TR EMERITUS

By Madeleine Coorey from Agence France-Presse, 29 June 2010 New Prime Minister Julia Gillard signalled a change in the government's approach to population growth on Sunday, saying she did not believe in a "big Australia". Gillard, a former lawyer who wrested leadership of the Labor Party and the government from Kevin Rudd on Thursday, said population policy needed to strike the right balance between growth and sustainability. "I don't believe in a big Australia," Welsh-born Gillard said. "Kevin Rudd indicated that he had a view about a big Australia, I'm indicating a different approach. I think we want an Australia that is sustainable," she told the Nine Network. With 22 million residents, Rudd had expressed optimism about a "big Australia" with a population of more than 36 million people by 2050, achieved through rising birth rates and immigration. But Gillard said such population growth could be problematic given Australia's water shortages, the difficulty in providing services across the vast landscape and transport infrastructure. "I don't believe in simply hurtling down a track to a 36 million or 40 million population, and I think if you talk to the people of western Sydney or western Melbourne, or the Gold Coast growth corridor in Queensland, people would look at you and say, 'Where will all these people go?'," she said. "I think we want an Australia that is sustainable. This place is our sanctuary, our home." Gillard, who came to Australia with her parents as a four-year-old, said immigration for skilled labour was still needed, adding that Canberra would continue to accept refugees. "I don't want business to be held back because they couldn't find the right workers," she said. "That's why skilled migration is so important. But also I don't want areas of Australia with 25 percent youth unemployment because there are no jobs." Immigration is a sensitive issue in Australia, where boatloads of asylum seekers arrive most weeks after perilous voyages from Asia, often in rickety fishing vessels, as they escape countries such as Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. Under Rudd, Australia suspended claims for asylum from Sri Lankans for three months and Afghans for six as a way of tackling the problem. But concerns about the steady stream of boatpeople, along with the shelving of a carbon emissions trading scheme designed to tackle climate change and a new tax on mining profits are believed to have been behind the poor polling which led Gillard to contest Rudd's leadership of the party. The conservative opposition accused Gillard of not having the policies needed for a sustainable population, but those who believe Australia lacks the resources to support a larger population said the new approach was necessary. "It shows the Prime Minister is on the wavelength of ordinary Australians," Labor politician Kelvin Thomson said. "Australians have expressed their concern about the impact of rising population on food and water supplies, on rising housing affordability, on traffic congestion, on the quality of life in our cities, on carbon emissions and on our endangered wildlife." The Australian Conservation Foundation said the nation's rate of population growth was already among the highest in the industrialised world. "Bigger isn't always better," said the ACF's Chuck Berger. "More people means more roads, more urban sprawl, more dams, more power lines, more energy and water use, more pollution in our air and natural environment, and more pressure on our animals, plants, rivers, reefs and bush." - AFP  Read More →

A massive outcry has erupted over the suspected dual citizenship of Singapore PR Supriya Sule who is incidentally a Member of Parliament (MP) in India. She is also the daughter of feared Indian politician Sharad Pawar. The Bombay High Court ordered the Maharashtra government and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to decide on an application asking why Sule's Indian citizenship should not be cancelled in view of her dual citizenship, the Mumbai Times reported last Saturday. As expected, the sensational news was not reported by the Singapore media. The petitioner is Ms Mrunalini Kakade who lost to Sune in the 2007 Indian general election. In her affidavit, she claimed that Sule is the director of Laguna International Pvt Ltd and a permanent resident of Singapore and as such, Sule ceases to be an Indian citizen and would then be liable to for disqualification as an MP. It was also revealed that Sule owns a property in Singapore. “Under the provisions of law in Singapore, she cannot purchase property unless she is a permanent resident,” Kakade submitted. Though it was not mentioned explicitly what type of property Sule owns, it is likely to be a HDB resale flat as only Singapore PRs can purchase them. Ms Sule is one of the many Indian PRs and new citizens who own HDB flats in Singapore, including YPAP leader Sinha Shekhar who stirred a controversy lately by boasting on the YPAP Facebook that he owns a private property and a HDB flat at the same time which he is renting out for extra income.   News source: Mumbai Mirror   Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us  Read More →

In the past, the minorities in Singapore often feels marginalized as companies often seek job candidates who are ‘Bilingual’ which, in Singapore, is a colloquial term for ‘Chinese-Speaking’. The suspicion they had about Companies employing based on racial profile have always been dismissed by the ruling party and the general Chinese majority of Singapore. By turning a blind eye, the Chinese majority have possibly given the Ruling Party a tacit approval to continue with polices that allows marginalization a certain portion of its citizens as long as there is economic growth and does not affect their own bread and butter. And now, it has backfired on them as not only the minorities are affected but all born and bred Singaporeans are marginalized too. Let’s revisit the China-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (CSFTA) signed on the 23rd October 2008 (http://www.fta.gov.sg/fta_ceca.asp?hl=6) and quote: "The market access obligation means that a country cannot impose additional market access restrictions for these sectors, both quantitative and qualitative. For instance, restrictions cannot be imposed on: i) the number of service suppliers, service operations or persons employed in a particular service sector; ii) the value of services; or iii) the legal structure used." It can be implied that Singapore cannot impose restrictions on the number of people from China working in Singapore and PRC companies cannot do the same either. However, we are not seeing this happening for Singaporean companies, as it would be very expensive to employ Singaporeans to work in China. They would more likely employ local Chinese due to the low cost factor. Chinese companies setting up shop in Singapore would employ or bring in workers from China because of the tangible cost benefits and the same working culture and language. All of the above may be pure speculation. However in the recent trade policy review with China on the 31st May and 2nd June 2010, in a statement by the Singapore Permanent Representative, Ambassador Karen Tan, it was let slip that close to 3000 companies from China had set up shop in Singapore. So this may answer the recent spike in companies' preference for workers from China. (In ref to: http://app.mfa.gov.sg/pr/read_content.asp?View,15051,) “On the investments front, China continues to be Singapore's top investment destination, with cumulative actual investments of US$41.4 billion as of 2009. In 2009, actual investments into China stood at US$3.6 billion. China too has continued to use Singapore as a platform for their enterprises to "Go Global". By end-2009, close to 3000 Chinese firms have based themselves in Singapore, leveraging on our connectivity, pro-business environment and deep capital market to access international markets. This is a win-win situation that Singapore will continue to facilitate and encourage.” It was mentioned the massive investments Singapore has pumped into China, but yet the returns have never been reported in the mainstream media. Why is this so? Interestingly enough, it was never mentioned, how the investments has benefited Singaporeans as a whole or how many are gainfully employed by the over 3000 Chinese companies. She mentioned that it is a win-win situation that Singapore will continue to facilitate and encourage. But why do the local born and bred feels they are being marginalized?   A Singaporean Patriot  Read More →