wage is too low, then people also not stupid since it is easy to know if food is getting on the table or not, and what type of food it is. The govt must also give a good accountability on how the min. wage was calculated (something which I fear they will not do since then they have to account for why housing cost is ballooning the way it is). This also means they can’t suka-suka raise S&C charges, SMRT/SBS fees, ERP, GST, etc… arbitrarily.
To summarize, I say don’t put all the problems about “protecting S’poreans” or min. wage before the horse. Just ask firstly: Do S’poreans deserved to be ‘protected’ or be paid a wage commensurable to the std of living HERE (not China or India)? Answer that question and the actions will follow, regardless how unpleasant it is (e.g. a lower GDP/capita but happier & blissful population? Screw going for thingies like TT cup and use money on infrastructure?), assuming again we don’t get a monkey working for million$$.
By more alternate voices in parliament, I hope you don’t mean more NMPs? The voices must have teeth.
Ps. if SCC charges are $1200, then barrier doors also cannot help prevent me jumping onto MRT tracks.
Ya…! No matter how they perform, they are still from China, that’s a no doubt answer to this situation.
You can give any other people the citizen ship when they do well in Singapore, but you are pushing local Singapore to the edge of the cliff.
How much does it cost to head-hunted a person to perform in Singapore??? I doubt the price is not low….!
Are all local Singapore so no use until you need to engage foreigners to do the job for Singapore???
From the above reports it is can clearly show that who ever got what our Govt wants will be able to get the Red IC and become a Singaporean no matter are they good or bad just they are talent enough to their requirement, is this Alright Acceptable???
I laugh everytime you say something. Nothing you’ve said so far
has any substance,and most of your comments are deflections of your & your ministry’s inadequacies and that responsibility lies with you, your senior ministers & parliamentary secretaries etc,ect. Its three blind mice, see how they run? Its the blind leading the blind in your ministry, is that it? You are not a kind or thoughtful person. You come through as a pseudo aristocratic intellect, condescending and an arrogant goofer I dislike what you say because you are a fake.
Take 20 years, 50 years and 100 years if you have to but build a true Singaporean team world class or not never mind,spend all the money you want to shape that f you have to. Its money you put behind Singaporeans and not some imports. Its for national identity and not for fame and glory. Why cant you get that! We don’t care,if it never happens but just trying to get there makes us proud as a nation.From little acorns ,oak tree grows.That is true pride and honesty. Go to a national survey and find out who is proud of the women’s tennis team when they won the world championship, how many Singaporeans even cared and how long did that last ?. The women’s table tennis team of Chinese imports won the World title. China won it for us, cant you see that?