Ravi Philemon

The flyer hyped it as “Coffee Shop Talk with Minister George Yeo” and the talk was supposed to be on the title, “The Economy and You – How we are coping and how we will progress”.

I went to the “talk” about 15 minutes late, only to find the Minister being flanked by a grassroots leader who actually looked more like a bodyguard.  He also tried to play the role of a moderator.

When I arrived the Minister was saying that Singaporeans should create new opportunities outside the United States of America (USA) and ride on the organic growth of China and India.

He said that although the economies of Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand were contracting, the economies of the other South East Asian (SEA) countries were growing at a rate of about 7% a year.

That combined China, India and SEA had a population of more than 2.6 billion people and that Singapore should seize geographical and cultural advantage to build new links with these economies, including the Middle-east countries, while we keep our traditional links with the United States and Europe vibrant. He said that the “keynesian global paradox” is that those in the USA should save more and spend less, while those in Asia should spend more and save less.

He said that it is because we have built these ties with India, China and other SEA countries, that people from these countries feel very comfortable to come to Singapore to do business, and to live and study here.

Foreign workers policy

In response to this, one teacher from Temasek Junior College, Yi Jin, recounted that although the migrants from the other countries may feel very comfortable coming here, there is an undercurrent of not being able to integrate with Singaporeans.  He related that even in his junior college the foreign students mostly clumped together because even if they may be Chinese, they are not Singaporean Chinese and their cultures are actually very different.

To this, Mr. Yeo reiterated that people have a tendency to clump together.  He recounted his experience from his student days in England, where the students from Singapore always slumped together. And that it is actually the Singaporean’s job to make the foreigner feel at home by reaching out to them.

At this juncture, I shared that it is one thing to accept foreigners, but quite another to accept foreigners at the expense of Singaporeans.  I affirmed Yi Jin’s point and said that we should have policies to protect Singaporean workers.

I said that the quota policy implemented by the Ministry of Manpower, which enables an organisation to hire 25% of foreign workers, from their total workfore.  I recounted that this may unfairly disadvantage the Singaporean worker and asked that the Canadian model be considered. Over there, the Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC), a department of the Government of Canada, stipulates that the employer has to satisfy the department that it is unable to hire a local person, before he is allowed to hire a foreigner.  This condition does not apply to certain jobs where low-skilled workers are required, where the employers can hire as many foreigners as they want.

The locals are protected in this instance by living wage policy; which ensures that the local low-skilled are not unduly discriminated against by the foreign workers, who may ask a lower salary.  Such equal and living wage policy actually provide better incentives for the employer to try and hire the local first as he would not have to provide for accommodation and other related expenses that he would have to provide for the foreign worker.

To this, Mr. Yeo said that the Singapore government’s policies are actually very selfish policies, to benefit the Singaporean.  He said that the Singaporean workers are protected to a point in Singapore and said that there are other policies besides the quota policy, which protects the Singaporean worker.  Mr Yeo insisted that complex policies actually create more bureaucracies and that he felt that it is better to make a general rule and let the corporations make the actual decisions on who to hire and who not to.

He said that the reality is the night shift in many manufacturing companies is staffed by foreign workers because Singaporean workers do not want to do the graveyard shift. “In trying to over protect,”, Mr Yeo said, “we may lose everything”.

I replied that the graveyard shift is probably staffed by more foreigners than locals because the foreigners do not have families and children here that they would need to take care of; and said that though I am not anti-foreigner, the quota policy may actually disadvantage the professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) more than the low-skilled workers. This is because the quota specifies that 25% of the workforce can be foreigners regardless of whether there are local talents to fill the vacancy or not.

Mr Yeo agreed that PMETs need to be better protected but reiterated that “you need to strike a balance”. He said that there are many industries and Singaporean entrepreneurs, who are “feeding off the foreigners” and that there are a lot of spin-offs.

There was another interesting question from the floor where a person said that the Muslims seem to have lower skills and are hence in low paying jobs. To this, the Minister replied that the Malays actually preferred to work in government jobs and as security guards, while the Chinese want to see instant profits and hence are not keen on such jobs.

Aung San Suu Kyi

The focus then shifted to ASEAN and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.  Mr. George Yeo said “it is very sad that she has been imprisoned for so many years.”  But he was quick to add that we must not oversimplify the problems in Burma.  He felt that as the country was very complex in its make up with the Burmese making up only about 50% of the total population of the entire population of Burma, only the military could hold the entire country together.  He added that it was the military that had ruled Burma from independence and that it was Aung San Suu Kyi’s father, General Aung San, that was the original military man that had ruled the country since independence.

He said that it was also General Aung San  created the rule that a Burmese who married a foreigner cannot rule the country and that now Aung San Suu Kyi is married to a foreigner.  Mr Yeo said it was because her husband is a foreigner and from the ‘western world’ that the ‘western world’ has come to support Aung San Suu Kyi and have failed to recognise the rule of the military.  The problem in Burma is actually “a very deep family dispute”, he said,  and the road to democracy for Burma is long and that the elections next year is but a small step towards that goal.

He said that ASEAN has worked well in keeping the peace in this region, in subjecting the member nations to peer pressure and in trying to forge economic integration.

Racial prejudices and stereotypes

Another teacher from the floor then brought out the topic of race stereotypes in schools and mentioned how children learn from parents and form prejudices and even make nasty remarks to those of the other race in the schools. She asked what policy the government may have to initiate to overcome this bias. The minister admitted that values are transmitted from parents to children, that it is very difficult to change prejudices and that there is only that much that the government can do but added, “We are better off than others (countries)”.

The coffee talk ended with a time of refreshments, where I had a chance to engage the minister and say to him that although I did not agree with everything he said, I appreciated his sincerity in trying to reach the ordinary Singaporean.  The Minister asked which parts I did not agree with, to which I replied that one is the question of race and how the right question to ask would be not which policies you would devise to counter the biases and prejudices among the races; but which policy you would do away with.  I said that I would do away with the Chinese, Malay, Indian, Others (CMIO) policy as this policy was the main ‘culprit’ in perpetrating racial biases among Singaporeans and prevents the formation of a true Singaporean identity.

Later, I chatted with other participants.  One of them asked me what I thought about the session. I said that it was a good effort to reach out to the ground but that it was not a dialogue which would have been much more intense. He replied, “This is actually Meet the People Session in McDonald’s”.

That probably summed up what the much-hyped Coffee Shop Talk in reality actually is.

—-

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

STB reaches out to wedding planners in India offering SG as destination for Indian weddings

In an exclusive interview with India’s media Financial Express, which was published…

Looking back – state funeral for former PM Lee Kuan Yew

[vimeo id=”123315569″ align=”center” mode=”normal”]  

菲国扫毒执法过度涉人权疑虑 联合国通过决议调查

菲律宾总统杜特蒂(Rodrigo Duterte)自2016年开始强硬扫毒,近期更是将扫毒行动升级,发生扫毒行动期间3岁女童丧命案件,引发侵害人权疑虑。 据路透社报道,6月30日,黎萨省一名年仅3岁的女童米卡(Myca Ulpina)在扫毒行动中,遭警方击毙,引发社会哗然。警方当时宣称孩子的父亲(Renato)以米卡作为“人肉盾牌”,而警方则将父亲的行为视为反抗,才会开枪射杀。 然而,米卡的母亲却指控警方,当时他们并没有把小孩当盾牌。据悉,事发期间她们一家人都在睡觉,警方却在没有搜索令的情况下强行闯入房屋,而其中一颗流弹正好击中无辜的米卡,夺走她性命。她难过地说,“我的女儿才不是什么附带损害。” 神父比亚努维瓦(Flavie Villanueva)在米卡的葬礼上表示,“我已经无法计算自己为扫毒而受害的死者办了多少场葬礼,不过在这些葬礼上,我发现他们都是手无缚鸡之力的贫民百姓。“ 他也向米卡哀悼,“抱歉米卡,我无法保护你,抱歉,你出身在一个杀戮猖獗、把贫穷当成攻击目标的世界,抱歉他们对你说,你只不过是过程中的“附带伤害”。 意外发生之后,当局下令,当天参与缉毒行动的20名警察暂停职务,接受调查,但也有民意代表为警察辩解。 对此,参议员德拉罗沙(Senator Ronald Dela…

屠妖节燃放烟火 两嫌犯被逮捕

涉嫌在昨日(6日)凌晨于小印度格洛士特路非法燃放鞭炮,两名分别为29及48岁的嫌犯被警方逮捕。 根据警方文告,警方在上述路段发现有人燃放鞭炮后,不久即逮捕涉事者。 相信是为了欢庆屠妖节,涉事者在上述地带燃放鞭炮长达一分钟,也被网民拍摄短片上载社交媒体。影片末段可见有警察奔跑向烟花点燃处。 警方称目前仍在进行调查。 在我国《危险烟火法》下,严禁民众使用和拥有烟火,只有特定活动、安全标准等获得许可的情况下,才能使用。 燃放烟火的人一旦罪名成立,将面对2000元到1万元不等的罚款,或长达两年监禁,或两者兼施。