JBJ’s wake at Mount Vernon, 30 September 2008, 7pm

Article and photos by Eugene Yeo

I arrived at Mount Vernon at 8.30pm as the visitors started to stream in. Rolls of wreaths from many friends, supporters and well-wishers lined the entrance as I walked in together with my wife.

Zhi Yuan couldn’t make it in the last minute as his father was admitted to hospital while Fairuz was breaking fast with his family, so I was the only one from the gang who is present.

 

The journalists were early as usual, taking photos and interviewing the guests. I wondered what they will write in the papers tomorrow ?

 

JBJ’s books were on sale at a booth, but nobody seems to be buying it. I guess most of us are too distraught by the sudden departure of JBJ to accept it.

 

A few familar faces appeared – Ti Lik, E Jay, Kum Hong, Teck Siong, WP members Shin Leong and Melvin Tan. Uncle Yap appeared lost and disconsolate. It must be a terrible blow to him.

 

The TOC guys were there too. They appeared to be in great spirits, chatting and cracking small jokes with one another. Andrew Loh was dressed in a blue T-shirt together with another bespectacled chap and a young girl in black trying to interview one of the guests who was obviously not in a mood to talk.

We walked into the chapel and pay our respects to JBJ. My wife and I had never seen JBJ before in real life. I felt a tinge of sadness that I never had the chance to shook the hands of this great man.

Philip thanked us for coming, his eyes were still red. JBJ has a history of heart problem, but his condition was stable all along. Nobody expects his heart will fail him suddenly last night. The medical team at TTSH had tried their best to revive him to no avail. God has brought his worthy son home.

We left halfway as the rain started to pour. As I walked pass the booth, I stole a glance at the Reform Party donation box with JBJ’s books piling on top of the table. I can’t help worrying about the future of Reform Party. Who is going to take over JBJ and complete his unfinished work ?

Wake and funeral of Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam

            

Wake for late Mr JBJ will be held from tonight Tuesday 30 Sept 2008 at Mount Vernon Complex – Funeral Parlour One – off Upper Aljunied Road. (see map).

For those brothers driving, exit by Braddell from CTE, turn right and drive straight and turn right into Upper Seranganoon Road. Turn left at the first junction into Upper Aljunied Road when you drive pass the Woodleigh MRT station.

Funeral will be on Saturday 4.Oct.2008 from Mount Vernon to Mandai Crematorium at 3pm (1500hr).

We will keep you up to date with any other changes. Please spread the message around.

The Peidu Mama phenomenon: A ‘procreativity’ policy in disguise ?

By Cheng Siew Peng

China imports have hogged the headlines lately from tainted milk formula, candies, yoghurt bars, chocolates and now its women, not that it is the first time.

A gruesome murder occured last Friday at Yishun involving China nationals residing in Singapore (read CNA report here). Three women, purportedly flat mates, were murdered in cold blood by a middle-aged China man. One whose body was found in a rubbish chute, was thrown down from the flat while the other two died from multiple stab wounds. The sole survivor is a 14 year old girl who is now fighting for her life in TTSH ICU.

While the motives for the murder are unclear as of now, reports carried by the Chinese evening dailies Shin Ming and Wanbao revealed that the women are two Peidu Mamas and their daughters. Yang Jie, described as a “stunning beauty” by reporters,  apparently had 4 lovers in Singapore while her 2nd husband lives with the younger daughter in Dalian, China.

The latest high-profile murder cases involving China women has again put the spotlight back on plight of Peidu mamas in Singapore, a term used to described single China women who come to Singapore to take care of their children who are studying here.

A quick check on the ICA website show that it is relatively easy for Peidu Mamas to obtain a social pass to stay with their children in Singapore, the caveat being that they are not employable during their time in Singapore. They are required to renew their pass on a yearly basis, otherwise they can stay indefinitely here as long they do not break the laws of the land.

This special provision for Peidu mamas is unique in the developed world. Foreign children studying here can be taken care of by a guardian. While the mother should be allowed frequent visits, there is really no need for them to stay in Singapore to accompany their children.

Now, tell me how many women who have a happy family are willing to leave for another country with their children for a prolonged period of time without their husbands by their sides ? Needless to say, the majority of these Peidu mamas come from a complicated family background – either divorced, separated or estranged from their husbands in China.

Have the ICA authorities ever considered how these Peidu mamas are going to support themselves and their children in Singapore whose cost of living is much higher than in China ? Unless they are already quite well-off in China, they are probably not going to survive here for long if they are unable to find any work.

Being alone, vulnerable and penniless in a foreign country, a few of them turned to vice such as prostitution, KTV hostress and masseurs to earn a living while others prey on Singapore men to be become their mistresses or sex toys in return for financial support.

Given the fact that long-term social passes are given almost indiscriminately to these Peidu mamas with little consideration for their social and family circumstances, it leaves one to wonder if this is an insidious “procreativity” policy introduced by the authorities concerned to boost Singapore’s flagging birth rate, especially of the Chinese population.

Nubile, fertile and hapless young mothers are an attractive and easy target for both horny single men, mostly blue collar workers who are unable to find a Singapore wife and dirty old men flushed with cash seeking fresh and exotic pleasures of the flesh which their greying wives are unable to provide.

While we must admit that some of these “liaisons” did lead to the production of new recruits for our army in the future, there is a hidden unspoken social cost which most of us have heard of and yet seldom highlighted by the mainstream media.

Being brought up in a highly materialistic, competitive and atheist society in China, many of these China women have no qualms trading their bodies in exchange for material wealth and possessions if solely out of maternal instinct to give their children a bright future.

I would like to relate two cases in real life which has happened to somebody I know:

1. M is a very successful business woman who runs a fashion chain. She has been married for more than 20 years, but has no children. Her husband who works in the civil service, earn less than her. Being a career driven woman, M spends long hours at work in order to pay for the apartment, car and other household expenses. A few months ago, her husband started borrowing money from her to “invest” in stocks. Unwittingly, she lent him ten of thousands of dollars until she found out that he has been supporting a Peidu mama and her daughter behind her back. She was shocked, depressed and suicidal. However, she still wanted to salvage the marriage. Her husband filed for divorce, claiming that the China woman knows how to “please him better” in bed.

2. J is a retired dentist with 3 children who are married and living with their own families. His wife of 40 years is a homemaker. During a visit to a massage salon in Chinatown, he came to know this middle-aged Peidu mama whom he soon become bescotted with. Not surprisingly, he got into a rendezvous with her and began traveling with her frequently back to her hometown in China. A year into the affair, the Peidu mama requested for a loan of S$300,000 from J to build a “love-nest” in China for both of them to retire “happily” in. After J transferred the sum to her bank account in China, the woman vanished into thin air together with her child. Even her family in China had relocated en masse.

I am pretty sure this represents only the tip of the iceberg and readers here will have many similar stories to share too. There has never been any proper study conducted to analyze the social impact of this unregulated influx of Peidu mamas into Singapore – the number of strayed husbands, estranged couples, and divorces which are caused directly or indirectly by them, not to mention the number of sleepless nights, broken hearts and lonely lives our poor Singapore women have to endure.

Does the Singapore education system really need so many China students to boost their coffers ? And do these students need the constant presence of their mothers by their side in order to excel in their studies ? Will there be any supervision or guidance at all if their mothers are busy “earning” a living outside ? It is high time the relevant authorities review the positions of Peidu mamas in Singapore to assess their long-term impact and contributions if any, to both our society and economy.

Is the grass really greener on the other side ?

By Lim Yii Tong, Guest Columnist

During our usual weekend get-together at my mother-in-law’s place at Yong Peng (Malaysia), there will invariably be heated discussions on politics by relatives from both sides of the causeway.

The usual Singaporean complaint about rising costs, ERPs and influx of foreigners seems more of a minor irritant than an important concern to the Malaysians.

“At least your government functions” quipped Chin, my brother-in-law. “Over here, the politicians just talk, NATO only. They have been saying they will renovate the Chinese schools since the 1980s during every election, but once it is over, they disappear as well !”

Another brother-in-law is trying to get his two kids enrol in a primary school in Singapore. “Never mind what school, as long it is in Singapore, it will surely be better here !”, he acclaimed.

I almost want to dissuade him from doing so as I am not keen for my kids to be educated in the Singapore school system.

I am a true blue Singaporean, born here, receive my education from primary to university level here, serve national service, work, married and settled down here in the land of my birth.

I am in my mid 30s, have 2 wonderful kids (a third one coming in December), earn a comfortable working as a system engineer in an IT consultancy film and lives in a private apartment still being paid for by my CPF – a typical middle class Singaporean.

Yet, I still do not feel satisfied or secure about my present life. Will I be able to maintain the same standard of living and qualify of life in the future ?

The Singapore I live in now is so different from the Singapore I grew up in. I received my primary education at a neighborhood school in Toa Payoh, right in the middle of the HDB heartland.

I had fond memories of the time I spent playing hip-hop, “tor ka” (one-legged catch up), “gor li” (marble), ti-kam and catching frogs and spiders with my friends from all races. There were few foreigners then and life is so much simpler.

Now, I see mainland Chinese and Indians almost everywhere speaking in their native tongues with an unmistakable foreign accent. My company just employed two Chinese IT engineers. My boss likes them – they are “cheap”, good, doesn’t complain as much as Singaporeans and more importantly, they do not need to serve reservist !

I can understand the need for us to import more foreigners in to keep Singapore competitive, but not at the expense of citizens who are born and bred here. It is true that we are a land of immigrants. However, we are the descendents of immigrants who have made Singapore our home compared to those foreigners who just come here and make a living.

During the last economic downturn, a few of my seniors were retrenched with little or no compensation. Their places were replaced by foreigners. I shudder at the thought whether I will end up like them in the future. Why not ? After all, it does make economic sense for the company to recruit a foreign Masters graduate with less pay than a local one. How am I going to start afresh at the age of 40 ? Who is going to employ me ? Can I support my family ?

There is a new security guard in my office building in his mid-50s. He used to be a Warrant Officer in the SAF. Asked why he has taken up this job, he readily admits given a choice, he rather retire and look after his grandchildren, but at his age, he still have to earn a living to support himself as his children are all tied up with their own families.

“The government wants us to work till the age of 85 and now wants us to buy what ‘death insurance’ (annuity) ! Who will know when we will kick the bucket !” he laments. When will I ever see my CPF monies ? Do I have to wait till I am 85,  frail, sick and dying before I can “enjoy” the fruits of my years of hard labor?

My eldest boy is 3 years old currently under the care of my parents. I am still pondering whether to send him to a special school for pre-schoolers where they are given “special” education to give them a headstart to life.

 My neighbour’s child is in such a school. During the weekend, she has to attend “special” arithmetic, piano and ballet classes. A few weeks ago, there is a furore in the papers over the number of Singaporeans who have to pursue their tertiary education overseas because they are not “good” enough for local universities. At a cousin’s convocation at NTU 2 months ago, almost half the cohort of graduates are foreigners.

Do I really want to send my children to a tough, rigorous and in a way merciless education system where they will be under tremendous stress to perform and excel ? What if they are unable to pursue their interests in life here or their grades are not good enough to qualify for a local university ? Do I have the means to send them overseas for their tertiary education ?

My wife has been persuading me to emigrate to Australia. Her parents are living in Melbourne and apparently according to her, are enjoying the best years of their lives there. “They don’t have to work at all, healthcare is free and the state government even pays them a monthly stipend ! Now every weekend, they just travel around in the countryside, you know Australia is so huge !”, she will whisper repeatedly like a tape recorder into my ears every night before we sleep. “But the aussie taxes are high too !” I retort. “Yeah, but that is the price to pay for security, my dear, security for the future. And the kids, their education is completely free too, we do not have to worry about anything !”

Is the grass really greener on the other side ? I keep asking myself. Life is not too bad for me now. To the Malaysians, Singapore is like a paradise. Why should I forsake my land of birth which has nurtured me all these years ?

Though I have occasional grouses against the government, I must admit that the PAP is a good government which truly take care of its people and have the foresight to plan far ahead into the future when politicians in a neighboring country are still squabbling over who to become the Prime Minister. We Singaporeans do not realize how fortunate we are to have everything running so smoothly in the country.

While I do not doubt the capability of the government, I have little affliation or feelings for them. I cannot claim I support or love them. The only time I hear about our leaders is from the media when they will exhort Singaporeans to do this or that.  

I have never voted in my entire life. I do not know which constituency I am in. I can’t even recognize my MPs if I were to meet them down the street. Yet I was told again and again during every election that I gave them the “mandate” to govern my life when I was never given a choice to choose ! Can anybody tell me what is being debated now in Parliament ? Does it matter at all ? Are my opinions ever sought out by the lawmakers ?

There was a report lately that Singapore has the 2nd highest migration rate (26 per 1,000) in the world after Timor Leste (51 per 1,000). The government doesn’t seem to understand why Singaporeans are leaving in droves. From their speeches, it is obvious they have lost touch completely with the ordinary people on the ground.

When they keep urging Singaporeans to continue working for as long as they can, they fail to realize that a majority of us just want to retire and enjoy life in our golden years. They harp on how far Singapore has progressed in terms of facts and figures to convince us that Singapore is the place to be – we have the 2nd highest GDP in Asia after Japan, the most business-friendly country, the best judiciary after Hong Kong etc, but these mean little to me and far less to those old folks you encounter picking card boards and cans from the rubbish heap for a living.

The government cannot blame Singaporeans for being self-centred, unpatriotic and selfish. Human nature is such that we always want the best for ourselves and our familes. Though we live for the 5Cs, we are in fact suckers for 3 simple Ss – serenity, stability and security. A future with little security is a major push factor for many Singaporeans. To those ministers, MPs and top civil servants who are earning an astronomical five to six-figure monthly salary and guaranteed a pension for life upon retirement, it may be too much to ask of them to understand what “security” means for a Singaporean bringing home only a few thousand dollars at the end of the month.

During my NS days, I was a guards officer. I still feel proud of my guards tag on my No 4 when I go for my reservist training. However, I do not feel my contributions to the nation all these years are recognized at the place where I work. My boss treasures the PRC engineers more because in a way, they are “better qualified” than the locals. After all, Singapore is a meritocracy, it doesn’t matter whether you are a citizen or not, the system rewards those who perform best though these high-flyers may only be making use of Singapore as a transit point to greener pastures.

A PRC colleague of mine has got a job in Perth. He just received Singaporean his citizenship last year and now he is making preparations to relocate his entire family to Australia. We got along together quite well. Unlike other foreigners who keep to their own cliques, he mingles around with the locals and appears to be well integrated into our society. Why does he want to leave Singapore after barely settling down here ? “Well, the truth is, Singapore is only a spring board for me. I never want to live here. It’s not too bad a place, but it is too small for me.” he volunteers readily when asked. “Why not you come over to Australia too ? The grass is definitely greener over there.”

Tell me, is this really true ?

The Road To Singapore Is Paved With Good Intentions

Ran across Dr. William Fang’s column on Wednesday, the one titled, Two shining examples of the judiciary: HK, Singapore.  Fang has a reason for praising Singapore in particular — prior to the Taiwanese presidential elections, then-KMT-candidate Ma Ying-jeou suggested undemocratic Singapore was a model worthy of Taiwanese emulation.  Fang gives away the game near the end of his column:

It is well-known that quite a few political activists tend to overemphasize the universal value of the kind of “freedom of speech” cherished by them . . .

In other words, wouldn’t it be terrific if “political activists” who disagree with the policies of the KMT government were slapped with defamation suits and muzzled — just like they’d be in Singapore.  Which didn’t you know, has one of the BEST judicial systems in Asia?

(See pages 39-45 of this document for a short list of “political activists” who have been silenced by the Singaporean oligarchy.  They include such bomb-throwing radicals as the Far Eastern Economic Review, the International Herald Tribune, the Economist and the Asian Wall Street Journal.)

 

Read rest of article here

The Political Opening Up—Is it for Real?

By Catherine Lim

For the first time in the political history of Singapore, the PAP Government is not only unambiguously stating that the political process is ripe for change and evolution, but is actually backing up the statement with a flurry of measures.

Of these, the one that has generated most interest and discussion is the lifting of restrictions on political dissent in cyberspace, probably because of its happy spillover effects in the real world, such as the permitting of demonstrations at the Speakers’ Corner, and the release of hitherto banned political movies. There may be yet more loosening up, based on feedback invited from the public, that the Government-appointed Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (Aims) is currently receiving.

Does it appear that suddenly a government that had been sternly intolerant and dismissive of all dissenting voices, both in blogs, podcasts, vodcasts, etc., and in mainstream media, has done an about-turn?

While these measures in no way match the spectacular changes that have taken place in the non-political domains of business, industry, education and the arts, they clearly signal the PAP Government’s acknowledgment, at long last, that the political process of freeing up democratic liberties for the people is essential to the overall progress of the nation.

 

Read rest of article here

FEER: Pressure builds on Singapore’s system

Hugo Restall
Far Eastern Economic Review

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.

Malaysiakini: Who is a Singaporean ?

By Jeremy Fernando

On the evening of Aug 17 2008, Singaporeans were faced with a dilemma: do we cheer for the table-tennis girls that are standing on podium at the Beijing Olympics?  
On the one hand, this was the first Olympics medal that Singapore has won for the last 48 years. On the other hand, many were still skeptical whether these athletes – donning Singapore colours – were actually Singaporean at all: after all, they were born in China and had been acquired by the Foreign Talent Scheme to boost our sporting success.    

The overall reaction was rather predictable: “of course we are glad that Singapore won a medal, but only if the girls were actual Singaporeans.” And in this you see the typical liberal reaction of “yes all is good, but if only it was better.” The question that we have to ask of course it, “what is this better that we are thinking of?”

Clearly the discomfort that arises is a question of nationality, or more precisely, the issue of ‘what constitutes a Singaporean’, and by extension what makes us who we are.  And as if by a gut-reaction we reach for the time-tested notion of Singaporean-ness being defined by whether someone was born within the geographical boundaries of the country.  

Read rest of article here

What Anwar’s Malaysian Economic Agenda means for Singapore

By Lim Siow Kuan, Malaysian Correspondent

As the purported date for the takeover of the Malaysian federal government by opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim looms nearer, Singaporeans must be wondering what a Pakatan-led government in Kuala Lumpur have in store for them.

Anwar has vowed to replace the 4 decade old New Economic Policy (NEP) which he claimed benefitted only a select group of well-connected Malays at the expense of the needy with his Malaysian Economic Agenda (MEA) espousing a more equitable distribution of the country’s wealth. In a report published by online news portal Malaysiakini, Anwar Ibrahim reiterated he would dismantle the controversial New Economic Policy (NEP) if he seizes power.

Needless to say, the country’s Chinese and Indian minorities who have long suffered under the discriminatory practices of the NEA rush to throw their support behind Anwar’s Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) en masse. What surprises political observers is that the Malay ground not only accepts but embraces Anwar’s radical concept as well as evident by his resounding victory in the recent Permatang Pauh by-election where 70% of the electorate is Malay.

Will Anwar, once a firebrand Islamic radical and an architect of Malaysia’s Islamization in the 1980s and 90s, really do away with a race-based affirmative action plan which has served his community’s interests over the year ?

While Anwar’s political pedigree as a former Deputy Prime Minister and Deputy President of UMNO may have casted doubts in the minds of his allies (the secular Democratic Action Party and the Islamic PAS) initially, he appeared to have won them over with his consistent message that the time has come for a new dawn in Malaysian politics, one which emphasized on unity, meritocracy and justice.  He inspired many with a proclaimation to be a leader of all Malaysians: “Anak melayu saya, anak cina saya, anak India saya” (the malay is my child, the chinese is my child and the indian is my child)

The reinvention and rehabilitation of Anwar Ibrahim into a Malaysian leader for all Malaysians regardless of race had propelled him to the brink of becoming Prime Minister, a post which has since deluded him since he was sacked from government rather unceremoniously 10 years ago. Riding on mass support from the Chinese and Indians as well as a tectonic shift in the Malay mindset especially amongst the young, his opposition coalition, the Pakatan Rakyat won an unprecedented 82 seats in the March General Election, denying the ruling Barisan Nasional its traditional two-thirds majority in Parliament.

As Malaysia celebrates its 51st Merdeka with renewed hope for a long-waited political revolution, few on both sides of the causeway would have remembered the call for a “Malaysian Malaysia” was first made by Singapore’s Mr Lee Kuan Yew in the 1960s when Singapore was still part of the Federation.

In a speech to the Malaysian Parliament, Lee articulated strongly against a discriminatory race-based policy at the expense of the ethnic Chinese and Indian minority long before the NEP was formulated and implemented in the 1970s and Anwar Ibrahim’s plans for a new MEA:

“Of course there are Chinese millionaires in big cars and big houses. Is it the answer to make a few Malay millionaires with big cars and big houses? How does telling a Malay bus driver that he should support the party of his Malay director (UMNO) and the Chinese bus conductor to join another party of his Chinese director (MCA) – how does that improve the standards of the Malay bus driver and the Chinese bus conductor who are both workers in the same company? If we delude people into believing that they are poor because there are no Malay rights or because opposition members oppose Malay rights, where are we going to end up? You let people in the kampongs believe that they are poor because we don’t speak Malay, because the government does not write in Malay, so he expects a miracle to take place in 1967 (the year Malay would become the national and sole official language in Malaysia). The moment we all start speaking Malay, he is going to have an uplift in the standard of living, and if doesn’t happen, what happens then? Meanwhile, whenever there is a failure of economic, social and educational policies, you come back and say, oh, these wicked Chinese, Indian and others opposing Malay rights. They don’t oppose Malay rights. They, the Malay, have the right as Malaysian citizens to go up to the level of training and education that the more competitive societies, the non-Malay society, has produced. That is what must be done, isn’t it? Not to feed them with this obscurantist doctrine that all they have got to do is to get Malay rights for the few special Malays and their problem has been resolved ”

Lee’s fervent belief in a fair and just government for all Malaysians led him to cross swords with several radicals in UMNO leading to the eventual expulsion of Singapore from Malaysia in 1965. Lee made no secret of his bitter anguish and disappointment when Singapore gained independence: “For me, it is a moment of anguish. All my life, my whole adult life, I believed in merger and unity of the two territories.”

43 years later, while the NEP has created a new middle class of Malays in Malaysia, it is not exaggerating to say that Singapore has benefitted from it as well. As a result of marginalization of the Chinese under the NEP which denied their smartest students places in universities and careers in the public sector,  many Malaysian Chinese flocked to Singapore in search of a betterr future to study and work making invaluable contributions to the island’s developement and progress into Southeast Asia’s richest country today quite not unlike the French Hugenots’ migration to Britain in the 18th century.

Linguistically and culturally close to their brethen in Singapore, Malaysian Chinese generally have few problems assimilating into Singapore society with many of them becoming leaders in various fields. Almost half of Singapore’s post-independent cabinet are born in Malaysia including Minister of Finance Goh Keng Swee and Minister of Law E W Barker. Singapore’s current Health Minister Mr Khaw Boon Wan was born in Penang and Ho Ching, recently voted in Forbes as the World’s No 8 most powerful woman, hailed from Kuala Lumpur.

The constant efflux of Chinese from Malaysia to Singapore and other parts of the world had led to decline in the ethnic Chinese population on the peninsula from 30% in 1965 to less than 25% now. What if these Malaysian-born Chinese currently working in Singapore chose to serve their land of birth instead of us ? It does not take an economist to realize that Malaysia will be a more potent competitor to Singapore.

In recent years, Malaysia has demonstrated its desire and ambition not only to catch up with Singapore, but to overtake us as the economic powerhouse in the regioin. The expansive new KL International Airport has already pipped Singapore’s Changi Airport to the title as the world’s best airport, The port of Tanjung Pelapas at Johor has emerged as a potent threat to Singapore’s previously indisputable position as a strategic port of call in the Straits of Malacca.

As Malaysia continues its painful transformation from an agricultural to a knowledge-based economy, the NEP has become its Achille heel in its quest to surpass Singapore. Not only Anwar, but many Malay leaders including the NEP’s chief architect, ex-premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad have realized the increasingly irrevelance of the NEP in today’s rapidly changing world. Young, educated and urbane Malays who are products of the NEP itself have also spoken out against it and appear receptive to a complete revamp of the entire system as evident by Anwar’s stunning electoral gains. The last Malay leader to espouse an equal Malaysia for all races is none other than UMNO’s founder himself, Tun Onn Jaafar. He did not receive any support from his fellow Malays and was consigned to the political dustheap. Anwar Ibrahim may stand a better chance this time to convinced his community that Malaysia is ready for change.

Anwar’s proposed plans to abolish the NEP together with a budget to to cut down the deficit, lower taxes and fuel prices, stimulate investments and adopt open tenders for government contracts will undoubtably enhance Malaysia’s competitiveness and in a way a subtle threat to Singapore’s economic dominance in the region. Carefully and meticulously implemented, it may even stem the present brain drain to Singapore and reverse it. Malaysia, with its plentiful land and relative low cost of living has the potential to offer a higher quality of life than Singapore’s cramped and hectic lifestyle.

While it remains to be seen if Anwar’s repeated claims to topple the Malaysian government by 16 September 2008 will materialize, Singaporeans should start bracing themselves for an impending economic tsunami to arrive across the causeway sooner rather than later. Malaysia has finally come of age after 51 years. The Malays, who have gained the most from the NEP are ready to give up their long assured special privileges in exchange for a more transparent, accountable and efficient mode of governance which will put Malaysia in good stead to challenge Singapore in the long run.