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?

Of listening to the people and the GST hike

Ms Elaina Olivia Chong, Young PAP vice-chairperson (Women's Wing) on "Countdown to the 2% GST hike, Ministerial and Civil Service Pay Increments".

I reproduce my comment (on her post on the Young PAP blog - click above link) below.

------------

Hi EOC,

I can see that you're making a sustained effort to engage the readers of this blog. On this note, I must say I am rather heartened by this fact. Let both PAP and Young PAP alike know that, by constantly listening to the people and addressing their concerns instead of giving "standard" stock answers, will the party be able to function properly.

I see this as a problem now because I feel the leaders nowadays are not as engaging as the MM or SM. Either that or their answers are not at a satisfactory level. The leaders should not become complacent because while the system works and the country is economically successful, the young adults about to enter the workforce are becoming increasingly disgruntled with the government's aloofness (elitism and stuff). It is NOT ENOUGH to be doing the right things, you have to be SEEN as doing the right thing too. If Singapore does not want to face a brain drain (be it in the public sector or private one), it must focus on capturing the hearts of Singaporeans young and old.

Anyway back to the topic of discussion in your post about the GST hike, I'd suggest that instead of having an exemption for basic goods, the next time the government wants to increase money in their coffers (since this time it's already a foregone conclusion), they should just identify luxury goods and impose an additional tax (i.e. luxury good tax) on them, on top of the prevailing GST.

As argued by some, basic goods are hard to classify, and would be difficult too. For example, rice can be seen as a necessity, but what about the various grades? And then, university students require to work on computers all the time, we can rightfully say laptops are a "necessity" too?

Anyway, my point is the concept of necessities vary over time, so it may make for difficult classification. Luxury goods might be easier to identify (perhaps with a minimum price tag of say, $10000 or so) and I'm quite sure that the rich would not (and SHOULD NOT) complain so much about 1 or 2% increase in consumption taxes for them.


Addendum: This luxury tax income can then be ploughed back into helping the poor. So each time the rich buy something luxurious for themselves (for e.g. nice condos and houses by the sea), the poor get something too. This is, I would say, a rather wonderful solution for society's ills. Of course we must hike this tax gradually (1% then 2%, etc...), so that the rich buggers can take the bitter pill better =)

However, I think this will not come into action because the policymakers themselves will be the ones that are being targeted. So well, back to the drawing board, please.

Of listening to the people and the GST hike

Ms Elaina Olivia Chong, Young PAP vice-chairperson (Women's Wing) on "Countdown to the 2% GST hike, Ministerial and Civil Service Pay Increments".

I reproduce my comment (on her post on the Young PAP blog - click above link) below.

------------

Hi EOC,

I can see that you're making a sustained effort to engage the readers of this blog. On this note, I must say I am rather heartened by this fact. Let both PAP and Young PAP alike know that, by constantly listening to the people and addressing their concerns instead of giving "standard" stock answers, will the party be able to function properly.

I see this as a problem now because I feel the leaders nowadays are not as engaging as the MM or SM. Either that or their answers are not at a satisfactory level. The leaders should not become complacent because while the system works and the country is economically successful, the young adults about to enter the workforce are becoming increasingly disgruntled with the government's aloofness (elitism and stuff). It is NOT ENOUGH to be doing the right things, you have to be SEEN as doing the right thing too. If Singapore does not want to face a brain drain (be it in the public sector or private one), it must focus on capturing the hearts of Singaporeans young and old.

Anyway back to the topic of discussion in your post about the GST hike, I'd suggest that instead of having an exemption for basic goods, the next time the government wants to increase money in their coffers (since this time it's already a foregone conclusion), they should just identify luxury goods and impose an additional tax (i.e. luxury good tax) on them, on top of the prevailing GST.

As argued by some, basic goods are hard to classify, and would be difficult too. For example, rice can be seen as a necessity, but what about the various grades? And then, university students require to work on computers all the time, we can rightfully say laptops are a "necessity" too?

Anyway, my point is the concept of necessities vary over time, so it may make for difficult classification. Luxury goods might be easier to identify (perhaps with a minimum price tag of say, $10000 or so) and I'm quite sure that the rich would not (and SHOULD NOT) complain so much about 1 or 2% increase in consumption taxes for them.


Addendum: This luxury tax income can then be ploughed back into helping the poor. So each time the rich buy something luxurious for themselves (for e.g. nice condos and houses by the sea), the poor get something too. This is, I would say, a rather wonderful solution for society's ills. Of course we must hike this tax gradually (1% then 2%, etc...), so that the rich buggers can take the bitter pill better =)

However, I think this will not come into action because the policymakers themselves will be the ones that are being targeted. So well, back to the drawing board, please.