Howard Lee -
Regrettably, I did not watch this year’s National Day Rally, as I would have liked to appreciate the nuances of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s words.
Nevertheless, I managed to grab my free copy of Today on Monday. It amazes me that Today can, similar to the massive coverage after the closing of the Youth Olympic Games, dedicate 13 pages to one Rally, five of which were specifically on the new migrant issue, when all they were trying to say was this:
- PM Lee focused chiefly on the issue of new immigrants among our midst, which was felt to be a key concern to citizens.
- His key message: Citizens will always come first, but the import of foreign talent is essential for Singapore’s survival. As such, steps will be taken to make citizens feel valued and to integrate new citizens better.
- He also announced a number of initiatives in the pipeline, such as new housing and education policies, as well as an incentive package for National Servicemen.
- In general, the Rally was deemed by journalists and interviewees from all walks of life to be good. It was perceived to be a down-to-earth assessment of our migration woes, and supported by real-life examples of positive migrant integration stories, addressing citizens’ valid concerns yet also encouraging a positive attitude.
So much for my summary, and now for the cranky, business end of this article: Was Lee’s Rally as meaningful, spot-on or motivational as it was touted to be?
The focus on new immigrant was the correct direction – this is a topic that has struck a nerve among our population, to say the least. However, Lee’s approach to the issue was wrong – he neither addressed the concerns appropriately, nor indicated the appropriate measures to alleviate these concerns. The second point should not be a surprise – if he did not have a proper grasp of the issue to begin with, how would he be able to address it properly?
Lee’s acknowledgement of the migrant issue was based on the presumption that citizens are uneasy about new migrants, in relation to limiting job opportunities and stresses on our living spaces. He has identified the problem, but none of his proposed solution made any sense in solving it.
A good example would be the $9,000 education and housing subsidy for National Servicemen. On the surface, it seemed like a positive gesture to differentiate between citizens and migrants, but that is all the surface work it really does. No consideration was given to the fact that, even after all the money has been used up totally to pay for an NSman’s education (forget about housing, the amount will barely scratch the surface of the massive housing loan that he would have to take eventually), his problem with foreign talent really hits when he enters the workforce and competes for jobs. The incentive cannot address this issue directly.
If you were to examine most of the initiatives he mentioned, you will notice a similar vein. They were geared towards placating citizens to make them feel more valued than migrants. However, they do not solve the fundamental problems of our lax migration policies. Pumping up on transport, education and housing systems does not give any real advantage to citizens. It only enhances a system that both citizens and new migrants are free to exploit, all the way up to saturation point.
In other words, the Rally was little more than lip service to the new migrant issue. Policy changes that are long overdue, such as better equity to NSmen, have been recast as incentives to “solve” the new migrant issue. It presupposed that citizens are disenfranchised about the influx of foreign talent and want to be valued. But that is barely representative of the problem. Singaporeans are generally a pragmatic lot. If we are inclined to take these incentives in good faith, we will know that we would only be disappointed later, discovering that they do not essentially resolve the issue.
What will? We need to roll out policies that clearly define the meaning of “talent” in the term “foreign talent”. If you noticed the examples in the Rally news coverage, the ranks of new citizens hailed to have “adapted well” to life in Singapore included a bus captain and owners of an architect firm. I do not doubt the achievements of these new citizens, and they have done well in their own rights. But are we being too lax with the word “talent”, when we are hard pressed for examples of how new citizens punch above their weight and bring in greater value to our nation? We need to reevaluate our migration criteria, and it will risk protectionism. However, I am of the view that a fair dose of protectionism can possibly do us some good now, at least in sending a clear signal to the world about what Singapore seeks, and how we value our citizenship.
It is sad to see the National Day Rally degenerating into merely an attempt to “boost the morale” of its intended audience, for that is what Lee is trying to do. Essentially, his message is for us not to make a big deal about it, accept the foreigners in our midst as the reality of our constructed “world view”, and here are some goodies to sweeten the deal if we behave. Utter nonsense.
I do not believe that Singaporeans are that myopic to see our problems in every foreigner we meet. There is also no indication that we will take to the streets or begin a series of hate crimes targeting new migrants. I believe that the current gripe that citizens have revolve around the policies, not the people that the policies favour. There is a need to pay attention to policy issues, rather than continue side-stepping it and risk the issue degenerating to a level of intolerance that we will all regret.
Even more unfortunate was when Lee continued to expound the qualities that make up the Singapore Spirit – determination, trust, competence and confidence. He was surely making a direct reference to the YOG, but in the light of the migrant issue, I could not help but flag it as his endnote to encourage Singaporeans to “soldier on”. Draw an extension line, and you would notice that these qualities describe the very meritocratic ideals that have so far been the impetus for placing new migrants on equal footing with citizens.
The Singapore Spirit should be the embodiment of the unique Singaporean identity, something that we can hold as a standard, even to benchmark against foreign talent seeking citizenship. It is a great waste and pity that it should have been squandered as such.
This National Day Rally, in my personal opinion, will probably go down in our nation’s short history as the one that said a lot, but meant almost nothing. The attempted focus on the migrant issue seemed little more than a poor attempt to drag citizens into an immigration vision that is fundamentally flawed, and we are nowhere closer to making a positive change.
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
To be blunt…
This “Rally” has phailed in the eyes of those who can see with one eye in the country of the blinded…and blinded by the who which those of the many of us who know and can see too clearly..and the pain rendered by them to those who do not deserved it.
Xianz
Vote the lame duck out. A leader takes ownership of issues, good and bad. Not one who brings only ‘good’ news and hide when the going gets tough.
as if the last election was last year….
too little too late? govt policies should have been more nimble to act on ground sentiments. the obsession with GDP should have been balanced with other consideration. how to strengthen the S’poreans’ spirit if its given out like freebies? the value itself drop like a pebble in a pond already.
i dun see the point studying so hard for so many years with the current cost of higher education only to be overlooked when cheaper foreigners are hired.
i doubt the current team has good & real solutions. i guess they are waiting for people to post what should be done, how it should be done, online. then they just pick the ideas & reward themselves if results are positive.
like OEM products, its just a matter of rebranding. but sometimes, where ideas are concerned it seems more like interllectual property (which should be closely guarded).
… you know it when people try to taunt others online with words like:- you think you can do better? how? what should be done? etc.
useless bumps… XD
Every National Day rally used to be equal to the “State of the Nation” address in the USA, but slowly through the years it has turned out to be a show equal to “a night with David Letterman”.
It has always began with a condescending assessment of the Malay ethnic community, followed by hot air blown up the Indians, and the cautious treading on the Chinese community, with the Eurasians barely given any notice.
This National Day Rally followed nearly the same format with the Malay language being spoken and the usual condescending appraisals, and then the hard sell of the much maligned foreign talent policies of the Pro Alien Party.
The hard sell almost border on desperation to get Singapore to buy at least a portion of it and give it some time to work.
Unfortunately, the secret is out and Singaporeans have suddenly awaken during General Election year that Singapore has been invaded for over the last ten years.
Since 1999 to 2009, Singapore’s population has suddenly mushroomed by over 1,000,000 heads – and everywhere we go, we are irked to listen to the PRC Mandarin that grudgingly try in return to understand our peasant pidgin-spoken mandarin !
The true blue Singaporean Indian brothers are similarly complaining that the new breed of India born talent have arrived on our shores with their century old caste system prejudice towards our local Indian community, who are largely from southern India and supposedly of a lower stock !!!
Unwittingly, this Pro Alien Party has introduced new dimensions into the local ethnic and social balance, introducing large influx of non-traditional ethnic groups from regions that have no historical links to Singapore.
It has taken the local Singaporean more then a century of history – and at least 50 years of nation building history – to gell into a close knit community with a common identity – all to be shaken up by the policy of the Pro Alien Party without any consultation with us.
In any other country – such as Switzerland, Israel, Norway or Sweden – the Ruling Political Party will surely be held accountable by the people.
Singaporean have been dumbed down by the deliberate policy of the Pro Alien Party in the 1970s – by filling the stomachs and dull the minds – so as to allow the Pro Alien Party to remove our Political Rights.
To secure their own Political Rights, the Pro Alien Party will control the number of tertiary educated Singaporeans in the 1970s, and continue to limit to 30 percent of enrollment even to this day as announced by PM LHL.
After more then 50 years of rule by the Pro Alien Party, Singaporeans were deliberately DUMB DOWN and now MM LKY will have the temerity to call Singaporeans to be without creativity, enterprise, talent, and simply DAFT.
If POLITICS IS ABOUT LIFE – as explained by MM LKY in a CNA forum in 2006 – it is tiem for Singaporeans to be restored our POLITICAL RIGHTS, and have all the impediments removed that reserve the field of Politics to be exclusively for Politicians.
They never think through their policy, and let people have a say. PAP is only half right most of the time, their execution is even poorer. Now we have a new portfolio for Wong Kan Seng to mop up the mess.
Now then try to placate citizens with more MRT and HDB a bit late on supply management. The education system is also so rigid, those that have left school long ago are left stranded. Somemore got so many waves of immigrants. They like to blow their trumpet to the world about NTUC and their many schemes.
They only like to showcase MM’s wonderful barrage and Marina Bay as their symbol of success.
I have no issue with migrants for we were descendants of migrants ourselves.
My issue lies with our forefathers who were migrants that work to their bones to turn a swampy backwater to build this nation into a metropolis for their descendants the past 51 years.Their descendants spending a good 21/2 years of their prime to serve NS and another umpteen years as reservists to defend this Nation and
“EUREKA”
The PM invites FTs to our NATION as PR & Citizens with the lame duck excuse that WE ARE NOT PRODUCING ENOUGH and we need manpower to drive the economy.
We are only 45 years old and no bigger than New York, why compare US migrant policy with ours? US is 200 plus years ahead of us and NY alone can bury us where is the rational of comparison?Are we IDIOTS? I hope not.
Our forefathers and their first generation had hardly begin to enjoy the fruits of our labor and we are told to work harder,smarter and better while the FTs just march in and claim their rights as TALENTS that are needed to drive our GDP. How did we drove ourselves to be the second highest GDP next to Japan five maybe ten years ago? ACT OF GOD?
TOC’s coverage of the NDR has been very interesting so far, to say the least. It consists of 2 stories
1. An analysis of the state of Malays written by an Indian WP member and commented on mainly by Chinese. (as far as I can tell)
2. An analysis of the speech written by someone who did not listen to it.
I thought the article written by Pritam Singh was pretty good, although I would certianly like to hear what Malay netizens have to say.
However, for someone who watched the whole thing, I must say this one by Howard Lee was disappointing.
Indeed, right from the beginning, he started getting tied up in his own prose. -”he neither addressed the concerns appropriately, nor indicated the appropriate measures to alleviate these concerns”
Don’t the two things mean the same thing? If you address concerns appropriately, doesn’t it mean you took appropriate measures to alleviate concerns? Is this an attempt to make two points out of one point?
Language aside, his point is that PM did not address the crux of the issue – Singaporeans just don’t want so many foreigners coming in.
Anybody listening to the speech would have noticed him saying on more than one occassion that admission criteria has been tightened, and that foreign worker levies would go further up.
Everything else, NS award, improvements to infrastructure, housing controls were short-term cures to symptoms of the problem. i.e. high housing prices, overcrowding on public transport and singaporeans not feeling welcome.
My complaint is that there weren’t enough details on how foreigner intake would be restricted, but it was certianly not left out of the speech.
At least try and attack based on something that actually happened, not something you assumed happened.
I cannot but sometimes agree (though begrudingly) with LKY that Singaporeans are ”daft” lah. Why?
Many simply dont get it and that is that as long as one=party rule is the mainstay of the local political landscape – from judiciary, to trasnport, health, CPF, HDB …. it is thru the one-system that policies,regulations etc are being churned out and implemented. The problem is that there are no alternative voices/opinions/dissent allowed or even considered. Consultation is almost nil. Media in Singapore is a conniving and a propaganda vehicle.
As such, one may complain or have a particular Minsiter or … removed or voted out. It makes no difference cos the next one, his/her allegiance comes thru the one-party system n how can it be possible that things or … mite get not ”worse”.
However, imagine or pix a two-party or multi-party political landscape. It wont be perfect and policies, regulations and many other forms of legislation,price increases would be more equitable and transparent. Now, with the current system, who is going to verify? who is going to be made transparent? who is going to be made accountable? ALL IN ALL IT IT THE SYSTEM THAT IS FLAWED AND THE INCUMBENTS WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT THAT WAY AND PERPETUATE THIS INSIDIOUS ONE=PARTY RULE.
A telling eg is that of immigration. No one was consulted nor were opinions/views or even dissent allowed. I doubt it would have been so if it had NOT been a one-party rule. Immigration is necessary lah but not the way it has been done – it is an utter mess, and a deliberate one cos the FEAR OF loss of votes. GDP benefits but to those who are in the upper echelons of govt lah. The benefits in terms of $$$ are there but to assume that it percolates top downwards is idiocy.
Ha! ha!…Li Hseng Loot (please,you go BANG first )….has task ” Wah Kang Sing” ( I fuxk first”…to mop up all the “Squirts and Creampies )
What a Fine ($$$) example of “Heng Tai “–Brotherhood!
Howard’s assessment resonates with me on three key points. One, what is “talent” and what is not? Two, the measures offered do not seem to be adequate other to prove that something is being done. Three, we do not have a clear strategy when it comes to accepting FTs.
I posted several questions in REACH to Dr. Amy Khor, but have yet to get any response. See below…
———————————————————————————-
Dr. Amy,
I am seeking insights on three key aspects of our foreign talent (FT) policy.
First, how do we define an FT versus one who is not?
In my workplace, at my level (PMET), 10 out of 10 foreigners are doing work that I believe Singapore is not short of resource to fill. Hence I am curious why we needed them in the first place. Is it because they pay higher tax thereby contributing more to Singapore’s bottom-line?
Second, is the government accepting FTs only in specific industries/ sectors/skills areas or merely broad-based acceptance as long as one can contribute to the economy?
I believe our strategy in the economic restructuring project must have outlined key industries/sectors that we needed high value skills that we lack locally thereby driving the need for FTs to fill in the short term. For example, life-science/bio-medical. If my assumption is correct, why are we seemingly accepting FTs everywhere in the local marketplace? From computer engineers in IT industry to salesmen to CEOs in banks? Do we really have a talent strategy or simply come-what-may?
Third, how many FTs became PRs/citizens but later moved on to other 1st world countries?
I believe Singapore may not necessarily be seen as a destination. Rather it is more often seen as a path to rosier destinations among Indian and China nationals. While this is purely a perception, what kinds of statistics do we have to suggest that this isn’t true?
The concerns of heartlanders aren’t about whether we need foreigners or not, I have no doubt that people understand that we need them in some shape and form. The key issue is a matter of equity more than anything else. The above 3 questions are what I believe the cornerstones of this equity-inequity divide. So continually reminding people to accept some foreigners is simply missing the point altogether.
Let me use this metaphor to illustrate. No parent will adopt another brighter child just to instill a sense of competition among existing ones. Doing so without a compelling reason can only lead to conflicts, doubts and a severe sense of betrayal from their incumbent children. From the children’s vantage point, instilling competition and raising household income, even if this is argued to be for their long term future good, are not reason enough for incumbent children to accept lesser share of parental love.
if we are that professional etc… he should want more of S’poreans…
Just look at the default rate for CPF education loan…
why people default after studying with that loan?
Because they cannot find a job that pays well enough…
Our universities not even in top 100.
How to get PRC people here to study and root here?
LHL is day dreaming
@Atobe 31 August 2010
Excellent comments, my friend. I agree fully with what you have said.
@Roy Chan 31 August 2010
Good questions which I am sure they are hard put to respond.
Well said Roy Chan!
I agree with your metaphor that “no parent will adopt another brighter child just to instill a sense of competition among existing ones.”
On the other hand, from what I see before me i.e the existing PAP Ministers and MPs, I am inclined to conclude that it had been LKY’s intention to select obviously dumb or daft buggers so as to instill a sense of superiority and confidence for Lee Hsien Loong.
ps: I have no doubt Lee Hsien Loong is totally out of his depth in trying to be prime Minister.
Has anybody checked the Immigration Act Chapter 133?
Apparently an ex-convict Singapore Permanent Resident, MAY OR MAY NOT, have his PR revoked.
For starters, while we are defining the term “foreign talent”, I would like to see foreign ex-convicts be kicked out of this country.
Singaporeans should not be competing for breathing space and livelihood with foreign ex-convicts. We have extended them a welcome hand and they repay us with gross transgressions against the law. Some of ex-convicts, committed for violent crimes, will continue to pose danger to the society.
Singapore should not be scrapping the bottom-most of the barrel for foreign talents. “Talents” should not be used loosely for those making less than SGD20,000 a month!!!
you all hor..dont play prayed..our prince the prime minister is givin us ole soldier $9000 dollar$ hor… for bein good retired ole soldiers..so you all must remembered to thank him by votin for pap hor…
i the take the $9000 i the go to cebu hav a good time..i the novote for his party simply because my wards are all kiasee/kiasu walker grc…
thank you my highness the prince…
ZEIL HAIL!!!
TOC – you hit the nail on the head…..
However, Lee’s approach to the issue was wrong – he neither addressed the concerns appropriately, nor indicated the appropriate measures to alleviate these concerns. The second point should not be a surprise – if he did not have a proper grasp of the issue to begin with, how would he be able to address it properly?
Roy,
When and if Dr Amy Khor replies to your 3 questions, do share it here. Thks.
iamaGREEDYpigi: “the take the $9000 i the go to cebu hav a good time…”
The $9k is a shopping voucher to buy at their own store (Unis, medical & housing) where the cost of goods & services are in tens or hundreds of thousands dollars & where increase in price of at least $9k will be expected.
It is lagi chia-lak for Singaporeans now. The $9k is poisonous pill that all NS men must swallow. This time really cham liao.
It is forums like these that one gets a more uniformed analysis of what has been spoken. It is sad that many citizens do not have the opportunity to be availed of such forums. We all know what the Straits Times & papers will report – parroting and singing praises without an iota of some critical analysis. And without fail, a day after the rally, they will interview MPs and grassroots on their take & feedback. And without fail again, these good-for-nothings will again praise and say all things good. If Singapore is to carry on like this, society will have no way to go but south. Do they not have a mind of their own, do they not have their views at all? It gets tired reading & hearing such “rehearsed” interviews. I cringed whenever they conduct such interviews. The ruling party are not getting the correct & honest feedback they need, and this is not good. But of course, they can only interview people who are aligned to their cause, who will give feedback that they will have no problem reporting. MPs & grassroots members should be ashamed of themselves for such conduct. A total sham, a total wayang indeed.
The PM tauted the two newly minted Singaporean, ex-Malaysian architects as talents that have benefited Singapore. Otherwise there would be no Pinnacle. This cannot be the case. As the design of the Pinnacle is opened to international competition these two architects if they were to remain in Malaysia would still submit the winning design. We would still have the Pinnacle. As part of the design contract they would also be asked to set up office in Singapore to carry out the detailed designed.
I haven’t read the rally. Am guessing the PM did not address how he is going to develop own talents did he? What is he going to do with improving standard of SG Unis or education in general? Absolutely nothing? Not even injecting cash?
Does anyone have information about the number of Singaporeans who have given up their citizenship? I am planning to emigrate as I do not want my son to serve NS and defend a country made up mostly of foreigners. Taking away 2.5 years of his youth and 10 years active reservist is a waste of time. I have never asked for anything from the country and I don’t expect anything. I am disappointed in the direction the country is taking and the overcrowding and loss of the Singapore Identity. Singapore has become a place for temporary occupants seeking quick monetary gains before moving on. A Nation without a soul. Most of my relatives has left and only a few remained behind. Those that are still here are very well off and can leave anytime if they wished to. There really is nothing much left of the wonderful Singapore that I grew up in except concrete jungles and the mad madding crowd. Those places I used to bring my kids, like Ubin, Botanical Gardens, the beaches and simply everywhere are all overcrowded. The only weekend escape is Malaysia and even that is not so safe anymore.
@Plan To Quit.
Good for you, though you are a little late on the cue. Still, best to quit this god forsaken place while you still can. Don’t let your son grow up and blame you for not giving him the opportunity while you were able to.
Though it is a little selfish, sometimes I can’t help thinking how it would have been if my parents had the guts to migrate long ago.
History has taught us that When PAP gives us $1, they will suck back $10 shortly. So before elections they pretend to give us $9,000 but after elections they will take $90,000 from us!!
the National rally is full of crap. LHL & PAP refused to listen to singaporeans for the past 10 yrs, and now suddenly trying to backtrack? PAP has damaged whatever unity and cultured painstakingly nurtured in the past 40 yrs and it is going to be very difficult to reclaim it now. the singapore culture is not tainted by the 33% of foreigner crowding around the little red dot.
get out if you have the means. there is nothing to fight for. the tipping point is already crossed.
The national day speech is well delivered. As a Singaporen, I am proud of what Singapore has achieved in the midst of a global downturn. Even superpowers like America and Europe are struggling to tackle the problem, and yet Singapore is able to emerge from the crisis with an unprecedented growth. Who are we, this little red dot, which does not have “rich” inheritance like what other countris have? Let’s be thankful that we at least have a government which has the foresight and the guts to take swift and effective measures to help Singaporeans keep jobs when workers worldwide are being retrenched. Results speak for themselves – be thankful with what we have achieved.
I felt some flickers of hope and reassurance when I first read about the NS reward thing on Sunday night.
Now, details revealed and the way it was revealed, it has effectively become the worst possible insult this government has thrown in my face.
I am actually quite amazed they managed to reach a greater height. Well done!
Look at the bright side, let them carry on doing what they want to worship high GDP. Their ruins are near for going against the will of the people and the universe.
I must confess I concede defeat. Across mass media the ruling government is able to slap me so hard I actually feel giddy.
Yes I do.
And to think I used to be an ardent supporter of National Service. I feel so incredibly stupid now.
Wow liew, either you people have not done NS or you are really rich people.
Most of my NS pals appreciate the 9K sum as a real means of appreciation. For someone earning 1-2K per month, this is a sizeable sum. This is much better than the previous paltry sum of $100-200 under various rebates.
On the contrary, some of the good Singaporeans NSmen now worry where the money will come from. Given that the sum will be paid in 3 tranches, i.e. 3 – 3.5K, this can amount to 0.5 to 1B every year depending and it is a recurrent item in the budget.
The government will have to look for sources of income to finance this. Will this mean higher GST?
I think if you want to support a policy, at least have the self-respect to read up about it first.
A huge bulk of Singaporean soldiers will get nothing near to the touted 9k.
SH, interesting comments abt our economic recovery. But you might want to read this, too: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/22/2879454.htm
Traditionally one of the countries with the most rigid and clearly-defined (i.e. I tell you exactly who I want coming in) immigration policies, Australia has often been criticised as practising protectionism, favouring their own citizens and industries from competition. I used to think that such policies will reduce its economic nimbleness. However, that did not seem to deter it from bouncing back from the recent recession, almost as quickly as Singapore.
As such, while I appreciate your support for what we did well for our quick economic recovery, if we are still talking about immigration policies here, the relationship between the two might not be a valid one to draw.
Angel Vision 31 August 2010
iamaGREEDYpigi: “the take the $9000 i the go to cebu hav a good time…”
The $9k is a shopping voucher to buy at their own store (Unis, medical & housing)
…………
fwah lau..scratched head..shake lampars..
dig nose(you all were expectin yours truLEE to dig karchng right?)
$9ks of shoppin vouchers? don’t go joochiat can exchanged for local outdated cebu lass services or not?
sured NO hard currencie$?
~chey~
spoilt moi holiday plan…worst than tryin to blowup hitlers’ bunker….
~ptui~ spit split spattered………
dilbert, much tks for your comments. It’s probably the liberty of not having to follow a 100-word guideline for newspaper forum letters that got me in the literary tangle, but let’s see if I can clarify “he neither addressed the concerns appropriately, nor indicated the appropriate measures to alleviate these concerns” for everyone’s benefit:
Addressing concerns (i.e. problem definition) -
PM says: Sgeans don’t want so many foreigners coming in.
I think: Sgeans don’t mind foreigners, we just want better QC on who gets in.
Measures to alleviate concerns (i.e. problem resolution) -
PM says: Let’s give incentives to make Sgeans feel valued over foreigners, and try to reasonably reduce the numbers coming in.
I think: We can’t be incentivised to feel better about flawed policies! Fix the fundamentals first!
If the approach is wrong to begin with, any proposed solution will be of little use. I agree with you that there are a whole host of efforts to limit foreigner intake, and no doubt the new agency set-up will continue with rolling out more of these. That is EXACTLY what makes me worried enough to write this, to think that all these efforts are hinging on a wrong approach – trying to limit intake or make Sgeans feel better about the migrant boom, but is essentially barking up the wrong tree.
Personally, I do not think Sgeans want less foreigners, but just want to see evidence that they are here for the right reasons.
Roy Chan, I like your points. Wish I can be more succinct – would have more time to sleep, then, instead of writing for hours… :P
Honestly, I would be honoured if my writing led to your letter to Amy Khor!… But that is just presumptuous, I know. :)
Honestly, I was more mesmerized by his botox-ed forehead rather than the speech..
His make up team made him look good along with the wardrobe team.
Pink all the way
My take on the PAP mind is that they KNOW what all our problems are… they are not stupid….but they DON’T CARE.
The $9000 is peanuts compared to the our bills and the rising cost of living here. That’s why it’s a slap on our face.
Howard,HL well said,Roy please share their replies if ever. That is why for the last three years I’ve stopped listening to the Nat Day Rally speech, very insincere and it shows in his body language and tone changes. I think the result of their policies will show at the next elections, I won’t be surprised if half of the PAP is voted out or a result in a hung parliment.
Why, the c/malaysians of the older gen has decided to jump ship and stayed in malaysia, would you want to go some place which has everything or a place with nothing.
Now that gen has decided to sent all its offsprings here, depressed our wages for 20 years or more, drive all cost up,(inflation of all kind) and blame us for the cost of living in JB, reason many do not want 3rd bridge.
So, now they are talents because of some crappy building design in outram, hey, its just a shell. Can it be 9th wonder of the world or some shitty mess of concrete, you think about it.
Yes, our forefathers are immigrants and most of us have no issue with foreigners.
It is the govt policies that we disagree with. Our forefathers came here when population was sparse. They were the ‘builders’ of our nation.
Now things are different. With have limited land and population has grow tremendously. We can feel the squeeze in all aspects of our life at ground level. It is only the PM and his gang that is still living in their dreamland.
We are not convince it will do the country any good in the future. It will likely only result in more problems. Statistic model can be wrong, just as they got in wrong last time when they curb population growth so successfully that they are now doing a drastic U turn with so much speed that it could result in a fatal accident.
As for over quoted reason that we need foreigners to take up job locals shun – it is repeat so often that is became a self-fulfilling prophecy. They have injected so much negative connotation about certain jobs that only ‘encourage’ locals to shun it. They should have redesign jobs, upgrade the skill level and even activily promote them to encourage locals to take it up. Instead they took the easy way out with mass influx. By doing so, they have broken the rice bowl of their own ‘family’ members as our ‘uncles and aunties’ who used be working at these jobs cannot compete with the young foreign workers.
Stop giving us lame excuse why we need continue to need mass influx and work on the problem at it root cause instead. Surface decoration will not make the issues go away.
The National Day rally sounds like foreigner Day rally. His admittance that netizens are right about the PAP flawed policies. Immediately MOE, HDB and MINDEF were seen doing their last minute struggle to appease the ground when problems have been so deep rooted in everyone lives for many years. I am afraid it is nothing more than a leaf from his arrogance to gamble some votes -the last chip before election is called.
The writer is absolutely right that LHL is simply paying lip services, just like when he mentioned, in many years of rally, to give citizen more rights to be opened with th govt only to have all the bar, fines, security camera, censorship and ISD coming back strongly after that. Nothing change, promise broken. My heart is determined not to vote for them otherwise I am no differnt from a betrayer.
@HL, BB, ToT, Dang, and all…
Unfortunately no reply from Dr. Amy as of now. Here’s the link… http://www.reach.gov.sg/YourSay/DiscussionForum/tabid/101/mode/3/Default.aspx?ssFormAction=ssBlogThread_VIEW&tid=235
@Georgia, well said. We were reminded again and again that we are descendants of immigrants and we are therefore not justified suggest a lesser than open immigration policy from what we have today. I do have a point of view on that.
What the PM suggests is that we are followers of globalization and of what other countries do. The fact that many countries host significant foreign populations does not necessarily mean Singapore must follow suit if we know what our unique strengths are and knows how leverage it. If being followers is the only way to go, we really do not need a world-class government, do we?
Harping on the fact that we are descendants of migrants to justify the need to open ourselves up for more immigrants is a flawed argument. It only concedes that for more than a century we have failed to create a nation worth its own salt. Our ancestors came to this land for reasons unlike today’s immigrants. There was no globalization and Singapore offered no immediate reward. In other words they were pushed here to start a living and settled here not knowing what to expect.
Today’s immigrants know there is money to be had here. Majority work here for a month to earn a year’s salary back home. The motivation is none other than the fact that this place either offer them better wages or a ready springboard to some greener pastures elsewhere. To top it all, they literally need not contribute a single sweat to enjoy this ready-made first-world city that is secure from threats and free from crimes because the host are the ones doing all the dirty work to making them feel safe. So our past and present generations sweat blood to create an oasis only to serve it on a silver platter for non-contributors to enjoy at will?
On the other hand, none, if any, of their home countries are oppressive to the state of forcing them to seek refuge beyond their own will. Hence it is also not a matter of opening up doors for immigrants on compassionate grounds. Therefore, the motivation of today’s immigrants are vastly different from that of our forefathers. They know they have the license to enjoy the fruits of labour of someone else, with compelling reward in accompaniment, and they can move on when they get bored as somewhere else look more seductive.
At the core of it all, the immigration concern felt by local citizens is a highly emotional one, and rightly so. Talking about Singapore spirit and creating a common identify is futile discourse if the matter of the heart is not first empathized and then appeased. Throwing more money at the problem is at best patch work while failing to discover termites in the wood.
So if this is what we can expect from a bloated cabinet then it begs the question of why we needed three Prime Ministers, past and present included, in the same team to arrive at a decision to plagiarize other countries’ immigration model.
On hearing what the $9K scheme to “recognise” NSF/reservists entrails, it actually further MARGAINALIZED those that have completed their 2.5 + 13 years cycles, i.e. those in their late 30s and 40. This is the group of Singaporeans that really build Singapore to what it is today, and yet they are being swept under the carpet. All except ONE – he soaks all the glories and achievements of the entire nation. Is this the way to better differentiate citizens from foreigners??? By further differentiating even the citizens??!!!?
.
So, to those bootlickers that keep saying “Our forefathers were also immigrants”, or “Be grateful for what the garhem has done for Singapore in the past”, I say: “Sorry, my allegiance is now NOT RETROACTIVABLE. All past achievements of PAP/garhem are of NO CONSIDERATION in my next vote.”
I love Roy’s comment.
Howard’s assessment resonates with me on three key points. One, what is “talent” and what is not? Two, the measures offered do not seem to be adequate other to prove that something is being done. Three, we do not have a clear strategy when it comes to accepting FTs.
I posted several questions in REACH to Dr. Amy Khor, but have yet to get any response. See below…
———————————————————————————-
Dr. Amy,
I am seeking insights on three key aspects of our foreign talent (FT) policy.
First, how do we define an FT versus one who is not?
In my workplace, at my level (PMET), 10 out of 10 foreigners are doing work that I believe Singapore is not short of resource to fill. Hence I am curious why we needed them in the first place. Is it because they pay higher tax thereby contributing more to Singapore’s bottom-line?
Second, is the government accepting FTs only in specific industries/ sectors/skills areas or merely broad-based acceptance as long as one can contribute to the economy?
I believe our strategy in the economic restructuring project must have outlined key industries/sectors that we needed high value skills that we lack locally thereby driving the need for FTs to fill in the short term. For example, life-science/bio-medical. If my assumption is correct, why are we seemingly accepting FTs everywhere in the local marketplace? From computer engineers in IT industry to salesmen to CEOs in banks? Do we really have a talent strategy or simply come-what-may?
Third, how many FTs became PRs/citizens but later moved on to other 1st world countries?
I believe Singapore may not necessarily be seen as a destination. Rather it is more often seen as a path to rosier destinations among Indian and China nationals. While this is purely a perception, what kinds of statistics do we have to suggest that this isn’t true?
The concerns of heartlanders aren’t about whether we need foreigners or not, I have no doubt that people understand that we need them in some shape and form. The key issue is a matter of equity more than anything else. The above 3 questions are what I believe the cornerstones of this equity-inequity divide. So continually reminding people to accept some foreigners is simply missing the point altogether.
Let me use this metaphor to illustrate. No parent will adopt another brighter child just to instill a sense of competition among existing ones. Doing so without a compelling reason can only lead to conflicts, doubts and a severe sense of betrayal from their incumbent children. From the children’s vantage point, instilling competition and raising household income, even if this is argued to be for their long term future good, are not reason enough for incumbent children to accept lesser share of parental love.
georgia tong 1 September 2010
Yes, our forefathers are immigrants and most of us have no issue with foreigners.
…………………………………
our forefathers,no doubt were immigrants,they were ‘EARLY’ immingrants who did ‘THE JOBS THAT LOCALS DIDN’T WANT TO DO’ and ‘THEY HELPED TO CREATE MORE JOBS FOR THE LOCALS’!
they were ‘COOLIES’ in a ‘fishing village’ where the resident wokrers were mostly stucked to fishing as an oocupation.
our forefathers filled the void and did not fake qualifications nor undercut to find jobs.
and,ultimately,by their hardwork and enterprise,quickly CREATED MORE JOBS FOR THE LOCALS.
HOW CAN SMART MINISTERS FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE HISTORY and pass statements that are mere daft lies?
i guess we better send our next batch of scholars to india;there at least they teach how to better fake your degrees or to PRC,where they teach you how to make money ny lending a couple of pandas to someone else’s zoo?
Our forefathers are immigrants, we have no issue with foreigners. It is the govt policies that we disagree with. Our forefathers came here when population was sparse. They were the ‘builders’ of our nation.
Things are different now. We have limited land and population has grown tremendously. We can feel the squeeze in all aspects of our life at ground level. We are not convinced the current policies will do the country any good in the future. It will likely result in more problems. Statistical model can be wrong, just as they got in wrong last time when they curbed population growth so successfully that they are now doing a drastic U-turn.
The reason that we need foreigners to take up jobs which locals shun, is repeated so often that it has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. With so much negative connotations injected, they have in fact indirectly discouraged locals from taking them up.
Instead, they should have redesigned the jobs, upgrade the skill and promote them actively. By taking the easy way out with mass influx of immigrants, they have broken the rice bowl of their own ‘family’ members. Our ‘uncles and aunties’ who used to be working at these jobs cannot compete with the young foreign workers.
Stop giving us lame excuses. We have heard enough and are tired of all these repeated broadcasts. Work on the problem at its root cause instead. Surface decorations which are dish out at PM’s rally will not make the issues go away.
I am puzzled over the fuss over the NSman payout. People actually equate this payout to how the government values the NSman. Surely when parents give $20 ang-pow to their children on Chinese New Year, they don’t mean to tell the children that they are only worth $20. So just receive the payout graciously and donate it to charity if you really do not want it.
“…we can’t continue going like this and increasing our population 100,000 to 150,000 a year, indefinitely.”
All lies, pack of lies and half- truths, why? $60 billions boost for Mrt network over the next decade, who are they building the train stations for , unless they are expecting a huge increase in ridership. NO Logic! the figures does not tally, unless they are expecting alot of new immigrants.
Secondly , the basic principle is that “Citizens come first” from Prime minister Lee . How are you going to implement Meritcracy policy and ” citizens come first” policy at the same time? Dont they contradict one another? All these lies are said because the next coming- election in 12 months time!
walamak,
thinking – those NSmen just complete the cycle, what’s their feeling about $9K?
why things still so expensive here?
jobs, jobs, jobs needed for sg citizen…
not sure when all sg citizen will live like in the 80s… not so pressure
walamak