TR EMERITUS

Despite ramblings against foreigners in Singapore's internet chatrooms, it appears that the majority of Singaporeans remain unaffected by them after all. A recently published study by Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) has some surprising results - only 22 percent of Singaporeans say that foreigners made Singapore worse off compared to 39 percent who thought they benefitted Singaporeans. The remainder 38 percent said they made no difference while 1 percent had no idea. Due to the PAP's pro-foreigner and liberal immigration policies, foreigners now make up 36 percent of Singapore's population, up from 14 percent in 1990. Of the remaining 36 percent who are citizens, an increasing number are born overseas. According to a Wall Street Journal article in January this year, the relentless influx of foreigners had depressed the wages of ordinary Singaporeans, increased the cost of living and led to an overall decline in the standards of living. As too many foreigners are allowed to enter Singapore within too short a period of time, the island state is now experiencing growing difficulties to integrate all of them. The PAP unveiled a mega $10-million dollar Community Integration Fund last year to make the foreigners feel welcomed and happy in Singapore. If the above figures are to be believed, immigration is unlikely to become a key issue in the next general election which the PAP is expected to win hands down thanks to strong support from the new citizens.   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 →

Two weeks after massive flooding in Singapore caused millions of dollars of losses, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong finally broke his "noble" silence on the matter which has dented public confidence in the government. Despite a public outcry over the incompetency of the PAP government to prevent the frequent floods, PM Lee remained nonchalant about the inconveniences the frequent flooding have caused to ordinary Singaporeans and even appeared to chide Singaporeans for having overly high expectations. In a speech made yesterday at Lower Seletar Reservoir, PM Lee tried to exonerate the PAP from any blame by coming up with a lame excuse that it is very "costly" to keep Singapore "flood-free." He pronounced that given Singapore's "tropical climate", any attempt to "wipe out" flooding in Singapore would require plenty of money and land without providing any concrete evidence or statistics to substantiate his claims. "I don't think it is possible in Singapore to expect the place to be completely free of floods, as heavy downpours are very much part of the climate for an 'island in the tropics," he was quoted as saying in the Straits Times. For some inexplicable reasons, the spates of flash floods which submerged various parts of Singapore in recent weeks did not occur in nearby Johor Bahru, whose drains are more choked than ours. PUB has attributed the flooding at Orchard Road on 16 June on a choked drain, but another flood took place a week later after the drains were cleared, raising doubts if there are other reasons behind the flooding. The PAP has refused to accept responsibility and admit their mistakes so far and continued to find all sorts of excuses to cover up their incompetence. PM Lee's assertion that it is "impossible" for Singapore to be completely flood-free is off the tangent as no Singaporean is expecting that. What most Singaporeans are concerned about is the alarmingly increase in the frequency of flash floods and the inability of the PAP to tackle the problem. During a flooding at Bukit Timah in November last year, PAP minister for Environment Mr Yaacob Ibrahim described the flooding as a "freak event which occurred once in fifty years." Barely a year has passed and we have experienced so many episodes of flooding so far. Is such an outcome acceptable when we have the highest paid government in the world? With no political opposition whatsoever in Singapore to check on the PAP, it is little wonder that PM Lee can still be so relaxed and smug after such a major screw-up.     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 →

By Garreth Goh Is it just me or is this the beginning of the resurgence of filial piety hype in Singapore? In the span of one day, Straits Times Online has published five articles relating to filial piety. [1-5] These articles were written in response to recent TV ads that promote filial piety values. As much as filial piety is regarded as “noble ideal” in Asian culture, it is my opinion that the emerging propaganda wave over filial piety is a one-sided portrayal that fails to highlight the problems associated with it. In addition, I will also suggest how the prevalence of strong “filial piety values” may serve the agenda of the PAP. Living With and Taking Care of one’s Parents The recent filial piety TV ad depicted a scene that is representative of the tensions between the various generations of an extended family, such as the conflict between a married wife and her mother-in-law. The take home message of the ad can be bluntly summarized as such – Living with your parents (when you have your own family) comes with its associated problems and burdens, but it is the “right” (i.e. PAP approved) thing to do. In theory, it is a nice message. However, what the ad fails to highlight are the dangers of living with one’s parents after marriage, such as the higher incidence of divorce and internal family conflict. What if a married man finds himself stuck in the situation in which his wife and his mother are always at odds? Nobody can serve two masters, and at best it will lead to a strained marriage for as long as his wife and his mother are under the same roof. In the worst case, it leads to a divorce. With the absence of detailed divorce statistics in Singapore, it may be difficult to substantiate this claim. However, if we may use Malaysia as a reference, which is probably the closest nation to us in terms of culture, we note that meddling in-laws is the top reason for divorce amongst Indians and amongst the top reasons for divorce amongst the Chinese and Malays.[6] In addition, I cannot help but wonder if the recent shortage of HDB flats is related to this resurgence of the “filial” notion that it is good to live as an extended family, as a means to placate the younger generation who cannot afford the sky high HDB prices or those who have to wait for half a decade after marriage just to get their HDB flats. Financially Providing for Parents’ Retirements Honestly, I do not know if this is a uniquely “Chinese phenomenon”, but it has been my observation that there is a strong, almost contract-like obligation for a child to provide for his/her parent’s financial needs during retirement. In fact, this “value” is so deeply permeated in Singapore society that there was virtually no opposition to the Maintenance of Parents Act when it was passed. For the uninformed, the Maintenance of Parents Act, is a recently passed legislation that basically allows parents to sue their children for not taking care of them (financially speaking) during their retirement years. Amongst all the clauses, perhaps the most dangerous and disturbing one is “An approved person or organisation in whose care a parent resides may apply to the Tribunal for an order that one or more of his children pay the approved person or organisation a monthly allowance or any other periodical payment or a lump sum for the purpose of defraying the costs and expenses of maintaining the parent.”[7] In its most generous interpretation, it means that anyone can “represent” the parent to sue their children for money. Indeed, I will not be surprised if the Maintenance of Parents Act will be used as tool in the future to allow the PAP to “tai chi” (push away) the responsibilities of supporting its seniors citizens and placing the burden on the child. Do the elderly lack the minimum sum when they reach 55? Perhaps in the future the Act can be used to legally compel children to top it up or face the consequences in court. At this point, I expect there would be a flood of disagreement primarily stemming from the view that supporting our parents financially during their elderly years is a “moral obligation”. I will not contest this viewpoint, but I will add that there is also a another “moral obligation” - for the government to take care of her citizens during their senior years. It’s the very reason why people elect representatives to form a government. In exchange for representing the people and limited powers, the state has the duty to provide for the citizens when they are unable to sustain themselves, such as during retirement. Indeed, the last point I highlighted necessitates emphasis – filial duty to one’s parent does not negate the government’s responsibilities and obligation to take care of her senior citizens. Will Filial Piety lead us to a Vicious Cycle of Poverty? Filial piety is a great ideal to uphold, but the practicalities of today’s world need to be taken into account as well. What practicalities are we talking about, especially for the younger generation of Singaporeans in their 20s to early 40s? Also known as the “sandwich” generation, I can think of five challenges ahead – (i) Meeting their own retirement needs so as not to be financial burden to their family, (ii) Meeting their parents’ financial needs because of their inability to retire (“kudos” to CPF for the cannot-afford-to-retire situation we have today), (iii) Raising up their own kids and providing a decent tertiary education for them, (iv) Surviving in a work environment that is increasingly Singaporean hostile and Foreigners friendly, (v) Dealing with the ever escalating rise in cost of living and ever stagnating salaries (or decreasing salaries after accounting for inflation). It is my frank opinion that no median-income earner in Singapore can possibly meet all five challenges, and it’s no surprise that some of them have been comprised, such as having kids much later in life or even having no kids. The shrinking size of the family unit over the years also further complicates these challenges, for unlike the past where there were usually more than five children to share the responsibility of financially supporting their parents, the reality today is that such a responsibility may be borne by just one or two person. Furthermore, the PAP by indirectly pushing its responsibilities for supporting its senior citizens to the younger citizens through the Maintenance of Parents Act is only aggravating the problem. Should a young median-income earning couple decide to have children, support their parents and plan for retirement, it is likely that not all objectives will be met successfully. In all likelihood, this young couple when they reach 65 will have insufficient funds to sustain them. Consequently, the next generation of children will inherit this financial burden and another cycle repeats itself! References [1] http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_544831.html [2] http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_544665.html [3] http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_544664.html [4] http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_544833.html [5] http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_544832.html [6] http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Malaysia/Story/A1Story20090526-144030.html [7] http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?&actno=Reved-167B&date=latest&method=part 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 →