Author: Gerald Giam

Gerald Giam is the Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC. He is the Head of Policy Research of the Workers' Party of Singapore. The opinions expressed on this page are his alone.

SAF overly conservative about Malays

I thought it was interesting that TODAY decided to report as their lead story West Point graduate Sean Walsh’s commentary about the SAF (“The Roar of the Lion City”, published in Armed Forces and Society), given the sensitive issues he raised, particularly about the “policy to keep Malays out of sensitive areas”.

His title for the article sounds very similar to the that of the most comprehensive book about the SAF written by British academic Tim Huxley, “Defending the Lion City” (2001). I wonder if this sums up the lack of originality in Walsh’s article. Although I haven’t been able to obtain a copy of the full article, based on what was reported in TODAY, little of what he raised was not already mentioned by Huxley in his book. [Afternote: Thank you to the two readers who shared the original article with me.]

On the issue of Malays and the SAF, I tend to think that the SAF is being overly conservative about the feared “security risk” posed by Malays. Perhaps it is based on an incorrect assumption that all Malays are ideologues who see the world only in terms of “My Race vs the Rest”.

During a forum with students back in 1999, then-SM Lee Kuan Yew said that “If you put in a Malay officer who’s very religious and who has family ties in Malaysia in charge of a machine-gun unit, that’s a very tricky business.”

I don’t think anyone is expecting the SAF to put anyone who has close family ties in a foreign state in charge of a front-line combat unit. But is this a reason to keep Malays out of sensitive units? Col Benedict Lim, MINDEF’s public affairs director, pointed out that the SAF has “Malay pilots, commandos and air defence personnel”. This is certainly news to me. Since I completed my infantry training, I have been deployed to so-called “sensitive units”, and I have yet to see any Malays there — even the drivers are Chinese and Indian. In fact, I once even had a Chinese platoon mate in one of those units who is Malaysian citizen / Singapore PR! (Second generation permanent residents are required to serve NS.)

Given today’s high-tech warfare, it is unlikely that soldiers in the offensive combat units — air force, navy, armour and artillery — will see their enemies’ faces or know which race they belong to before blasting them to smithereens. So the dilemma about “I-won’t-pull-the-trigger-because-my-enemy-is-Malay” will factor in less. If anything, it is in the infantry where face-to-face combat will take place, and ironically, that is where a larger proportion of Malay soldiers are deployed.

By perpetuating the widely-held view in neighbouring countries that Singapore is a Chinese-dominated country, the SAF is making itself (and Singapore) an even easier target for potential adversaries use racial politics to stir up negative sentiments among their populace against Singapore. Already, neighbouring country politicians frequently take gratuitous pot-shots at Singapore because of the SAF’s policies on Malays. While I am certainly not calling on the SAF to change its policies just to please our neighbours, the Government should be aware that policies like these make it harder to win the all-important propaganda war that accompanies any conflict.

In any case, the SAF and the Government would do well to uphold — to the last letter — their commitment to meritocracy. Background checks should be done thoroughly before deploying soldiers in sensitive units, but I hope it is not done in an arbitrary fashion that excludes capable soldiers simply on the basis of their race.

Education is the best social welfare

This Part 1 of a three-part series on the cost of education in Singapore:

Part 1: Education is the best social welfare
Part 2: Making higher education affordable for all Singaporeans
Part 3: Funding a new education compact


One of the highlights of 2007 Budget speech was the introduction of the Workfare Income Supplement a new “pillar” of Singapore’s social compact. Workfare, as its name implies, is an innovative way of dishing out welfare to low-income citizens, while still incentivising them to remain employed.

Workfare is billed as an important measure to stem the increasing bifurcation of Singapore society between the “Haves” and “Have-nots”. Incomes of the bottom 20 per cent of workers have been stagnant (and even slipped) for years since the early 1990s, while the incomes of the top 20 per cent have powered ahead. This presents a serious problem which cannot be ignored — both for moral and political reasons. Recent history is replete with lessons of “proletariats” overthrowing their “bourgeoisie” ruling class because of grossly uneven and unjust wealth distribution. Even in democratic India, the BJP-led government was unseated at the 2004 polls by the grassroots-based Congress Party, despite claiming credit for India’s commendable economic development in the past decade.

The $400 million Workfare package to be dished out to low-income workers seems to have pleased almost everyone, including the Opposition. Based on media reports, Singaporeans could be forgiven for thinking that this is the panacea to our widening income divide. It is most certainly not.

I see Workfare as at best a stop-gap measure to keep low wage workers a little happier until the next election. The $40 increase in monthly take home income is not going to make much difference to their standard of living. Unfortunately, as long as these workers lack the high-value skills and competencies needed to power a globalised, knowledge-based economy, it’s hard to see how their incomes would ever increase significantly within their lifetimes.

With this stark reality in mind, attention should instead be focused on helping the children of low-income families succeed in life and move up the social ladder, while still continuing to disburse Workfare to their parents.

One of the most important keys to facilitate this social mobility for the next generation is education, and tertiary education in particular. The Government has taken pride in its self-proclaimed “meritocratic” system, whereby anyone, whether poor or rich, can rise to join the ranks of the elites in society if they achieve good enough grades in school to win scholarships to study in top universities around the world. The current system has succeeded in producing an elite ruling class in our society, but will continue to fall short of the Government’s goal of giving every Singaporean a role to play in this new innovation-driven economy.

The former president of Japanese multinational Matsushita remarked some years ago to then-EDB Chairman Ngiam Tong Dow that our educational structure had some brilliant individuals perched like eagles on high peaks, but the average education level of the rest was not high. He advised that Singapore should concentrate on educating the masses to raise the average level and not just focus on the top scholars. He said that to advance as a nation, we need “high broad plateaus, not solitary peaks”.

Singapore already has an excellent education system at all levels — primary, secondary, technical and tertiary. However, for the most part, it is tertiary education (i.e. universities and polytechnics) that will make the difference between those who make it to the middle income group and above, and those who will unfortunately remain in the “struggling-to-survive” group.

This is not to be elitist and dismiss O level or ITE graduates. I have no doubt that there will be some among them that have the entrepreneurial drive and determination to start business and make it big despite their lower academic qualifications. However, these will be the exception rather than the rule. Singapore will need more knowledge workers to power our economy. If companies can’t find these workers locally, they will have to search overseas and hire foreign talent. The globalisation train is steaming ahead, and there’s nothing we can do to stop it. Most manufacturing jobs and even technical jobs will be shipped out to China, India or Vietnam sooner than we think. No amount of labour protectionism will save these jobs.

To prepare our workforce for the knowledge-based economy, the Government must give as many students as possible the opportunity to study in polytechnics and universities. It doesn’t make sense for the Government to constantly carp at the lack of local knowledge workers and import wave after wave of foreign talent, when it should be putting in place a more long-term solution by providing more opportunities for Singaporeans to complete their tertiary education. Human capital development is the best form of social welfare, and an investment with an almost guaranteed return.

In the next post, I will make the case for greater funding for Singaporeans’ education, particularly those from lower income families, to ensure that none of them misses out on obtaining a degree or diploma because of financial constraints.

News flash: Tremors felt in Singapore

I was in my flat in Sembawang at about 11.50am today and felt the building swaying for about 15-20 seconds. My friends across the island from Suntec City to Orchard Road to Clementi also felt it and some people even deemed it serious enough to evacuate their buildings.

SCDF says that they have “no idea” what caused it. I hope this was not a result of a massive earthquake in Indonesia or in the ocean, which could cause a tsunami.

Update from News Radio 93.8:
The tremors were a result of a 6.6 Richter scale earthquake in Sumatra, 400km from Singapore. News Radio interviewed someone in Centennial Tower who said that everyone there evacuated their building.

I’m a bit concerned that Singaporeans’ immediate reaction to an earthquake is to evacuate the building like during a fire. Although this might be fine for a minor tremor like the one just experienced, during a major quake, the correct action to take is to get under a door frame or a sturdy table. This is what I was taught when I lived in California. In fact the main cause of injury during earthquakes is not from collapsing buildings, but falling articles inside buildings and falling glass windows from buildings onto the ground below. Perhaps SCDF should educate Singaporeans on this.

Update at 13:53hrs:
Felt another tremor. This time it was longer. It lasted about 40 seconds. I hope structures in Singapore (including my own flat!) haven’t been damaged.

Also check out the websites of the US Geological Survey, National Environment Agency and Aaron Ng’s blog for updates.

Here’s what you should do during an earthquake if, God forbid, it gets really bad. According the the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), some earthquakes are actually foreshocks and a larger earthquake might occur.

Update at 15:11hrs:
According to the Jakarta Post, least 9 people were killed and hundreds of buildings, including the state bank, were flattened by the Sumatra quake. The magnitude 6.3 quake killed at least two children, a teacher and a woman in a market in the Sumatran town of Solok. At least two hospitals were struggling to cope with a flood of patients, many of them suffering cuts and broken bones.

Let’s pray that the authorities there have things under control. The Singapore Government should offer to send a Disaster Assistance and Rescue Team (DART) to assist. Now is a better time than ever to put into action what our ministers said yesterday in Parliament.

Update on 7 Mar 07:

Singapore MFA’s press release at 2157hrs on 6 Mar:
“Singapore has expressed its condolences to Indonesia on the earthquake in West Sumatra. Our Embassy in Jakarta has conveyed Singapore’s offer of assistance to the Indonesian government.”

I’m sure the Indonesian government is going to reject this offer, lest Singapore starts carping again about how much we have helped the Indonesians in time of need.

Projecting "soft power" but not going soft

In his speech in Parliament yesterday, Foreign Minister George Yeo said that “from time to time, we must expect countries to pressure us in the hope that we will then give way to their demands. Singaporeans know that if we give in to such pressures, we would only invite more such pressures. However, we are always prepared to build good relations with them on the basis of mutual respect and mutual benefit. We should still help them when they are in difficulty not because we expect gratitude or reward, but because that is the right thing to do.” (emphasis mine).

Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean echoed similar sentiments when he stressed that the SAF would continue rendering humanitarian aid and disaster relief to our neighbours, even though this help appeared to be taken for granted by some quarters. He said, “I still believe it’s the right thing to do. I suppose in some quarters, memories can be short. But heaven forbid, if we were to be called upon again…we will respond. We are all brothers in Asean.” (emphasis mine)

It is certainly heartening to note that the two ministers at the forefront of our foreign policy have emphasised the intrinsic value in rendering assistance to our neighbours, rather than solely focusing on a “balance of benefits” or quid pro quo. Although this by no means indicates that our leaders are becoming less “hard nosed” about foreign policy, I sense that there is a slight shift in the direction of using “soft power” to project our national interests. This will be a subject of a future post on this blog. Stay tuned!

Extradition Treaty with Indon will benefit S’pore too

Singapore and Indonesia have been conducting “megaphone diplomacy” with each other in the past few weeks. Officials and parliamentarians on both sides have been trading barbs over Indonesia’s sudden ban on the export of sand to Singapore and the bilateral Extradition Treaty that Indonesia so desperately seeks.

Indonesia has been wanting to sign the Extradition Treaty with Singapore for over 30 years. However, it is only in the past decade since the 1997-98 financial and political crisis in Indonesia that nationalistic drumbeats have forced this to the top of its foreign policy agenda with Singapore. In 1999, then-President B. J. Habibie accused Singapore of being racist and harbouring “economic criminals” as he tried to pressure Singapore to sign the Extradition Treaty. It was in this context that Habibie uttered his now infamous remark that Singapore is nothing but a “little red dot in a sea of green”, an analogy that the Singapore Government has used ever since to explain its dispassionate and clinical approach to foreign policy.

After Singapore’s and Indonesia’s new leaders — Lee Hsien Loong and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono — took power in 2004, the two countries finally agreed to move forward on talks on the Treaty. In early 2005, during President Yudhoyono’s first state visit to Singapore, PM Lee assured him that Singapore would work towards concluding the Treaty. But since then, Singapore officials have been uncharacteristically slow in working out the details of the Treaty to bring it to a conclusion.

The Indonesians have not bothered to hide their impatience with Singapore’s apparent delay tactics. In February this year, Jakarta suddenly announced a complete ban on sand exports to Singapore. Singapore was the biggest importer of Indonesian sand, which is needed for its construction industry. The Indonesians first cited environmental and border encroachment concerns. But then the Director-General for Asia in DEPLU (Indonesia’s foreign ministry) revealed to the Jakarta Post on 26 February what both parties knew all along: the sand ban had nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with applying pressure on Singapore to conclude the Treaty expeditiously.

The next day, Indonesian Vice President Jusuf Kalla lashed out at Singapore in an interview with the Financial Times for “refusing to sign” the Extradition Treaty. He accused Singapore of trying to keep “billions of dollars” in corrupt money siphoned out of Indonesia by fleeing tycoons during the 1997-98 financial crisis. He added that “Singapore often says there’s so much corruption in Indonesia. But when we want to work together on combating corruption, they don’t want to.”

A report in Australian daily The Age (“Singapore none too fussy about the source of wealth in its financial sector”, 26 July 2006) pointed out that among those believed to be hiding out in Singapore are convicted crooks who had embezzled hundreds of millions of dollars from Indonesian banks and state investment agencies. Many of these white collar criminals had bribed state bank officials to give them huge unsecured loans, and then fled to Singapore.

Singapore: Indonesian corruption is not our problem

The Singapore Government has countered Indonesia’s claims by pointing out that an Extradition Treaty is not going to solve its corruption problems, and that the main culprit is poor law enforcement within its own borders. It has also argued that the Treaty is a complex document that is complicated even further by the different legal systems in each country.

It is clear that the Singapore Government does not see any economic benefit in concluding the Extradition Treaty with Indonesia. A Merrill Lynch report in October 2006 found that one-third — or 18,000 — of Singapore’s high net worth individuals (those with over $1 million in assets) are Indonesians holding Singapore Permanent Residency. Their combined assets are worth a whopping $87 billion — prized foreign talent indeed! No doubt these Indonesian tycoons have contributed tremendously to the strong growth of Singapore’s wealth management industry in recent years.

Of course, not all rich Indonesians living in Singapore are corrupt. But the fear in the financial services industry is that once the Treaty is signed, many corrupt Indonesians will simply pull out their money and move to another safe haven to avoid extradition, and in the process hollow out Singapore’s private banking industry. So while Indonesia’s loss has been Singapore’s gain, Singapore’s loss (when the rich crooks pack up and leave for third countries) will not necessarily be Indonesia’s gain.

So what’s in it for Singapore?

So, from a Singaporean perspective, are there any compelling reasons for concluding the Extradition Treaty with Indonesia? In my humble opinion, there are many.

Firstly, it is the morally right thing to do. “Always do what is right, because it is right“, is what an American soldier’s mother advised him when he went out to war in Clint Eastwood’s movie, Letters From Iwo Jima. Just because Indonesia wrongly thinks that the Extradition Treaty is a panacea for its corruption problems, doesn’t mean that Singapore should continue to provide refuge for economic fugitives and profit from their dirty money. As a Christian, I am convinced that “righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people” (Proverbs 14:34, NIV). We will reap in future what we sow now. Obviously this cuts little ice with our self-proclaimed rational and amoral government, but that doesn’t make it any less important.

Secondly, taking a firm stand on money laundering will raise our profile as Asia’s premier fin
ancial services hub. This issue has been reported in the leading newspapers in Australia, the UK and goodness knows where else, causing much damage to Singapore’s squeaky clean reputation. The Government previously claimed that there is no need for an extradition treaty, because Singapore banks already have stringent checks in place to ensure that the Republic is not used as a money laundering centre. If this is the case, then the Government should have no worries that the Extradition Treaty will impact the money parked in local banks. If it turns out not to be the case, then it’s high time our banks put their house in order.

Thirdly, the conclusion of the Extradition Treaty will extinguish Indonesia’s main bargaining chip in its negotiations with Singapore. They have already agreed to renew the bilateral Defence Cooperation Agreement in exchange for the Extradition Treaty. In addition to continued access to training areas for the SAF, improved defence diplomacy with Indonesia will in no small way contribute to Singapore’s security. The Treaty will also remove the main bugbear in bilateral relations with our largest and most important neighbour, and open doors for further cooperation in a myriad of areas.

Finally, if Indonesia makes inroads into combating corruption, Singapore will be one of the main countries to benefit. This is the basis of ASEAN’s “Prosper Thy Neighbour” policy. Corruption is a scourge that is preventing the Indonesian economy from achieving its full potential. Although an extradition treaty is not going to fix Indonesia’s endemic corruption, it is part of the effort and would force corrupt businessmen to think twice before committing fraud and escaping to Singapore.

Indonesia is Singapore’s second-largest trading partner and Singapore is one of Indonesia’s biggest foreign investors. A growing Indonesian economy would be a boom for not only our exporters and investors, but our services industry as well. It is certainly not a “zero sum game”, as many in our government often see it. A Business Times report (“Betting on IT in Indonesia”, 1 March 2006) indicated that there is strong interest among Singapore’s companies in the Indonesian ICT market, which is set to grow from US$1.9 billion in 2005 to US$3.7 billion in 2010. Lower corruption means more efficient running of business and less “overheads” that need to be paid out to get things done.

Concluding the Treaty “early”

It is heartening to note that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicated yesterday that Singapore “would like both Agreements (the Extradition Treaty and the Defence Cooperation Agreement) to be concluded early”.

Hopefully this is the honest truth, and not just more diplomatic lingo.

Taxing the poor and then handing out aid packages "demeans human dignity"

Second Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam is expected to announce a 2 per cent hike in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) tomorrow on Budget Day in Parliament. This bitter medicine will be prescribed after only minimal public consultation, and with the mainstream media heartily promoting the Government’s line that it is a move in favour of the poor, despite the fact that the GST is inherently regressive.

I have been reading the memoirs of former top civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow, A Mandarin and the Making of Public Policy. In interviews he had with The Straits Times in 2003 (which were re-published in his book), he commented about the GST, which was hiked to its present 5 per cent in 2004. In response to the question, “Is (the PAP’s) social compact with the people in need of an update?”, he said:

“I don’t understand the urgency of raising the GST, which effectively increases the tax on the lower income people. Why tax the lower income, and then return it to them as an aid package? It demeans human dignity and creates a growing supplicant class who habitually hold out their palms. That is not the way to treat people. Despite the fact that we say we are not a welfare state, we act like one of the most welfarish states in the world. You should appeal to their sense of pride and self-reliance.” (pp 25-26)

Mr Ngiam, an EDB pioneer and former Permanent Secretary (Finance), is no bleeding heart liberal. In fact, he is a hard-nosed fiscal conservative. He made these remarks in the context of warning the Government not to “dance to the tune of the gorilla”. What he meant was that the Government should not breed a mentality where people depend on it for everything, including “dispensable items”. He felt that the Government should “just concentrate on helping the poorest 5 or 10 per cent of the population, instead of handing out a general largesse.”

“Forget about asset enhancement, Singapore shares and utility shares”, he said.

I still maintain that the Government can explore many other sources of additional revenue, as outlined in my earlier post. In that post, I suggested 6 areas in which this could be done:

1. Use the capital gains from Net Investment Income

2. Further increase vice taxes

3. Collect more taxes from tourists

4. Impose a luxury tax

5. Stop giving election handouts to promote partisan interests

6. Work harder at reducing government administration expenditure

Let’s see what offset packages for the lower income group are announced by Minister Tharman tomorrow. They are unlikely to be as permanent as the GST hike, and even if they are — like Ngiam Tong Dow says — it still demeans their human dignity by making them permanently dependant on government handouts for survival.

Community regulation, not prosecution for "No Pork" podcasters

In my previous post, “‘No Pork’ podcast shows racism is alive and well in Singapore”, I criticised the makers of that podcast for being racist. I also took issue with bloggers who re-circulated the clip while endorsing its brand of humour. Finally, I was saddened by the reaction of so many Singaporeans (including some people I know) who thought it was funny and saw nothing wrong with that clip. I saw all this as evidence that Singaporean society — particularly the Chinese majority — has a long way to go to come to terms with, and tackle our prejudiced attitudes with regards to race and religion.

Now that the news of the clip and the reaction has gone mainstream, with the Straits Times and TODAY newspapers both reporting it, I thought I should state my stand on what I feel the authorities should or should not do in reaction to this.

Although there are some grounds to charge the makers of the clip under the Penal Code (Section 298), I do not think this is the appropriate course of action that the police and the Attorney General should take.

Firstly, it appears the clip was made with humour in mind, not with a “deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person”, as is stated in the Penal Code. While it revealed the podcasters’ immaturity, insensitivity and their prejudice, Singapore does not have any laws against racist attitudes, per se. In any case, it seems the recording was staged, and there was actually no Indian-Muslim involved in it.

Secondly, this incident has proven the ability of Netizens to self-regulate — at least to some extent. After being flagged as inappropriate by a YouTube user, the popular video hosting site took down the clip, presumably because it violated their terms of service clause, which prohibits “speech which contains slurs or the malicious use of stereotypes intended to attack or demean a particular…religion…”. It also provoked a strong reaction by many bloggers like Speranza Nuova and blog readers (who posted comments) who felt that the clip was demeaning to Muslims.

I would imagine that if the police were to take action against Ximiwakoz, the goon who posted the clip, it would be mainly to demonstrate to the Muslim and Indian communities that the Government does not tolerate racial and religious prejudice, and to prevent any strong reactions from those communities in response to the clip. I believe that our society has progressed since the 1960s, and the authorities should not fear anything other than a measured and rational response to such relatively minor incidents.

Having said that, I do hope that Chinese community leaders will take note of this incident, and speak out against prejudiced attitudes towards minorities, which are so prevalent in the Chinese community.

Teachers should show the clip to their students to impress upon them that this is inappropriate behaviour, whether in public or in private. It is wrong, not just because we live in a multi-racial society, but because prejudice against other races, religions and socio-economic classes is intrinsically immoral.

Sylvia Lim: WP will not push gay issues in Parliament

Workers’ Party (WP) Chairman Sylvia Lim told a packed audience of over 80 people at the WP Headquarters yesterday that her party will not be canvassing for the de-criminalisation of gay sex in Singapore.

Ms Lim, who is also a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP), was speaking at a public forum organised by the WP to discuss the Singapore Government’s proposed amendments to the Penal Code — the primary criminal legislation that defines crimes like defamation, criminal breach of trust and rape, and their respective punishments. It was the WP’s first public forum this year and part of a series of events to mark the 50th anniversary of Singapore’s oldest political party in this November. The event featured presentations from several speakers.

Ms Lim kicked off the discussion by lamenting about the lack of attention paid to legal issues in Singapore by the media and the public. As a result, when the issue of crime was discussed, the “right wing school” often seemed to dominate the debates. She expressed concern about the sharp increases in prison terms for some offences. For example, if the amendments were approved by Parliament, the punishment for assaulting an MP would increase from 7 years to 20 years, and the penalty for being part of an unlawful assembly (itself a contentious matter) is to increase from 6 months to 2 years. Ms Lim felt that these new sentencing guidelines might further increase Singapore’s prison population, which was already the second-highest in Asia (as a percentage of the total population). This, she said, would not bode well for efforts to create an inclusive society.

Lawyer and TODAY columnist Thomas Koshy noted that while the proposed amendments included lifting of some immunity for husbands who rape their wives, it didn’t go far enough to cover all instances of marital rape. Party member Firuz Khan contrasted the process of enacting legislation in Singapore and the UK. He pointed out that in the UK, there were two Houses of Parliament, many non-government organisations (NGOs) and a diverse media to scrutinise bills before they were passed. This is not the case in Singapore, where the media tends to favour the Government’s position on proposed legislation and there is little organised action by NGOs to push issues. Marriage counsellor Anthony Yeo, who was the last to speak, encouraged ordinary citizens and NGOs to submit their views on the Penal Code, instead of depending on the Opposition to voice its disagreement.

WP reveals its position on homosexual issues

The issue of decriminalising gay sex gave rise to a heated debate during part of the question-and-answer session following the panel presentations. Two gay lobbyists in the audience questioned the apparent bias against gays in Singapore, arguing that it went against the Constitution, which guarantees equal rights to all Singaporeans. They wondered if the WP would be their representatives to speak up in Parliament for the gay community. The gay community was understandably upset that the proposed Penal Code amendments did not revoke Section 377A, which states that:

“Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.”

Ms Lim revealed that the issue of decriminalisation of gay sex had been discussed by the Party leadership. She said that while there was some “sympathy for the gay position”, there was no agreement among the Party’s leaders on moving this issue forward as a party agenda. Therefore, the WP would not be pushing that in Parliament. The WP chairman gave no indication that this position would change in the future. She did observe, however, that the gay lobby in Singapore was already very vocal and more than capable of pushing this issue on their own.

The WP’s stand of homosexuality may have surprised, or even disappointed, some who were hoping for Singapore’s largest opposition party to advance a more liberal agenda against the People’s Action Party (PAP) Government, which has been criticised by many as being out of step with the times on several issues, particularly with regards to political freedom and social mores.

In recent years, the WP has sought to distance itself from the confrontational politics practiced by the likes of its former chief J.B. Jeyaratnam and the SDP’s Dr Chee Soon Juan, in order to win the support of a broader spectrum of the Singapore electorate. Its position on not campaigning for gay rights is therefore unsurprising.

While a recent Singapore Polytechnic student-led survey of 800 teens aged 15 to 19 years revealed that half of them found homosexuality “acceptable”, a similar survey conducted by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) six years ago found that a much higher 71 per cent of young Singaporeans found homosexuality unacceptable. The young people covered in the MCYS survey would now make up the 21 to 25 year age group. It is widely believed that resistance to expanding the space for homosexuals is even higher among the middle-aged and older Singaporeans, who make up the bulk of eligible voters (63 per cent).

Even if one were to set aside moral arguments, this stance by the WP is certainly a sound political move which will put it in a good position to reach its target voters, namely Singaporeans who want an alternative but credible voice in Parliament to check and balance the ruling party.

"No Pork" podcast proves racism is alive and well in Singapore

There is a audio recording circulating the Internet in which two Chinese Singaporean men are poking fun at an Indian Muslim food stallholder by insisting on ordering pork, despite the stallholder repeatedly telling them he serves only halal food.

I was furious when I heard it. It isn’t funny at all. It’s not just extremely insensitive to Indians and Muslims. It is downright racist.

Full-time blogger Xiaxue posted it on her blog and remarked that it was “super funny”. Her post alone attracted over 260 comments, most of which agreed with her.

It turns out the recording was staged — the “Indian” character was actually a Chinese guy and the recording was done at his house. This according to the girlfriend of one of the men who recorded it. However, this does not detract from the gravity of this offensive recording.

Coming hot on the heels of the British reality show Celebrity Big Brother in which the participants racially abused Indian actress Shilpa Shetty, this clip and its response has revealed an even uglier side of Singapore. At least in the UK, the participants were roundly criticised by the public. Here in Singapore, most Chinese (including the makers of the podcast) don’t even realise that it is wrong. It makes me wonder if our façade about being a model of “tolerance” and “racial harmony” is a farce.

Chinese Singaporeans really need to engage in some serious introspection about our racist attitudes towards minorities. I have often heard comments from Chinese Singaporeans that “there is no racism in Singapore”, unlike in Australia and the UK. Who are they to make such judgments? Those of us in the majority race would never know what it is like to be a minority in your own land, unless they have lived in as a minority before.


“Chinese speaking environment” preferred

Another thing I’ve noticed recently is how job recruitment ads have evolved. Previously, they used to say “Mandarin speaker required”. Now the wording of choice is “Chinese speaking environment”, with the hope that non-Chinese will shy away from even applying in the first place. We all know that this is just another way for some companies to avoid employing minorities. Just look at these ads and judge for yourselves.

http://www.jobcyclone.com/job_desc.php?d=7383

http://www.bestjobs.com.sg/bt-jobd-unitedpersonnel-314512.htm

http://sg.jobstreet.com/jobs/2006/2/r/20/723622.htm

One of them, Zeal Infotech, asked for a Java programmer who is preferably “able to speak Mandarin” as the candidate “will be working in a Chinese-speaking environment with Chinese Singapore Citizens and PRs, or with Singapore PR invitation letters”! [read: We welcome all Chinese, even if you’re a foreigner, but non-Chinese Singaporeans should think twice before applying.]

This shameful state of affairs has got to stop NOW if Singapore is to become a developed society. It begins in the home. Parents need to realise that every casual generalisation about a certain race leaves a lasting impression on their children, many of whom carry their “inherited” racism for a lifetime without even realising it. But where parenting has failed in this aspect, the education system needs to revise its curriculum to not just preach “tolerance” (which leaves room for people to be racist behind closed doors or under the cloak of anonymity), but inculcate a genuine revulsion for all forms of racism — including employment bias and racist jokes.