Family Photos

Su-Wen


Su-Lyn


Ming Wei




A family photo taken last year in Japan.

Of Foreigners in Singapore

Just the other day. I came across a report in the newspaper on how a son of an immigrant from China was able to make good in our education system and rise to win the much coveted President Scholarship.

The boy's award of the scholarship raised the controversial question of whether Singapore should allow foreigners the ability to benefit from our system by winning scholarships while depriving other locally born Singaporeans of the opportunity. Indeed, this question raises the larger issue of how we should deal with the issue of foreigners coming to Singapore to exploit opportunities here for themselves.

Over the years. we have had to deal with the question of migrating population, as we have an increasing number of foreigners making a bee-lire for Singapore and calling it home. With the opening up of China and India there is a greater movement of migrants here in search of a better life and job opportunities. That globalization has moved in a significant way to force economies to open up to remain competitive has provided the push for the free flow and mobility of labor.

In recent years, we have seen an influx of foreign immigrants at all levels; from the blue collar construction workers to those who join us as managers and professionals. Indeed the character and complexion of our society has changed somewhat. If you went to a hospital today, you will see nurses from the Philippines and China. You may even find a Myanmese doctor attending to you; or if you went to a financial institution, you would probably more likely to come across an IT professional from India working in the backroom providing IT support.

The presence of these immigrants has brought about increased competition in the market place for employment and other opportunities. Besides, these immigrants who come here with their families also give our children a run for their money in the highly competitive education environment. I have even heard loud grumbling from parents about how these foreign immigrant children are doing so well in schools that they overshadowed their children academically. It is of no comfort to the Singaporean to be told that he lost his job to a foreign worker because that person is younger, better qualified and above all is prepared to take on his job for a much lower pay.

Against these realities are the common sentiments of Singaporeans about how they have been deprived of their employment birthrights by these foreigners who have come and stolen their jobs and livelihood from them. The often heard argument among male Singaporeans is how his sacrifice for Singapore through his National Service is wasted because the government does not provide enough protection against competition from a foreign worker.

Should we be stopping these foreign migrants from coming to Singapore? Do they really serve a useful purpose in helping our economy to perform? Can we do without them? If we can’t, how should we deal with them? Let’s take an honest examination of these issues.

Singapore’s cosmopolitan nature tells us that we are an open society that characterizes itself as a meeting point of various cultures and religions. This means we ought to be a society that welcomes outsiders with open arms, including those who want to make Singapore home. But, are we?

Perhaps, many Singaporeans are not; perhaps we do not have a choice. Increasingly, Singapore is faced with an ageing population with many who are spread across the continents as part of the Singapore Diaspora. At last count, the number was 140,000. Our total fertility rate is below the replacement number of two per couple. These statistics for a country that prides itself in its people as its resource are certainly not very encouraging. Singapore depends on its people as its long term resource to sustain its economy. Without a vibrant, young and well educated work force, Singapore would face great difficulty in trying to compete on the world stage. One way to get what we need, which we cannot get by giving birth, is to encourage foreigners to make Singapore home. However, we cannot begin to begin encourage foreigners to make Singapore home, if there is deep resentment within our society, of the foreigners who are here with us.

Foreigners do contribute to our economy. They provide the skills and the talents that will help our economy to stay vibrant. They also provide the enterprising initiatives to start up businesses that would provide employment to Singaporeans. I can think of eSys, a computer assembly company that is providing employment to thousands of Singaporeans. So if Vikas Goel hadn’t been allowed into Singapore to work initially, there may not have been eSys and many more Singaporeans would have been poorer for it.

I came across some statistics recently which I thought was interesting. In recent years, we created more jobs than we were able to create Singaporeans by natural birth. In 2005, 63,500 new jobs mere created for locals. This was up from 49,900 in 2004. In fact the figure for 2005 was highest in recent years. The number of unemployed locals in fact fell from 5% in March 04 to 3.4 % in March 06. In other words, for every 10 jobs that were created, nine went to locals and one went to foreigners.

It is obvious therefore that foreign workers do complement the local workforce in more ways than one. They help to develop industries where their skills are needed and they contribute to the pool of highly skilled workers in Singapore. They are the first to be asked to leave the employers service in bad times; and they undertake work that locals are reluctant to undertake. Between 1992 to 2002, a 1% increase in Work Permit holders supported 2.6% increase in jobs for skilled locals and 1.4% increase in jobs for unskilled locals.

It is quite clear that Singapore needs migrants. After all our MM Lee Kuan Yew did mention not too long ago that if we had not kept out migrants earlier, we would not have been here today as a nation. We accept that although the first generation of these migrants may not be Singaporean, the next generation would.

The Weak and the Disabled - Whose Responsibility Is It?

Yesterday I read a letter written by Dr. Lee Wei Ling in the forum page of the Straits Times. It touched on a highly controversial issue concerning the long term care for the disabled. I used the word controversial because it relates to the basic question of how far should one be asked to suffer before the state and the community steps in. She was referring to the case of a father who took his own life because he was overwhelmed by the burden of not knowing who will look after his epileptic son, 47 years of age, when he is gone from this world.

The issue at the heart of the matter is, are we doing enough to help those in our society who are genuinely in need? In this instance, the father had been the principal care giver for his son. The father knew he was getting old and was worried about no one looking after his son when he dies. The prospect must have worried and unsettled him greatly. He sought the help of many institutional care givers. His problem was that he did not have the means to make a lump sum payment upfront to cover the cost of institutional care. It seems that his pledge of his single major asset, a house at Upper Changi Road, was not sufficient to induce the institutions to take his son in. Feeling greatly depressed by it, the father must have decided to end his life. He had wanted to take his son along; but it would seem that he just did not have the heart to.

Dr Lee mused, and I quote: “As a First World country where millions of dollars are being poured into making us a cultured and vibrant society, could a few million dollars be spared to build nursing homes for disabled patients whose parents are getting too old to look after them any longer?”

While the sad story of the father strikes a chord in our heartstrings, and would no doubt resonate deeply with many Singaporeans, we should perhaps step back and take a hard note look at the episode.

In this case, we note that the man was being looked after by the father and has siblings who could take over as care givers after the father is gone. The father did not want to burden his other children to be saddled with this added responsibility. As it turned out, the man is now being cared for by his sisters.

Here is a situation where on the face of it, there is a solution of asking his other children to look after the epileptic man; but he chose not to as he felt it was too big a burden for his other children to bear. Should the state and other institutional care givers step in at this stage to provide the necessary help and support? Or should public assistance only come in when all else fails and the person concerned is now running the risk of being totally abandoned.

As a society we must decide. The choice we make today will have much implication on our public finances and our disposable income. In this instance, should we have forced the issue by asking the sisters to look after the brother first, and if that fails, public care givers will then be asked to step in? As a matter of public policy, if we allow ourselves as public to step in easily, it may send the wrong signal, and increase the prospect of abuse on the part of the family by encouraging them to pass that responsibility early to the state. Perhaps our greatest human failing is that we tend to take the lines of least resistance. In other words, while our intention is well meaning, how do we guard against abuse? It is rather unfortunate that in the realm of public policy, we must learn to grow calluses around our heart or we will end up having to pay more in taxes to fund the additional expenditure.

The point remains though, that a case could still be made out where the state should be the care giver of last resort. Dr Lee Wei Ling does have a point that we should and could perhaps do a little more for people who fall through the crack. The guiding principle must surely be the assurance to all Singaporeans that the state and the community will always be there should all else, including the family, fails.

The principle that governs our approach to welfare and charity must be right. We adopt a concentric circle of support. First, a person must be responsible in looking after himself. If that fails, the next line of defence must surely be his immediate family and friends; and only if that fails, the community and the state will step in. Taking this approach will help us avoid the pitfalls of the excesses of a welfare state.

Reaching Out

Many would have read the first blog that I entered the other day; my first tentative step at reaching out to the world; and I am taking this up as an experiment. You see for me to do this is not easy. I am 48 years of age; or what many would consider, as one who is of a generation that did not have the luxury of growing up with information and communication with the wider world at the tip of the finger.

For me it has taken time for me to adjust and over the years; perhpas out of sheer necessity I have grown accustomed to computers as a tool that I need in the course of work. But then, that is only it. Unlike many of today's youths, I do not engage in Internet chat; neither do I have an account in Friendster or I swap music files. And until now, I did not haver any clue what blogging means.

Yet I feel that unless I keep up with the changes that changing technology has brought about in our world, it would increasingly be difficult to me to connect with the younger generations of Singaporeans. This is particularly important for me, as my work as a Member of Parliament requires me to help with the formulation of policies that would be relevant to our society and that would enjoy some measure of legitimacy among the entire spectrum of our population, and not just among the mature or working adults.

This is a challenge for us as increasingly, our own experience in our formative years that help to shape our values and our outlook in life is fast becomng divergent from the next generation of Singaporeans; espcially those born after 1965. Indeed, the year of our independence is a threshold year for many of our younger Singpaoreans. This ia a defining year for us, as from then on, Singaporeans have been able to enjoy economic growth and prosperity year on year. For the many Singpaoreans who were born after we became independent, life was raised in relative comfort; clean running water, HDB homes, good schools, the MRT, first class health care; and above all, good jobs that pay Singaporeans enough to have a decent life and for a majority of Singpaoreans, decent vacations overseas.

Fortunately for these Singaporeans, the memory is faint or non-existent, of squatter housing, or of limited consumption of meat and fruit for these are considered expensive items. Entertainment was just confined to playing in the open with the neighbourhood kids with improvised balls and other contraptions.

Without a doubt, the experience of the early generation of Singaporeans has helped to shape their sense of values. To this day, the older generation of Singaporeans, myself included still considers it wrong to leave unfinished food on the plate; not so with the younger generation of Singpaoreans who thought it nothing to throw away food.

As society changes, we must ensure that change is anchored and underpinned on values that form the bedrock of our society; values that have been our moral compass through the ages and that should contine to remain with us. The problem of success with every succeding generation lies with the danger of slothfulness, complacence and arrogance. As they say, success tends to make us fat and lazy and we run the risk of losing our original values.

Each passing generation must find its own way of passing the torch of these values to the next. If we don't we run the risk losing sight of the values that made Singapore great in its own ways.

In a way, my decision to start this blog is motivated by a desire to want to engage a new generation of Singaporeans who are familiar with the use of the Internet. I would like to through our exchanges and interaction understand them better and hopefully for them to understand this pre-1965 Singaporean better. In so doing, we hope to keep our moral compass asa a society and as a government, continue to have robust policies that resonate with the people.

Let the engagement begin.

A Sad Tragedy

Today, I read, not without much sadness, about the death of Kwang Zhen. He was a boy of 14, who fought bravely against leukemia; and survived it, only to have life so tragically snatched from him in a motor accident.

What struck me about Kwang Zhen was his demonstration of true courage and human spirit in pulling himself together to fight the odds against cancer. In his battle, he cared not so much for himself or his pain, but more importantly the pain that his condition brought upon his family. In pain and suffering, he had a thought to spare for others as well. Always with a ready smile Kwang Zhen had wanted to live life to the full and was prepared to take whatever that destiny offered.

Sadly what snuffed out the light from this inspiring candle was not the diesease itself, but the careless and irresponsible act of another person who perhaps never had to endure such pain and suffering himself. Sadly also, this other person did not have the same courage nor the honesty to own up his deed. You see, this person was the motorist whose car he was driving killed Kwang Zhen. He ran away and was arrested the day after.

I will save the debate on the nature of this motorist's conduct for another day. Kwang Zhen's story reminds us from time to time that we have much to be grateful about and that no matter what our circumstance may be in life we should be grateful for the little mercies that we have. Kwang Zhen's condition does put into perspective many of the problems that we face; for none can be as life threatening as the cancer that he faced; even if we should have cancer, we should be thankful that we are able to take things one day at a time. We should live life to the full, living each day as if it is our last; and we must learn never to take things for granted.

There yet another perspetive to this episode.

My 17 year old son, Ming Wei who was back from his studies in the UK for the summer holidays decided to dedicate three mornings of each week as a volunteer to help the intellectually disabled kids at Margaret Drive. Ming Wei in his own way must have decided that he has been sufficiently blessed in life, maybe by just being normal. Out of the abundance of blessings he must have decided that he wanted to help the less fortunate and perhaps help to make life a little better for these children. I am sure he did; and I cannot say I am not proud of what he did.

For many of us, I believe it would make much of a difference to our society if we are able to find the time to be channels of blessings to others. We who are already blessed ourselves by just being normal should be prepared to go beyond our own needs and try to make a difference in the lives of others, particularly the less fortunate.

In Kwang Zhen's case, I am sure his life was made so much more bearable by his friends who helped him with his needs and his teachers who found the patience and devotion to ensure that Kwang Zhen was able to cope with his school work. I cannot imagine how Kwang Zhen would have coped if no one was prepared to come forward to help.

Yet I somehow feel that even if no one came to help, Kwang Zhen's apparent tenacity would somehow carry him through.

Kwang Zhen, may you now rest in peace. You have indeed been an inspiration to us all. Thank you.