I took a course about Biodiversity in Singapore the first time it was offered. We were told that the National Parks Board prefers to plant species that are asthetically pleasing, thus introducing many non-indigenous species imported from overseas into Singapore. This is understandable from economists’ and capitalists’ point of view, as these introduced species can ‘work’ for Singapore by beautifying the environment, thus giving Singapore its Garden City nickname.

These introduced species can pose problems for indigenous plants, such as displacing them to eventually become the dominant species in a habitat. Also, by preferring foreign species to local ones, the latter are not given enough opportunities to propagate and in serious cases, this can lead to extinction when there is simply not a wide enough gene pool left to effectively breed them.

Apparently, at the time when I took the course, conservationists in Singapore were having a hard time convincing the relevant authorities of the advantages of propagating local species, and that local species are just as attractive as foreign ones, in their own unique ways.

Compare this to the state of population management in Singapore. Singapore prefers to bring in foreign talent, indiscriminately planting them at all levels of society to compete with native Singaporeans, and in many cases, often displacing Singaporeans from jobs that they would have gotten if not because of the lower pay that foreigners are willing to settle for.

Will this eventually lead to the permanent displacement of native Singaporeans as the main component of SIngapore’s population? Even before this happens, have we already lost our unique, Singaporean identity? Are Singaporeans facing an identity crisis? What makes Singaporeans unique today as compared to our foreign talent counterparts, besides the fact that we have a responsibility to protect the country in the long run (which actually gives foreigners an additional advantage over us)?

Today, from newborns to retirees, we have a significant population of foreigners enjoying the fruits of native Singaporeans’ labour over the last few centuries. In fact, according to ICA’s data, only 59% of babies born last year had both parents who are Singaporeans. That’s including those FTs who received Singapore citizenship, so the actual figures for children of native Singaporean parents can be lower. With this in mind, what benefits do Singaporeans get for being Singaporeans, besides the very essential and basic subsidies for housing and education?

In fact, these benefits are actually available to foreign talents as well - foreigners are already receiving very generous education subsidies courtesy of the Government, and PR and citizenship statuses are given out at record levels in recent years, making FTs eligible for the same benefits as all native Singaporeans are. The only difference, then, is that our parents and grandparents built Singapore, while FTs today are being treated cordially by the Government, at Singaporeans’ expense.

I shudder to think about what will eventually happen to native Singaporeans - will we become extinct and displaced because of the Government’s pro-foreigner policies? Have we, or will we end up like a resort island, where the rich and powerful are mostly foreigners and native people mostly work in lowly positions, such as  cleaners, taxi drivers and hawkers?

Or will we end up becoming such an ‘endangered’ and marginalized population that policies have to be drawn up to protect us, just like indigenous people in Canada (called First Nations people), and minority groups in China, etc? It will be too late to change anything by then.

Personally, I think the decision of whether to put up a flag is a dependent variable of one’s love for his/her country. This feeling of patriotism is moderated by the individual’s perceptions on whether the government is doing its job to help him/her. (Of course, strictly speaking we must factor in ‘laziness’ but I assume that to be moderated by strong feelings of patriotism)

If my hypothesis of putting up the national flag = a sign of positive sentiment is correct, then by observing the number of flags (minus those put up by grassroots organizations as those are considered biased ’sentiments’) we can obtain relatively accurate statistics on the general population’s sentiments. Oh, we also need to exclude flags that are inverted or upside down, as those are likely to be symbols of ’silent protests’, based on the assumption that true patriots are those who will display their flags in the correct manner.

Someone ought to initiate a survey of the number of flags hanging outside HDB flats on National Day itself (minus those flags put up by RCs and grassroot organizations) - when, logically speaking, all the flags that are intended to go up would have already been put up.

By comparing statistics over the years, we can observe how big the variance is and determine whether there is an uphill, downhill or consistent trend in the number of flags displayed, and thus make deductions as to the general population’s sentiments towards the state of governance. Perhaps opposition parties can use such information to determine which are the most ‘effective’ wards to contest in the next General Election.

To sum up:

General sentiments on the state of governance = Total number of flags displayed outside HDB flats - (flags put up by grassroot organizations + inverted/upside down flags)

Based on what I see when I look out of the window now… Are Singaporeans getting less patriotic? Where are all the flags that we used to see hanging outside windows as long as 1 month before National Day?

Is this a sign of changing winds at the next General Election? Are Singaporeans getting sick of our economy’s purported ‘progress’ and ‘growth’, that seem to be evading the common man on the street?

These are questions to seriously think about. Sometimes, we don’t need freedom of speech and street protests to understand what is the general climate and opinion of the people. Just count how many flags there are.

In his speech at a National Day dinner held in Hougang, SM Goh urges Hougang residents to “study the annual accounts of the town council to ensure that the funds are properly used”.

Is he insinuating that opposition town councils are prone to misgovernance? What about PAP town councils? Since the ruling party runs the majority of town councils in Singapore, wouldn’t it be more effective to keep checks on their town councils instead?

Furthermore, unlike opposition town councils, these town councils have vast amounts of funds ($1 billion in total, according to TOC) in their kitties so all the more they should be monitored closely to ensure nothing goes wrong. It is also a fact that not every man on the street agrees with their ways of handling those funds (i.e. recall Holland-Bukit Panjang Town Council’s investment in the poorly performing Creative Technology shares?).

It’s unfair to the opposition that their integrity is being doubted by default, and people are being encouraged to cast doubts on them although there isn’t any concrete evidence of misgovernance to date in both Hougang and Potong Pasir.

Edit: It was later announced that there was a filing error with the SEC - Temasek only divested 5 million shares. But the paper loss of $10 billion still stands.

I read on Littlespeck.com that Temasek sold 50% of its holdings in Merrill Lynch at a nearly US$1.5 billion loss.

Including unrealized losses on its holdings in UBS, Citigroup and Barclays, it would mean a massive total of US$10 billion of Singaporean taxpayers’ money gone down the drain… in a couple of years or so.

That’s not including the loss of US$2 billion on its investment in Shin Corp, that eventually led to political chaos in Thailand as well.

While it may be true that Temasek and GIC may have made some prudent investments in the past, and that this paper loss may be regained in time to come (since MM Lee said these are long term investments)… I think these are too risky investments to put taxpayers’ money into.

US$12 billion amounts to about S$17 billion. Divided by 4.5 million citizens, we have about S$3,800 of loss per Singaporean. But that’s not the point really.

The point is, in times of economic uncertainty, instead of making use of a little bit of Singapore’s humongous reserves to ease lower-income Singaporeans’ hardships, the Government instead chose to let Temasek & GIC put billions of dollars into these poorly judged investments.

In a publicly-traded company, when executives make poor decisions that cost the company to suffer substantial losses, there would be pressure for those responsible to resign. Take for example Citibank’s previous chief executive who resigned prior to the announcement of losses amounting to around US$10 billion.

It’s not the same in the case of our sovereign wealth funds. In the same way that no senior officer was sacked over the systematic failures that led to Mas Selamat’s escape, nobody in Temasek or GIC is going to step down or be given the sack for losing billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. So what if we have hundreds of billions of dollars to burn? At this rate, if the economy doesn’t recover any time soon, or in the worst case scenario where there is a worldwide recession and these banks collapse… ultimately it is the people’s money, and Singaporeans will suffer.

In Singapore, the General Elections held once every 5 years is probably the only way (some) Singaporeans can display their (dis)satisfaction with the Government. This also means that it’s the only way for the ruling party to get a good idea of the general population’s support for them.

The unfortunate demise of Bukit Batok’s MP Dr. Ong Chit Chung has thrown up opportunities for both the PAP and the opposition parties in Singapore, especially for J.B. Jeyaretnam’s newly formed Reform Party. This is of course besides the fact that holding a by-election is fundamental in order to uphold democracy (Dr Huang makes a good point of it) - the voters should get a person they voted for to represent them (to be fair, one can also argue that voters are still being represented by the party they voted for…).

JBJ is well-known for his marginal victory in the 1981 Anson by-election, and this is a timely opportunity for him to attempt to make a comeback before the next GE, due in 2011. He is probably onto this idea already, as he has indicated to the press in recent days his request for the Government to hold a by-election

For the PAP, this is an opportunity to prove to the world (or at least to Singaporeans) that the Government is still receiving as strong support from Singaporeans, as they are always confident about. This is a particularly significant test, as the recent economic downturn and worries of inflation have affected many Singaporeans, and the party’s popularity at this time will be a testament of how receptive voters are towards the Government’s policies to help cushion the economy’s negative impact on citizens.

If a by-election is held and the PAP receives a strong majority of votes, it will be a strong testimonial of the party’s infallability even in times of economic uncertainty. This will certainly help boost the ruling party’s image as one that is strong regardless of economic conditions.

If a by-election is held, and in the unfortunate event that the seat is lost to an opposition candidate, there can be a silver lining in the cloud - the party will then understand that, perhaps, some of its policies in recent times have lost touch with the electorate. With several years more to go before the next GE, there will be substantial time and opportunities to make positive changes that would benefit Singaporeans more, and ultimately, enhance the party’s portfolio for the next election.

To shy away from the notion of holding a by-election by saying that “there’s no need to as it is not within Singapore’s law to hold a by-election”, or “the remaining MPs of the GRC will divide up the work proportionately to ensure residents’ needs are met” - can be seen by some as a sign of inconfidence. This is how not holding a by-election will instead hurt the PAP.

I like to believe that it is better to lose 1 seat now (in the worst case scenario of holding a by-election), than to live in oblivion about any possible negative sentiments of the electorate… and potentially facing the prospect of suffering heavier damage in the next GE.

Related post: Singapore’s policy makers living in the clouds

Singapore is ranked 5th in Asia, after Tokyo, Seoul, Hong Kong, and Osaka in the Mercer 2008 Cost of Living survey.

I would rather choose to live in Seoul, Tokyo or Osaka than Singapore or Hong Kong, as my impression of these cities are that they are much more comfortable places to live in (I can’t say the same about the stress levels in Japan and Korea, though) and thus worth the slightly higher costs, as compared to Singaproe.

In worldwide rankings, Singapore is ranked 13th, after the above Asian cities, as well as Moscow, with European cities as the others above Singapore.

When high costs of living != high quality of living

Despite the high costs and stress levels of being Singaporeans, we don’t appear to have as high quality of living as people from other cities at the top of the cost of living list. We ranked 32nd worldwide in the 2008 Mercer survey on Quality of Living, while most of the European cities that ranked higher than Singapore in cost of living were well above us in this aspect.

In short, as Singaporeans, we are not getting bang for our buck, as well as the requirement that we have (preferably unquestioning) faith in, and obedience to the uniquely Singapore system of governance.

It must be noted, however, that the study was on ‘expatriate’ cost of living - so it most probably did not factor in government handouts and other benefits. The reason for Singapore being so way high up is probably attributable to costs of private housing, since expatriates are not entitled to subsidized housing.

But I am sure people would agree with me that besides housing, there are so many other things in Singapore that make it an expensive place to live in (i.e. electricity, water bills, rising costs of everything, etc).

Surprisingly, Vancouver (yes, I’m not attempting to hide my love for this city) ranked 64th - way down the list compared to Singapore, but in terms of quality of living it ranked 4th worldwide. Now, that’s what I call bang for buck!

Another article in today’s Straits Times was about Acting Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong’s response to criticisms that the government has been too generous in allowing large numbers of foreign workers to invade our job market, directly competing with Singaporeans for jobs.

On concerns about foreign workers depressing wages in the lower end of the job market, he commented “I don’t think foreigners are to blame. By getting rid of foreigners, it does not mean the salaries of such workers will automatically increase if it doesn’t come with increases in productivity.”

Actually, he is partially right. Foreigners should not be blamed for coming to Singapore to work - everyone are entitled to dream of better lives for themselves and take concrete steps towards it. If there’s anyone to blame, it should be the policy makers - for being too receptive to foreigners, and ignoring the calls of Singaporeans when they offer feedback about how foreigners are taking away their jobs or lowering wages. Going so far as to suggest that low wage earners should improve their productivity to deserve higher pay.

It’s unfair competition in the first place - for these foreign workers live in dormitories or share rooms with dozens of their counterparts, live frugally, and most importantly - have few of the financial concerns that Singaporeans do - a foreign construction worker earning $600 a month does not have to worry about sending his kids to school in Singapore, buying/paying for a home in Singapore, paying for bills in Singapore currency.

Certainly, he has to send money home as well as pay off his debtors for his air ticket and agency fees. But, things are comparatively cheap back home, and however little money in Singapore dollars he sends back to India or Blangadesh, is probably considered not bad there.

I do not think that lower paid Singaporeans are expecting too much to ask for a salary that would allow them to live simply, as Singaporeans - having regular meals for themselves and their families, being able to afford to send their children to school, and continue to afford the same basic neccessities in life during times of trouble when inflation brings about price hikes in everything. If employers are paying Singaporeans any less than what is enough for these, I think its as good as violating human rights.

Why do I say that our policy makers are living in the clouds? They, being high wage earners themselves, are too far away from the low-income earners to feel any of the pain and constraints they are facing in making a decent living. They meet their constituents once in a while, then claim that they understand their predicaments, but tell them that they should work harder and accept ‘market forces’ instead of asking for more.

They make policies that are based straight out of economic textbooks without caring about feelings and sentiments on the group. They accuse low wage earners of being picky about jobs instead of considering why Singaporeans shun those jobs - is it about the work, or more about the indecent pay that is scarcely enough to pay for daily needs?

Maybe the government should consider setting up dormitories for low-income Singaporeans to live like those foreign construction workers - this way, it would save them from having to deal with the harsh reality of being a regular Singaporean - paying off HDB loans for the better half of their lives, having to pay ever-increasing bus fares to go to work everyday, and of course, bills.

Finance Minister Tharman is telling Singaporeans that pay rises are not the solution to inflation. Instead, lower income Singaporeans should be trained to improve their productivity so they can earn more.

The question is, are lower income Singaporeans really not productive enough?  Or, should I put it this way instead - how much productivity is enough? And say if there is a way to objectively measure productivity levels - what is the breaking point for humans, and what will the government do to help low-income earners if there comes a day when they are working at maximum productivity and still can’t earn enough to cope with the rising costs of living?

Singapore’s pace of life is already amongst the fastest in the world, and we are already well known for our people’s productivity (read: multitasking, one person taking on several persons’ job scopes - when we compare with our counterparts in ‘less productive’ economies).

Just several weeks ago a survey showed that the lowest paid workers had on average, no wage increase in the past year. I am not convinced that employers cannot pay their low wage workers slightly more, given that they can afford to give executives substantial pay increments.

Instead of urging our already stressed out and comparatively productive workforce to lower their expectations or to increase productivity, why can’t the government show some compassion for the marginalized population?

I read an article in The New Paper about how 40 passerbys looked on while 3 youths were struggling to rescue a 66 year old handicapped man who fell into the sea near the Esplanade.

This showed just how apathetic regular Singaporeans are - whipping out their camera phones to film the incident rather than lending a helping hand when faced with a situation where several lives are at risk. Deplorable behavior.

Just what is going wrong with our society? In my earlier post I pointed out how Singaporeans responded without sympathy to a wheelchair user’s comment on Stomp about how able-bodied bus commuters should allow wheelchair users some space to get off the bus, by not standing too close to the designated space for wheelchair users, and here we have a situation where 100% of passerbys (presumably a majority of Singaporeans) rendered no assistance to a life threatening situation despite repeated calls for help - even nonchalantly viewing and recording the scene like they are watching a performance.

The New Paper interviewed a psychiatrist, whose opinion was that Singaporeans are actually not heartless ‘when you see the amount of donations that they made in response to the crises in Myanmar, Sichuan and the Asian tsunami’. This is a fallacy.

As the psychiatrist pointed out, people do not render assistance for various reasons… and that goes the same for donating money. People do not donate money just purely out of compassion, altruism, or community-spiritness. I suspect major motivators for monetary contributions include feelings of guilt, display of wealth, peer pressure and other non-altruistic reasons. It is also the most convenient way to prove to others that ‘I’ve already helped’.

As one of the youths rightly pointed out, there could have been some people who could not swim, or as I like to think, most people (admitably, including myself) wouldn’t want to risk their own lives to save someone else - however, there was a guy on the banks who was holding onto a piece of canvas supporting the three people in the sea, who needed assistance in holding on… but nobody stepped forward despite the relatively low risk involved.

By the process of elimination we can thereby prove that a significant number of Singaporeans are indeed apathetic, uncompassionate and unhelpful. Although there were only 40 people or so at the scene, they are a random sample of the population and thus I believe to some extent this statement can be generalized to the overall population.

Bear in mind I’m not stereotyping all Singaporeans - I said a significant population, not all. I am aware of many people who do go out of their way to help people in need, but unfortunately they are a minority. I am also not comparing to other countries - it could be that the same trend can be seen in other places, but I suspect this is a bigger problem in developed countries than in poorer places where the sense of community-spirit is higher.

I also admit that to a certain extent, I can be apathetic at times, too. But I think in a situation where there is relatively little risk to my own life or limb to help someone in a life threatening situation, I would not hesitate to help.

Another thing to be ashamed about Singapore.

Just read an article on Stomp, sent in by a wheelchair user who wanted to let everyone know that he’s pleased with the wheelchair accessible SBS bus (link). He commented about how commuters should not stand too close to the designated wheelchair space on the bus especially during peak hours as it would cause difficulty for such users when they are alighting the bus.

The comments left by some Stompers appalled me:

“Even if I am wheelchair bound, I will not ask people to give way to me during PEAK hours cos I am a reasonable guy.”

Here’s one accusing the wheelchair bound guy of being an attention seeker:

“attention seeker. wakekeke u look more like a chee ko peh hahaha”

And here’s one that is totally disgusting:

“Peak hours and you are still inconveniencing ppl.”

It seems that the majority of commenters had nothing positive to say.

On the surface, this may appear to be a small matter. However, this reflects a serious underlying problem in our society - the mindset of many Singaporeans - selfish, unsympathetic and discriminating.

This would never happen in Canada - at least, people would not be so daring as to make such statements in public, even if they do privately think that wheelchair users are obstructing ‘normal’ bus commuters. There, wheelchair users make use of public transportation all the time.

Here in Singapore, I am sure if a wheelchair user wants to get on a bus, even during off-peak hours, many commuters would be unhappy about the couple minutes of delay in their journey to accommodate the wheelchair user getting on and alighting.

Furthermore, as I have mentioned in my previous posts comparing Singapore to Canada, the number of buses equipped for wheelchair users are so pathetically few, wheelchair users must be really patient to wait for an equipped bus to come along even if they want to use it. I feel that it is only ‘for-show’… an accessible public transport system requires several conditions to become viable: a larger percentage of buses to be adequately equipped, commuters to cooperate (how to achieve this with the typical Singapore attitudes?), as well as accessible pavements and bus stops.

What’s the use of having wheelchair accessible buses when our society lacks the moral support for handicapped people? Perhaps some readers would disagree with me, saying that many Singaporeans donate to charities.

Well, I think having a general population that is willing to donate to charity but who cannot empathize with handicapped people in their day-to-day lives is a thing we should be ashamed about - it only brings out the hypocrites in this segment of Singaporeans. Throwing money around is the easiest and most visible way for these people to show off how ‘generous’ and ‘empathetic’ they are.

Is this the kind of people Singapore is producing with its ‘world-class’ education system? What happened to basic courtesy, respect for others, morals and empathy?

This is not the kind of place I want my future generations to live in. I feel very ashamed about being a Singaporean.