Xenophobia label used to attack White Paper opponents

20th February 2013


This is BBC’s coverage of the protest at Hong Lim. The first part discusses the trade-off for Singaporeans and how the low TFR has led to the need for immigrants in our country. Everyone that spoke missed the point that the foreign influx is far larger than what is needed to compensate for low TFR – we had influx upwards of 100+K per year which is many times higher than the number needed to compensate for our low birth rate. But what I find interesting is the discussion on xenophobia towards the end of the programme. A foreigner, Simon Littlewood, who lived in Singapore for 20 years said:

“Well I have lived there (Singapore) for 20 years now. I think it would be unfortunate to exaggerate what is going on. Well having said that, I was the subject of a xenophobic tirade for the first time ever in Singapore a few months ago which gave me a sense of feeling (?)…wealthy foreigners are extremely visible in Singapore.
Despite Singapore’s per capita income being among the highest in the world, there is a significant percentage of Singaporean households that earn very little money and I can understand how this sense of displacement must be difficult. But the fact is the system in Singapore by the PAP is based on the notion that if you make Singapore a welcoming place for wealthy corporations and foreigners by taxing them and taking their money you can provide an environment which is beneficial for all. Unfortunately, that foreign money has led to extreme growth in cost…that hurts the society“….

For those of us who are against xenophobia, we are dismayed that it has surfaced in the past few years. Singaporeans, being the children and grandchildren of immigrants, are generally not xenophobic and we have welcome foreigners in the past when they came in at a sustainable rate. Bad policies in recent years have led to negative effects that have caused Singaporeans to be angry. Many have directed this anger at govt policies that they feel should be changed. Unfortunately, the mainstream media, the PAP and staunch PAP supporters have often pinned this term “xenophobic” on opponents of PAP policies. The latest episode is the accusation that WP’s Low Thia Kiang had incited xenophobia by speaking up against the White Paper.



But read and think about what Simon Littlewood said in the BBC interview. What has caused the rising sense of insecurity and displacement among Singaporeans? It is easy for those of us who live in financial security and in comfort to tell others to behave better and not misdirect their anger at foreigners who are just here to better their own lives and support their families back home.

I personally have not felt any threat to my job and my financial security so it is easy for me not to harbor any negative feelings, but put yourself in the shoes of Singaporeans struggling under intense competition with wages depressed by foreign workers willing to take the same job at a lower pay…and the breadwinner who lost his job due to his age to younger imported workers. We should spare some thought for those who have suffered and to label their feeling of insecurity and anger as xenophobia …and their cries for help and frustration as xenophobic is arrogant and simplistic.

For those who have implemented or supported these extreme policies that has pushed a large segment of the population to the edge to now stick ugly labels and demand acceptance is just irresponsible, insensitive and shameful.


Source: Lucky Tan
* Lucky Tan is an avid online blogger since 2005. He likes to study the thoughts of Singapore leaders and the laws of Singapore. 
.
Editor’s note: Please read – UK Labour party didn’t listen on immigration
Ed Miliband, current UK Labour Party chief said, “Worrying about immigration, talking about immigration, thinking about immigration, does not make them bigots. Not in any way.”
He said this as Labour Party Chief after his party lost heavily in the UK General Election of 2010.
 

Reader: REQUEST FOR A SECOND POPULATION WHITE PAPER PROTEST

18th February 2013

Letter written to Mr. Gilbert Goh from Transitioning.org - organizer for the recent protest rally at Hong Lim Park, Speakers corner on 16th February 2013.
 



Dear Mr  Gilbert.

I did not attend the protest.  Honestly, sincerely wish I had.

Despite not attending, I followed closely online mostly via Temasek Review.
It brings joy and hope to see your event was so successful.

On my part, I post on Facebook messages which are in line with the protest’s message.
I wrote one about how I have many good foreign friends and how would love to accommodate, welcome and hang out my friends from all over the world as guests in my tiny apartment.
As guests, but not as my tenants.

I wrote about how much rental income that could generate for my parents but not without highlighting the decline of quality of life with such a scenario, as the apartment is unfortunately just that small.

I wrote that the same time the protest was ongoing, to spread awareness of the dire consequences of the White Paper.

However small my audience may be,  I did generate likes (even though not hundreds or thousands) from friends of all races, both Singaporean and Foreign.

I am telling you this because, despite the fact that there are many who did not physically attend, these very people are extremely passionate about Saturday’s message.

Trust me, there are many many more out there like me who share the same sentiments with those who were present at Hong Lim Park on Saturday.

The western and foreign media has shone well deserving positive light on the event.
Many have read articles regarding the protest on BBC, The Guardian, Bloomberg and Reuters to name a few, and many more will read regarding its success.

I have seen pictures and today, I got to listen to YouTube Videos of  the speeches recorded.
I CRIED listening to the National Anthem.

What gave it the extra ‘kick’ for me as that I speak and understand the Malay language.
The meaning of the National Anthem lyrics in such a context gave me goosebumps and I sobbed uncontrollably.

Even after the event is over, immortalized moments captured in video and audio is still capable to move those who were not present.

The message will live on for as long as we still care and crave a brighter future for our children.
Please, please do have a second Protest.

Light shone by the media has assisted your cause to open up the eyes of Singaporeans.
People (including myself) will not be as skeptical and paralyzed as they once were when it comes to the very idea of a Protest.

A second protest will show that many many more has joined the cause, and decision makers will (hopefully) have no choice but to reflect on the Motion they passed on the White Paper and amend their grave error.

Let the world pay attention to this issue as supporters of this view are too many and protests are too frequent.

We cannot afford to wait till the next election.
How many more new citizens will there be until then?
We must relentlessly carry on this struggle for a better future for us, and the future generations of Born and Bred Singaporeans.

Please do not let critics and skeptics think the event is a one-off affair.
We must keep reminding ourselves and the world that this will not be over until we gain our confidence  in the future.

Please please organize a second protest.

Thank you for giving the Average Singaporean a Voice and congratulations for the wonderful turn out and success of the event.
Hope to attend the second one.

Regards,
A Singaporean.


Source: Transitioning website

Transitioning is a non profit organisation that reaches out to those who are unemployed and underemployed.

Population White Paper Protest Rally : Audio Recordings

18th February 2013

AUDIO RECORDINGS - 
PROTEST AGAINST POPULATION WHITE PAPER

AT HONG LIM PARK, SPEAKERS CORNER 
ON 16.02.2013

       Speaker: Leong Sze Hian - Financial Consultant



      Speaker: Tan Jee Say - Politician, Investment Advisor

    

     Speaker: Vincent Wijeysingha - Politician, Civil Activist

 

      Speaker: Tan Kin Lian - Businessman, Social Activist

WHY THE GOVERNMENT MUST LISTEN TO VOICES AT HONG LIM PARK

18th February 2013

By Nizam Ismail

In the aftermath of the Hong Lim Park Civil Protest against the White Paper, here is why the Government must listen to the voices at Hong Lim Park.

PM Lee had earlier unequivocally stated that the public debate on the White Paper must continue, despite Parliament passing a motion approving the White Paper.

Yet, Singaporeans have,  to-date, not received any information from the Government as to how and where the public debate proposed by the Government can (or will?) take place.

Putting aside the skepticism of SG Conversation for a moment, there has also been no indication as to whether the White Paper will be discussed at this state-sponsored platform.

And so, it should not surprise anyone that a group of Singaporeans took it upon themselves to organize a platform for this public debate at Hong Lim Park.  These are Singaporeans who felt that their voices were not heard.  Hong Lim Park thus provided the setting for the expression of the collective voices of a significant number of concerned Singaporeans.   It is thus a no brainer – the wet greens of Hong Lim Park must be considered as part of the space for public debate.

Here, to dismiss the voices at Hong Lim as “emotional” , “unbalanced” or “not shedding light on important issues” smacks of arrogance.  Worse, it can only reaffirms the perception that there has been no sincere attempt at listening to Singaporeans (arising from the manner in which White Paper was rushed through Parliament), and that Singaporeans are dis-empowered from taking part in charting their destinies, and making their own decisions.

This was no ordinary gathering.  It was the biggest civil protest gathering in Singapore post-independence.  And one which was noticed and covered by major global news media.

I had commented at Hong Lim Park that Singaporeans have a right to be emotionally persuaded.  To dismiss and mock any emotional reaction is regrettable.  Because the issues in the White Paper talks about our future – the physical and social space that we live in.  Because the White Paper talks about our identity as Singaporeans. Singaporeans have every right to feel emotionally aggrieved when their voices are not heard on these important issues.  And worse,  to be summarily dismissed.

At the intellectual level (a level that the Government is apparently more comfortable with), many spontaneous discussions over social media and elsewhere have brought out certain fundamental problems that have been overlooked or insufficiently addressed in the White Paper.  These issues were also touched upon at Hong Lim Park.  Again, for the Government to take a broad-brushed dismissal on Hong Lim Park does nothing to persuade Singaporeans that these important issues have been considered, and that there are solid grounds for the proposals in the White Paper.

The current situation presents an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate that it has, in fact, changed and that it will listen.

This presents an opportunity for the Government to show that it is open to accepting and even encouraging a diversity of views –  diversity that is important for Singapore’s resilience.

But will the Government seize this opportunity to make amends for the White Paper, which, by the Government’s own admission, had its shortcomings?

The longer the Government takes to respond to Hong Lim, the greater the risk of growing chasm between the Government and Singaporeans.

Already, some Singaporeans have called for a sequel to Hong Lim Park.

In the meantime, Singaporeans will continue to ponder whether they are placed at the Core.

Source: Nizam Ismail on his blog

About Nizam Ismail: 

"I set this Blog up in the belief that there must be space for independent voices and perspectives in Singapore. I am currently Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Centre for Research on Islamic and Malay Affairs (RIMA). I am have been a  member (since 2006) and formerly Chairman (2009-2011) of the Board of Directors of the Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP).  I was the founding President of Young AMP from 2004-2009. I was also Chairman of the Convention Steering Committee of the 2nd Convention of Muslim Professionals in 2012. I have been doing voluntary work in various capacities since 1997. The thoughts herein are my personal views and may not necessarily reflect those of RIMA and AMP.

SHAME ON OUR MAINSTREAM MEDIA FOR FAILING ITS READERS AND SINGAPOREANS

18th February 2013

It is a crying shame that we Singaporeans have to resort to reading overseas media reports to get the full impact of the protest held at Hong Lim Park yesterday. The international media including the BBC News,Wall Street Journal, International Herald Tribune, Aljazeera, Bloomberg, Reuters, Jakarta Post and South China Morning Post (SCMP) all gave very substantial coverage to the event which will surely go down in our history as a significant milestone. Several of the foreign press noted that this was an important and rare protest in our tightly-controlled country of docile beings.  Hongkong’s SCMP even reported it on their front page! (Click on all the hyperlinks to read those reports)

The Feb 16 protest was Singapore’s biggest public protest since its independence as it drew an estimated 5,000 attendees. And it would likely have been more if it weren’t for the rainy weather. It was a day when thousands of Singaporeans of all races shed their fears of the government and stood together to protest openly against the White Paper  proposal to up our population to 6.9 million by importing loads more foreigners.

The protest showed the world that it is not just the online world that is upset as claimed by our government . It showed the depth of the sorrow, pain and anger of the citizens of Singapore at the preposterous idea of being reduced to a possible minority in their own country in the not too distant future. The protest put a face to the so-called “noise” a dismissive term used by the PAP to describe its critics. And the “faces” that we saw were represented by Singaporean men and women of all ages, races and religions.

Despite its historical significance, our local media downplayed the news. If they had their way, they would not even have reported it at all. But they couldn’t avoid it simply because the rest of the world media was reporting on the event. It was definitely a front page local news story but no, the leading newspaper Straits Times felt it was best to tuck it away on Page 4 with a shallow report that did not do justice to the event and the cause. Ok so there was a blurb on front page masthead but it was so tiny and had a photo so small that you had to hold it close and squint to see the pix contents. As for The New Paper, it delivered the ultimate insult by reducing its report on the protest to just a mere photo caption, an honour reserved only for news deemed as un-newsworthy.

To the editors at Singapore Press Holdings and MediaCorp. I know your hands are literally chained by the government but I hope you had at least tried your best to fight for more worthy coverage. You know deep down this was a newsworthy historical event. By giving it shallow coverage, you have a) set a lousy example to your journos as an editor and shown how your journalistic integrity was compromised  b) done your readers a great disservice and c) failed your fellow citizens and your country.

I hope you and your conscience sleep well at night.

Source: Jentrified Citizen

Is the PAP really listening?

18th February 2013

The Straits Times

ESM Goh Chok Tong has come out to call what happened at Hong Lim Park “speakers’ rhetoric”.

Singaporeans have said from the start when the Population White Paper was first released, that they disagree with the 6.9 million target. Many have cited the constant infrastructure breakdowns, the squeeze on public transport and on the roads especially during peak hours, the lack of personal and recreational space, the impact on natural reserves, the depressed wages of Singaporeans, the increasing income gap, the local PMETs job losses, the increased competition for resources from housing to water to childcare / university spaces and healthcare as good reasons for the government to rethink the target. Many have also gave suggestions on sustainability and moral obligations of the nation.

To call the protest as rhetoric shows the lack of sincerity on the government’s part to listen to Singaporeans or the genuine care the government has for Singaporeans’ concerns.

Are the speakers at the protest too one-sided? Was it politically-motivated? Was it playing on Singaporeans’ emotions?

There were no singing of any political parties’ theme songs, there was no selling of any political parties’ motto or manifesto, there was no call to Singaporeans to take up arms and fight the PAP government.

So what was really said at the Hong Lim park protest?

First, there was a united voice calling for the government to reject the Population White Paper as it is unacceptable to Singaporeans, the main stakeholders of this little red dot. There were calls from families to the government to consider the plight of future generation as space diminishes, the Singapore core threatened and spaces for local children at Universities become even more competitive.

There were calls for the government to review its stance on the population white paper because the nation’s infrastructure is not coping even at 5.3 million people today. There were appeals to the government to stop being in denial and to use full and proper statistics when they are forming policies. A placard clearly showed that some Singaporeans are sick of being poor despite the government constantly touting Singapore as a rich nation.

Singaporeans also want the government to stop giving out Singapore citizenship as a country club would give out or sell its membership. Then, Singaporeans want the government to truly engage Singaporeans in its National Conversation and not just pay lip service to it or be tokenistic by inviting the “right” people to these conversations.

To top it all off, Singaporeans at the event are clear on one thing – they want a sustainable Singapore for Singaporeans FIRST.

Ng Eng Hen has assured Singaporeans the government is listening. Lee Hsien Loong has tried to assure Singaporeans that the future is bright.

Singaporeans have spoken. Is the PAP government really listening?

.

Related: ESM Goh: Can’t say I think much of speakers’ rhetoric at Hong Lim Park

Source: TRE website

SDP has proposed a scheme to tighten the screening of foreign professionals and ensure that Singaporeans are first considered for hiring.

17th February 2013

Weighing in on the population debate, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) has proposed a scheme to tighten the screening of foreign professionals and ensure that Singaporeans are first considered for hiring.

Among six recommendations it set forth in an alternative white paper presented Thursday night, SDP suggested a "TalentTrack" scheme that would take into account the age, number of dependents, qualifications, work experience and skill sets of potential foreigners to be employed in Singapore.

Party chief Chee Soon Juan said on Thursday that the SDP's paper titled "Building a People - Sound Polices for a Secure Future" is a comprehensive set of policy initiatives that takes into consideration not just the matter of lowering the population but also tightening immigration, lowering the costs of living and retaining Singaporean talent.

Before a foreigner can apply to work in Singapore under the TalentTrack scheme, a Singaporean employer must first demonstrate that they have made every effort to employ a Singaporean first but cannot find a local with the requisite skills.

The point system will reflect the prevailing needs of the various sectors and industries of the economy, SDP explained.

To verify they possess the skills they claim to have, applicants will also be tested at centres to be created under a new statutory board called the Council for Skills Evaluation, the party proposed.

Those who pass will be granted an Employment Pass (EP) which will be tied to the firm that employs him.

“As an alternative to the current foreign manpower policies, this proposal is a broad shift of the manpower policy to a focus on productivity and innovation,” said SDP in the paper.
The party also proposed to abolish foreign worker levies for professionals and replace it with an additional tax on their income at a rate of 13.8 per cent -- a rate that matches the current top rate of employer CPF contribution.

According to the party, the government’s population white paper endorsed by Parliament last week has failed to address problems such as overcrowding and will struggle to tackle Singapore’s demographic challenges because it has not departed from the policy fundamentals that have given rise to the present situation.

In the government white paper, Singapore’s total population is projected to hit 6 million by 2020 from the current 5.3 million and to rise to as much as 6.9 million by 2030. National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan said the 6.9 million population is a “worst case scenario”.

“The PAP government announced its intention to increase the population to 6 million by 2020 by bringing in nearly 500,000 more foreign worker. This will put considerable strain on Singapore’s resources and infrastructure,” said the SDP.

Introduce new system to measure nation's progress

The SDP also proposed the use of a Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) as an another way to measure Singapore's progress.

GPI incorporates GDP factors but also adds other components which can be effects related to economic activity such as commuting and lost leisure time. Increasingly used in other countries, GPI is a net measure of the impact of economic activity and provides citizens and policymakers with a more holistic view on progress.

Noting that the GDP overlooks the standard of living in a community, SDP said the GPI can be used in tandem with Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to measure Singapore's progress.
A local version of the GPI can introduced with specific indicators that are not found in the standard GPI but are exclusive to Singapore such as water security.

In its alternative white paper released on Thursday evening, SDP made six main proposals, namely:

1) Enact a Singaporeans First policy,
2) Introduce policy reforms to retain Singaporean talent and raise the total fertility rate,
3) Formulate plans to advance towards a sustainable population profile,
4) Strengthen the Singaporean identity,
5) Go beyond the GDP for measuring national progress
6) Revamp the ministerial pay formula and KPIs for senior civil servants.

SDP's full population policy can be found here.


Source: Yahoo News