TRS readers shouldn't blindly blame the PAP for everything!

Dear The Real Singapore,

Since young, I acquired a talent for seeing the gist of a problem. I noticed that many comments and opinion articles posted here on TRS regularly miss the mark. It has been this way since I was growing up, when I hear people complain or give their views. I naturally keep silent as I don't want to offend them. Even if I do speak up, most people do not understand, and some don't wish to try. But regarding this issue with our government, I will try to point out some of your flaws.

1) Saying the PAP has failed us

You either Pass or you Fail. In an exam, if you score above 50 out of 100, you pass. In the university where there's a bell curve, you pass if you are the top 50th percentile. So what's the passing criterion for the PAP? 10 successful policies for every failed policy? Having less than 2% unemployment? Whenever I read an article titled 'The PAP has failed us', or 'The PAP are stupid/clueless', or 'The PAP should be sacked', or something similar which involves taking a very extreme judgment, I cringe on the inside. I appreciate people who make more realistic claims. You can say that the PAP could have managed a certain issue better, but to say that they failed implies that you are claiming to know everything. Because you can only judge someone if you know everything. If you only know 10%, you can criticize that 10%. If you know 20%, you can criticize 20%. Who here knows 100% of the PAP's work? So to say the PAP has failed implies you know 100% (if you know at least 80%, I'm willing to concede that you are fit to judge). My issue is not against people complaining, but failing to complain in context. If you have a broken tap and you say 'the sink is lousy', then you will change the whole sink and it will be very costly. If you have a broken tap and you say 'the sink is good, but the tap is broken', then you will change the tap and it will be much more affordable. Complaining out of context creates a social problem because people who listen to you may be influenced into thinking that they need to change the whole sink. This will create a problem because when you have a new sink, the tap may work fine but the rest of the sink is lousy. Let's focus on the issues at hand and avoid sweeping judgments.

2) Extrapolations

Extrapolation means looking at a grass and telling us what the field looks like. Here are some faulty extrapolations I've seen so far:

-PAP is lousy because of the Yang Yin case (you should criticize the MOM)

-PAP is lousy because trains break down (you should criticize SMRT)

-PAP is lousy because new HDBs have defects (you should criticize HDB)

-PAP is lousy because we can't withdraw CPF (you are correct, PAP was in control of this)

-PAP is lousy because we have so many foreigners (you should criticize yourselves)

Although I admit that PAP oversees everything, it does not engage in the micro-management. Hence, micro-management issues cannot be blamed on the PAP. If the issue is one of faulty ideology, such as the belief that people will spend all their money if they can withdraw from their CPF, then this is something you can blame on the PAP because they were the ones who set the ideology. If the issue is one of micro-management, such as the maintaining of trains, building works of HDB, or approval of PR status, you have to criticize the specific organization.
Why is this important? Because if you vote the PAP out and bring in the WP, the WP will also not be able to micro-manage these bits and pieces. You will end up with the same problem. In short, criticize the government for policies borne of ideology, and criticize the specific organization for issues of negligence. If your McSpicy burger is not cooked, do you complain about the CEO of Macdonalds? Or do you complain about the duty manager of that branch? Know who to complain about if you want the best results.

3) Foreigners

There are 4 main reasons for foreigner influx

a) Create jobs for Singaporeans in white collar companies that we are not able to establish on our own

b) Building on point (a), to groom Singaporean PMETs to run such businesses in the future

c) To do blue-collar jobs Singaporeans don't wish to do

d) To keep the costs of blue-collar industries low so that we as Singaporeans pay less 

Touching on point (a) and (b):

Foreigners create more jobs for Singaporeans. I say this with full confidence. Foreigners overpopulate the country, make trains harder to squeeze into, bring a handful of people with unruly attitudes, tip the votes in PAP's favour, prefer to hire their own kind, all these statements I agree with. Those are facts. But it is also a fact that foreigners create more jobs for Singaporeans and you cannot deny it. Look at the financial sector: Merril Lynch, UBS, JP Morgan, Credit Suisse, Deustche, and Goldman. These are all foreign companies, started by foreigners and run by foreigners. If these companies did not come to Singapore, would we be able to build these companies on our own? No. Without these MNCs, who undeniably prefer to hire their own kind(I know), we would overall have less jobs.If you look at the insurance sector for example, Great Eastern, AIA and Prudential are run locally and hire locally (foreigners cannot join). But before these companies could be locally run, they had to come from abroad. AIA comes from the states, Prudential came from the UK, Great Eastern came from some Asian country which I don't know honestly. Therefore, not only do foreign firms that reside in Singapore hire Singaporeans and thus create more jobs, there is always the chance that these firms could branch off and be ours one day. Even if they do not, they at least provide a model for what works, so that local businessmen can start-up companies and use them as examples. In the F&B industry, we have the fast food industry with names you all know, and they didn't originate in Singapore. As time goes by, the local pmets who work in these companies will pass on their experience to other Singaporeans, and eventually, we will have a pool of local pmets equipped with the skills to run the industry. This is important because we do not have natural resources like oil or coal, so 'people power'is our greatest resource. We need to upgrade the skills of our people if we need to sruvive. Unfortunately, because Singapore is small, the best of the best in larger nations will always be more capable than the best of the best in Singapore. This is purely common sense. Hence, to learn from the best, we must import them.

Touching on point (c) and (d):

If you read the recent news, 17,000 local SMEs closed down due to manpower curbs. It is very hard to find locals willing to do the work of cleaners, kitchen staff, and so on.If we do not bring in foreigners, these businesses will collapse even more because there will be no one willing to work. If we do not allow local start-ups to thrive, we prevent the growth of local ideas. Additionally, we will face a shortage of staff and this will cause inconveniences to many of our daily processes. Perhaps some people say claim that Singaporeans are not willing to do the job because the pay is too low. If blue collar companies hired locally and pay $2,500 for every full timer, how do you think such costs will translate to the prices of goods? Eventually, the costs will be passed on to Singaporeans, so even with higher salaries we have less purchasing power. It is a circular problem. What is being done at the moment is something we call çomparative advantage', please google to find out what I mean. The current tide is pushing Singaporeans to upgrade themselves and move away from the blue-collar sector, so those who are left behind, the very people who are used as examples to insult the PAP, are the people who did not follow the tide and get left behind. It is nobody's fault, when you cast a net, some stuff inevitably squeeze through.

Therefore, it makes me sad to hear Singaporeans complain about foreigners when they are not aware of the value these foreigners bring. Although it's hard to believe, the foreigner problem is not going to be here forever. When Singaporeans (1) Give birth more, (2) Move up the ladder in terms of high-value capabilities, foreigners will slowly begin to leave our country purely by the law of supply and demand. 

4) CPF

If you were able to withdraw your CPF 100% in a lump sum, how would you manage that money? Common sense says that you will split your money into bundles, with each bundle for a year, so that you have enough to last you until you die. Isn't the retirement scheme splitting your money into bundles? When you split your money into bundles and place them in a bank account, doesn't it offer lower interest than the CPF retirement account? If you are thinking of purchasing an annuity from the bank, aren't you paying more in fees (and hence lower returns)? I'm saying all this not to tell you that we as Singaporeans do not have a right to withdraw our CPF which is rightfully our money. I'm saying this to prompt the question to you: How much better would your life be if you were allowed to withdraw 100% of your CPF?

Now, I believe it's our money, it's therefore our right to withdraw if we want to. PAP is wrong in my opinion to say that we will spend it all in Batam, because as mature adults, we should be allowed to make our own decisions and face the consequences. Over time, when some unlucky individuals pay the price for mismanaging their money, society as a whole will learn from these mistakes and evolve to become more responsible with their money. This paves the way for a more responsible and better society that doesn't need to be 'parented' by its government.I just feel that Singaporeans who complain about not being able to withdraw 100% of their CPF do not really know that it's not that attractive. They are complaining merely because it's a right. This is detrimental because you are assigning the blame for your financial problems on someone else instead of taking steps to improve your earning capabilities. But yes, CPF should have more flexibility to cater to emergencies.