Singapore is counted among the fastest-ageing countries in the world. This “silver tsunami” is being compounded by the drastically falling birth rates here. The total fertility rate (TFR) was only 1.2 in 2011 as against the replacement level needed TFR of 2.1. Even 2012 – the Year of the Dragon, which is considered the most auspicious of Chinese zodiac for having babies, saw only 33,205 new babies born to Singapore citizens, improving the TFR only marginally to 1.29. In fact, the city-state has witnessed low birth rates consistently for over three decades now. Starting at 6.56 in 1957, TFR declined to 4.62 in 1965, 3.07 in 1970, 1.82 in 1980, and 1.60 in 2000. 1976 was the year when TFR fell below the replacement level for the first time.
But how did this change come about?
With housing and water a big issue in post-independence Singapore, the government introduced family-planning measures for the first time in 1960 when a three-month long campaign was launched marking exhibitions and discussions on the subject. During these, a baby doll was carried across the hall every seven minutes. This was to remind Singaporeans that “a baby is born in Singapore every seven minutes”.
Later, in 1966, the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board was set-up and government enacted the Abortion Act and the Voluntary Sterilisation Act (VSA) in 1970. This was followed by simple measures such as providing subsidised birth control pills and organising mobile family clinics. The more stricter and controversial Stop at Two campaign was launched two years later in 1972.
Under this campaign, various anti-natal policies were enacted. These included paying $100 more to deliver the third child as compared to the second one, no maternity leave from the third child onwards, and priority in public housing for smaller families. The VSA was also amended to remove the need for applying to the Eugenics Board to get sterilised. A post-sterilisation incentive of $10,000 dollars was also offered to women from households with less than $1,500 monthly income. In all about 1,00,000 women underwent sterilisation by tubal ligation between 1967-87, of which almost three-quarters have had three or more children.
Noted writer Catherin Lim in her book, A Watershed Election Singapore’s GE 2011, has argued how these measures, while creating fear, also led to “its inevitable product, resentment.” “The most egregious instances include the higher accouchement hospital fees for a woman having a third child in defiance of the ‘Stop at Two’ population control measures, and the sterilisation policy, which had a particularly vile moral odour for it required the woman wanting to get her child into the school of her choice to produce a sterilisation certificate,” she writes.
Come 1980s, and Singapore started witnessing a fertility transition.
The National Library Board, in an ongoing exhibition, Campaign City: Life in Posters, mentions that “By 1987, the climate had changed from one of urgent population control to an anxiety over population replacement. That year, the Have Three or More campaign was launched in a decidedly quieter manner”. The exhibition also quotes Dr Chen Ai Ju, the Health Ministry’s Deputy Director of Medical Services in 1987 who had said, “77 percent of married women aborted their pregnancy because of the Stop at Two policy”.
Anticipating this transition, the government in 1984 formed special departments under the Ministry of Finance to matchmake couples according to their educational levels and job profiles. Additionally, financial and social incentives were introduced for graduate women to marry and procreate under the Graduate Mothers Priority Scheme. Though some have argued that the Scheme wasn’t very well received. “It singled out graduate women for favoured treatment, because Lee Kuan Yew believed that only highly educated mothers produced the quality offspring he wanted for the society, alienating many with the noxious eugenics,” adds Catherin Lim in her book.
Also, in 1989, a tax rebate of $20,000 was offered to families who had a fourth child after January 1, 1988. As a result of reversal in government policies, about 7,000 women under the age of 35 approached the health ministry to have their ligation reversed, as noted by the then Health Minister Yeo Cheow Tong in the Parliament in 1987.
As things didn’t improve much, another effort was made in 2001, with the introduction of the Marriage and Parenthood Package (MPP) Scheme, which was enhanced again in 2008 to a budget of $1.6 billion a year. Besides giving child care subsidies, the Social Development Network reached out to 100,000 singles each year to provide them with more social interaction opportunities. Further enhancements to the existing MPP were made in January 2013 and for the first-time government decided to co-fund the assisted reproduction technology treatment for the needy couples.
Not everyone agrees though on the role played by the Stop at Two campaign in Singapore’s fertility transition. The Civil Service College (CSC) Singapore in its publication Ethos — Issue 7, January 2010, claims,” While selected individuals might have been influenced in their fertility decisions, it was more likely that government policies had acted as a catalyst in hastening a fertility transition which would have taken place even without direct intervention.”
The CSC gives three reasons to support its view. “Firstly, fertility had begun to fall even before the family planning measures were put in place. Secondly, even with the reversal to a pro-natalist policy supporting childbearing from the late 1980s, fertility did not rise from its low levels. Thirdly, we observe that most low fertility societies around the world have a well-educated population with a rapid rise in the education profile of women, increasing ages of marriage and childbearing, and an economy that had been successful in creating jobs for its people.” Hence, while family planning policies are likely to have contributed to Singapore’s pace of fertility decline, they are secondary to the fact that changes in the population, society and economy were already leading to a reduction in the number of children couples would have, the CSC concludes.
http://newzzit.com/stories/from-a-baby-every-seven-minutes-to-silver-tsunami
From “a baby every seven minutes” to “silver tsunami”
![http://newzzit.com/stories/from-a-baby-every-seven-minutes-to-silver-tsunami](<a href="https://s3-ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/media.theindependent.sg/2013/11/baby-1.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-2685" alt="baby" src="http://52.221.250.66/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/baby-300x225.jpg" width="300" height="225" /></a>Singapore is counted among the fastest-ageing countries in the world. This “silver tsunami” is being compounded by the drastically falling birth rates here. The total fertility rate (TFR) was only 1.2 in 2011 as against the replacement level needed TFR of 2.1. Even 2012 - the Year of the Dragon, which is considered the most auspicious of Chinese zodiac for having babies, saw only 33,205 new babies born to Singapore citizens, improving the TFR only marginally to 1.29. In fact, the city-state has witnessed low birth rates consistently for over three decades now. Starting at 6.56 in 1957, TFR declined to 4.62 in 1965, 3.07 in 1970, 1.82 in 1980, and 1.60 in 2000. 1976 was the year when TFR fell below the replacement level for the first time. But how did this change come about? With housing and water a big issue in post-independence Singapore, the government introduced family-planning measures for the first time in 1960 when a three-month long campaign was launched marking exhibitions and discussions on the subject. During these, a baby doll was carried across the hall every seven minutes. This was to remind Singaporeans that “a baby is born in Singapore every seven minutes”. Later, in 1966, the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board was set-up and government enacted the Abortion Act and the Voluntary Sterilisation Act (VSA) in 1970. This was followed by simple measures such as providing subsidised birth control pills and organising mobile family clinics. The more stricter and controversial Stop at Two campaign was launched two years later in 1972. Under this campaign, various anti-natal policies were enacted. These included paying $100 more to deliver the third child as compared to the second one, no maternity leave from the third child onwards, and priority in public housing for smaller families. The VSA was also amended to remove the need for applying to the Eugenics Board to get sterilised. A post-sterilisation incentive of $10,000 dollars was also offered to women from households with less than $1,500 monthly income. In all about 1,00,000 women underwent sterilisation by tubal ligation between 1967-87, of which almost three-quarters have had three or more children. Noted writer Catherin Lim in her book, A Watershed Election Singapore's GE 2011, has argued how these measures, while creating fear, also led to “its inevitable product, resentment.” “The most egregious instances include the higher accouchement hospital fees for a woman having a third child in defiance of the 'Stop at Two' population control measures, and the sterilisation policy, which had a particularly vile moral odour for it required the woman wanting to get her child into the school of her choice to produce a sterilisation certificate,” she writes. Come 1980s, and Singapore started witnessing a fertility transition. The National Library Board, in an ongoing exhibition, Campaign City: Life in Posters, mentions that “By 1987, the climate had changed from one of urgent population control to an anxiety over population replacement. That year, the Have Three or More campaign was launched in a decidedly quieter manner”. The exhibition also quotes Dr Chen Ai Ju, the Health Ministry's Deputy Director of Medical Services in 1987 who had said, “77 percent of married women aborted their pregnancy because of the Stop at Two policy”. Anticipating this transition, the government in 1984 formed special departments under the Ministry of Finance to matchmake couples according to their educational levels and job profiles. Additionally, financial and social incentives were introduced for graduate women to marry and procreate under the Graduate Mothers Priority Scheme. Though some have argued that the Scheme wasn't very well received. “It singled out graduate women for favoured treatment, because Lee Kuan Yew believed that only highly educated mothers produced the quality offspring he wanted for the society, alienating many with the noxious eugenics,” adds Catherin Lim in her book. Also, in 1989, a tax rebate of $20,000 was offered to families who had a fourth child after January 1, 1988. As a result of reversal in government policies, about 7,000 women under the age of 35 approached the health ministry to have their ligation reversed, as noted by the then Health Minister Yeo Cheow Tong in the Parliament in 1987. As things didn't improve much, another effort was made in 2001, with the introduction of the Marriage and Parenthood Package (MPP) Scheme, which was enhanced again in 2008 to a budget of $1.6 billion a year. Besides giving child care subsidies, the Social Development Network reached out to 100,000 singles each year to provide them with more social interaction opportunities. Further enhancements to the existing MPP were made in January 2013 and for the first-time government decided to co-fund the assisted reproduction technology treatment for the needy couples. Not everyone agrees though on the role played by the Stop at Two campaign in Singapore’s fertility transition. The Civil Service College (CSC) Singapore in its publication Ethos — Issue 7, January 2010, claims,” While selected individuals might have been influenced in their fertility decisions, it was more likely that government policies had acted as a catalyst in hastening a fertility transition which would have taken place even without direct intervention.” The CSC gives three reasons to support its view. “Firstly, fertility had begun to fall even before the family planning measures were put in place. Secondly, even with the reversal to a pro-natalist policy supporting childbearing from the late 1980s, fertility did not rise from its low levels. Thirdly, we observe that most low fertility societies around the world have a well-educated population with a rapid rise in the education profile of women, increasing ages of marriage and childbearing, and an economy that had been successful in creating jobs for its people.” Hence, while family planning policies are likely to have contributed to Singapore's pace of fertility decline, they are secondary to the fact that changes in the population, society and economy were already leading to a reduction in the number of children couples would have, the CSC concludes. http://newzzit.com/stories/from-a-baby-every-seven-minutes-to-silver-tsunami){kind=link}
I wish….Sylvia will marry Kim Song
By Tan Bah Bah
My wishes for 2014
The People’s Action Party
Will declare unequivocally that it is on the side of all born-and-bred-in-Singapore Singaporeans, in particular, those who have put them in power and helped build up this country. No ifs, no buts.
Will commit itself unconditionally – writ in the party manifesto, a white paper and/or in the Hansard – that it will do its utmost to take care of the health of all locally-born Singaporeans, especially those who cannot afford it
Will assume greater responsibility for the plight of the elderly
Will spend more energy and effort fixing the problems of the country rather than the opposition
Will stop wasting its time trying to control the Internet and the activities of bloggers (beyond the existing laws already in place to deal with libel, racial incitement, treason, defamation and criminal intimidation, among others)
Will be more gracious towards opposition politicians, more so when these are duly elected by Singaporeans into Parliament or have been co-opted to provide municipal and other services to the community
Will accept that the days of top-down or authoritarian government are truly over, not to be replaced by controlled discussions involving the converted disguised as a conversation but by genuine feedback of held-back frustrations and constructive criticisms and suggestions – not what the party may like to hear but has to heed
The Workers Party
Will continue with its excellent work at the constituency level and send the message to Singaporeans that it is not just the PAP which is able to run estates
Will make better use of the vast reservoir of goodwill, faith and support that it has earned to push its profile much higher than it is at the moment; it is no longer a wannabe but a bona fide group of Parliamentarians
Will realise that active engagement with all Singaporeans on all national matters at all levels will only do the party good; don’t merely make pronouncements through the party website
Will stop nagging in the back seat now and then and move to the front to slap the sleepy driver
Will start showing its new next-generation talents to blood them (without unveiling its strategic hands as to where they may be fielded)
Other parties
The Singapore People’s Front, the Singapore Democratic Party, the National Solidarity Party and Reform Party will form a coalition or two to increase their chances of being elected into Parliament; each has its own political strength and talents
Civil groups
Will stop acting like mice when it comes to the human rights of Singaporeans and roar like lions in highlighting the fate of foreign workers; Singaporeans are generally sympathetic to the causes of these organisations but first things first, there must be no double standards (thank goodness, there is Gilbert Goh to put the interests of Singaporeans first!)
J. Puthucheary, Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC MP
Will volunteer for National Service; he cannot go on evading it
Baey Yam Keng, Tampines GRC MP, Will do more due diligence with his hawker food prices Will, specifically, find out the price differences between nasai lemak (can still get it for $2.50), nasi beryani (still selling at $3) and nasi padang ($2.50 no way – one piece of meat itself will cost $2-$3 Will stop exposing himself unnecessarily on Facebook.
Sylvia Lim, Aljunied GRC MP,
Will marry football hero Quah Kim Song and gain a whole family of Quah votes for the next election. And the Workers Party’s next battle cry will be Ole! Ole! Ole!
On that last note, I wish all Singaporeans a Fabulous 2014.
Foreign Worker: Over here, they think I am the dirty man
By Trinity Chua
Juna and I sat awkwardly under a single fan in a room full of mismatched furniture. A social worker introduced us and then left us alone. A Tamil translation of Sherlock Holmes stood on the shelves above us. Asked if he read the book, he shrugged his shoulders, not knowing who Sherlock Holmes is.
Juna is currently jobless, having hurt his fingers while working with heavy equipment at a construction site. He was not allowed to work until his case was heard and settled. Two years since that incident, I found him still waiting for his case to be heard and compensation to be paid out. He spends his days in Little India, biding time and lackadaisically playing with his phone.
He recounted his working days to me. Born and bred in a middle class family in Bangladesh, he never once washed his plates at home. He said food was never scarce as many middle class families own farmlands.
Cash was the problem.
He came to Singapore, like many other foreign workers, to earn enough money to eke out a better life in his own country.
“If you get a good company, then everything will be all right. Sometimes, if people come here, work is not good, the salary also not good, always his mind is bad- what they do, thinking about family because they spent a lot of money.”
Using words such as “The(ir) mind is no good” or “they crazy”, Juna described how his peers felt when faced with their everyday problems in Singapore, whether deserved or otherwise.
“You know, for one worker, sometimes it is many things happening at their work, salary is very low they cannot afford the medical bills and some of their supervisors or bosses are very bad always talking bad. So sometimes, they crazy and they cannot say anything and people are crazy and do like this [he was implying it could be a possible cause to the Little India Riot].”
He told me a story of his own, too.
He had a supervisor who slapped his helmet and scolded him on many occasions, whether he did well at work or not.
“I feel like nothing and I called my boss and he said the supervisor is also your boss, you must follow what he said. If he is not happy, I also not happy and I will send you back. I got no choice.”
“At that time, if this was Bangladesh I thinking I will kill this guy. If he do for me like this in Bangladesh, I kill this guy cause my mind always crazy and very bad feelings that time I was working.”
He added quickly he understood Singapore was different. To him, “rules are everything” here and he believed he had spent too much money to come here to allow himself to make a blunder in Singapore.
Like many others, Juna is resigned to a position of silence in Singapore. He said many of their families back home still could not accept the fact that their children are working in construction sites as manual labourers in Singapore. Like Singaporeans, they feel it is beneath them.
“When I was working I take the MRT or bus, in my construction gears I am a bit dirty. Then some people they don’t like. Over here, they think I am the dirty man. My family actually don’t accept what I am doing here (because) it feels like the third class citizen work.”
While Juna had voiced some the hardships that foreign workers might faced, fellow construction worker and Indian national Ganesh was adamant that causing any form of dissent in Singapore would only make matter worse for all foreign workers.
He believed alcohol was the problem.
“I thinking this riot is wrong. Our people made a very big mistake. This one drinking, so many, many problems. They only drink, they never think, they see then they fight.
They drink then they don’t use their mind, they didn’t thinking about their family and their job,” Ganesh said.
For Ganesh, his mother, father and brother are waiting for him in India. They were dependent on his income in Singapore. He had not been able to send anything home after a recent work injury.
Ganesh, like Juna, admitted that compensations for work injuries never came easy. He had to engage a lawyer before his boss was willing to pay for his medical bills. He said not everyone was that lucky.
“First the boss say you go back I give you ticket only. After I go to my lawyer, then my boss paid for my hospital bill. Some bosses pay, some bosses do not. Some people, the family send money from India then some just take passport and go back to India.”
When asked if medical bills were a reason that led to the sentiments behind the riot, Juna shrugged his shoulders and said, “Insurance is very difficult. If boss accept the case then you get insurance. If boss does not accept the case then you won’t get the insurance. The boss can choose not to give… some of these bosses are very clever and then workers cannot do anything because bosses know everything in Singapore.”
*Names changed as requested by sources.
MDA regulations – Still no clarity, just another questionable voice
By Howard Lee
Some writings are meant to be clear. The media statement by the FreeMyInternet group on Media Development Authority vs. The Independent and Breakfast Network is one such. Within the first three paragraphs, it stated categorically that MDA lacks the authority to govern the online space, and elaborated on the two key reasons why the group felt so.
No surprise then, that even mainstream media, presumably a bit more reticent to speak badly about a government agency, could still effectively publish these two key reasons clearly and continued to seek clarifications from MDA.
Other writings are less so – at times bent on evading the need to provide answers to the very questions it raised, and at times bent on defending a position to the point of being self defeating. The response by Calvin Cheng, former Nominated Member of Parliament, to the FreeMyInternet statement, is one that possibly embodies both such.
Cheng opened with a laborious effort, spanning more than half his post, in claiming MDA’s forms were not onerous, simply because The Independent has registered successfully. In effect, Cheng argued that what is good for the goose is good for the gander (or the reverse, considering the gender of the two website chiefs involved).
Let’s do the maths here, since Cheng is inclined towards logic and facts. To our knowledge, MDA has thus far issued this registration requirement for two websites. One of two folded, citing difficulties with the registration. The Independent, while registered, has also indicated that the process was less than smooth. In net effect, MDA’s success rate with having clear and reasonable forms that led to a satisfactory registration is effectively less than 50%.
There was a time in our history when 60.1% was deemed a backward slide for a clear mandate. It is perhaps a tad amusing that Cheng should declare anything less than 50% an indicator of success.
To simply focus on completed registration(s) as proof that the forms were not onerous is to blatantly commit a fatal fallacy in customer service: Because my dinners did not throw half-eaten food back at me, and paid for it, I can conclude that they are satisfied customers, my food is excellent and my restaurant is top notch.
As a public agency, MDA can definitely do better than that.
Cheng continued to cast doubts on the veracity of the FMI statement, by citing its “failure to understand the current regulatory framework”.
He indicated that “Yahoo, brought up as an example of inconsistency by the FMI movement, is already covered by the Broadcast (sic) Act. There are no double-standards.” We would then expect Cheng to further enlighten his readers on why it is insufficient for the two websites to be covered under the Broadcasting Act as well, and are instead required to further furnish MDA with additional details.
Indeed, paragraph 43 of the Act provides a smorgasbord of requirements that govern foreign funding – is this not sufficient for The Independent and Breakfast Network to comply with?
Unfortunately, there was no further elaboration from Cheng.
Even more unfortunately, MDA seems unable to help Cheng with his argument when it declared to Today that “its registration forms for the two sites were longer because it specifically allowed them to receive revenue from genuine foreign commercial sources”.
This revelation actually casts more questions on double-standards. Might it suggest that the ten websites involved in the June 2013 amendments to the Act were not required to provide the additional details that The Independent and Breakfast Network were put through in the “longer forms”?
Also, how is MDA’s effort to help the two website “receive revenue from genuine foreign commercial sources” different from allowing Yahoo, SPH and Mediacorp to receive advertising from foreign companies on their media platforms, such that this additional effort in registration is required?
If MDA does indeed intend to bring online media up to the same regulatory framework as traditional media – ignore for a moment that that in itself is fraught with inequalities – then where exactly is that line drawn and what clarity do we have that it is the same starting point for everyone?
Again, no elaboration from Cheng.
Cheng then goes on to allege that Facebook and Twitter platforms owned by individuals that cover political content, “being non-commercial, many run as a hobby, do not need any funding in the first place. It makes no sense for any regulator to ask an individual hobbyist to register a company so that they can regulate him. That is just twisted logic.”
To be completely fair, the FMI statement did not ask MDA to register such platforms, nor for the owners of such platforms to register a company. It was instead stating an obvious point for consideration – which Cheng has very kindly demonstrated to be illogical.
Indeed, one might even be led to believe that Cheng was perhaps trying to hard to prevent such platforms from exposing their owners and administrators, although such an effort is clearly unnecessary.
But if I may then apply this twisted logic to the case of Breakfast Network: Since Breakfast Network Pte Ltd has wound up as a company, hence ceasing as a commercial entity, and the social media platforms are not run with any foreign backing other than Bertha Henson’s own clock and pocket, why has MDA opted to regulate these as well?
Again, no elaboration from Cheng.
Yet, far from Cheng’s assertion that the FMI statement was “an overreaction”, FMI has instead opened the doors to MDA for clarification, without reasonable doubt, on these two cases. As it is, we are still left with more questions than answers.
Indeed, taking a broader approach, this unfortunate incident with The Independent and Breakfast Network actually has much less to do with the two websites, as Cheng seems to suggest. Rather, the impact of this lack of clarity has a wider impact on anyone who wishes to set up a news site, and who might not even be sure if the details in the forms published on MDA’s website are all that is required, since MDA can currently hold any permutation of the forms without full disclosure to the public.
Again, MDA as a public agency can definitely do better than that.
And Cheng is actually not helping them much by putting in such a great effort to shed more light on the issue. Nevertheless, if he so wishes to answer the above questions point by point, TOC will be happy to publish his clarifications.
Source: http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2013/12/mda-regulations-still-no-clarity-just-another-questionable-voice/
N-Level students are stigmatized
Singapore is the only country in the world where being normal is stigmatised. Perhaps the government should consider putting an end to it.
Every year, four in ten students fail to make it to the polytechnics after the O levels. Of this number, half will end up entering the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) to gain vocational skills in preparation for skilled work.
Although it is still possible for ITE students to earn a place in the polytechnics after two years of vocational education, students must be within the top two per cent of their 32,000-strong cohort.
The biggest concern is the quality of education students in the Normal (Academic) stream are receiving.
It is a known fact that the N levels are easy to pass and students who qualify to sit for the O levels are under the impression that the O levels are easy because they have previously done well.
As a result, students tend to slacken on their fifth and final year.
Students are also expected to cram secondary three and four Express stream materials in under ten months. On the contrary, Express stream students have two years to prepare for the examinations.
This defeats the purpose of having a five-year stream with the intention of allowing slow students to catch up so they can do well for the O levels.
Hence it is not surprising that 40 per cent of secondary five students are unable to progress to the polytechnics.
In some but rare cases, more than half of a secondary five class fail to enter the polytechnics. This rings true for Issac Kuek, former bassist of Singaporean band Lucify. His entire North View Secondary School class failed to make the cut for the polytechnics.
“The first thing that came to my mind was…to find work at the polyclinic. Not go to ITE,” says Kuek, who now works as a freelance interior designer.
Teachers and Principals are Prone to Cognitive Bias
Part of the problem why a significant number of students fail to move up the education ladder is that the N levels itself creates stigma. The exams stereotypes people according to their academic ability and most educationalists truly believe that Normal (Academic) stream students should be taught at a low level because they feel they are not that bright.
Says David Leong, a secondary five student from Hua Yi Secondary School who scored two O level passes, “My teachers saw us as people with little or no future. They used to tell us that if you can pass, pass. Don’t give yourself too much hope because you’re a N level student.
“So they didn’t put their heart into their teaching. They even told us that certain topics in our textbooks were not important and we should just read it.” Adds Leong.
In an interview with Channel News Asia, Associate Professor Irene Ng, from the Social Work Department at the National University of Singapore, said: “Whenever you have a category, people will assign prestige or stigma to it. And so people will all go for that prestigious group, for example the Integrated Programme. Or, people will assign a stigma to a programme that’s not so popular.
“There’s also research that shows that when you assign a label to somebody, the person will behave according to that way, it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. So for example if we teach students in the Normal (Technical/Academic) stream to a low level because we think that is the level, then students could react to it, and give you back what you think you want.”
Needless to say, all this affects the overall quality of education for Normal (Academic) students.
Yes, it is time for the Ministry of Education to put an end to the N level exams and spend five years to prepare students for the O levels.
After all, it is the O levels that matters because it very much determines one’s future and employment prospects in a straight-laced and pragmatic society.
A government in dilemma
By Augustine Low
The year began for the PAP government on a dismal note with its trouncing in the Punggol East by-election. And it is ending on the back of the unexpected and unfortunate Little India riot, where the cost is still being counted.
In between these big events, the government muddled through with no clear shape or direction. It veered one way, then another, marched a step forward, then peddled back.
If the intent was to nullify critics by sending mixed signals, by appeasing and then denying, then the government succeeded brilliantly.
Or was it because it did not have a coherent plot to begin with and had to write and re-write the script along the way?
Our Singapore Conversation held much promise as a consultative and consensus-building process but ended up looking like an orchestrated effort to make Singaporeans feel they were being heard. The five broad themes distilled appeared like motherhood statements.
When it truly mattered, when Singaporeans spoke with one voice in opposition, the government turned a deaf ear and rammed through the Population White Paper in Parliament.
Some headway was made in addressing hot button issues such as housing, transport, education and influx of foreign talent. But for healthcare, widening income gap and poverty, there was plenty of rhetoric but when you really get down to the details, you would be hard pressed to detect any major shifts or signs of progress.
It hit home that nothing fundamental had changed – or that the illusion of change had been undone – when the government stifled Internet freedom with a series of moves, including tightened rules on news websites. The sense of disquiet on this front is growing, with signs that the government is pulling out the stops to shackle its perennial thorn – the wide-ranging and often critical discourse and debate proliferating on the Internet.
The repercussions of the Little India riot have also thrown a spanner in the works for the government; deep inside it knows it has to re-examine the script on immigration and the Population White Paper.
Internationally, the episode has given a negative spin. For example, Martin Ruhs, an associate professor at Oxford University, writing in the International New York Times, says: “News of the mistreatment of migrants seems to arrive every few months. In September, an investigation by the British newspaper The Guardian exposed numerous deaths among Nepalese workers on World Cup construction sites in Qatar. Earlier this month, more than 400 migrants rioted after a bus hit and killed an Indian worker in Singapore, where large numbers of low-skilled migrants are employed under deplorable working and living conditions.”
If PM Lee attempts to seek clues from elsewhere to get out of the muddle, to be more coherent in style and strategy, he might end up being more confused.
Case in point: Much rested on the shoulders of President Xi Jinping of China, who was seen as a great hope for reforms. He has since proven himself more hardline than his recent predecessors, tightening the grip on censorship in academia and media, spearheading China’s territorial assertions in the region, and the inflammatory declaration of a new airspace defence zone.
In Thailand, the slowness of promised reforms have led to sustained protests that threaten to turn the country into turmoil. And in Malaysia, protests are planned for New Year’s Eve to register anger against price hikes.
Should PM Lee press ahead with changes as promised after GE 2011? Should he, like Xi, confound expectations by taking on a hardline approach? How far to go with the tightening of Internet restrictions and regulations? What are the implications of the latest setback in the form of the Little India riot? What other shocks to the system are in store?
There is much to mull over, there are tricky crossroads to navigate past. The indecisive posturing of the PAP is all too reminiscent of a passage from Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland:
Alice came to a fork in the road. “Which road
do I take?” she asked. “Where do you want to go?”
responded the Cheshire Cat. “I don’t know,”
Alice answered. “Then,” said the Cat, “it doesn’t matter.”
Response to Free My Internet statement and Breakfast Network’s Shutdown
By Calvin Cheng
In the wake of the shutdown of the Breakfast Network, the Free My Internet movement issued a statement questioning the Media Development Authority’s ability to act as a Media Authority.
This is not only an overreaction, it was a statement based on several logical fallacies.
To begin with, the shutdown of the Breakfast Network has been held up as an example of how the MDA’s regulations have caused the demise of alternative media, and the first new media martyred by actions of the MDA.
Although it is true that the Breakfast Network had to shut-down because it did not register, it is a leap of logical reasoning to say that it was because the registration was too onerous that it did so. This is especially when its rival, The Independent, not only chose to register, but did so without raising a hue and cry in cyberspace.
It is curious why the Breakfast Network could not follow in the footsteps of The Independent when both are helmed by print media veterans, Bertha Henson and PN Balji respectively. Both individuals, as respected journalists with years of experience, would also have intimate knowledge of the Government’s longstanding objections to foreigners, through funding or otherwise, interfering in Singapore politics. It is even more perplexing why The Breakfast Network would find the legal commitments too onerous, when The Independent, whose co-founder is a senior lawyer, was able to navigate the same regulations.
There would be a stronger case for the Breakfast Network if both it and The Independent, had both been unable to register, especially since arguably, The Independent has the stronger team with years of entrepreneurial, legal and journalistic experience in its founding team. If it also foundered at the regulatory stage, then the Breakfast Network, arguably a one-woman company, could argue that it was the regulatory hurdles that killed it, rather than a lack of managerial expertise and depth.
But this is not the case. Instead, The Independent has, by being able to deftly manoeuvre through the regulatory space, put itself in the position of being the only overtly commercial alternative media covering politics in Singapore, which stands it in good stead of becoming Singapore’s Huffington Post.
The basis of the Free My Internet Statement – the Breakfast Network’s demise – is thus a weak example to base their criticism of the MDA upon.
There were also other egregious examples of a failure to understand the current regulatory framework.
Firstly, print and broadcast media has always been subjected to rules discouraging the interference of foreigners, including funding, in local politics. Yahoo, brought up as an example of inconsistency by the FMI movement, is already covered by the Broadcast Act. There are no double-standards.
Secondly, Facebook and Twitter feeds owned by individuals that cover political content, which are prima facie not commercial or commercialised, cannot reasonably be asked to commit not to take foreign funding. Being non-commercial, many run as a hobby, they do not need any funding in the first place. It makes no sense for any regulator to ask an individual hobbyist to register a company so that they can regulate him. That is just twisted logic.
Overall, a lot of the misunderstanding about and distrust over MDA’s regulations, and the apprehension regarding the impending updating of the Broadcast Act, can be dispelled if one fundamental principle can be understood: that Cyberspace is not a separate world, but part of our real world. The Internet is just another media, and should be subject to the same laws that cover all media, be it print or broadcast. It is not special.
Most of all, the emergence of a new technology is insufficient reason to re-evaluate fundamental principles a society has been based on successfully for years. The Internet is no different.
Mr Calvin Cheng is a former nominated member of parliament.
MDA’s actions raise doubts about its capacity as media authority
In addition, MDA’s actions also belie a rather poor understanding of how the Internet works, and this is cause for concern for an agency that professes to be the regulator for the online media environment.
Foreign funding obsession
This blind and as yet unsubstantiated fear of foreign funding would be less onerous if not for its effect on causing unnecessary administrative difficulties to media owners. Both TISG and BN has made public that their interaction with MDA on their registration process was ambiguous and unnecessarily complex. Indeed, as human rights group Maruah has indicated:
“The forms published by Breakfast Network also show that MDA has asked them, if not The Independent, to identify every person who has provided funding to them, as well as every subscriber and advertiser who contributes 5 per cent or more of their subscription or advertising revenue. As we stated previously, these requirements, in particular the former, are overly intrusive and go far beyond what is necessary to satisfy the stated objective of preventing foreign influence over the media.”
MDA’s obsession with seeing foreign funding without proof of its existence is unhealthy, as it automatically casts a suspicious glow on any home-grown website that seeks to find a footing in Singapore. In contrast, MDA has no such qualms when it sought to register Yahoo Singapore, which is an American-owned entity. This smacks of double standards, and a lack of clarity in what MDA hopes to achieve by registering websites.
Regulating what they do not understand
MDA’s requirement for websites to disclose all editors, pro-bono or otherwise, compounds their lack of understanding about how the online community works. In its infancy, a new site would rely on many contributors, including those serving editorial functions. It should be sufficient for the editor-in-chief to assume full responsibility for the work of these pro-bono helpers. MDA’s failure to understand such pro-bono arrangements suggests that they have merely transplanted the regulatory framework from mainstream media to online media, and conveniently ignored the unique workings of an online community that is based not on money terms, but on good will.
Therefore, by enforcing such onerous requirements, MDA has done little more than make things difficult for those seeking to share information online. To be more precise, only online entities that have or are willing to set aside resources to manage such administrative details would be able to survive the risk of complete closure.
Regulator a cause of concern
It is hence clear that MDA is unable to comprehend, much less regulate, the online sphere. Nevertheless, this is not the first instance of MDA’s lacks. From its preposition of an Internet Code of Conduct, to the revisions of the Broadcasting Act in June 2013, and now to the actual implementation of the amended regulations, MDA has exhibited uncertainty, opacity and lack of comprehension of what it hopes to regulate.
Already, its action has caused the closing of one website, which has thus far done nothing more than provide fair and responsible commentary and coverage of news in Singapore, without the slightest hint of foreign support.
This anti-development does not bode well for those who seek to make their livelihood through similar sites, when they can almost be assured that all they will face are ambiguous rules as stumbling blocks – a far cry from MDA’s stated role as a media developer.
Indeed, MDA’s actions against TISG and BN will only further exacerbate public suspicion about what it hopes to achieve with these regulations. The basis of the amended Broadcasting Act, as touted by MDA, was to bring online media on the same regulatory footing as mainstream media. However, we have already seen that in terms of resources, such onerous regulatory protocols actually work unfairly against online media. Would the public not think that MDA’s intention is to support mainstream media by implementing a regulatory framework that is biased against the resources available to online media owners?
Unless MDA is able to provide satisfactory answers to all the issues that these two recent episodes have generated, the future of Singapore’s online space remains in jeopardy from being regulated by those who do not appear to know what they are doing, and whose intentions remain unknown.
MDA’s run-in with TISG and BN is a dismal warning that the agency has much more to learn before it should even flex its regulatory arm with online media. Greater clarity is needed in the amended Broadcasting Act, the root cause of this latest mishap.
As such, the FreeMyInternet group calls for the cessation of all regulatory activities related to the Broadcasting Act, until a proper and adequate revision of the Act itself has been conducted. MDA owes this to all Singaporeans who seek fairness and clarity from those who seek to govern the information they obtain online.
About FreeMyInternet
The FreeMyInternet movement was founded by a collective of bloggers who are against the licensing requirements imposed by the Singapore government on 1 June 2013, which requires online news sites to put up a performance bond of S$50,000 and comply within 24 hours to remove content that is found to be in breach of content standards. The group believes this to be an attempt at censorship and an infringement on the rights of Singaporeans to access information online and calls for a withdrawal of this licensing regime.
Foreign workers: What also needs to change
By Gaurav Sharma
Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2), Workfair Singapore and HealthServe asked the right questions at a Maruah forum on Monday night. Singapore does need better laws and even better enforcement to improve the situation of foreign workers in the country.
But equal emphasis is also needed on what Braema Mathi, president of Maruah, said about “justice and fairness” for foreign workers.
“I know many will not agree with me here but it is important for us to think what kind of society we are and want to become. Unfortunately, too many of us Singaporeans have bought into the rhetoric that everything in life is determined on a cost-benefit analysis, matters relating to foreign workers are no exception. For our society to progress, we need to break free from this paradigm,” she said.
Mathi was replying to a question whether Singaporeans are ready to pay higher home prices, if improving the living conditions and salaries of foreign workers translates into that.
Moreover, a quick poll of about 100 attendees also indicated that many among the audience would not be willing to pay a higher sum, which is probably a reflection of majority Singaporean opinion. Especially, since rising property prices have become such a hot political issue in the city state over last few years.
Society’s role
Essentially, what Mathi pointed towards is the broader question, whether the majority really cares about foreign workers’ rights in Singapore?
While the jury is still out on this one, few observations are in order.
There has been talk in some quarters about the need to house foreign workers in off-shore islands, which surfaced again after the Little India riot, in both offline and online chatter. Few, such as Mohamed Abdul Jaleel, a businessman who provides dormitories for foreign workers, have already come up with the concept of “floating dorms”. In an interview with The Straits Times, Jaleel discussed the concept, which he claimed can house 7,000 to 8,000 workers in a 10-storey structure. Moreoevr, National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan in a written reply in the Parliament early this year had also noted that the government is “open to such an idea of housing some foreign workers at nearby offshore islands”.
Another case in point is the welcome directive by the Ministry of Manpower for a weekly rest day to be given to maids in Singapore from Jan 1 this year. The results of this directive, which came after much advocacy by various human rights groups, have not been very encouraging.
Clarissa Oon, in a recent commentary in The Straits Times noted: “Checks by The Straits Times with six maid agencies in January showed that 70 percent of their 400 or so new customers employing maids were not likely to give them rest days at all until they had proven themselves to be trustworthy”. Similar figures were quoted by TWC2’s immediate past president John Gee in his article published in July.
Cases of residents petitioning against building foreign workers dormitories in their neighbourhood have also been reported.
Companies’ role
Another issue that came up during the forum was the responsibility of sub-contractors and companies towards foreign workers they hire. James Gomez, who stood as a Singapore Democratic Party candidate in 2011 general elections, asked whether the panel can profile these companies and sub-contractors. “How many of these are Singaporean-owned and otherwise?” he asked.
As the panel expressed its inability to comment on the question, and with no data available from other sources, the question that still has to be asked is this: What role do the Singapore-owned companies play in looking after the welfare of foreign workers?
Government’s role
Finally, the spotlight was on the government’s role in improving the situation of foreign workers in Singapore. Even more so, since it is one of the major players in the construction sector of the country.
All the mega projects announced recently by the government require construction workers, which the sub-contractors source from other countries. So it is for the government to make sure all its sub-contractors treat their foreign workers fairly and with dignity. Such checks and measures can form a part of the contracts awarded by the government.
A point noted by Siew Kum Hong, vice-president of Maruah. “Internationally, when bigger companies, which care about workers rights and welfare, outsource or sub-contract to smaller companies, they make sure their work ethic and philosophy flow through. A good example are the steps IT-giant Apple took to improve labour conditions at its manufacturing sub-contractors facilities in China.”
Understandably, the most important comment of the night came from a young Singaporean lady in the audience who said that she feels “lucky” to be able to study overseas. “Because it helped me look outside of this paradigm [the one Mathi talked about] and realise how important it is to not view everything in terms of just profit and loss. Unfortunately, this attitude is pervasive among my generation as well. All my friends, who are doing well in school and colleges here in Singapore have also taken to thinking within this Singaporean paradigm.”
Let's Talk
As the fourth year-long SG conversation in just over 20 years draws to a close, a look back at the last one – Remaking Singapore (2002), and its major recommendations.
The nation waits eagerly for the coming Sunday’s National Day Rally speech by Prime Minsiter Lee Hsien Loong. It was almost two years ago, when on a Sunday morning, just after the elections results were announced, PM Lee assured his fellow Singaporeans, “we hear all your voices”. He followed it up last year, when during his National Day Rally speech, he announced the decision to start a national conversation on all issues concerning Singaporeans, to be called Our Singapore Conversation (OSC). Now, after one year of OSC, and close to 47,000 participants in over 660 sessions, Heng Swee Keat, Education Minister and chairman of the OSC committee, has indicated the possibility of PM announcing major policy shifts, especially in the areas of healthcare, housing and Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), on August 18.
It has been just over 10 years when the government last undertook such an exercise. The year was 2002, when the Remaking Singapore (RS) committee was set up under the chairmanship of then minister of state for national development, Vivian Balakrishnan. The committee submitted its report titled, Changing Mindsets Deepening Relationships, on June 19, 2003, to the then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. In all, about 10,000 Singaporeans were consulted and four themes were identified for renewal and change. These were – a home for all Singaporeans, a home owned, a home for all seasons, and a home to cherish.
Some of RS recommendations in education, which are relevant even today, included broadening the definition of success to celebrate and appreciate non-academic attainments, modification of school ranking system where academic performance draws disproportionate attention, enhance diversity of the school curriculum through elective modules, and allowing schools and universities greater flexibility to admit students.
The RS committee also advocated a lighter touch in regulation to promote creativity and added, “It is timely to calibrate the government’s approach towards public expression to promote a more creative and innovative society and culture. We need to find a new balance that maintains law and order and yet does not stifle the creativity of our people.”
Thus, the committee added, “In line with the principle of having a more green-lane rather than red-lane approach, it is recommended that the authorities remove the requirement for prior vetting of all scripts, and instead set out clear guidelines on what constitutes objectionable content.”
In another recommendation to enlarge space for expression and experimentation, the committee urged the government to define “political” OB (out-of-bound) markers. “There is much ambiguity as to what constitutes being engaged in the discussion of ‘political’ issues. This has created the impression that the discussion of political governance is tantamount to engagement in politics. One proposal is for the government to define ‘political’ clearly to mean action and speech that directly engage in electioneering and party politics, that is, within the arena of the contest for political power. Discussions in all other contexts should be allowed so long as they do not compromise sovereignty, security and religious/ethnic harmony.”
Noting that the desire of citizens to contribute must also be matched by willingness on the part of the government to share information, listen and accommodate, the committee “proposed that the government draw up a Code of Consultation, which should be a a public document providing guidelines and minimum standards on when and how the public should be consulted.” “Presently, information sharing and consultation on government policies and programmes are left to the discretion of government agencies, leading to a variety of practices and standards,” it said.
Acknowledging that the participation of Singaporeans in groups and associations indicate their desire to contribute to the society, which if allowed also deepens their attachment to the country, the committee advised for easier registration of groups and associations.
Also, in a bid to promote self-reliance among Singaporeans, it recommended that unemployed individuals could be allowed, on a very limited and exceptional basis, to tap available resources in their CPF accounts to support themselves through spells of unemployment. Similarly, “HDB should consider allowing Singaporeans to re-mortgage part of their assets to meet urgent cash requirements rather than for them to be forced to sell their flats.”
The committee also proposed to expand the role of insurance in healthcare financing. “While it may not be feasible (nor palatable) to impose compulsory coverage at this point in time, initiatives and incentives can be put in place to provide better coverage.”
Furthermore, the committee said that even though Singapore has made a very good attempt at recreating street life, at Boat Quay and Clarke Quay, success may unwittingly be limited by the contrived environment and regulated, organised setting. “We should allow people to hawk their wares creatively, either with or without a small licence fee on a vacant piece of land. We can encourage flea and antique markets, or entrepreneurship through ‘car boot sales’ on empty JTC or state land.”
In conclusion, the RS committee noted that as “Remaking Singapore” must be an ongoing process, it must involve everyone who calls Singapore home.
| “Proposals without consensus” by the Remaking Singapore committee: | Major recommendations by RS |
|---|---|
|
Expression and Participation:
Education:
Safety Nets:
|