The necessary privileges of citizenship

4sg

29 Aug 09, 18:54

This article first appeared in Hammersphere.

Employment: The unlevel playing field

The current system makes it cheaper to hire foreigners or PRs, compared to Singaporeans.

Employers do not have to make employer CPF contributions for expatriate employees. The employer CPF contribution rate for new PRs is much lower (4% for the first year and 9% in the second) than for Singaporeans. So effectively, foreigners are up to 14.5% cheaper to hire than Singaporeans. This is especially so for Employment Pass holders, where there is no foreign worker levy applied to them.

In addition, foreigners do not have to make the mandatory 20% employee CPF contribution, so their asking salaries can be lower. Singaporean men have to be given up to 40 days of leave per year for reservist training. This all adds to the cost of hiring Singaporeans and makes us uncompetitive through no fault of our own.

Suggestion: Apply the same employer CPF across the board

For foreigners, the 14.5% employer CPF contribution should be paid by their employers. It could go into a fund that would be deposited into the employee’s CPF account when he takes up PR or citizenship, or go to the Skills Development Fund if he decides to leave the country. This serves a dual purpose of levelling the playing field and helping to fund skills upgrading for Singaporean workers.

It was argued during the show that it is unfair to take away foreign employees’ hard-earned money. But the fact is that currently, employers are not obliged to pay any of this 14.5%.

For PRs, employers should be required to make the full 14.5% employer CPF contribution the moment an employee becomes a PR, instead of the current graduated increments starting at just 4% for the first year.

Tertiary fees: Taxpayers subsidising foreigners

It is puzzling why the Ministry of Education chooses to subsidize foreigners’ education in our local polytechnics and universities so excessively.

In the National University of Singapore (NUS) for engineering courses, Singaporeans pay $6,360, PRs pay $7,000 and foreigners $9,540. This includes a tuition grant from the Ministry of Education (MOE) to the tune of $26,400 each, which is available to all students, local or foreign.

This means that over a 4-year stint as an undergraduate, a foreign student enjoys $105,600 in subsidies from the government. This is a huge bill for taxpayers!

In contrast, in the University of California, residents pay US$8,700 per year in tuition, while foreigners pay US$30,721. That’s more than three-and-a-half times higher fees that foreigners have to fork out. International students are not eligible for any government-funded tuition grants.

Even in our polytechnics, all foreign students are given a $14,231 per year tuition grant by MOE, which is the same as the grant given to Singaporeans. As with NUS, the only condition is that they must agree to work in Singapore for 3 years after graduating.

In most other developed countries, foreign students fund the fees of local students. In Singapore, taxpayers fund the fees of foreign students. This doesn’t seem right.

Suggestion: Remove foreigners’ tuition grant to benefit Singaporeans

The tuition grant should be gradually removed for foreigners, with the extra funds used to provide grants to all students from lower and middle income Singaporean families

Education is not welfare. It is a very worthwhile investment in our future generations and our future workers. I appreciate that our universities claim that no student will be denied an education because of financial difficulty, but I feel that more can be done to help low and middle income families pay for tertiary education. This will help tremendously with social mobility.

While I support the government’s goal to make Singapore an education hub, we should do this by improving the quality of education here, not paying for foreigners’ education with taxpayer money.

Are Singaporeans anti-foreigner?

Generally I don’t think Singaporeans have anything personal against foreigners. I certainly can’t claim that notoriety since a large proportion of my close friends and colleagues are non-Singaporeans. But many of us disagree with the government’s overly liberal immigration policy.

We cannot talk about benefits to Singaporeans, PRs and foreigners in isolation from the large proportion of non-Singaporeans living in Singapore. In Singapore, 35% of residents are foreigners. Singapore citizens (including naturalised citizens) make up only 65% of the population.

Our proportion of immigrants is 50% higher than that of Australia, twice that of Canada, and three times that of the US, but we have so much less space and resources. We are already the second densest populated country in the world.

In other developed countries, PRs generally get the same benefits as citizens. But foreigners don’t make up such a high percentage of the population and are not increasing as such a high rate.

It is not surprising that that many Singaporeans are uncomfortable with the huge influx of foreigners. All these plans to increase Singapore’s population to 6.5 million or more makes Singaporeans very uneasy.

I emphasised on the show that I agree that foreigners are necessary for our economy, particularly since Singaporeans are not replacing themselves by having enough children. However, this does not mean that we should open the floodgates to let in so many foreigners. A little more balance and common sense is needed.

Citizens’ rights and privileges

It was argued during the show that foreigners and PRs should get the same subsidies and privileges as Singaporeans, because they pay the same taxes. This is not the right way of thinking. You cannot measure privileges received based on the individual’s economic contribution to the country. If that’s the case, then poor Singaporeans should be thrown out of their HDB flats, because they usually don’t need to pay income tax.

Instead we should recognize that there are both obligations (e.g., NS) and privileges that come with citizenship. Singaporeans have made a commitment to this country – a commitment that no PR can claim to have made until he takes up citizenship and renounces all foreign citizenships.

As such, higher subsidies and more privileges compared to foreigners and PRs are rights of all Singapore citizens.

Technorati Tags: CPF, education, employment, fees, foreigners, population

Related posts:

Affordable uni education for poly grads

http://sgblogs.com/entry/necessary-privileges-citizenship/359081

charlize

29 Aug 09, 19:23

When they thought up of past policies like the CPF scheme years back, the planners did not anticipate that in the future (present moment), singapore would choose to open the floodgates to foreigners at such a massive rate in such a short time.

For the government now, they are in a no win situation - all in the name of making a few more bucks. It's like opening Pandora's Box - CPF, low wages, housing, NS, PRs, foreigners, jobs, social welfare, education all coagulating into one massive social, economic, political problem directly from this open door policy.

How to balance all these? Nope, they did not think about it when they relaxed the immigration rules - they were justing thinking about where the next dollar would come from.

Singapore definitely needs foreign workers and foreign talent. But the situation now is getting too ridiculous.

charlize

29 Aug 09, 19:29

You know times are bad when even some of your long term PR friends are starting to complain about too much people in singapore and that it is getting too crowded.

angel3070

29 Aug 09, 19:36

You know something bad is going to happen when the government keeps on talking rubbish and the people stops believing in it.

4sg

29 Aug 09, 19:46

The Singapore Story – A failure of pragmatism

The Current Affairs Desk

In his inaugural speech, Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Mr Viswa Sadasivan said, “It has often been said that Singapore does not have an ideology – that pragmatism is our mantra and modus operandi. But if we examine our National Pledge closely, it is our national ideology – a set of inalienable values, precepts that demand adherence in the face of the lure of pragmatism.”

This challenge to pragmatism, even by our National Pledge, was something that was deemed so unacceptable that Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, who heard about it from the newspapers, while “doing physiotherapy”, had to intervene in the debate to “bring the House back to earth”, by calling the NMP’s arguments “false and flawed (and) completely untrue”. The NMP certainly did touch a raw nerve, when he suggested in Parliament that pragmatism is but a lure, especially for the ruling party.

The ruling People’s Action Party’s (PAP) concept of good government is actually a version of communitarian democracy. Communitarian ideology emphasizes the need to balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole, but its focus on social cohesion raises similarities with various forms of authoritarianism.

Social Control

Upon independence in 1965, a massive cultural transformation of the population was necessary for Singapore to develop economically. This was when the ideology of ‘survival of the nation’ was conceptualised. This ideology of survival has now become the basic concept for rationalisation which extends beyond pure economics to almost all spheres of a Singaporean’s life. If social control can be shown to contribute to economic growth, it is considered necessary for ’survival’ and hence ‘pragmatic’.

But are “pragmatic” policies or “pragmatism” always good?

It is but pragmatism which made Members of Parliament (MP) responsible for their estates. Town councils were introduced only in 1989 but 20 years on, its aim has not been achieved as Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong admitted in June this year. Its aim? To “give them (residents) a stake in the process of governance”. SM Goh explained.

How do you foster such a thing when in Singapore MPs do not run estates anyway, for all intent and purposes. Instead, the towns are run by professional town managers, employed by the town councils. So, why pretend that they are? As it is, many of our MPs and ministers are overburdened with multiple duties. Take Mr. Teo Ser Luck, for example. He is now Mayor, MP, Parliamentary Secretary and heads the Youth Olympic committee, along with other commitments. As for the other MPs, they have multiple directorships in private and government-linked companies, heads various committees such as Government Parliamentary Committees (GPC), on top of their personal careers.

MPs, being so well paid, should focus exclusively on national policies. This can only benefit Singapore and Singaporeans. We face challenging times in this globalised world, as the government has so often reminded us. More heads dedicated to these issues would be the logical thing to do and MPs should therefore be focused on more important national issues rather than be drained by municipal issues. We ought to have non-political grassroots organisations and leaders to take care of these things.

Grassroots

The Grass-Roots Organizations (GROs) are there to serve a purpose – they are PAP’s mouthpiece, to explain and convince people of the various government policies, and to be the eyes and ears for the PAP. The citizens who are somewhat supportive of the opposition are not allowed to climb the ranks of the grassroots. Moreover, the opposition MPs, do not get to be advisors for GROs, which are all under the purview of the People’s Association, which is a statutory board chaired by the Prime Minister. The advisors to the GROs (even in opposition held constituencies) invariably turn out to be PAP men or supporters.

This is the ‘pragmatism’ of the PAP – resulting in a system which is inherently communitarian.

The ruling PAP’s policies are two-fold. And this has been so for the last 43 years. It is simply this:

Keep the ordinary Singaporeans anxious and worried about their immediate surroundings their daily lives.
Leave the “bigger” things to the government.

If looked upon closely, this has been the underlying principle in all PAP policies. With this underlying principle, it is hardly surprising that the PAP now talks of devolvement of responsibilities through the town councils and the constant encouragement to “upgrade skills”. Politics in Singapore is reserved for the handpicked ‘elite’, which results in the almost total absence of politics from the general populace.

Just as the GROs are not natural but created to serve ‘pragmatism’, so is trade unionism. They are created exclusively to serve the PAP and its brand of ‘pragmatism’.

This is manifested through the appointment of top union leaders who are pro-PAP. These unions thus become para-political, which defeats the purpose of setting up unions in the first place. In the 50s, unions in Singapore were not para-political but truly fought for the rights of the workers. This should be the purpose of unions.

A Constitution only in form

Under the PAP’s pragmatic approach it governs through law rather than by law, making amendments to the Constitution as it pleases. This has led some to quip that Singapore does not have a Constitution at all. The PAP takes up more than two-thirds of the seats in parliament, and through the party-whip, PAP MPs are not allowed to vote against the party. Hence, constitutional changes are undertaken with speed as the absolute majority supports it, an aspect praised as a “Singapore advantage” by the government. The executive body is thus infused with the ethos of pragmatism; as such it is an instrument of social control, tailored to the ever changing needs of Parliament, the sole authority of law making.

The PAP’s pragmatic approach has inculcated a sense of apathy among the citizenry. Their constant re-emphasizing of the need for economic growth in a competitive environment has led to a generation growing up to be individualistic and ‘kiasu’.

Pragmatism has also made the ‘paper chase’ the sole priority of any student, so much so that many have forgotten the importance of being politically aware and in speaking up.

The effects of the pragmatic ruling party on the de-politicised students were beginning to show as early as in the 1970s; merely 10 years after the ruling party came to power. Mr Goh Keng Swee (the chief architect of modern Singapore’s economy) in pleading with university graduates in 1971 to take a personal interest in the affairs of their country and make an effort to understand issues and provide leadership in forming public opinion, said, “Too many people regard political ideas not as serious matters affecting their lives but as topics for idle discussion. Nor do they ask of themselves, what is the relevance of these notions to the situation of Singapore today, tomorrow and in the next decade.”

Dare to dream?

Communitarian democracy as practiced by the PAP is one of constant vigilance, where it sees itself as the guardian of collective interest. Phrases such as, ‘harming the social fabric’ or ‘ for the good of the society’ are often verbalised by the PAP when introducing controversial legislations or policies. Yet, beneath this postulation of a shift in ‘ideology’, pragmatism is still undertaken by the PAP as the sole driving force. And so the negative impact prevails.

The PAP’s brand of politics in choosing and championing pragmatism, has trumped and rendered obsolete all ideologies. But what good are the competencies and expertise of pragmatism, if it is not tempered with ideology?

Ideology is not a bad word. Ideology is but the core fundamental beliefs and political principles which exist independent of considerations for competencies and expertise. For how can we assess political leaders based solely on technocratic effectiveness and expertise in crafting policies, which pragmatism prescribes, without regard to ideology?

Just as it is possible to become too rigid and unyielding in upholding ideological beliefs by adhering excessively to principles without regard to consequences, it is equally possible to become so pragmatic that one operates without any core principles.

The ruling PAP in engendering an overcompensating desire to rid ourselves of ideology in the name of pragmatism; have robbed Singaporeans and even most of our political leaders currently in Parliament from forming inalienable values and precepts, which are critical in the forging of a true nation.

In the end, an over-emphasis on pragmatism limits the possibilities which we might otherwise dare to imagine and aspire to.

——

Read also: Our audacity to hope.

http://sgblogs.com/entry/singapore-story-failure-pragmatism/359086

4sg

29 Aug 09, 19:57

Originally posted by angel3070:

You know something bad is going to happen when the government keeps on talking rubbish and the people stops believing in it.

NUS students disagree with PM Lee on threats

The weakening economy, rather than race and religion, is the greatest threat to national harmony, according to NUS students.

In a non-scientific poll of 30 students from various academic disciplines conducted by the Observer, 70 per cent of respondents said they did not agree with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong that issues of race and religion have the greatest potential to cause social unrest in Singapore.

Lee highlighted the twin issues of race and religion as “the most visceral and dangerous fault line” in Singapore during his National Day Rally speech on Aug. 16.

http://campus-observer.org/content/view/231/33/

angel3070

29 Aug 09, 20:04

Originally posted by 4sg:

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong that issues of race and religion have the greatest potential to cause social unrest in Singapore.

When the people are thinking of earth but the government keeps on talking about heaven, you know something is seriously wrong.

4sg

29 Aug 09, 20:16

Originally posted by angel3070:

When the people are thinking of earth but the government keeps on talking about heaven, you know something is seriously wrong.

btw, angel3070, you not related to angel7030, are you?

Chew Bakar

29 Aug 09, 20:19

Originally posted by 4sg:

btw, angel3070, you not related to angel7030, are you?

Issit?

4sg

29 Aug 09, 20:28

dun know leh......we got

angle7030 than

angelindisguise and now

angel3070

Chew Bakar

29 Aug 09, 20:32

Originally posted by 4sg:

dun know leh......we got

angle7030 than

angelindisguise and now

angel3070

I'm confused too.

ray245

29 Aug 09, 21:19

Originally posted by 4sg:

The Singapore Story – A failure of pragmatism

The Current Affairs Desk

In his inaugural speech, Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Mr Viswa Sadasivan said, “It has often been said that Singapore does not have an ideology – that pragmatism is our mantra and modus operandi. But if we examine our National Pledge closely, it is our national ideology – a set of inalienable values, precepts that demand adherence in the face of the lure of pragmatism.”

This challenge to pragmatism, even by our National Pledge, was something that was deemed so unacceptable that Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, who heard about it from the newspapers, while “doing physiotherapy”, had to intervene in the debate to “bring the House back to earth”, by calling the NMP’s arguments “false and flawed (and) completely untrue”. The NMP certainly did touch a raw nerve, when he suggested in Parliament that pragmatism is but a lure, especially for the ruling party.

The ruling People’s Action Party’s (PAP) concept of good government is actually a version of communitarian democracy. Communitarian ideology emphasizes the need to balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole, but its focus on social cohesion raises similarities with various forms of authoritarianism.

Social Control

Upon independence in 1965, a massive cultural transformation of the population was necessary for Singapore to develop economically. This was when the ideology of ‘survival of the nation’ was conceptualised. This ideology of survival has now become the basic concept for rationalisation which extends beyond pure economics to almost all spheres of a Singaporean’s life. If social control can be shown to contribute to economic growth, it is considered necessary for ’survival’ and hence ‘pragmatic’.

But are “pragmatic” policies or “pragmatism” always good?

It is but pragmatism which made Members of Parliament (MP) responsible for their estates. Town councils were introduced only in 1989 but 20 years on, its aim has not been achieved as Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong admitted in June this year. Its aim? To “give them (residents) a stake in the process of governance”. SM Goh explained.

How do you foster such a thing when in Singapore MPs do not run estates anyway, for all intent and purposes. Instead, the towns are run by professional town managers, employed by the town councils. So, why pretend that they are? As it is, many of our MPs and ministers are overburdened with multiple duties. Take Mr. Teo Ser Luck, for example. He is now Mayor, MP, Parliamentary Secretary and heads the Youth Olympic committee, along with other commitments. As for the other MPs, they have multiple directorships in private and government-linked companies, heads various committees such as Government Parliamentary Committees (GPC), on top of their personal careers.

MPs, being so well paid, should focus exclusively on national policies. This can only benefit Singapore and Singaporeans. We face challenging times in this globalised world, as the government has so often reminded us. More heads dedicated to these issues would be the logical thing to do and MPs should therefore be focused on more important national issues rather than be drained by municipal issues. We ought to have non-political grassroots organisations and leaders to take care of these things.

Grassroots

The Grass-Roots Organizations (GROs) are there to serve a purpose – they are PAP’s mouthpiece, to explain and convince people of the various government policies, and to be the eyes and ears for the PAP. The citizens who are somewhat supportive of the opposition are not allowed to climb the ranks of the grassroots. Moreover, the opposition MPs, do not get to be advisors for GROs, which are all under the purview of the People’s Association, which is a statutory board chaired by the Prime Minister. The advisors to the GROs (even in opposition held constituencies) invariably turn out to be PAP men or supporters.

This is the ‘pragmatism’ of the PAP – resulting in a system which is inherently communitarian.

The ruling PAP’s policies are two-fold. And this has been so for the last 43 years. It is simply this:

Keep the ordinary Singaporeans anxious and worried about their immediate surroundings their daily lives.

Leave the “bigger” things to the government.

If looked upon closely, this has been the underlying principle in all PAP policies. With this underlying principle, it is hardly surprising that the PAP now talks of devolvement of responsibilities through the town councils and the constant encouragement to “upgrade skills”. Politics in Singapore is reserved for the handpicked ‘elite’, which results in the almost total absence of politics from the general populace.

Just as the GROs are not natural but created to serve ‘pragmatism’, so is trade unionism. They are created exclusively to serve the PAP and its brand of ‘pragmatism’.

This is manifested through the appointment of top union leaders who are pro-PAP. These unions thus become para-political, which defeats the purpose of setting up unions in the first place. In the 50s, unions in Singapore were not para-political but truly fought for the rights of the workers. This should be the purpose of unions.

A Constitution only in form

Under the PAP’s pragmatic approach it governs through law rather than by law, making amendments to the Constitution as it pleases. This has led some to quip that Singapore does not have a Constitution at all. The PAP takes up more than two-thirds of the seats in parliament, and through the party-whip, PAP MPs are not allowed to vote against the party. Hence, constitutional changes are undertaken with speed as the absolute majority supports it, an aspect praised as a “Singapore advantage” by the government. The executive body is thus infused with the ethos of pragmatism; as such it is an instrument of social control, tailored to the ever changing needs of Parliament, the sole authority of law making.

The PAP’s pragmatic approach has inculcated a sense of apathy among the citizenry. Their constant re-emphasizing of the need for economic growth in a competitive environment has led to a generation growing up to be individualistic and ‘kiasu’.

Pragmatism has also made the ‘paper chase’ the sole priority of any student, so much so that many have forgotten the importance of being politically aware and in speaking up.

The effects of the pragmatic ruling party on the de-politicised students were beginning to show as early as in the 1970s; merely 10 years after the ruling party came to power. Mr Goh Keng Swee (the chief architect of modern Singapore’s economy) in pleading with university graduates in 1971 to take a personal interest in the affairs of their country and make an effort to understand issues and provide leadership in forming public opinion, said, “Too many people regard political ideas not as serious matters affecting their lives but as topics for idle discussion. Nor do they ask of themselves, what is the relevance of these notions to the situation of Singapore today, tomorrow and in the next decade.”

Dare to dream?

Communitarian democracy as practiced by the PAP is one of constant vigilance, where it sees itself as the guardian of collective interest. Phrases such as, ‘harming the social fabric’ or ‘ for the good of the society’ are often verbalised by the PAP when introducing controversial legislations or policies. Yet, beneath this postulation of a shift in ‘ideology’, pragmatism is still undertaken by the PAP as the sole driving force. And so the negative impact prevails.

The PAP’s brand of politics in choosing and championing pragmatism, has trumped and rendered obsolete all ideologies. But what good are the competencies and expertise of pragmatism, if it is not tempered with ideology?

Ideology is not a bad word. Ideology is but the core fundamental beliefs and political principles which exist independent of considerations for competencies and expertise. For how can we assess political leaders based solely on technocratic effectiveness and expertise in crafting policies, which pragmatism prescribes, without regard to ideology?

Just as it is possible to become too rigid and unyielding in upholding ideological beliefs by adhering excessively to principles without regard to consequences, it is equally possible to become so pragmatic that one operates without any core principles.

The ruling PAP in engendering an overcompensating desire to rid ourselves of ideology in the name of pragmatism; have robbed Singaporeans and even most of our political leaders currently in Parliament from forming inalienable values and precepts, which are critical in the forging of a true nation.

In the end, an over-emphasis on pragmatism limits the possibilities which we might otherwise dare to imagine and aspire to.

——

Read also: Our audacity to hope.

http://sgblogs.com/entry/singapore-story-failure-pragmatism/359086

It's not an issue of pragmatism being bad per say. It's how do we apply pragmatism.

The use of the word pragmatism is so generic that almost everything can be considered as pragamatic.

Making laws that essentially crippled the opposition ability to gain more seats? That's pragamatic from the ruling government's perspective.

Creating laws that make it easy for almost any political party to rise to power, no matter how crazy they really are? That's pragamtic if you want to have everyone in the parliment.

Unwillingly to abolish certain controversial laws because of the conservatives living down here? That's certainly pragamtic, if you want to retain your seats in parliment.

Allowing slavery to be legal just because you fear a portion of your nation would rebel against you? Ah, that's certainly pragmatic if your only concern is to have an easy political victory.

The real question we should ask if ourselves is whether a so called pragmatic solution really pragmatic for the overall interest of our nation, or is it just a way to chicken out and run away from making unpopular decision.

Take for example, taxation. Should we increase taxation if we need more money for our social services? It is a practical solution, but to a ruling party, it might not be viewed a practical because they cannot make the general public at large agree with the idea that taxes will be increased.

Also, to say ideaology is somehow good without even defining what kind of ideaology you are talking about is a extremely stupid thing. Are we talking about conservatism? That's an ideaology? Liberalism? That's an ideaology as well?

What we have to ask is, identify what kind of ideas is the most sensible, most beneficial, and from time to time, is it the most practical solution.

Also, in regards to the de-politicisation of schools, what I have to say is this. People not being interested in politics isn't the only worrying issue.

Another worryinging issues is how Singaporean who are active in politics viewed politics. Many people who are being active are nothing more than a partisan hack.

Hell, many people on this very forum is doing nothing more than viewing politics in a black and white manner.

So all policies make by the PAP are somehow bad, just because PAP is the one making all the decisions? While opinions make by the members of opposition party are somehow idealised, just because they disagree with the PAP?

charlize

29 Aug 09, 21:35

Originally posted by ray245:

It's not an issue of pragmatism being bad per say. It's how do we apply pragmatism.

The use of the word pragmatism is so generic that almost everything can be considered as pragamatic.

Making laws that essentially crippled the opposition ability to gain more seats? That's pragamatic from the ruling government's perspective.

Creating laws that make it easy for almost any political party to rise to power, no matter how crazy they really are? That's pragamtic if you want to have everyone in the parliment.

Unwillingly to abolish certain controversial laws because of the conservatives living down here? That's certainly pragamtic, if you want to retain your seats in parliment.

Allowing slavery to be legal just because you fear a portion of your nation would rebel against you? Ah, that's certainly pragmatic if your only concern is to have an easy political victory.

The real question we should ask if ourselves is whether a so called pragmatic solution really pragmatic for the overall interest of our nation, or is it just a way to chicken out and run away from making unpopular decision.

Take for example, taxation. Should we increase taxation if we need more money for our social services? It is a practical solution, but to a ruling party, it might not be viewed a practical because they cannot make the general public at large agree with the idea that taxes will be increased.

Also, to say ideaology is somehow good without even defining what kind of ideaology you are talking about is a extremely stupid thing. Are we talking about conservatism? That's an ideaology? Liberalism? That's an ideaology as well?

What we have to ask is, identify what kind of ideas is the most sensible, most beneficial, and from time to time, is it the most practical solution.

Also, in regards to the de-politicisation of schools, what I have to say is this. People not being interested in politics isn't the only worrying issue.

Another worryinging issues is how Singaporean who are active in politics viewed politics. Many people who are being active are nothing more than a partisan hack.

Hell, many people on this very forum is doing nothing more than viewing politics in a black and white manner.

So all policies make by the PAP are somehow bad, just because PAP is the one making all the decisions? While opinions make by the members of opposition party are somehow idealised, just because they disagree with the PAP?

Pragmatism is being used by the party to entrench their position rather than for the good of SIngapore and Singaporeans nowadays.

Haiz.

4sg

29 Aug 09, 21:38

Yeah, go on with putting words in other people's mouth.

You have not fully understood what the blogger was saying before responding.

charlize

29 Aug 09, 21:45

Originally posted by 4sg:

Yeah, go on with putting words in other people's mouth.

You have not fully understood what the blogger was saying before responding.

I guess you must be referring to me?

Agreed. I was placing more emphasis by looking more at the first few paragraphs.

His later paragraphs not as much.

I edited one word above.

4sg

29 Aug 09, 22:29

Originally posted by charlize:

I guess you must be referring to me?

Agreed. I was placing more emphasis by looking more at the first few paragraphs.

His later paragraphs not as much.

I edited one word above.

Pls charlize, not you, can?

seyKai

29 Aug 09, 23:15

got privilege meh? i thog all are born-to-be-slave

ray245

30 Aug 09, 01:42

Originally posted by 4sg:

Yeah, go on with putting words in other people's mouth.

You have not fully understood what the blogger was saying before responding.

Point out the part where I have created a strawman.

reyes

30 Aug 09, 13:46

i think singaporean are not against foreigners but against govt policies that they feel frustrated and tgt it at foreigners instead.

should we chase the govt or the foreigners away?

automator

30 Aug 09, 14:42

Originally posted by 4sg:

btw, angel3070, you not related to angel7030, are you?

I think they are whore collegues from geylang

automator

30 Aug 09, 14:43

Originally posted by reyes:

i think singaporean are not against foreigners but against govt policies that they feel frustrated and tgt it at foreigners instead.

should we chase the govt or the foreigners away?

You say is it easier to chase the govt or the foreigners?

We just vote for the opposition party and the government will be chased out.

But how are you going to chase the foreigners?

pearlie27

30 Aug 09, 15:30

That shows how removed he is from the ground!

charlize

30 Aug 09, 18:50

Originally posted by pearlie27:

The weakening economy, rather the race and religion, is the greatest threat to national harmony, according to NUS students.>

That shows how removed he is from the ground!

No, no, it's just that his thinking is way ahead from us lesser mortals.

reyes

30 Aug 09, 19:48

You say is it easier to chase the govt or the foreigners?

We just vote for the opposition party and the government will be chased out.

But how are you going to chase the foreigners?

change the govt, the new govt maybe will listen more to singaporean wishes which will in turn change the national policy to reduce foreign workers.

problems solve!

'

ray245

31 Aug 09, 00:55

Upon independence in 1965, a massive cultural transformation of the population was necessary for Singapore to develop economically. This was when the ideology of ‘survival of the nation’ was conceptualised. This ideology of survival has now become the basic concept for rationalisation which extends beyond pure economics to almost all spheres of a Singaporean’s life. If social control can be shown to contribute to economic growth, it is considered necessary for ’survival’ and hence ‘pragmatic’.

But are “pragmatic” policies or “pragmatism” always good?

How about actually define to us, what sort of policies can be defined as pragmatic for Singapore in your opinion?

It is but pragmatism which made Members of Parliament (MP) responsible for their estates. Town councils were introduced only in 1989 but 20 years on, its aim has not been achieved as Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong admitted in June this year. Its aim? To “give them (residents) a stake in the process of governance”. SM Goh explained.

Why are you still calling a policy that failed to achieve its goals pragmatic?

How do you foster such a thing when in Singapore MPs do not run estates anyway, for all intent and purposes. Instead, the towns are run by professional town managers, employed by the town councils. So, why pretend that they are? As it is, many of our MPs and ministers are overburdened with multiple duties. Take Mr. Teo Ser Luck, for example. He is now Mayor, MP, Parliamentary Secretary and heads the Youth Olympic committee, along with other commitments. As for the other MPs, they have multiple directorships in private and government-linked companies, heads various committees such as Government Parliamentary Committees (GPC), on top of their personal careers.

No argument here.

MPs, being so well paid, should focus exclusively on national policies. This can only benefit Singapore and Singaporeans.

No argument here.

More heads dedicated to these issues would be the logical thing to do and MPs should therefore be focused on more important national issues rather than be drained by municipal issues. We ought to have non-political grassroots organisations and leaders to take care of these things.

This is the ‘pragmatism’ of the PAP – resulting in a system which is inherently communitarian.

And there is something wrong with being a communitarian?

The ruling PAP’s policies are two-fold. And this has been so for the last 43 years. It is simply this:

Keep the ordinary Singaporeans anxious and worried about their immediate surroundings their daily lives.

Meh, that says something about how the society of Singapore isn’t it.

Leave the “bigger” things to the government.

Of course we should leave some of the bigger things to the government. Singapore has never been a direct democracy, nor should it be.

If looked upon closely, this has been the underlying principle in all PAP policies. With this underlying principle, it is hardly surprising that the PAP now talks of devolvement of responsibilities through the town councils and the constant encouragement to “upgrade skills”. Politics in Singapore is reserved for the handpicked ‘elite’, which results in the almost total absence of politics from the general populace.

The management of the nation is something that should be run by the elite. Democracy is simply a way for us to elect the best representative we have to offer to serve the public interest.

Just as the GROs are not natural but created to serve ‘pragmatism’, so is trade unionism. They are created exclusively to serve the PAP and its brand of ‘pragmatism’.

This is manifested through the appointment of top union leaders who are pro-PAP. These unions thus become para-political, which defeats the purpose of setting up unions in the first place. In the 50s, unions in Singapore were not para-political but truly fought for the rights of the workers. This should be the purpose of unions.

So you are saying that the unions should have even more influence? You are going to make the unions a political force?

How are you going to ensure that the interest of the workers can work hand in hand with the national interest? So what happens if workers start pushing for a minimum wage and pushing the minimum wage higher and higher?

Their constant re-emphasizing of the need for economic growth in a competitive environment has led to a generation growing up to be individualistic and ‘kiasu’.

And it is bad idea…? Are you saying Singapore should not be economically competitive?

Pragmatism has also made the ‘paper chase’ the sole priority of any student, so much so that many have forgotten the importance of being politically aware and in speaking up.

Of course, speaking up is not the only thing that matters. Trying to speak up with no understanding of how the world works is

Dare to dream?

Communitarian democracy as practiced by the PAP is one of constant vigilance, where it sees itself as the guardian of collective interest. Phrases such as, ‘harming the social fabric’ or ‘ for the good of the society’ are often verbalised by the PAP when introducing controversial legislations or policies. Yet, beneath this postulation of a shift in ‘ideology’, pragmatism is still undertaken by the PAP as the sole driving force. And so the negative impact prevails.

The PAP’s brand of politics in choosing and championing pragmatism, has trumped and rendered obsolete all ideologies. But what good are the competencies and expertise of pragmatism, if it is not tempered with ideology?

Didn’t you just mention an ideology? Communitarianism? Isn’t that what you have been talking about for half a page?

The ruling PAP in engendering an overcompensating desire to rid ourselves of ideology in the name of pragmatism; have robbed Singaporeans and even most of our political leaders currently in Parliament from forming inalienable values and precepts, which are critical in the forging of a true nation.

How could any society get rid of all ideology? No matter how pragmatic you are trying to be, you will always have an ideology.

Do you believe in technocracy? That’s an ideology. Communitarianism? That’s an ideology as well.

Even the most practical solution do have its basis in an ideology.

In the end, an over-emphasis on pragmatism limits the possibilities which we might otherwise dare to imagine and aspire to.

How could pragmatism by itself limit the solution we can come up with? Sticking with the status quo isn’t pragmatism, it is conservatism. A Liberalistic policy can be practical, a socialistic policy can be practical, a capitalistic policy can be practical as well.