Tag Archives: irl: singapore

Apr 30 2011

LOL ST Forum Pt 2

Being ‘elitist’ is more of a behaviour than a state. You could have the world’s riches and not be elitist or you could be poor and yet be elitist. I fear poor Mr Jason Soon does not understand this distinction. Here’s his (not very well-thought out words)

IN PREVIOUS general elections, it was always the People’s Action Party (PAP) fielding well-qualified candidates, who were usually top professionals in their respective fields. The opposition, on the other hand, used to face a problem of attracting qualified candidates.

The opposition used this to whip up sentiments on the ground by labelling the PAP as a party of the elite, who were unable to sufficiently understand the needs of average citizens.

For this general election, the PAP has fielded a slate of candidates coming from diverse backgrounds. Isn’t PAP doing what it thought the people wanted – which is to see some representation from people having similar heartland roots?

However, it appears that whatever the PAP does, a minority group of the electorate remains dissatisfied, and some PAP candidates were criticised by netizens.

I wonder why the opposition is offering a slate of impressive candidates now, especially after it has persistently labelled the PAP as elitist.

Firstly, Mr Soon, find out why people call the PAP candidates elitist. Perhaps they are people who think that the homeless are “homeless-by-choice“. Maybe they are also the people, when confronted with the need for more comprehensive public assistance, immediately respond by asking “How much do you want? Do you want three meals in a hawker centre, food court or restaurant?“. I suppose it might be that they seem to think that all the needy Singaporeans are lazy and will take advantage of public assistance should we give any, so the best is to not give.

Secondly, Mr Soon should do a little research into what the opposition candidates stand for – are their policies benefiting the rich more than the poor? For example, they may argue that GST should be reduced because they (secretly) want to help the rich. Then, perhaps you’ll be right in calling them elitist.

Thirdly, Mr Soon should learn that just because it looks like a duck, it may not actually be a duck. It would have to talk like a duck too. A little more thought, a little more analysis – always a good thing.

*********

Why does it seem like the ST Forum gets more annoying as the elections draw closer? How many people have to write in to tell us to think carefully before we vote?

Let’s do a count:

30 April 2011

17 letters in total; 9 in the forum; 8 in the forum online

Pro-PAP letters: [print] 1, 2, 3, 4 [online] 1, 2, 3, 4

Neutral: [print] 1, 2, 3, 4 [online] 1, 2

Pro-opposition: [print] 0 [online] 1, 2

Notes: I did not count the one which was just a small quote and neutral includes those which didn’t seem related to the elections at all. Lastly, this is completely unscientific and probably contain my biases.

Apr 30 2011

Fear and being a public servant

It’s quite obvious I am a public servant. I work for the Singapore government and in a lot of ways, I spread their agenda and their messages.

At dinner yesterday, a friend pointed confidently at me and said that I would definitely vote PAP because I am a civil servant. Today, I read this post.  I also overheard a few ladies discussing how public servants will definitely vote for PAP because they will be served notice if they do not (although the strange thing was, the example she used was SIA which really isn’t part of the civil service and makes me wonder how confused she is).

Here’s what I think.

As a public servant, I work for the Singapore government, no matter what party is in power. Whether or not I agree with the politics of PAP or the opposition has little bearing on my ability to carry out my job. I took an oath to serve my country, not PAP. But more importantly, I don’t want to be ruled by fear. And to vote for the PAP simply because they might sack me from my job is exactly that – allowing fear to influence my life and in all honesty, that really isn’t the best way to serve your country. So if you are a public servant and you really want to serve your country, then vote the party who you believe will do the best job in looking after her and not because you are afraid. Vote for the PAP because you think they are the ones who will best serve Singapore.

(And really, I highly doubt that our votes are not secret at least for now. Since my vote is secret, this post isn’t any indication of my voting decision.)

Feb 24 2011

Runaway Maids

You know, maids are people too. And they are people working in a country full of people who see them as nothing but cheap labour without their friends and family. Who are you to decide that homesickness or too much work are trivial reasons? Are you them? What may be trivial to you may not be trivial to them. Are you working for less than minimum wage with no off days in a foreign country where you have no friends or family?

Maids aren’t our slaves. And what the hell is this?

If maids are made to manage their own recruitment fees, they would be compelled to hold on to their jobs to pay their creditors back home lest their families are harassed if they fail to do so.

You think that it is reasonable to wish that the maids’ families are harassed by creditors so that you can have a maid who won’t quit on you no matter what? What kind of person are you?

I know maids have become incredibly important in the Singapore lifestyle but since when did that give us the right to treat them as property with no feelings. Of course there are rogue maids out there, just like there are rogue lawyers and rogue teachers. Should my family live under the threat of harassment to ensure I serve out my teaching bond?

I just … I have no words and really, it’s embarrassing sometimes how selfish and heartless we are. Instead of dealing with the causes of them running away, let’s ball and chain them instead.

Stop them from running away for trivial reasons

MAIDS running away has obviously become a disturbing trend, and unless this is addressed appropriately, it could become an infectious habit (‘Number of runaway maids rises to 4,000′; Feb 11).

Except in cases of abuse and severe deprivation, refuge should not be granted to maids. Some of them cite trivial reasons such as homesickness, inconvenience and heavy workload for leaving.

Runaway maids should, in fact, be handed over to the police. So long as live-in facilities are made available for these maids, this unhealthy trend will continue.

One would have thought that raising the recruitment age to 23 years would give them the maturity to stand by their decision of seeking employment and abiding by the two-year contract.

The practice of bringing in maids without them having to pay their share of the recruitment fees in their home country should also be discouraged as it breeds resentment in those who have to work for between nine and 11 months without a salary.

In desperation to get out of their poverty, they agree to this clause, realising little the financial, psychological and emotional impact it will have on them later.

If maids are made to manage their own recruitment fees, they would be compelled to hold on to their jobs to pay their creditors back home lest their families are harassed if they fail to do so.

They would also have the satisfaction of receiving their full salary in hand even if it means having to send most of it home.

Employers, too, would be spared forking out nine to 11 months’ salary upfront on top of having to pay their share of the recruitment fees to their local agents.

Padmini Kesavapany (Mrs)

 

Dec 30 2009

Singapore and Race

Race matters in Singapore and don’t believe anyone who tells you otherwise. Yes, we are fortunate that there is hardly any overt displays of racism in Singapore but that doesn’t mean there isn’t racism in Singapore.

Which is why, despite my initial positive feelings about the new decision to allow a child’s official race to be chosen by the parents, I am concerned about the implications of doing something like this.

In the first place, what race you are determines many things in Singapore – it determines if you can buy a HDB flat in a certain area. It determines what Mother Tongue you learn in school. It determines which self-help group you can turn to for help. It determines how you are assigned in NS. Most importantly, it determines how others treat you and react to you.

And let’s be honest. If you were in a mixed marriage and had to choose a race for your child, you’re going to choose the one which you think gives him/her more benefits – more privilege – in Singapore. Which is, I suppose, pragmatic but what does it say about the race you didn’t choose? It says that the other race is not worthy, is not good enough which just reinforces all the prejudices and the stereotypes of that race. To me, that is being racist and this policy to allow a choice of race simply reinforces racist behaviour in all of us because we are now forced to make a judgement call about being a certain race in Singapore. Parents of a mixed-race child will need to decide which of them has a “better” race to bestow upon a child.

Also, I am not sure what benefits the government thinks this new decision provides. Flexibility it claims but other than that? They are still not actually recognising the children of mixed-marriages being of mixed race. In the end, the child still has to belong to one and only one race, just that now they have to choose which race that is.

Of course, I have no idea why we are so fixated on race in Singapore that we must cleanly categorise everyone into their little race boxes.