Mediocre quantum may be inadequate in facing the tsunami-sized ground crisis - NSP

NSP Budget Response 2009 - Extensive But Not Comprehensive
4 Feb 2009

The “Resilience Package” of $20.5 billion unveiled in Parliament by Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, is generally seen to be extensive, addressing the main problems of job loss, business cash flow and credit crunch.

However, while the direction and footing of the Budget are generally correct, its actual impact will be quite below public expectations, because its somewhat mediocre quantum may be inadequate in facing the tsunami-sized ground crisis. Indeed, the Government has itself admitted that the Package “will not be enough to haul the country out of recession….”

Firstly, the deficit of $4.9 billion to be drawn from the Nation’s Official Reserves, is very much less than the tens of billions in paper loss which the Government had incurred in trying to prop-up foreign banks, over the past six months. According to prominent economist Song Seng Wun (from CIMB-GK), it was estimated that the Government had accumulated some $60 billion (perhaps, including land sale income) over the past two years, since May 2006. This amount would be more than sufficient to “offset any fiscal stimulus package”.

Secondly, the Package did little to help the unemployed in particular, other than allowing them to pay their income tax instalments over two years. The increment of $30pm in Public Assistance is considered to be so miserly, that the poor recipient will have difficulties wondering whether to use it for salt or sugar!

Considering that unemployment may probably hit a new high of 6% this year, amidst the already sky-high inflation of 7.5%, the Authorities need to put in more efforts to help the unemployed, especially the bread-winners, to tide over this critical period. For extreme cases, the Authorities should allow defer payments for both public utilities (water, electricity, gas) and conservancy charges, for at least six months. In addition, there should be a “Subsistence Fund” to provide a nominal allowance tagged at 50% of the recipient’s last drawn salary with a cap of $1500 per month.

The National Solidarity Party (NSP) has gathered considerable feedbacks from its weekly direct interactions with the People. Many have requested for the abolition or reduction of several controversial domestic taxes. For instance, the Radio & TV licence fee is seen to duplicate charges payable to media owners. The Water Conservation Tax has outlived its relevance now that the island is quite self-sufficient in water, considering our many new reservoirs and the gracious abundance of rainfall. The Domestic Foreign Worker levy adds heavily to domestic maintenance costs. The levy is seen to be both opportunistic and punitive, especially when the maid is hired to care for children and the elderly sick, and thereby freeing scarce local manpower. In such cases, the Government should subsidize instead of levying additional charges!

The Government should look into more ways of lowering the health care costs, which had jumped by a massive 20%-30% during the last two years. It should refrain from interfering with the ability of local universities to increase their medical faculty intake each year. The current shortage of qualified medical practitioners has contributed to the escalating health care cost.

Its Jobs Credit scheme per se can be quite cumbersome to implement, and may be subject to abuses. A better alternative would be the conversion of the proposed 12% quarterly cash subsidy into a direct monthly transfer to the CPF Board under the Employer’s Contribution account. Apart from being comparatively safer, such a mechanism will also ease critical cash flow.

NSP calls on the Government to be more responsible to the People, by being more transparent especially where statistics are concerned. Mark Twain once observed that there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

Following the unveiling of the Budget, there has been an orchestrated hype glorifying the Establishment with glowing commentaries. Although such trends have become a tradition of sorts in Singapore, the Government would be seen to be more sincere if it should shun the temptation of politicizing every twist of event, for Singaporeans have now matured politically.


12th Central Executive Council
National Solidarity Party

Foreigners & PRs filled 484,700 out of 796,000 jobs created between 2004 & 2008; 200,000 of them may leave in next two years - Analysts

Singapore May See 200,000 Foreigners Leave, Credit Suisse Says
By Shamim Adam

Jan. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Singapore’s population may shrink in the next two years as “sizeable” job losses amid the city- state’s deepest recession force 200,000 foreigners to leave, Credit Suisse Group said.

About 300,000 jobs may be lost by 2010, two-thirds of which are held by foreigners and permanent residents, economists Cem Karacadag and Kun Lung Wu wrote in a report received today. The number of people on the island nation may fall by about 3.3 percent to 4.68 million by 2010, Credit Suisse said.

Companies in export-dependent Singapore are firing workers as demand for goods and services ebb. More than 10,000 people were retrenched last year and a worsening economy may result in job losses tripling in 2009, reaching numbers not seen since the Asian financial crisis a decade ago, the government said.

“The contraction in exports and output and consolidation in financial and business services could lead to sizeable job losses, which, in turn, may drive as many as 200,000 foreigners and permanent residents out of Singapore,” the economists said. “These levels of job losses and population decline would be unprecedented.”

Singapore’s economy may shrink 2.8 percent this year, Credit Suisse predicts, making it the Southeast Asian nation’s worst annual contraction in its 43-year history. The government says gross domestic product may decline as much as 2 percent.

Last week, the National Wages Council, which represents government, employers and union groups, advised companies affected by the deepening economic slump to freeze or cut pay rather than fire workers.

Fewer Births

About 30,000 workers were retrenched in 1998 and some 26,000 lost their jobs in the 2001 downturn, acting Minister for Manpower Gan Kim Yong said yesterday.

Immigration is a key component of Singapore’s population strategy, as incentives offered since 1987 to arrest a declining birth rate by offering tax breaks, subsidies and cash bonuses failed. Singapore, a quarter the size of Rhode Island, has no natural resources and the government relies on the skills of its populace to generate economic growth.

The nation’s population jumped 17.6 percent in the five years to June 2008, and foreigners made up three-quarters of the increase, the Credit Suisse report said. Foreigners and permanent residents filled 61 percent, or 484,700, of the 796,000 jobs created between 2004 and the third quarter of 2008, the analysts estimated.

Singapore’s employers added more than 435,000 workers to their payrolls in the seven quarters to September 2008, according to the Ministry of Manpower.

‘Harsh Assumptions’

“As harsh as our assumptions may seem, they only imply that the economy gives up all of the jobs it created in 2008 and a portion of the new jobs in 2007,” the economists wrote.

About 160,000 positions in the services industry may be lost, while manufacturers may fire 100,000 workers, Credit Suisse predicts. The construction industry may cut 40,000 workers, it said.

“The potential drop in employment and population would have far-reaching implications for the economy,” wrote Credit Suisse analysts Sean Quek and Kwee Hong Ching. “Private consumption could contract in both 2009 and 2010.”

The unemployment rate, at 2.2 percent as of September 2008, may rise to 5.6 percent by 2010, the highest in more than two decades, they said.

Job cuts rose “significantly” last quarter, and both unemployment and layoffs are expected to be “substantially higher” in 2009, the National Wages Council said last week.

Employment squeeze; rising costs strain Uni students; and an in-your-face trip to Le Cordon Bleu (and the year has only started!)

Singapore gripped by employment squeeze
By Sumathi Bala
Financial Times, January 15 2009

Singapore’s job market is looking gloomy as the global economic slowdown takes its toll on local industries’ hiring.

A recent survey reveals that more than half of bosses are planning to cut jobs in the first quarter of this year.

A Manpower employment outlook survey of 629 employers across seven industry sectors found that only 8 per cent intended to recruit, while 46 per cent expected to cut jobs. The rest had no plans to hire or fire, or had not made up their minds.

Net employment outlook – the percentage of employers looking to hire, minus those expecting a decrease in employment – now stands at 38 per cent for the January to March period, a sharp 54 per cent drop from the fourth quarter last year.

Job prospects are less bullish across Asia, according to the survey, with employers in all eight countries polled reporting weaker hiring plans compared with the previous quarter and a year ago.

The slowest hiring activity is expected in Singapore and Taiwan, where negative hiring expectations are reported.

Jeffrey A Joerres, chairman and chief executive of Manpower, says that the net employment outlooks from Singapore, India, Taiwan, Australia and New Zealand are the weakest recorded and contrast starkly with the previous year, when these markets “were dealing with chronic and widespread talent shortages”.

A recent Reuters poll reaffirms Singapore’s grim outlook. The city-state is expected to be Asia’s worst-performing economy next year, when it is likely to remain entrenched in recession as the global downturn erodes demand for its exports.

The poll predicts gross domestic product (GDP) will contract 1.1 per cent in 2009. That marks a rapid deterioration in the economic environment from two months ago, as the global financial crisis has deepened. A similar poll in late September forecast 4.6 per cent GDP growth.

Singapore’s bleak performance has been the result of its exposure to the US market. The city-state became one of the earliest casualties of the US credit meltdown in Asia, when it sank into recession in the third quarter of 2008.

Singapore’s openness to external trade – especially its manufacturing industry, which accounts for about a quarter of the economy – is expected to cause more suffering this year, as the downturn in advanced economies accelerates. Job losses in manufacturing will rise as a result, analysts say.

Local companies are beginning to feel the pinch. Neptune Orient Lines, one of the world’s largest container carriers, recently said it would lay off 1,000 employees or 9 per cent of its workforce and issued a profit warning.

In a sudden move, DBS group, the largest bank in south-east Asia, said it would cut 900 jobs, or 6 per cent of its staff, mostly in Singapore and Hong Kong. This, by far the biggest job cut it has made, is to reduce costs as it tries to run a tighter ship amid a challenging business environment.

Philippe Capsie, country manager of Manpower Singapore, says: “As the realisation of the credit crisis begins to hit companies, employers’ hiring confidence is likewise affected. We expect companies to monitor market developments closely before making hiring decisions.”

He adds: “Employers are likely to place a higher emphasis on retaining and retraining existing staff as well as paying more attention to productivity. A number of employers will continue to hire, but job seekers are advised to be more open-minded in their job search and expectations.”

As lay-offs are expected to mount, Singapore’s policymakers are urging companies to look at creative options, such as having a shorter working week and reducing year-end bonuses. To keep workers employable, the government has also launched a S$600m ($402m) training scheme, which gives employers more funds to retrain staff rather than dispense with them.

The economic crunch could also affect Singapore’s reliance on foreign workers. Lim Swee Say, secretary-general of the national trades union congress (NTUC), speaking at a recent forum, said that it may make more business sense to let go of foreign workers rather than Singaporean workers if retrenchment is unavoidable for companies.

“We’re talking about rank-and-file workers, who are, by and large, replaceable. Our message is: give priority to the local workers. Not only will you help minimise unemployment in Singapore, but more importantly, it makes business sense for your company.”

Mr Lim added that if Singaporeans are laid off, companies may find it tough to re-employ them when the economy improves, as they will be sought by companies that must fulfill a quota of locals before they can hire foreigners.

At the same time, it is not lost on policymakers that foreign workers are necessary for companies to keep costs down and to dissuade local operators from choosing to relocate overseas.

The unemployment rate is expected to be below 3 per cent with about 10,000 job losses this year. But some estimates paint a bleaker picture, predicting that job cuts could be higher than the 30,000 seen in the 1998 Asian financial crisis.

---

Rising costs strain Singapore's university students
By Fong Wei Li / National University of Singapore
UPI, Jan 14, 2009

Singapore, Jan. 14 (UPI) -- By day, a third-year economics major who wants to be known only as Lynn attends classes at the National University of Singapore, usually clad in a simple getup of jeans and a tank top.

But at night, while most other undergraduates are asleep, Lynn trades her casual wear for a wardrobe of resplendent dresses and works as a social escort, a job scorned and labeled distasteful by most. From 8 p.m. to about 4 a.m. she entertains male clients by attending functions with them, indulging them in a drink and chat, or by providing what she called “discreet services.”

“It’s not exactly the most glamorous of jobs,” Lynn said. “I’m keeping it from my parents and most friends. But what to do? I have to eat my meals and pay my bills.”

Lynn belongs to a handful of varsity students taking on part-time jobs to finance their tuition fees and daily expenses. These students usually come from lower-income families with parents who are unable to foot the steep bills tagged to a tertiary education. It is unclear how many such students there are, but like Lynn, some are holding jobs that involve long hours while others engage in menial labor. Some of these students say their grades have suffered from having to balance both work and studies.

Lynn's father, a truck driver, took a pay cut earlier in January and makes barely enough to sustain the household’s day-to-day expenses, let alone finance Lynn’s university education. To see herself through her degree, she has been juggling her studies with part-time jobs since she enrolled at NUS.

According to the NUS Office of Admission’s Web site, the estimated monthly living expenses for undergraduates range from $580 to $1,000. This includes costs for transport, food, course materials and personal expenses. Tuition fees for most undergraduate degree courses are currently pegged at $6,360 per year, a $250 increase from last year. Broken down on a per-month basis, tuition fees add $530 to a student’s monthly expenses. Including living expenses, an undergraduate requires between $1,110 and $1,530 a month.

Although NUS offers loans to students assessed as needy, the schemes cover only up to 90 percent of tuition fees and provide little or no relief on the side of living expenses. On the other hand, rising food and transport costs are jacking up the cost of living. “I used to spend about $450 a month, give or take,” said Jamie Ong, a second-year mathematics major. “Now, all the price increases have brought it up to about a little less than $550.”

Ong’s father was retrenched earlier in May, and her mother earns a nominal income as a dishwasher. Both parents refuse to fund her university education because they feel it is a waste of time and money. To make ends meet, Ong takes on an evening job at the Night Safari as a tram guide, working from 6 p.m. to 12 a.m. on weekends and alternate weekdays. She is paid $8 an hour and earns about $900 a month, half of which goes to her family. “On weekdays, I rush off from school to Night Safari and work till midnight,” Ong said. “It’s darn tiring and I feel like I can’t get any schoolwork done on time.”

Third-year psychology major Benjamin Kuah works part time as a supermarket assistant to finance his varsity life. His job at the supermarket is physically tiring because it requires him to carry and move heavy boxes daily during restocking. Kuah’s father was diagnosed with schizophrenia years ago and has since been unable to work. His mother supports the family with her job as a school cleaner. Kuah attributed the plight of needy students, who work part time, to inadequate financial support. “I’m on the assistance scheme and they gave me a loan for most of my tuition fees but there’s no help with my living expenses,” Kuah said. “I’m not a big spender but I still need to eat, travel and pay for miscellaneous stuff. That’s the hard part.”

Eunice Foo, an officer with the NUS Office of Admissions, said the university’s assistance schemes assess each applicant and provide aid based on individual needs and circumstances. She said to help students cope with living expenses, the university’s career center facilitates work-study arrangements by maintaining a comprehensive job bank.

Kuah said this does not solve his problem of having to plough long hours and late nights into his supermarket job just to make ends meet. He added that his grades have suffered since he took up the job one year ago. “When I was in year one, my CAP (cumulative average point) score was above four,” Kuah said. “Now it’s below 3.5.” Ong, who works at the Night Safari, said her grades have also worsened noticeably. "I skip class so often because I'm so tired I can't wake up in time," she said. "If I manage to go for class, I end up falling asleep."

Lynn, who works as a social escort, said the nature of her job leaves her no time for schoolwork. “I usually can’t meet deadlines and sometimes I flunk modules,” she said. “But it’s better than not being able to afford my degree and then having to sell myself for the rest of my life.”

---

Not the time to flaunt your riches
Insight Down South
By SEAH CHIANG NEE
Jan 10, 2009

A high-ranking civil servant’s account about spending RM110,124 for him, his wife and son to learn fine French cooking has blown up in his face.

A GOVERNMENT elite has stirred ripples by talking of his expensive cooking lessons in France, revealing how hard times are deepening class differences in Singapore.

Inadvertently creating controversy was the permanent secretary at the Environment and Water Resources Ministry, one of the highest ranking civil servants.

Tan Yong Soon had related how he had spent S$46,000 (RM110,124) for himself, his wife and son for a five-day trip to learn fine French cooking.

In ordinary times, this leisurely – but rather insensitive – account would not have amounted to anything much but these days are, of course, far from normal.

Two factors invited criticism to flare.

First, he was seen as flaunting wealth, obtained from his high pay, at a time when Singapore is suffering one of its worst slumps in history.

Many thousands of workers are still losing jobs or suffering wage cuts.

And, secondly, government leaders are accused of being hugely overpaid, as a result of which some are no longer able to relate to the common people.

Tan was also accused of “boasting” about his elitist background when he wrote that his wife was “a senior investment counsellor at a bank” and his son, a soon-to-be student at America’s prestigious Brown University.

“Taking five weeks’ leave from work is not as difficult as one thinks,” Tan said.

“Most times, when you are at the top, you think you are indispensable. But if you are a good leader who has built up a good team, it is possible to go away for five weeks or even longer.”

Singaporeans were largely unimpressed. Some were angry. His fling at France’s prestigious Le Cordon Bleu in the face of rising poverty is the latest example of how out of tune some of Singapore’s well-paid elites are with heartland realities.

About 20% of affluent Singapore’s population lives in poverty with welfare payout to the poorest of the lot limited to a mere S$290 (RM694) a month.

When a government backbencher wanted to have it increased, a Cabinet minister refused, demanding: “How much do you want?”

Many Singaporeans were already unhappy with the multi-million dollar salaries paid to Cabinet ministers and top civil servants even in happier times.

(Despite a recent cut of up to 19%, the government here remains, by far, the highest paid in the world.)

The pay issue remains very controversial and contributes to the class division in society, a them-verses-us mentality that has apparently sharpened as a result of the economic crisis.

The whole episode has shown how the class – and social – divide is widening in high-tech Singapore.

The controversy over Tan’s trip has political implications for a government that is pondering over whether or not to call for a snap general election, which is not due until 2010-11.

In other developed countries from Britain to Japan, it would not have any impact since it involves a civil servant, not a political leader.

But the system is very different in Singapore, where the line separating the two hardly exists.

The Chinese characters “zeng fu” are used to describe the political leadership as well as the civil service.

Some questioned why Tan’s choice of spending his own wealth should be the public’s business – but not many are buying into it.

Established blogger Redbean articulated: “Tan is no ordinary, rich Singaporean. He is a senior civil servant ... and part of the governing elite.

“(He) should be seen as one who would be able to empathise with ordinary Singaporeans who are going through tough times ... (when) the Prime Minister is preparing the people for some belt-tightening and ‘bitter medicine’.”

Besides, if Tan had wished he should have spent his money at home to help the troubled economy rather than abroad, some believed.

Tan’s is by no means the only example of elitist snobbery, nor the worse.

A bigger controversy flared up four years ago when Wee Shu Min, the teenage daughter of a Member of Parliament, came across the blog of a Singaporean who wrote that he was worried about losing his job.

She called Derek Wee “one of many wretched, under-motivated, over-assuming leeches in our country.

“If you’re not good enough, life will kick you in the b***s ... Our society is, I quote, ‘far too survival of fittest’,” said Shu Min, who hailed from the elite Raffles Junior College.

“... Unless you are an arm-twisting commie bully, which, given your whiny, middle-class, under-educated penchant, I doubt,” she added before signing off with “please, get out of my elite uncaring face”.

The girl was flamed by hundreds of Singaporeans, but when her father Wee Siew Kim – an MP in Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s constituency – told a newspaper that “her basic point is reasonable”, the row moved well beyond blogosphere.

A news agency, in reporting this, said: “The episode highlighted a deep rift in Singapore society and was an embarrassment for the ruling People’s Action Party and PM Lee.”

Raffles JC, which has produced several state leaders, had another brush with student snobbishness.

When a student found that a Raffles girl was dating a boy from a lower-achieving neighbourhood school, he hit out at him and had a message for lower-ranking students everywhere.

“Quit trying to climb the social ladder by dating students from top schools.”

There are signs the class distinction is getting into some young minds.

A reporter recounted how her friend was shaken when her young daughter came home one day and mentioned in passing that poor people were “stupid, obviously”.

Video: AJE report on prostitution in Singapore

Source: Al-Jazeera English YouTube channel

"Yes, jobs of foreign workers are being cut" says anonymous official from MOM

This is a report from Mizzima News,

Singapore cut jobs of migrants

by The The & Myint Maung
Monday, 10 November 2008 14:08

New Delhi – With at least 10 Burmese workers in Singapore getting laid off in the past two weeks, workers in Singapore worries that more will follow in the coming days as Singapore harbours itself from the impacts of global financial meltdown.

"I was on this job for two months. My job is to supervise about 100 workers under me. They fired me on the ground of inefficiency," a Burmese worker who was sacked from 'Engmech' Construction Company in Singapore told Mizzima.

While Engmech refuse to comment on the firing, the Burmese worker said he felt it could be due to the global financial crisis.

"Firing me from the job coincided with the fall in stock prices. I don't think they have any more projects to employ us. There might be further job cuts," he said.

Another worker, who was dismissed from 'Sheng Wong' Construction Company said, "They fired me on account of lack of language proficiency. They said that I could not understand their language well and neither could I do the jobs assigned to me well enough."

Apart from Burmese workers, over 180 foreign workers from Philippines, Bangladesh, India and China have been fired so far from their jobs at 'Enmech' Construction Company," a Burmese worker who was sacked from the company said.

According to him, most of them recently fired from their jobs have poor educational background and little experience. Some of them have been here for only a few months with work permits.

However, the company that fires the employees says the workers are sacked basically because of their poor performance and not as an impact of the global financial crisis.

Meanwhile, an official from Singapore's Ministry of Manpower, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed the job cuts saying, "Yes, jobs of foreign workers are being cut".

But the official declined to give details on why workers were being fired and how many have been dismissed from their jobs so far.

When contacted, most of the companies, said that they were not cutting jobs because of the global economic crisis. But Xinhua news agency quoting the Minister of Trade and Industry reported on October 20 that Singapore was affected by the international financial crisis. The report quoted the Minister Lim Hing Kiang said that the global economic slowdown has affected the Singapore economy and domestic companies.

A few days after that, Singapore companies resorted to wage cuts of foreign workers working in their companies, some Burmese workers said.

A Burmese worker, employed in a computer parts manufacturing company said, "Our Company has not cut jobs yet but they are going to resort to wage cuts. We have heard that those earning under US$ 3,000 will face 6 per cent cuts in their wages and those earning over US$ 3,000 will have to bear 20 per cent cuts."

"The newcomers are facing many more difficulties here. The old ones are suffering only wage cuts," he added.

About 50,000 to 60,000 Burmese workers earn a livelihood in Singapore.

A dedicated TV channel after 45 years

Vasantham Central is a mostly Tamil-language, free-to-air, Indian TV channel in Singapore. I've mostly watched the channel for the Tamil movies.

Vasantham, which means Spring in Tamil, is celebrating because from today it'll have its own channel. Its billed by the station as a historic milestone in local broadcasting. It is indeed historic.

On the other hand, a friend of mine asked yesterday why did it take so long and do we have to wait another half-century for a second Indian channel. The channel is part of the government-controlled Mediacorp TV which has a monopoly of free-to-air TV in Singapore. It has taken 45 years since TV debuted nationwide on 2 April 1963 and through the many changes in the local broadcasting scene.

Its good that there's a dedicated channel now but it also says alot when it has taken 45 years to have one.

Stupid f@3$!%s spoiling for a fight

I read this report about an incident outside Plaza Singapura yesterday night. It was one of those why you look at me? things that led to a bloody fight.

To brand all teenagers, who gather with their friends, as troublemakers would be unfair.

But there are those idiotic assholes who are just spoiling for a fight over minor things. So to these idiots, if you really feel things can only be settled with violence, go get yourselves a one-way ticket to some war-torn or conflict ridden place in the world. You'll only need a one-way ticket because with that kind of an attitude, you won't need a ticket back.

We might as well live in darkness

Singapore households will see a rise of 21% in their electricity bills from Oct 1. According to another report its the highest one-time increase in seven to eight years.

The latest in a very long list of price increases that has pushed up the cost of living in Singapore.

Bloody salaries either stay the same or see a slight increase which, in turn, gets eaten up by the ever increasing prices. The only thing that sees an increase is the damn workload.

Pressure Builds on Singapore's System - FEER

The following article is written by Hugo Restall, editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review or FEER which, by the way, is being sued for defamation by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.

Pressure Builds on Singapore’s System by Hugo Restall

Posted on Sept. 5, 2008

During the National Day festivities last month, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s gloomy prognosis for the economy—a “bumpy year” ahead—was overshadowed by even more dire warnings that the city state is about to start running low on its main resource, people. With an aging society and one of the lowest fertility rates in the world at 1.29, the government is pulling out all the stops, doubling the budget of baby-making incentives to $1.13 billion. Meanwhile, in order to make Singapore a more tolerant and pluralistic place, political videos will be allowed, as well as protests in a downtown park.

It’s all straight from the ruling People’s Action Party’s standard playbook. Play up the anxiety of a small nation beset on all sides, in need of a strong government to take positive action to avert disaster. Individual citizens who are failing to live up to the expectations of society need to be brought back into line. At the same time, leaders are willing to give those citizens a few of their rights back, as long as they are not used to undermine harmony.

Since Mr. Lee took over the premiership in 2004, Singaporeans have been watching for any sign he plans to reform substantially the authoritarian state created by his father, Singapore’s founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. So far there has been little indication that in his heart the prime minister is a liberal democrat. But the system of control is coming under increasing stress due to the changing structure of society. A process of subtle change will continue to be driven by pressure from below, rather than a change of heart at the top.

Last month’s gestures far fall short of lifting what the opposition calls the climate of fear—past experience, such as the detention of former Solicitor General Francis Seow in 1988, suggests that retribution for challenging the PAP can come in many forms, from bureaucratic harassment to detention without trial under the Internal Security Act. The government is making a virtue out of necessity by lifting the 10-year-old ban on making or showing political films, and allowing political podcasts during election campaigns. Oppositionists were successfully skirting the restrictions, so that they only served to hamstring the PAP's own efforts to utilize online media. The opening of a protest area is a token gesture, which no doubt will be raised to deflect international criticism the next time police arrest dissident politician Chee Soon Juan for illegal assembly. In that sense, the move suggested that Mr. Chee’s campaign of civil disobedience is causing some heartburn within the regime.

But the real problem is not Mr. Chee—the stressors on Singapore’s political machine lie elsewhere. The PAP’s legitimacy has always rested on its performance, backed by trust in the party. Given its chaotic past and neighbors, Lee Kuan Yew argued, the tiny country could not afford the risks associated with liberal democracy. In the past that argument was largely taken at face value by the Chinese working class, despite the experiences of other Asian nations that contradicted it. Today, however, there is more apathy than agreement. No one seriously questions the PAP’s track record of governance or probity of its top leaders, yet trust is giving way to resentment at the party’s arrogance.

The main proof is in the erosion of the party’s share of the popular vote in elections. In 2006, it hit 66.6%, down from 75% in 2001, and 75.6% in 1980. In the past, opposition parties deliberately refrained from contesting more than half of the seats, since they found that while some Singaporeans wanted to cast a protest vote, they would not vote for the opposition if there was any chance the PAP would be thrown out of office. But in 2006, the opposition contest 47 of 84 seats, suggesting that the PAP’s hold on voters’ loyalty is not as fearsome as before.

Why is this? For one thing, Singaporeans are better versed in critical thinking. During the 1980s and '90s, people may have grown wealthy, but they remained politically unsophisticated. Development happened so quickly that it took decades for education levels to catch up. According to the government statistics, between 1990 and 2005 the percentage of the population with a university degree grew to 17% from 4.5%. That is matched by an even more dramatic shift in individual age cohorts—in 2005, 32.1% of 30-34 year olds had a university degree, as compared to just 6.6% of 50-54 year olds. The language spoken at home is now predominantly English, meaning that Singaporeans are increasingly able to learn about and interact with the outside world.

Moreover, the PAP has pushed the economic structure of the country in a direction that is no longer win-win for all classes. A certain amount of economic inequality is tolerable as long as there is a sense that everyone’s lives are improving. But inequality and real hardship are on the rise, as inflation running at 6.5% erases the 3.3% wage gains that the poorest tenth of the population enjoyed last year, even as the top tenth picked up an 11.1% increase in income. PAP loyalists control a lucrative web of government-linked companies, while ministers have also picked up big pay rises, since their salaries are indexed to the private sector, making them some of the world’s highest paid politicians. As for social mobility, the top scholarships, which are a ticket into the elite, increasingly go to students from wealthy families that live in private apartments, rather than public housing.

Despite this trend, the PAP is unwilling to dismantle its policies of holding wages low in order to attract multinational companies to invest. This was a strategy born of necessity in the 1960s, when Singapore was short of capital and struggling to catch up with Hong Kong’s model of creating an export-oriented growth. Today it is economically obsolete, yet it suits the government politically because the combination of state-owned companies and politically quiescent multinationals prevents the emergence of an independent commercial class that might push for political change.

The result is a top-down economy which is running up against the limits of its capacity to drive growth. Without an entrepreneurial class and successful home-grown companies, Singapore’s productivity growth has historically lagged behind that of its laissez-faire twin, Hong Kong. As University of Chicago economist Alwyn Young showed in a 1992 paper, Singapore had one of the lowest returns on physical capital in the world. Its growth has been fueled by forced savings programs shoveling ever increasing amounts of capital into the furnace, rather than by innovation or managerial efficiency.

Mr. Lee’s administration has found that the only way to defuse public dissatisfaction is to do something the PAP consistently condemned as the hallmark of Western democracies: Give away money. The government used to damn welfare as a dirty word, yet transfer spending is on the rise. This year, $2.1 billion in giveaways were planned. Then last month Mr. Lee announced a 50% increase, totaling $179.8 million, in utility rebates and “growth dividends”—cash payments to households that started in 2006. The new prime minister has brought in other social spending programs for the poor. For instance in the 2008 budget, the Ministry of Manpower’s expenditure rose by 184%, almost entirely due to a new scheme of workfare, the $306 million Income Security Policy Programme.

The pressure for more entitlements will only grow as retirees find that their savings do not provide enough of a cushion. The compulsory government-run Central Provident Fund sucked up a huge percentage of income to finance the state’s development goals, but offered dismally low returns. As a result, many of the generation that built the Singapore miracle now finds itself eking out a retirement in public housing while the government surpluses remain under the management of the PAP.

Beside the carrot, there is also a stick. Starting in 1985, the PAP began to warn voters that if they supported the opposition, their government-built apartment buildings would not get priority for maintenance. This was gradually refined to the point that in 1997, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong explicitly campaigned on the promise that individual precincts would get housing renovation spending according to their votes. When the U.S. State Department condemned this as undemocratic, the interference of foreigners was used as another rallying cry.

Indeed, it seems that Singapore is increasingly cursed with the shortcomings of a democracy without enjoying the benefits. During the 2006 campaign, Prime Minister Lee inadvertently blurted out his fears of what would happen if there were more opposition members of parliament: “Instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I’m going to spend all my time thinking what’s the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters’ votes….” Putting aside the ominous sound of “fixing” opponents, the remark was ironic because the PAP now expends so much effort to buy the support of the populace with giveaways, all in order to avoid the transparency and accountability that a vibrant opposition would bring.

Some younger Singaporeans with skills respond to this by voting with their feet, moving abroad to find greater freedom and a higher standard of living working with the kind of entrepreneurial companies that Singapore has yet to create. In order to eventually win some of them back, the possibility of recognizing dual nationality is increasingly discussed, a move that would represent a huge concession for a nation-building party that demands self-reliance and sacrifice of its citizenry.

In the place of the émigrés, foreign workers are flooding in to man the factories, docks and construction sites, as the government steadily opens the doors wider. Foreign workers already account for more than one million of the total population of 4.6 million. Among the immigrants are talented individuals like the Chinese table tennis players who provided the country with its first Olympic medal last month. But they lack the loyalty to the country that the PAP has put a premium on.

If Singapore were a plural democracy, it would no doubt have developed an independent civil society capable of binding together the native-born and immigrants, providing mutual support. But the PAP and Lee Kuan Yew are like the African baobab tree, whose spreading canopy hogs the sun and prevents other trees from growing up underneath. Such a society may be easier to control, but it is also alienated and rootless, jealous of others’ gains—the oft-quoted national characteristic, kiasu, literally means “fear of losing.” In a developed economy that depends on attracting and retaining creative individuals, this has become a significant handicap.

The arrogance of the winners in society is becoming a major issue. The elder Mr. Lee’s ego is legendary, but given his accomplishments it is perhaps understandable. When his minions take on similar airs, however, it is a different story. In one extreme example two years ago, a furor erupted after the daughter of MP Wee Siew Kim used her blog to berate a man afraid of losing his job as “one of many wretched, undermotivated, overassuming leeches in our country” who should “get out of my elite uncaring face.” To make matters worse, Mr. Wee tried to defend her remarks.

Naturally the PAP is aware of these trends and that its monopoly on power has become an important issue in itself. Over the years it has tried to come up with mechanisms for citizens to register their complaints and blow off steam. The government no longer seeks to destroy all opposition, leaving alone and even praising those tame MPs who focus on constituents’ issues rather than the PAP’s system of social control. Yet ultimately there is no solution to this problem, since the party is unwilling to share power in any meaningful sense.

A siege mentality has been the hallmark of Singaporean politics for four decades, often with good justification given hostile neighboring governments to the north and south. Yet it is increasingly hard today to see how that anxiety can be justified and maintained. The generation now coming onto the political scene grew up in at least moderate prosperity, and may not be so easily bullied into voting for the PAP. It is eager to put down roots and create a civil society. So far the PAP has finessed this aspiration without compromising its control.

Prime Minister Lee can afford to be sanguine for now, with the security apparatus, corporatist economy and civil service all at his command. Yet if this economic downturn worsens, he will be confronted with a more difficult choice of whether to accede to demands for greater pluralism. As academic Michael Haas once wrote, “Whenever the public exercises the independence of thought that better education brings, ‘a danger to be nipped in the bud’ or some similar cliché is articulated as the basis for repression.” It bears remembering that the laws like the Internal Security Act that have been used in past such exercises remain on the books. If pushed too hard, Lee Hsien Loong still has the means to prove he is his father’s son.

Mr. Restall is editor of the REVIEW.

Photos from first day of "relaxed rules" allowing public demonstrations at Speakers Corner

This blogpost was originally posted at 0045hrs. It has been updated at 1155hrs with a TODAY report at the end.

The new "relaxed rules" took effect yesterday as part of a so-called political liberalisation.

I took these photos when i was there from about 7.20pm onwards. What stood out for me were these leaflets, small and large, written in Chinese, which were pasted on the Speakers Corner sign/information boards located around the park. When i asked an elderly Chinese man, who was passing-by, what the leaflets said, he just told me its about grievances on many issues Singaporeans have with the PAP government. (Click on photos to see a larger version)










These are the rest of the photos i took. Hearer of Cries, a non-profit group according to its website and a Feb 08 report, which offers help to abused maids was the only one to hold a demonstration on the first day,

---

Softly spoken at the Corner

TODAY, Sept 2, 2008

Tan Hui Leng

THUS was a milestone in free expression marked: A lone businessman putting up posters to draw attention to failed overseas investments, and a group staging an express demonstration on the plight of abused maids.

But if such fledgling efforts at public demonstrations were disappointing to some who turned up expecting far more fire, at least, it was not the no-show that had been expected originally.

At about 9am yesterday — the first day that rules were relaxed at Speakers’ Corner at Hong Lim Park — 52-year-old businessman Teng Liang Huat registered to put up an exhibition that afternoon.

And at the last minute, non-profit group Hearers of Cries, which had earlier registered its evening event as a speech, decided to change this into a demonstration instead, complete with banners.

Much fanfare had led up to the liberalisation of rules: A police permit was no longer needed to speak at the park, visual aids were allowed as were sound amplifiers. Scenarios such as the burning of political effigies or a gay pride parade had seemed real possibilities, with authorities not objecting when these were suggested to them.

So it was that many, like retiree Roger Poh, 61, dropped by in keen anticipation yesterday evening, to see what would take place.

Mr Poh, who came all the way from Jalan Kayu, felt short-changed by the 22-minute ‘demonstration’ from Hearer of Cries – it began with founder Mike Goh appealing for whistle-blowers on maid abuses, after which a volunteer dressed up as an abused maid (complete with paint-on bruises and neck brace) appealed for help.

The speeches lasted less than three minutes in all.

“I’m very disappointed, I expected more,” Mr Poh told TODAY. “I was hoping for demonstrations at the last minute on more controversial topics such as ERP, ministerial salaries and cost of living. This (maid abuse) issue is innocuous. It’s an anti-climax.”

Alan Tan bemoaned the turnout of about 30 to 40 persons. “I though all of Singapore knew, why are they not here?” asked the 50-year-old teacher. “It’s Teacher’s Day today – we should see more students and teachers. Are they scared or are they just not interested?”

And where was the opposition, or other local activists, some wondered.

As Mr Poh said: “It’s the first day and all the media is here; it’s the perfect opportunity to be heard.”

‘Hopefully someone can help me’

Some expressed pessimism over whether interest in Hong Lim Park could be sustained.

One or two in the crowd were heard mumbling that it would likely “die a natural death” – the same way that Speaker’s Corner had opened on Sept 1, 2000 with a bang that quickly sizzled out, some said largely due to its out-of-the-way location.

Architect Foo Siew Mun, for one, believes that the Internet is now the focal point as a new-age discussion forum and real live demonstrations have become less effective in pushing causes.

But for individuals like Mr Teng – who literally put his name in the record books when he registered to put up posters yesterday – it was a way to vent his frustrations.

Between 1pm and 5pm, he put up hundreds of notices in Chinese typeface, expounding on Singapore businessmen’s misadventures overseas and the bureaucratic red-tape faced. He had apparently run into legal issues when investing in a property overseas.

“I’m using this as a platform to voice my concerns about issues and hopefully, somebody can help me out,” said Mr Teng, who had learnt about the looser rules at Speakers’ Corner only the day before.

He was approached by members of the media, curious tourists and other passers-by, like law student Kerushnan who had dropped by with friends to see if there was “any action”.

Mr Kerushnan, 38, was upbeat about the opportunity for the man in the street to voice his opinions and concerns. Unfortunately, the second event of the day ended too early for the student who had classes in the evening – Hearer of Cries had registered for their demonstration to end at 9pm, but started packing up before 7.25pm.

The seven-member group, which set up a website in 2002, encourages the public to report maid abuse and offers vouchers as rewards. Founder Mr Goh appeared a tad overwhelmed by the keen media attention and declined to elaborate much on the organisation, refering reporters instead to its website.

“Everyone of us here can play apart to prevent maid abuse,” he said, and yesterday’s demonstration was a small start – the group intends to use Speakers’ Corner as a regular platform to spread its message.

After all, as architect Mr Foo put it succintly: “It’s a start.”

And a soft one at that.

Aug 9, 1965 - Aug 9, 2008 -.........

This is a speech on patriotism by Barack Obama which he delivered on 30 June, 2008. Its a very inspiring speech. Alot of what he said can also be applied, and has much relevance, to Singapore as we approach our 43rd year of independence on Aug 9. The selected passages below are from the speech. Full transcript here.




In other words, the use of patriotism as a political sword or a political shield is as old as the Republic.

Most Americans understood that dissent does not make one unpatriotic.

None of us expect that arguments about patriotism will, or should, vanish entirely; after all, when we argue about patriotism, we are arguing about who we are as a country, and more importantly, who we should be. But surely we can agree that no party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism. And surely we can arrive at a definition of patriotism that, however rough and imperfect, captures the best of America's common spirit.

For me, as for most Americans, patriotism starts as a gut instinct, a loyalty and love for country rooted in my earliest memories. I'm not just talking about the recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance or the Thanksgiving pageants at school or the fireworks on the Fourth of July, as wonderful as those things may be. Rather, I'm referring to the way the American ideal wove its way throughout the lessons my family taught me as a child.

I remember, when living for four years in Indonesia as a child, listening to my mother reading me the first lines of the Declaration of Independence – "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I remember her explaining how this declaration applied to every American, black and white and brown alike; how those words, and words of the United States Constitution, protected us from the injustices that we witnessed other people suffering during those years abroad. That's my idea of America.

I came to understand that our revolution was waged for the sake of that belief – that we could be governed by laws, not men; that we could be equal in the eyes of those laws; that we could be free to say what we want and assemble with whomever we want and worship as we please; that we could have the right to pursue our individual dreams but the obligation to help our fellow citizens pursue theirs.

That is why, for me, patriotism is always more than just loyalty to a place on a map or a certain kind of people. Instead, it is also loyalty to America's ideals – ideals for which anyone can sacrifice, or defend, or give their last full measure of devotion. I believe it is this loyalty that allows a country teeming with different races and ethnicities, religions and customs, to come together as one.

Of course, precisely because America isn't perfect, precisely because our ideals constantly demand more from us, patriotism can never be defined as loyalty to any particular leader or government or policy. As Mark Twain, that greatest of American satirists and proud son of Missouri, once wrote, "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." We may hope that our leaders and our government stand up for our ideals, and there are many times in our history when that's occurred. But when our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expression of patriotism.

Recognizing a wrong being committed in this country's name; insisting that we deliver on the promise of our Constitution – these are the acts of patriots, men and women who are defending that which is best in America. And we should never forget that – especially when we disagree with them; especially when they make us uncomfortable with their words.

Beyond a loyalty to America's ideals, beyond a willingness to dissent on behalf of those ideals, I also believe that patriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice – to give up something we value on behalf of a larger cause.

We must remember, though, that true patriotism cannot be forced or legislated with a mere set of government programs. Instead, it must reside in the hearts of our people, and cultivated in the heart of our culture, and nurtured in the hearts of our children.

It is up to us, then, to teach them. It is up to us to teach them that even though we have faced great challenges and made our share of mistakes, we have always been able to come together and make this nation stronger, and more prosperous, and more united, and more just. It is up to us to teach them that America has been a force for good in the world, and that other nations and other people have looked to us as the last, best hope of Earth. It is up to us to teach them that it is good to give back to one's community; that it is honorable to serve in the military; that it is vital to participate in our democracy and make our voices heard.

Our greatest leaders have always understood this. They've defined patriotism with an eye toward posterity. George Washington is rightly revered for his leadership of the Continental Army, but one of his greatest acts of patriotism was his insistence on stepping down after two terms, thereby setting a pattern for those that would follow, reminding future presidents that this is a government of and by and for the people.

Abraham Lincoln did not simply win a war or hold the Union together. In his unwillingness to demonize those against whom he fought; in his refusal to succumb to either the hatred or self-righteousness that war can unleash; in his ultimate insistence that in the aftermath of war the nation would no longer remain half slave and half free; and his trust in the better angels of our nature – he displayed the wisdom and courage that sets a standard for patriotism.

Harry S Truman, who sat in the White House during his final days in office and said in his Farewell Address: "When Franklin Roosevelt died, I felt there must be a million men better qualified than I, to take up the Presidential task…But through all of it, through all the years I have worked here in this room, I have been well aware than I did not really work alone – that you were working with me. No President could ever hope to lead our country, or to sustain the burdens of this office, save the people helped with their support."

Has our government received information of an imminent threat?

If you think the title of this post sounds alarmist, you should read this news report from CNA.

I can understand such big events will have major security in place. But I don't recall reading or seeing such news reports, in the past, just days before a big event like the NDP, with very vivid language such as,

Police and Civil Defence officers said they are on full standby in case of any attacks on the parade grounds or elsewhere in Singapore.

And depending on the nature of the incident, they may order a mass evacuation.

Where needed, paramedics and doctors will also be called in. In case of a chemical attack, a bus can transform into a personnel decontamination vehicle that can also serve as a mass casualty ambulance.

It could probably be that the authorities just want to reassure the public and this is just routine especially in this day and age.

I'm not an expert but i've read quite a bit (i still do), on issues related to terrorism, from different sources, eg. news reports, books and articles by experts and those who have had dealings & experience with terrorism issues, etc. These are all publicly available material for anyone whose interested. And one of the things described in these material is how the public is warned beforehand, via the media, of any imminent threat/attack. The language used in such reports are especially very stark, vivid and specific.

When i read the CNA report, it just made me wonder if the government has received any credible information about an imminent threat or impending attack. Of course, its not my intention to be an alarmist nor to create panic or any such nonsense.

I'm just thinking out loud and worried for peoples' safety.

So tell me, how much do HDB flats actually cost??

I think i should start some sort of a series titled What are the actual....??. Here's another issue. This time its about the cost of building HDB flats in which 80-90% of Singaporeans live. Have a look at these letters published in the Straits Times Forum....

July 22, 2008

Affordable HDB flats: Costings don't add up

I REFER to last Wednesday's letter from the HDB, 'How HDB flats are priced affordably'. It mentioned that a new four-room flat costs close to $300,000 to develop, taking into account land, building and other costs. It did not give details of how each cost is calculated.

I remember a similar Forum letter on July 12, 2004, asking the same questions. It was mentioned that one HDB contractor built flats in Bukit Batok for $50,400 each in 2000.

Even now, factoring in higher construction cost, I estimate building cost is $100,000 to $150,000. That leaves nearly $150,000 to $200,000 for land and other costs. A single block of flats typically has 100 units. That means land (and other costs) on which a single block of flats stands costs $15 to $20 million. Can it cost so much?

For $15 to $20 million, what kind of property can one buy? In District 9 or 10, one can buy property up to 20,000 sq ft.

So is the HDB willing to release details on actual construction costs, say in the Punggol or Sengkang area?

Steven Yeo

Aug 1, 2008

HDB flats: Low figure is building costs alone

I REFER to the letter, 'Affordable HDB flats: Costings don't add up' by Mr Steven Yeo (July 22).

Mr Yeo cited a Forum page letter published on July 12, 2004, where the writer gave the construction cost of a new flat as $50,400.

This does not give the full picture of how much it costs to build flats. As HDB explained in its reply of July 23, 2004, the figures cited relate only to building works. The total construction cost of flats includes other costs such as infrastructure, piling works, lift installation, consultancy and project management, financing and purchase of land.

We have explained before in previous letters that the total cost of development in the current market is about $300,000 for a four-room flat in Punggol-Sengkang New Town. This is significantly higher than the subsidised price of a four-room flat in Punggol-Sengkang sold by HDB at about $200,000 to $260,000.

Kee Lay Cheng (Ms)
Deputy Director (Marketing and Projects)
for Director (Estate Administration and Property)
Housing and Development Board

This issue has been around for a very long time and for which the government hasn't adequately and fully replied to. If they did, the question wouldn't be around for so long, would it now. Is there anything to hide?

Its not so difficult to give a breakdown of the costs, unless of course, they fear revealing them and letting the public debate about it. Don't tell me giving a detailed breakdown would endanger Singapore's national security or something along that line. Errr...right.

Its really quite pathetic that, as citizens, we have to practically beg for such things.

WHAT are the ACTUAL numbers??

Back in Feb 08, it was reported "Singapore is losing about 1,000 of its best and brightest every year and the numbers are growing, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has said.." and "Citing figures of Singaporeans who gave up their citizenship and took out their savings and CPF funds, he said this meant 'losing about, at the top end, 1,000 a year, which is about - if you take the top 30 per cent of the population - about four or five per cent".

Last week, it was reported that according to DPM Wong "In the last three years, an average of 1,000 Singaporeans gave up their citizenship each year".

So, is the MM and DPM citing the same figures?? If that's the case, does it mean ALL these 1000 are Singapore's "best and brightest"?? If its not, does it then mean they are citing two different figures, meaning about 2000 give up their citizenship??

For a government that collects so much information on its citizens, it strains credulity that they don't have the actual numbers.

Our biggest struggle is not against the PAP, it is against what the PAP has done to our minds

That phrase in the post header says it all, doesn't it. Sums up quite alot in one phrase. It comes from a SDP article....

No credible people in the opposition?

20 july 08

Of course the PAP has credible people within its ranks. With a former judge, a mathematician, a senior legal officer, top lawyers, medical doctors, economists, academics and senior journalists, who can gainsay that the ruling party is well endowed in the credibility department?

What about the opposition? According to some “poll watchers” Singapore's opposition has some ways to go before it can match the PAP. And as long as it cannot do this, electoral success will be elusive. (See report below)

Indeed, Mr Lee Kuan Yew avers that all he is trying to do with his hardball politics is to force the opposition to gather candidates whose competence and integrity can compete with that found in such abundance in his party.

Agreeing, Professor Eugene Tan says that the opposition needs to work towards gathering a “brain trust” and build up a “government-in-waiting.”

Even Workers' Party Chairman Sylvia Lim concurs, saying that the opposition needs to “focus on getting credible people elected into Parliament.”

Of course Mr Lee, Professor Tan and Ms Lim are absolutely right about electing only “credible” people into parliament. Which Singaporean wants to elect a bunch of riff-raff into the legislature?

Unfortunately, the three miss the point (Mr Lee deliberately, of course).

It may surprise readers that the long list of high-calibre professionals mentioned in the opening paragraph does not, in fact, belong to the PAP; it belongs to the opposition.

From Drs Poh Soo Kai, Lee Siew Choh, and Lim Hock Siew (medical professionals) to Mr David Marshall (our first prime minister) to Mr Jeyaretnam (former judge) to Mr Francis Seow (former solicitor-general) to Mr Tang Liang Hong (senior lawyer) to Mr Chia Thye Poh (mathematician) to Mr Said Zahari (journalist), Singapore had men of distinction serving in the opposition, men whose moral and intellectual calibre take no backseat to anyone in the PAP.

Even today, the opposition has no dearth of professionals, lawyers, PhD holders and medical professionals in its camp. Many more than measure up to the Lim Swee Says, Mah Bow Tans, and Wong Kan Sengs.

Admittedly, there is a distinction between the PAP men and those serving in the opposition: the ones in the latter group are not motivated by money.

Another difference is that while the credibility of the PAP folks need Viagra-like boosts from the media they control, oppositionists are persecuted in every manner conceivable. Credible Singaporeans, after joining the opposition and given the Straits-Times treatment, very quickly become not credible.

Not true? Think International Bar Association (IBA). The organisation was good and lauded by Mr Lee Kuan Yew because unlike other Western liberal NGOs, it understood what the PAP was about. That is, until it opined that the Lee system needed reform.

Overnight the IBA was relegated to the ranks of those out to destroy Singapore and therefore no longer credible. Never mind the fact that Mr Lee made absolutely no sense and that he was his usual disingenuous self. What is disconcerting is that no one dared to tell him to his face what he really is, an old autocrat in whose mind intellectual decency matters little.

In the same vein, Mr Lee and those who can't think differently continue to parrot the untruth that the opposition cannot attract “credible” Singaporeans. How can the opposition attract good people when we measure goodness according to the Book of Lee?

And for goodness' sake, how do we define it? Are paper qualifications the be-all and end-all of what constitute good national leaders? Do principles, passion and personal beliefs not count at all in the make-up of our ministers and parliamentarians? What is the benefit of having row after row of MPs whose "competence" are measured by whether they graduated with first- or second-class honours, but who care more about what their party boss thinks than about how policies they pass affect the people they say they serve?

Society must not continue to allow the PAP's conceptions unchallenged. More important, the opposition must have the intellectual capacity to, before accepting the notion that we cannot attract good candidates, examine whether this premise is, in the first place, true.

Remember, our biggest struggle is not against the PAP, it is against what the PAP has done to our minds.

Video of tak boleh tahan event on 25 May at Toa Payoh Lorong 1

SDP was back in Toa Payoh for another tak boleh tahan (can't take it, unbearable) campaign event. A follow-up to the one they had on labour day.

Common forms of racism that Singaporean Indians experience in their daily lives

Some excerpts from an article mentioned in a blogpost i read recently. The article was written by Dr Selvaraj Velayutham,

In this paper, I outline some of the common forms of racism that Singaporean Indians experience in their daily lives. Though other racial minority groups such as the Malays and Eurasians also experience racism within the Chinese dominated Singaporean society, I am limiting my focus to the Indians as my research is based on this community.

It should be pointed out that the experience of racism among the Malays has been well documented (see Tremewan 1996 & Rahim 1998). Moreover, because the Malays are often singled out as a “socially and economically underachieving” community in Singapore which in turn has generated critical response and resentment from countries like Indonesia and Malaysia, racism towards the Malays is also well publicised.

However, racism towards the Indians has received little public attention. Even though Indians face racial discrimination in their everyday lives, their high socio-economic standing relative to their population size puts them as a prosperous and successful community in Singapore. As a result, racism has been become a non-issue for the India community and effectively ruling out the possibility of articulating experiences of racism discrimination in any official capacity.

In this paper, I seek to document some of the everyday experiences and practices of racism in Singapore. Using empirical material and research field notes, I will outline a range of subtle to explicit forms of racism that manifest in different social spaces in Singapore (indeed, there are more research that needs to be done in studying structural and institutional racism). I argue that while the city-state actively engages in activities targeted at 'fostering social cohesion' and is ever vigilant at suppressing overt racist provocations, with few exceptions it has effectively silenced the voices of people who are at the receiving end of everyday racism.

Be prepared to use hand gestures unless you can speak the chinese language

Came across this Forbes report yesterday,

Singapore's Unloved Chinese Labor Boom

Low-skilled workers from China are ubiquitous in Singapore these days: in the shiny new terminal of Changi Airport, in coffee shops, in shopping malls, in supermarkets, at gas stations, at construction sites and populating the much-loved open-air food courts called hawker centers.

They also make their presence felt in five-star hotels, where one recent encounter found a Mandarin-speaking maid who could not comprehend a word of English. Most recently, Singapore's two bus companies began hiring drivers from China.

Chinese workers are just one constituency in Singapore's fast-growing foreign population, but they are the largest component of an expatriate contingent that crossed the 1 million mark in October, helping boost the overall population to 4.68 million in an otherwise chronically aging society. Foreigners make up about one-third of the national workforce. The country set a goal to raise its population total to 6.5 million within two decades, rejuvenating itself mainly through immigration from India and China.

But the sudden influx of workers from China appears to have taken ordinary Singaporeans by surprise, as the low-skilled and the elderly start to find themselves losing jobs to the newcomers. The tidal wave of mainland Chinese workers began last year, when Singapore relaxed its rules to allow more immigration to staff its service industries, part of its measures to address an acute labor shortage resulting from a boom in the construction, marine, manufacturing and services sectors. Beginning this year, Singaporean companies were allowed to draw on foreigners for up to 50% of their labor force; 10% can be Chinese nationals. Previously, the respective figures were 45% and 5%.

The government last year reckoned 450,000 jobs will be created in the next five years; the country's annual birth rate is only 30,000.

As Chinese workers with distinct and varied provincial accents proliferate, so do natives' complaints about their loudness and lack of mastery of English. Their popularity with the city-state's employers, who like their work ethic and low wage expectations, further fuels resentment.

They threaten the job security of Singapore's most unskilled, the low-wage workers who earn less than 1,200 Singapore dollars ($872.73) a month, numbering about 350,000. "There are so many of them everywhere, the mainland Chinese," a taxi driver lamented. "They take away our jobs and force poor people to go unemployed."

This month, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong tried to place the issue in context, arguing that the majority of Singaporeans have benefited from rising household incomes, a boon stemming from the country's historically low unemployment rate. This follows four consecutive years of strong economic growth.

But labor activists view things differently. The Workers' Party pointed out that Singaporeans are being left behind by the recent boom: more than 60% of the record 236,600 new jobs created last year went to foreigners.

I like to eat the chinese cooked rice from my neighbourhood coffeeshops. It tastes good, its cheap and filling. But the problem isn't with the prices. At least not yet.

Increasingly, food stalls like these, across Singapore, are being staffed with workers from China and they mostly speak the chinese language. And there's the problem. I don't speak nor understand chinese. ok maybe the vulgarities! Point is, when i go to the food stalls these days, i find myself using hand gestures for simple things like less rice, more rice, a bit more curry, no curry and stuff like that. Its a bummer for people who are not chinese or don't speak chinese.

But no choice mah, i still gotta eat what! And the cooked rice is solid lah! :-)