LETTER TO SINGAPORE
-
SPEECH BY PRIME MINISTER LEE HSIEN LOONG AT MAY DAY RALLY 2013 (ENGLISH) NTUC President Sister Diana Chia Secretary-General Brother Lim Swee Say Brothers and Sisters A very happy May Day to all of you! Over the last year, Singapore has continued to make steady progress. We have upgraded our environment and built many more HDB homes and housing estates. (Referring to slide of Punggol Waterway) This one is the Punggol waterway, part of our new Punggol 21 Plus coming up. We have upgraded our education system. (Referring to slide of ITE College Central) New ITE College Central has come up. These are the buildings, it looks a bit like a spaceship, but it is actually landed in Ang Mo Kio. (Referring to slide of Gardens by the Bay) We have completed Gardens by the Bay - clean, green, blue and green environment. The trees also look like they came from outer space. We could do this as our economy grew and as our incomes rose and as investments continued to come in. We received record investment commitments last year – $16 billion worth. And overall we created more jobs last year than the year before. We are creating so many jobs that we are worried that we do not have enough workers to go and fill them. At the same time, apart from the material things and physical things, we are also engaging Singaporeans to build a brighter future together, including through Our Singapore Conversation. Watch the video below.. http://www.pmo.gov.sg/content/pmosite/mediacentre/speechesninterviews/primeminister/2013/May/speech_by_prime_ministerleehsienloongatmaydayrally2013english.html
-
Confession of an S-chip CEO. Let me tell you the story. By the time you read this article, it would reached have hundreds of investors, bankers, regulators and journalists. My purpose was to shed some light on the “dark sides� of the business of S-Chips (Chinese companies listed on Singapore Stock Exchange), so as to help prevent more financial losses in the future hurting the ordinary people on the street. From this angle, I wish to redeem myself somewhat......... . It all started some 6-7 years ago. My colleagues and I were just a few of the million of entrepreneurs in China struggling to make ends meet at the textile fibre factory that we bought from the government. Some of our older colleagues had laboured for more than 20 years before having the chance to “privatise� the state-owned textile fibre factory in Fujian Province that we have worked for since the day we left school under the Premier Zhu’s “government retreat, private sector advance� scheme, literally at a song. We thought we were going to be very rich very soon. Little we knew that when the local governments of the various counties and villages decided to “retreat�, we end up! with thousands of “privately-owned� textile fibre spinners that competed ever more aggressively. Despite ever rising revenue, margins were disappearing fast....... Sometime, we just wonder why we have worked so hard only to earn next to nothing. Perhaps, our only reward was meant to be “the master of our own destinies�...... But we never really gave up hope...... One day, we shall strike gold....... http://singaporemind.blogspot.sg/2009/04/confession-of-s-chip-ceo.html
-
I heard personally a conversation of foreign workers in Singapore, between a Filipino and a Myanmar national during the global economic crisis in 2008. Filipino: "If we get retrench and the company will compensate us." Myanmar : "Yes. I don't mind being retrench and I've already build my saving after working in Singapore for 5 years." Filipino: "Yes correct. I know for sure the company will retrench us first, the foreign workers. I'm not worried about it. I can go back to my own country. But for the Singaporeans if they get retrench where can they go back to? That is the reason I feel very strongly that the company will retrench us first, the foreign workers." Myanmar: "I don't care about the Singaporean problems. I know I'm already prepare myself for the worse to come looking at the company current situation now."
-
Posted on 17 Aug 2012 "Cost of raising babies enough to bankrupt young couples" STOMPer MoneynotEnough feels medical costs in Singapore are too high, judging by the case of the family with quadruplets who incurred over $180,000 in medical bills. 28-year-old Jennifer Phua delivered quadruplets on July 19. According to the report, the babies were born premature and had to be warded in the neonatal intensive care unit, which costs $1,000 a day for each baby. Their current bill is around $135,000, as the babies have been warded for 28 days as of August 15. The eldest child Janessa Phua is 1.8kg, and is likely to be discharged next week. However the other three - Joelle, Jovianne and Kingsley - might have to stay in hospital for a few more weeks. http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/stomp/sgseen/this_urban_jungle/1275842/medical_cost_of_raising_babies_is_ridiculous.html
-
SM GOH RECOUNTS HOW GOVT HANDLED PAST ECONOMIC CRISES Sun, Feb 01, 2009 AsiaOne Singapore has taken the unprecedented step of using a small portion of the past reserves to tackle the recession, but this is in no way ‘breaking the piggy bank’, said Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong on Sunday. In his speech at Marine Parade’s Chinese New Year celebration lunch, SM Goh said “to break the piggy bank is to allow all the notes and coins to spill out, with no controls over how much is spent.� “We are not doing that. Our reserves must continue to be protected,� he said. “We must continue to exercise great discipline and not dip into our reserves at the first sign of difficulties. We should tap it only as a last resort and when there are compelling reasons,� he added. SM Goh said he is in favour of putting up three “No� signs when drawing the reserves. “First, no use of the reserves to support social assistance programmes. As a general principle, the Government must continue to fund such programmes out of revenues raised in the current term of government, not past reserves. “Second, no draw for permanent programmes. Permanent programmes like Workfare and ComCare, no matter how meritorious, should be funded by current revenues and reserves. “Third, no draw except under dire circumstances when one-off extraordinary measures are required to ward off catastrophe or prevent irreparable damage to the economy.� During his speech at Roland club, SM Goh also recounted how Singapore dealt with recessions in the past, and the lessons learnt from it. During his speech at Roland club, SM Goh also recounted how Singapore dealt with recessions in the past, and the lessons learnt from it. “The first one was in 1964, soon after we joined Malaysia. I remember this well because I had just started work in the Economic Planning Unit. It was a severe recession and there was high unemployment. The older amongst you here may remember that Singapore was banking on the common market with Malaysia to grow our economy. That, however, did not materialise. To make matters worse, we had to deal with domestic political turbulence, communal tension and racial riots. Tense relations with the central government in Kuala Lumpur, and Konfrontasi by Soekarno compounded our problems. Singapore’s trade fell sharply, reaching the lowest level in a decade. After we left Malaysia in 1965, our Government decided that Singapore could not depend on the region as a hinterland. The solution was to leapfrog the region and make the world our market and hinterland. Against the conventional wisdom at the time, we attracted multi-national companies to set up factories here and we exported to the whole world. By implementing such an export-led industrialisation strategy, we grew strongly for the following two decades.� “The next recession was in 1985. The seeds were sowed a few years before, in 1979, when we instituted a high-wage policy to compel employers to use labour more efficiently. I had just assumed office as Minister for Trade and Industry. We decided that it made no sense for Singapore to grow on the backs of low-skilled, lowly paid workers. We wanted to upgrade the skills of workers and move up the value chain so that our people could earn more. With a favourable external climate and full domestic employment then, it was timely to restructure our economy from labour-intensive industries to higher value-added production. So the National Wages Council recommended high wage increases and we upped the CPF contribution rate to 50%. The economy began to transform itself. The high-wage policy was meant to last only 3 years but we could not put a brake to it as the demand for labour remained high. Soon, our wage increases outstripped productivity increases. Wage costs became too high and our exports became uncompetitive. Growth fell to -1.4% in 1985.� “Since wage costs were the main cause of the recession, we cut the employer CPF contribution rate by 15%. Taxes and fees were also cut to further reduce costs. But more than cost cutting, we also invested in our future. We upgraded our workforce through higher education and skills training. We introduced fiscal incentives to attract higher value-added industries. The measures worked. We arrested the recession and growth quickly resumed.� “After another decade of strong growth came a succession of economic crises, beginning with the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 and followed by the dot-com bust in 2001 and the SARS attack in 2003. The collapse of the Thai Baht in 1997 triggered steep devaluations in the Rupiah and the Korean Won and led to a crisis of confidence in the region. The East Asian miracle unravelled. Foreign investors and fund managers pulled out their investments from Asia. The Singapore dollar fell by some 15% and our stock market plunged by half. Several countries resorted to IMF help. With IMF intervention and tough governmental measures, confidence was eventually restored in the affected countries. Singapore did not need IMF or other external help because of our strong reserves, prudent budgets and sound economy. Nevertheless, we seized the opportunity to adjust our costs, liberalise our financial sector and reform the economy. Within a year, our growth resumed.� “Then the internet bubble burst. The dot-com bust in 2000/2001 exposed our dependence on the electronics sector. This sector contributed close to two-thirds of Singapore’s non-oil domestic exports then. We responded by diversifying our manufacturing base from electronics to other high value-added sectors like petrochemicals and pharmaceuticals. We signed free trade agreements with our major trading partners. We also promoted entrepreneurship and promising local enterprises. We grew rapidly. Other than for one quarter in 2003 when SARS scared the hell out of us, our growth was uninterrupted until this year.� - SM Goh said three lessons could be learnt from the past crises, and he encouraged the upgrading of knowledge and skills during this difficult period. “First, we must remain united and resilient in the face of crises. In past recessions, no matter how bitter the medicine, workers and employers swallowed them and worked hand-in-hand with the Government to tackle our common challenges. The whole population rallied together to pull the economy out of recession. Likewise, we must now confront our problems together, endure short-term pain, and plan for the long term. This year’s Budget has prescribed the right medicine but the pain will not go away immediately. The financial sector in the US and Europe is in deep trouble. The IMF has forecast zero growth for the world economy this year. The International Labour Organisation expects some 51 million jobs to be lost. Global demand for goods and services has shrunk. We can do very little to increase demand for our exports. But we can help companies cut costs and save jobs. Together, we can make the “Resilience Package� work. Companies should only retrench staff as a last resort and landlords should pass on the property tax rebates to their tenants. Banks, both local and foreign, should overcome their risk-aversion and continue to lend as in normal times. Otherwise the credit crunch will choke many sound businesses and stifle new enterprises.� “Second, we will help you cope with the bad times. We will extend a special helping hand to those amongst us who are most affected by the slump, and cushion the impact on the most vulnerable. This is not to be done by the Government alone but also by the family and the community. Family members who are better off should help out other members of the extended family who may need help. Similarly, each community, like our Marine Parade community, should reach out to the needy and those badly hit by the downturn. But we must do this in a way that does not entrench a crutch mentality or erode our ethos of hard work and sacrifice. “Third, do not be demoralized by the current recession but look beyond it. The global recession will end and we will bounce back. So invest in our future. Upgrade our knowledge and skills and remake ourselves to ride the upswing which will surely come. You will notice that we are revamping our primary school education and pouring in billions of dollars into your education and training even though these do not directly help to solve our short-term economic problems. This is to build up our capabilities for the future.� http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20090201-118593.html
-
You can read the COMMENTS FROM READERS ABOUT THE ABOVE MESSAGE http://forums.asiaone.com/showthread.php?t=17647
-
RIDING THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC CRISIS IN SINGAPORE January 5th, 2009 Author: Shandre Thangavelu, National University of Singapore and ANU Despite an average growth rate of nearly 8 per cent from 2004 to 2007, Singapore was the first East Asian country to fall into a recession from the current global economic crisis after July 2008. This clearly reflects the greater vulnerability of the Singapore economy to global economic shocks. The exposure of Singapore’s banks to sub-prime mortgage is limited, due to its well regulated market. The recession came mainly through the fall of the non-oil exports in manufactured goods, induced by the overall deterioration of economic conditions in the US and Europe. Economic conditions in Singapore have been affected by the huge loss in wealth from the collapse of the stock market that came with global crisis. This depressed domestic demand, reducing consumption and investment in assets. The immediate concern in the ‘liquidity-crunch’ from the financial crisis has been to provide sufficient liquidity in the system. To assist companies to get access to credit facilities, the Singapore government announced a S$2.3 billion loan facility for local companies (including SMEs) through its business financing scheme on 21 November 2008. Both Europe and United States are still Singapore’s key export destinations, accounting for nearly 33 per cent of the total non-oil exports over the last few years. The ASEAN countries – Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand – accounted for nearly 20 per cent and Northeast Asia accounts for around 24 per cent of Singapore’s non-oil exports. A rapid export recovery in Singapore seems very unlikely given the IMF’s revised growth forecasts for the major industrial economies – the United States to -0.5 percent, the European Union to -0.7 percent, and Japan to -0.2 percent in 2009 – and the World Bank’s downgrade of growth for China from 9.2 percent to 7.5 percent in 2009. It is difficult to see Singapore exporting itself out of this recession in the short haul as it did in the 1997 Asian economic crisis (with a spectacular v-shaped recovery). This crisis is likely to be long and protracted. The government’s fiscal stimulus is also unlikely to have little impact on the growth, given the small share of the domestic demand to total demand, although it should provide some relief for vulnerable households in the lower income group. Singapore’s economic fundamentals might be strong, but a number of things can be done to cushion the downturn and to promote economic recovery. http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/01/05/riding-the-global-economic-crisis-in-singapore/
-
So for Singaporeans and investors alike, keep in mind of these past unforeseen circumstances in Singapore vulnerabilities and uncertainties economy. One must always be careful and prudence to avoid being trap in financial difficulties. We never know what will happen to you should you resign or lost your job like being terminated or retrenched, especially in Singapore, the economy is vulnerable and uncertain. The recession will come suddenly like a Tsunami. You can listen to whatever the economists say but you must always think for yourself financially because if you fall, its never easy to get up though eventually you will standup again and that may take weeks, months or even years.
-
Confessions of an ex-HDB Officer. Quote: I refer to "HDB AMK Branch Officers Are Just Like Ah Long!" HDB AMK branch officers are just like AH LONG!! | The Real Singapore I was an ex-HDB Officer too. Below is my full confession and my guilt as well. Indeed, we are like Ah Long. When I first joined HDB, I was totally unprepared for my role as Ah Long. Initially, I had a diploma in building science and applied to be a technical officer. I had the impression that I just had to do my job to rectify any defects and make peace with owners on their illegal renovation works. However, I was wrong. Most technical officers all had to be "Ah Longs" and chase down owners who owe HDB money. In addition, we also have to be inspectors and inspect illegal subletting for those scam marriages etc. For those who think being an "Ah Long" is an easy job, it's not. We have a quota to meet. And sometimes, this quota is also subjective, depending on whether we 'like' the owner or the boss's moods. True, it is totally valid and legal that HDB can exercise their right to acquire the owners' flat if they owe us 3 months of arrears but that is subjective too. During the year of GE, we somehow can relax a bit and don't be so aggressive in hunting down these bad debts. But on other times, we chase them like Ah Longs. Of course, we have to do it tactfully but for any person with a conscience, our hearts will ache when we ask these poor folks for money. It's not so easy as finding alternate cheaper housing for them. For many of them, there is a gap period and their next housing may be a few months later and not immediate. That's why if you drive along Changi Beach at night, you will find many families being displaced due to our tactics. It's cruel but then again, it depends on the HDB officer. If the HDB officer is 'nice' enough to take sides with the poor family, he/she will risk a scolding by his boss for not doing his job. If the HDB officer is heartless, he/she will just acquire the flat without any alternate plans to help the family in distress. How I wish the HR Director of HDB could give these poor folks a job in HDB to settle their arrears but there is always age discrimination in the public sector. Mid-career PMETs who lost their jobs usually can't find jobs in public sector except for teaching. For a Branch Officer, the starting pay of a fresh graduate is around S$3300 per month. Work for a few years and one could enjoy a salary of almost $5000 a month. A Deputy Director in HDB can earn more than $20,000 a month. Even a diploma level entry graduate can earn around $2200 per month and can earn around S$3000 after a few years of service It's true that most senior officers in HDB don't even live in HDB but in private property and landed property. Some splurge on luxury trips to Europe and others can easily spend a few thousand dollars on Lasik. How can these people understand and empathise with their plight? I am now shedding tears as I type this article as I feel really guilty. I remember I even splurged on a Rolex watch with my fat salary in HDB. To any Christian, it's a sin and to any Buddhist, it's Bad Karma. Even recently, ex-HDB Chief Dr Liu Thai Ker urged HDB to be go back to its roots. . Where the hell can you find such good pay when the job is essentially customer service and in mortgage refinancing and arrears management? Imagine my horror when I attended one job interview during my time and the interviewer did not see HDB in a good light and said that my present job in HDB was just 'customer service' but 'overpaid and overvalued'. It's a huge reality check for me. Presently, I am now out of HDB. I don't earn so much as my time in HDB. I only earn half my HDB's salary but am much happier and contented. http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-16/confessions-ex-hdb-officer-4283859.html
-
SATURDAY, JANUARY 16, 2010 HDB Mortgage Slaves I have been writing a lot on HDB policies and the ills of it recently basically because I am keeping up the pressure on the Minister of National Development to do something about it. Mr. Mah Bow Tan has been very hardworking recently. I should say that he has made his utmost efforts recently to appear in Main Stream Media (MSM) to explain his HDB pricing policy is still "affordable". Mr. Leong Sze Hian of TOC (The Online Citizen) has written quite a number of comments and queries on HDB policy. He has made many valid points and HDB has so far unable to provide satisfactory answers to all the questions raised so far. According to Mr. Mah Bow Tan and his statutory board HDB, HDB flats are still "affordable", citing the "fact" that most Singaporeans are using less than 30% of their income for their HDB mortgage payment. However, I should point out here that the Minister and his people have missed the point totally. They have based their "affordability" argument on a mortgage of 30 years. When I bought my HDB flat, I have tried to choose to go a mortgage of 15 years instead of 25 years. We settled for a 20 year mortgage instead. My reason for a shorter mortgage is that the longer mortgage you have, the more interests you pay. And the increase of interests is not linear but rather compounded. Furthermore, imagine if you buy your flat at the average age of 27, if you go for 30 years of mortgage, it would mean that you could only pay off your mortgage at the age of 57! And if you use all your money in CPF to pay the mortgage, you will have no money for your retirement! So what happen if you don't have enough savings for your retirement? In fact, the problem of insufficient retirement financing is surfacing slowly. The extend of the problem will explode in the next two decades when 3 generations of Singaporeans have spent all their money in financing their mortgage (for 3 decades) and have nothing left for retirement at all. Now PAP government will tell you that oh, you can actually do a reverse mortgage of your flat! How nice of that, right? But it would mean that after slogging for 30 years, you will have nothing left to leave for your children! In fact, the kind of "precision mathematics" that the PAP government has laid out for most Singaporeans is that most of us will be enslaved by the whole system! You will be slave to your HDB mortgage for all your working life and please make sure that you don't lose your job during this 30 years period else you will be living like those campers at Sembawang Park, Changi Beach, East Coast Park... without a roof over your head. But the best thing is this, even if you managed to pay off your mortgage for the 30 years of your productive life, you will be left with nothing for retirement! Thus, the PAP government will OFFER you to reverse mortgage your HDB flat! Meaning that you have paid hefty interests (believe me, the total amount of interests you are paying may even be 50% of the loan if you loan from banks!) in paying for your HDB flats, you will end up selling it away cheap cheap to the government or banks! And if you die early, the government of bank will have the last laugh in taking your whole flat without paying anything further! It means that, we will practically become SLAVES of our HDB mortgage! I would advise my young readers that if you are looking for a flat, make sure that you could pay off your mortgage in 15 years at your comfort zone... preferably 25% of your total household income. At the very worst, take only 20 years of mortgage and nothing more than that. If you can't, you better consider other alternatives. Don't be enslaved by this system, this myth of "affordability". I will continue to fight the PAP, urging people of Tampines to vote Mah Bow Tan out, to send a strong signal to PAP that we do not want to be enslaved by the very system that they have built. We don't want our children to pay crazy prices for just a PUBLIC HOUSING which will in the end enslave them for the rest of their lives. We want to tell the PAP government that they could no longer fool us with such flawed argument and mathematical calculations. Most importantly, we want change to the way on how our lives are being governed. Goh Meng Seng http://singaporealternatives.blogspot.sg/2010/01/hdb-mortgage-slaves.html
-
About HDB policy and property news, you can read at this link.. http://www.hdb.gov.sg/ ******************************** See the video... Ex-HDB CEO - Go back to basics to make housing affordable http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFyyJOX8_K0
-
Singapore's Lee wants home demolished (AFP) – Jan 21, 2011 SINGAPORE — Singapore's elder statesman Lee Kuan Yew wants his family home torn down for redevelopment after he dies instead of being turned into a historical shrine. In excerpts from a new book launched Friday, Lee said he had already instructed the government to destroy the British colonial-era bungalow situated off the premier Orchard Road shopping belt after his death. "I've told the Cabinet, when I'm dead, demolish it," the 87-year-old Lee, who now advises his son Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, said in remarks published by the daily Straits Times. "I've seen other houses, Nehru's, Shakespeare's. They become a shambles after a while," he said, the former referring to India's independence hero Jawaharlal Nehru. The newspaper's parent company Singapore Press Holdings is publishing the book "Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going", based on exclusive interviews with Lee by Straits Times journalists. The famously frank and unsentimental Lee described his home (built more than a century ago by a Jewish merchant) as "a big rambling house with five bedrooms and three others at the back" and cracks in the walls. Lee, who gave the interviews before his wife Kwa Geok Choo died in October last year, said his family would not miss the house, which he has owned since the 1940s. "I don't think my daughter or my wife or I, who lived in it, or my sons who grew up in it, will bemoan its loss. They have old photos to remind them of the past," he said. Key meetings of what would become the ruling People's Action Party met in the house's basement to plot strategy during its formative years, the newspaper reported. The PAP has ruled Singapore since 1959, when the island gained self-rule from Britain, and its overwhelming majorities have allowed it to plan orderly successions thanks to its nearly total control of parliament. Under Lee, who served as prime minister from 1959 to 1990 and led Singapore to independence from Malaysia in 1965, the city-state underwent an economic miracle, at the same time maintaining a hardline policy on political dissent. He was pragmatic about the house's economic value. "Because of my house the neighbouring houses cannot build high. Now demolish my house and change the planning rules, go up, the land value will go up," he said in the interviews. Speaking at the launch of the book Friday, Lee, who now holds the title of Minister Mentor, said that Singapore remained "a nation in the making", despite its rapid rise to prosperity. "I do not deceive myself for one moment that our differences of race, culture, language, religion, have disappeared," Lee said, urging Singaporeans to preserve racial and religious harmony. "The message I want to convey is a simple one: we are a nation in the making. Will we make it? Am I certain we'll get there? No, we cannot say that. Something may go wrong somewhere and we'll fall apart," he said. Singapore, which prides itself on its political stability, has a predominantly Chinese population, with minority races including Malays and Indians plus a growing foreign community now comprising one-fifth of the population of five million. "You have a nation like China or Japan, China can be ravaged, demolished but the people come together again and rebuild. I'm not sure if Singapore were damaged, ravaged and demolished, they could ever come together again," said Lee. "So this precious, accidental, improbable, unlikely nation that we have created should be nurtured, carefully strengthened and built upon." http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iHOAAzkL6ySz9MxTD3VXJDjCO1WQ?docId=CNG.32fe8012cd2fb0b4a8b0471a3617b2f4.401
-
wot/
-
Explanation Of Management Pyramid : http://amazingdata.com/explanation-of-management-pyramid
-
I spoke to many Myanmar foreign workers recently and many of them are intending to go back to their own country when their work permit expire. I asked them why they wanted to return to their country? They said that though the money here is good but it is very stressful and besides that they said they would rather help to build their own country of Myanmar rather than Singapore since Myanmar is on the path of development and reform now.
-
Walt Disney to shut down game studio LucasArts, resulting in layoffs in both San Francisco and Singapore. SINGAPORE: Walt Disney has decided to shut down game studio LucasArts, which it inherited from the acquisition of George Lucas' film company in 2012, resulting in layoffs in both San Francisco and Singapore. The number of layoffs in Singapore is unknown, but the company's Singapore spokesperson Ms Rasa Buckley said that it is "much less" than the 150 layoffs affecting its San Francisco office. She added that the company decided to shift LucasArts from an internal development model to a licensing model after evaluating its position in the games market. "We are incredibly proud of our team and are doing everything we possibly can to help them with out-placement opportunities," Ms Buckley said. She added that LucasFilm Singapore's feature animation and visual effects productions are not affected. The company is scheduled to move into its new facility, the 'Sandcrawler', in Fusionopolis later in the year. Media outlets have reported that Disney is several months into an internal cost-cutting review, and the decision to shut down LucasArts came as a result of the developer and publisher struggling in recent years to produce a hit in an industry increasingly dominated by action-oriented games. - CNA/jc http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/layoffs-in-singapore-after-dis/627382.html
-
Several foreign firms prepare to leave S'pore Some foreign companies in Singapore have started to pull out of the country as the government tightens the inflow of foreign workers here. More could follow suit. According to the latest manpower survey by the American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham) in Singapore, 5 per cent of respondent companies, made up of AmCham members, have already moved operations out of Singapore as a result of the labour tightening measures introduced last year. The survey, conducted in the third quarter of last year, showed that a further 15 per cent of respondents are looking at relocating their operations overseas. "While we understand the pressures that Singapore's limited area and resources place on crafting long-term policy, we worry that the trajectory announced could significantly cut workforce growth and have drastic consequences for businesses and the economy of Singapore," said AmCham chairman Simon Kahn. "As the percentage of Singaporeans qualifying for PMET (professional, manager, executive and technician) jobs continues to increase, the supply of workers to fill these non-PMET roles will continue to shrink. Without access to foreign workers here in Singapore, companies that cannot adapt will be forced to leave the country." The Australian Chamber of Commerce (AustCham) Singapore as well as the British Chamber of Commerce said that some of their member companies have also been hit by the manpower crunch and are looking at moving out. AustCham Singapore president Graham Lee said that one of his chamber's members, involved in the food distribution business, was considering relocating to Iskandar Malaysia and others could follow suit. "A lot of our members find it (labour tightening) critical and the issue then is if this (Singapore) is the right place to be and also consequently if high costs or declining service standards become issues," Mr Lee explained. Yesterday, nine national chambers of commerce here wrote to Singapore's Acting Minister for Manpower Tan Chuan-Jin to voice their concerns about the new plans to calibrate the entry of foreign employees into Singapore as detailed in the White Paper released last week. The letter was issued by the AustCham on behalf of the rest. "Our members are concerned with the revision of government policies pertaining to the employment of foreign workers in Singapore and the resultant impact on the operations of foreign and local companies and the overall economy," the letter, signed-off by AustCham president Mr Lee, stated. It added that the change in the labour policy here could adversely impact Singapore's fortunes. "Singapore's openness to foreign labour has enabled it to attract, retain and absorb the best of foreign talent, providing it with a clear competitive advantage over its neighbours," said the letter, which also spoke on behalf of the British Chamber of Commerce, Canadian Chamber of Commerce, EuroCham, French Chamber of Commerce, Japanese Chamber of Commerce & Industry, New Zealand Chamber of Commerce and the Singapore-German Chamber of Industry & Commerce, in addition to AmCham. The nine chambers and their members wanted some certainty about being able to hire candidates with the necessary skills, knowledge and experience and to be able to tap into a larger labour workforce than is available in Singapore. The document also makes two other broad points. Firstly, younger foreign workers need to be brought in to drive productivity and innovation here so that restrictive labour policies don't lead to inflationary wages and raise business costs. Also, with fewer Singaporeans looking for non-PMET positions, there was a need to have more foreign workers in sectors such as service, construction and manufacturing - otherwise standards could slip. German multinational firm Bosch Group said it had become hard to find talent. "Competition for talent is stiff and as a high-technology company, we have a requirement for many niche and highly skilled roles. For these specific roles, we endeavour to examine Singapore's talent pool before looking outward," said Martin Hayes, president of Bosch Southeast Asia. Belinda Braggs, managing director of pharma consulting firm SeerPharma here in Singapore, said that she had not been able to renew the employment pass of a staffer who was managing a project. Local talent was hard to come by and now it was becoming difficult to bring in foreign talent. Nine years after setting up office here, she said that the situation could force her to leave. http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Business/Story/A1Story20130205-400274/2.html
-
‘Anonymous’ hackers threaten war with Singapore government A hacker group claiming to be the notorious Anonymous collective has put up a YouTube video promising that it will declare war on the Singapore government if it does not stand down from an internet licensing framework that critics have said restricts freedom of speech. http://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/youtube-anonymous-hacker-group-threatens-112903985.html The Anonymous Legion Threatens Singapore Government http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8x3z1zpffk See topic within Sg Forums http://sgforums.com/forums/8/topics/475587 NEWS FROM WASHINGTON DC Face Time: Hundreds march in DC in Anonymous inspired protest http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnWW4u_Y5fk
-
Why I am not proud to be Singaporean http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydANJ5qLHG4
-
Hi Zulkifli,
I know you very angry, but if you take away the government, take away the people, Sg is a very wonderful and beautiful place, you know.
I also hate the government for bringing in so many malaysian and china cheena, in the end, they come and bully the Sg born cheena. However, I still serve my NS because I love Sg a lot. Sg is very beautiful to me. I dun hate Sg just because there are many people I hate here. Btw I also hate those Sg uncle who like to smoke in the HDB lobby and yell loudly in hokkien.
So wat do I do to clear all this hate? I use my spare time to go gym and pump iron. Now, whenever the malaysian bengs see me in the gym, they know who not to F around with. Now even when I sleep, I snored so louldy that those Sg Mat or uncle gang do not dare to sing or talk loudly at my block downstairs during the wee hours of the nite anymore. If I happened to see a very kuailan ah beng, I just have to stare at him for a mere second, and he will become docile.
Try to do something that will clear your hate, I dunno what you like to do but just spend your time and energy somewhere away from the hate. I became reglious after I started training weight, and I now use my size to scare away evil bengs. You try to look for a way too bro. After you find you way, you will become very relieved and have not much worries. Good luck.
-
Originally posted by Laksa Seehum:
Hi Zulkifli,
I know you very angry, but if you take away the government, take away the people, Sg is a very wonderful and beautiful place, you know.
I also hate the government for bringing in so many malaysian and china cheena, in the end, they come and bully the Sg born cheena. However, I still serve my NS because I love Sg a lot. Sg is very beautiful to me. I dun hate Sg just because there are many people I hate here. Btw I also hate those Sg uncle who like to smoke in the HDB lobby and yell loudly in hokkien.
So wat do I do to clear all this hate? I use my spare time to go gym and pump iron. Now, whenever the malaysian bengs see me in the gym, they know who not to F around with. Now even when I sleep, I snored so louldy that those Sg Mat or uncle gang do not dare to sing or talk loudly at my block downstairs during the wee hours of the nite anymore. If I happened to see a very kuailan ah beng, I just have to stare at him for a mere second, and he will become docile.
Try to do something that will clear your hate, I dunno what you like to do but just spend your time and energy somewhere away from the hate. I became reglious after I started training weight, and I now use my size to scare away evil bengs. You try to look for a way too bro. After you find you way, you will become very relieved and have not much worries. Good luck.
Hello Laksa Seehum, Thanks for your response. I'm not angry just reminding the government and Singaporeans. I'm happy now but sometimes seeing what is wrong make me....how to put it...I think its something like, "What are they doing. Do they know eating sweets too much is bad for their tooth and health?" I'm into semi-retirement now and I'm living in JB now. Thanks again buddy. -
Ong Teng Cheong: “I had a job to do� INTERVIEW OF SINGAPORE’S FIRST ELECTION PRESIDENT, ONG TENG CHEONG BY ASIAWEEK It’s now six months since you stepped down. How do you feel about your time as president? I am satisfied with what I did. I hope it was all for the best. I was elected to do a job. And I had to do that job whether the government — or anyone else — liked it or not. It seems that often they did not like it, but let’s go back: How did you first get into politics? In the early 1970s, Lee Kuan Yew asked me for an interview to get me involved to stand for election. I stood in 1972 and I won and became a PAP backbencher. A year later, Lee asked me to take up ministerial office but I turned it down because my younger brother was dying of cancer. I had to assist him and to settle his affairs after he died at the age of 25. Then Lee Kuan Yew approached me again and this time I agreed to take up office. Lee is very persuasive. He must have been impressed to make you a minister so quickly — you were a young architect with no experience of politics. Yes, I was not trained to become a minister or a politician, but you learn on the job. Whenever I went to a new ministry, I always asked myself basic questions: What is this job all about? What am I supposed to do? That’s what I did in 1980, for instance, when I became minister of labor, in addition to being minister for communications. I went through all the legislation and I decided that the trade unions should not just be designed to organize and finance strikes, but instead should help improve the workers’ social and economic wellbeing. You became head of the NTUC and also remained a cabinet minister — and Singapore remained strike free. Yes. But in January 1986 I did sanction a strike, the first for about a decade. It was in the shipping industry where the management was taking advantage of the workers. I did not even tell the cabinet about santioning the strike. And some of them were angry with me about that. The minister for trade and industry was very angry, his officers were very upset. They had calls from America, asking what happened to Singapore? — we are non-strike. I said: if I were to inform the cabinet or the government they would probably stop me from going ahead with the strike. It only lasted two days. Then all the issues were settled. It showed that management was just trying to pull a fast one. So I believe what I did was right. It marked a trend — that you have never been afraid of doing something your ministerial colleagues might disagree with? No. If they don’t like it, I can always come back here to my architecture firm. Around this time you were discussing the succession to PM Lee? Lee Kuan Yew had been discussing this since about 1983. At that time, the second echelon was Tony Tan, S. Dhanabalan, Goh Chok Tong and myself. Were you a candidate for the top job? I was considered as a member of the group. At that time, we did not know who would be the successor to Lee. We finally made the decision to pick Goh Chok Tong. He agreed on condition that I agreed to be his number two. So I was the second DPM; he was the first DPM. In 1988, Lee asked Goh to take over, but he was not ready. He said: two more years. So two years later, he took the job. Lee did not agree with your decision to pick Goh. No, he did not disagree. He said he would leave it to us. His own first choice was Tony Tan. Goh Chok Tong was his second choice. I was his third choice because he said my English was not good enough. He said Dhanabalan was not right because Singapore was not ready for an Indian prime minister. That upset the Indian community. There was quite a bit of adverse reaction to what he said. But he speaks his mind. He is the only one who can get away with it. Personally, you felt Goh was the right man? Well, among the four of us, he was the youngest. Tony Tan said no. I said no. And he sort of accepted being pushed into the position, on condition that we stay on to assist him. Soon after taking over, Goh called a snap election in 1991 — but the PAP’s vote slipped and there was talk he would quit. Well, we did discuss about that. But he didn’t indicate that he wanted to step down. At that time, you were no. 2 in the executive after PM Goh. Yes. Well, no. 2, no. 3, doesn’t matter. So why run for president? The elected presidency was Lee Kuan Yew’s initiative. He came out with the idea way back in ’82, ’83. After parliament passed the measure in 1991, I considered it seriously. At that time, after 20 years in politics, I was thinking of a way to ease myself out, to exit the political arena. I wrote to the prime minister twice to say that I’m prepared to go. You saw the presidency as a way to do that? Yes, the unionists egged me on. They came to see me a couple of times and they suggested that I take it on. I discussed it with the prime minister, being old friends, and he gave me his support. The well-known oppositionist J.B. Jeyaretnam wanted to run against you? Yes, but he was not allowed to because he did not qualify under the stringent criteria. Maybe too stringent. You were glad Jeyaretnam could not run? No, it’s okay. I think it would have been more fun. Some of your colleagues did not think it was much fun when your only opponent, a former accountant-general, Chua Kim Yeoh, got so much support? Yes, all of them were quite worried. Some ministers even called me to say: Oh, we are worried about the outcome. At first, we were quite confident about getting over 70 percent of the vote. But there was a swing of support over to my opponent’s side, especially in the educated class — civil servants and the Shenton Way group. The issue was whether they wanted a PAP man as president to check on a PAP government, or whether it would be better to have a neutral independent like Chua. That’s why they voted against me because I had the PAP government support. I would have been happier without the PAP’s open support. I think I would have been better off with just the unionists’ support and the Chinese-educated heartlanders. Without them I would not have been elected. But you did win and you had to figure out how to do this new job as Singapore’s first elected president. Yes. At the first opening of parliament after I was elected, I was given a speech prepared by the government. I read the speech carefully. Besides ceremonial functions, it said that I’m supposed to safeguard the reserves and to help society become more compassionate and gracious. So I decided that, well, if that is what is said in the speech, then that’s going to be my job. And I am going to do it. That’s what I tried to do. In fact, during the six years I was president, I was very busy. Doing what? Well, I got involved in a lot of things. The Istana presidential palace and other places had to be renovated. All this had to be planned and these places got ready one by one, so that ceremonial functions and other business could go on as usual. I had to press the government to finalize the procedures for the protection of the reserves. A lot of the teething problems and misunderstandings were because there was a lack of clearcut procedures ofwhat to do. Towards the end of my term, I pressed the prime minister for a White Paper to be tabled in parliament that would set out all the principles and procedures for the elected president. Then I will announce my decision to step down. I want to get the job done. Initially, he did not want to do that? It’s not that he did not want to do that, but it had been dragging for a long time. They produced a White Paper eventually, tabled it in parliament last July, and that made the future president’s job easier. We have already tested out many of the procedures during my term, except for asking the president to approve a draw on the past reserves during a deep economic crisis. That was never done. It’s that part of procedure that was not tested. How to do it? It was this issue that caused the dispute between you and the government? Yes. But I don’t want to go into details and upset everybody. The thing is that the elected president is supposed to protect the reserves, but he was not told what these are until five years later. From the day the Constitution was amended in 1991 to provide for an elected president, he was supposed to fulfil that role. My predecessor, Wee Kim Wee, although he was not elected, was supposed to play that role during the last two years of his term. But he did not actively check. So, when I came in in 1993, I asked for all this information about the reserves. It took them three years to give it to me. The holdup was for administrative reasons? Either that or they did not think there was any urgency. You see, if you ask me to protect the reserves, then you’ve got to tell me what I’m supposed to protect. So I had to ask. Why did they not want to tell you? I do not know. Don’t ask me, because I don’t have the answer. I’ve been asking them. In fact, in 1996, exactly halfway through my term, I wrote prime minister Goh a letter. At that time, everybody was expecting a general election in December or January. After the election, a new government would be sworn in. When that happens, all the reserves, whether past or current, become past reserves and are locked up on the changeover date. As president, I have to safeguard them and they can only be drawn upon with my permission. So I said to Mr Goh: It’s already halfway through my term, but until today I still don’t know all these figures about the reserves. So the government had been stonewalling you, the president, for three years? Yes. What happened actually was, as you know, in accounting, when you talk about reserves, it’s either cash reserves or assets reserves. The cash side is straightforward: investment, how many million dollars here and there, how much comes from the investment boards and so on. That was straightforward — but still we had to ask for it. For the assets, like properties and so on, normally you say it’s worth $30 million or $100 million or whatever. But they said it would take 56-man years to produce a dollar-and-cents value of the immovable assets. So I discussed this with the accountant-general and the auditor-general and we came to a compromise. The government would not need to give me the dollar-and-cents value, just give me a listing of all the properties that the government owns. They agreed? Well, yes, they agreed, but they said there’s not the time for it. It took them a few months to produce the list. But even when they gave me the list, it was not complete. It seems the Singapore government does not know its own assets? Yes. It’s complicated. It’s never been done before. And for the assets of land, I can understand why. Every piece of land, even a stretch of road, is probablysubdivided into many lots. There are 50,000 to 60,000 lots and every one has a number. If you want to value them all, it would take a long time. In the past, they have just locked everything up and assumed it is all there. But if I am to protect it, at least I want to know the list. When they eventually gave you the list — the incomplete list, did you have enough staff to do the checking and other work? No, I did not. I only had one administrative staffer and two part-timers from the auditor-general’s office. For things like approving the budget of statutory boards, the auditor-general’s office would normally go through that for me. They are very good. They check on everything. And they query and ask for information. For government financial policy matters that you had a veto over, did you get all the details? They finally came with an executive summary to say that they had checked through all this, and that this is what they have, this is how much they are going to spend, and that it won’t need any draw from the reserves — or that there’s likely to be a draw. There never was a draw during my time, but there were instances where it was a bit dicey whether the budgets of one or two statutory boards would require a draw. But finally we resolved that. Eventually then, with the list of properties and the executive summaries, you were kept informed? I wouldn’t be able to say that. Even in my last year as president, I was still not being informed about some ministerial procedures. For example, in April last year, the government said it would allow the sale of the Post Office Savings Bank POSB to DBS Bank. In the past, when there was no elected president, they could just proceed with this kind of thing. But when there is an elected president you cannot, because the POSB is a statutory board whose reserves are to be protected by the president. You cannot just announce this without informing him. But I came to know of it from the newspaper. That is not quite right. Not only that, but they were even going to submit a bill to parliament for this sale and to dissolve the POSB without first informing me. What did you do? My office went to tell them that this was the wrong procedure. You’ve got to do this first, do that first, before you can do this. It was question of principle and procedure. We had to bring all this to their attention. That they cannot forget us. It’s not that we are busybodies, but under the Constitution we have a role to play and a responsibility. Sometimes in the newspaper I came to know of things that I am responsible for, but if it had not been reported in the newspaper I would not know about it. You must have been pretty angry that this was still happening in your last year as president? Yes, I was a bit grumpy. And maybe not to the liking of the civil service. They did not like what I said. But I have to be a watchdog all the time, you see. So this is where they are supposed to help me to protect the reserves. And not for me to go and watch out when they do right or wrong. Under the Constitution, you have the right to all the information available to the cabinet. Yes. That’s right. And I sourced much information from the cabinet papers. But they are not used to it. So I said: I understand, it’s something new, and I know you don’t like my interference and busybody checking up and so on. But under the Constitution it is my job to do that. Despite all this, it was widely believed that you wanted to run again for a second six-year term as president? No, I’d been telling my friends since late 1998 that my inclination was not to stand for re-election. But of course, life is unpredictable. In March last year, I went to Stanford and my American doctor confirmed that my cancer was in complete remission. He is very experienced, a world authority on my sickness. So I was fine after my treatment. I gave a complete report to the prime minister and we discussed it. I told him that my inclination was not to stand, but that I’d make the announcement later on. Then the cabinet met and they decided that if I were to stand again, they would not support me. You had been given a clean bill of health, yet your former colleagues would not support you. Did that annoy you? I told the prime minister over lunch: Well, I don’t need your cabinet support. If I want to stand, whether I do or not, it will be my personal decision. And I’ll make that decision nearer the date of the presidential election — because I have another checkup in June, July, and I want to know my latest position. Also my wife was sick with cancer and we knew that if she died, it would be difficult for me to stand without a first lady. She felt very apologetic and that was another reason why my inclination was not to stand. I hoped that if I stepped down I would have more time to be with my wife, because her prognosis was not very good. By waiting until July to announce your decision, were you ruffling the government for the way they had treated you? Maybe so. Maybe it was my miscalculation that my stated inclination not to stand again had not been good enough for them. But I had been telling that to all my friends. And I did not want to tell people my wife was dying, either. But the government worried that you might suddenly decide to run again. No, I made it very clear and I called a press conference in July to tell everybody. But I believe some people were still afraid that I might turn up on nomination day. Even friends asked me if I might do that. How could they? I had given my word that I would not stand. A straw poll apparently indicated you would beat the government’s candidate, S.R. Nathan, if you had stood. Yes. But I gave my word that I would not run. And I don’t think it’s right. I’m a very old-fashioned man. Also, my wife passed away in September. And I became more sceptical about all these medical reports. Well, not sceptical, but certainly I find life more unpredictable than I thought. Full of uncertainties. In the end you were happy to stand down? Yes, I’d been preparing for that psychologically since late 1998. I was quite happy when the decision was made, happy to return to private life to do the work that I enjoy. How are your relations with PM Goh these days? They are okay. I just had lunch with him last week. I can’t invite him now, so he invited me. When I was president, we took turns to invite each other for lunch in the Istana. Did Senior Minister Lee join you? No, we did that separately. Lee spoke out against you last year. How are your relations with him now? We’ve never quarrelled. It’s said that your recalcitrance upset him and your former colleagues, leaving you estranged and bitter? I would not call it recalcitrant. I mentioned some of the problems — or many of the problems — that I faced. If they regard that as an attack on the government and on the civil service, then that is for them to interpret. The prime minister and I spoke at my farewell reception. We agreed that we would say what we have to say. I think it came out well. He said that my statements, and his rebuttal in parliament, were probably a good thing. They showed the transparency of the system. I stand by what I said. - Published in Asiaweek 2000 http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/02/ong-teng-cheong-i-had-a-job-to-do/
-
Open Letter To Our 1.8 million Foreigners – Please Don’t Convert To Singapore Citizenship Editor’s Note: This letter was penned on July 18, 2012 Dear Foreigners, We welcome you to work among us but really we are more against the government’s liberal immigration policies than you personally. We apologise if some of the anger was mis-directed though we hope that you will better respect us as this is our country. As you know by now, our government has tried it’s best to convert at least 20,000 new citizens each year to arrest the low birth rate in our country. Some of you have taken the bite and decided to become citizens of our country – welcome! There are at least half a million permanent residents (PR) and some have being working here for many years. There are a total of 1.8 million foreigners living and working among us now and one million are from mainland China. I have known of a Malaysian PR who has being working here for the past two decades without ever thinking of converting to become a Singaporean citizen for personal reason. Our government has being doling out permanent residency rights like tiolet paper a few years ago but recently they have clamp down hard on new PR applications due to a stiff voters’ outcry in the recent general election. I have met stall hawkers from PRC China who have managed to become PRs which is an amazing feat – reiterating the fact that our government has no clear transparent system of only bringing in the best for our country. Why PRC Chinese Likes Singapore Citizenship I know that PRC Chinese prefer to convert their citizenship as what good is it to hold on to a communist China passport which restricts your travel movement internationally? This is probably why mainland Chinese movie stars like Gong Li and Jet Li have converted to become Singapore citizens mainly for ease of international travelling. Sadly, many PRC Chinese converts have this sinister plan of migrating to either Australia or USA once they received our coveted internationally-recognised passport. One recently-converted citizen from PRC China even told me that if he commits a crime in China and as a foreigner now he will receive a lighter sentence than if he is convicted as a local mainland Chinese! To make matters worse, we continued to hear news of how employment pass holders managed to find work in Singapore with all sorts of bogus educational certificates and false identity papers. Some even became PRs later on… Those who want to maintain their PR status instead of converting to citizenship probably prefer to have a back door to escape to if things go awry whereas others do so due to patriotic reason. Pros and cons of citizenship conversion It is hope that by now, after staying in our country for a while, you will know that there are both pros and cons to converting your citizenship. You can of course buy a so-called government subsidized HDB Build-To-Order (BTO) flat after becoming a new citizen but the subsidy is minimal after factoring in land and building cost. The subsidy amount should not be more than 25% of the surrounding second-hand flats in open market and you will need to pay off the housing loan within a 25-year loan period. It is an open secret by now that our government is trying to shore up voting advantage by converting at least 20, 000 new citizens each year so that by the next General Election in 2016, they will have at least 100,000 new voters rooting for them. New citizens will naturally vote for the ruling party especially when they have provided you with a new home, better employment opportunities and a positive future compared to back home. I have spoken to some PRs from India and they are favourable of staying on in our milk-and-honey country for the long term as opportunities are very limited back in their own country. The salary they can get from India is only 10% of what they can earn if they work in Singapore. New citizens politically manipulated Nevertheless, I want to remind my foreign friends that you are being politically manipulated. During the last GE 2011, more than 100, 000 new citizens were able to vote and they helped the ruling party restored their majority rule but the percentage was reduced by 6%. If not for the large new-citizen contingent, the ruling party would have suffered a larger loss at the polls. Though there is no hard evidence to support, chances are new citizens will understandably vote for the ruling party out of gratitude and loyalty as how can you bite the master who feed you? After staying on for more than ten years, we believe that new citizens will definitely feel the urban strain of staying in Singapore and may even vote against the ruling party especially if they are unemployed or under employed for a long period. It is envisaged that if the status quo remained with the same number of voters as GE 2011 and another 6% swing votes against them, the ruling party will be out of power within 2-3 elections. Most Generation Y voters are voting against the ruling party as they clamour for political change which is slow coming so far. Each year leading to GE 2016, at least 25, 000 new voters from the Generation Y group will come on board – all ready to cast their vote against the ruling party for change in a stifling political environment. If the ruling party does not resort to getting new citizens on board to nullify the opposition votes, there is every chance that it will be displaced from power within 2-3 general elections. No political party in the world – however strong they are, has managed to hold on to power for more than 50 years. It is my belief that our country will undergo rapid political change in the near future despite the fact that the ruling party is trying to hold on desperately to power. It is very short on ideas due to a rigid top-down governance philosophy and it’s total reliance on a elite scholarly team to govern the country has it’s own critical shortcomings. Changes bring forth discomfort and sometimes pain as it attacks the ruling party’s comfort zone especially if you have stay in power for almost five decades uninterrupted. Flaws of our system If you become new citizens in our country, you will have to accept our system of monopolistic governance,and more importantly the lack of human rights and personal freedom. Our legislation prohibits even a one-man protest in the street and you will be hauled up by the police for questioning. You will also have no arbitrary right if you are sacked indiscriminately at the work place as so far the employment act does not cover you if you are an executive or earn above a certain income bracket. Employers can sack you anyhow giving you one month’s notice and even a trip to the Ministry of Manpoer (MOM) may not yield any favourable result as the advantage lies with our employers here. By now, you should know that our government is very pro-employer and our workers have little rights and are treated like digits ready to be cast away when you are old and useless. We don’t even have a minimum wage here when third countries like Malaysia, Vietnam and China have already introduced them! Here in our age-bias employment environment, chances are you will go out of work for a very long time if you are above 40 years old and most likely retrenched for younger foreigners to take over your place. There is also no social welfare programme available for you if you are unemployed for a long time. You are left to fend for yourself - foreigner or citizen. I have seen close to five hundred jobless PMETs – mostly in their 40s – 50s while working full time for Transitioning – a non profit organisation - they are all well educated but because of their age they are unable to find viable employment opportunities. Do you think that you can be any different here when you grow old? Your children will also face tremendous amount of pressure in schools as our educational system is very stressful and tend to milk out the very best for the elites. If your children are of above average intelligence chances are they will go through a very tough time trying to compete with one another for a prestigious scholarship where life will be smooth sailing after that. Moreover, currently, only 26% of the primary school cohort will be able to enter our three prestigious universities and many of us have to spent six-figure sums to ensure that our children have higher tertiary education abroad if they fail to gain a place in our own local unis despite garnering all the As and Bs. As our government maintains a co-funding policy in all it’s social welfare programmes, you will be shocked to know that many of us do not have enough to retire on let alone check in a public hospital to treat our ailments when we are old. Despite gathering record-breaking revenues from GST to land sales to casino levies, it bothered to spent only 5% of the budget on healthcare each year so far. I spent a year teaching in China some time ago and realised that most of the mainland Chinese people could retire comfortably at age 55 years old. In Singapore, you will see our aged ambling along at foodcourts and the airport, clearing rubbish and food trays off tables. Is this the kind of life you want to lead when you are old? Most of all, Singaporeans are pretty unhappy people due to a very stressful lifestyle and many people live lonely sheltered lives without friends. Divorce is also sky high in our country with a record 7,800 divorces registered for last year as the country goes through social mobility stresses and money-related issues. Unhappy local workers A poll of employee attitudes in 14 countries has ranked Singapore last in workplace happiness. Talent management company Lumesse polled about 4,000 employees from a wide variety of industries. People were asked about how happy they were at work, whether they felt their skills were properly utilised, the career paths open to them, and the training and career development opportunities they had. The results put Singapore last in three major areas – we least enjoy going to work, are the least loyal and have the least supportive workplaces. There is no reason to believe that you will not feel the similar frustrations if you have being working and living here for at least five years or more. Except for the solid infrastructure shell, our country is somwhat hollow inside. Local Singaporeans will know what I mean here. We also have a serious wage division here and a record 140, 000 Singaporeans earn $1500 and below per month. Right now, India, PRC China and even Myamar possess abundant opportunities for future expansion and you can contribute better by helping to build up your own country’s economy using your experienced niche skills. In fact, many Singaporeans have flocked to India and China to look for business opportunities as their economies are still brewing over there. On the other hand, Singapore’s economy is on the decline after the GFC in 2008/9 and we have to desperately import cheap foreign labour to attract MNCS to our shore. Once this cheap labour source dries up, many MNCs will leave us to our economic demise as we can’t depend on our own local SMEs which are still struggling and fighting to survive. By converting to become a Singaporean citizen, there is also a high chance that you will be made a political pawn and cast aside when you are redundant and old. I hope that you are conscious of the fact that you may be standing in the way of a political change in our country – which will go on with or without you. Of course, you can re-convert back to your own citizenship after a while as I have heard of some Indians already doing that. They took on citizenship here, bought a new BTO HDB flat, earned some money in the process and after a while re-applied to revert back to their Indian citizenship. The money earned from the profit of the flat sales can set you up for comfortable permanent retirement back in your own home land. I have also seen some converted citizens in Sydney living and working on a Australian PR – with no intention of returning to Singapore for the long term. It looks like our country is used by many as a stepping stone to other better greener pastures. So, if you decide to become a new citizen in our country, do think at least ten to fifteen years ahead – the short-term may look good for now but it’s the long haul that you should worry about. Written by: Gilbert Goh http://www.transitioning.org/2013/02/01/open-letter-to-our-1-8-m-foreigners-please-dont-convert-to-singapore-citizenship/