What to Defend (Ourselves From)

SM Goh: Why should I be working for people who don’t feel they belong over [sic] here?

Why should I be voting for politicians who don’t feel that they are obliged to work for the people?

The ST letter below exemplifies directly what is wrong with Singapore and shows us indirectly what we have to defend.


Old lance corporal’s take on what we are fighting for

TO THE young Singaporean who feels that he doesn’t know what he’s defending any more (‘A disempowered generation?’; last Saturday), here is a simple reply from an old lance corporal: [What has it got to do with us whether you are an old lance corporal? I couldn’t care less if you were a prematurely senile general though I would rather you were a more enlightened old major.] 

We are defending our pride [Pride in what? Being oppressed?], friends, family, past [How do you defend the past? Has the SAF acquired a time machine?], present and future. We are defending our Asian-ness [What’s that? How do you defend it?], our languages [I see. National Service is to defend our languages. How about sending the commandos after policymakers who have banned broadcasts in dialect and are trying to eradicate Singlish?]; we are defending what it means to be Malay, Indian, Eurasian, Chinese [Is there anything threatening anyone’s state-classified ethinicity?] and, ultimately, we are defending what it is to be a Singaporean. [And would you care to tell me what it is to be a Singaporean? If it entails being a nonsense-spewing moss-brain that writes to the state-controlled papers to make a point that is pointless, please count me out.]

It is a fact that foreigners will bring economic benefit to society. [Is there anyone saying that Singaporeans must have no foreigners at all? Or are people just saying that Singapore is currently taking in foreigners indiscriminately without bringing about benefits?] Yes, there are social discomforts but the benefits weigh in favour of having them here. Otherwise, who is going to build your houses? Who is going to look after a greying population? [Foreigners look after a graying population??] Some of us complain that foreigners are stealing jobs [I haven’t heard of anyone claiming that they steal jobs. How could they steal something that is freely given to them?], but have they thought of the money they spend that is adding to us keeping ours? [Your examples seem to suggest that getting foreigners is like role-reversed colonialism where foreigners are exploited economically. And as if SM Goh’s nonsensical “Who is going to build your HDB flat [if there are no foreigners]?” retort was not bad enough, it has to be parroted here by an unthinking soldier deserves some severe corporal punishment.]

The problem of immigration is not a problem of Singapore alone. [On the other hand, the problem with Singapore is not the problem of immigration alone.] Traffic jams, crowded trains, not enough space? Take a look at any major city and you will see the same scenario. [But have Singapore reached the stage where such conditions are inevitable or are these conditions simply a result of bad policies and planning?] I am thankful we have this rather than problems of poverty [don’t we have poverty??], lack of consumers and slowly stagnating lifestyles [What stagnating lifestyles?? In any case, do we not have stagnant salaries and lifestyles that are more appropriately called wretchedexistencestyles?]

You say the sentiment on the ground is different. If you feed on sour plums, the flavour will be sour. The ground I’m looking at is full of energy and pride for the Singapore system. [Using your illogic, everything is sweet to you because you are feeding on saccharine. What makes saccharine better than natural, organic sour plums?] If you read material from dubious sources [Dubious sources like this letter of yours?], then yes, you will probably feel there is discontent. [What about his personal discontent? Are you saying that he is not real? Have you not seen him and refused to acknowledge his point?]

If you feel the Singapore spirit is diluted, why not do something about it? [Like what? Initiating a conversation with a ludicrously well-paid minister who does not feel obliged to work for Singaporeans? Or voting that minister’s party out?] Singapore is young and our culture needs to be built on [?????????]. If you don’t make illusions for yourself, you won’t be disillusioned. [It seems that you are the one with illusions. Delusions.]

Benjamin Chiang

Some ingaporeans may not know what they are defending, but allow me to make a recommendation. Singaporeans should defend themselves from the imbecility resulting from decades of PAP hegemony. It has already eaten the minds of fellow citizens like Benjamin Chiang. And this defense has got nothing to do with being enslaved by the military.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Kuan Yew’s Confession

“Over time, our political leaders have become less hard-driving and hard-striving, winning elections through GRC walkovers. That’s why it would be a good thing for the people to welcome more opposition in the Parliament. If the incumbent party is falling behind because of its own complacency, that is its problem.”


(We should always learn from the Great Mentor himself, should we not?)

When Kuan Yew merely said that the approach to teaching Mandarin was wrong and sounded as though he was confessing that he was wrong, people took him too seriously and started saying that he has admitted that bilingualism was wrong. Unfortunately, he was merely insisting that bilingualism was right but certain practices pertaining to it were not. When Kuan Yew confessed that the relentless (and some say ridiculous) import of foreigners serves a social engineering purpose without making it sound like a confession, people do not pay attention to what a great confession he has made even if it was not deliberate. The following lines from The National Geographic have caused people to (justifiably) lambaste Kuan Yew for accusing them of an inferior work ethic and blaming them for being unable to keep up with imported competition:

Over time, the MM says, Singaporeans have become “less hard-driving and hard-striving.” This is why it is a good thing, the MM says, that the nation has welcomed so many Chinese immigrants (25 percent of the population is now foreign-born). He is aware that many Singaporeans are unhappy with the influx of immigrants, especially those educated newcomers prepared to fight for higher paying jobs. But taking a typically Darwinian stance, the MM describes the country’s new subjects as “hungry,” with parents who “pushed the children very hard.” If native Singaporeans are falling behind because “the spurs are not stuck into the hide,” that is their problem. (Emphasis Molly’s)


Yet, it should be more important to us that Kuan Yew’s remarks reveal that in the minds of our policymakers, the import of foreigners does not merely serve a practical economic purpose, as the most common justification goes. Neither is it really to add to the vibrance of the society through the introduction of different cultures. Rather, one conscious objective of Singapore’s policymakers is to shape Singapore though foreigners—by molding the social make-up with the sort of foreigners they desire, and thereby pressuring Singaporeans to match up in terms of these desired (even if not necessarily desirable) traits. In other words, upon finding that Singaporeans are beginning to demand too much, those that have the power for formulate policies are attempting to tame them by importing people who are willing to suffer what Singaporeans refuse to suffer. Hazy as the notion of “demanding too much” seems, it is essentially a political issue—people might be demanding for the pay workers in the developed world deserve (after all the cost of living has been getting higher and higher), or they might be expecting the rights that they deserve (such as the right to unionize and go on strike without a bogus national union). Needless to say, the likes of Kuan Yew would prefer to say that people are getting lazy and the country needs an impetus for them to become the way he wants them to be. It is a fact neither scientifically proven nor universally acknwoledged (and probably not politically correct either), but many new immigrants China (and perhaps elsewhere as well) are like ready-made successful socially-engineered Singaporeans par excellence. They are Kuan Yew’s ideal citizens (except when they do things like protesting to the Ministry of Manpower, but we are not talking about that class of Chinese citizens here) and he is holding them up as model citizens.

Kuan Yew has more than once expressed his dissatisfaction with local Singaporeans (I know “local Singaporeans” sounds tautological, but, believe me, it is not), saying that the newer generations of local Singaporeans are not rugged enough. Perhaps the best sort of Singaporeans are the ones who take millions of dollars from tax-payers every year for making remarks that offend them occasionally while oppressing them constantly. Clearly, most Singaporeans are not capable of achieving this feat, but we can at least expect Singaporeans to be willing to suffer needlessly and endlessly without complaining—or be “hard-driving” and “hard-striving” if euphemisms are preferable. In the current world, hard work may gain one’s exploiters more mileage with every bit of investment but it may not get one anywhere and that is why it can be said to be explotative. The law of diminishing returns sets in quickly for the exploited but the latter is expected to work increasingly harder, with job scopes stretched and working hours lenghened. But I suspect the National Geographic is slightly inaccurate in saying that Kuan Yew was being Darwinian. When I think of Darwin, I think of what happens in nature. Some call it the survival of the fittest— a species evolve over time because those individuals with traits that result in them being unable to survive well die out and those with trains that enhance their survival become representative of their species. (Do pardon me if I am over-simplifying Darwin or if I am technically incorrect.) But what is happening in Singapore is more akin to the disruption of ecological systems through the introduction of a foreign species. It is like human interference with nature, such as the introduction of rabbits to Australia, which has led to the extinction of native species. It is important, of course, to see that such an analogy has its limits lest it is mistaken that I am saying that there should be no foreigners in Singapore at all. Nevertheless, when the introduction of foreigners into a country is a means of manipulating the local population, sinister politics seem to be at work. Politically, introducing many foreigners to Singapore dilutes the already few voices of dissent that are present. Given that almost everyone in the world believes that the PAP is going to maintain its political hegemony for a long time to come, migrants to Singapore may be different from migrants to countries such as America. Or they simply have the financial means to get away any time they feel that it no longer benefits them. If new immigrants do not find the PAP’s policies and its hegemony acceptable, they may not choose to take up Singapore citizenship to begin with given that the hegemony is going to be quite permanent. As such, what we have are more and more citizens who favor or are at least not against the continued dominance of the PAP. Opposing voices will to some extent be drowned especially when new immigrants take it upon themselves to defend the status quo, and it is already happening if the examples of people like Frederic Fanthome who writes for the P65 blog and new citizens who write to the ST Forum are anything to go by.

To make matters worse, what Kuan Yew values in Singaporeans may not benefit Singaporeans although it might boost the country’s economy in terms of statistics.

“You gotta love how I push my children.”


What Kuan Yew wants is perhaps simply an intensified version of Kiasuism. He says that parents who are new immigrants push their children hard. And perhaps he is right. There was once when I saw a man from China (I am guessing from his accent) severely lecturing his son for not properly making use of the time to read when he (the father) went to the washroom. And perhaps Kuan Yew is right in implying that Singaporean parents do not push their as maniacally even though this by no means suggest that Singaporean parents are not pushing their children hard enough, if people should be “pushed” in the first place. Even if it is true that (some) Singaporean parents are not pushing their children hard enough, matters have to be clarified. Parents cannot push their children with just brute force. I am not taking an ethical stance here. Rather, one needs to have sufficient financial means to push their children. What good would it do for a parent to constantly scold his child and tell him to do good when the parent cannot even afford school fees? When there is solid ground in front of you, a gentle nudge would propel you forward.
If you are at the edge of a cliff, a hard push does no good and you are better off not being pushed at all. Do not blame Kuan Yew for forgetting this fact, however. I doubt he has ever seen his children at the edge of a cliff. He is just speaking from decades of inexperience.


“Don’t you wish you could be like me?”


There is no need to prove Kuan Yew wrong when he compares immigrants from China with local-born Singaporeans. His observations may not be totally wrong. We do see that many immigrants are “hard-driving” and “hard-striving”. We may disagree with the prescribed ethos of Hyper-Kiasuism and we may disgree that Singaporeans are not “hard-driving”, but Kuan Yew is entitled to his views. What we have to remember, though, is his failure to acknowledge that not everyone has the capital to participate in such an ethos and the fact that perhaps being silently hard-striving is not necesarily good for people or even for the country. This, in my opinion, is worse for an elected leader than being wrong about Singaporeans or disparaging them.

“I’m not hard-striving enough?” (Photo Stolen from TOC)

Tags: , , , ,

Forgetting Foreigners For a While

First, citizens express their unhappiness when they perceive that their country seems to be the only one in the world that treats non-citizens better than citizens. So, it is decided that citizens should be more clearly distinguished from non-citizens. Make PRs pay higher fees, for example. Logic behind the higher-fees paradigm: If I give you two slaps, I’m treating you well because I’m going to give your friend three and that random stranger on the street four.

Then Permanent Residents raise their unhappiness: “Hey, we (some of us anyway) have to serve NS too but you are making us pay higher school fees!” (But what’s wrong with making PRs pay higher fees? They are not foreigners, but they are not citizens either, so why should they get the full benefits of citizenship such as being slapped one time less by the fair government?)

Or perhaps, from another perspective, it becomes apparent that the closer one gets to citizenship, the worse the deal one gets. Foreigners: no NS and no way to make them serve NS. PRs: Second-generation PRs and beyond have to serve NS, but they at least they have some choice in the sense that the first generation people are likely to be citizens of some other country and the second generation can blame their parents for not going back home to save them from hell. Citizens: No escape from NS unless their parents are rich enough to send them overseas while they are young enough. (I have to confess that I’m not sure if NS is the main issue or if it is just an example.)

How many citizens truly care about how much more in school fees PRs have to pay though? No doubt, many have complained that it is not clear at all what benefits being a Singapore citizen brings. And many people seem upset by the presence of foreigners in Singapore. But this does not mean that simply by making PRs and foreigners pay more for education (as an example) should appease the complaining Singaporeans. If the main point of contention is that the government has allowed too many foreigners into Singapore and this is not benefitting Singaporeans, superficial measures like raising school fees for PRs may in fact aggravate the situation. After all, one possible effect of such measures is PRs would be more inclined to take up citizenship, and if they do, it does not change the fact that they are still competing with the Singaporeans (more legitimately than ever) who are already here for limited things like jobs. Perhaps one day the government would distinguish between old citizens and new immigrants as well, just to show millions of people that they should continue voting for the right politicians. What is conveniently avoided is the question of why it is so easy for a foreigner to get a PR here, and why the government is allowing them in in such great numbers—at the expense of those who do not come from other places. (“Yes, you are making them pay more fees. But so what? They have already taken my place in the university thanks to you.”)

People also sometimes seem more concerned about non-citizens being safe(r) from the disadvantages of citizenship than they are about non-citizens enjoying the benefits of citizenship. Recycling to the analogy used earlier (because I am not creative), it is not so much “Hey, why is he getting a sweet just like me?” than it is “Hey, why is he not getting the shit I’m getting?!” The government is obliged to address the fact that its policies have made citizenship a nightmare. It won’t. It will never address it unless the people decide once and for all to change who makes up the government. But we know Singaporeans will never do that. In this ridiculous city, even certain credible opposition parties (credible because they are mild) seem to want the same government to remain in power. (Incredulous credibility.) I will be more than glad to publish a public apology for maligning poor Singaporeans if they are able to prove me wrong, say within a year. Otherwise I will stand by the theory that Singapore contains the most number of people per capita who love oppressive governance and embrace it as exemplary leadership. (If you are going to gripe about how acerbic and digressive I am, I am afraid you might be one of those Singaporeans I’ve just described. Please pardon me. I don’t know that such people actually read my blog.)

Perhaps we should consider things in a more creative even if completely irrational and wrong way (but do remember what I said about being right in the previous post). We can remove foreigners and PRs from the discussion and we will still be restlessly searching for a means of catching the elusive frustrations rolling around mysteriously in our hearts. (Hearts are those things that many Singaporeans have forgotten that they possess and can learn to take ownership of, in case the reader is wondering.) Foreigners are just for the sake of comparison. To put it as succinctly as I can, though at the expense of tact, people are just upset about how they have been screwed by forces external to themselves. Forces that force, such as, you know, governments.

Pure Laine in Singapore [Auteur’s Cut*]

“Singapore, you are not my country.” (Alfian Sa’at, once upon a fierce hour)

*****

Pardon me for so audaciously trying to speak of us, almost like Goh Chok Tong claiming to know how Singaporeans feel about having their lives affected by immigrants. But I do not speak with the implicit condescension of presumed knowledge wearing the mask of empathy. I shall not partake in the violence of sticking incompatible splinters into a collective stump. I can only speak of the unspoken and unspeak that which has been overspoken into common epistemology.

*****

What if Singapore is not even mine to renounce?

It is odd that there is yet to be a Singaporean version of the Got Talent franchise. It would surely outshine all others. China’s Got Talent? India’s Got TalentUkraine’s Got Talent? We have bought them all, and more! The only talents we lack are Singaporeans. (But they can apply to work backstage on a meritocratic basis, subject, still, to competition from their international counterparts.)

Is this funny or is it laughable?

Laughter is not always subversive, but for making such a narrow-minded joke, perhaps it is tempting to sentence me to life imsingaporent for political xenophobic sedition, an act quite aberrant to the beings (rationalized into rationality) in this glorious age of globalization. Indeed, one area of public discourse that leaves a lingering, if consistently kept subtle, bitterness is the debate about the place of the Singaporean when the country is increasing populated by locals who may be foreigners and foreigners who may not be foreign in terms of their government-granted status. Perhaps not quite a debate. And not quite the Singaporean. Not a debate as much as a pool of ever-recurring discursive artifacts with no real arguments being developed, a trembling stasis of rhetoric blinking alluringly. Not quite the Singaporean for who is a/the Singaporean? (And I might as well drop the articles.)

We are perpetually trying to find words for ourselves, only to find our words and ourselves sinking into the mud, betraying words, betrayed by words, doomed to fail, damned to try, again and again.

We may call ourselves Singaporeans and define ourselves against foreigners as a response to the PAP’s foreign talent policy: we, the disadvantaged; they, the privileged. Only we are told not to be xenophobic. We should not have an inflated sense of entitlement when jobs should be given to the best people, not to citizens who are not good enough or are so unreasonably asking for first-world salaries to keep up with the escalating cost of living exacerbated by, again, the policies of the same people who have been engineering our lives according to their (or one man’s) vision.

Nonetheless, we persist. We say, “Bestow National Service only on the international best too instead of conscripting Singaporeans who are chronic fitness test failures. Those Singaporeans are obviously ineligible in the spirit of meritocracy.” But we will be accused of being irrational for NS is exclusive to Singaporeans; it is a privilege to serve to which Singaporean men are obligated. (Singaporean women must be underprivileged, but I believe most would probably rather be so.) We are still dealing with relatively clear borders though, even if they are painted on a canvas of absurdity. Yet, some of us might, in feeble frustration at being maligned, speak, instead, of locals versus others who have come to be known as locals by the authorities—citizens versus permanent residents. Why is it so easy for a foreigner to become officially local via permanent residency and enjoy privileges, some of which we have no access? Nonsense, comes the retort, the government puts Singaporeans first, and even second-generation permanent residents have to serve in the military. How true. And they can even become citizens like us. When that happens, would it mean that even citizens-who-were-once-foreigners can, like us, claim to be disadvantaged, strangled by the tender embrace of the state?

Singapore, in your arms, how do I become myself?

There are those who speak of true blue Singaporeans, but we can never say who qualifies to be one. Must a true blue Singaporean be born in a certain era or have undergone specific experiences? We need a definition of the true blue Singaporean that goes beyond myopic considerations of what is immediate to us.  The true blue Singaporean is not a dying breed. If it were, Singapore would be well on its way to being a utopian space even if it is at our expense. But we will soon die and yet, for a long time after we are gone, there will be those in the margins of Singapore who consider themselves unfairly disadvantaged.

Nevertheless, if we have to speak of the true Singaporean with a focus on disadvantage, there is the challenge of accounting for those who are apparently not disadvantaged. There is a risk of merely coming up with another name for the marginalized as a collective, another misnomer of a label. Given that the figure of the true blue Singaporean is often invoked to show how certain Singaporeans are being threatened, in their own country, by the presence of foreigners or new Singaporeans, many would find it unimaginable citing PAP ministers as examples of true blue Singaporeans. Yet, it is equally difficult to claim that PAP ministers are not true blue Singaporeans as though we are selecting members for a club exclusive to disadvantaged individuals. Perhaps we are ultimately just some people, not true blue anything.

And yet, I try. In paralysis, I try. Whoever else there are out there, we struggle, always, to wriggle out under the feet of unreasonable, rhetorical retorts. Perhaps we ought to be more inclusive before we speak. Offer foreigners the true blue Singapore citizenship. In a political space where the conventional understanding of citizenship has been contaminated and made absurd, it only makes marginal sense to even speak of foreigners. Like us, foreigners (and the distinction merely serves a linguistic purpose here) are expected to sacrifice selfhood for Singapore does not want the best foreigners. They want foreigners who help the continuation of Singapore as Singapore. Singapore wants them because they make Singapore more diverse and vibrant. Singapore is confident that “new immigrants to Singapore can become Singaporeans in outlook and loyalty within a generation” (SM Goh). In short, Singapore’s logic goes that foreigners can become exactly like Singaporeans and contribute to Singapore’s diversity. Let me contribute to Singapore’s diversity then. I am anything but Singaporean.

Like us, foreigners might want to move on to another country. Like us, they may even buy into nonsensical ideologies persuading them to trade what matters most for humanity for some securities to which they ought to be entitled at no cost. Foreigners can probably be taught to pay good money for air to breathe. Like us, they are merely functions of the utilitarian practices—we are all wanted because we help produce economic statistics in different ways; they are wanted because they make Singapore more vibrant, we are wanted because we can serve NS and loyally vote for the PAP. (A change of status allows them to vote too, so it really does not make a difference).

Singapore, I am not your citizen.

Foreigners come here, we are already here. Perhaps there is a difference after all. For the rest of the world, there’s Singapore to go to as foreign talent. For us, there is no the-rest-of-the-world to treat us the way Singapore treats its foreign talents.

There is a difference, even if it is not between locals and foreigners. We may state the difference, but we often fail to coherently articulate who we are comparing. Our terms of comparison cannot be locals, citizens, permanent residents, expatriates, and foreigners. Subjects of the government’s policies, perhaps. Privileged, disadvantaged. There are privileged foreigners, victimized locals, privileged locals, victimized foreigners and a multitude of different permutations. Yet, if this sounds close to lucidity, we realize also that privilege is relative. Is the son favored by his father only because he contributes more to the family business privileged compared to his siblings? It is impossible to claim that one sibling is in a worse position than another. You can only observe the constant, the father that doles out privilege—the authority that bestows triumph and triggers jealousy.

Have we been banished by the rest of the world to this landfill as sacrifices to the ravenous soil, awaiting the end of decay, the total conquest of subsumption that sets us free?

Singapore, I don’t want to be your citizen.

“Get out if you cannot stand it!”

I would gladly oblige, if I could. I should not continue being an impediment in a singapore’s road to self-actualization, should I? But do I look like I grow wings? Even Gregor Samsa could not get out of his house.

Even if I do get out, would I not be blamed for not foolishly staying to bear the slings and arrows of an outrageous authoritarian regime?

Here I am, being raped and I am told that I ought to stay and attempt fighting the rapist who can effortlessly overpower me (or continue being raped—in silence—not strong enough to fight) instead of trying to run away from the rapist because only losers run away. Ridiculous. But turn it into political rhetoric and it almost works—and certainly makes perfect sense to some of us. Yes, rapists sometimes provide us with a roof over our heads and might even throw some money in our faces to keep us quiet. Never bite the hand that feeds you even if it violates you.

Perhaps being trapped in a mute spot of public discourse, desperately calling out to the deaf is a trait of a true blue Singaporean.

Singapore. I am no citizen.

The General Elections will come soon, as always. They come as quickly as our youth and our lives are depleted. Sirens of our memory decay. Even their echoes vanish. Silent wretchedness lingers, longingly, imploring us not to allow fear to push us, expectant with hope, to a miscarriage. If we cannot crawl out of the landfill, we should at least give reshaping the landscape a shot. Is this not the spirit of survival that we are told to take pride in? No one is obliged to give opposition candidates a chance. But we need to give ourselves one.

 

*A different version (perhaps an interpretation?) of this post, edited by KJ, appears in The Online Citizen as “Deconstructing the Singaporean – foreigner and local alike”.

%d bloggers like this: