Connect with us

Commentaries

Why PAP refuses to heed advice on foreign worker dormitories

Published

4 years ago

on

by N Chan

The current rapid jump of Singapore’s of COVID-19 numbers has been attributed — by and large — to the refusal by the People’s Action Party (PAP) administration to heed advice by Voluntary Welfare Organisation (VWOs) such as TWC2 on the conditions at the dormitories serving as a ticking time bomb for a massive spread of the virus.
To date, I and many others have been petitioning the government either through tagging Ministry of Manpower (MOM), Ministry of Health (MOH) and Lawrence Wong as well as Josephine Teo or emailing their respective ministries, to ask them to quarantine all the foreign worker dorms while allowing those who need to work in essential services to leave, strictly for that purpose, provided that they are asymptomatic while subjecting them to a stringent regime of tests throughout the day, to minimise their contact with the public due to the growing clusters in the dorms.
Technically, according to the law, they were still able to leave the dorms, in the name of “exercising” or “dabao-ing” food, so long as they are not issued with Stay-At-Home-Notices (SHN) or Quarantine Orders (QO) and their dorms are not in the “isolated category”.
Many have given feedback that they are still mingling in large groups outside the dorms, even in malls in Jurong and mingling with foreign domestic workers even in the “circuit breaker” period as well.
The basis of our petition is this – that outside the foreign worker dorms category, the number of local unlinked cases is actually in the 20s to 30s range daily and so by quarantining all the dorms, the number of local unlinked cases will fall below the 20s range and the “circuit breaker” measures will be lifted sooner, relieving the service sector of the economy and averting a potential mental health epidemic.
Most of us, including myself, have petitioned the government out of good faith as most (or some) of us who have done so because we have seen our emotional states slide each day, especially if we are Christians as the Christian faith is a social one and centres strongly around community and “sharing lives”.
While the government has announced on 18 April that work permit holders under the construction will have to serve a two-week SHN from 20 April to 4 May but it is still a partial measure as foreign workers working in other sectors e.g. cleanliness are not subjected to similar measures. Despite being aware of the growing trend of unlinked cases, the government still took 3 weeks to finally implement this partial measure.
All of our petitions and cries have persistently fallen on deaf ears. It just simply harkened back to the time when SMRT and SBS Transit implemented a fare hike in disguise through distance fares. PAP backbenchers, including then-MP Halimah Yacob, tried to press the government to reconsider the policy in parliament but it fell on deaf ears, with then Transport Minister Raymond Lim simply turning aside all these issues raised.
I think all these reflects a wider issue, question and problem – that of the East Asian mentality that is still very much prevalent in Singapore’s culture and politics.
How the PAP government handled the advice and petitions on the dormitories is like how a typical East Asian authority figure does in micro-settings, like for instance, home, school or a workplace with a traditional Chinese boss, handles petitions to reconsider a direction, consider a new course of action or dissent – to treat these as “noise” and “petulance” and treat them with deafening silence.
I think many of us would have experienced how we tried to petition authority figures at home or in school about a policy direction that is hurting us only to be told off and shouted down or ignored and gaslighted.
It is only when something drastic happens, such as when a big fight happens at home or one under their authority runs away from home for a few days, choose to commit a crime (like theft or abusing drugs/glue) to raise the issue or ends up in a mental hospital or seeing a psychiatrist for the authority figure to sit up and listen, and still it is a huge “if” if the authority figure in question would do so.
A similar situation is played out in the schools where students deemed “bad apples” in grades or conduct or both would be shamed, yelled at and humiliated publicly, or at the very least, picked on, by the teachers, compounding the misery of being in an already harsh system in school where the slightest infringement, such as whispering to a classmate to borrow a pencil, would lead to arbitrary and humiliating punishment, such as being yelled at and made to stand in front of the school hall, and it is only after months or even years of this incessant treatment that this “bad apple” student is referred to an educational psychologist for treatment – when help could have come much earlier. This treatment is not reserved just for “pai kias”. In my primary school or even in secondary school days, super quiet students (because of some form of psychological condition or learning disability) also got this treatment in one way or another. Only those whose conditions were super obvious were spared.
That was what happened in the General Elections (GE) 2011 – a super big issue happened for PAP. It lost a GRC, almost lost 2 GRCs and an SMC. A newbie politician, Nicole Seah, almost unseated former PM Goh Chok Tong (GCT), if not for the presence of the strongly pro-PAP MacPherson ward, then part of Marine Parade GRC, that kept GCT and his team afloat.
And so, like a typical East Asian authority figure, at micro-level, when the “something big” happened, they try to maintain control by throwing out sweets and goodies (think CHAS, Medishield Life and the Pioneer Generation Package), putting on (at least) an appearance of listening (the Our Singapore Conversation) and loosening some aspects of the iron fist (like how PAP MPs and ministers tried to put on a kinder, gentler image and tolerating some dissent on their Facebook pages until GE 2015), and when the “sweets” and loosening calmed things down, the iron fist reverted again with new measures to prevent a repeat scenario – like the Administration of Justice Act, POFMA, making the minister’s decision on detentions under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act final and going out of the way to change the rules to ensure that only Halimah Yacob could be president.
Like how after a huge eruption happened at home, especially a Chinese one, the authority figures will usually revert to the harsh way of running the house and/or implement harsher rules once the carrot calmed things down for a while.
Gaslighting – it is not just the PAP that does it. Most of us who grew up in Chinese homes will know that the slightest hint of dissent would usually not be brooked, not even a slight frown, or expression of hurt or frustration by policies implemented, in the name of “honouring/respecting the authority figure”.
Questioning their decisions or policy directions, no matter how sensible the questions are, would get the response of “You think you are very smart? Don’t you know how grateful you should be living in this home? You get all three meals and a shelter unlike children in Africa. If you are not happy, shift out!”, is exactly the same kind of response the PAP and their influencers use, though at micro-level it is often cruder in nature.
It is either that or we would be threatened with being thrown out of the house arbitrarily or made to sleep in a dark, hot, mosquito infested room, for failing to toe lines, even if the trip-up was innocent and innocuous, just like how Hougang and Potong Pasir SMCs had their upgradings denied when they voted in Opposition candidates.
Unfortunately, in the East Asian mentality, those under authority are viewed by those in authority as something of their property, They (the ruled) belong to them (the rulers) and they (the ruled) exist for their (the ruler’s) benefit. That was why the PAP had no problem with raising the GST and water prices after their huge landslide win in GE 2015. Similar scenarios like these also play out at micro levels, in homes, workplaces and schools, albeit in different forms.
Case in point was how Amy Chua described the manner she treated her daughters in an extract from her book published in the Wall Street Journal.
Nas Daily and PAP influencers – they are just like the (outsider) uncles and aunties that authority figures at home would bring in to tell us either by yelling, hollering or putting on a nice face (Nas Daily), how good the authority figure in question is, to “be grateful” to the authority figure in question and cooperate with them. Some of these influencers choose to join the system either because they have been conditioned into it through its systemic nature and/or the cult of authority or because of the mentality that, if you can’t beat them, you join them. Influences deemed subversive to the East Asian mentality, values and line, like friends (even if they are good ones) and or films/shows are often heavily frowned on and thrown out, like how the PAP throws out foreign press that criticises it.
Contrast that with the West where it is perfectly fine to call other civilisations superior to theirs and engage in self-criticism of their own civilisation, though on the West, there is the other extreme to it, that of cultural nihilism.
But the question is, what about issues such as 38 Oxley Road and how does it fit in? What happened in 38 Oxley Road is like how when an East Asian parent respond when they get caught looking into their child’s diary or private lives and/or stealing their money (which does happen in some homes) and a subsequent storm emerges – they quietly and stoically try to tide through it and deflect away the “tantrum throwing”, while getting those outside uncles and aunties (the IBs) to “fix” the issue, maintaining course and finding ways to hit back in the future (like Li Shengwu’s prosecution).
It is only if the parent figure were get caught in an affair will they have their authority and ability to control eroded, like how 1MDB led to the BN’s downfall, but that is still an “if”.
Why am I bringing this up?
At the end of the day, this culture is not healthy for us. The reason why Chinese civilisation, in spite of its super long history, has produced far fewer inventions than the Western one in the span of its much shorter history, is because the East Asian mentality has always been about control and compliance and that’s why in the modern period, we — by and large — find ourselves mimicking and building on what came from the West (while simultaneously badmouthing them) instead of being the pacesetters.
Also, many have been hurt badly and are suffering from mental or emotional disorders or its negative effects, including myself, because of this cultural system and mentality, with many afraid to talk about it as it is difficult to find anyone to do so, in part because most fellow East Asians won’t really understand the issue because of its systemic-cultural causes, and also because in our culture it’s not easy to do so as well. And I think if we want change, it’s not just a change in leaders. It must also be a change in this cultural system too.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
29 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
29 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Commentaries

Lim Tean criticizes Govt’s rejection of basic income report, urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices

Lim Tean, leader of Peoples Voice (PV), criticizes the government’s defensive response to the basic living income report, accusing it of avoiding reality.

He calls on citizens to assess affordability and choose MPs who can truly enhance their lives in the upcoming election.

Published

1 year ago

on

15 September 2023

By

SINGAPORE: A recently published report, “Minimum Income Standard 2023: Household Budgets in a Time of Rising Costs,” unveils figures detailing the necessary income households require to maintain a basic standard of living, using the Minimum Income Standard (MIS) method.

The newly released study, spearheaded by Dr Ng Kok Hoe of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) specifically focuses on working-age households in 2021 and presents the latest MIS budgets, adjusted for inflation from 2020 to 2022.

The report detailed that:

  • The “reasonable starting point” for a living wage in Singapore was S$2,906 a month.
  • A single parent with a child aged two to six required S$3,218 per month.
  • Partnered parents with two children, one aged between seven and 12 and the other between 13 and 18, required S$6,426 a month.
  • A single elderly individual required S$1,421 a month.
  • Budgets for both single and partnered parent households averaged around S$1,600 per member. Given recent price inflation, these figures have risen by up to 5% in the current report.

Singapore Govt challenges MIS 2023 report’s representation of basic needs

Regrettably, on Thursday (14 Sept), the Finance Ministry (MOF), Manpower Ministry (MOM), and Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) jointly issued a statement dismissing the idea suggested by the report, claiming that minimum household income requirements amid inflation “might not accurately reflect basic needs”.

Instead, they claimed that findings should be seen as “what individuals would like to have.”, and further defended their stances for the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) and other measures to uplift lower-wage workers.

The government argued that “a universal wage floor is not necessarily the best way” to ensure decent wages for lower-wage workers.

The government’s statement also questions the methodology of the Minimum Income Standards (MIS) report, highlighting limitations such as its reliance on respondent profiles and group dynamics.

“The MIS approach used is highly dependent on respondent profiles and on group dynamics. As the focus groups included higher-income participants, the conclusions may not be an accurate reflection of basic needs.”

The joint statement claimed that the MIS approach included discretionary expenditure items such as jewellery, perfumes, and overseas holidays.

Lim Tean slams Government’s response to basic living income report

In response to the government’s defensive reaction to the recent basic living income report, Lim Tean, leader of the alternative party Peoples Voice (PV), strongly criticizes the government’s apparent reluctance to confront reality, stating, “It has its head buried in the sand”.

He strongly questioned the government’s endorsement of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) as a means to uplift the living standards of the less fortunate in Singapore, describing it as a misguided approach.

In a Facebook video on Friday (15 Sept), Lim Tean highlighted that it has become a global norm, especially in advanced and first-world countries, to establish a minimum wage, commonly referred to as a living wage.

“Everyone is entitled to a living wage, to have a decent life, It is no use boasting that you are one of the richest countries in the world that you have massive reserves, if your citizens cannot have a decent life with a decent living wage.”

Lim Tean cited his colleague, Leong Sze Hian’s calculations, which revealed a staggering 765,800 individuals in Singapore, including Permanent Residents and citizens, may not earn the recommended living wage of $2,906, as advised by the MIS report.

“If you take away the migrant workers or the foreign workers, and take away those who do not work, underage, are children you know are unemployed, and the figure is staggering, isn’t it?”

“You know you are looking at a very substantial percentage of the workforce that do not have sufficient income to meet basic needs, according to this report.”

He reiterated that the opposition parties, including the People’s Voice and the People’s Alliance, have always called for a minimum wage, a living wage which the government refuses to countenance.

Scepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs

In a time of persistently high inflation, Lim Tean expressed skepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs.

He cautioned against believing in predictions of imminent inflation reduction and lower interest rates below 2%, labeling them as unrealistic.

Lim Tean urged Singaporeans to assess their own affordability in these challenging times, especially with the impending GST increase.

He warned that a 1% rise in GST could lead to substantial hikes in everyday expenses, particularly food prices.

Lim Tean expressed concern that the PAP had become detached from the financial struggles of everyday Singaporeans, citing their high salaries and perceived insensitivity to the common citizen’s plight.

Lim Tean urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices

Highlighting the importance of the upcoming election, Lim Tean recommended that citizens seriously evaluate the affordability of their lives.

“If you ask yourself about affordability, you will realise that you have no choice, In the coming election, but to vote in a massive number of opposition Members of Parliament, So that they can make a difference.”

Lim Tean emphasized the need to move beyond the traditional notion of providing checks and balances and encouraged voters to consider who could genuinely improve their lives.

“To me, the choice is very simple. It is whether you decide to continue with a life, that is going to become more and more expensive: More expensive housing, higher cost of living, jobs not secure because of the massive influx of foreign workers,” he declared.

“Or you choose members of Parliament who have your interests at heart and who want to make your lives better.”

Continue Reading

Commentaries

Political observers call for review of Singapore’s criteria of Presidential candidates and propose 5 year waiting period for political leaders

Singaporean political observers express concern over the significantly higher eligibility criteria for private-sector presidential candidates compared to public-sector candidates, calling for adjustments.

Some also suggest a five year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before allowed to partake in the presidential election.

Notably, The Workers’ Party has earlier reiterated its position that the current qualification criteria favor PAP candidates and has called for a return to a ceremonial presidency instead of an elected one.

Published

1 year ago

on

5 September 2023

By

While the 2023 Presidential Election in Singapore concluded on Friday (1 September), discussions concerning the fairness and equity of the electoral system persist.

Several political observers contend that the eligibility criteria for private-sector individuals running for president are disproportionately high compared to those from the public sector, and they propose that adjustments be made.

They also recommend a five-year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before being allowed to participate in the presidential election.

Aspiring entrepreneur George Goh Ching Wah, announced his intention to in PE 2023 in June. However, His application as a candidate was unsuccessful, he failed to receive the Certificate of Eligibility (COE) on 18 August.

Mr Goh had expressed his disappointment in a statement after the ELD’s announcement, he said, the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) took a very narrow interpretation of the requirements without explaining the rationale behind its decision.

As per Singapore’s Constitution, individuals running for the presidency from the private sector must have a minimum of three years’ experience as a CEO in a company.

This company should have consistently maintained an average shareholders’ equity of at least S$500 million and sustained profitability.

Mr Goh had pursued eligibility through the private sector’s “deliberative track,” specifically referring to section 19(4)(b)(2) of the Singapore Constitution.

He pointed out five companies he had led for over three years, collectively claiming a shareholders’ equity of S$1.521 billion.

Notably, prior to the 2016 revisions, the PEC might have had the authority to assess Mr Goh’s application similarly to how it did for Mr Tan Jee Say in the 2011 Presidential Election.

Yet, in its current formulation, the PEC is bound by the definitions laid out in the constitution.

Calls for equitable standards across public and private sectors

According to Singapore’s Chinese media outlet, Shin Min Daily News, Dr Felix Tan Thiam Kim, a political analyst at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Singapore, noted that in 2016, the eligibility criteria for private sector candidates were raised from requiring them to be executives of companies with a minimum capital of S$100 million to CEOs of companies with at least S$500 million in shareholder equity.

However, the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates remained unchanged. He suggests that there is room for adjusting the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates.

Associate Professor Bilver Singh, Deputy Head of the Department of Political Science at the National University of Singapore, believes that the constitutional requirements for private-sector individuals interested in running are excessively stringent.

He remarked, “I believe it is necessary to reassess the relevant regulations.”

He points out that the current regulations are more favourable for former public officials seeking office and that the private sector faces notably greater challenges.

“While it may be legally sound, it may not necessarily be equitable,” he added.

Proposed five-year waiting period for political leaders eyeing presidential race

Moreover, despite candidates severing ties with their political parties in pursuit of office, shedding their political affiliations within a short timeframe remains a challenging endeavour.

A notable instance is Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who resigned from the People’s Action Party (PAP) just slightly over a month before announcing his presidential candidacy, sparking considerable debate.

During a live broadcast, his fellow contender, Ng Kok Song, who formerly served as the Chief Investment Officer of GIC, openly questioned Mr Tharman’s rapid transition to a presidential bid shortly after leaving his party and government.

Dr Felix Tan suggests that in the future, political leaders aspiring to run for the presidency should not only resign from their parties but also adhere to a mandatory waiting period of at least five years before entering the race.

Cherian George and Kevin Y.L. Tan: “illogical ” to raise the corporate threshold in 2016

Indeed, the apprehension regarding the stringent eligibility criteria and concerns about fairness in presidential candidacy requirements are not limited to political analysts interviewed by Singapore’s mainstream media.

Prior to PE2023, CCherian George, a Professor of media studies at Hong Kong Baptist University, and Kevin Y.L. Tan, an Adjunct Professor at both the Faculty of Law of the National University of Singapore and the NTU’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), brought attention to the challenges posed by the qualification criteria for candidates vying for the Singaporean Presidency.

In their article titled “Why Singapore’s Next Elected President Should be One of its Last,” the scholars discussed the relevance of the current presidential election system in Singapore and floated the idea of returning to an appointed President, emphasizing the symbolic and unifying role of the office.

They highlighted that businessman George Goh appeared to be pursuing the “deliberative track” for qualification, which requires candidates to satisfy the PEC that their experience and abilities are comparable to those of a typical company’s chief executive with shareholder equity of at least S$500 million.

Mr Goh cobbles together a suite of companies under his management to meet the S$500m threshold.

The article also underscored the disparities between the eligibility criteria for candidates from the public and private sectors, serving as proxies for evaluating a candidate’s experience in handling complex financial matters.

“It is hard to see what financial experience the Chairman of the Public Service Commission or for that matter, the Chief Justice has, when compared to a Minister or a corporate chief.”

“The raising of the corporate threshold in 2016 is thus illogical and serves little purpose other than to simply reduce the number of potentially eligible candidates.”

The article also touches upon the issue of candidates’ independence from political parties, particularly the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).

It mentions that candidates are expected to be non-partisan and independent, and it questions how government-backed candidates can demonstrate their independence given their previous affiliations.

The Workers’ Party advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency

It comes as no surprise that Singapore’s alternative party, the Workers’ Party, reaffirmed its stance on 30 August, asserting that they believe the existing qualifying criteria for presidential candidates are skewed in favour of those approved by the People’s Action Party (PAP).

They argue that the current format of the elected presidency (EP) undermines the principles of parliamentary democracy.

“It also serves as an unnecessary source of gridlock – one that could potentially cripple a non-PAP government within its first term – and is an alternative power centre that could lead to political impasses.”

Consistently, the Workers’ Party has been vocal about its objection to the elected presidency and has consistently called for its abolition.

Instead, they advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency, a position they have maintained for over three decades.

Continue Reading

Trending