Category: Rants

Current Affairs – Opposition Disunity

3 comments

The famous story of Top Horse, Middle Horse, and Weak Horse

Sun Bin (孫臏) was a master strategist who served General Tian of the Kingdom Qi (齊國) in the Warring States Period (戰國時代 476-221 B.C.). General Tian raced horses with the princes of Qi as a hobby, often wagering large sums of money. One day, General Tian came up to Sun for advice on an upcoming horse race, which seemed to be at a draw. As the usual practice went, the contest consisted of three races. The traditional strategy for victory was to pit one’s best, middle, and worst horse against the similar horses of his rival. Sun Bin advised General Tian to race his worst horse against his rival’s best horse, to pit his best horse against his rival’s middle horse, and finally to use his middle horse to compete against his rival’s worst horse. General Tian followed Sun’s advice; after one loss and two wins, General Tian was declared the final winner of the contest. As a good strategist, Sun Bin saw the larger picture and understood that the goal was to win the contest, not each race.

I thought I saw the light at the end of the tunnel when I read that the National Solidarity Party [NSP] is ‘prepared to make way for the Workers’ Party [WP]’ in the Moulmein-Kallang GRC. That was before I read the conditions that Goh Meng Seng (NSP’s Secretary-General) set for the WP, and that is – the NSP will not contest ‘only if the WP sends its top guns there’. By ‘top guns’, he was specifically referring to WP’s Secretary-General and Chairman, Low Thia Kiang and Sylvia Lim respectively.

Goh Meng Seng says that he ‘wants to help the opposition realise its dream of winning a GRC at the coming general election’ and that he wants ‘to see a GRC fall at this election, so that PAP MPs and ministers know there is no safe fortress in GRCs’. As netizen and regular opposition critic ‘Bryan Ti’ suggested – It is probable that Goh Meng Seng is implicitly suggesting to the WP to concentrate its fire power in the Aljunied GRC where their winning chances are higher. If that was the case, the image of Goh Meng Seng with an itch on the left of his face but scratching it with the right hand going behind the neck comes to mind.

Most people would have read the story of the Top Horse, Middle Horse and Weak Horse (see story on right). It is an old example of strategy that many of us would have heard of. Why is Goh Meng Seng fielding his ‘best horses’ – the two former government scholarship holders – in Moulmein-Kallang in the first place? They are going to run up not just against the Tali-PAP, but also against the WP – which would possibly be the most popular opposition party right now. As ‘Bryan Ti’ pointed out, wouldn’t it be better to use them to shore up his own team in Tampines GRC? In fact, that would allow him to concentrate his firepower on the much hated Mah Bow Tan Mabok Tongue on the matter of public housing. Hazel Poa has definitely written on the topic of public housing privately, and also when she was a RP member. Not to mention that I seem to recall seeing a video of Tony Tan (Hazel’s husband) speaking on the matter of bring the cost of public housing down at the RP Rally and Picnic in Hong Lim Park as well. Of course, Goh Meng Seng can’t just say he give up and let WP walk away with this without a considerable loss of face, and thus he throw this outrageous challenge in the face of his former mentor.

It is my opinion that this is an offer that the WP should simply ignore. To abandon either Hougang SMC or Aljunied GRC offers no advantage to the WP at all. (Alternatively, it can just be treacherous and agree to it and then field something else on nomination day.) While this seems like an offer that is beneficial to the opposition as a whole, and setting the stage for the other parties to ‘settle their differences’, it is nothing more than a third rate political ploy that benefits no one other than the NSP itself, and does nothing to cultivate democracy in Singapore.

Most have pointed out that a 3-corner fight benefits the incumbent and does nothing to benefit the voter. But neither does this ‘masak-masak’ (Malay: loosely translated as child’s play) way of deciding who would contest benefit the voters at all. I strongly object to such undemocratic political horse trading and ‘black box’ negotiations. On what basis do the opposition parties decide who should contest which constituency? I had objected to the By Election Effect Strategy (BEES) in which the opposition has for too long abandoned voters in the west side of Singapore, and allowing us ‘no choice’ by giving the Tali-PAP a walkover. The decision to avoid 3-corner fights and deciding on which party would contest is the next worse thing – since a party which I favored might not show up in the end. It annoys me to no end that the opposition parties at times shamelessly talk about how Singapore lacked democracy when they resort to picking the alternative candidates for us without even asking for our opinion in the matter!

Frankly, an opposition party cannot justify that it has worked the ground long enough and the other party asan interloper simply because it has more photos to show on its website or a Facebook page. Take for example Pioneer SMC where I stayed, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), NSP and RP have all shown their interest to contest. The RP has done the most walk abouts in the area, but that does not mean I would vote any RP candidate that contest here. In fact, I don’t even know who the RP will be putting up to contest here. Kenneth Jeyaratnam – its Secretary-General – is perhaps the only face I know. That’s not mentioning, should a SDP candidate ends up as the opposition’s choice to contest in Pioneer, I will be so pissed off that I might deliberately cast a rejected vote even though I may have intended to vote the opposition in the first place. It is a wasteful exercise to make me go to the polls when most of the other people would rather not vote the SDP. However, if there is some form of poll showing that the majority of the voters in Pioneer SMC prefers a particular party’s candidate, I might actually rally behind this candidate as long as I have no reservations about the candidate and his party.

A friend pointed out that the fact that some opposition parties feared a 3-corner fight is that they never in the first place even believe they can win. I agree with this friend, and I do not say this lightly. After all, it is evident that only 25% or less of voters vote indiscriminately in favor of the opposition throughout the years and the middle voters are generally not easily swayed. One simply need to look at the past election results to see it for themselves. So what about 3-corner fights that really spooked some of these opposition parties is the fear of vote dilution. They seem to believe that presenting the voters that it’s either us or those ‘Tali-PAP frakkers’, the voters would happily vote for them as long as they are pissed off with the Tali-PAP. At the very least, even if they lose, they don’t end up losing their deposits. It wouldn’t be stretching it to say that these opposition candidates go to the polls with the same mood as a punter who bought a Toto ticket, hoping that by chance they get lucky with a win. At the same time, they hope to get their bet back even when they don’t win at all!

Thus, it would actually be better for the voters and our election culture to allow 3-corner fights to occur. In Taiwan, multi-corner fights are so common that if there are more than one candidate from the same ‘color’ (be it Blue or Green – the colors of Kuomintang [KMT] and Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] respectively), their voters will simply rally behind and endorse just one candidate of that ‘color’ and ‘discard’ the rest. In Chinese it is called 棄保效應 in which I loosely translate as the ‘Discard and Protect’ Effect. In short, if the opposition parties cannot come to terms (even through non-democratic, ‘black box’ negotiations) and avoid 3-corner fights, let it happen so the candidates who hope to get lucky lose their deposits. Let some of those people who have always been also-rans (and clearly will never get elected) quit because they can no longer afford to run. Otherwise, we will never hear the end of such dogfights between the opposition parties before every election. What purpose does it serve other than to cause voters to lose heart over the lack of the ever illusive (and non-existent) ‘opposition unity’?

Let’s face it, there are no friends forever in politics. Imagine the day when one opposition party comes into power, does anyone think it would actually treasure the past good relationship and so-call ‘camaraderie’ with the other parties?

Random Discourse – It’s time to ‘Goh’!

Leave a comment

Senior Senile Mini$ter Goh Chok Tong chided Singaporeans for making a meal out of Singapore’s ‘sporadic’ floods. He suggested that Singaporeans should follow Japan’s example in dealing with nationwide catastrophes. I quote:

How many of you followed the latest tragic events in Japan with the tsunami… and then put into context our floods in Singapore against that kind of disaster. I am not saying we shouldn’t do anything about the flood. But the amount of noise you made with just sporadic flood compared to the Japanese. I saw them on TV. Very stoic looking. You don’t see them crying. This has happened, just get on, that’s the kind of spirit you want to have and you call it nation building.

I don’t recall anyone of us was crying when Orchard Road, parts of Thomson or even Jalan Besar flooded. We were as stoic as we can get, because we don’t even complain when an old man who refused to retire talked about ‘wanting spurs to be stuck into our hide’ and called us ‘daft’. Did the Senile Mini$ter encounter one too many whiners in his rich man’s ward? Or perhaps he read some mindlessly rabid pro-opposition local forums one time too many?

To be exact, some of us wrote to the papers to talk about the old days where Bukit Timah Road was almost always flooded whenever it rains and even talk about how we can improve the situation at Orchard Road. Are we not allowed to talk about what may have caused some of the floods and what conditions may have changed on the ground that needed a review? On one hand the Senile Mini$ter says that opinion from Singaporeans mattered, has opinion only got to come in the channels approved by the Tali-PAP, and only in a manner favorable – preferably extolling its virtues and achievements? Is this the way to encourage the development of a civic society, where the people take part in deciding what is best for their home, their country?


News Article Here.

Seriously, if the Senile Mini$ter expects us to behave like the Japanese, then our mini$ter$ should do as Japanese ministers do – resign when they fail, and not find excuses for themselves. For e.g. Seiji Maehara recently resigned for accepting a donation (not a bribe) from a foreign national. That’s not mentioning that several years ago, Toshikatsu Matsuoka committed suicide for unexplained expenses (see screenshot on left) – the first one to do so since the end of World War II.

However, did we see the same coming from our mini$ter$? The matter of the so-called ‘sporadic’ floods aside, who took responsibility for Mas Selamat’s escape? Did anyone took responsibility for the budget overruns of the Youth Olympic Games? What about a $388 million sum given to Singtel that was simply discounted as an ‘honest and unfortunate’ mistake?

When the Tali-PAP gahmen don’t even have the courage to take the rap for minor fiascos such as the Orchard floods, I shudder to imagine what will happen in the future if the nuclear reactor which feasibility this gahmen is studying right now suffers a meltdown!

Personally speaking, I will be proud of our mini$ter$ if they would die with honor rather than to live with their failure. Caesars will be able to provide a variety of nicely crafted blades for them to slit their little yellow bellies – samurai style. In fact, I would be most happy to see them use the Padang for such a public display of personal atonement. I will certainly turn up to cheer the courageous mini$ter on. That’s not forgetting the Singapore government gahmen should revise mini$terial pay downwards to match that of the Japanese too.

Let us consider what would happen had the Japanese gahmen been like ours. It would be telling the people that ‘no amount of engineering’ will deal with the natural calamities that beset their nation when skyscrapers in Tokyo not only swayed, but collapsed. It would probably conduct an investigation for the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant, and a report will obfuscate the problem and some manager at the plant they wouldn’t otherwise have heard of will take the rap for the failure. On top of which, its Prime Minster will only address the nation days after the disaster, just like what happened after Mas Selamat has escaped.

Mr Goh, it’s probably high time for the residents of Marine Parade to decide for you it’s time to go. Maybe you can join your daughter…

Random Discourse – Budget 2011

Leave a comment


Click for Full Size

Been wanting to write this post during the budget debate, but I just couldn’t find time. Anyway, I went with some friends to a ‘Coffeeshop Talk’ on the Budget organised by the Young NTUC on 26 February. This is the third time I attend such a talk, and my basic idea is to get a general idea on the basis of the government’s gahmen’s decision, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. For one of my friends, he mentioned that at the very least, we need to at least get a better understanding of what we are opposing.

The Minister of State invited to the event was Mr Lee Yi Shyan and before the Q&A session began, he explained that we should look at the Budget from 3 perspectives, namely – ‘Inside Out’ (not outside in), ‘Back to the Future’, and the International Environment.

I’ll try and explain what he meant as best as I understood it. (If there are any mistakes, that maybe because I have misunderstood what he meant.) By ‘Inside Out’, he meant that we should look at it from the planner’s (i.e. the Minister of Finance) perspective and not the man-on-the-street one. By ‘Back to the Future’, he meant that we should be mindful of the percussions of a decision made today and how it would damage the future. And lastly, by ‘International Environment’, he meant we need to be aware of what goes on around the world so we learn the lesson, and know how that will affect us.

After this, the members of the floor was asked to raise their questions. I felt that unlike the previous two session I attended, the questions this time round was more hard hitting. I didn’t take notice of all the questions, because I generally have a short attention span and I’ll let my mind drift off when the person who asks the question doesn’t get to the point after 20secs.

However, I did catch the first question, which comes in several parts (and also contain some of the things I probably would have asked). First of all, the minister was asked why the 0.5% CPF increment goes into the Special Account [SA] and not the Ordinary Account [OA] which would allow Singaporeans to use it on servicing their housing loans. He was also asked about the foreign workers levy which doesn’t do much to limit S-Pass and Employment Pass category, and thus is doing nothing to secure the jobs of PMETs (Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians).

From what I understand from the minister’s answer, the 0.5% was meant to increase the workers’ savings for his old age, since the SA earns higher interest. The main objective is to build the workers’ independence so they would not rely on the gahmen. (In my personal opinion, I would consider it a monetary tightening measure, since it would take money out of the circulation. 0.5% isn’t a lot of money for each worker, since it is just $15 for someone earning $3000 a month. But on a conservative estimate of a 1.7 million workforce in Singapore and $10 a person, that would roughly be S$ 204 million a year. While I maybe wrong, that would do something to curb inflation. But I would applaud the gahmen on the way they packaged it to be something primarily for the benefit of the people.)

As for the matter of the levy with regard to S-Pass and Employer Pass holders, the minister said the Ministry of Manpower will take that into consideration in the future. Personally I doubt it would ever happen since the minister reminded everyone present that the objective of raising the levy is not to force companies to substitute foreign workers with locals, nor to give our workers an easier time. The gahmen is concerned that any form of ’employment protectionism’ would create is a workforce that would become complacent and subsequently too expensive to be employed, or lacking the skills relevant to the ever changing economy. Thus, it hopes that companies would raise productivity and the workers would improve on skill (which is in line with the S$3.4 billion spent on the second part of the budget.)

One of the hosts from the NTUC raised the point that from what he has gathered while speaking to some people, they are concerned that if the gahmen raises the levy, bosses may be forced to maintain their costs by firing the Singaporean. The minister then reminded us that there is a dependency ration which will prevent Singaporeans from being retrenched. (My personal opinion is that all of this sounds reasonable, yet I have so far failed to find articles telling us in what specific industries are we lacking in manpower that foreigners need to be employed as far as PMETs are concerned. The matter is, as long as we continue to hear of friends who remained unemployed while jobs they are qualified for are taken up by foreigners, it will be difficult to erase the perception that there are too many foreigners and not enough is done to curb them.)

The other question raised was that the ‘goodies’ given out is not enough to fight inflation and price increments. The minister mentioned that inflation is not as bad and cited examples of some items in supermarkets in which prices has not gone up but has become cheaper. I would say I strongly disagree with that, since prices at the supermarket would mean we are expected to buy these items and cook and eat at home to keep costs low. It definitely does not align with the fact that prices can go up 50cents to a dollar in hawker centers which would translate into 10% ~ 25% price increments! Case in point, my favorite pork rib prawn noodle stall at Amoy Street Hawker Centre has raised the base price from $3 to $4 a bowl.

Of course, there were another matter also touched on, something about raising the fertility rate which I lost interest on completely because of the way the questioner raised his question. Come on, just keep it simple, silly alright? I clearly don’t like people to rant on and on about something I already know before the question is asked.

Either way I did catch part of the answer in which it seems like the gahmen is in the opinion that the cost of living is not what that is the main obstacle to couples having children (or even getting married). But rather, they are more interested in their material pursuits over their love of children. It was mentioned (I can’t remember who said it) that though some Scandinavian countries have a high TFR (Total Fertility Rate), the taxation level of those countries are high to allow free education etc for a child. The gahmen believes we would object to that kind of tax burden to solve the TFR issue, not to mention that Singapore’s unique position makes it difficult for such policies. Something which I don’t necessary disagree with, since I don’t want to be caught in situation where taxes needs to be increased further because the gahmen needs more money.

At this point I believed Josephine Teo mentioned that perhaps we should take our eyes off our material pursuits and look at the other things, such as appreciation of arts etc because the museums have remained empty in spite of the low entry costs. In my opinion, that would like ‘quenching one’s thirst by looking at plums’ (望梅止渴) because clearly we need to ensure our material needs are satisfied before we can move to the other levels of Maslow Hierarchy of Needs. It would be absurd for anyone who is struggling to keep their own personal budget balanced to contemplate what she suggested.

My overall impression of this entire talk is that the gahmen seems to be more concerned with the future consequences of their actions today. That is perhaps what sets them apart from the opposition which is focused on the here and now.

Aside from the talk, I object to the gahmen’s argument that reducing GST would be more beneficial to the rich than to the poor even when I can agree that the GST collected as a rich man’s single purchase of some items would at times be more than what a poor person would pay in an entire year. If I had gotten my facts right, the gahmen tells us that 16% of total GST comes from the rich. But what about the other 84%? How much of that 84% is made up of other commercial activities, or more ominously… from the poor? Was there a breakdown of that 84% which I missed out?

It is ludicrous that the gahmen argues against removal of GST on necessities. One of the example cited is that while clothing is a necessity, a rich man buying a branded piece of garment would thus be spared from GST. I find it ridiculous that our million dollar mini$ter$ would not be able to come up with a list of items classified as luxuries. Meantime, I read on the papers that someone suggested that if the gahmen finds that it is difficult to reduce GST because it would be difficult to isolate luxury items from necessities, then it should consider a rebate of GST for those people whose earning are below a certain level. I personally think that is a great idea and it’s high time the gahmen stop giving excuses and do something about the infernal GST.

Current Affairs – Electoral Boundaries Redrawn

Leave a comment


Click for Enlarged

Now that the new electoral boundaries have been finalised, it is certain that the General Election won’t be very far away. Some are putting their bets on a lightning election in late March, while many on some time in May.

With the boundaries redrawn, part of the West Coast Group Representative Constituency (GRC) – which I used to be a part of – has been carved out to form a new Single-Member Constituency (SMC) called Pioneer – whereby I am now a ‘member’. My best guess (since I do not have the actual maps marking the boundaries and I hadn’t bothered reading the local papers) is that the junction of Jurong West Central 1 and Jalan Boon Lay forms the north eastern corner of Pioneer SMC. The ‘thumb’ of West Coast GRC, hemmed in between Hong Kah North SMC and Pioneer SMC will be the area bordered by Jurong West Street 61 to the West and Jalan Boon Lay to the East with Jurong West Ave 2 and 4 forming the northern border while Jurong West Central 1 and Street 62 forming its southern counterpart. If my ‘guess-timate’ is right, even Pioneer Mall itself would be within the boundaries of the West Coast GRC! I personally think that the new boundaries are insane and you just have to take a look at the simple map attached here to see just how ridiculous West Coast GRC is. Anyway, I am happy that I am in an SMC in spite of the insane boundaries. After all, it is almost certain that it will be contested and it will be the first time in my life that I will be voting.

The image on the right shows which constituency I am in when I checked using my Singpass on the Elections Deparment Website. It also tells me that my polling district is ‘PI-WE-40’, and I believe that will decide my polling station as well. There is really not much importance in this information to most individuals, but it would be of some great importance to the political parties which intend to contest the area, especially if it was contested in the last election.

The reason being, even though the candidates will not know who you or your neighbours voted for, they will have a general idea of their support in a particular area. It basically allows any ruling party to ‘gerrymander’ as they can ‘move’ polling districts between neighbouring constituencies – i.e. merging polling districts where the opposition is having a strong showing into a constituency where support for the ruling party is strong, or offer goodies targeted at that specific polling district to attract votes. Polling district absorptions work especially well in favor of the ruling party in Singapore because the local opposition parties are not strong enough to contest all the constituencies, and many do not constantly work the ground as some observers have rightly criticised.

That information is probably why Sylvia Lim mentioned that the Workers’ Party [WP] has ‘significant support’ in the districts next to Hougang. She definitely isn’t farting out of her mouth because any political party worth its salt should keep a record of these information so they can work the ground and entrench their support – something the WP seems to be doing. ‘The Hammer Party’ (and for all odd reasons I was reminded of the Axe gang in Stephen Chow’s ‘Kung Fu Hustle’ even when there is no relationship) has maintained a presence in areas where it has on more than one occasion almost won – the defunct Eunos and Cheng San GRCs – in between elections. In fact, while some had considered Yaw Shin Leong’s team which contested Ang Mo Kio GRC in 2006 to be a kamikaze squad, I believed they did it for good reason. That attempt would have given them information on how much residue support remained in the polling districts of Cheng San absorbed by Ang Mo Kio, and to make a decision whether to maintain a presence in those areas considering that WP do not have as much resources as the People’s Action Party [PAP] Tali-PAP. Had the votes polled been around 20 ~ 25%, it would have been as good as nothing since it would indicate that the middle voters has either abandoned the WP, or simply ‘abstained’ (if there is a high number of spoilt votes).

Based on this, it is my considered opinion that the By-Election Effect Strategy (BEES) should be abandoned. For the uninitiated, the By-Election Effect Strategy is a strategy adopted by the Singapore Democrat Party [SDP] of the Chiam-era (before it was taken over by the current group of charlatans) in which it allows the ruling party to be returned to power on nomination day itself. It is ‘designed’ in such a way that the the electorate in the contested constituencies can vote without the fearing the so-called ‘freak result’ in which the capable ruling party is voted out of power. After all, the BEES simply invites the middle voters who would otherwise not vote for the opposition to throw caution to the wind. The strategy does have some effect, since in areas contested by the Singapore Democratic Alliance [SDA] (Chiam’s ‘new outfit’ after he left the SDP), I noticed that they do get another about 5 ~ 10% of votes on top of the usual 20 ~ 25% of anti-PAP votes.

Even so, I do not think very highly of the SDA’s effectiveness. After all, the SDA’s main objective appears to coordinate the actions of the opposition part to avoid 3-cornered fights in SMCs, and also to put together teams to contest in GRCs. However, the SDA never seem to stick to one place for long (with the exception of Sin Kek Tong who stick with Braddell Heights until it was absorbed by Marine Parade GRC). That gives everyone the impression of their member parties being nothing more than just ‘election parties’. The issue here is simply that even though they maybe able to put together a team to contest (and avoid a 3-corner fight while they are at it), they will be contesting in a place where there is no firm support for the opposition beyond the traditional 20 ~ 25% of Tali-PAP haters.

That said, I still expect a lower margin for the Tali-PAP in the coming election, though I don’t think there will be much significant changes in the make up in Parliament. The so-called ‘social media’ (e.g. Facebook and microblogs like Twitter and Plurk) probably will play a significant part in the coming elections, but I doubt even with them we would attain the kind of election fever like that of Taiwan. The opposition parties here can dream about riding high on the Internet much like President Emperor Obama, but I doubt it is likely to happen (even though I don’t mind being proven wrong).

It can be said that the ground sentiment favors the opposition this time round – since many Singaporeans are concerned (if not pissed off) with the immigration policies, foreign workers, housing and the increasing cost of living. However, Singaporeans simply do not possess the kind of political fervor. The opposition also seems to be in disarray, as I constantly read about the bickering between Madam Chiam (I almost typed Madam Chiang) and Desmond Lim, and the Reform Party is beset by mass resignation among its members. At times, I am not sure whether some opposition parties make any sense at all. For e.g. even if the recent budget in terms of monetary hand outs to the people is disappointing, then how much do they think is a better figure? On top of which, if the hand outs are indeed disappointing, they should silently thank the Tali-PAP for doing them a favor. After all, if the ‘goodies’ in the budget is not enough, the people now have a ‘good reason’ to vote against them.

That said, I would hope the opposition capture some of the SMCs. Even though we have all the necessary components of a democracy – such as the rule of law, plans for nation building and a sizable middle class, our democracy in terms of social participation is weak, if not non existent. I would like to see this particular pillar of democracy strengthen. It is high time that we bring more live into our parliamentary debates instead of looking at some Tali-PAP MPs falling asleep in Parliament sessions or a large part of it being empty. Of course, I expect our elected members not to resort to their fists and legs to bring their point across.

Random Discourse – Singapore’s Low Fertility Rate

3 comments

Click for Full Size

I saw these comments on Twitter. I do not know what to make of them. As far as I am concerned, she basically just aped the government gahmen line without giving a much serious thought of the issue. Such pro-gahmen comments in general shows a lack of deeper understanding of the matter and lack of empathy towards the plight of fellow Singaporeans. I even detect a faint trace of selfishness there.

Let me explain the reason for my strong reaction… and just like my favourite character Lai Wuji [賴戊己] used to say in the Taiwanese drama series ‘Love’ [愛], “You listen to me carefully.” (你給我聽清楚了。)

First of all, the Aussie comment that was mentioned. I was told several years ago that if you are a plumber, it is not difficult for you to migrate to Australia because you are the kind of skilled labour that it lacked. However, while the Singapore gahmen tells us that we need more foreign fallen talents, I for one am ignorant of what in specific are the skilled labour that our education system has failed to provide either in part or completely. Even though the rational middle voters and most understanding Singaporeans know for a fact that investors will pass us by if we can’t provide enough workers to fill the jobs (as the gahmen claims), there are often murmurs on the ground that certain foreigners are taken in because they accept a lower pay. Yet, in spite of all these, our lapdog main stream media took matters even further by suggesting that we Singaporeans would probably all starve if we don’t hire foreign workers! (see screen shot attached below).


Click for Full Size

It wasn’t long before some of us believe that certain companies deliberately discriminate against locals by hiring foreigners, and not even a younger and better educated Singaporean who are generally offered a lower starting pay. If wages for Singaporeans are too high and making us uncompetitive, to what are we making that comparison? Now, this is not arguing that we Singaporeans ‘deserved’ a job, but one of the roles of the gahmen is to create jobs and what is the purpose of creating jobs for foreigners when it is the job of the gahmen of their native countries to do so? What evidence is there that hiring foreign workers lower cost of operation or even our cost of living when prices go up all the same? Perhaps we should all just fool ourselves saying that the cost isn’t going up faster than it already is.

This perception is made worse if we know of a friend who remained unemployed for long periods while a foreigner took the job he is capable of doing. Very little is done to help the Singaporean. Instead he is admonished for being demanding or being complacent and lazy. Thus, this self defeating foreign worker policy continued to run its course while wages continue to be depressed for local workers allowing the cost of living out paced it. It is no surprise that the cries for minimum wages are getting acceptance in some quarters, even when I don’t believe a minimum wage is necessary across every sector or for all jobs.

That brings me to address the next point – declining birth rate. It maybe true that we require immigrants to keep up with our population decline. However, the real issue behind our population decline – i.e. the high cost of living – has never been addressed. While wages are depressed and the pricing of our so-called ‘affordable public housing’ pegged to that of private property, how the Tali-PAP gahmen continue to call it affordable is unimaginable. For e.g. A 3-room in Tanglin Halt costs $9,000 in 1971 (the year I was born) and a worker who earns $500 a month could pay it off in 10 years. The cost to wages ratio is 18:1. Today, a brand new HDB cost $300,000. Assuming that a graduates starting pay in $2,500, the cost to wages ratio is *gasp* a staggering 120:1!! (Even if they get $4000, it is 75:1 and many of them have study loans to pay off.) For many of us, to pay off my housing loan in 10 years is almost next to impossible. We can however console ourselves that the cost of a home in Beijing or Shanghai is no better, and is perhaps worse when we consider the wages there.

The gahmen may argue that quality of the flats is now better, but in most cases they are also smaller. It now requires a couple to both work for almost the entirety of their useful life to just pay for the roof over their heads. I don’t even want to talk about how the gahmen hoodwinked us into believing that their discount is a subsidy. Is it a surprise that couples don’t intend to have kids because it probably costs at least another quarter of a million dollars to raise a child from infancy to university graduate? Or that kids end up wielding parangs and chopping up people because their parents are never around to mentor and discipline them?

Let’s not forget, even though the gahmen insists that there the skyrocketing property prices aren’t caused by foreigners, we had to question **who** is offering obscene amount of Cash Over Value [COV] to obtain local properties. It almost sound contradicting that Singaporeans accused foreigners of depressing wages while we also accused them of pushing our property sky-high. But remember that it only require one high-flying foreigner to complete a deal to bring up the prices, even though he isn’t a part of the horde of FTTFs [Foreign True Talent False] which are pushing wages down. Some might say we should be smart and walk away from sellers demanding high COV, but where to? Into the blue sea around us? When there is scant evidence that foreigners are doing us any good, it is a no brainer why Singaporeans reject foreign immigrants! After all, the general perception is that they played a big part in screwing up our lives!

Even if property prices and depressed wages are not the most compelling reason for Singaporeans not to have babies, don’t forget that commercial property prices will also go up in tandem with that of residential ones. Certainly there won’t be one price for land sold for residential properties and another for commercial ones, right? As a result, rentals increase for shops and hawkers, and that translates into higher costs for daily necessities and food. It is not uncommon that a simple meal can cost $6.50 or even $10 at certain food courts while the poor hawker at the hawker center would lose business when he raised prices by a mere 50cents, or when he cut the portion of his servings. It is no wonder why I noticed an increasing number of empty stalls in hawker centers of ageing estates, and the traditional provision shop is almost extinct replaced by mini-mart chain stores? No wonder even McDonald’s restaurants are packed during lunch! After all, McDonald’s value meals at discounted prices during lunch is at times even cheaper than food sold in the food court!

The writer who wrote the comment asked, “If we don’t want an influx of foreigners, are we going to pay for higher taxes for our ageing population as a result of our declining birthrate?” The fact is, I am already paying more here and now to just survive with an influx of foreigners. So just what the #@%$& are you talking about? And last I checked Singapore is not a welfare state so is there even an allocation in the budget for the aged? *sigh*

That brings me to the remaining comment – “without immigrants we are a piece of wasteland”. Perhaps that would be true in 1819. But by the time we were expelled from Malaysia in 1965, few of us could claim to be immigrants. Many of our parents are either born here or in Malaya, which is hardly consider ‘foreign’ back then. In fact, Lao Lee himself admitted that he was convinced that Singapore only had a future within the Federation before Dr. Goh Keng Swee negotiated the separation. Not to mention that 4 years after the separation, racial tensions in the Federation spilled over to Singapore after May 13, 1969.

I must ask, in the first 20 years of our nations existence, did our fair country ‘spread her legs’ freely to foreigners? Why haven’t we perished and turned into a waste land then?

I would be surprised if the high cost of living and property prices that enslaved us all hasn’t act like some kind of anti-Viagra / anti-Cialis that kept the Singaporean male (except the mini$ter$ and the high paying civil serpents servants) from getting an erection and making babies. It is certainly cheaper to just get a pack of condoms. ‘Phiak phiak raw and shoot inside’ is a no-no not just with prostitutes.

In short, the best way to raise the fertility rate is to give us real affordable housing and bring down the cost of living. All of this will require some hard work and far reaching policies that will take time to be effective. Unfortunately for us, this gahmen has so far taken the easy way out with our population issues by simply accepting more foreigners (just like how it has resorted to cheap foreign labour to attract investments instead of raising productivity). So much for these so-called top talents paid millions a year! If this policy is allowed to continue, the problem will only worsen with no end in sight.

Fortunately, other than the old man still being ‘tee kee’ [Hokkien for ‘iron teeth’, which means ‘stubborn in words’], it would appear to me that even the ruling party has realised that the current immigration policy is a untenable position in the upcoming election. I would love the old man to just repeat the famous ‘If native Singaporeans are falling behind because “the spurs are not stuck into the hide”, that is their problem” statement. The middle voters definitely need a little shove to cross the line.

Anyway, I do hope that the current property cooling measures and the reduction in number of permanent residency [PR] issued to foreigners are going to be long term policies and not just an election gimmick. Or else there will be no light at the end of the tunnel for the true-blue Singaporean.

Before I end, it was no surprise to me that a recent poll showed that our youths have no sense of belonging and would prefer to leave and work elsewhere if conditions permit. Food for thought?

Recommended Reads:
Amy Chua: Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior
Sophia Chua-Rubenfeld: Why I love my strict Chinese mom

1 … 20 21 22 23 24 … 99