THE TEMASEK REVIEW

>> Why social cohesion is at the forefront of the Prime Minister’s National Day Rally

>> Changes in political system to allow more alternative voices

>> A rebuttal to Vikram Khanna’s article on need for foreign workers

About Author:

Bhaskaran Kunju is a Political Science and Communications and New Media undergraduate at the National University of Singapore. He is a regular contributor to the Straits Times Forum and TODAY Voices. He also writes for NLB and FAS and hopes to be a full-time journalist.

Tags:

The Iceman Cometh: The Role of Foreigners in Singapore

March 3, 2010 by admin
Filed under Bhaskaran Kunju, Columnists, Opinion, Society

10 Comments

By Bhaskaran Kunju

The recent Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) report is just a tip of the iceberg in our Government’s shift on the foreign worker policy, as seen in this year’s Budget report. Given the inadvertent adverse effect it has had on productivity, it is high time the authorities looked into this matter.

However one issue regarding foreigners that has always been a thorn on the side of the PAP and has never been let out of sight, has been the involvement of foreigners in domestic affairs. There is some leeway when it comes to academic matters but in terms of media coverage and direct involvement in politics it is an area of strict no-go.

In 1988 American diplomat, Hank Hendrickson, the First Secretary of the US Embassy in Singapore, was expelled for ‘meddling in Singapore politics’. Most recently the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) and The Economist fell foul of the OB markers and were sued for defamation on two separate occasions. For the latter it wasn’t the first.

The expectation is that foreign publications should refrain from critiquing the Singapore Government for it may adversely affect the credibility and image of our political system and our leaders.

Given our history I think anyone with any sense of patriotism should have some sense of pride in keeping our domestic affairs to ourselves. It isn’t a question of political affiliation. However much discontent we may have with our political system it is an issue for Singaporeans to rectify, not foreigners.

While the Government has been active in defending its integrity, somehow the net has been left open for Singaporeans to be treated as stooges by foreigners in some instances.

Recently one publication has found itself in the mainstream and was highlighted on this site in an article a couple of weeks ago. Singapore Business Review (SBR), a business news magazine owned and run predominantly by foreigners, had a report on the recent poly fee hikes headlined as “Foreign students biggest losers as Government puts citizens first.”

While fee hikes were all around, there was a differentiation made to ensure that citizens and foreigners were not on the same platform, which is understandable and long overdue in the first place. So it is rather out of line to have a foreign publication skew the news to make it seem like foreigners in Singapore are being mistreated.

If in case you might brush this off as just a poor headlining incident, then the Twitter feeds of the said publications on this matter are far more damning:

But this isn’t a one off incident either.

On February 18, an article written by Mr Tim Charlton titled “Singaporeans gambled ‘til they dropped” made the rounds online. It was the second of a two-part review of the opening day of the Resorts World at Sentosa Casino. This SBR article claimed that ‘Singaporeans, who can only stay in the Casino for 24 hours after paying a $100 levy, decided to take a quick nap between gambling to sleep on the floors of the Casino before presumably waking up to try their luck again’.

Now here’s where Mr Charlton’s story falls apart. The levy is paid by both Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs), yet Mr Charlton is somehow certain that those on the floor were indeed Singaporeans.

One might give Mr Charlton the benefit of the doubt and accept that maybe he had approached the said individuals and checked on their nationalities. But that wasn’t the case either.

In his first part of the article from the day before on February 17, “The good, the bad and the ugly at Resorts World opening” he claims, “Whilst it’s true I did make the trek to Sentosa, and the almost 400 metre trek from one end of the carpark to the escalator, I did not, in fact, manage to enter the casino halls.” So it does lead me to wonder exactly how Mr Charlton made his conclusion and run such a damning headline about Singaporeans.

In stories run by The Straits Times (ST) observations of people sleeping on the floors were indeed made. However according to these reports the incidence of people sleeping on the floors was due to the long wait in the never-ending queues and occurred outside the Casinos.

Another point of contention is the photo that SBR provides in its article as proof. The photo was supposedly taken inside the gambling halls, and shows a group of people sleeping on floor mats.

The unusual thing is that there is a similar photo that was run by ST, but taken from a wider angle and seems to show a very similar location with people sleeping on the floor as well. Furthermore the location provided by SBR looks nothing like the inside of a Casino.

You can make the comparison of the two photos below. The SBR photo is on top:

A Lianhe Wanbao article did however quote a patron having seen people sleeping on the floors of the Casino, though these individuals were identified as foreign workers and not Singaporeans.

In fact according to most reports (including Mr Charlton’s first report) there were far more foreigners than Singaporeans in the queues as foreigners were not subjected to the entry levy imposed on Singaporeans and PRs. Inside, the proportions were reportedly the same as well with even a significant number of blue-collar foreign workers in the midst.

So who did get the reports right? In this instance I believe the SPH owned publications were right in their coverage.

Mr Tim Charlton is no rookie mercenary reporter but the Editor-in-Chief at SBR and it is disheartening that he would choose to publish an article with claims he could not personally validate and a headline that is in poor taste.

SBR’s Twitter feed was again in overdrive, promoting the apparent ugliness of Singaporeans. One might excuse it as just exuberant promotion of the publication but the claims made in the Twitter feed of the recent Budget announcement also had shades of apparent foreigner oppression:

The most irksome part of it all however is the use of Singapore in the publication’s name, which is both exploitative and opportunistic in light of the coverage provided by the publication.

SBR does have its fair share of hard news reports focused solely on finance and business news but it is not easy to overlook the fact that a foreign entity has chosen to trump up foreigner woes while at the same time paint Singaporeans and Singapore in bad light, if and when it chooses to.

As mentioned earlier, the establishment has taken a hard stance on foreign intervention in domestic affairs. Course of action is taken in cases that directly affect the credibility of the Government and political structure, but the same due course should be in place to ensure that the integrity of Singaporeans is also protected. It is only then that one may look at it as a righteous act that protects the integrity of the county as a whole.

The most recent example of the need to protect the integrity of Singaporeans can be seen in the handling of the hit-and-run case involving Dr Silviu Ionescu. It is heartening to see that the case is still being pursued, but I believe it will be a travesty should Dr Ionescu get away with his crime.

The idea of ‘Singaporeans to debate and resolve our own issues’ should be ingrained in us all, as only then can we look to make a positive change lest we forever be in a state of dependency, be it with the ruling Government or on foreign intervention.

It is alright if foreigners are here to contribute productively, in fact they are welcomed to should the numbers permit, but should it then turn into a game of ‘Iceman Cometh’ whilst they are still of foreign status, then it crosses the line.

I believe no country or her citizens who value their sovereignty would welcome such interference. It is a matter of pride and autonomy and anything else borders on subjugation by proxy. Even the most oppressed of nations found liberation from within and we are nowhere near such a state of oppression.

The topic of foreigners in Singapore is a sticky one and over the past few years, it has been one of the most contentious domestic issues as well. Unfortunately it has also brought out the worst in people. But that in no way means it is an issue that lacks justification in the first place.

Terms like xenophobia are thrown around conveniently to dissipate the discontent but this doesn’t at all aid in a balanced discourse of the issue. The real issue lies in the quantity and quality of the influx of foreigners on our shores and in the instance of this discussion, on the role of foreigners in domestic affairs.

Back in December 2007 a group of exchange students at the National University of Singapore were stopped by the authorities and severely reprimanded for trying to stage a demonstration in support of the Myanmar uprisings during the ASEAN Summit. While their intentions were pure and of the best interest for the people of Myanmar, it is rude that they chose not to abide by the rules of their host country, even if they had found it not to their liking. It is a matter of principle and respect.

But there have been far worse consequences for foreigners who chose to waddle into domestic matters. In early 2004, post SARS epidemic, Singapore Airlines (SIA) found itself locked in a standoff with the Air Line Pilots Association-Singapore (Alpa-S) over issues of pay cuts and other management-staff issues which also included the problem of foreign based pilots being given preference in picking desirable flight routes while leaving ‘scraps’ to the local pilots.

The Alpa-S incidentally is not an NTUC affiliated labour union. In this instance the matter deteriorated to the point where members of the Alpa-S held a discussion with then Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew at the Istana on more than one occasion.

It wasn’t the first time that SM Lee found himself mediating with the pilots union and in 1980 they had a run-in with him when he was the Prime Minister. SM Lee’s intervention in the 2004 incident was hence explained by then Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in parliament, “SM did this rather than one of the other ministers, because this was unfinished business left over from 1980 when there were troubles between SIA and the pilots’ union which SM handled.”

Now the relevance of this incident to this article lies in what happened thereafter. Captain Ryan Goh Yew Hock, a senior pilot with SIA was fingered as the main instigator of the debacle. The Alpa-S issue had arisen after members had ousted the incumbent executive committee.

According to a Straits Times report SM Lee had singled out Capt Goh during the discussions with the pilots union and ‘was accused of working behind the scenes, crafting a petition to oust the council, but not signing it himself.’ He had also apparently been in the process of relocating to Australia.

Captain Goh was a Malaysian citizen but had been a Singapore PR since 1981. Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng labeled the pilot an “undesirable immigrant” and his PR status was revoked. His undermining of SIA labour peace while at the same time planning an escape route to Australia was not taken well by the Government. Captain Goh eventually had to leave the country.

In a Straits Times report dated March 7 2004, it was noted that “Mr Lee made the point at that meeting (with the pilots union) that if Singapore ‘goes down, it is not just SIA that goes down, but you go down too’. But it was different for PRs as they could opt out.”

Let’s hope that this sentiment has not changed.

*The Iceman Cometh is the name of a play by American playwright Eugene O’Neill.

Other articles by Bhaskaran Kunju:

>> Why social cohesion is at the forefront of the Prime Minister’s National Day Rally

>> Changes in political system to allow more alternative voices

About Author:

Tags:

A rebuttal to Vikram Khanna’s BT article defending the need for foreign workers

February 11, 2010 by admin01
Filed under Bhaskaran Kunju, Columnists, Opinion

11 Comments

By Bhaskaran Kunju

Framing is a writing device that helps to put into focus a story or event in a manner that the writer wants the reader to be able to identify with. Every article that you read has been framed to put forward and emphasise a specific perspective.

A few days ago, Mr Vikram Khanna of The Business Times wrote an article, “The foreign-worker link in growth, productivity”. In it, he suggested that the media reports on the recent Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) report were incorrect in the analysis and coverage of the key recommendations. (read Vikram Khanna’s article here)

While Mr Khanna has taken issue over the framing of the story by the media, the reality isn’t far from what’s already been discussed in the media. Let’s get straight to the point on this.

In page one of the ESC report itself, under point 6 it is stated, “Our specific recommendations are summarised under three broad priorities. First, we have to boost skills in every job. We should develop an outstanding nation-wide system of continuing education and training, to give everyone the opportunity to acquire greater proficiency, knowledge and expertise, from the most basic jobs to the most complex. Employers and industry associations, unions and government will also have to work together to redesign and create better jobs. We recommend a progressive increase in foreign worker levies to incentivise companies to improve productivity.”

The direct recommendation and conclusion by the ESC in boosting skills in every job is to increase foreign worker levies. There are 3 conclusions that can be drawn from this: 1. Foreign workers are being used as cheaper alternatives to local workers by companies and this currently is/has been/will be a hindrance to the productivity levels that are being expected; 2. More should be done to train Singaporean workers as opposed to now, when the influx of foreign workers has made it easier to hire them instead of training locals; and 3. The level of skills possessed by foreign workers at the present is not up to the high standards that have been initially expected.

I am willing to concede there might be counter arguments over the conclusions drawn here, but I do believe they are on the mark. In the main press release, the ESC summarised this portion of the report as such, “Manage our dependence on the foreign workforce by raising foreign worker levies in a gradual and phased manner. Also raise the quality of the foreign workforce and encourage employers to retain skilled foreign workers by increasing the skilled levy differential.”

Mr Khanna actually seems to suggest that all foreign workers will be retained en bloc when he says, “incentives will be put in place for companies to retain foreign workers so that their skills, too, can be upgraded.”

As one can infer from the press release statement above and in careful reading of the report itself, it is only the skilled foreign workers who are to be retained. Of course it will also be untrue to suggest that there might be mass culling of foreign workers in light of the ESC report. This will be economical suicide. Which is why the ESC has recommended steps that will alter the current landscape gradually and over the long run.

Mr Khanna generally argues that an increase in foreign workers, or at least the current numbers are justifiable and are vital for the growth of Singapore. He cites a few lines from an Economic Review Committee (ERC) report from 2003 to assert the necessity of foreign workers.

He states, “But, first, let’s recall another report that was released almost exactly seven years ago, in February 2003, by the Economic Review Committee (ERC). This is what it said about foreign workers, on page 142: ‘Without foreign workers manning the night-shifts, there would be no day-shift jobs for Singaporeans. Production costs would go up and companies would be forced to move elsewhere, where workers are cheaper and more readily available.’ The ERC had a point, and it’s even truer today, when there are more ‘elsewheres’ for companies to move to than in 2003.”

But as he has correctly pointed this was 7 years ago. Logically the release of the latest ESC report automatically supersedes all such previous reports, as it is a revised outlook.

Furthermore the ERC was a precursor to the ESC. To point out the ERC, and its report, as a separate process is misleading as it gives the impression that there are conflicting views being put forth by the government. Also the ERC was set up in 2001, with its first and only report being published in 2003, at a time when the Singapore and global economic climate was much more different than it is now, even in terms of foreign worker numbers.

It is true of course that foreign workers are needed to supplement the labour force. This is a given in any economy. But the general consensus as derived by the media and the people from the ESC report is that there is a shift in perception by the government on how foreign workers are to be utilised and the management of their proportional numbers in the work force.

The main purpose of the ESC report is in fact on broader issues of maintaining the competitiveness of Singapore’s economy. The reinvestment in the labour force is a portion of the main crux of the ESC’s suggestion in keeping the labour pool on par with Singapore’s economic targets. Improving the skills of Singaporeans and the management of foreign worker numbers are the main suggestions put forth.

Couple that with the broad recommendation of reducing the reliance on foreign workers and the main idea of reducing foreigners being bandied about in the media is no longer incorrect as Mr Khanna had suggested.

It is however another question as to why just this portion would receive more coverage in the media ahead of the rest of the report. The reason is simple. It is of the biggest concern to the average Singaporean at present and at the individual level has more relevance.

Mr Khanna, has chosen to provide arguments that are heavily weighted in personal opinion and have little to do with the general consensus or the facts of the ESC. Even the Straits Times framed the story as ‘The Big Shift” in reference to the shift in foreign worker reliance by the government.

Mr Khanna worries that people might think that cutting back on foreign workers “will magically raise productivity”. Generally no one has made this leap in judgment. But the inverse that he is arguing, that is including more foreigners in the workforce means an increase in productivity is also wrong.

Singapore’s productivity has only increased by 1% the past decade and according to Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnman, the Finance Minister and the ESC Chairman, it is too low. Mr Tharman does however contend that despite the low increase in productivity of the past decade compared to the decade prior, Singapore then was at a lower stage of development and hence there was more room to grow.

But the past decade has seen the largest influx of foreign workers. So Mr Khanna’s stance fails unless you were to contend, that the inclusion of foreigners in the Singapore work force was what was needed to even keep afloat that bare 1% of growth. But even this is now debatable, given the contents and suggestions of the ESC report in reducing the reliance of foreign workers to improve productivity.

Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong in his recent trip to Bahrain said, “While foreign worker numbers may still rise, it will now grow more slowly,” This seems to echo what Mr Khanna stated, “In absolute terms, the number of foreign workers could well increase, at least in the short term. Over time, as new skills are developed, the reliance on foreign workers would go down.”

But the problem here is that the ultimate target as put forth by the ESC and as recognised by Mr Khanna is still the same. The ESC proposal is for the long run, and is not a short-term solution.

Absolute numbers may rise but the rate of intake will still slow, with the ultimate target being less reliance of foreign workers.

The matter is not so simple as to dismiss either side of the argument but Mr Khanna’s position is still heavily generalized and does miss the point altogether. One also has to acknowledge the context in which SM Goh’s statements were made. It is unlikely that a Minister will go to a foreign nation and expect to improve bilateral ties by telling them you wont be taking in foreigners anymore. Both sides of the arguments have to be fed so that there wouldn’t be a severe conflict of interest.

After all there is still what Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said on January 28, “We’ve grown in the last five years by just importing labour. Now, the people feel uncomfortable, there are too many foreigners. Trains are overcrowded with foreigners, buses too, property prices have gone up because foreigners with permanent residence are buying into the market. The answer is simple: We check the flow of foreigners, raise your productivity, do the job better, so that instead of two workers, eventually you’ll do it with one worker, like the Japanese do.”

How ironic then that Mr Khanna would use the Japanese as an example in his argument. He has cited that country’s homogenous labour pool as the reason for their recent shortcomings. Mr Khanna preaches caution in over simplifying and misreading the ESC report but his Japan example is severely generalized and dangerously irresponsible in its own right.

Japan’s economical problems run deeper than that of a lack of foreign workers. The rise of more competitive nations, specifically China in the last decade and a half, who have adopted more efficient means of production, has challenged Japan’s economical position.

An insufficient productive labour force is one of the reasons for Japan’s economic misery as well, but the addition of foreign workers will only further lower wage rate and hence reduce consumption as well as incapacitate a work force that is already lacking in efficiency. This is of course only the tip of the iceberg in addressing the economic situation of Japan, but it is still far removed than the generalised account given by Mr Khanna.

One can gather that the main point behind Mr Khanna’s article is to re-enforce the importance of foreign workers but this isn’t the concern of the ESC or for that matter Singaporeans in general. It is rather the proportion of foreign workers and their relative efficiency that is of concern to most if not all.

Finally I would like to thank Mr Khanna for taking the time to post a comment in an earlier article on this issue. I think it is common sense to accept that the comments posted by readers shouldn’t be taken personally. I have received my fair share of negative comments too but even though I’m in no position to speak on behalf of the site, I would like to state that it is not right to assume that what you find in the comments here is a reflection of this site. Feel free to look through the comments and forums at any SPH site and you would find similar exchanges of ‘vitriol’ (though most comments there are heavily moderated out while TR has a more liberal policy).

The Internet has only made it so much easier for instant reflections by readers to be made known. Fortunately (or unfortunately) the Internet affords this convenience to readers unlike the print media.

Just because you do not hear or read comments as frequently in the print media, it doesn’t mean there aren’t any. For every unintelligent comment that gets posted on the net there are easily dozens more that will go unsaid in print. It is up to you as a journalist to discern between what is engaging and what isn’t. After all that is what’s required of you in your job scope as a journalist in the first place.

EDITORS’ NOTE:

If you encounter the “duplicate post” error when posting comments on our site, post again by clicking on the “submit” button and hold it for at least 5 seconds. We are still working to resolve the problem and we appeal for your kind understanding and patience.

Other articles by Bhaskaran Kunju:

>> Why social cohesion is at the forefront of the Prime Minister’s National Day Rally

>> Changes in political system to allow more alternative voices

About Author:

Tags:

Starhub: Free sports channels only in July

February 7, 2010 by admin
Filed under Bhaskaran Kunju, Columnists, Opinion

5 Comments

By Bhaskaran Kunju

After months of promotions in the media and a press release telling viewers to look out for a new free to air sports channel in January 2010, Starhub has backtracked on this promise.

Starhub had announced in November 2009 that two new free sports channels would be made available to all its subscribers. One of the channels, a ‘self-packaged 24-hour sports channel’ was to be launched in January 2010, and would have been followed by Eurosports, a 24-hour sports news channel, in July 2010.

Both channels will now be released in July 2010 and customers will only be updated closer to the date of launch. The reasons for the delay have not been announced.

The self-packaged sports channel was to have carried a wide variety of sports content including football, wrestling, tennis and local sports. Viewers were also told to look forward to at least one football match and one wrestling match each week.

Starhub’s latest stumble follows it’s setback from last year when it lost its coveted rights to the Barclays Premier League (BPL) for the next three years to competitor SingTel. The rights to broadcast the BPL had been Starhub’s prized asset and is expected to cause a considerable loss to the cable giant.

As part of the fallout from the bidding wars by SingTel and Starhub, football fans in Singapore could expect to miss the upcoming World Cup in June as the two telcos and FIFA are still in a deadlock over the price for the broadcast rights. Despite insiders putting the figure at around $40million – in line with other territories in the region – there has been an impasse as both SingTel and Starhub have claimed the price to be too high.

After winning the rights in 2006 for an estimated $250 million, and in the process outbidding SingTel, Starhub announced a price hike across the board in 2007. It was the first such increase in subscription rates since the cable service’s inception in 1995.

Basic subscription fee for everyone was increased by $4 and sports fans had to fork out an additional $10 to watch the sports channels. The high price of subscription has been an issue of much dismay and displeasure for subscribers over the years.

The two free sports channels had been promised by Starhub almost immediately after SingTel announced its winning bid and was supposed to have been a frantic exercise to retain customers and prevent a total fallout in confidence. Now, it will only likely be seen as a desperate fumble as the once sole cable operator faces a massive market battle with SingTel.

The latest winning bid by SingTel is estimated to be around $400 million and gives the broadcasting rights to SingTel for the next three years. SingTel has already capitalized on its acquisition of the rights by announcing its pricing plans.

Fans will have to pay to just $23 to watch the BPL on SingTel’s mio TV platform next season, with no additional costs for basic subscription. It is a 60% comparative drop from Starhub’s minimum $53 fee, which includes a basic subscription fee of $24 and set-top box rental fee of $4 in addition to the $25 subscription fee for the sports group package.

SingTel will also offer ESPN and its sister channel Star Sports in its sports package. The loss of two of the biggest sports channels in the region together with the rights to the BPL is a major blow for Starhub and is expected to see an exodus of subscribers when SingTel starts broadcasting the BPL next season.

Other articles by Bhaskaran Kunju:

>> Why social cohesion is at the forefront of the Prime Minister’s National Day Rally

>> Changes in political system to allow more alternative voices

About Author:

Bhaskaran Kunju is a political science undergraduate in a local varsity. He is a regular contributor to the Straits Times Forum and TODAY Voices.

Tags:

The issue of Double-barrelled Race Classification

January 25, 2010 by admin
Filed under Bhaskaran Kunju, Columnists, Opinion

4 Comments

By Bhaskaran Kunju

In last week’s session of Parliament it was announced that Singaporeans born to parents of different races could exercise the option to include the races of both parents in their Identity Card.

The new implementation is of course a significant move in recognising the diversity of Singapore’s racial diaspora. According to the most recent statistics relating to marriage trends of 2008, 14% of non-Muslim marriages were inter-ethnic while it was 31% for Muslim marriages.

Of the 14% of non-Muslim marriages, nearly half were between Chinese grooms and brides of ‘Other’ ethnic origins. According to Singapore Department of Statistics, ‘Other’ refers to all ethnic groups excluding Chinese, Indian, Eurasian, Caucasian and Malay.

The term is defined ambiguously, but it could possible refer to those of foreign descent or of mixed-race origin. The statistics are similar in the Muslim marriage bracket with Malay grooms marrying brides of ‘Other’ ethnic groups forming the largest proportion.

The figures show a rise from the previous year and an even bigger leap from a decade before. It clearly shows that Singapore is fast becoming more ethnically cosmopolitan and new measures such as the double-barrelled race classification in ICs are a step in the right direction.

But while these measures are welcoming, they do no necessarily negate the heart of the problem and is more of a cosmetic fix to a complex issue at hand. The more cosmopolitan Singapore becomes the more difficult it should be to implement the rigid classification of racial identities as well as prolong the established racially based policies in governmental projects such as those in housing and education.

The IC changes reflect a positive change in recognition for the ethnic diversity of Singaporeans, but it fails to address the real issues and may possibly invoke more issues on its own.

For example the most recent surfacing of this issue was in Parliament on August 18 2009. Mr. Christopher de Souza (MP for Holland-Bukit Timah) asked if children born of European-Asian marriages would be allowed to register as Eurasian instead of Others for the purpose of registration into Primary One.

Mr. de Souza was given assurance that such provisions are allowed and now the double-barrelled racial classification takes this process one step further. However while the new classification allows for recognition of dual racial identities it also places emphasis on a ‘dominant’ race.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee clarified, “(The) key reason is that we have ethnic linked policies, for example, HDB’s ethnic integration policy. In Singapore, these are key policies. So we do need to know which classification to put the child under. So we need the parents, even though they have a choice now, to still indicate the dominant race”

The HDB policy in question is the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP). As explained by Mr. Mah Bow Tan in a Parliamentary session in November 2009, “The EIP was introduced to achieve a healthy racial mix in HDB estates and prevent the formation of ethnic enclaves, regardless of whether they are citizens or PRs. By providing HDB residents of different races with more opportunities to interact as neighbours, the EIP fosters inter-racial understanding and strengthens social cohesion in Singapore.”

The above statement was given in a question raised by Dr Lim Wee Kiak about the number of Permanent Residents (PRs) who own HDB flats and the distribution pattern. Mr. Mah explained that PRs were not exempt from the EIP. Hence the policy of racial classification is far reaching and has deeper repercussions even to non-citizens.

In time it may not be feasible to continue such a policy of racial classification however, at least not within the structure that it has been defined in. Apart from inter-ethnic marriages, with the influx of New-Citizens who differ from the traditional CMIO (Chinese Malay Indian and Others) origin, these racial classifications issues would have a bigger impact in public policies.

The most obvious deviation will be in the ethnic makeup. Apart from public housing policies and places in educational institutes, there will inevitably be the question of alterations to the traditionally and constitutionally recognised positions of the Chinese, Indian, Malay generic classifications including the official language recognition as well.

These are of course larger issues at hand but ultimately unavoidable issues that will or should be dealt with sooner than later as our ethnic makeup changes with immigration as well as inter-ethnic marriages.

But to do away with the racial classification is also not easy and according to Assoc. Prof. Ho it is not feasible as well, “in multi-racial Singapore, we still need the race classification… Unlike other societies, for example, in France, to be politically correct, they do away with recording and reflecting race, but that does not mean that race problems will go away. So I think our approach is better where we give more choice and flexibility but still continue with the current practice of recording the child’s race.”

While Assoc. Prof. Ho did not clearly clarify his explanation, the reservation is based on the possibility of two things; 1.clustering of racial enclaves as evident in the basis for EIP and 2. the possibility of disproportionate opportunities for minority races. Either of which would be difficult to monitor without racial classification.

But even with double-barrelled classifications, the ethnic demarcations serve as no more than rudimentary indicators without any clear identification of ethnic or cultural attachment, which would in turn make it less than useful for official purposes such as EIP.

Apart from that there is also the question of the possible misuse of the new system to benefit oneself in ethnic related policies. For example the racial identity that one officially procures would also help in determining which ethnic self-help group that an individual could relate to. The different ethnic based self-help groups such as SINDA and Mendaki offer different forms of assistance, and one could easily pick an organisation to benefit his or her own needs.

In due time it would make sense to look into a complete overhaul of the racial classification system especially given the latest trends in inter-ethnic marriages and especially immigration. The manner in which racial identities are cultivated or classified are changing constantly. There will definitely be a need to redefine how we identify races and consequently race policies as our ethnic landscape evolves with these social changes.

Other articles by Bhaskaran Kunju:

>> Why social cohesion is at the forefront of the Prime Minister’s National Day Rally

>> Changes in political system to allow more alternative voices

About Author:

Bhaskaran Kunju is a political science undergraduate in a local varsity. He is a regular contributor to the Straits Times Forum and TODAY Voices.

Tags:

How much immunity for a diplomat?

January 13, 2010 by Our Correspondent
Filed under Bhaskaran Kunju, Columnists, Opinion

5 Comments

By Bhaskaran Kunju

There has been much deliberation over the status of Dr Silviu Ionescu, the Romanian diplomat who’s still a suspect in the hit and run case on December 15, which has already claimed the life of one victim.

The amount of immunity a diplomat receives is outlined in two different multilateral treaties, the 1961 Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Relations and Optional Protocols, and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and Optional Protocols.

There are several ranks of diplomats with the likes of Ambassadors and Nuncios at the highest rank. At the lowest end is the Chargé d’affaires, who is generally the Head of a Mission. As most of these conventions were defined nearly two centuries ago, in contemporary times only Ambassadors and Chargé d’affaires are commonplace, with the latter being more prevalent.

Dr Silviu Ionescu is said to be a high-ranking diplomat and in some reports he has been identified as a Chargé d’affaires of the Romanian Mission in Singapore. In context of his appointment Dr Ionescu is thus the highest-ranking Romanian diplomat since he is the Head of a Mission.

The level of immunity afforded to a diplomat is dependent on the role of the staff in the mission. The Head of the Mission receives full immunity at all times, while immunity for staff members below him varies from almost full to partial immunity to functional immunity. In general, all service staff, apart from the Head of the Mission and diplomatic staff of importance, are afforded functional immunity only, meaning it is only in effect during the course of their official duty.

Article 41 of the 1961 Vienna Convention states that is the “the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State.” This is at best merely a token inclusion to balance the power of immunity.

In Dr Ionescu’s case he is liable to full diplomatic immunity regardless of when the offence is committed. Thus it is not likely that he can be charged should he be guilty of the crime even if it was committed while off duty. It has been suggested earlier that he may have his passports impounded and be held for investigation. However this is not allowed either given the full immunity status of the individual.

There are however solutions to such a scenario:

1. The receiving country i.e. Singapore has to make a formal request to waive the diplomat’s immunity to pursue the charge. This can be done even if the diplomat is no longer in the country the offence was committed in. While it is rare for such a request to be accepted, there have been exceptions in similar, which have occurred in other countries.

2. The other option is covered in Article 9 of the 1961 Vienna Convention. The offending diplomat can be ruled as a ‘Persona non grata’, which in diplomatic terms refers to someone who is not recognised or welcomed by the state. In such cases the person concerned would be recalled by the sending state or be expelled by the receiving state. This option can be exercised by the receiving state “at any time and without having to explain its decision.”

Since Dr Ionescu has left the country and been officially recalled from his post, option 2 is practically invalid other than for reasons of justice. In which case he may never be allowed to return to Singapore. If Dr Ionescu is in fact guilty of his offences, he may ultimately not escape the grasp of the law at all. But given the intricate matter of bilateral ties the issue will not be resolved easily.

In all likelihood the most likely scenario is that Dr Ionescu will not have his immunity waived and instead be charged in his own country for the offences if he is guilty. There has been precedence in such matters in other countries, where an offending diplomat who did not have his immunity waived is alternatively charged in his own country’s legal system. The obvious difference is that the severity of the sentence is likely to vary widely from that which may be given in the country the crime was committed. Given the surprising support that Dr Ionescu has received going by the comments from Romanian netizens, it is possible that Dr Ionescu may not face the level of justice he would have had, had he not been a diplomat.

Other articles by Bhaskaran Kunju:

>> Why social cohesion is at the forefront of the Prime Minister’s National Day Rally

>> Changes in political system to allow more alternative voices

About Author:

Bhaskaran Kunju is a political science undergraduate in a local varsity. He is a regular contributor to the Straits Times Forum and TODAY Voices.

Tags:

Who will gain and what’s at stake – Additional day of non-campaigning for next General Elections

December 15, 2009 by Our Correspondent
Filed under Bhaskaran Kunju, Columnists, Opinion, Politics

7 Comments

By Bhaskaran Kunju

After concluding his attendance for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Trinidad and Tobago early last week, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made a surprise announcement regarding the next general elections.

PM Lee proposed a change to the pre-electoral proceedings by including an extra day of non-campaigning just before the polling day. As it stands campaign proceedings are carried out all the way till the polling day itself when no campaign activity is allowed.

One of the reasons, cited by PM Lee for the change was for voters to take time out to think rationally before making their decision on whom to vote for after an emotionally charged campaign period.

He said,” I think 24 hours after the last excitement of the election campaign period, the rallies, the door-to-door campaigning, the adrenaline flowing, the clash in the mass media as well as in person, perambulating vans blaring away loud speakers, it’s good to have 24 hours to just calm down, think about it – tomorrow we vote.”

The brief campaign period during General Elections is easily the most active period in Singapore politics and it wouldn’t be wrong to state it as being emotionally charged as well. So while there is some truth in that, it would be quite off the mark to conclude that the voters are just as emotionally affected to the point where they are judgement is clouded and rationality impaired.

The last two elections have seen it’s fair share of emotional highs from Dr Chee Soon Juan’s public tangle with then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in 2001 and the highly charged battle with Worker’s Party candidate James Gomez in 2006.

While these events were widely carried and reported in the mainstream media and in cyberspace there was very little emotional spillover into the electorate. If anything the only resultant from the latter, was a largely negative turnover for the PAP for their role in the James Gomez saga with the public mostly being put off by the constant taunting by the incumbent party while the Worker’s Party carried on with their duties.

It was a miscalculated strategy that very nearly backfired. But most importantly it showed how discerning the voters were in setting aside emotions and logic.

Nevertheless the worry over emotional spillovers is something that has been present for the PAP quite sometime especially given the relatively large turnouts the opposition rallies command as opposed to that of the PAP. Just one day before polling day in 2006 PM Lee acknowledged this phenomenon but brushed it aside as nothing more than mere curiosity.

He said, “”Coming back from Pasir Ris-Punggol last night, I saw my son at the dinner table and asked him ‘where have you been?’ ‘Ang Mo Kio Workers’ Party rally.’ ‘What were you doing there?’ ‘Wanted to know, brought friends, 20 of them from school in uniform and went to hear.’ I asked him ‘what did you hear?’ Don’t know what they were talking about but every time they said something, they cheered – he said that. I said ‘why don’t you come to the PAP rally?’ He said ’so boring and logical’. So I think it’s okay. Many more (are) like that, want to hear but when it comes to the moment to vote and decide, I think they know what’s in their interest.”

However even within the realm of curiosity it will be difficult to discern between emotions and rationality and that’s something that the PAP has been able to catch on to.

In a P65 Blog entry one of the writers, Fredric Fanthome, criticised those who had found fault with PM Lee’s proposal. He suggests, that “opposition mouthpieces” who cry foul at the new proposal, since political broadcasts and news reports during the cooling off day will be in favour of the government as the media is “in the hands of the government”, are insinuating that voters are not aware of the media ‘misuse’ and in the process belittling voter intelligence.

Firstly, his drawing of conclusion is one that is clearly lacking in understanding of the socio-political scene of Singapore, as seen in his rudimentary argumentation process. However he is always free to choose to write whatever he wants in his blog.

But notably, going by that run of conclusion, then low ‘voter intelligence’ is also being insinuated by the PAP since there is now apparently a need to ‘cool off’24 hours before polling day lest they be so irrational that they get taken in by emotions and theatrics and not vote lucidly.

The actual truth could be much more mundane, that is that no one, neither the opposition nor the incumbent party, really has anything tangible to benefit from it. The opposition parties on one hand have always favoured the internet as the medium of choice, something that will be difficult to regulate outside of official party broadcasts.

Even PM Lee acknowledged it, “On the Internet, it’s grey and also the policing is not so straight-forward but even then, in principle we should say today is a quiet day. I cannot control several million videos on youtube but your website, what you’re putting up in your own name, I think that should end the day before the cooling-off day,”

But the possibility that state owned media, which will be fully functional regardless of the election period, still holds the upper hand in the dissemination of information, tilts discourse in favour of the establishment. How effective this will be however will only be seen in practice. A 24-hour period may ultimately not even be enough for a cooling-off period should the concerns of emotional highs be in fact real.

The only telling sign of this new arrangement is that the PAP is indeed playing safe over the possibility of emotional envelopment of issues by the opposition. Especially given the fact that, relatively enough leeway is being given in the next elections as opposed to the last when podcasts were disallowed and the Internet treated with much dread.

With the changes in the electoral system as proposed earlier this year coupled with the domestic worries over immigration and financial woes, there is every likelihood that the next elections could be quite unpredictable all the way till polling day.

Other articles by Bhaskaran Kunju:

>> Why social cohesion is at the forefront of the Prime Minister’s National Day Rally

>> Changes in political system to allow more alternative voices

>> Chiam See Tong rapped for taking Potong Pasir residents for granted

About Author:

Bhaskaran Kunju is a political science undergraduate in a local varsity. He is a regular contributor to the Straits Times Forum and TODAY Voices.

Tags:

Chiam See Tong leaving Potong Pasir- Why, Where and Who

November 12, 2009 by admin
Filed under Bhaskaran Kunju, Columnists, Opinion, Politics

42 Comments

By Bhaskaran Kunju

Last week, on November 3, Singapore People’s Party chairman Sin Kek Tong announced that the Potong Pasir ward would most likely be contested by ‘someone new’ though no specific names were hinted at.

The Potong Pasir ward, a single member constituency, has been held by MP Chiam See Tong since 1984.

With 25 consecutive years under his belt as Member of Parliament, Mr Chiam is Singapore’s longest serving opposition MP having outlasted even J.B. Jeyaratnam (JBJ). JBJ being Singapore’s first opposition MP, having won the Anson by-elections just 3 years earlier.

Mr Chiam, not unlike JBJ, has also faced a tumult of challenges in his years in politics but has never shown signs of wavering from his seat of power.

While JBJ found his political career in tatters, Mr Chiam non-confrontational approach has repeatedly won over the people for 6 consecutive General Elections, a huge feat when taking into account the problems he had faced in his political career as well as the stifling political climate present in Singapore.

Mr Chiam initially contested under the Singapore Democratic Party banner, a party that he had founded in 1980 but found himself on the wrong side of party members in 1995 due to the polarising effect of the newly recruited Mr Chee Soon Juan.

The incidents resulting from it nearly threatened his political career, but Mr Chiam went on to accept membership and the chairmanship at the Singapore People’s Party and has carried on his good work unhindered.

As of 2001 he leads the Singapore Democratic Alliance, a political alliance between Singapore Malay National Organisation and the Singapore People’s Party.

The news of Mr Chiam’s decision to not contest as an incumbent came, as a surprise to many political observers but it is not entirely without practical thought. He had suffered a stroke just last year, which led to some initial disruption with his weekly meet-the-people sessions.

Mr Chiam however will not be stepping away from politics as he has stated his interest to contest in a Group Representative Constituency (GRC) for the next elections.

This will inevitably lead to three questions, ‘Which constituency would Mr Chiam be contesting in?’, ‘Why contest a GRC?’ and ‘Who would succeed Mr Chiam in his Potong Pasir constituency?’

Logically it would be about time for Mr Chiam to pass on the mantle to a younger successor. Mr Chiam turns 75 next March and as mentioned before has shown signs of wavering health.

Some political observers have pointed to Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam, the eldest son of JBJ and Secretary-General of the Reform Party, carrying on his legacy at Potong Pasir. However I believe there is likelihood that Mr Chiam’s successor could be someone a lot closer to his lineage.

Mr Chiam’s daughter, Camilla 33, has been involved in her father’s political career though she has kept a low profile in the media. However she should be of familiarity to residence of Potong Pasir, having done a lot of legwork in her father’s past campaigns and having most recently filled in for him at the meet-the-people sessions, after his hospitalisation due to a stroke.

Familiarity is obviously not the only reason, one should also take into account Mr Chiam’s oft-repeated and well proven statement that his constituents are bought over by their trust in him.

Lofty promises of upgrading and charm offences backfired tremendously for the PAP candidate Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.

Speaking to reporters right after the 2006 General Elections, Ms Camilla Chiam had this to say about her father’s victory, “We worked hard and managed to beat abalone porridge and that $80-million carrot,” the latter being a reference to the upgrading projects and the former a reference to the abalone porridge nights arranged by Mr Sitoh Yih Pin for Potong Pasir constituents. While the porridges were a success it didn’t necessarily translate into votes.

Mr Chiam’s biggest advantage over his PAP rivals has been his decades long familiarity with the residents but with nearly a generation having passed since his initial win, there is a possibility that he could be losing his core supporters. However in the last elections he retained his seat in parliament with a 55.82% majority, which in itself is a small yet significant improvement of nearly 3.5% from the previous elections of 2001.

Contrary to popular belief, Mr Chiam’s appeal has not faded and a family member such as his daughter would make a logical successor if she could bank on his well-entrenched reputation among the constituents. Ideally it would be less of a risk than to field in a new candidate, like Mr Jeyaretnam, an unknown to the constituents and a new entrant to the political sphere.

There has already been speculation that Mr Chiam may field himself as part of a ‘super group’ in the Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC. The Bishan GRC is relatively new and has been uncontested since 1997.

The highly developed constituency is a PAP strong hold and is one of the toughest GRCs to get a foothold of. However the high level of development could work in favour of the opposition since the PAP’s main tactic in winning over voters has been with promises of upgradings.

The assumption in favour of PAP will be voter gratitude for the development and upgrading of the area. The failure to capture the two opposition wards despite the promises of upgrading has had a sobering effect on the PAP, with promises to change their tactic.

But the issues of political contentment stretch further than upgrading needs. It will not be impossible for a GRC to be won by an opposition. In the 2006 elections the Aljunied GRC was hotly contested by the Worker’s Party team led by Ms Sylvia Lim and garnered 43.91% of the vote. A significant amount for a GRC and even more so when taking into account it was the best performance by a losing opposition in any constituency in the 2006 elections.

Similarly the PM Lee led PAP team for the Ang Mo Kio GRC lost 33.86% of the votes to a very inexperienced and young Worker’s Party team. It wouldn’t be too off the mark to suggest that a GRC would be there for the taking at the next elections with so much of the gap having been closed in the last elections.

It must also be noted that earlier this year there were amendments made to the GRC and Single Member Constituency (SMC) criteria. In the same parliamentary sitting when PM Lee announced changes in the NMP and NCMP seats he also stated that the number of SMCs would be increased from 8 to 12 and the average number of members in a GRC would be reduced to no more than an average of 5. Meaning, there will be fewer 6 member GRCs and more smaller GRCs.

In addition to that, he also stated that with this changes there would be inevitable adjustments made to electoral boundaries. Hence, in his own words, “the new configurations should be made known and justified many months in advance of the elections.”

Given such a scenario, it would be easy to see why opposition candidates may seem the time might be right for the capture of a GRC. With Mr Chiam having taken his Potong Pasir Constituency as far as he possibly could, it could make sense that he needs to take up a new challenge.

It is very likely that Mr Chiam may contest in a GRC with Mr Jeyaretnam as part of a opposition ‘super group’ to maximise their appeal to the voters. But unlike talks of a Bishan-Toa Payoh contest, I think it would be more likely that he could contest the Jalan Besar GRC which was previously contested by his SDA party and lost despite garnering 31.30% of the votes.

Jalan Besar GRC also comprises a relatively older enclave of Singaporeans who might be able to identify with the political stature of Mr Chiam and the legacy of the Jeyaretnams. However with election dates still a year away and election boundaries likely to be altered it is unlikely that Mr Chiam or his party would make an announcement as yet. But I would like to stress that the elections would most likely be held next year before 2011.

For some reason the press keeps speculating on the actual year, with some claiming it could be held as early as end of the year. Anyone paying attention to Parliamentary sessions this year would have picked up on PM Lee referring to the elections as the ‘2010 General Elections’. It is possible that he could be using a generic term, but it is highly unlikely for the PM to be throwing around generic terms in Parliament without much basis to it.

Related articles:

>> SPP rebukes PM Lee

>> Chiam See Tong leaving Potong Pasir: a political suicide?

>> PM Lee: PAP will not be taken advantage of again in Potong Pasir

EDITORS’ NOTE:

If you like our work and would like to support us, please transfer your donations via paypal to our account (temasekreview@gmail.com). Any amount will be greatly appreciated! Alternatively, you can also help boost our advertising revenue by clicking on the ads displayed. Thank you!

Join our tweet at: http://www.twitter.com/temasekreview

About the Author:

Tags:

Debunking SM Goh’s claims that Singapore will go the way of the dinosaurs without PRs and new citizens

November 10, 2009 by admin
Filed under Bhaskaran Kunju, Columnists, Opinion, Politics

35 Comments

By Bhaskaran Kunju, Political Correspondent

On November 6 Senior Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong spoke at the Deepa Thirunal 2009 ceremony held at the Bradell Heights Community Club. In what was supposed to be an extended celebration of Deepavali, SM Goh discussed the topic of immigrants and social integration. It can be read here.

By now it would not be of any surprise to anyone that this topic gets reinvigorated at every event possible all the way till the General Elections next year.

There is of course an underlying reason for this, and it has been discussed before in my previous articles. But there are some points that SM Goh had raised that I think needs to be discussed.

Firstly, SM Goh drew comparisons of ‘successful’ social integration with two events he had attended. He recounted a Deepavali function with items put up by children of new Indian migrants who in his words “could easily pass off as Singaporeans” and his visit to Fujian, his ancestral village where he was welcomed as a Singaporean and not as a returning Chinese. For the latter, he noted that he himself was the son of a first generation Chinese migrant yet he was a Singaporean in every aspect.

The obvious flaw in his argument is that his father would almost certainly have been part of the first few waves of migrants, since SM Goh himself was born in 1941.

Being born before Singapore was even forged as an independent state, he would have been part of the process of nationalisation that would have instilled in its population the core identity and value of the country. It would have been quite a feat had he been immune to it.

To compare his path to becoming a Singaporean with that of the migrant children he had seen perform in the function is completely off the mark and takes lightly the difficulty and hardship the earlier generation of Singaporeans had to endure.

SM Goh then goes on to discuss the effect that PRs and migrants have had on Singaporeans and calls it an ‘emotive issue’. But he emphasises the stance of the Government by explaining his views on it. He said, “To me, whether we should have more immigrants and migrant workers or not boils down to whether they help us to sustain and enrich the quality of life of Singaporeans.”

Of course there is irony in his statement, since it is Singaporeans who seem to feel the opposite of having their quality of lives sustained and or enriched by immigrants.

With this however he recites three main reasons for the policy of bringing in large number of immigrants; low birth rates among Singaporeans, the need for migrant labour to sustain our standard of living and for enriching our society.

For the issue of low birth rates he states the following,

“For all our effort in encouraging marriage and procreation, our total fertility rate climbed only marginally from 1.26 in 2004 to 1.28 last year. This is still far short of the 2.1 needed to replace father and mother. In absolute terms, we need about 60,000 babies per year.

Last year, we had only 32,400 citizen babies! How do we make up for the shortfall?

Without PRs and new citizens, Singapore will go the way of the dinosaurs. If we do not take in any more new immigrants, our population will begin to shrink in 2020. That is only 11 years away! Let me give you another statistic. In the last 10 years, the number of people aged 65 and above has grown by about 100,000 while the number of children aged below 15 had shrunk by about 50,000. This is an unsustainable demographic structure”

The statistics are of course worrying. With an ageing population that is far short of it’s natural replacement rate the impact it would have on the labour pool as well as on society could very well be devastating. But there are inherent flaws in this ideology of supplanting the problem with immigrants.

Firstly there is a gross assumption here that somehow, PRs and new citizens would repopulate our country with more newborns and hence meet our shortfall for the natural replacement rate.

Existing Singaporeans aren’t genetically deficient in reproducing. The reasons for a shortfall in birth rates are due to socio-economic reasons such as high cost of living, the same set of reasons that new PRs and new citizens will have to face.

Unless we Singaporeans are indeed somehow genetically predisposed to not having children, then the idea that PRs and new citizens will help in reaching our natural replacement rate is one that appears to be a quick fix with little thought put into it.

SM Goh states how government policies of encouraging Singaporean to have more children have ‘failed’. But shifts in social attitudes, especially ones that have been entrenched for decades, take time and should not be measured in just a few short years. The fault of course lies in the administration for not having the foresight to diagnose the problem much earlier.

Additionally is there a policy in place to prioritise giving PR or citizenship status to families with more than one child? It would not seem so and in this instance wouldn’t more immigrants merely contribute to the problem of an ageing population? It isn’t population replacement anymore, it’s population displacement.

Actually it inadvertently could be replacement, with Singaporeans choosing greener pastures.

For the argument of immigrants to top up our labour pool SM Goh had the following to say,

“Without them, my guess is that our growth rate would be easily 1 to 2 percentage points lower. Well, you may say, let us do without this extra boost of 1 to 2 percentage points from foreigners in future and be satisfied with our present quality of life. But it is not that simple.

Without the foreign workforce, our flats and MRT will not be built, our buses will come to a standstill, our healthcare services will degrade, and many investors, including Singaporean ones, will uproot and go where talent is abundant. Instead of sacrificing just 1-2 percentage points of growth, our economy will shrink, and our quality of life decline.”

Surprisingly, there appears to be a lack of sync with public sentiments and government perceptions. Foreign workers building MRT and flats is not a new phenomenon and has been around for decades.

In fact most of the earlier MRT underground lines were built by Irish tunnelers. Factually, it would even be wrong to lump this group of migrant workers in when most of them are in fact merely transient workers as explained by PM Lee Hsien Loong in a speech at NTU not too long ago.

The real issue over immigrant workers lies in the added competition to Singaporeans. Competition is good, and it ensures that each individual functions to his best for survival. But the question is how much competition is too much? Going by anecdotal evidences it would seem we might have touched the threshold.

However I feel the real issue lies in how or why immigrant workers are being given PR or citizenship statuses. How, because once again we are giving away citizenship and PR statuses much too easily without the slightest concern of integration or their interest in actually settling down in Singapore.

Why issue PR or citizenship when a work permit is sufficient for those who have no interest in settling down in Singapore? This would bring to the why part.

I was watching a debate a few months ago on the issue of foreigners and one of the reasons given for issuing PRs or citizenships to foreign workers was as an added bait to entice more talents to work in Singapore.

I personally think it’s about time our government stopped acting like an insecure teenage girl who feels she needs to put out to get a date.

The opportunity to pursue a career plus the well promoted social stability and security of our nation should be more than sufficient for any individual to choose to work here. If it isn’t enough, then perhaps we shouldn’t be so desperate as we simply do no fit their criteria.

I think most moderates, including myself would agree that the issue of immigrants itself is not the problem but rather the extent of it and the incredible ease of attaining PR or citizenship.

Of course we do need migrant workers and talent to enrich our society, economy and way of life. But when there are more than 100 000 new migrants each year then there are certainly a lot of questions to answer for.

In 2008, 20500 new citizens, an increase of 18 percent from the year before, were welcomed. Additionally the number of PRs rose from 63,600 in 2007 to more than 79,000 in 2008. These are staggering figures that are rising by the year, though PM Lee assured there would be a decline in coming years given the uncertain state of the economy.

SM Goh concedes that there are worries and anxieties that need to be engaged and discussed given the sensitivity surrounding the issue of immigrants. But he also states, “The government must take all views into account, and then persuade and win over Singaporeans.” In other words, opinions are futile.

About the Author:

Tags:

PSLE furore: who is to blame?

October 25, 2009 by admin
Filed under Bhaskaran Kunju, Columnists, Opinion, Politics

22 Comments

By Bhaskaran Kunju, Political Correspondent

The issue of examinations being too difficult is one that has been around for a long time. So the most recent incidents of the PSLE Mathematics and Chinese Language papers being too difficult making headlines came as a bit of a surprise to me. Of course a story has to be sold, so it’s been called even more difficult than those of past years.

Looking at the sample questions that have been released it does appear to be difficult. But I suppose it is a matter of opinion if the questions are indeed more difficult than that of previous years. But at the heart of the matter, what exactly is the problem? How is it that the same type of complaints isn’t heard at the ‘O’ Level or ‘A’ Level examinations?

I think for one, there is an over emphasis on the streaming process, and even more so wrongly at a relatively young age. To a lot of parents the primary school phase becomes a make or break period of their child’s lives when they should be cherishing the fleeting moments of childhood. Don’t blame the parent for obviously wanting what’s best for their child. The fault is in the system.

A lot of students at age 12 would not have matured intellectually and may only reach their peak years later. For the few who have reached that peak at a young age, they get the advantage of continuing their education in a more robust and academic oriented stream.

The lack of good grades at a young age, specifically at the PSLE, doesn’t mean the student will be handicapped if placed on an equal learning path as others who did better than him or her. There are students with weak academic grades who are accepted in elite schools given their sports or artistic background. These group of students often times fare no worse than their peers. In other words they actually benefit from being placed in the same learning environment as their academically better peers. In these instances there is just no correlation between prior academic results and capabilities of a student.

There is I believe some rationale in the current system of streaming. Given the limitations of resources and capabilities of some students it may make sense to have a system of streaming in place to ensure each child receives optimum education and allocative efficiency for resources is achieved. But the present system is without a doubt being applied too broadly and that ultimately weeds out too many students from entering the mainstream or higher.

Yes there is room for student to move in to other streams should they demonstrate the capability to. But why should a child be starting from a position of disadvantage? And in practice this flow of students between streams, is far less flexible as well. The crucial flaw in the system as mentioned earlier is how the streaming stage is placed at such a young age.

Students sitting for the ‘O’ and ‘A’ level examinations largely contend with rote learning with little emphasis on application. Yes, there have been some changes in syllabus over the years to incorporate more application skills into the exams, but any student will be able to tell you how insignificant the additions have been.

I mentioned in a previous article, “Should Universities be Re-Politicised?” about how we have become a nation that produces great workers but not leaders. That really is the reality for our education system. When taking into account the perpetual problem of brain drain as cited by our ministers, this only further emphasizes that issue. It is no wonder then that we have resorted to foreigners to fill the gaps of our labour pool.

Mr Sim Wong Hoo, the founder and CEO of Creative Technology is probably one of Singapore’s greatest entrepreneurs. For the uninitiated, Mr Sim is the brain behind one of the key computer utilities we take for granted, the sound card. His stand-alone sound card, the Sound Blaster is one of the most widely recognised brands in the world and has taken its place in IT history. Having won multiple awards and been used as an example by our ministers in various speeches over the years, his independent success seems to be an anomaly for Singapore in general.

I remember a talk given by him at my alma mater, Raffles Institution. He mentioned how his early sound cards were sold off the street and were only intended to play music. But upon receiving feedback, he expanded the capabilities of his device for other uses as well and the result of it is a dominant company that is largely unmatched in its core expertise of sound cards.

The path to success is never fixed and it takes a lot of adjustments and creativity to maneuver through each obstacle that comes in the way. But most of all it also requires persistence and endurance to take in each setback. Mr Sim’s education record and route is not one that we would associate with as leading to success but he has achieved more in his life than what most of us will fail to in all our lifetimes combined.

Unsurprisingly Mr Sim has been a critic of our system as well. In his book Chaotic Thoughts from the Old Millennium, he uses the analogy of U-turns, to describe restrictions on Singaporeans and their subsequent inability in response and reaction without an authoritative figure. We just do not have the system in place to produce more Mr Sim Wong Hoos.

We’ve produced students who do well at each International Science Olympiad, which almost always automatically leads to praise for our education system. But how relevant are these awards in judging the actual intellectual capabilities of the students, when what they have demonstrated is largely rote learning.

There is an inherent flaw in the system that instead of being fixed has been papered over the years instead. With this latest issue over the PSLE papers looking to subside we may just have to contend with status quo yet again.

Other articles by Bhaskaran Kunju:

>> Why social cohesion is at the forefront of the Prime Minister’s National Day Rally

>> Changes in political system to allow more alternative voices