atans1

Posts Tagged ‘immigration’

Productivity, ageing population & immigration

In Economy on 13/03/2014 at 4:37 am

It’s time for the govt to release productivity data on the various sectors rather than juz harp that productivity levels are not gd enough.. We can then see if the govt is telling us the truth that productivity increases lead to pay rises.

Cleaning and F&B are examples, however, of Singapore’s less productive sectors. These and sectors such as construction, security and retail have been hiring more workers and thus continue to pull down Singapore’s overall labour productivity growth, said Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Lim Swee Say.

 This is why Singapore’s labour productivity was flat last year, a cautionary sign that despite “healthy signs that the economy is shifting to a new trend … we are not full steam ahead yet”, said Mr Lim. Singapore thus needs a “greater and broader sense of urgency” in its productivity efforts, he said.(5 March wed BT)

I read some where recently that Japan is one of the most productive nations as a result of aging and the refusal to let in the dogs FTs. The Japs use robots, lots of them.

But despite Japan’s success in growing per capita better than other Western countries (something we don’t hear from our Jap bashing ministers and their media allies) giving the lie that more FTs are needed, we need to accept that the PAP is not BSing completely when it comes to the consequences of ageing population and immigration.

Watch this “Face the Facts” BBC video

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25968269: Focus on why the US will still be growing faster than Europe Or Japan.

The number of people across the world over 65 years old will triple by 2050, drastically altering some countries’ demographic make-up, according to a new report by the Pew Research Center.

Perceptions of this shift vary widely across the globe, the report says.

While 87% of Japanese believe the ageing population poses a problem to the country, only 26% of Americans agree.

The survey of 21 countries found that most people believe governments should be responsible for the care of their older populations.

These demographic shifts may adversely affect economies, as more elderly people depend on working-age men and women.

It’s a complex issue. And both the PAP, and GG and friends are not telling the truth.

Here’s another angle: http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2014/02/10/age-shifts-weaken-global-economys-shock-absorbers/

The ratio of middle-aged to young matter because matters because the global economy’s ability to withstand deflationary shocks is lower when the middle-aged cohort starts dominating the young. That’s because the former saves more for retirement. In the United States, the median householder in the 45-to-54-year age group has 6 times more assets excluding home equity than someone younger than 35. But it is young peoples’ spending that spurs new investment, which in turn soaks up the savings of the middle-aged.

When the ratio is rising, as it is today, a bigger group of the middle-aged are trying to deploy their savings. But because the younger group is smaller in relative terms, its consumption is inadequate to encourage investment. As a result, the savings chase a limited number of investment opportunities, pushing up prices. Even a minor shock can lead to severe market fallout.

This phenomenon has many names: some call it a “savings glut,” others prefer “secular stagnation”. But the global population’s age structure has a message for policymakers: don’t underestimate the risks from turmoil in even minor emerging markets. With its shock absorbers frayed, the world economy will struggle to negotiate deflationary speed bumps. As the ratio of the middle-aged to the young is forecast to carry on rising for the next two decades, markets are in for a rocky ride.

The fact that those of us who disagree that we need a lot more FTS must be prepared to acknowledge is that the PAP has conventional wisdom on its side. We cannot deny this. What we have to do is keep reminding the PAP and other voters that LKY, Dr Goh and gang went against conventional development wisdom by allowing the MNCs to invest here. MNCs were seen as the new “colonialists”. Today, every country (bar a few) want them to invest in their countries.

Related post: http://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/us-experience-on-growing-gdp-via-productivity/

Cleaning and F&B are examples, however, of Singapore’s less productive sectors. These and sectors such as construction, security and retail have been hiring more workers and thus continue to pull down Singapore’s overall labour productivity growth, said Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Lim Swee Say.

This is why Singapore’s labour productivity was flat last year, a cautionary sign that despite “healthy signs that the economy is shifting to a new trend … we are not full steam ahead yet”, said Mr Lim. Singapore thus needs a “greater and broader sense of urgency” in its productivity efforts, he said.(5 March wed BT)

Shows us the numbers ex these sectors then

Cleaning and F&B are examples, however, of Singapore’s less productive sectors. These and sectors such as construction, security and retail have been hiring more workers and thus continue to pull down Singapore’s overall labour productivity growth, said Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Lim Swee Say.

This is why Singapore’s labour productivity was flat last year, a cautionary sign that despite “healthy signs that the economy is shifting to a new trend … we are not full steam ahead yet”, said Mr Lim. Singapore thus needs a “greater and broader sense of urgency” in its productivity efforts, he said.(5 March wed BT)

Shows us the numbers ex these sectors then

Gilbert Goh is this true?

In Economy, Public Administration on 27/02/2014 at 6:02 am

Singapore Business Federation chief operating officer Victor Tay said: Measures taken to tighten the inflow of foreign PMETs “are already quite comprehensive and align with the American and European standards” and he doubts the government will go further. (Monday’s BT).

Can GG tell us if Victor Tay is telling the truth? And if he (GG) is satisfied?

If he isn’t satisfied, pls tell us why. If he is, no need to organise demonstrations that no-one attends. Juz tell local PMETs to vote PAP in next GE. They listen.

Err pigs will fly first or GG becomes attractive to S’pore wimmin. LOL.

Back to the future: LKY, Dr Chee & the SDP agree on …

In Political governance, Public Administration on 26/02/2014 at 4:28 am

One LKY in 1957 said in the legislative assembly :

For cheap labour, they [the British] allowed unrestricted immigration without any plan, without any policy and without any intention of creating or preserving the self. I do not condemn the immigration as such, but I condemn the government which has no regard for the people of the country who have been assimilated and did not bother to educate or to provide education for those coming in. Today, with the renaissance of the motherland of each of the immigration groups, chauvinist tendencies are incited. Yet at this critical juncture we have to call upon these immigrants to give this country their undivided loyalty.

(S’pore Notes: http://singaporedesk.blogspot.sg/2014/02/the-wit-wisdom-of-lee-kuan-yew.html)

In 2013, at Hong Lim Green (the people’s parly?), Dr Chee said, “A word of caution, I ask all of us here in Singapore to be the people that we truly are, the tolerant people that we are and if we attack, we attack the policy, we point out the flaws in the policy, not against the people who are here for work.”, can be simplified to “We disagree with the govt’s pro-FT policy, not the foreigners working here. We are unhappy with the “FTs first, citizens last” attitude of the govt because …”  http://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/easy-to-avoid-xenophobe-label/

Dr Chee got CIA time machine? Went back in time to influence LKY?

Seriously, by raising the issue of the PAP’s govt immigration policies on S’pore society, Dr Chee, the SDP and many others are juz reflecting what LKY tot in 1957.

After all, S’pore could be returning to a similar situation to that in 1957. In 2013, I wrote: A Citigroup report noted that the White Paper projects the dilution of Singapore-born citizens from 62% of the population to just 55% in 2030 based on number of new FT citizens that the govt plans to bring in projects to come in naturally: 15,000 – 25,000 annually.

In 1959, according to Singapore Correspondent. Political Dispatches from Singapore (1958-1962) only 270,00 out of the 600,000 voters were born here i.e. there only 45% of the voters were born here. The rest were the FT “new” citizens of the day. (http://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/population-white-paper-2030-will-resemble-1959/)

Just a few “honest mistakes” by Home Team officers (we know that they can be unfit for purpose: recent riot*and border and internal security**, etc***) and in 2030 the voters born here could be 45%, not 55% juz like in 1959 (two yrs after LKY made the above statement. In all probability, in 1957, true blue S’poreans were 45% of the voters.

—–

*“The police had arrived,” Mr Selvam said. “They stood there and did nothing. Ah, the police approve of what I am doing,” he said, suggesting what the rioters would or might have been thinking then, as they continued to hurl projectiles at the bus and at the officers, and eventually setting security vehicles and an ambulance on fire.

“[The rioters] had full freedom to do what they wanted – namely, to burn the bus, burn the vehicles, attack you,” the former judge said.

“A lot of things were wrong,” Mr Tee said. “Are you showing weakness and emboldened them? That could be the reason why they became more violent.”

Mr Selvam said, “They were rioting. What did you do?” [Former Supreme Court judge G. Pannir Selvam is the COI's chairman, while former Police Commissioner Tee Tua Ba, is a member of the COI] )

**http://singaporedesk.blogspot.sg/2014/01/could-have-been-worse.html

***All the problems at Home Team over recent yrs (corruption, Ang Moh tua kee attitude, PR status for possible criminals etc etc) show that it was badly run when Wong Kan Seng was the Home minister. There should be a claw-back of the millions he earned as a minister.

LKY must be angry LOL

In Footie, Malaysia on 14/12/2013 at 6:43 am

(Asean round-up)

Remember LKY saying Johor was full of crime?

Well whatever the truth of that, at least FTs have not rioted in M’sia. Taz, the message MediaCorp’s ST Lite has reported on an inside page: The police and Immigration Department have been put on alert at foreign worker enclaves across Malaysia after the riot in Singapore last week, the country’s Home Minister said in a report in The Star newspaper yesterday …

Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said officers have been instructed to monitor areas where foreign workers congregate, especially those identified as potential hot spots for outbreaks of violence.

Dr Ahmad Zahid was quoted by The Star as saying: “We are always observing the activities of foreign workers and are ready to overcome any potential threat … We are also looking at workers’ quarters nationwide, so the public need not worry.”

Locations under surveillance include landmarks in the heart of the capital, such as the Kuala Lumpur City Centre, which houses the iconic Petronas Twin Towers.

Between May 30 and June 4, three Myanmar nationals were killed and several others injured in fights in various areas in Kuala Lumpur. The authorities subsequently arrested more than 1,000 Myanmar nationals during raids in Kuala Lumpur and parts of Selangor. [Had to tell us this]

But ST Lite saboed our govt’s attempts to say that there was no evidence working conditions were a cause of the riot (How ministers know leh? If so why call CoI?) by reporting: Growing discontent among foreign workers in Malaysia due to poor working conditions, discrimination and low wages is like a “time bomb”, Bernama yesterday quoted the leader of the Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) as saying.

MTUC President Khalid Atan said the riot in Singapore should serve as a wake-up call and the organisation called on the Human Resource Ministry to hold a tripartite meeting between the government, employers and employees to map out a strategy to prevent rioting by foreign workers.

He said the MTUC felt the government should take steps to reduce and even curtail the recruitment of foreign workers until it has a plan to address their basic needs and rights.

Anyway, let’s cheer on our LionsXII. Looks like the game against Laos was the exception due to the courage of Laos’ ten men. Credit to Laos, not shame on our LionsXII. If our XII do well in this tournament (gold medals) Fandhi will have a problem. But taz his problem, not ours.

 

 

S’poreans are over-reacting to the riot

In Political governance, Public Administration on 11/12/2013 at 5:26 am

But first, really I expect more of the president and the police commissioner

– President Tony Tan Keng Yam has urged Singaporeans not to let the violence in Little India last night undermine their confidence in the society. Instead, he said, the people should redouble their commitment to keep Singapore safe, peaceful and strong.

– Police commissioner Ng Joo Hee said of the riot,”It is not the Singapore way.”

Lest they forget, the riot was not started by S’poreans. “Police in Singapore have arrested 27 South Asian suspects after hundreds of people took part in a riot sparked by the death of an Indian national …About 400 foreign workers took to the streets, hurling railings at police and torching police cars and an ambulance.” BBC report.

So why should the president ask us to redouble [our] commitment to keep Singapore safe, peaceful and strong? What did we do wrong? Taz the typical reaction of a PAP govt minister: blame S’poreans. But the president? He is above politics.

Of course ,”It is not the Singapore way.” The rioters were FTs.

And what by the way, one can reasonably ask is the S’porean way in a place where the foreign workforce is 25% of the population?. There are  1.3 million FTs as of June, out of a total 5.3 million people: 25% of the population. The 1.3m figure excludes the 0.54m (as of 2011) PRs who are counted as local. Include them as FTs and at least 35% of the population is foreign.

But I won’t go into a tirade about the presidency or the police because I’m willing to assume that the president and the police chief are like most S’poreans (self excluded) shell-shocked by said riot.

Let’s start at the top. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong directed the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to convene a Committee of Inquiry (COI), which will look into the factors that led to the unrest and how the incident was handled on the ground. “It will also review the current measures to manage areas where foreign workers congregate, whether they are adequate, and how they can be improved.

What for?

After all, he did say it was an “isolated incident caused by an unruly mob”.

The riot was contained pretty fast and efficiently with no loss of life except of that of the accident victim. One could have reasonably wondered why the police allowed their vehicles to be overturned so easily. I tot they should have fired warning shots which might have “sobered” the rioters. But I’m happy with the explanation that the police took a deliberate decision to be “restrained” even if such restraint resulted in my friend’s car being burnt and police-cars being overturned. So I ask again , why a CoI?

Waste of time and tax-payers’ money with money being spent on expensive lawyers, if as I expect, lawyers are allowed to be used.

And at the other end of the spectrum, the human rights kay pohs are filled with angst and self-examination. They are talking (they great at talking the talk, bit like the PAP govt on FT policies) of organising shumething, anything, to achieve reconciliation and gd karma. What for?

The vast majority of the visitors to riot area are not violent, aggressive people. They are there to have a gd time after labouring hard.

And in between, TRE and TOC readers are blaming the govt for everything, Gilbert Goh’s fans are stroking hatred of non-S’poreans, and PAPpists are blaming S’poreans (esp netizens) for being anti-FT and anti-PAP. Mercifully, none of the usual suspects are shouting, like some of them did, at the height of the panic for face masks (remember that?) thaz it’s OK to spread allegations to Facebook friends and that by so doing they are helping the govt. They argue that the govt can counter the rumours that said activists are spreading to their “friends”. If the actions weren’t dangerous, reckless behaviour, the self-justifications would be laughable.

That there has been no riot since 1969 prior vto this riot is neither here nor there. Given that S’pore has always been one of the most densely packed places in the world, there was (and is) the possibility that something like this could happen at any time. That it didn’t happen could be due to luck (juz like two once-in every-50- yr floods occurring in the space of months). Or it could be due to the way LKY ruled the place (remember he retired as MM only two yrs ago and he approved of how  Deng Xiaoping dealt with the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests*)? Or it could be due to the changing composition of S’pore’s work force** and population.

My personal view is that we were juz lucky especially in having Sheep S’poreans whose reaction to the fatal accident that started the riot would be to take a look, take a few pics and then move on muttering: “Not my biz”. If Napoleon had S’poreans in Animal Farm, he wouldn’t have needed such brutal dogs.

Wouldn’t it be better to have for the CoI to look into whether the changing demographics of S’pore have caused cultural and societal changes, building-up tensions that can explode given the right mixture of ingredients.

But then PM isn’t that shell-shocked.

I wonder if the PAPpy FT academic calling for a population of 8m by 2030 will be allowed to continue shouting his message. If  there is a riot (a riot that causes so much angst) in a population of 5.3m, 25% of whom are FTs, imagine a scenario where there are 8m people here where 37% are FTs***? If one includes PRs, then the percentage of FTs would jump to 53%. I’m use simple extrapolation to derive these numbers.

Update at 8.50am after first publication

Related article that I urge social media users and the usual suspects who argue that sharing rumours helps the govt rebut them:

Sharing information without context can inflame a situation 

From

Frances Ess

10 December

While the riot in Little India has saddened and shocked many Singaporeans, all of us must be responsible when we share information on social media. I have always reminded my children that “a text without context is a pretext”.

For example, one website used emotional words to describe how the riot was handled. Others were more responsible and reported only the facts, so as not to stir up unnecessary anger against all foreign workers.

Based on what was trending on Twitter, I am glad that most Singaporeans possessed the critical faculty to check for the facts and not believe everything they read.

For example, it was claimed at one point that three civilians and two policemen had been killed. Thankfully, that message died in time.

Most Singaporeans are angry that police cars and an ambulance were overturned and burnt.

It is easy to share such graphic videos online. But let us press the pause button, and ask ourselves what our purpose would be in sharing a video, photo or tweet and whether we are aware of the outcome that would be achieved. What about unintended outcomes? Is there a hidden agenda to the information provided on social media and are we being manipulated?

Do I have all the information on hand to make a rational, informed opinion or am I only parroting some views that excite us but, on deeper reflection, are untrue? Finally, when will the information be processed into accurate knowledge?

Discrete data shared without context can inflame a situation, and perhaps now is a good time to be reminded of the story of the blind men feeling an elephant for the first time.

While our individual, subjective experience can be true, such experience is essentially limited by its failure to account for the whole truth.

 

http://www.todayonline.com/voices/sharing-information-without-context-can-inflame-situation

Related post: http://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/riot-proves-point-about-community-relations/

—-

*He took over, and he said: ‘If I have to shoot 200,000 students to save China from another 100 years of disorder, so be it.

**An ex-policeman wrote a commentary in MediaCorp’s ST Lite that “[S]ome may be tempted to link the large presence of foreign workers at Little India to the population augmentation strategy. Again, this is a far stretch. Foreign workers, on work permits, have been a presence in Singapore for decades. They are essential to the urban renewal effort in Singapore.  Their numbers today are not much larger than the historical mean.”

The ex-cop obviously never studied maths at other than a very basic level. If he had, he would realise that using this “fact” would be an insult to the intelligence of more literate S’poreans. The “mean” especially the “historical mean” (whatever this means) is not an argument that one should use in dismissing that the argument of the growth of the FT population is a worry. Example: Isn’t the fact that 25% of the population is foreign a better indicator of anything to do with population than the “historic mean”?

***Given that S’poreans (even new citizens according to LKY) don’t want to breed babies. S’poreans prefer keeping dogs and cats, so much so that there is now a Minister for Pets.

Riot proves point about community relations?

In Political governance, Public Administration on 09/12/2013 at 5:04 am

(Update 10 December at 6.50am: Great summary of article quoted below by a TRE reader: The Wobbly Guy:

Let us decode the Beeb study:

‘non-segregated’ = assimilated

‘relatively prosperous’ = educated middle-class

So we find that assimilated and educated middle-class people have high social capital regardless of ethnicity. Gee, like that wasn’t obvious from a look at a typical HDB estate and what the immigration realists have been saying all along.)

One of the arguments made against the govt’s liberal FT policy by us citizens of “cowboy towns” is that it is bad for community cohesion.Well the FT riot* yesterday would seem to be proof of this. S’poreans would not resort to such violence. They would shrug their shoulders, take a few pixs and, like sheep, move on.

Seriously,it is accepted wisdom globally that there is a negative correlation between diversity and community cohesion with studies proving that link. Even the govt accepts this as a Hard Truth: otherwise how to explain its quota system in public housing for Indians and Malays, and its constant emphasis on the need to maintain racial and religious harmony, given the British legacy of bringing in FTs. It’s juz that this Hard truth is over-ridden by the Harder Truth that FTs are needed, never mind the side effects.

So here’s an interesting article on, “Is diversity good or bad for community cohesion?”, which would make  Gilbert Goh more frus because the findings of a study in the UK say it is gd.

“In ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’,” Putnam’s study concluded. “Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.”

But now comes new academic research looking at London which turns this idea on its head.

Social cohesion in the capital, it concludes, is “significantly higher in more ethnically diverse neighbourhoods”, once deprivation has been taken into account.

This is a startling assertion. The accepted wisdom among academics and policy makers, as the paper reminds readers, is that “ethnically diverse communities are characterized by distrust, low levels of social cohesion and disputes regarding the equitable provision of public goods”.

But diversity may not be the cause of social tension. “In fact, in the highly diverse neighbourhoods that characterise modern London, the opposite appears to be the case,” the research finds.

Diversity emerges as a positive predictor of social cohesion, the paper asserts, a finding that runs counter to the large majority of published studies.

But what this paper suggests is that where you have non-segregated and relatively prosperous communities, diversity is likely to improve community life, not damage it.

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24761954)

Taz the key, if everyone has a highish standard of living, diversity is gd. But mix rich and poor and one is asking for trouble. Here in S’pore, the highish gini is not gd news for the govt’s very liberal immigration policy. Yes, I’m sceptical that the govt is walking the talk on tightening its immigration policies until I see a decent, medium-term decline in the numbers. Something I doubt would happen.

*The bare facts as reported by BT: Singapore Police Force has classified Sunday night’s unrest at Little India as a case of rioting with dangerous weapons, and has arrested 27 subjects from South Asia. The SPF says it expects to make further arrests “in the hours and days that follow”.

Yesterday’s riot was sparked by a fatal traffic accident involving a private bus and a pedestrian, who was a 33-year-old male Indian national. The police say the unrest was not pre-meditated, and no Singaporean presence has been established amongst the rioters.

The mob-which swelled to a 400-strong crowd-damaged and burned police and SCDF (Singapore Civil Defence Force) vehicles, and left 10 police officers injured, out of the 300 who were deployed to the site.

Bare facts added after first publication.

Cost of chicken rice, FTs and the BBC

In Economy on 04/12/2013 at 6:08 am

This blog is critical of our ministers’ attempt in the past to talk down inflation (Tharman and Hng Kiang. Lee Jnr) To be fair, they’ve been quite on that front recently, cause of the numbers that keep coming out.

Here’s a practical example, courtesy of the BBC: for our chicken rice, the prices of its key ingredients – chicken, rice and the vegetable oil to cook the food – have all about doubled since 2005.

Chicken — 84%

Rice — 90%

Vegetable oil — 100%

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25147402)

So don’t think ill of the seller for increasing his prices since 2005. In addition, he got to pay the rent.

In the above link, which talks of global food inflation, the reporter interviewed a PRC FT (in a hawkers’ centre) on the rising cost of food in S’pore and in Mandarin. Clip is towards end of article. GG and TRE readers will not be happy that a PRC FT is interviewed instead of a local. and P Ravi will be upset that Mandarin is used, not English. Seriously even I think that the BBC is wrong to give the impression that S’pore is part of greater China, or FT heaven (5 people interviewed for another series, three are FTs, one true blue S’porean and one first gen. P Ravi will be fuming that the two locals are ethnic Chinese.He should complain to the BBC that 7% of the population are ethnic Indians and that they play a huge role in the governance of the country: two out of four of PM’s most trusted ministers are Indians. AWARE will be not be their usual bitchy selves as both are women. Yes, I’m fed-up with AWARE’s triumphalist, patronising and ang moh attitudes-are-best attitude.)

BTW, in general as countries develop people spend proportionally less on food.

FT policy: Dialogue? What dialogue?

In Economy, Political governance on 23/10/2013 at 5:09 am

“The “victimised Singaporean” framing does nothing to push these issues forward for intelligent debate. It does not encourage Singaporeans to think about how things can be improved while acknowledging what we have. It does not led to useful discussion over policy …

‘I have no doubt that the people who spout this line [I assume she means hatred of foreigners] love their home. I have no doubt that they have real worries and anxiety. I have no doubt that many of their concerns are valid. But if they really love Singapore and want the best for it, the best course of action would be to quit the melodramatic posturing and engage in real dialogue.” – Kirsten Han (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/great-singaporean-grievance-103242143.html0

Were things that simple.

The unsaid assumption is that there are channels for discussion and dialogue, and that discussion and dialogue can lead to something meaningful being done to solve the grievances. All these “fruscos” need to do is to use these channels. Well, any dialogue or discussion has to involve the govt who initiated the liberal immigration policy.

For someone who perceptively writes, “Concerns over freedom of expression and other civil liberties need to be given attention”, I’m surprised that she doesn’t realise that there are no channels for discussion and dialogue on this issue, as on many other issues. NatCon is not dialogue and it didn’t exactly go into the FT policy.

And anyway the FT policy is not open for dialogue. By releasing the white paper when it did (juz before NatCon started, even an accademic involved lamented that fact), the govt sent a strong message that the issue is not negotiable. FTs are the Special Ones and taz a Hard Truth.See here and here.

By promising to focus on public concerns that housing, healthcare and public transport will remain affordable, and on education, the govt is doing its best to ensure that its pro-FT stance does not further alienate S’poreans, and hopefully (from its perspective) wins back voters by bribing voters with their (our) own money.

To put it another way, all the public spending on housing, healthcare, public transport and education has as one as its aims mitigating the effects on S’porean PMETs of the “FTs all the way” position of the govt.

Even the trumpeted nearly 45% increase (to $102.4m, but as the retired chief economist of GIC points out this is 0.03 of a percent of GDP- a paltry amount in view of the fact that around 10 to 12% of households ( some 350 to 400,000 people) are way below the income per capita criterion of $550 per month and WIS payouts are way too stingy! Even if you take just the unemployed and aged poor (excluding working poor) of around 140 000 people) that’s barely $60 a month each!) in one year in welfare spending on the poor surely has something to do with mitigating the effects of the FT policy. After all, the welfare minister who sneered at the elderly poor is still in the cabinet, albeit in a post where he doesn’t have to deal with the poor, homeless or elderly.

Yes, yes, I know the govt and the constructive nation-building media are spinning that the govt is cutting back the supply of FTs especially to SMEs. The SMEs are screaming (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101123289), presumably because while the owners have to pay pay more for their bungalows, penthouses and CoEs, profits are reduced ’cause their access to cheap FT PMETs is being supposedly closed.

But until the numbers say so, I remain sceptical, very sceptical that a pro-FT leopard can change its spots. Go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24428569. Of the five people working in S’pore featured, the poorest paid (an elderish cleaner)  is a true blue S’porean: BBC spins she can afford a maid. The other local is a first generation S’porean. Both are ethnic Chinese. The other three are FTs.

Reading the article, and knowing the facts on the ground, one can easily understand the grievances of the people Kirsten Han referred to above, especially if they are poor and elderly, and ethnic Indians or Malays.

Not bull: FT policy is bad for productivity and innovation

In Economy on 22/10/2013 at 5:40 am

The govt complains that productivity is poor and is worried, introducing measures to “improve” it. At the same time, we all know that the working population here has increased due to the flood of FTs. At the same time, S’pore’s attempt to be a global centre of innovation, is stuck on the runway. Contrast this with Estonia.

Some S’poreans have pointed to the influx of FTs as a probable reason (not the only one) for the low productivity. The local media and the govt ignore these views. The implication being that cutting back on FTs will help productivity.

Well these views have some validity as research in the West proves. (Note emphasis added is mine.)

Is it possible, really, that low productivity growth was a consequence of rapid labour-force growth? Once upon a time Paul Romer speculated that it might be:

One interpretation…is that there is a negative exernality associated with labor. this could arise if there is a form of innovation that economizes on labor, if investment in this kind of innovation is sensitive to movements in wages, an dif this innovation has positive external effects because of spillovers of knowledge. in this case, an increase in the rate of growth of the labor force, with the implied decrease in the rate of grwoth of wages, could case a decrease in innovation, and hence a decrease in knowledge spillovers from innovation. The net effect that an increase in labor supply has on output would then be the combination of the positive direct effect of more workers and the negative indirect effect of less innovation.

The suggestion that this kind of effective could be present is not new. This kind of interaction between wages and innovation has been invoked repeatedly in the comparative analysis of productivity growth in the United States and Britain during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

More recently, Daron Acemoglu has done extensive work noting that innovation responds to factor scarcity or abundance. If there’s rapid growth in labour supply then one should expect lots of innovation in technologies that complement labour and very little in labour-saving innovation. Whether that should net out to a slowdown in overall productivity growth is unclear, but the story isn’t something to write off out of hand.

(http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/09/generations)

If you’ve read this far, you will have noticed that innovation suffers when there there are too many bodies available. So govt saboing its policy of trying to make S’pore a centre of innovation?

Easy to avoid “xenophobe” label

In Humour, Uncategorized on 21/10/2013 at 4:47 am

I waz planning to grumble about (I assume unintentional) implications of: There are plenty of xenophobic people these days who rail unjustly against foreigners and cite them for alleged misconduct which they themselves might be guilty of at some other place and time. Whilst these people should be taken to task, it is equally unfair to use the “xenophobic” label to tar others who are merely speaking up against government policies and genuine grievances, but who may not phrase themselves with exactly the right amount of nuance and sensitivity.

It is very easy to be labelled as a xenophobe. All you have to do is to say “Singaporeans should come first”.(http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=8546)

But, in I’m sure, a different context context, Vincent Wijeysingha expressed my sentiments better than I ever could (I never faced racism when in the UK or Oz, maybe ’cause I waz in the “right” environment), and a lot faster too. See below for a longish quote from Vincent Wijeysingha and the link to his piece*.

So, I’ll confine myself to suggestions on how avoiding getting labelled a xenophobe when criticising the govt’s pro-FT stance. In this age of cut & paste, it’s easy for those who may not phrase themselves with exactly the right amount of nuance and sensitivity can use the words of Dr Tan Cheng Bock and Dr Chee to avoid the use the “xenophobic” label.

Remember Dr Tan’s slogan for the 2011 presidential election that he lost by a very short nose? “Think Singaporean first”. People could say, “The govt/ we should Think Singaporean first’…” or “Rather than its pro-FT policy, the govt should adopt Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s Think Singaporean first’ …”

Dr Chee’s, “A word of caution, I ask all of us here in Singapore to be the people that we truly are, the tolerant people that we are and if we attack, we attack the policy, we point out the flaws in the policy, not against the people who are here for work.”, can be simplified to “We disagree with the govt’s pro-FT policy, not the foreigners working here. We are unhappy with the “FTs first, citizens last” attitude of the govt because …”

I’m assuming that after using these phrases, users don’t talk of “molest” cases increasing because of the presence of FTs (Gilbert Goh), or linking violence and crime to the increasing number of FTs. These are no-go areas if one one’s to avoid the  “xenophobe” label. Talk about the suppression of the wages of local PMETs, stagnating real wage levels, overcrowded public transport and the increase in apartment rents and CoEs.

It’s easy to avoid the “xenophobe”, unless people really want to be called “xenophobes”, or are really xenophobes who pretend that their English lets them down. BTW, let’s bear in mind, that some PAPpies, on their own initiative, may be using “xenophobic” language deliberately to fix, tar S’poreans who criticise the govt’s pro-FT policy.

—–

*”To those following events in the foreigner debate, you may have noticed that the temper is gradually deteriorating. People are beginning to take views that have no relationship to the real situation. The most preposterous racism is being aired. When I lived in the UK for many years, I noticed a similar trend. It resulted, in later years, in racist assaults and eventually killings. The feeling of being frightened for your safety because of escalating racism, frightened for your security and that of your family, is unpleasant, to say the least.

Those who are serious about contributing to the population debate must begin to take responsibility for what they say and do. The action against Ranstad was misguided and wrong because it made an accusation which was not justified and it stoked further the resentment of Singaporeans already so unhappy with how things are developing. More actions of this kind will, I have no doubt, result in far worse outcomes both for foreigners in Singapore as well as for Singaporeans themselves.”

(https://www.facebook.com/notes/vincent-wijeysingha/fuck-off-back-home-foreigner/678499962167930)

Hear, Heat I say.

Why more FT Indians here than local Indians?

In Economy, India on 15/10/2013 at 4:52 am

(I hope readers don’t mind my flow onto LionsXII at the end)

One of the bloggers, I was concerned about here that might get a stroke or a heart attack, last week blogged that there are more FT Indians, than local Indians here. He didn’t give his source but used the statistic as the basis of prophesying doom and gloom for our minorities and society. It would have been nice if he had given his reasons, rather than assuming that we all know why.

Assuming he is correct about the FT Indian population being bigger than the local Indian population, there is possibly a gd, sound economic reason for it:- Our local Indians are not the “right” kind of Indians S’pore needs?

He may not be aware that S’pore’s an offshore hub of India, along with Dubai and Mauritius.

The largest hub for Indian trade is probably Singapore. It is the centre for investment banking, which thrives offshore, owing to the tight regulation of India’s banks and debt markets. Reflecting this, the global exposure to India of Citigroup and Standard Chartered, the two foreign banks busiest in India, is 1.9 times the size of their regulated Indian bank subsidiaries.

Fund managers running money in India are often based in Singapore. India’s best financial newspaper, Mint, now has a Singapore edition. At least half of all rupee trading is offshore, says Ajay Shah of the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy in Delhi. Investors and firms do not like India’s fiddly rules and worry that the country may tighten capital controls if its currency falls too far, says one trader in Singapore. He denies, though, that the rupee’s fall is mainly the work of speculators abroad. “The onshore guys have as much of a role,” he says.

Indian e-commerce firms often get their data crunched in Singapore, using web-hosting and cloud-computing firms, such as Google and Amazon. Amitabh Misra, of Snapdeal, says bandwidth costs less, technology is better and you avoid India’s headaches—such as finding somewhere to work, coping with state-run telecoms firms and having to wait to import hardware.

Singapore is also a centre for legal services. International deals involving India often contain clauses which state that disputes be arbitrated outside India, with its clogged courts. Singapore, along with London and Paris, has become the preferred jurisdiction. “The level of comfort Indian companies get from Singapore is unmatched,” says Vivekananda N of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre.

When India’s economy thrived, in 2003-08, so did its offshore hubs. Singapore’s service exports to India tripled. Yet these centres may sometimes be a reverse barometer. If things improve in India, activity should shift to the mainland, and vice versa. By gradually improving its ports, for example, India has convinced more shipping lines to make direct stops.

The government wants to attract activity back to create jobs and boost foreign earnings. Pride plays a role, too—it is unbecoming for a potential superpower to have outsourced vital economic functions. India has far less control over Dubai and Singapore than China does over Hong Kong. Plenty of policy statements in recent years argue that India should become a global hub for aviation, legal arbitration, diamond trading and international finance.

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21583285-growth-slows-and-reforms-falter-economic-activity-shifting-out-india-made-outside?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709

So are TRE posters who regularly complain about Indian FTs are DRUMS saboing S’pore? Though two-timing new citizen Raj who has publicly boasted that his son will avoid NS, and get PR (here and here) is not exactly a poster boy for Indian FTs or the govt’s “We love FTs” policy: more for GG and friends who hate FTs.

Finally, those of us (self-included) who love to regularly grumble about or mock ESM “Peanuts” should remember that he initiated the “Look to India” to differentiate himself from one LKY who wanted S’pore to be plugged into China’s sphere. So three cheers for him, for initiating the move that resulted in S’pore becoming a major offshore hub of India? Or should it be only two cheers for then allowing the likes of new citizen Raj in?

BTW, Mindef should be trying to close the loop-holes that allow those bums like new citizen Raj to boast that their sons can avoid NS, and then get PR, rather than make it difficult for our young Lions http://www.goal.com/en-sg/news/3880/singapore/2013/10/13/4321556/zainudin-hints-at-restrictions-for-sundram-departure: In his two-year tenure with the LionsXII, one of Sundram’s biggest bugbear had been the unavailability of players. A slim squad that was frequently decimated by injury lay-offs was further shorn of players due to National Service (NS) call-ups.

Players in NS who had used up their annual leaves to play for the LionsXII were often unable to find release from their active duties. Shakir Hamzah was most infamously found guilty of going AWOL from duties in June, after linking up with the LionsXII for an away game, and was handed a four-day sentence in the detention barracks.

BTW2, Our media has been 200% behind Fandhi’s attempt to be the new LionsXII  coach (Of course, he would deny he is campaigning to be coach: he would wouldn’t he?); but would temperamental Fandhi have put up with Sundram’s frustrations. I doubt he would. Likely, he would have walked out. Don’t anyhow support Fandhi. He willingly collaborates with our MSM, wanted to sue SDP and failed as coach of a free-spending Johor team (think Sity, think Johor). He was a good, and honest footballer but he isn’t exactly god’s gift to LionsXII. He’s god’s gift to our constructive, nation-building media who use him to sell papers and try to make us forget that the media here in part of the Dark Side.

GG crashes: new Indian chief needed?

In Uncategorized on 11/10/2013 at 5:00 am

(Or “Dr Chee’s no mad dog, he’s coyote”)

Gilbert Goh (who showed up meritocracy S’pore style) like Icarus paid the price of flying too close to the sun after getting S’poreans fired-up about the population white paper. Too bad, we S’poreans too got burned by GG’s hubris.

As this cartoon shows, the PAP is celebrating

It and its running dogs in the media and new media are spinning this rally as a victory for the govt: S’poreans now want 6.9m people by 2030.

They can quote one GG: “The momentum from the protests earlier this year has gone off, and the anger and emotion among Singaporeans is maybe no longer there,” chief organiser Gilbert Goh told AFP. http://sg.news.yahoo.com/low-turn-singapore-anti-immigration-protest-130612015.html

Sadly for us citizens of Manor Farm, Animal Farm S’pore , the truth is more complex. For starters, S’poreans have cottoned on to Gilbert Goh’s dog whistle. And S’poreans don’t do intolerance. Dr Dr Chee has said, ” the tolerant people that we are …”

(Dog whistle is a type of strategy of communication that sends a message that the general population will take a certain meaning from, but a certain group that is “in the know” will take away the secret, intended message. Often involves code words. Urban Dictionary)

The anger and emotion is still there. What has changed since the first event  is that GG has been shown to be anti-foreigner by his words. Example: his call for the 5 October rally. My take on it.

Then there was his attempt to make his protest movement an anti-govt movement, calling for regime change, rather than juz a specific anti-policy movement. See above links.

Finally, there is the multitude of calls to rally after the govt announced some curbs on the FT explosion.

Given GG’s views on FTs, I was surprised that Dr Chee and friends attended the rally, and Dr Chee spoke.

My initial reaction was that Drs Paul A, Wee Nam and others had failed to make sure that he took his anti-mad dog pills, and that he had bitten other SDP members.

But on reflection, Dr Chee’s speech with his, “A word of caution, I ask all of us here in Singapore to be the people that we truly are, the tolerant people that we are and if we attack, we attack the policy, we point out the flaws in the policy, not against the people who are here for work.”*, was an attempt to channel the issue to its original root: unhappiness with the white paper on population, and the govt’s pro-FT policy.

Sadly, Dr Chee’s attempt wouldn’t work. What was so different about GG’s initial call to protest was that it cut across political allegiances. The white paper and the govt’s pro-FT policy, were something, like bad public transport, that affected everyone, and couldn’t be used by the PAP and its running dogs journalists as a test of “Are you with us, or against us?”.  Sadly, GG then made it into “Are you with us, or against us?”.

A new Indian chief is needed to remobilise the RODed, or AWOLed S’poreans.

P Ravi perhaps? He has to his credit the scalp of the previous SMRT CEO (Remember after a protest he organised calling for her resignation, she quit). Opps forgot he member of a small fringe, marginal opposition party, where he works out by climbing stairs, pounding the pavements and drinking teh-tarik. Said party doesn’t even bother to use his new media skills.

Vincent Wijeysingha then? He is a social worker and activist; has concerns about the white paper (he spoke at GG’s first rally) but doesn’t dog whistle that he hates FTs; is smart (even though he went to Victoria, not RI, but then dad was RI principal then and father and son ada class); and talks well. The only people that would hold his gayness against him would be pastor Khong and gang, and Berrie Bear, the Canadian, S’porean, Muslim bear. With enemies like these, who needs friends? And he has friends, including human rights kay pohs, who will add a bit of class to the movement. He can bridge the divide between the unhappy masses and “liberals” on the unhappiness with the population white paper and the govt’s pro-FT policy.  Both are unhappy, but cannot find common ground, as this article http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/great-singaporean-grievance-103242143.html shows.

Take the poisoned chalice, Vincent? Or is it the holy grail? The holy grail was a poisoned chalice for those not worthy to sip from it.

*TOC and Yahoo versions added together

PM’s statement that’s so very wrong

In Economy, Political economy, Political governance on 02/10/2013 at 6:45 am

PM’s comments, “there are countries like China, Vietnam and India which are hungry and anxious to steal the lunch from us”, is pure inflammatory rubbish worthy of Gilbert Goh. They are not trying to steal from us. They are trying to improve themselves, by working harder (and perhaps smarter) than us. PM should leave anti-foreigner comments to Gilbert Goh and friends. Even TRE, TOC not into this kind of rubbish. The PM shouldn’t. But maybe he wants to talk on 5 October at GG’s “regime change” day.

Three other things wrong about his comment:

– Why is he comparing S’pore to these countries esp Vietnam? Tot, PM and his govt say we first world country like Switzerland, or global city like NY or London? I mean even manufacturers from China are moving to Vietnam because labour is cheaper there? What next compare us with Bangladesh or Burma?

– Productivity is more impt than working hard

And it seems that more productive—and, consequently, better-paid—workers put in less time in at the office. The graph below shows the relationship between productivity (GDP per hour worked) and annual working hours:

The Greeks are some of the most hardworking in the OECD, putting in over 2,000 hours a year on average. Germans, on the other hand, are comparative slackers, working about 1,400 hours each year. But German productivity is about 70% higher.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/09/working-hours

It’s all about working smart, like the decadent Japs that LKY mocks but who outperform the ang mohs. http://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/honest-conversation-on-fts-lets-have-it-not-juz-pretend-that-weve-having-it-iswaran/

– “Insatiability, and the 15-hour week — Lessons in life and work”

http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2013/09/insatiability-and-15-hour-week

The most stinging rebuke to PM’s line of reasoning comes close to the end of this longish, but intellectually entertaining piece.

BTW, if PM is genuine about wanting us to trust the govt, in addition to not imitating Gilbert Goh and friends, he should

– ensure that this kind of inflammatory rubbish doesn’t appear in our constructive, nation-building media

I am Singaporean, therefore I am entitled
While there is nothing wrong with policies that are based on a ‘Singaporean first’ principle, it can be taken too far. Abuse of this principle could lead to racism, xenophobia and aggressive nationalism. By Wu Zijian
It’s stuff like this that makes me thing GG has a point (which he doesn’t) about FTs being the problem. The problem is the PAP govt’s “FT Tua Kee” attitude.
– not juz talk the talk on limiting FTs coming in. Using, govt stats, Uncle Leong shows the flood is still rising, not receding. http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/09/27/new-citizenships-increased-by-31-in-2012/

TRE to blame?

In Humour on 25/09/2013 at 5:21 am

The appointment of SMRT’s security chief as its new PR chief* reminded me that In a letter dated 3 September 2013, a TRE reader sent in a complaint about some PRC FTs at a MRT station

They were eating foods such as Biscuits, Cakes, Lychees, Bananas and Apples, taken out from several boxes and plastic bags. The lychees peeled skins were littered on the concrete bench/seat. They were also shouting loudly in a distinct China’s Chinese accent. I also observed that they were loitering; not boarding any trains travelling towards Joo Koon or Woodlands MRT. They were literally having a picnic.

I did not stop them to minimise the possibility of myself getting hurt, as I have read several reports of China nationals attacking Singaporean Police officers. e.g. (source: TR Emeritus)

He complained to the SMRT staff but didn’t know the outcome as he had to catch his train and TRE wrote: Editor’s note: A letter has been sent to SMRT for comments on why the foreigners were not fined on the spot.

Maybe the SMRT person too read TRE’s reports of aggressive PRC behaviour and decided he too didn’t want to get beaten up, juz like the letter writer? There was an incident also reported by TRE about a PRC PR shop assistant who beat up a SMRT officer because the officer had stopped her son for trying to avoid paying.

So maybe TRE should be more careful in highlighting PRCs aggressive behaviour towards S’poreans to avoid unnecessarily frightening S’poreans.

Wonder if SMRT ever replied to TRE?

*Let’s hope this ex-cop improves on this

http://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/smrt-another-breakdown/

http://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/smrt-is-in-the-biz-of-transporting-people/

http://atans1.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/smrt-svp-is-great-believer-in-shareholder-value/

Gilbert Goh & friends are losing the plot

In Political governance on 30/08/2013 at 5:24 am

Something is wrong when someone who claims to have attended the two previous protests posts this constructive criticism on TRE:

2cents:

One has to honestly asked why there has been no climb down or indication of a pause or hint of a rethink. Were the protests effective? Has LKY already given the answer i.e. “wait a few years to see how things turn out”? Meantime, keep the issue out of sight while create a diversion with housing, education & health. Your guess?

Anyway, having attended the first 2 protests, I have 2 suggestions;

- The 4k attendance and subsequent lower turnout compared to the +10k one organized by the Pink movement is cause for thought. Can Transitioning learn something fr the latter’s organizers? Or why not get the Pink people to “mutually support” each other?

- One can almost guess who the speakers at the next protest will be. If so, it suggests to the authorities that the base and appeal of the protest is rather limited and not broad-based. New and more speakers must be sourced, encouraged to step forward to present views, arguments different but still in support of the protest goals than from the same tired faces. There are so many bloggers, commentators, contributors to alternative media sites who cam argue no less if not even more eloquently than what we have heard. Why not throw out an open invitation to ask for speakers to come forward, submit a brief of what he/she would like to speak on? Then form a committee to vet, evaluate and decide on an agenda?

For what it’s worth, Mr Leong SH shd don’t to have air time and also assist with the planning. Perhaps, Nicole Seah shd be persuaded to speak fr her perspective as a younger Singaporean amongst us who will be feeling and living through the impact of a 6.9mil overcrowded red dot for many years to come.

I personally have three grumbles with the latest call. Firstly, the rhetoric behind the call seems to indicate that GG and the other organisers have been watching too much tv footage of the protests in Cairo and Istanbul. They are calling for regime change what with

We will want to rally the people once gain to rise up and stand up for their rights in this third white paper protest!

This is our country and we want what’s best for us and our children – not to have a foreigner-induced 6.9 million population target shoved down our throat. We want a Singapore for Singaporeans! We want change!

One can hear the sound of trumpets, and the beating drums along with firing of tear gas canisters in these words

Next, they said, There is also an increase in molest cases on our jam-packed MRT trains and Singaporeans suffer the nightmare of having to ride in it twice daily.

Steady on. I and many others are concerned about the “projected” 6.9m by 2030, and are concerned about the FT influx. But I (and I’m sure many others) don’t want to be associated with people who make such a anti-foreigner statement. Granted,the causal link is not direct, but reading the sentence in tts context it is clear that the organisers are giving the message that foreigners cause overcrowding, and overcrowding causes increases in molestation cases etc, etc.. The rhetoric and twisted logic is worrying, given GG’s personal comments (for which he has apologised) on FTs.

Finally, the organisers are clearly coming across as anti-govt, not “anti” a govt policy. The first “protest” “worked” because it was seen as protesting something that even PAP supporters had reservations about. The second protest was seen as anti-white paper with a few other grievances thrown in. Then came the Nat Day event which came across less as an alternative celebration than a anti-govt “party”. Now we have a call for regime change.

Meanwhile the govt is “listening” and “acting”, even though it hasn’t withdrawn the White Paper. Whether its actions are juz wayang, has yet to be seen: I’m sceptical. But I for one am inclined to watch and wait, not demand regime change.

BTW, lest I be accused of being anti GG http://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/08/11/gilbert-goh-shows-up-meritocracy-spore-style/

New citizens: Is the govt naive or cynical?

In Humour, Political governance on 09/08/2013 at 4:38 am

New citizen Raj may be attending something like this party (at tax-payers’ expense, but then he too pays tax) http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-07-31/other-news/40913953_1_singapore-island-indian-community-gala.

But I suspect, he and his family, are celebrating by desecrating our flag (the PRC flag “r” ours) in the most disgusting manner possible, while laughing at the PAP govt that gave him citizenship, and cooking a nasty smelling curry to upset their S.porean HDB neighbours. Lest readers forget, new citizen Raj boasted to TOC that his son was set to avoid NS while still being to then become a FT PR. I wish the defence minister would close this loop-hole. Instead he seems to prefer to play the DRUMS (Distortions, Rumours, Untruths, Misinformation and Smears) to the beat of RAVI (Recriminations, Accusations, Vilifications & Insinuations (or is it Insults?).

Come to think of it, if Raj is such a devious man, he could be avoiding or evading paying his taxes. Taz talent for you.

Seriously, a friend who has spent many, many yrs working overseas, returning home ten yrs ago with a family, is not surprised that new citizens will be loyal to their new country.

He said although he had worked for many yrs in a foreign country, he wouldn’t have had the slightest hesitation to leave that country if there were problems there. Why should the govt here expect FTs to behave any differently, juz because they get S’pore citizenship, he asks? He said even if he had been given foreign citizenship, he would have cut and run if there was trouble. He doesn’t expect our new FT citizens to behave any differently. More fool the govt if it believes that they will defend S’pore, he says.

He made these points loud and clear when attending a session organised by a govt related think-tank. He actually wasn’t invited because it was organised for FTs. But his wife, a FT, received an invitation, and suggested to him that the event was his kind of do, especially as he would know many of the S’poreans from the think-tank. He did, including the boss.

So is the govt naive when it believes and assures us that new citizens will do the right thing by S’pore? Or is it cynical, wanting them only because it hopes they will drive economic growth by providing competition to local PMETs thereby keeping a cap on wage costs? Even some PAP MPs seem to think that FT provide unfair competition http://news.xin.msn.com/en/singapore/local-pmets-continued-to-face-unfair-foreign-competition-say-mps

BTW, my friend tells me that his son will do NS, after he finishes poly. I had told him I was disappointed to hear Yaacob, the Spin and Malay minister, say several yrs ago that he would encourage his son to do NS. His son, like my friend’s son, can opt out of being a citizen, thereby avoiding NS.

Have a gd day. And don’t curse the PAP and LKY  today. They too are S’poreans. And Cursing or being angry at the PAP and LKY, is like cursing or being angry at a Sith Lord. It only makes them stronger. They thrive on hatred.

Don’t feel guilty if you enjoy the spectacle. You paid for it. Don’t feel guilty too if you don’t go to Hong Lim to protest celebrate the people’s way. S’pore’s a broad church and the PAP govt ain’t that intolerant.

Majullah Singapura to you.

Can Oppo MPs ask MoM for FT fake rates here?

In Economy, Public Administration on 25/07/2013 at 5:17 am

And that this isn’t happening here? (Reminder, only recently there was report of  25 FTs convicted for using false education certificates in work pass applications.)

The ABC has revealed that thousands of Indian students, skilled workers and 457 visa holders have been admitted to Australia on dodgy travel and work documents.

Briefings prepared by the Immigration Department and obtained by the ABC’s Fact Check Unit under Freedom of Information show out-of-control, large-scale fraud of the visa system.

The internal audits show fraud rates approaching 50 per cent, and an Immigration Department struggling to properly identify people who are enterin

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-22/immigration-audits-reveal-large-scale-visa-fraud/4833710

Note that in the US, there are complaints that Indian IT companies are misusing the US visa system: However, critics of the proposed expansion argue that it’s not the future Facebooks of the world that are in desperate need of more H-1B visas but rather large outsourcing firms like iGate Technologies and Cognizant that benefit most from the programme.

Many outsourcing firms are of course Indian and already the Indian government has objected to provisions in the bill that would tax companies whose workforce is made up of more than 50% of H-1B visa holders.

Those provisions are meant to appease critics such as Systems in Motion CEO Neeraj Gupta, himself a former H-1B visa holder who once sold a company to a large Indian outsourcing firm.

Mr Gupta says the cap on visas should not be raised unless serious questions about the programme in general are asked.

“Before you open up the numbers let’s look at how they’re being used today: more than 80% of H-1B visas go to outsourcing firms,” says Mr Gupta.

“Let’s stop the use of these visas for outsourcing and you have more visas available for the innovation economy.”

Mr Gupta and others argue that foreign workers, mostly from India, are not necessarily future innovators but just cheaply educated lower-level engineers.

Because of the strictures of the H-1B programme, they are paid less money than equivalent American workers – and they have less bargaining power.

“If a worker complained about their wages or their working conditions, the employer could just threaten to lay them off and if they did that worker would have to leave the country,” says Rochester Institute of Technology Professor Ron Hira, who is himself ethnically Indian and a mentor to many foreign graduate students.

“It’s a form of indentured servitude.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23010391

Related post: New Citizen Raj talks openly of how his son will avoid NS while becoming a PR

BTW, I’m sure some ultra sensitive kay poh will bitch that I’m targeting Indians. If there are any reports of slit eyed chinks gaming the immigration systems of ang moh countries, send me the links and I’ll publish them here.

 

We did NS to protect this new citizen? WTF!

In Public Administration on 03/07/2013 at 1:53 pm

I was shocked when I read this:

An Indian former FT who prefers international schools is new citizen, Raj, originally from India. During an interview with TOC [Link], Raj revealed that only he in the family has converted to Singapore citizenship. His wife and daughter remain PRs and his son is on a student pass.

Raj said that if his son was a PR, he would need to serve NS. He preferred to “let his son decide if he wanted to put his roots down in Singapore or go back to India when he turns 21″.

The benefit of having his son on a student pass is that his son can always work in Singapore later as a “foreign talent” and eventually become a PR himself. He will not be considered a second-generation PR since he was not sponsored by his parents in the first place. A second-generation PR who gives up his PR is barred from working in Singapore.(http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/07/03/st-report-reveals-indian-fts-prefer-to-send-their-kids-to-international-instead-of-local-schools/)

Why the loop-hole, and why hasn’t it been closed? It must be commonly used for this FT to talk publicly about it, is my guess

Now, I RODed in the 70s,  am a bachelor and I don’t have children, but I’m upset at this loop-hole. Imagine the anguish of a parent whose son died while doing NS if he finds out that its so easy for new citizens and PRs to avoid legally NS?

This loop-hole had better be closed, and fast.

Hopefully some MP will raise this issue in parly especially as most PAP and WP male MPs have done NS. I know Puthu (very proud of the fact it seems based on his own words) and one Malay MP did not do NS. I know that excluding Low, all the Chinese and the sole Indian male MPs have done NS. Not sure about the Malay WP MP.

Related posts: http://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/when-55-of-voters-were-fts/

http://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/new-citizens-is-the-govt-naive-or-cynical/ (added in October 2013)

Would M’sian PRs be cheering for LionsXII?

In Footie, Political governance on 03/07/2013 at 7:09 am

When it was reported that PM would be attending last night’s match,

– superstitious fans (like me) groaned afraid that he would be siaw for team;

– the usual suspects were bitching that he was trying to tupang the popularity of the team for the PAP.

Well LionXII won in style, and so the former (self included)  were wrong.

As to the usual suspects, I’m sure if he wasn’t present, they would be bitching that he only watches sports where FTs represent S’pore, like ping pong. Either way, they would criticise him because they hate all things PAP, and are not willingly to accept that 60% of voters (a very sizable majority) voted for the PAP. BTW, I voted for the Opposition juz as I have all my life.

Thankfully for S’pore these people don’t have the balls to take action: they are only passive grumblers.

Coming back to PM’s attendance. I’m glad he attended because love of footie (EPL, La Liga, Champs and Europa Leagues, World Cup, National teams’ games and street games) is something that most S’poreans share: the money rows between SingTel and Starhub show this. He may not love (or even like footie) footie but by attending he recognises that many of us do, that footie, not ping pong, is our national game.

And he should reflect and repent on his “PAP loves FTs” policy*. Many yrs ago, his dad complained bitterly that when S’pore met China in basketball in S’pore, S’porean Chinese were cheering for China. Well I want to ask PM, “If PRs** from M’sia were attending, who would they vote cheer for?” Certainly not for LionsXII.

Related post: http://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/when-55-of-voters-were-fts/

He cannot have a “FT rules OK” policy, while building a national identity. Something has to give.

*I’m not convinced that the govt is sincere in its promise to cut back its “Operation FTs swamp S’pore”. I’m sceptical.

**Most PRs are M’sian Chinese. They are not happy with being second class citizens in M’sia but refuse to became S’porean citizens. Remember the M’sian that was the first “S’porean” to climb Mount Everest? He did become a citizen, but very reluctantly it has been alleged..

Swiss & S’poreans share a concern

In Economy, Political governance on 03/06/2013 at 5:51 am

The number of foreigners in Switzerland stands at almost 25%* … and while many Swiss accept their labour market needs foreign workers, they are unhappy about rising house prices or overcrowded schools.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22738774

Fee-fi-fo-fum, the Swiss sound like us S’poreans.

Are they xenophobic? I’m sure our constructive, nation-building media would say they are. Juz as the PAP-stream media would agree with Gordon  Brown, the then UK PM, that this lady’s a “bigot” for being concerned about immigration. He lost a general election and his party has apologised for its immigration policies.

As the above link shows, a Swiss opposition has gained votes by articulating the public’s concerns. Maybe an idea for our opposition parties. But then the Wayang Party wants to be a co-driver, the SDP doesn’t do xenophobe, and NSP stands for “No Substance Party”. Over to you Mrs Chiam.

She shows what an opposition party is meant to do.

—-

*38% here including PRs. Remember PRs here are not “permanent”: renewable, like 99-leases and COEs.

FTs: Quality control? What quality control?

In Political governance on 22/03/2013 at 6:18 am

Couldn’t stop laughing when CNA reported LKY as saying Mr Lee, ‘authorities here maintain a “certain quality of control”” on immigration http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1261274/1/.html. And then shaking my head on how out of touch he was. And to think that once upon a time, he was my hero because he was a good pragmatic micro-manager. He also talked sense when JBB was spouting nonsense. Seems LKY has picked up JBJ’s bad habit of talking nonsense.

I will not go into the instances where a violent, cheating sexy-looking PRC shop assistant turned out to be a PR, nor when a PRC prostitute got citizenship (this is not an urban myth: there is credible evidence that it happened), nor when a violent, drunk ang moh got PR status when he was awaiting trail for beating up two S’poreans , nor when an Indian murder suspect, here illegally, got a work permit. Nor the many reported cases of faked degrees, and “faked” salaries.

No, I will just point out that the govt has just only, again, tightened the rules for FTs getting a job here.

Acting Minister for Manpower Tan Chuan-Jin yesterday assuaged such fears, declaring that “such practices have no place in Singapore’s workplaces”, and would not be tolerated.

Based on feedback so far, Mr Tan said there were three areas of frustration over nationality discrimination: “Hiring-their-own-kind” where the employers prefer candidates of the same nationality; hiring foreigners as it is faster than screening Singaporeans; and a preference for well-qualified foreigners willing to work for lower wages.

To tackle this, the MOM will introduce a tiered structure for S-Passes where salaries would be tiered according to experience so that local PMEs are not undercut. The ministry will also investigate companies if necessary and suspend work pass privileges if needed — this was imposed on one “fairly prominent company” which advertised for employees of a certain nationality, Mr Tan said.

The government will stop tightening the tap on foreign workers only if three goals are met. They are:

  • foreign presence in the labour pool is capped at around a third;
  • productivity grows 2-3 per cent a year; and
  • when Singaporeans’ wages improve.

Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin told Parliament yesterday, during the debate on his ministry’s budget: “If we are not able to meet these targets, we are likely to continue the tightening and restructuring approach.”

He noted that the foreign workforce, excluding foreign domestic workers, grew by about 67,000 last year – still too large a number, so his ministry has tightened its policies further to bring it down.

It will track the numbers sector by sector, he added. CNA

If there was QC, there wouldn’t be a need for such drastic measures, or the earlier ones, would there?

Instead of wanting more FTs to “spur” S’poreans, maybe he should have “spurred’ on the PM and other ministers when he was in a position to do so? I mean if he had “spurred” the Home Team, tpt, and HDB ministers, and his son, 5the PAP and S’poreans would have been much happier. The PAP would not have lost Aljunied, gain only 605 of the popular vote, nor nearly have its preferred candidate lose the presidential election. And we S’poreans would have better public tpt, less expensive apartments, and less crowded public spaces.

As to his comparison with Japan, I can only wonder why I once admired his analytical skills. S’pore is trying to grow its population, not just mitigate for an aging population. And for all his sneering of Japan, the Japanese have done pretty well. The economy has on some measures outperformed even the US, his ideal of a country that allows in FTs. See analysis here from HSBC, http://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/honest-conversation-on-fts-lets-have-it-not-juz-pretend-that-weve-having-it-iswaran/

Two great Romans, the dictator Sulla and the emperor Diocletian, at the height of their powers, temporal, and mental, retired from public life, leaving only memories of them at their best (often brutal) moments. Maybe LKY should have done that. He was also very protective of the public image of his mouth-piece Rajaretnam in the latter’s dotage. It may have been better if he had taken such care for his own image.

“For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind”

In Economy, Infrastructure, Political economy, Political governance on 27/11/2012 at 6:01 am

Well, well. So 102 FT drivers recruited from China (5% of all SMRT’s drivers) refused to work yesterday, disrupting SMRT bus services. They were not happy about their pay. Happily for commuters using the affected bus services, they agreed to return to work while talks continue.

Whither the FT policy, and LKY’s pride in FTs? Striking was a no-no for workers (except, as I recounted yesterday, when the govt had another agenda). S’porean sheep workers did not strike partly because they were afraid of retribution. Now FTs have led the way and have so far got away with it. They might even get more money. If they do, will locals realise that they too can get away with striking? If immigrants whom LKY respect can strike, why can’t they?

And if S’poreans start striking, will the MNCs move on?

Something for the cabinet, PM and his dad to ponder.

“For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk: the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up.”

As for SMRT, time to forget about the stock. Management is still dysfunctional, despite having a ex-SAF chief and scholar in charge. Err might even turn into another NOL, where as I have recounted another ex-SAF chief and scholar has run it aground (Search “NOL”  on this site).

Why the ‘T’ in the FT is not Talent but Trash: ICA not checking with police?

In Humour, Political governance on 08/10/2012 at 5:33 am

Did you know that ST reported that an Indonesian jailed with having sex with an underage prostitute, had just become a PR? I learnt this yesterday via TOC. This a few weeks after reading in TRE that ang moh gaw, Robert Dahlberg, who “moved on” while on bail, received his PR even after he had been charged for beating up two true blue S’poreans at Suntec City in 2010.

So it’s OK to be a PR despite having being charged with a sexual offence or beating up people? Shouldn’t the PR approvals have awaited the court’s decisions.

One wonders if the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA), part of Home Team, which processes and approves PR applications, has done a thorough, robust check on applicants before approving them.  If ICA doesn’t even bother to check with other S’pore government agencies, how can we trust that it makes checks overseas. Are the qualifications from say Shangrilla uni or Utopia Biz School genuine? Do the schools even exist?

No wonder we  got the following PRC FT cases.  A PRC man invested S$1.5m so that he and his family could get PR. He apparently lied in his PR application that he was a senior executive in a private biz, when in fact he was a mid-ranking Chinese bureaucrat who stole the money. And then there were the case a few years ago of two PRs who ended up as food hawkers here (This only known because they were the victims on an attack). Or the PRC PR who worked here as a shop assistant. This only became known because she was found guilty of assaulting a SMRT officer who tried to stop her from “cheating” SMRT over her child’s fare. She refused to repent, saying she was in the right.

I hope a PAP MP asks the government to explain why ICA does not check with other govt agencies on whether applicants had criminal charges against them? And whether there are any other checks with other govt depts. This failure to check goes to the heart of the government’s credibility on its claim that it has a Foreign Talent policy, not a Foreign Trash policy, as many readers of TRE suspect.

Or could it be that inter-agency communications are lacking, be it the IT systems or the work flow processes?

Whatever the reason, PAP MPs should be concerned that the govt’s cred is at stake. It could cost them votes at next GE.

I don’t think the WP will ask the question. I suspect that, based on its parly performance so far, it is a sleeping co-driver, who prefers to let sleeping dogs continue sleeping. Doubtless Pritam is dreaming of being a millionaire minister, and Show Mao of being a well-paid adviser to a GLC or the PM.

Finally, juz wondering: Maybe the ICA officers are subversives trying to sabo the govt? They are Dr Chee groupies? After all he has lots of groupies in NUH. LOL.

—-

PS: Piece on a possible connection between NatCon  and the problems (highlighted by DBS) that the government created for the economy should now appear on Wednesday.

“Honest conversation” on FTs: Let’s have it, not juz pretend that we’ve having it, Iswaran

In Economy, Political economy, Political governance on 05/10/2012 at 6:16 am

S’poreans must have honest conversation about immigration: S Iswaran late last week. But will we be allowed to, minister?

No, I’m not talking abt what Uncle Leong pointed out about the growth in FTs despite all the talk of by the government of it being curtailed. The analysis and comments of Uncle Leong and many others based on the government’s very own data has resulted in this attempt via originally new media (then amplified by the constructive, nation-building media) at damage control.

And let’s ignore what rogue scholar, TJS, has somewhere analysed*: that it’s not true declining population lead to economic ruin. He is after all, as Lawrence Wong, would put it “anti-PAP”. And he could even, at a stretch, be classified as one of Sim Ann’s  demons who  “spew hate and prejudice against individuals or groups”. Remember, he bitched against bungalow owning ministers, when, I’m told, he too has a bungalow.

No: My complaint is why don’t we get told how well Japan is doing?

A country has three choices when its TFR (total fertility rate) drops Get the TFR back up; encourage immigration; and do nothing i.e. let the population age.

Most countries try to increase TFR, some succeed. Japan tried it, failed and as it doesn’t do immigration, it prefers to use robots, it is managing the decline in population.

Japan has shown, a country with a declining population can still do better than other developed countries as figures from HSBC (published earlier this year) show which contradict the doom and gloom that one LKY says abt Japan.

Growth per capita in the 2001-2010 decade

Japan 1.6%

UK 1.2%

Germany 0.8%

US 0.7%

France 0.6%

And looking at the overall GDP numbers, Japan’s record is as good as that of the Germans, who now have created the Fourth Reich in Europe.

US 1.6%

UK 1.5%

France 1.2%

Germany 0.8%

Japan 0.8%

So the Japanese have well, considering their aging and declining population. Perhaps our PM should be listening to them, and trying to take some tips, especially on the use of robots (say to replace Lawrence Wong and Sim Ann who seem to be stuck with some PAP robotic messages that are a throwback to when LKY ruled the roost). And get dad to stop talking rot on Japan.

As to the need of the elderly population needing younger S’poreans to pay taxes to keep the place going, that both PM and Tharman mumble about, ain’t the governing PAP forgetting that it instituted the CPF system precisely to avoid a “Pay as You Go” social security system. (OK, OK, I’m unfair on the PAP on this but two can play the BS game.)

It’s you die, if you got no CPF (Don’t look to VivianB for help. He will only sneer at you for being poor) So by the PAP’s own account, the elderly (like me) don’t need a growing and younger workforce to support.

So Minister, although you are a Hindoo, somehow I think this verse from the bible is applicable to you (and your fellow ministers) when it comes to having an “honest conversation” about FTs:

(Note “mote” means “a particle of wood or chaff” i.e. it’s very, very tiny)

Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.

—–

*Sorry no link as I’m not too impressed by his analysis. He left out that his favourite Nordic countries tax its people too much for my taste.

Tharman admits FTs can become citizens without integrating?

In Political governance on 27/08/2012 at 9:27 am

I juz read this in amazement: “DPM Tharman urges new citizens to form ties with S’poreans”.

Shouldn’t these new citizens have “formed” ties with S’poreans before they become citizens? What he says implies that FTs who become citizens are allowed to do so in a bubble. They don’t have to integrate with us. They are juz “urged to” after they become citizens.

If so, then this is another example of shumething “Uniquely S’porean”.

In other countries, FTs are not made citizens until after they undergo citizenship training, and passing tests to show they understand what being a citizen means. The training includes integrating with locals. Juz ask the British, US, Australian and NZ governments. FTs have to undergo integration training before they become citizens.

An annoying ministerial boilerplate remark

In Economy, Political economy, Political governance on 13/01/2012 at 5:35 am

It was reported by CNA that DPM Teo Chee Hean (one of the better ministers in my view) “said the government’s focus is on ensuring that Singapore remains the best home for all Singaporeans.

‘Beyond developing an attractive living environment and a thriving economy which sustains good jobs for its citizens, Singapore also needs to strengthen the bonds that Singaporeans have with one another and with the country.”

My bitch is about “good jobs for its citizens”. If anything the government has attempted to “developing an attractive living environment and a thriving economy” by making it difficult for the wages of citizens to rise despite rising housing prices and cost of living expenses. It does this via its “FTs are most welcomed” policy, which keeps wage costs down. To be fair, the FT policy also helps keep property prices up. See next posting.

It is a fact that FT HR employees aggressively pitch to the employers, the merits of their compatriots. I know a manager in an MNC wanting to employ a S’pore-trained lawyer, being sent nothing but the CVs of Filipino-trained  lawyers by his, you guessed it, Filipino FT HR manager.

Even though it has now promised to moderate this policy, it has not changed its views on the importance of this policy. Hence its constant ministerial refrain that less FTs means less GDP growth and less jobs for S’poreans. And the constructive, nation building media and academics from SMU keep on harping on the unhappiness of employers who want cheap FTs, and the costs to the economy (including less full time jobs for ploy grads).

Immigration: This balls-up happened here?

In Economy on 27/05/2011 at 10:05 am

Randall Hansen of the University of Toronto explained that the shift in UK immigration policy from a stricy regime to a very liberal regime by the then Labour government was a matter of economic policy, with Labour believing that highly skilled immigrants would expand human capital, and that low-skilled immigrants would prevent labour shortages … The problem, Mr Hansen continued, was that the government had drastically overestimated the benefits, and underestimated the rush of migration that would follow. Labour had forecasted a fiscal benefit of £6 billion a year—overly optimistic, nearly commensurate with the estimated fiscal benefit of immigration to the United States, which is a much bigger economy. And Labour had predicted that perhaps 20,000 … nationals would arrive; the number was closer to 700,000, as had been predicted by the right-wing sceptics at Migration Watch. When the benefits failed to materialise, the politics turned sour, particularly as the adverse economic impacts of immigration were concentrated among people least prepared to absorb them—as is often the case.

(The above is an extract from a longish post on an Economist blog.)

This being S’pore we will never know if the government got its estimates of benefits and numbers coming in wrong, and getting the voters very angry,with George Yeo, Ms Lim, LKY, GCT, Cry Baby Lim, and the three stooges (Wong, Mah and Lim) having to pay the price.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 186 other followers