In the past few weeks, we witnessed the passing of the civil rights leader Nelson Mandela and the riots in Little India. What are some of the points that can be taken away?
Re-looking the Population Debate
Writers have pointed out, and rightly so, that the riots in Little India is a sign of the flaws in the projected population of 6.9 million people by the Population White Paper. Certainly, as another has pointed out in an article, ‘Moulmein-Kallang residents have warned MPs for years‘, the influx of foreign workers have led to enclaves, which increases the risks of riotous behavior.
Is a projected population of 6.9 million people in Singapore sustainable in the long run? Some of the potential negative consequences are surfacing. In Europe, which has liberal immigration policies,there have been certain groups of immigrants who refuse to assimilate into their host countries’ culture and set up enclaves and ghettos in major cities. It is not uncommon for native Europeans to be attacked when passing through these enclaves or riots breaking out from these ghettos.
If the Population White Paper is implemented, would we see more enclaves? That is almost a certainty. From Europe’s example, these enclaves would do more harm than good. Increased occurrences in rioting would scare away investors and tourists, who keep the economy running. Police patrols would have to step up. This means an increase in the size of the police force which means higher taxes.
The problem with Singapore’s population started with the PAP. Lee Kuan Yew’s “Boy or girl, stop at 2″ policy, played a role in producing a culture where having children is viewed as a bane. The liberal immigration policies by the PAP have led to an economy addicted to foreign workers.
Before saying that we should shut the doors to foreigners, let’s pause to have a look, before leaping. Despite grouses about foreign workers, without foreign workers, the streets would be filled with rubbish and we would have no home to stay. It is the foreign workers, who come and perform take up these unglamorous jobs which continues to keep Singapore moving.
If the influx of foreign workers is tightened, are we prepared to make drastic changes in our lifestyles? Besides construction and cleaning works, foreigners also work in SMEs and F&B outlets where many Singaporeans may not be as willing not willing to work in, for the fact that the pay is lower in SMEs and working in F&B is tiring.
If we adopt a “Singapore first” workforce all of a sudden, the SMEs and F&B outlets would be the first to suffer. The lifestyles we used to enjoy once these cafes close would be affected. If we want to limit the inflow of foreign workers, will we be willing to take up the jobs that foreigners used to take in SMEs and F&B outlets? These are some of the changes we need to get used to.
Having spoken to Singaporeans, who are politically neutral and involved in SMEs or HR work, these are some of their complaints about Singaporean workers, and why they prefer foreign workers – mentality of entitlement to taking leave, late coming and poor work standards.
Not every Singaporean worker is as described above. At the same time, if we want Singapore to enjoy the same level of economic growth she has been enjoying, it is time to up the standards and cast away the mentality on entitlement to leave and good pay once the foreign workers go. After all, the first Singaporeans became successful through hard work, not expecting a pot of gold to drop from the sky.
Lessons from Nelson Mandela
Nelson Mandela,who recently passed away, was a great statesman who brought an end to Apartheid. There are many things about him which are remarkable and should be picked up.
The Apartheid regime in South Africa was racist and repressive. However, when Nelson Mandela was released from prison and elected president, he embarked on a path of reconciliation between the blacks and the whites.
Unlike Robert Mugabe, who set up a repressive regime and embarked on a campaign to drive out the Whites in Zimbabwe, Nelson Mandela encouraged the Whites to stay in South Africa and retained them in his government, including two former presidents, Frederik de Klerk and Pieter Botha. He used his force of personality to nullify the influence of the radicals and Marxists within the African National Congress.
What about some writers among the Opposition? When the Little India riots broke out, some rightfully pointed out flaws in the PAP’s population policy which led to the riot.
However, some Opposition writers, such as Leong Sze Hian and Roy Ngerng, have responded to the riot by playing up class politics.
In the articles which they co-wrote, “Riots and Wages in Singapore, Parts 2 and 3″, there was this recurring theme – about how the poor continue to be poorer as the ministers get richer, and how the poor have 5% of the country’s wealth while the rich have 49%.
Playing up class politics by harping on the income gap and how “the rich get richer as the poor get poorer” is not politics of unity. It is the politics of division, envy and discord. It only serves to stir up discontent, malcontent and disaffection among people.
The Bolsheviks rose to power and imposed their reign of terror, in part by playing up class divisions through such rhetoric. There were other factors which led to the Russian Revolution, but you certainly cannot discount the role played by such class conflict rhetoric.
Left-wing protesters wrecked havoc during the 2000 WTO summit in Seattle and the Occupy movement, by attacking small businesses and illegally occupying public parks, because they were agitated into action by socialists who used the rhetoric of class conflict.
Such rhetoric is divisive. It does not unite, but drive a wedge between the “haves” and “have-nots”. Such rhetoric certainly have the potential to lay the groundwork for a future riot, as such rhetoric have fueled numerous paralysing riots and protests in the West, and violent revolutions throughout the world.
What the poor need is our help through charity, not playing up class divisions or calling for increased government intervention, which is, in a nutshell, helping the poor by taking away money from others.
I am not a PAP supporter. PM Lee’s speech at the PAP convention, where he called the PAP a “democratic socialist” party means that I have no part with the PAP.
At the same time, I value an Opposition in the mould of Chiam See Tong or Nelson Mandela, which unite instead of divide. I value an Opposition which is responsible and fiscally conservative.
There are some among the Opposition who fits this category. However, most, especially those who are currently spearheading the movement, have been, through their rhetoric, especially in the playing up of class differences, taking up a course of action which would lead to a divided Singapore.
Most of the Opposition readers show little tolerance for dissenting opinions. Anyone who crosses the line of the Opposition Left is demonised as a PAP supporter, regardless of his/her political positions, and subjected to lynching and abuse, totalitarian style.
Do you want to see a Singapore divided into classes – “have” vs “have-not”, “Opposition” vs “PAP” or Singaporean vs Foreigner, with one class subjecting another to abuse and attacks, physically or verbally, online or offline, after 2016? This is not to say that the PAP had a squeaky clean record. But the PAP’s wrongs do not justify wrongs on the Opposition’s part.
Or do we want to follow the example of Chiam See Tong and Nelson Mandela?
Albert Lim
******-lim13@hotmail.com
TRS Contributor