Online|Offline: Video forum on xenophobia, part 3

In this third segment of the video forum, the ten guest discussants voice their thoughts. Their names are shown in the still picture after the break.

Links to the earlier parts are: Part 1 and Part 2

At around 30 min 00, Fadli mentions my name in connection with something about ‘points’. I don’t know whether what I had said earlier was included in previous video cuts, but in case it wasn’t, it may be worth explaining that I had said Singapore should seriously consider adopting a transparent points system for immigration, rather than the present opaque quotas by national origin.

3 Responses to “Online|Offline: Video forum on xenophobia, part 3”

  1. 1 Rabbit 17 July 2012 at 06:35

    I agree with most of Stephanie Chok’s views about govt selective disclosure of informations and one-sided excuses to justify PAP policies. If based on PAP arguments that competition is good for Singapore, I would love to see that happened in parliament come 2016.

    I also agree with Kurt’s explanations about the assimilation part, not because it is impossible to do so but this govt is not professional in delivering it. Every time when they talked about assimilation, it is mostly targeted at Singaporeans and followed by the use of “threat” to force the point. Recently, Ng Eng Hen was using the same tone when asked about foreigners’ integration and immediately followed by saying Singaporeans will lose job if we don’t do so.

    I would also like to add that Singaporeans are probably not xenophobic but mostly jealous of foreigner due to different destiny between them and us. Singaporeans cannot run away under PAP grasp from cradle to grave (unless we emigrate) but foreigners can do so after having earned their keep here. This could be another reason why we were angry with foreigners – largely attributed to PAP generous policies towards them at Singaporeans’ inconveniences. Foreigners can see their future outside Singapore but Singaporeans can’t do the same within Singapore. Foreigners can retire gracefully by subletting HDB flat to service their landed property overseas, Singaporeans are worried whether we can afford to retire without selling our home or ended up in JB nursing home. Two different nationalities working their butt out in Singapore, but the destiny is not the same. Such envy surfaced all the time among colleagues in almost all organizations – comparing dreams and cost of livings between local and foreign colleagues during office chat or small talks… Indirectly, foreigners have fueled our jealousy which I don’t think is xenophobia.

    Thus leads to Khai Khun’s view how this govt should try to safeguard the aged population from going down the poverty path and being discriminated in the job market going forward. Instead of relying on young foreigners, tap on the graying labor to do much more for this nation and punish company like the Japanese food shop he quoted as example. Singaporeans have no retrenchment benefit, unemployment insurance, no asset to back up, no welfare but every damning cost in Singapore kept going up. We can hug all our foreign friends tightly as long as PAP wanted Singaporeans to do so which is not a problem. The problem is, Singaporeans will be the one ended up crying over their grinning foreign friend’s shoulder and PAP just standby to watch? This is CERTAINLY NOT what I want my Singapore to be.

  2. 2 ricardo 17 July 2012 at 07:29

    Again, I’m saddened by Zaqy’s answers. He talks about consultation as though this is a new and novel Govt. initiative. That they are now more than happy to engage Singaporeans in the discussion. That they suddenly realise Singapore’s land mass is limited. That hey, they are not the only ones with good ideas.

    This attitude would be offensively condescending if he was one of the Dignity seeking Elite. But perhaps this earnest young man is representative, not just of PAP rank and file, but also of the 60%. Is this where the xenophobia comes from?

    It is certainly the segment that tends to regard low paid migrant workers and maids as subhuman, unworthy of days off, the companionship of their friends or the protection by Law of basic Human Rights.

    But the 60% also have the power in 2016, to ensure the policies that led to an extra 2 million without corresponding improvements in infrastructure etc and at the expense of 5 million citizens, do not re-occur.

  3. 3 Chanel 17 July 2012 at 10:20

    This government has NEVER wanted a clear and transparent points system for admitting foreigners to work or live here. This is because the government knows that many foreigners here are far from being skilled or talented.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: