Gerald Giam

S’poreans and foreigners both paying the price

On 4 December at a National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) forum for employers and unions, NTUC chief Lim Swee Say and Acting Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong were both reduced to imploring employers to retrench foreign workers before Singaporean workers, in order to minimise job losses for the latter, who make up a sizeable bloc of voters in every general election. This is a truly sorry state of affairs in Singapore’s employment landscape.

Firstly, it appears the government has taken a cold, utilitarian attitude towards foreign workers. It is as if these workers are soulless machines, who should be simply discarded when they are no longer needed. In fact, each of these workers is probably the sole breadwinner whose remittances support a large extended family back home.

Secondly and more importantly for Singaporeans is the fact that if the government has to beg employers to retrench foreigners first, it implies that their policies so steeply favour foreigners, such that if left to market forces, employers would naturally want to shed Singaporeans first.

Mr Lim said it “makes business sense” to release foreigners first during a downturn if a Singaporean could do the same job equally well. His reasoning is that when the economy recovers, it will be easier to source for foreign labour than compete for local talents with business rivals.

The Minister evidently has never been a business owner himself. If both can do the job equally well, it will make better business sense to axe the Singaporeans first, since they carry the extra loaded costs of reservist duty (for men), maternity leave (for women), employer CPF contributions and paid childcare leave (for both). In addition, family responsibilities and higher costs of living compel Singaporeans to ask for higher wages to meet their living expenses. They will also be less willing to work overtime or commute to far flung factory locations as this will take away time from their families (or their second jobs, in many cases). Foreign workers, who are here without their families, have less reason to make such demands. It should therefore be the government’s duty to its citizens to ensure that the total cost of hiring a foreign worker is not lower than the cost of hiring a Singaporean.

The government’s argument is that foreigner workers — referring to blue collar workers, not “foreign talent” — provide low cost labour for our companies in good times, preventing these companies from uprooting and moving to lower cost countries like China and Vietnam, which will result in even more Singaporean job losses.

While this argument sounds good to the ears on the surface, it obscures the fact that no matter how lowly we pay our workers, the cost base of Singapore is still much higher than in China and Vietnam, or even Malaysia. Human resources firm ECA International Asia recently reported that Singapore has leapt 27 places up the global rankings of the world’s most expensive places to live in.

For most companies with operations here, the highest business expense after wages is office rentals. High rentals are caused in part by the government allowing “market forces” to run amok in the 1990s and property prices to rise so steeply that it has rendered our economy uncompetitive. Of course, the government will not admit that rentals make us uncompetitive — they will insist that our wages are the culprit. Nevertheless, even wages, while kept low for blue collar workers, have risen significantly over the past few years for senior managers and “foreign talent”, and this undoubtedly accounts for a large portion of companies’ wage bill.

The pittance paid to foreign workers has effectively suppressed the wages of Singaporean blue collar workers. At the end of the day, not only do Singaporeans lose out in wages and jobs, but so do foreign workers, whose living conditions and low salaries (after deducting the government levy) leave much to be desired for a developed country like Singapore which claims to uphold migrant worker rights.

The only ones who benefit are the corporations and their shareholders — and of course the people whose bonuses are tied to the country’s GDP growth rate, not the unemployment rate.

Is Singapore ready for a non-Chinese PM?

This is an article sent by a friend of mine to the Straits Times, which they declined to publish.

———–

15 November 2008

Is Singapore ready for a non-Chinese PM? Why or Why not? What do you think is holding us back?

I’m 61 years old and I still remember very clearly. At that time (60s/70s/80s) there were no extra efforts required to get the various races to mix and be friends with each other, whether in school or in the neighborhood. Even while I was serving in the SAF, we did not need to be told who we should visit and when. We were never made to realize who is a Chinese, Malay or Indian. We were just friends and never thought of the race issue. Why? Was it our school system? Was it our parents? Was it the manner in which the government delivered the multi-racial, multi-religious message to us?

Why is it that after 43 years of nation building we have to be constantly reminded who we are (i.e., Malays, Chinese or Indians). This is still clearly stated in our Identity Cards. The authorities need to make sure that there is a balance in every aspect of life in Singapore; from racial balance in housing estates to the GRCs. When the festivals come we need to be told that we should visit each other and find out more about each others’ cultures. We even need to have an interreligious and harmony day in school and at various national levels. We need to organize visits to each others’ festivals. What will it be next? How have we come to this? Why have we come to this? These I believe are the core issues

That is why I feel that it will not be made to happen…..never on its own, surely not by design anyway. It is not going to happen in my lifetime for sure. I feel that we need to find answers to the simple questions and correct what is going wrong. Why we cannot go back to the 1960s and 1970s, with regards to racial and religious harmony? When will we be told that we are Singaporeans. What are we doing wrong? How can we correct this? Then, we can ask the question, “Is Singapore ready for a prime minister who is not Chinese?”

Just because it has happened in the USA it does not mean that we need to find answers to the same question. I feel that the question is too early for its time. I fail to understand the purpose of it. Is it just another rouse, to make us imagine that there is some possibility however remote it might be? Let’s not kid ourselves. The majority will continue to rule; however the socioeconomic and geopolitical dynamics will help to maintain its own checks and balances.

My answer would therefore be a clear NO!!

Ajit Singh Nagpal

Transparency, please, ICA

The Straits Times Forum (6 Dec) carried this letter:

Fewer PRC nationals than reported

THE Special Report, ‘Young dragons’ (Nov 22) gave some gross overestimates of the number of PRC nationals in Singapore.

Our records show that the total number of persons from all Asian countries (excluding South-east Asia) who are in Singapore is 852,000. This includes China, India, Bangladesh and 30 other countries. Hence the number of PRC nationals is obviously only a fraction of that, and not ‘close to one million’ as cited in the report.

Likewise, the number of nationals from these same countries who have acquired permanent residence or Singapore citizenship over the past 20 years is 239,000. Again, only a fraction would have been PRC nationals, and not ‘between 300,000 and 400,000’, as estimated by the Tian Fu Club.

Ong-Kong Yong Sin (Mrs)
Senior Public & Internal Communications Executive
Immigration & Checkpoints Authority

I think it is plain to me that our immigration authorities have the figures but are unwilling to release the exact number of PRC nationals and PRs living in Singapore. This has led to the “gross overestimates” by even supposedly reputable sources like the Straits Times.

Why is it so difficult to release these nuggets of gold? Do Singaporeans not have the right to know how many foreigners from each country are in their midst?

Or is it because the ICA has something to hide — perhaps the fact that this “fraction” of 852,000 is closer to 9/10 than 1/2. I think our government owes it to Singaporeans to come clean with these figures. If it turns out that the vast majority of foreigners and PRs in Singapore originate from China, then they need to explain the reasons for this gross imbalance of immigrants. Are they trying to boost the population of a certain race, or is it just that China produces a disproportionate number of talented people?

AIMS report shows the way forward

The government-appointed Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) released its long awaited report this morning.

Firstly, I would like to publicly commend Mr Cheong Yip Seng, the AIMS committee and its secretariat for a very well-researched, well-thought through and balanced report, and for the very consultative approach they had taken throughout the past 18-months.

When I first heard about AIMS when it was first launched, I thought to myself, “That’s it, now the government is going to use this committee to justify their clamping down on the Internet.”

I’m glad AIMS has proven me wrong. Although I still feel they have been a tad too conservative politically, I think their proposals, particularly the ones on political content can be said to be “one small step for the government, one giant leap for Singapore”.

The AIMS report can be viewed at www.aims.org.sg. The committee proposed the eventual repeal of Section 33 of the Films Act, which bans party political films, and recommended tightened disclosure requirements for Section 35, which currently gives “the Minister” the right to ban any film that he deems to be against the public interest. This is a bold step forward, which I hope the Government will accept. In fact, I hope they go one step further to repeal both those laws.

The AIMS report also contained unedited letters from the public and corporations in response to its consultation paper. I was quite amused how many members of the public appeared to have overreacted to AIMS’ proposed liberalisations. Many letters focused on how liberalisation will lead to an erosion of morals.

Let me say that as a Christian, and a professed social conservative, I am the last one who would want to see any erosion of our nation’s moral fabric. However I agreed with AIMS that, with respect to the Internet, education will serve as a better safeguard of morals than regulation. The thrust of AIMS’ proposed liberalisations are actually in the political sphere. In this aspect, I am strongly in favour of liberalisation, because our country is lagging far behind our peers in the developed world.

It will take me a while to go through the 224 page report to give my comments. But in the meanwhile, the following is my feedback to AIMS’ consultation paper released a few months back. Since the final report is quite similar to the consultation paper, many of my comments still apply to this report.

————-

23 September 2008

Mr Cheong Yip Seng
Chairman
Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society

FEEDBACK TO AIMS’ CONSULTATION PAPER

1 On 29 August 2008, the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) released a consultation paper to gather feedback from the public on its proposed recommendations to the Singapore Government on engaging new media.

2 This paper is my feedback to AIMS’ consultation paper. They are my personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of any groups or organisations that I am affiliated with.

3 The responses are grouped according to the chapters in AIMS’ consultation paper.

Chapter 1: E-engagement

4 There needs to be a paradigm shift in the Government’s thinking regarding e-engagement. As a general approach, instead of pouring money and resources into only building its own online platforms (e.g., REACH portal), where it tends to only preach to the choir, the Government should venture out to engage the “unconverted” on the latter’s turf. This was rightly pointed out in AIMS’ paper.

5 The Government may need to be selective about which areas it ventures into. The vast majority of bloggers who do not write about political issues would not appreciate it if a government official posts a comment “correcting” them for inaccuracies in their blog postings. However there are a few serious political bloggers who would appreciate a response to their ideas and suggestions, even if it comes in the form of a robust rebuttal from the Government.

6 Government representatives could respond by posting a comment on a blog post, or contributing full article response to the same blog. Serious blogs would be happy to grant the right of reply to the Government or any other party.

7 It would be preferred if politicians and government officials engage in their “personal” capacities — meaning there is no need to parade one’s full designations, titles and ministries when posting a simple comment on a blog. Blogosphere is an egalitarian society where the quality of one’s ideas counts more than the titles one carries.

8 Civil servants should be allowed to comment on policy matters outside the purview of their ministries, as long as they do so in their personal capacity and they do not divulge classified information. They should not be required to seek their permanent secretaries’ approval before speaking or writing to the media (including online media) on matters that does not directly concern their ministry.

9 The Information Ministry is already actively monitoring blogs and Internet forums. The Government should acknowledge some of the good ideas that are generated online, instead of constantly implying that serious political discussion is absent from the Internet.

10 E-engagement, if executed selectively and sensitively, could cause bloggers to be slightly more circumspect in expressing themselves on their blogs. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Internet experts have highlighted that “people are more polite when they know you are listening” .

11 The Government should consider issuing press releases, releasing embargoed papers or speeches to citizen journalists, and inviting citizen journalists to cover press conferences and official events. Credible socio-political blogs could be issued press passes like the Malaysian government did for Malaysiakini and other online media.

12 This is a good way to encourage citizen journalists to firstly, report rather than simply comment from a distance; and secondly, to provide fairer and more balanced coverage.

13 Ministers and senior officials should not be reticent in granting interviews with credible online media if asked.

Chapter 2: Online Political Content

14 Section 33 of the Films Act, which bans “party political films” outright, is an ill-conceived and unnecessary law. Various arguments have been put forward by the Government in support of the law. Most centre around the possibility of a “freak election” result due to a “scurrilous” video being released a few days before Polling Day.

15 There is no evidence anywhere in the world of an freak election result simply due to a false and malicious video being released in the last few days of campaigning.

16 Any falsehoods or misrepresentations can be dealt with using the existing Penal Code, Sedition Act or Defamation Act. Furthermore, with its unfettered access to the mainstream media, the Government can easily refute any false allegations, even if they are made at the eleventh hour.

17 The goal of keeping election costs down can continue to be achieved by current election laws which limit the amount a candidate is allowed to spend on each voter.

18 In addition, the Parliamentary Elections Act could be amended to require any party political films to clearly state the sponsor of the video, as is required in the US, Australia and other developed countries. This will provide viewers a frame of reference to judge the partisan nature of the video.

19 Most importantly, we should not underestimate Singaporean voters’ ability to discern what is true and what is false and malicious.

20 AIMS has proposed a compromise “blackout period” whereby no new political videos can be released during the election period. A blackout period will take things back almost to square one. It will hamper political parties’ ability to communicate with the electorate during the most critical period when voters are making up their minds.

21 Even if there is a blackout period or if Section 33 remains on the statute books in its entirety, there is nothing stopping someone from uploading a “scurrilous” video to YouTube (or any of the dozens of video sharing sites). The fact that it is “prohibited content” would make it even more attractive to watch.

22 While I applaud AIMS’ attempt to push the boundaries by proposing a relook, and possible repeal of the law, I believe that anything short of a complete repeal of Section 33 of the Films Act would be disappointing to many thinking Singaporeans.

23 Separately, Section 35 of the Films Act (Minister may prohibit possession or distribution of any film) should be also be repealed. This is an omnibus law which gives the Minister absolute discretion in banning a film. If left in place, it would render any repeal of Section 33 meaningless. It should be noted that Section 15 (Prohibition and approval of films for exhibition) already empowers the Board of Film Censors to ban films.

24 I fully agree with AIMS recommendations regarding Internet election advertising and removal of the registration requirement in the Internet Class License Scheme.

25 In addition, election candidates and political parties should be allowed to solicit and accept donations over the Internet without overly stringent requirements to verify the identity of donors.

Chapter 3: Protection of Minors

26 Requiring ISPs to provide filtering in the form of Family Access Networks (FAN) on an opt-out basis is better than nothing. However FAN could give a false sense of security to parents who think that filtering provided by ISPs is going to filter out all undesirable content.

27 In fact, FAN cannot filter out a very large portion of undesirable content. At the same time, it could end up filtering content that the adults in the family may wish to view. For example, adults doing research on terrorism, drug abuse or gay issues could encounter blocked pages when using FAN.

28 It is much more effective to encourage parents to install Internet content filtering software on their home PCs . While PC-based filters do not filter out everything, they provides several advantages over FAN:

a. Access logging. Parents can view all the websites that their children access by checking the logs recorded by the software. If the child knows his parents are monitoring what he is surfing, he is much less likely to access sites he knows are out of bounds to him. Some software packages are able to email the daily log reports to parents.

b. Designating access time. Most filtering software allows parents to set the time in which the Internet can be accessed.

c. Auto lock out. The software can be configured to automatically block Internet access to the child if undesirable websites are accessed too many times.

d. Turning off filtering for adults. Parents (who have the password) can turn off filtering and logging so that they themselves can have full access to the Internet.

29 All this requires training for the parents. For parents who are IT savvy enough or are willing to learn, this provides the best method of regulating children’s access to the Internet and preventing them from accessing undesirable material.

30 For other non-IT savvy parents (who make up the vast majority of parents), there needs to be a concerted programme of parental education and awareness building.

Chapter 4: Intermediary Liabilities

31 I fully support AIMS recommendations in Chapter 4.

Summary

32 The following is a summary of my proposals:

a. Engage Netizens on their turf, not the Government’s.
b. Issue press passes and press releases to serious socio-political websites.
c. Allow civil servants to blog about policy issues.
d. Allow online political donations.
e. Completely repeal Sections 33 and 35 of the Films Act.
f. Encourage parents to install filtering software on their home PCs.
g. Educate parents on the use of such software.

33 I hope AIMS will consider these proposals in its final report to the Government

* * * * *

Submitted by:
Gerald Giam

Terrorists have killed one of our own

I am very saddened to learn that 28-year old Singaporean lawyer Lo Hwei Yen has been killed by terrorists who attacked the Indian city of Mumbai. This is the first Singaporean in recent memory who has been killed by terrorists – probably since the MacDonald House bombing in March 1965.

After reading about repeated terror attacks in Iraq, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and India, it is easy to numb your mind to all these senseless deaths. That is, until a fellow Singaporean falls victim to these evil doers.

I don’t know Ms Lo personally, but she is just a year younger than my wife. She was a lawyer and obviously a promising one, to be sent on overseas assignments alone at such a young age. In short, she was one of our nation’s best and brightest. I understand that she was recently married. I cannot imagine the pain her husband and family must be going through. May God grant them strength to persevere through this difficult time.

I utterly condemn these terror attacks. Over 140 people have been killed, many of them machine gunned down while in their hotels or places of worship. To me, that is even more unconscionable than exploding a bomb. How does one’s conscience get seared to the extent of squeezing the trigger, emptying out magazine after magazine and gunning down defenceless civilians? This all proves that the evil in humans knows no bounds.

May these terrorists face the full wrath of justice, whether in this life or the next.

Thailand’s protesters is subverting democracy

The People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), the group leading the anti-government (or rather, anti-Thaksin) protests in Thailand, is probably Southeast Asia’s biggest misnomer. Instead of promoting democracy, as their name suggests, they are subverting the democratic institutions in Thailand.

After more than 6 months of continuous street protest, the situation has taken a sharp turn for the worse, with PAD members and supporters storming and occupying not just the prime minister’s office, but both airports in Bangkok, crippling the country’s vital tourism industry.

Despite their claim to democracy, I see nothing democratic about the PAD. Not only did they support the military coup, which in itself is the worst possible subversion of democracy, but they openly advocated reducing the number of elected members of parliament and replacing them with appointed representatives from the among the country’s elite.

According to Wikipedia, the PAD consists of middle and upper-class Bangkokians and Southerners, supported by the conservative elite and factions of the Thai Army, some members of the opposition Democrat Party, and leaders of state-enterprise labour unions. Its founder, Sondhi Limthongkul, is a super rich media mogul.

I have always wondered who is financing those thousands of protesters. Don’t they have jobs of their own? Obviously not. My only conclusion is that they are being paid by the rich elite PAD leaders and backers to wreck this chaos on their own country — all to achieve the PAD leaders’ self-serving ends.

I don’t claim to be an expert in Thai politics, and I am also aware of some of former PM Thaksin’s shortcomings. I also support peaceful democratic expression, but these last 6 months of street protests and violence have proven that the PAD is out of touch with the needs of ordinary Thais, and have dumped their consciences for selfish gain.

Having a capable alternative party is in the national interest

Voices Editor
TODAY newspaper

Dear Editor,

I refer to the report, “Adversarial two-party system not for S’pore” (TODAY, November 17). Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong felt that the two party system cannot work for Singapore and that we are much better off with one dominant party.

Mr Lee’s familiar argument is that because we are small and lack talent, if we split our talent into two groups, we will end up with “two second division teams”. This is akin to saying that it is better to put all our eggs in one basket, than to have two baskets with fewer eggs each.

I disagree.

While few would argue that the PAP has performed commendably over the past 40 years, past performance is no guarantee of future success, as investment advisors always caution.

Mr Lee said that if ever the PAP becomes ineffective or corrupt, many opposition parties will spring up to take on the Government.

Therein lies the danger: If the PAP ever becomes corrupt, there will be absolutely no time for a viable alternative party to suddenly “spring up”, since political organisations take years to build up credibility. Furthermore, a corrupt government with firm controls on the levers of power will tend to use that power to entrench itself, stifling any potential opposition from arising. This is because their corrupt leaders will know full well that they will face prosecution if anyone else takes over the government.

Singapore may then be left in a disastrous situation of having a bad government with no capable alternatives.

For a small city-state like Singapore with little margin for error in governance, this could spell an unrecoverable decline leading to our very obsolescence as a nation.

It is therefore in the national interest for a well-organised, competent and morally upright alternative party to emerge, so that should the PAP falter, there will another party to take over the reins of government at the next elections and ensure that our country continues to prosper with interruption.

Obviously I do not expect support for an effective alternative party to come from the PAP, since it goes against its partisan interests.

However, I hope more Singaporeans will realise that greater political competition can produce not just better governance now, but improved stability for our future as well.

Regards,
Gerald Giam

This was published on 19 Nov 08 in TODAY.

PAP breaking films law?

A PAP activist who spoke at the party’s recent conference revealed to the Straits Times that “the party has put together some political videos” and “these will be posted on the party’s website” once the laws governing political videos are changed.

I wonder if the PAP is aware that according to Section 33 of the Films Act, which governs the “Making, distribution and exhibition of party political films”:

Any person who —

(a) imports any party political film;
(b) makes or reproduces any party political film;
(c) distributes, or has in his possession for the purposes of distributing, to any other person any party political film; or
(d) exhibits, or has in his possession for the purposes of exhibiting, to any other person any party political film,

knowing or having reasonable cause to believe the film to be a party political film shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.

But they probably know full well about the law, since they came up with it in the first place. So is this another case of the PAP’s double standards?

Socially responsible retrenchments?

A week after I wrote an article for The Online Citizen about the DBS retrenchments opining that “a company’s first social responsibility ought to be to its employees”, the government has now come forward to say companies should be “socially responsible” when retrenching staff. On first glance, it sounded like what I was asking for.

I was wrong.

What the Acting Manpower Minister meant when he said “socially responsible” is this: Firstly, companies can inform the Manpower Ministry of job cuts; Secondly, they can seek the union’s help in explaining measures like wage cuts or implementing shorter work week. In fact, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will be releasing some “guidelines” in a few weeks on “how to manage excess manpower”.

Knowing how pro-business our government is, and judging from their current definition of “socially responsible retrenchments”, I shudder to think of what these guidelines are going to contain. Most of it will probably centre around how to manage the retrenchment and communication process. Like informing the unions maybe a few days earlier (consultation and negotiations optional), and providing counselling for retrenched staff.

I wonder if the guidelines will contain advice to profitable companies which have enjoyed many good years to build up their war chest, that they should not be considering retrenchments at this time. This was the main thrust of my article and is what I define as a socially responsible corporation.

I agree that in dire economic times like these, some companies will have no choice to retrench to stay afloat. But I think the government fails in its duty to its citizens when it puts the obscene profitability of large GLCs and MNCs ahead of people’s livelihood.

Of course, the government’s counter argument will be that if these companies go bankrupt and shut down, then even more people will lose their jobs.

Let’s cut the hyperbole. DBS, with $1.67 billion in net earnings this year alone, is not about to turn turtle. Such retrenchments could have been avoided, period.

Sure, the government has no legal power to order commercial enterprises not to retrench staff (since our employment laws are so weak), but their statements have an almost equally strong effect on companies who are always eager to remain in the government’s good books. Ambiguous signals like this latest statement from the Acting Manpower Minister only serve to embolden large corporations to think they can willy nilly cut staff as long as the process is communicated properly from a PR standpoint.

Minority PM issue: Let’s drop this ‘not ready’ nonsense

I’ve been following with interest the debate about the issue of having a Prime Minister coming from a minority ethnic group.

For me personally, the issue is quite black and white: I would vote for a leader based on the merit of his ideas, values and leadership qualities. But if it is a choice between two equally good candidates, one Chinese and the other from a minority race, I would likely vote for the minority because I feel it would reflect well on us as a colour-blind nation.

Some time back, I asked an older Chinese Singaporean if she would vote for a non-Chinese PM. She simply stated that whoever is PM would tend to champion the rights of his own race over other races. Whether this was her realist assessment or her personal prejudice, I don’t know. But I suspect it is indicative of the way a lot of people — and not just Singaporeans — think: If I’m from the majority race, a PM from my race will defend the rights of all Singaporeans, but a PM from other races will only take care of ‘his own people’.

Put another way, we the majority race always treat other races equally, but minorities only defend their own kind. This is flawed and self-righteous thinking.

Who is to say that a Chinese PM will not champion the rights of Chinese over other races? Many would argue that this is already happening. The discrimination of Malays in the armed forces and the disproportionate resources pumped into mono-ethnic SAP schools are prime examples.

Ultimately I am persuaded that it is not Singaporeans who don’t want a non-Chinese PM, but the PAP leadership which chooses their Secretary-General.