Singapore, Forever a Migrant City?

Whilst I do not attempt to hit out wildly at the government, I do have my fair share of criticism for certain policies they uphold. Sure, the government is doing at least SOME of the things right, because our country is growing from strength to strength. But look at our people, they are getting increasingly disgruntled. The leaders are stunned. Why, should they not be happy for us we are drawing million-dollar salaries? Why, is Singapore not having consistent growth? Why, are we not worth our weight in gold? Really? Then find us someone who can do our job, and we might quit. Foreign talent, anyone?


As I commented in the Young PAP blog (reference the link above, please) on EOC's post, our country has made good on its progress and has attained first-world status. Now after our basic physiological needs have been met, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs actually suggests that we might have moved on to the next level, and what's that? Yes, safety. What safety? I quote excerpts from Wikipedia: of body, of EMPLOYMENT, [...] of health and property.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - every business student knows this by heart. (Disclaimer: I am NOT from Business.)

Which brings me to...

The Foreign Talent policy. Sweet. Don't we all have a love-hate relationship with it?

No, actually I know of people who only love it. Our leaders. Don't they? They only proclaim the positives of this policy, and conveniently sidestep the problems that this policy can bring about.

Business students anywhere and everywhere would know, that globalization and diversity are inevitable in this era, and our government has so cleverly tweaked immigration and work policies to make it easier for an inflow of, what we now know as, foreign talent. Yes yes yes, of course, Singapore only has one resource, foreign talent. Oops, I actually mean Singaporeans, our human resource. And now that resource is unhappy that it is being used, but not given remuneration commensurate with the amount of time spent studying, or serving National Service, or the number of upgrading workshops they have attended. So they leave. And get labels like traitor, quitter and the like.

So that's how our government leaders are worthy of their salaries. They invent names! They do not squirrel down to the root of the problem, but think they can hold people back by publishing their faces in our very own well-loved and widely-circulated Shit Times. Oooh, dangerous territory I am wading into.

So as to protect myself, I would like to have you and the whole world know, I agree with many policies that PAP has made, I am happy with how the country has been run so far, but that does not necessarily preclude me from speaking up about those policies which are quite clearly disadvantaging Singaporean citizens now, and well into the future.

Whilst I am NOT a low wage-earner (or maybe, who knows), nor someone who is not internationally mobile (after being endowed with a world-class education from 18th-in-the-world NUS, yayness!), I feel for these categories of people. Nowadays, I go out and I try to spot the old men and women who are picking up cans from the streets, from the rubbish bins, the dishevelled old man who sits by the wall begging for money, the cleaners! (OMG this should really be another post.) The cleaners in the food courts, or the hawker centres, or the coffeeshops are more likely than not to be our senior citizens, 65 or older, supposed to be enjoying their twilight years. Hey they could be your grandmas or grandpas for all you know.

OK, I shall not deal with the topic that these elderly folk should be resting at home, playing chess at the void deck with their friends or jetting off to see the world, but now I shall more pertinent to the point. Have you guys noticed a paradigm shift? Now what did I just say earlier? Did you spot something wrong? Were you sharp enough? I specifically point you to this statement. "The cleaners in the food courts, or the hawker centres, or the coffeeshops are more likely than not to be OUR senior citizens..." Anything wrong?

No, wrong. That was in the past. Now, the cleaner cleaning your table is likely to be a "foreign talent" - many from India/Bangladesh/Timbuktoo, and more recently, more from China. OMG really, you surely need talent to clean a table! Then the not-so-talented elderly folk have no money to retire, no job to work and a rather supportive government providing them with $290 per month. Wait, that's just slightly more than my monthly pocket money - $200 - and I did not have to pay for my transport fees, or utility bills. I only had to pay for my school lunches. And guess what, $200 was just about enough for me. So pray tell, does the government need anymore proof that $290 per month is not enough? Darn, I strayed from my main topic again!

Rehashing Nicholas Lazarus's point (read his comments from EOC's post), the locals should not suffer because of replacement by cheaper substitutes. The government says, upgrade lah! Eh, upgrade to what? What other skills does a cleaner need to have besides being able to clean stuff? Oh yeah, maybe being able to paint walls, use Microsoft Word, and being fluent in 3 other languages besides English and Mandarin might help you to snare the cleaner position. Then other problems remain, what about those who are not academically inclined? I mean, they couldn't do well in school that's why they ended up in menial jobs in the first place, right? Correct me if I'm wrong.

All in all, my point is, Singapore has to develop into a more compassionate society. If foreign rubbish is going to balloon our population to 6.5 million, then I can say with confidence (and maybe a little flourish) that I will be saying bye bye Singapore! And then after leaving Singapore, "YES, NO MORE RESERVIST!" I do not want to see the little red dot we love so much turn into a huge rubbish dump.

You see, at the end of the day, I am still proud to say I am Singaporean. What about the foreigners?