More ramblings..

(Originally published 6 July 2008)

Not too long ago, I attended a National Education seminar organised by the Ministry of Education, which featured speakers from several ministries discussing various national issues. One of the topics that was presented (by a very young Deputy Director of Strategic Planning (or something like that) at the Ministry of Trade and Industry) was the issue of growing foreigner presence in the country. The presentation provided explanations for why there is a pressing need to attract foreign talents and workers, and ultimately, to have a population of 6.5 million (http://www.pap.org.sg/articleview.php?folder=PT&id=1758).

I will now try to summarise the presentation as best as I can remember it. Well, what I understood anyway. Singapore's consistent economic growth and success has largely depended on her government's ability to strategically plan its economic policies to meet the demands of the global market, overcoming significant handicaps such as the lack of natural resources and her small size. We were once a manufacturing hub, with our only 'natural' resource - our people - providing cheap and skilled labour to businesses from all over the world. Eventually as educational levels grew quickly and with other Asian nations providing the same services at lower cost, it became untenable for businesses to manufacture their goods here. If I'm not wrong (he lost me for a bit at this point, and I am prone to distractions), our economic policy then shifted towards the service industry. Or something like that. Anyway, let's move on to the current economic climate.

Now, in order to maintain economic growth and prosperity and to remain competitive, MTI has strategised that our focus should be the intellectual (R&D, etc.) and creative sectors. For this, we need a whole bunch of very educated people (which we do have, sort of - sort of, because there is the matter of the 'brain drain', where the best of our best are drawn to greener pastures abroad) and people with gumption, creativity, smarts and a whole lot of business bollocks. The speaker didn't actually use those exact words but that's what I got out of it anyway. There was a PowerPoint slide of the world map showing where these super-talents are clustered - the US West Coast, China, India, Russia. etc. Not so much in Singapore. So you can see why we need to turn to foreign talents if we are to succeed in these fields.

Now the thing is, in these sectors, it only takes several geniuses to drive the whole industry and make it successful. But there is no guarantee, with all the education and business know-how in the world, that an individual would be that genius. So we attract as many as we can in the hope that at least a few of those would realise their potential and be those economic drivers. But that's not all. Geniuses need to be surrounded by other geniuses, so we need even more of them. Like a whole lot.

On the flipside, with our people becoming more and more educated, less and less of us are willing to do low-skilled work and so again we'd have to rely on foreigners to meet this demand and supply gap. The thing is, in any country, you'd have a certain proportion of your population who are uneducated or low-skilled, and who can be relied upon to do these jobs, but with the presence of so many affluent foreigners, we simply do not have enough of the former to support the wider and truth be told, higher society. So we see an influx of foreigners from China and India and our closer neighbours.

From the macro perspective, it is easy to understand why the government is so welcoming and even defensive of foreigners. But from the micro, normal person walking in their brand new Gucci shoes in a zig-zag manner on an overly-crowded Orchard Road or inching slowly in their gleaming new BMWs on an overly-congested road in town or staring at the back of a Toni and Guy-styled head from all of two centimetres in an MRT train doing its best impression of a sardine can perspective, it's a bit harder to understand, let alone swallow. Yes, we're an affluent people but at what price?

Lest we forget, Singapore is a very small country. We can build our buildings as high as we'd like, but the fact is we can't walk or travel vertically. We wouldn’t go very far really. The affluence of foreign talents means more cars on the roads, while the presence of the not-so-affluent other foreigners means more crowded trains and buses. Our city centre pavements and roads are already unpleasantly crowded on weekends with 4.7 million (yup, that’s our population as of June 2008), one can only imagine the kind of lives we'll lead with 6.5 million. Our transport system is already running like a morbidly-obese man's arteries during peak hour at 4.7 million, what more 6.5? Fast-paced living one inch at a time.

Then there's the social issue of income and social divide. The affluence of foreign talents here sees them occupying our prime housing and enjoying the finer side of urban life more easily than our citizens. Great news for Far East Organisation and countless other property developers, but with the presence of foreign cash driving up prices, it leaves little hope for our own citizens to move beyond the brilliant work of architecture that is the HDB block. But the ones who really get left behind are those who don’t even dare to have such aspirations. The supposed prosperity that follows the presence of foreign talents seems to have eluded the poor, as they get left behind even further in the greater economic growth. Worse, some are even losing their jobs to foreign workers.

In the span of a decade, the percentage of Singaporeans in our population (including Permanent Residents) has dropped by 4%. Singapore, with a whopping 42.6% of its people being immigrants, is ranked 8th out 195 countries in Nationmaster.com’s list of countries with the biggest immigration population. Granted, aside from the native Malays, we’re a nation of immigrants anyway, but this figure surely does not include pre-independence immigrants.

The fact is, in order to attain that goal of a 6.5 million-strong population, we need to bring in even more foreigners, due to our low birth rates. Simple maths will tell us that this could possibly mean a foreigner presence of up to 60% of our population. Surely there will be some severe social repercussions.

Even now, we can observe a multi-layered society with a complex system of hierarchy perceptions. Singaporeans, in our attempt at finding our place in the absence of a bigger national identity, seem to think of ourselves as different from others (Singaporeans and foreigners), be it better or otherwise. A second-class citizen in our own home in many ways and an unwilling master to a perceived lesser breed in others. There is already a great deal of resentment on the ground towards foreigners, especially towards the many who don’t seem too interested in assimilating themselves with their hosts’ culture and way of life. This growing resentment, already simmering under the gloss of a harmonious social fabric, may prove a significant hindrance to our citizens’ sense of belonging to their own country.

It is quite common for people anywhere to be wary of foreigner presence in their country. Even in modern, first nation countries like those in Scandinavia, conservative political parties are gaining popularity as residents begin to see the negative social impact of a tolerant immigration policy. Yet the highest of immigration rates in these countries stand at a mere 12% (in Sweden), peanuts compared to our Brazil nuts of 42%.

The thing is, I am hardly a conservative (though in Singapore, the term bears little significance – there is no conservative, no right- or left-wing, etc, there’s just the PAP). In political discussions set in the context of countries with a strong culture of political diversity , I always find it hard to align myself with conservative philosophies. And yet, I find myself advocating the very conservative notion of a stricter immigration policy where Singapore is concerned, and here is why.

We are a people devoid of a national identity. At 43, we still grapple with the meaning of pariotism, of a sense of belonging and of pride in our nation. Everything we do in the name of our country, we seem to do out of sheer compliance. National Education was introduced to educate our young to become responsible and more involved Singaporeans. With typical submission, they go through the motions but with little regard for their significance and in the end, gain nothing but a superficial understanding of what being a Singaporean entails. A diluted population does little to help.

All said, there seems to be no real alternative for the government, if they are to continue to meet the majority of their countrymen’s fundamental need for economic stability, other than to place all their chips on the seemingly broader shoulders of the foreigner. That question that our politicians seem to ask ad nauseum (like a new party slogan) in response to any form of opposition to a new policy, "Can we really afford not to?" is a pertinent question indeed. History has proven many times that the lack of economic stability could severely undermine a government’s credibility, so one can understand why our government must place the economy above and beyond all others parameters of quality of life, if only to ensure that its ruling party stays in power for many years to come. So yeah, I guess we can't really afford to, can we?

Far from the apocalypse that our dear MM have repeatedly forewarned with a decline of the PAP (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080626/tap-singapore-politics-opposition-lee-06f3cb7.html - is anyone surprised?) and a rise of the dissenting voice in our government, I foresee exciting times ahead with a vibrant political landscape and a more involved population of informed citizens with greater ownership of their country, citizens who feel that they can actually make a difference beyond sharing their opinions online. Perhaps when that happens, we will see Singaporeans who feel a greater sense of belonging to their country. A first step, in our quest to forge a Singaporean identity.

Jimmy No

(Originally published 17 August 2006)

Apparently, this cound find its way onto the pages of Saturday's Straits Times. It's a letter I wrote in response to an article written by some-some-guy-whose-name-I-don't-even-remember-and-can't-really-be-arsed-to-find-out published last week.

I refer to ...'s article on this year's National Day song, "There's No Place I'd Rather Be" written by Jimmy Ye ("(article title)", Life!, 11 August 2007). The writer questions its validity as a National Day song when its lyrics bear neither the word "Singapore" nor any reference to our country. As a music-lover, musician and basically someone who is not deaf, I am baffled as to why he hasn't asked the more blindingly-obvious question: how on earth did a song so dreadful become the National Day song?

From the lyrics, it is quite obvious what the brief presented to Ye was: Write a song to convince overseas Singaporeans, those who have sought greener pastures beyond our shores, to come home. It's a rhetoric we've heard many times in recent months in its many guises but if the government is counting on this song to instill any sense of longing and belonging amongst those Singaporeans, they would be sorely disappointed. The lyrics are reminiscent of a secondary school poetry-writing assignment, and for a National Day song, they are completely laughable.

Not enough to tickle us silly with the ludicrous lyrics, Ye has decided to bore us to death with the totally uninspiring melody. In "There's No Place I'd Rather Be" we have a poor, poor cousin of Dick Lee's "Home". How poor? Think William Hung claiming blood ties with Brad Pitt. They do sound vaguely similar in parts, but while Lee's chorus is moving and catchy, Ye's version is the epitome of blandness. After all, how many times have we heard the song on the radio and television, and how many of us can actually remember how it goes? Try as I might, I simply can't. The song is utterly forgettable, memorable only in its abjectness.

I can't help but wonder if the individuals on the selection committee come from music-related fields. I feel for the millions of Singaporeans who have had to endure listening to this piece of woefully-poor song-writing, many, many times over no less. But I shall reserve my utmost sympathy to Kit Chan for she has become, for obvious reasons, the face of a very sub-standard song. One can sense that she has tried her best with the song but sadly, no amount of exaggerated vocal emoting can make up for the utter insipidness of the song-writing. And to be its face and voice makes her a very brave woman indeed.

So should the National Day song have the word "Singapore" in it? When it's this bad, who cares?

Happy belated National Day. :)

Elections 2006

(Originally published 7 May 2006)

This is precisely what I was talking about in my previous post. Are the PAP working for all Singaporeans or only those who voted for them?

Absolutely ridiculous.

Elections 2006

(Originally published 7 May 2006)

With my constituency being a non-contest, I've been very much an observer rather than a participant of our nation's latest "democratic" process. It's just one of the many drawbacks of our so-called democracy - not everyone gets their democratic right to vote but hey, kudos to the PAP for coming up with elections-by-sections. There is seriously no better way of ensuring their prolonged dominance in the government. Anyway, I read the results of the elections with great interest, and I must say I'm rather pleased with how it's gone. This despite the fact that Sylvia Lim lost - I'm a big fan of hers and I would have liked to have her in Parliament, but I guess that's asking too much. She did win 43.9% of the votes which is hugely commendable and perhaps something to work on for the next one. Maybe next time, aye?

So why am I pleased with the results of the elections then? Well, I don't think anyone really expected any surprises. The PAP was always going to maintain their "mandate" but it's quite heartening to note that more Singaporeans are voting for the Opposition. Low Thia Khiang and Chiam See Tong both managed to garner more votes this time round (WP's Low winning, in spite of the PAP's Eric Low's unabashed $100 million carrot of upgrading, which is just plain shameless if you ask me). The WP's support grew from 2.7% to 16.34% all in the space of five years. All this, in spite of the government's efforts to make it incredibly difficult for anyone to be in opposition - media control, application of certain laws and policies that could be deemed unjust, censorship, legal threats, etc. - all with the tired excuse of maintaining stability. Democracy my ass.

I must concede the PAP are good at what they do. They have governed Singapore credibly (most of the time, at least) and given the majority of Singaporeans what they need (at the expense of some basic human rights but I don't think these Singaporeans mind). I have no problems with most of the things they do, but I do have a problem with how they go about doing them. And this is why I think it is important to have a strong opposition in Parliament. It is not about whether the Opposition can do a better job than the PAP. If I'm being perfectly honest, perhaps not because the PAP have got la creme de la creme, boasting professionals and academics in their ranks. It is about having a system of checks-and-balances in our government, about having that dissenting voice in Parliament, not just for the sake of argument but for the sake of balance and accountability. I would have liked Sylvia Lim to be there - I have been hugely impressed with her views and the manner with which she presents them - but for now, I guess we'll stick to the usual suspects. Come on Chiam, come on Low, get in there!

Anyway, this whole business of upgrading as an elections-carrot bothers me like an itch in the rectum. Seriously, why are Opposition wards not able to get upgraded? Is it because they don't have the money? If so, who determines the budget for these wards? The Parliament? The PAP? I would really love to know because right now, to me, it seems very much a way for the PAP to punish Singaporeans who vote the other way. Which then brings me to my next point: Are the PAP working to serve Singaporeans or only those who voted for them? Because if they are working for all Singaporeans, then I don't see why upgrading can't be for everyone, not just PAP-wards. That's a double-negative statement.

There's gonna be victory parades held in the next few days and this can only mean one thing: men and women dressed in white cycling down East Coast Road, honking their horns and looking decidedly silly. Ah well, that's Singapore politics for you.

death of a salesman..

(Originally published 16 December 2005)

Singapore’s death penalty policy is something that has recently become something of an issue for me. The death penalty I suspect is something that the average Singaporean cares very little for. Even if they did, there is very little information about the death penalty available to the public, and certainly not enough to allow them to form their own judgements and conclusions. In true PAP fashion, there is no public consultation and discussion on the matter, and parliamentary objections and debates are conveniently ignored in the local media. Until recently, I was one of those who knew very little about and cared very little for the fates of those unfortunate souls who would lose their lives because our legal system decided so. I was convinced, perhaps by years and years of controlled information by the voice of the government – the local media – that the death penalty works, that our legal system enforces it fairly and consistently and that drug trafficking is as serious a crime as premeditated murder. While I was aware that there have been many cases of wrongful execution in other countries, like the USA, I was certain that this would never happen in Singapore. My faith has wavered but not entirely diminished.

In Singapore, a person may be sentenced to death if convicted of any of the following crimes: murder, treason, drug trafficking and certain firearms offences. I believe that the punishment should always be proportionate to the crime and I simply cannot fathom how drug trafficking demands as severe a penalty as murder. Sure, Singapore’s geographical position and proximity to the Golden Triangle makes her a vulnerable and convenient passageway for the global trafficking of drugs and therefore steps have to be taken to prevent this. But death for those who attempt to do so, thereby making what they do equal to murder in the first degree? Surely not. It’s nothing short of barbaric if you ask me.

Some argue that drug traffickers deserve the death penalty because like murderers, they kill – by providing the otherwise unavailable drugs to users who abuse them to death. However it must be noted that to convict a man of murder, factual evidence of his intent and that his action directly contributed to the person’s death must be presented. Drugs cases however are largely tried on the bases of legal assumptions. The most significant of these assumes that a man is trafficking even if he is merely in possession of drugs which exceed stipulated amounts. To systematically subject a human being to the anguish of the gallows based on assumption cannot be right, can it?

Indeed, the government’s strong stance against drugs is reflected in their ad campaigns which unfortunately over-simplify the whole issue of drug use with convenient taglines such as ‘Drugs Destroy Lives’. Drugs do not destroy lives. People do – people who use them excessively and abuse them with little regard and respect for life. By imposing the death penalty on drug traffickers, we are merely shifting the blame, taking it off the shoulders of these so-called victims and placing it conveniently on the back of the necks of the convicted traffickers. Drug traffickers should be punished, yes, but not by death.

I sympathise greatly with those who are sent to the gallows for drugs offences, infinitely more so than those sentenced to death for any other crime. What we are doing is undermining their right to life with the excuse that what they did is more wrong in Singapore than anywhere else in the world, even in the developed parts. And we do this with simple and generic rules. But when it comes to human life, nothing should ever be that simple. Most of those sent to the gallows for drugs offences are the very poor, uneducated and in some cases, even mentally deficient (as in one very recent case where a man with an IQ of 65 was sentenced to death for trafficking marijuana). We do not know what led to them committing their acts of transgression. Perhaps they were unaware of the consequences, let down by their lack of education and awareness about the world. Perhaps they were forced into the situation by their extreme poverty, in a quest to survive, in a world where the divide between the rich and poor is so wide we often take for granted just how privileged we are to have food on the table daily. We are so used to the luxury that we cannot imagine how far a person would go to have that same luxury and immediately assume those who commit such acts do so out of sheer greed and evil. For all our progress and prosperity, we seem to have lost our basic human faculty of compassion.

craps, anyone?

(Originally published 17 April 2005)

so the straits times, the ever-subservient voice of the government, have been preparing the wider public for the inevitable conclusion - singapore will, and i promise you we will, be home to two casinos, at marina bay and sentosa.. in the last few days, the straits times have been presenting the benefits of having casinoes in singapore in a not-so-subtle attempt to win the public over to the government's side.. the creation of 10,000 jobs, the boost that casinoes will bring to the tourism industry, etc.. even mm lee got in on the act, as he bared his heart and soul and shared with the rest of singapore his deep regret for saying 'no' to run run shaw's offer of building a casino here 30 years ago.. i was so touched i felt molested..

the straits times have also shared with us the 'horror' stories, tales of men and women who have succumbed to the evils of gambling addiction.. those stories however were conveniently juxtaposed with reports of measures that the government will be taking to prevent such social ills.. beautiful..

i have two issues with the whole affair.. i'll start with the obvious: ask for the people's opinion only to totally ignore them? that's just rude.. 10,000 signatures were collected by families against the casino threat in singapore opposing the government's proposal.. persuading anyone, let alone 10,000, to sign any form of document against the government's word is no easy task.. it's reasonable to assume therefore that they had serious concerns.. and the government's answer to the social and moral issues raised by such opposers, a tagline that conveniently sidesteps those issues: "can we really afford not to?"

my second issue is one that's closer to the heart.. i have no objections whatsoever with singapore having casinoes.. i believe anything, even the vices, is acceptable in moderation.. what i object to is the government's hypocrisy when addressing social and moral issues.. education minister tharman shanmugaratnam said that if singapore wants to be a leading global city 10 to 15 years from now, new attitudes towards governing and being willing to try new things will be required.. yet this tolerance they speak of seems to only apply to social and moral issues that are economically viable.. gays for example, who have as much right to existence as others, are still the unacceptable 'other'.. perhaps if they, in being gay, were contributing more directly to singapore's economy, our government would stop blaming them for the rise in the number of aids cases here..

dear minister: how about legalising pornography next? it's a multi-billion dollar industry, the economic advantages of which will more than pay for the social and moral consequences.. and yes, there is the whole exploitation of women issue.. but your government, with its notorious disregard for human rights, is more than capable of sidestepping the issue with yet another convenient tagline..

how about: "got milk?"..

oh wait, that one's been done..

us presidential election 2004

(Originally published 18 November 2004)

the results of the us presidential election 2004 have proven something that i’ve suspected for a very long time – that half of americans, give or take 8.5 million, are complete morons. that a president who, has fucked up many times over, led the us economy to ruins, continuously misinformed and deceived his people, led his country to war for the most dubious of reasons, created a world of fear through his unwavering alarmist stance and by projecting his own arrogance onto the american persona, alienated his country from the rest of the world, can be re-elected into office for a second consecutive term by popular vote is quite unfathomable. guess there are more inbred, gun-toting rednecks than i thought. i wonder if a large part of bush’s presidential campaign was dedicated to teaching these bird-brained fuckers how to use ‘them computer voting thangs’. "see them yellow buttons? they’re pretty, aren’t they? see them numbers on the buttons?" "yep.. one.. two.. th.. th.. three.. god darn it, so many numbers.."

so what is it about bush that these americans love so much? maybe it’s their perception of him as a man of action. truth be told, so is kerry by all accounts - this is a man who would spend months and months in a foreign land meticulously investigating issues that are of concern to him and the american people – but his type of action is the boring kind. bush personifies the man of action that violence-hungry americans adore, the kind you find in blockbusters: the action hero who saves the world by killing everyone else in it, especially arabs. move aside stallone, willis and schwarzenegger – here comes the biggest and baddest all-american hero.

i'd like to think that if the president of the usa were to be elected by the rest of the world, bush would lose by a landslide. but i’ve come to realise this need not necessarily be the case. after all, there’s a whole lot of stupid people out there. in fact, it’s quite scary. it also depends largely on who is allowed to vote. take singapore for example. if the entire singapore population were to decide the outcome of the us elections, i wonder if the results would be any different. not all singaporeans are aware of the goings-on outside of their sheltered little existences. the wider media that is accessible to the most number of singaporeans are selective in their presentation of information. their main message however is overwhelmingly clear: in the war against terror, bush is a saviour. this has resulted in opinions such as cab driver tan kia wong’s: i’m for bush. i think he did a good thing by having the war. otherwise, the terrorists will all climb over our heads. bush will be good for singapore and the security of the world (the straits times, november 4, pg. 8). a product of conditioning by a partial media or just plain stupid? either way, we are all fucked if such people are allowed a say in the process. and if the elections were to be decided by the governments of the various nations, we’d be even worse off. our government, with their penchant for ball-sucking - and a bushy scrotum is particularly relished in these parts – would most certainly vote for the incumbent.

all in all, the outcome of the 2004 elections has reaffirmed my belief that the world is full of idiots. the elections have not only polarised america, but the whole world. but the two camps that have emerged in opposition are not ones whose members are determined by their partisan alignment, political ideology or moral beliefs. where they stand is determined by their intelligence and i know exactly where i stand. at the right end of the intelligence scale next to jon bon jovi. rock on.