P Francis, who emigrated from Singapore to Australia in 1990, reflects on his early years as an immigrant and what awaits new arrivals now.
IMMIGRATION is a hot topic today, especially in Australia, as the federal elections are on the horizon and the ‘boat people invasion’ of the land of milk and honey accelerates and hogs local headlines. The annual intake of immigrants to Australia has soared and 190,000 are expected in 2012-2013.
After World War II, since 1945, there has been a surge with an influx of 7.2 million people – about a third of Australia’s population today. Each decade after 1950, there have been almost a million arrivals. For instance, between 2000 and 2010 there were more than 1.2 million immigrants; in the 1990s over 900,000; and in the 1980s about 1.1 million. The trend is spiralling upwards as compared to 1.6 million over 15 years from 1945.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the largest source of immigrants in 2008-2009 was India with 59,400, followed by mainland China (33,300), the UK (29,300) and NZ (28,000). The last two countries used to be the major source countries, but India changed that trend in 2006-07.This despite allegations that “Indian students carrying laptops and mobiles were being targeted” in some robberies.
I emigrated from Singapore in 1990 with my family on a “one-way ticket” after succeeding at the third attempt – through a job sponsorship in Melbourne to set up desktop publishing. I had actually collected forms from the Canadian High Commission, then in Anson Road, just before the Australian approval arrived.
In my case, I was determined to leave for a better lifestyle and even surrendered my Singapore citizenship soon after arriving in Melbourne so that I could withdraw my CPF and use it to buy a house without a loan. That done, I worked two jobs like many other new immigrants to send money to aged parents and because my wife took nearly three years to find a regular job – it happened after Jeff Kennett won the State election to become the 43rd Victorian Premier in October 1992. The State economy then moved up a gear as employers gained confidence and hired more staff – among them new immigrants.
There were already more than 140 ethnic groups in Australia then. Today the largest source of new arrivals is China, followed by India – many of whom come on student visas. The dream of owning a house and a car or two (one for the wife to go to work or ferry the children in ‘mum’s taxi’ to school) is within the grasp of the majority.
Using CPF funds, I was able to buy a new double-storey house (called a bungalow in Singapore) for A$166,000 before spending about A$60k for the landscaping, furnishing and adding a conservatory connected to the rumpus (games/TV) room. It was located about 33km from the city. More importantly, it had friendly neighbours, including Greeks, Italians and Asians. For some reason the local media uses Asian for Chinese-looking people only! I did not want to pay more in the inner suburbs,where there were trains and trams, because the houses were more than 50 years older and rarely had an extra bathroom, living area and double garage.
In Singapore, I bought a new 1980 four-cylinder Mitsubishi Lancer GL for S$27,500. In Melbourne, I have changed my car a few times. But imagine buying a new Australian-made 2001 six-cylinder Ford Falcon Forte for $27,800 including extra accessories! That car is still driving well and I love it.
When I look back, I traded in a home in a congested city, where owning a car was expensive and finding a job without “knowledge of Mandarin is an advantage” tagged on at the bottom of the job advertisement was difficult. Generally, over in Australia, you are given a “fair go” and it is possible to buy your dream home, own a car or two, and English is required in most jobs.
My personal view on the standard of living in Australia compared to Singapore is very basic: how many years’ average gross income do you need to buy a new average car? Or even a three-bedroom single-storey house? Over here, a young non-graduate worker may earn gross $30,000 pa – but usually opts for a used car. As for a house, the same worker’s gross income for 10 years will pay for the house.
Make no mistake about it, uprooting your family and moving to a foreign land that you may have holidayed in once is not everyone’s cup of tea (not even the tarik version)! It requires loads of determination and stamina to overcome obstacles in job searches, housing, education and integration into Australian society.
For instance if you are invited to tea it means dinner and not tea, cakes and scones! If you are told to bring a plate, ensure it has food on it. As for drinks, including alcohol, BYO means bring your own. The best part, in my opinion, when eating out with friends or colleagues is that you do not have to “fight” to pay the bill Singapore-style because you belanjar, lah! Everyone usually pays by splitting the bill.
In the 1990s, many local Aussies ate Chinese (food) or takeaway, such as fried rice, sweet and sour pork or chicken and beef in blackbean sauce. This is a paradox because the first Chinese arrived during the gold mining boom circa 1850 and, you guessed it, many were cooks! This history can be seen at the Chinese Museum in Melbourne’s CBD where Lighting Up Multiculturalism is on until 15 September. The gold rush between 1851 and 1860 saw the growth of Ballarat and Bendigo into large regional centres.
Today local Aussies are more adventurous with the menu because of the influence of immigrant colleagues. Some have also learnt to “share” dishes in a meal. There are many Thai, Indian and other ethnic restaurants springing up even in the outer suburbs to tempt the palate. Singapore and Malaysian food is easily available and the better ones are authentic and have to follow strict food-handling rules.
Italy-born Walter Varrasso arrived in Melbourne by boat in 1957 when he was eight years old. He recalled vividly: “Egypt had closed the Suez Canal for a few years and sunk ships to block it. We had to sail around Africa.” Those days the greengrocers, milk bars and fish-and-chip shops were run by Italians and Greeks. “Today,” he said, “they are run by the Chinese, Vietnamese and Laotians – the boat people of the Vietnam war. I lived in Abbotsford then, where there were no Asians. Today Vietnamese and Cambodians dominate the area.”
On racial discrimination, Walter said: “In my school days, I copped racial abuse and the ‘white’ boys called me derogatory terms, such as ‘diego’ and ‘wog’ (Western Oriented Gentleman). My teacher wanted me out of the school since I was ethnic.” Now he is part of the “white” community in Australia.
Today new Australians have difficulty finding work as they grow older and compete with young university graduates for limited vacancies. Some become self-employed as couriers, taxi drivers, security guards or operate stalls in shopping centres and weekend markets. Those with savings may buy lottery and fast-food franchises. Others, who made wise investments in property or shares, can retire and enjoy the fruits of their labour.
Victor Soo arrived from Singapore in 2003 as a skilled migrant. Today he runs a food place and observed that Aussies have learned to eat spicy food on their travels. He said: “I befriend everyone to integrate with society, not just Asians. Job position does not matter here.”
In 2013, the road for new arrivals is smoother as there is more help for them to assimilate in a society where Asians are accepted. Many study hard to become professionals, such as accountants, dentists, doctors, nurses and in IT. However, blue- collar workers in the trades can earn more than office workers!
So long as you are young and not fussy about the type of work you do, you are able to survive. Many Indian “students” arrive and take jobs the locals shy away from, including petrol station attendants, supermarket trolley collectors and taxi drivers. I know of a Sri Lankan engineer, who is on a two-year visa where he is required to clock 38 hours a week to obtain permanent residency. He is working as a cleaner. It is something not everyone (certainly most Singaporeans) will want to do because of the“What will people back in Singapore say?” attitude.
If the clock could be turned back, and I had to make the decision to emigrate once again would I do it any differently? No, I would not – there are no regrets because you cannot compare an apple with a pineapple. I believe opportunity does not knock and you have to seize it and make the most of it because you cannot find heaven on earth!
Immigration — then and now
Singapore's No 1 soccer fan
By Suresh Nair
PASSION is a seven-letter word deep-seated in Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee as he plays a pivotal role in promoting Singapore football.
Now retired from politics, the former senior minister of state (law & home affairs), who was formerly the FAS (Football Association of Singapore) president, continues to score goals as the FAS adviser, supporting the Lions, even during a recent international friendly match in Myanmar.
He believes that to be a true fan requires the living experience of football. It is not about being a mere spectator. It is about being a participant. Using his role-model experience, he says that attending away games is an important ritual for fans involving a number of psychological and logistical challenges.
He has a defiant stance against “fair-weather supporters”, those who only attend matches occasionally or when their team is doing well.
A genuine football fan, he says, is one who “attends both home and away games without fail”. “Wear apparel that reflects your support,” he adds. “At the games, cheer vociferously in unison with other supporters. Come whether the game is important or not. Keep coming whether or not the team is winning or losing”.
In an exclusive interview with The Independent, Singapore, 59-year-old Ho pours his heart out on the importance of fan-atical support in making football the No 1 sport in Singapore.
Question: How do you see your role as a fan, or even as a VIP fan, in supporting the Lions, as you did recently in Myanmar?
Answer: Fans must be passionate in their support. Don’t be there just to show your face. Be there to make a difference by making your presence felt in a positive way. An indelible memory I have is jumping up from my seat, shouting in sheer joy, in the VIP box in Bangkok Stadium in 2007, right next to my Thai hosts, who sat glumly beside me, when (striker) Khairul Amri took the ball from near the halfway line, ran almost half the field and let fly with a venomous shot that curled into goal.
That equalizer won Singapore the Tiger Cup for a consecutive time as we triumphed in the first leg in Singapore. I was then 30 months into my FAS presidency.
How do you view the inconsistently-toned support for Singapore football?
Our fans like to see winning teams. But, really, it’s when our teams don’t do well that they need passionate fans to spur them on, to get them going. Fans should remain loyal and stick with the team through thick and thin. This way, there is real joy when the team wins some honours at the end of the season, because you were there to lift their spirits up when they were down.
Your thoughts on the contrasting fan support in the MSL (Malaysian Soccer League) and S-League?
I think it’s understandable that the level of passion and support for the S-League teams differs from that for the Lions XII. Whatever FAS or the authorities call the Lions XII, a club team, fans see them as a Singapore team.
The Malaysian state teams see them as a Singapore team. So, there is really no comparison. I will not be worried at the different levels of support. Key is for each S-League team to press on in reaching out to potential supporters in their “hinterland”, surrounding constituencies, neighbouring polytechnics, ITEs and private schools, foreigners living here (Japanese for Albirex Niigata and French for Tanjong Pagar (which has four French players).
Obviously, fan support for the 17-year-old S-League is declining. What more can be done to draw back the crowds?
Attendance at this year’s S-League games has increased by 20 per cent. compared to last year. So, there is promise. I’ve attended about 20 S-League games this year. The atmosphere, at the better games, has been quite good.
What we need are better playing fields so that the football can be played at an even faster pace. The S-League together with Singapore Sports Council (SSC) is working on this.
At some games, I’ve sat on the other side of the pitch from across the VIP stand, the lower stands which are nearer the field of play. The feeling is quite good because you are more absorbed into the action. Now, many clubs send their players to the shopping malls and hawker centres to publicize their home games. Every little bit counts. So, I’m optimistic about the S-League.
Your view of the fanatical fan support, a la ‘Kallang Roar’ of the 70s and 80s, compared to the whimper-like support now? Any reasons for the lack of rousing fan support?
The “Kallang Roar” will need a rebuilt Kallang Stadium, aka The Sport Hub, to reverberate once again. That will come if our Lions XII continue their good form and run, complemented by a rising national team under new coach Bernd Stange.
The fan support at Jalan Besar for the crucial Lions XII games has been heartwarming, portending better things to come when the Sports Hub is built. The key is to continue nurturing and developing our various age group teams, which under Zainudin Nordin (current FAS president) have been doing well.
What, in your opinion, are the most important value-adds of a die-hard football fan?
Attend both home and away games without fail (unless exigencies call). Wear apparel that reflects your support. At the games, cheer vociferously in unison with other supporters. Come whether the game is important or not. Keep coming whether or not the team is winning or losing. If opportunity arises, encourage the players, for example, shake their hands, hug them, send them a card, cheer them when they are on the move – and all the more so, if they are losing their games!
Were you a fanatical football fan during your teens? Please recall one or two of the most memorable matches you’re seen as a fan.
I’ve watched many Malaysia Cup games at the National Stadium. I recall the likes of Arshad Khamis, V. Kanisen, Mohd Noh, Arumugam (the ‘Spiderman’ goalkeeper), Soh Chin Aun (The ‘Towkay’), Dollah Salleh, the Bakar brothers from Penang. I remember standing right at the top of the National Stadium at one of the matches soaking in the entire atmosphere. It was great!
Please trace your football playing moments. I believe you were a striker and enjoyed scoring goals.
No, I was not a striker, a bit short for that. My favourite position was right or central midfield. I’ve captained every team I’ve played with and the midfield was the best position to be at. I am not particularly skilful with the ball, no mazy runs like Quah Kim Song, but an aggressive midfielder who tries to win the ball and then spread it around, more like Billy Bremner of Leeds United.
A memorable moment? Learning that the offside rule does not apply in seven-a-side games! Playing for National Junior College (NJC) against Raffles Institution (RI), I raised my hand to the referee thinking that he would blow for offside when an RI player, whom I was marking, scored a goal.
I still remember the referee shaking his head and saying: “No offside”.
How fanatical is the Ho family, being footballing (or sporting) fans?
I courted my wife through sports. She played badminton for Singapore University (SU). I played football for SU. We were at the Biennial Inter-varsity Games (BIG) games in Jakarta in 1976. I started showing my interest in her then. Between my wife and me, we played the following sports competitively when younger, track and field (she won a gold medal in high jump, representing Singapore Primary Schools against Malaysian schools in Penang in 1966), badminton, netball, biddy basketball and rugby.
We have three sporty girls, now aged 30, 26 and 20. They represented school, college, university in games such as netball, basketball, football, softball, table tennis, touch rugby and athletics. As you know, I believe strongly in the value of sports in inculcating positive values in our young people and in bonding families. My family and I live it!
From your political years, who were the members of Parliament (MPs) and/or ministers who were football fans? The most memorable politician-footballer?
There were many, some more skilful than others, but all very passionate.
Yatiman Yusof played despite a heart problem. Abdullah Tarmugi was not that mobile, but sent his son to strengthen our MPs’ team! Lee Yiok Seng tried hard and injured himself. Others like Leong Horn Kee, Davinder Singh, Loh Meng See, R Ravindran and R. Sinnakaruppan sportingly donned their gear when called upon. A great bunch!
They did it, the kids I mean
By Abhijit Nag
“If there be a paradise on earth, it is here, it is here,” proclaims the inscription at the entrance of a famous Mughal building in India. The existence, location and admission rules of the Pearly Gates are open to debate. But if heaven is a state of mind for a moment in time, this correspondent experienced it on August 9 off Marina Bay in Singapore. No kidding, the experience was validated by the sighting of the Father, the Son and the Holy Goh.
Jokes aside, it felt wonderful to be at the National Day Parade (NDP) 2013. It was dazzling, heartwarming. A great show was put up largely by the kids of Singapore.
But the first lump in the throat this correspondent experienced was when the giant screen on the stage showed the old man. He looked so fragile, wispy-haired, rheumy-eyed – the man who with his team built this Singapore that celebrated 48 years of independence yesterday.
To recall an old rock’n’roll hit he won’t approve, you can’t judge a book by looking at the cover. Appearances can be deceptive. On the rare occasions he speaks, he is still as insightful as ever. But he was there only to be seen, not heard, yesterday when all the noise was made by ordinary Singaporeans – the parade participants and the cheering spectators.
True to NDP tradition, the leaders did not speechify, exhort, leaning back on their chairs instead or waving flags as the participants marched, sang and generally made whoopee. It was Singapore like no other day and everyone seemed to be enjoying the break, including a smiling President Tony Tan, who shook hands with a cartoon character. Really.
I saw the future of Singapore and it looked bright. Happy, smiling, singing, dancing, cheering, the bubbly kids who seemed to be everywhere at the parade really made a difference. Whoever came up with the idea of making NDP 2013 a children’s special should be signed up as a campaign manager by someone or the other for the next general election. This dude really knows how to work the crowd. I could not help smiling at the kids who gave out balloons, kacang puteh, and showed us how to do the Singapore wave. Their happiness, their enthusiasm, was infectious.
I wonder how many oldies like me chuckled when Gurmit Singh & Co sang, “We built this city on rock and roll”. That was a hit for Jefferson Starship. Grace Slick and her original band, Jefferson Airplane, are probably best known for their hit, White Rabbit, which was about Alice in Wonderland and, some say, drugs.
I am old enough to remember a time when hip young men did not want to come to Singapore because they would have to cut their precious, long hair. Now it is Singaporeans who want fewer foreigners working and living in their midst, but everyone can twist and shout – at least, on the dance floor. Bob Dylan, Simon and Garfunkel , the Rolling Stones – almost all my idols have by now performed in Singapore.
Yes, Singapore has changed. Caught in the excitement of the Pop Quiz where the spectators answered questions about Singapore, my wife said: “Singapore really knows how to bring the people together.” That certainly seemed true at NDP 2013 where everyone seemed to be cheering and waving flags or light sticks or making a racket with rattling clappers when not taking pictures with their cameras or smartphones.
Thank goodness it happens only once a year. Aren’ t you supposed to go to heaven only once?
Why not a party?
By Tan Bah Bah
The buntings are up for the National Day Parade or NDP, as most Singaporeans would refer to the national bash. Once a year, Singaporeans from every section of society get together to celebrate the country’s birthday – with much pomp and glory. But is the dancing, singing, flag-waving getting a little repetitive? Many approach the event with both a burst of pride and patriotism and a sense of déjà vu.
There had always been something stirring about the sight of Lee Kuan Yew (when he was in his ramrod prime) arriving to take his place on the VIP dais. Loud applause would greet him as his motorcade rolled in. Thunderous cheers would break out as he emerged and waved at the crowd. Similar palpable excitement would ripple through the audience, albeit mixed with increasing nostalgia and acceptance of mortality, in the last few years, as a less vigorous but still determined Lee joined his fellow MPs.
In the post-LKY era, the arrivals of the Prime Minister and the President (complete with 21-gun salute), the playing of the national anthem and, lately, the reciting of the National Pledge continue to be some of the highlights of every NDP. The symbols of statehood are reinforced again and again into the national psyche.
NPD also offers an opportunity to showcase many aspects of Singapore life – the reassuring military hardware and capability (the jetfighter flypast, helicoptered flag and precision parachute jumps), the community and civic groups, business fraternity, youths, culture, drills, fireworks and general song and dance.
The big question, 47 NDPs later, is: Do we now squeeze the format into an all too familiar routine – and risk the parade being as exciting as making or drinking
3-in-1 coffee? Or should we let the customers suggest other interesting ways to keep the brew fresh – and let it become something to look forward to, to enjoy every year, instead of an event which may have outlived its usefulness?
We do not necessarily have to settle down into a top-down , centralised, over-controlled, politically correct, picture-perfect parade year in, year out.
Try new approaches. Here are some thoughts and ideas, culled by this writer from Singaporeans who have taken part in the NDP as well as watched and interacted as spectators with their rattles, whistles and torchlights.
- Cut down the propaganda: The NDP is neither the right place nor the occasion to preach productivity or filial piety or trumpet the higher tonnage of PSA container ports.
- Periodically, let the various regional communities organise the parade: Encourage them to bring the flavours of their areas into the NDP. One year, Bukit Timah/Ulu Pandan/Holland Village will perhaps have more English-educated types showing off their Shakespearean talents or international perspectives. At another NDP, Ang Mo Kio/Bishan/Toa Payoh will bring in the heartland colours. At yet during other parades, the Central Zone (CBD) and an extremely vibrant West Coast (universities and Sentosa) will keep the proceedings slightly less predictable .
- Invite elected opposition parties: The party must have a minimum of three elected MPs, including non-constituency ones. This would be a logical development in the new normal. After all, the PAP always has a contingent in the parade. Plus, opposition MPs represent Singaporeans and already take part as VIPs in the grandstands.
- Allow a special sports champions group: All recognized sports, or at last those covered by the Singapore National Olympic Council or Football Association of Singapore.
- Make one year a special “care for the handicapped year:” Let the National Pledge be recited by a group of handicapped persons. This would be a highly visible commitment to the cause of a more caring society.
- Hook up live to Singaporeans around the globe: Examples are our ambassadors, students, the Singapore diaspora (however small), businessmen, travellers in off-the-beaten-track places, such as Mt Everest or Afghanistan. They can just wish the country “happy birthday” or the masters of ceremonies can have a conversation with them.
- Work towards a more relaxed parade: Emphasize on the celebratory part of NDP. It is about time to let go. This cosmopolitan society has enough creative instincts to do a good job of organizing and enjoying a great party.
Happy birthday, Singapore!
Tan Bah Bah is a retired journalist. He was a senior leader writer/columnist with The Straits Times and managing editor of a local magazine company.
Ah Singapore! Sweet relief
Look who is loosening up. Singapore wants freedom of speech – on s***.
No offence meant. While the four-letter word, usually fudged by asterisks in print, did not escape the lips of the Singapore envoy, the message was clear. Singapore wants free and candid airing of privy problems to ensure everyone gets a proper shake in a restroom.
If you are not privy to this, you have been probably been following the news in the Straits Times. To recap the news, Singapore’s first ever resolution was passed by the United Nations last month — to declare Nov 19 World Toilet Day. That made the front page of the Straits Times.
But here’s what it did not add. This is from the AFP report:
“I am sure there will be laughter among the press and the public when it is reported that the UN is declaring a World Toilet Day,” said Singapore charge d’affaires Mark Neo before a unanimous UN General Assembly vote in favour of the measure. “Their laughter is welcome, especially if they recognise the prevailing and unhealthy taboo that prevents an open and serious discussion of the problems of sanitation and toilets globally,” Neo told the 193-member assembly.
Note the words: “open and serious discussion” of …. Yes, s*** in a nutshell.
Unfortunately, it’s not always flushed away. There are still plenty of places where it dries in the bushes, bakes in the soil … yech! You don’t want to go there, but we can’t turn a blind eye to the problems of the millions of people who are still deprived of toilets.
That’s what the Singapore envoy said. And if anyone thinks it potty – this focus on fecal matters – that view is not shared by the UN General Assembly. It voted unanimously for the Singapore resolution. For a good reason, too. As the resolution noted, of the world’s seven billion people, six billion have mobile phones. However, only 4.5 billion have access to toilets or latrines – meaning that 2.5 billion people, mostly in rural areas, do not have proper sanitation. In addition, 1.1 billion people still defecate in the open.
Open-air defecation is “extremely harmful” to public health, the assembly noted. Ending open defecation will lead to “a 35 per cent reduction of diarrhoea, which results in over 750,000 deaths of children under five years of age every year,” said Neo. He also pointed out that “without safe and private toilets women and girls face the threat of violence when they go out of their homes to relieve themselves”.
It is interesting that Neo was talking about problems – lack of toilets, open-air defecation –faced by other countries, not Singapore.
Does it mean Singapore is taking more interest in the lives of other people? For, after all, this was the first UN resolution proposed by Singapore. How apt that the “Air-Conditioned Nation” should propose a World Toilet Day!
While others talk of freedom and democracy, Singapore is concerned about health and hygiene.
The UN resolution could be seen as the Singapore addendum to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The latter’s Article 25 says: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” The new resolution adds a specific , calling for better sanitation.
It’s a victory for Singapore’s “Mr Toilet” Jack Sim, who expressed relief at the UN resolution. “It feels like I won the Nobel Prize for sanitation,” he said. The World Toilet Organisation he founded in 2001 has celebrated November 19 as World Toilet Day all these years. Now the UN has joined the celebration, too, just as he wanted.
He duly thanked George Yeo, who made it possible. The former foreign minister impressed by his good work put him in touch with the foreign ministry, which helped him meet the UN delegates in April. The rest, as they say, is history. Nobody dumped on the Singapore motion for universal , healthy, hygienic toilet breaks.
Prime Minister Lee’s National Day Message 2013
Amidst economic and political stresses, an emphasis on unity and inclusiveness
Most Singaporeans viewing the Prime Minister’s National Day message, released on 8 August, would find some notes that resonated with their concerns. The message struck a cautious balance between egalitarianism versus self-reliance, between celebrating Singapore’s successes versus recalibrating the policies of the past.
The message began with a stock-take of the government’s progress in easing the infrastructure bottlenecks for which the Prime Minister had taken responsibility in his statements at the IPS Conference in January. “We have cleared the queue for HDB flats, stabilised BTO prices and tightened up on property speculation and excessive borrowing,” PM Lee said. “We have added more buses and increased the number of bus routes…We will add more trains to the existing lines.”
In a reference to the Population White Paper debate in February, PM Lee reiterated what he saw as the difficult trade-off between the economic need for foreign labour versus the need to manage over-crowding and preserve the core Singaporean identity.
His comments reinforced the view that the government would stick to the course it outlined in February, of recalibrating but not radically decreasing the import of foreign labour. “So we are feeling our way forward carefully, conscious both of our needs and our limits, and seeking the best outcome for Singaporeans.”
When speaking of the challenges facing Singapore, the Prime Minister, interestingly, emphasized in equal measure external and internal challenges. Past messages have tended to emphasize global economic conditions, underlining how Singapore is a “price-taker” in the world economy. The current global economic environment does hold its fair share of dangers.
However in his 2013 message PM Lee gave equal attention to internal challenges arising from an aging population. He spoke candidly about the interests of different groups. “Different groups in society now have more diverse and even conflicting interests. Older Singaporeans worry about healthcare and costs of living. Younger ones aspire to wider education opportunities and more affordable homes.”
More familiar was the Prime Minister’s reference to how foreigners frequently turned to Singapore for best practice models in governance – a recurring theme in government speeches. PM Lee went one step further and argued how “our strong Singapore brand” benefitted all citizens – by allowing workers to command a premium in wages, for example.
The single biggest theme in the message was perhaps the need for unity amidst internal tensions and external dangers.
The Prime Minister dwelt on the importance of Our Singapore Conversation (OSC) – launched at the PM’s National Day Rally speech in 2012 and now gradually drawing to a close.
He described how the OSC was helping the government to “adapt our basic approach to nation building.” Underlining what Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam had referred to in an interview earlier in 2013 as a left-ward shift in the Cabinet, PM Lee’s message boldly stated: “We must strike a new balance between the roles of the individual, the community and the State.” His speech explored different manifestations of this theme – from strengthening social safety nets and containing living costs to fostering social mobility and embracing different definitions of success.
While striking a familiar note that Singaporeans needed to “strengthen our sense of community” through charity, volunteerism and self-organization, PM Lee stated: “The Government will also play a bigger role to build a fair and just society.”
While the Prime Minister touched on the importance of individual effort and responsibility, the overall emphasis appeared to be on the need for changes in the traditional social contract.
Towards the end of the speech, PM Lee exhorted Singaporeans to stay united, echoing the call made by Minister for Education (and leader of the OSC process) Heng Swee Keat a day earlier, that there needed to be trust between the government and the people.
“At the same time, all this is only possible if we are one united people, and not divided by race, social class, or political faction. We must always have able, honest and committed leaders, who can be trusted to serve Singaporeans. ..That is the way to build a better Singapore – together.”
The reference to undesirable divisions “by political faction” might invite concerns from some quarters that this reflects a perceived move by the government to respond more robustly to its critics and control the terms of debate – from curbs on internet media and letters of demand sent to bloggers, to more robust criticism of the Opposition in Parliament.
However the Prime Minister’s message seemed to recognize that unity was a two-way street that depended on “able, honest and committed leaders” as well as a recalibration of the traditional social contract.
The Prime Minister’s 2013 message, at the end of the day, was mainly about Singapore and Singaporeans – how, in a changing society with diverse perspectives, the path to unity would make demands on everyone.
Confessions of an editor
By P N Balji
Editor, The Independent Singapore
A reluctant editor, I have been called a newsroom chameleon and now find myself a digital virgin.
The transformation is not by design, but by accident.
I have spent 35 years in the print media, am a father of two daughters and grandfather to two little boys… and now a virgin?
I may have been promiscuous in print, having worked for several newspapers (The Malay Mail, The New Nation, The Straits Times, The New Paper and Today), but I am a newbie in new media.
What prompted me to take the plunge? Because grizzled newspapermen, unlike old soldiers, nowadays don’t fade away; they turn into “newsosaurs” – dinosaurs with printer’s ink in their blood.
They continue to want to have their say on cyberspace, or what some call the Wild, Wild Web. Not that you will see anything wild on this website because The Independent Singapore will be governed by its three ideological pillars — responsible, intelligent, robust.
Sure, we are the new kid on the block, some may even call us Johnny-come-lately, but there’s a time for everything – and now is the time for The Independent Singapore.
We are kind of dazzled to have the spotlight thrown on us even before our launch. You must have read or heard of the statement issued by the Media Development Authority saying that “the Government has received specific information which gives us cause for concern over foreign interest to fund The Independent.”
Our shareholders’ agreement, reached three months before the statement was issued, expressly prohibits foreign funding. The board and core team behind The Independent consists of Singaporeans.
We hope this assurance is enough and believe the matter will end there.
We are gratified, of course, by the interest shown, with many Singaporeans and former Singaporeans writing to us from as far afield as Australia, Britain and America. Some of their articles appear here.
Even more satisfying are the calls from friends and well wishers showing support, with one even saying: “I want to put in some money, not much,into your project.”
I did not expect anything like this when I got my first newspaper job, as a reporter for The Malay Mail on April Fool’s Day, 1970.
My parents, especially my father who was a poet and a writer, were thrilled. I started on a salary of $250 plus a transport allowance of $60 a month. That pay slip is still in my file with my letter of appointment signed by the former President of Singapore and at that time the editorial manager of Straits Times Press.
Subsequently, I moved up the ranks at The New Nation and The Straits Times, got married, bought a house, had children.
The New Paper
And then, as I said at the start of this article, I became a reluctant editor. I still remember the day in 1990. Peter Lim, then chief editor of The New Paper, wanted me, his deputy, to take over.
I balked at the responsibility. The New Paper was only two years old. It was a burdensome job, I thought, which would require me to spend long hours away from my family, tending a literally new paper.
Also, a couple of years before that I had a medical scare which needed me to seek treatment for a heart ailment. I asked my wife, Uma, to decide.
It was not an easy decision. She thought long and hard for three days before she said: yes, take the job.
Now playing with my four-year-old grandson, I am reminded of those early days as editor of The New Paper. It was like bringing up a child. It was still finding its feet, taking uncertain steps, getting its bearings in a sometimes censorious world.
The original New Paper with its bite-sized stories was dismissed as a fluffy little rag by Singaporeans accustomed to the heavy-reading Straits Times.
Changes had to be made. The stories got longer but continued to be told like stories. The language remained crisp, the style informal, as if the reporters and columnists were not giving news and views but talking to the readers, sharing insights and other information. The reader-friendly stories with arresting headlines and eye-catching graphics went down like chilled beer in a heat wave. Circulation soared past 100,000 copies a day.
We did make mistakes. In a horrendous and embarrassing error in 1996, The New Paper reported that former deputy minister Toh Chin Chye, driving a pick-up, had been involved in a hit-and-run accident. The real culprit turned out to be a much younger man with the same name.
It is still painful to recall the unfortunate incident and its grave repercussions. The acting editor and the news editor were demoted and, with a heavy heart, I had to let the reporter go.
He was young, talented, famous for his scoops, but the news is a harsh business; journalists have to pay for their mistakes.
It took a while but the newsroom managed to get over the shame of that mistake and the pain of losing one of its good reporters.
There were momentous events (like the Gulf War) and the 1991 General Elections (when the PAP lost four seats) to cover.
It was heady, stimulating, but ultimately the thrill was disappearing. By the end of the ‘90s, I was feeling jaded, looking for a change.
I approached Cheong Yip Seng, then editor-in-chief of the English and Malay Division of Singapore Press Holdings (SPH), and asked to be sent as a correspondent to India. But he wanted me to stay on at The New Paper.
Today
That was when the call came from a headhunter. MediaCorp was looking for someone to launch a newspaper. I could not say no. I could be daddy again! Bring another newspaper to life.
Some called me a traitor for leaving SPH. But this was making history. For the first time in decades, a newspaper was being launched that did not belong to SPH. The monopoly was about to be broken with competition introduced in the newspaper business.
There were sceptics who wondered if I was the right man for the job, thinking any brain-child of mine would be another New Paper.
But I knew a New Paper double would not work. Since Today was a free paper (the SPH publications till today refer to it derogatively as a freesheet); its only revenue stream was from advertising. And a downmarket paper would not attract the kind of advertising dollars to make it successful.
The readers had to be offered something different.
Today was different. It did not tell stories like The New Paper did, was not crowded with infographics. It told the news straight, like a pithier version of The Straits Times. What made it different was the way it mixed reporting and analysis, especially in the main front-page story. When readers are pressed for time, they should be told what’s happening and what it means in the same story, I think.
Three years later, in 2003, with my contract expiring I decided it was time to take a break as CEO of MediaCorp Press and editor in chief of Today.
Soon after I left Today, SPH acquired a stake in the newspaper in 2004. So there’s no more competition in the print media. But I was recalled by MediaCorp and had to oversee Today again from … November 2006 till October 2008 when I finally left the conglomerate.
The Independent
I have been writing online off and on for some time now, but the seeds for The Independent were sown only sometime in February this year – at Yakun Kaya in Junction 8. I was having coffee when I met Kumaran Pillai, an IT businessman and former editor in chief of The Online Citizen. One thing led to another. He introduced me to Alfred Dodwell, a lawyer, and Leon Perera, the CEO of an international research and consulting agency.
It was amazing how we all saw the same vacuum in the media landscape waiting to be tapped and occupied.
It is a middle ground which offers the best vantage point for an independent analysis.
With an over-responsible mainstream on the side and the over-critical online media on the other, we felt the timing was perfect for a news website like The Independent Singapore.
We chose August 9 to launch this offering. It is the 48th year of the birth of our nation. Singapore has come a long way, yet many fear for the future.
We are progressive in many ways, yet are old-fashioned or over the top in our discourse. We are an economic miracle, yet the spoils are not reaching every body.
We have many think tanks, yet the thinking is not happening.
The Independent Singapore wants to analyse all these and other issues as the country looks forward to the next 48 years.
We want to put the think back in the tank. And we want to do it in a responsible, intelligent and robust way. With the skill and sharpness of a journalist’s pen…or should I say the keyboard?
Chasing the economy's tail
By Charles Tan
There’s something special about anniversaries. They mark an event of significance, such as a birth, death or union; but they are not simply a commemoration of the passage of time, rather, they are an opportunity for reflection and renewal. And so, with National Day upon us yet again, I feel it is appropriate to pay tribute to our little red dot, in the language to which I am most accustomed: economics.
In the 48 years since independence, Singapore’s economy has experienced an almost 40-fold expansion (inflation adjusted) – a remarkable feat that has few parallels in history. Our success is due to a combination of luck, hard work and most importantly, foresight and planning, and therefore, rather than rest on our laurels (as is often all too tempting), we need to be thinking ahead to identify the potential threats and opportunities that Singapore should watch out for.
Cynics such as Nobel laureate Paul Krugman will criticise Singapore’s economic miracle as being nothing more than one driven by a sharp increase in the population, higher workforce participation rates, and inflated by significant inflows of foreign capital. The attempt to trivialise our achievements may seem offensive at first, but the man has a point. Singapore’s total factor productivity (TFP) growth over the years has been very low, and so while our economic progress is undeniable, it would seem that this is because we are working harder, rather than smarter.
To frame the argument in another way, our workers are diligent, highly educated and therefore, easily trained to adopt new technology, but in order for Singapore to continue growing, we need to be designing and inventing these groundbreaking advancements and not just importing them. This is because there is a physical limit to how many more hours one can put in at the office, how much more of the potential workforce we can mobilise or how big a population (including immigrant workers) our tiny island can support. There are also diminishing returns to capital investment; for example, the first computer an employee receives may make him much more productive, but a second one would not have nearly the same impact as the first. The statistics illustrate these issues perfectly, but I suspect the majority of readers will already be convinced: far too many of us spend more time in the office than we do with our loved ones, too many kids are being brought up by their maids rather than their parents (who are both working), and the commute to work each morning is a reminder that our infrastructure is straining under the stress of a burgeoning population.
To be fair, the government has acknowledged that low productivity growth is a problem and has dedicated significant resources to address it. However, while the policymakers speak passionately about their desire to tackle the issue, none of the proposed solutions strike me as being particularly inspired (or indeed helpful). This is because their efforts focus too much on areas such as continuing education, re-training and qualifications, which, as explained earlier, are not issues that Singapore has – our workforce is already widely recognised as being among the most hardworking, highly skilled and adaptable in the world. Therefore, subsidising these activities does not change our productivity materially; it simply puts money back into the pockets of business owners by giving away things they would have paid for anyway (as my mum, a recently retired HR manager will attest), or worse still, it fritters the money away on unnecessary training that adds little value to the company. Unfortunately, however, ours is a society cursed by the axiom “what gets measured, gets done” and I believe this is the reason the government has adopted the policies they have to date – not so much because they are effective, but because the results can be quantified.
This needs to change. Learning from the past and looking ahead to the future, my one key observation is how technology’s forces of creative destruction consistently erode our entrenched comparative advantages, and how we must therefore continually evolve to gain new ones. Technological advances such as high-speed mobile internet, cheap computing power and smartphone proliferation today mean that information asymmetries are being eliminated; this does not bode well for an economy such as Singapore’s, which still relies too heavily on middleman-type business (perhaps a consequence of our roots in entrepot trade). More and more customers around the globe, whether retail or wholesale, are buying direct from suppliers thanks to websites such as amazon.com or alibaba.com, and margins are shrinking for the middlemen still in business because prices can be so easily compared with the touch of a button.
In my view, the global economy of the future will continue moving in this direction because the history of mankind has been characterised by a relentless drive toward greater efficiency. Advanced telecoms infrastructure and the ubiquity of the internet have enabled services to be delivered across geographic boundaries and time zones, equalising the global market price for such services and bringing into question the need to pay a significant premium for staff physically situated in developed (i.e. more expensive) countries – as the case of the US developer who outsourced his job to China, and was caught earlier this year, illustrates succinctly. It is no longer sufficient that Singaporeans are skilled number crunchers or IT programmers, because these tasks can be easily and cheaply outsourced to India, China and much of the Eastern Bloc, where workers are equally highly educated, trained and qualified. Looking even further out, our fortuitous status as a shipping and transport hub may also be under threat with the promise of new transport technologies currently being developed in the US; NASA have recently unveiled a prototype helium airship that would, in time, bring air cargo rates closer in line with the shipping industry’s, and billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk has floated the idea of establishing a ‘hyperloop’ system which would enable high-speed travel of passengers and cargo between major cities and slash journey times.
I think it is therefore safe to say that the Singapore of the present must change radically, and fairly quickly, if it is to stay relevant in the global economy of the future. Policies need to focus on driving productivity through the promotion of intangible aspects such as creativity and innovation rather than rote education and training – we need to be inventing the technologies of the future instead of simply learning how to use them, and we should be designing the clothes and buildings of the future instead of simply wearing and living in them – that is where the value-added lies. However, in order to attract and retain the critical mass of talent and intellectual capital necessary to achieve these productivity gains, we need to be more than just another tax haven with a safe, family-friendly environment. To build a truly great city along the lines of a New York, London or (dare I say) Hong Kong, we need to be even more free and open than we already are now, by which I mean both at the economic level (e.g. interest rates, capital markets) and at the societal level (e.g. acceptance for homosexuality, alternative lifestyles).
In my opinion, a large part of the reason for Singapore’s lack of productivity gains stems from the fact that interest rates are artificially suppressed. The low cost of capital sets a shorter hurdle for businesses to clear, meaning they have less incentive to find ways of boosting productivity. Another significant factor in explaining the productivity shortfall, I believe, comes from our relatively homogenous population mix, not just in terms of race, but also cultural and occupational backgrounds. Revolutionary innovations come not from an incestuous in-breeding of rehashed ideas, but from a dynamic environment of challenging accepted wisdoms and a cross-pollination of ideas. For in economics, just as in nature, it is from competition and diversity that we breed strength, and Singapore needs a lot more of both. Adapting to change is never easy, as many of us can attest to, but if we are to have any hope of extending the economic miracle of the generations past for the generations to come, then change we must. Happy National Day, Singapore.
Charles Tan works an investment analyst at Cantor Fitzgerald, and is currently based in London.
Global weakness and local restructuring mean more economic speed-bumps ahead
By The Independent Singapore
The flash estimate of 3.7% real GDP growth for Singapore’s economy in Q2 2013 was greeted with relief, after a first quarter growth rate that was almost zero. The seasonally adjusted quarter-on-quarter growth rate of 15.2% also suggests that the economy is building up momentum – especially when compared with the equivalent figure of 1.8% in the first quarter.
But it is too early to pop the champagne. The final figure could still be adjusted downwards when the Q2 Economic Survey is released on Monday 12 August, in light of weak export and production data. Industrial production contracted by 5.9 per cent in June – and by 0.5 per cent if the biomedical sector is excluded. Non-oil domestic exports fell 8.8 per cent in June.
More importantly, the economy faces headwinds as it moves through the second half of the year – mostly stemming from lackluster global conditions that will weigh on the manufacturing sector and perhaps other sectors as well.
While all signs point to a genuine pace of recovery in the US economy, US GDP growth came in at only 1.4% in Q2 and US unemployment remains stuck at 7.6% – not enough to compensate for the global effect of a slowing China, a still-contracting Eurozone and a still-not-yet resurgent Japan.
The global outlook for the rest of 2013 is far from encouraging. China is likely to continue to slow down, with economic growth hovering above 7 per cent, which is a slow-down by Chinese standards. Europe is still deeply mired in structural problems, with the North-South divide remaining as stubborn as ever. And while the US housing market recovery is real, a comprehensive deal between the President and Congress on the budget deficit – which might unlock more growth – remains elusive.
In Singapore, the medium-to-long term outlook reveals a cup that is either half full or half empty, depending on your perspective. Productivity growth remains in the doldrums, meaning that economic restructuring to wean the country off low-cost foreign labor probably has a long way to run. A weak global outlook and some internal weaknesses mean that manufacturing will remain constrained. The US Fed’s shift away from monetary easing may also cool parts of the financial services sector.
But there are glimmers of light amidst the dark clouds. Healthy Southeast Asian economies and decent fundamentals mean that tourism will continue to perform well, provided the haze is kept at bay. And the construction sector is still benefitting from the uptick in government-led construction projects relating to infrastructure and HDB flat building – it grew by a healthy 5.6 per cent in the second quarter.
Another piece of good news is that inflation in Singapore remains under control. Headline inflation hit 1.8 per cent in June, up from May’s 1.6 per cent but still well below the five per cent level that had been seen in the recent past. MAS core inflation (which removes accommodation and vehicle-related inflation) came in at 1.7 per cent, almost equivalent to headline inflation. This suggests that policy measures to cool the housing and vehicle markets are working. But these are still leaving core inflation at a level close to two per cent – which, while not high compared to past norms, will still take a bite out of real earnings for Singapore workers.
For the remainder of 2013, the downsides seem to outweigh the upsides, as global weakness combines with economic restructuring to inflict some pain on the economy. Beyond 2013 it will be a different game – that of raising the bar on Singapore’s fundamental competitive strengths in exportable services and high-end manufacturing.
Free speech is only as strong as your weakest link
By Kumaran Pillai
Managing Editor
Firstly, my sincere thanks to MDA and folks for announcing our arrival. And I thought that it would be apt to start the inaugural issue about the threats to free speech on the Internet in Singapore.
The Internet has played a pivotal role in somewhat democratizing the media landscape in Singapore. It opens up new avenues for innovative companies to exploit the market for the pent up demand for alternative news sites. However, the only thing that seems to be standing in the way is government regulation. Or, so it seems.
Orchid Revolution
The key question in our mind is is regulation necessary and what would the government achieve out of this?
Our society is going through a swift transformation and according to The Independent’s editor, PN Balji, it is “the orchid revolution,” a more subtle quite change that is taking place in our country.
“Because the government has played a critical role, a womb-to-tomb role in people’s lives, now there’s a boomerang effect. They blame the government for everything that goes wrong in Singapore,” said Balji.
Given the new political climate, it appears that the government is trying to take back control by controlling the media, or more appropriately, the Internet.
Government Control
However, when it comes to regulating the Internet, Singapore is not alone. Countries like Russia, China, Vietnam and Middle Eastern countries are proposing some form of regulation that would rein in online publications.
Jordan has recently shut down 200 online publications which are critical of the government and it is only ranked 134th by Reporters without Borders while Singapore is ranked 149th without having to shut down any site. It speaks volumes about how efficient and effective our MDA is.
But that is not the only troubling fact. There are bigger threats to our freedom on the Internet and it has nothing to do with the Singapore government.
In 2012, the United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union proposed to bring the Internet, currently overseen by private sector and engineering groups, under governmental and UN control. The bill was opposed by the US, Canada and European nations. However, there is still concern that this bill may be passed at some stage in the future.
Internet is overseen by for-profit companies
One needs to bear in mind that the Internet is nothing more than computers interconnected with each other through optic fiber cables, wireless and 3G networks that are controlled primarily by telecommunications companies. These companies may decide at some time in the future to charge toll for international traffic which is provided free of charge today.
What this means is that blogs that are running on the basis that the Internet is free may face extinction due to the additional costs that are imposed on them.
There are also new technologies that are being developed that may replace Open Systems Interconnect (OSI) which powers the Internet today. Again, this may affect the future of Internet and the underlying cost structures.
This is one of the primary reasons for me to move to a commercial entity so that I can mitigate these risks. For, free speech as we know it is only as strong as the weakest link.
Regulation has a downside
Regulation needs to be taken in the proper context. While I am no cyber utopian and while I do think that some form of Internet code of conduct is necessary. I prefer it to be something that originates from the Internet community rather than a government sanctioned one.
In an already highly regulated media industry like Singapore’s, additional forms of regulation do little for the development of the industry. In fact, it only stifles innovation.
I have already jumped through several hoops to set this up. And it is quite likely the authorities will put up more hurdles to make this journey even more exciting for me and the rest of the team and I suppose, we’ll just have to take it in our stride.
With that note, I take this opportunity to wish all my readers a Happy National Day!