Singaporeans-first policies may affect integration of foreigners

[Pal]

Government policies in Singapore that were introduced in recent years to enhance preferential treatment for citizens over permanent residents (PR) might have created unintended hurdles for social integration, a geography don who researches on citizenship and migration has found.

Changes to housing policies since 2010 — such as a quota on PRs buying public housing and the higher prices they have to pay — may have also had a contrary effect on social integration, she added. Private housing became the more fuss-free option these immigrants took, which meant fewer chances for them to interact with the average Singapore resident.

More details:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/sin ... 47588.html

[calugaruvaxile]

i like this comment from "today"'s original article:

Mink Tee:
I notice that much of the comments here have diverted from the topic of foreigner integration. The topic is not whether the professor is "pro" or "anti" foreigner.

However I wish to point out that the reason why we do not want foreigners to own HDB is to allow Singaporeans to earn rental income from foreigners. The cash flow must go both ways and be equally balanced. If the cash flow goes only in one direction then something is very wrong.

the last paragraph says it all about sg mentality. parasites.

[x9200]

i like this comment from "today"'s original article:

Mink Tee:
I notice that much of the comments here have diverted from the topic of foreigner integration. The topic is not whether the professor is "pro" or "anti" foreigner.

However I wish to point out that the reason why we do not want foreigners to own HDB is to allow Singaporeans to earn rental income from foreigners. The cash flow must go both ways and be equally balanced. If the cash flow goes only in one direction then something is very wrong.

the last paragraph says it all about sg mentality. parasites.

How is it parasitic? They just want to take advantage from the fact some other people want be in a specific place. How about the whole tourism industry? For what you quoted the only funny and mentality related is the part about the equality of the cash flow as it seems to suggest whatever they do, it's at least as good as what the foreigners do.
Another point, demanding exclusivity is neither uncommon nor really unfair.

[sundaymorningstaple]

The flaw with her statement is a large one. It's only the Singaporean's who haven't been able to upgrade yet who think like she does. After all, it's Singaporeans who are were selling their flats to foreigners for huge sums and hug COVs. She sounds like a 'keeping up with the Lee's' type of person who couldn't quite keep up. Selling a flat that they purchased for 120K 15 years ago to a foreigner for 850K sounds like the cash flow is going two directions to me.

[PNGMK]

I live in a smaller run down condo. Probably 20% of the residents in my tower are overseas born. There is a suprisingly good level of integration between us foreigners and the locals - particularly on the MC where I and a few other foreigners work with about 5 locals on the MC matters.

[calugaruvaxile]

How is it parasitic? They just want to take advantage from the fact some other people want be in a specific place. How about the whole tourism industry? For what you quoted the only funny and mentality related is the part about the equality of the cash flow as it seems to suggest whatever they do, it's at least as good as what the foreigners do.
Another point, demanding exclusivity is neither uncommon nor really unfair.

how is this parasitic? well, if i want to buy a house, i pay $x/month to the bank, and after N years, the house is mine. if i rent the house, i pay the same amount, and after N years, the owner has the house and i have the finger. as long as this is my choice, there's nothing wrong with it. as long as i have no choice, it's parasitism. what exactly is not clear to ya?

so now tourism and work are equal. yes, but only if you're Singapore employee

as for the part with people "wanting to be in a certain place": they want to be in sg, the companies want them in sg, but you fussy citizens don't. you're just against the nature ...

[earthfriendly]

What you are presenting is a very socialistic argument. However, in a runaway capitalistic economy, it is all about demand and supply and the almighty $$$. There are a few hot spots in USA, usually desirable cities like NY, Seattle, LA and San Francisco with job opportunities abound, the renters are priced out of the market. Including people with decent (but not of the highpaying kind) job. They are going to have to save really hard to ever come up with a down payment. Another option would be to move out to a more affordable area, which is plentiful in this country.

[x9200]

How is it parasitic? They just want to take advantage from the fact some other people want be in a specific place. How about the whole tourism industry? For what you quoted the only funny and mentality related is the part about the equality of the cash flow as it seems to suggest whatever they do, it's at least as good as what the foreigners do.
Another point, demanding exclusivity is neither uncommon nor really unfair.

how is this parasitic? well, if i want to buy a house, i pay $x/month to the bank, and after N years, the house is mine. if i rent the house, i pay the same amount, and after N years, the owner has the house and i have the finger. as long as this is my choice, there's nothing wrong with it. as long as i have no choice, it's parasitism. what exactly is not clear to ya?

I think you don't understand what parasitic means.

[Strong Eagle]

I get calugaruvaxile's point. There may be valid reasons for wanting to restrict foreign ownership of property, for example, the fear that foreign investment and speculation will drive prices up.

But, if the reason for restricting ownership is so that resident foreigners are forced to rent, then I don't know if you would call the policy "parasitic" but it certainly puts resident foreigners at a disadvantage.

Right now, Singapore regulations prohibit foreigners, resident or non-resident, from owning landed properties. This does smack of rent seeking... at least resident foreigners ought to be able to buy and not forced to pay rent.

[x9200]

Why foreign residents should be made equal to the citizens in buying the properties?

[Strong Eagle]

Why foreign residents should be made equal to the citizens in buying the properties?

Because they have the legal right to live in Singapore. They should not be restricted from purchasing properties instead of having to rent. They are not speculating, they are looking for the most economically attractive route for having a place to live.

This is substantially different than a non-resident foreigner whose purpose is to invest for appreciation and profit.

[x9200]

Why foreign residents should be made equal to the citizens in buying the properties?

Because they have the legal right to live in Singapore. They should not be restricted from purchasing properties instead of having to rent. They are not speculating, they are looking for the most economically attractive route for having a place to live.

This is substantially different than a non-resident foreigner whose purpose is to invest for appreciation and profit.

It has nothing to do with the investments speculating etc. It has a lot with the fact that a country should always take care first of its own citizens. There is no similar obligation towards foreigners so they are just like a tool that is allowed in for a benefit of the citizens. We may dress it up in some nice words but it simply boils down to this. Especially, that we are not talking about forcing anybody to come here and rent, neither about refugees escaping to survive, but people who came over here at their own will and after their own profits.

[Strong Eagle]

It has nothing to do with the investments speculating etc. It has a lot with the fact that a country should always take care first of its own citizens. There is no similar obligation towards foreigners so they are just like a tool that is allowed in for a benefit of the citizens. We may dress it up in some nice words but it simply boils down to this. Especially, that we are not talking about forcing anybody to come here and rent, neither about refugees escaping to survive, but people who came over here at their own will and after their own profits.

In other words, it's exactly like calugaruvaxile said... discriminate against foreigners because, after all, they're "just like a tool"... to be denied basic rights available to citizens because they are foreign.

Oh... wait... that's already the norm in Singapore... when it comes to maids and foreign construction workers.

[x9200]

That's a norm everywhere and I see no reason why it should be differently. It just varies by degrees, maids or FT, doesn't matter. Open job and open market economy from the foreigners' POV, entitlement of benefits and protection from the citizen's POV.
For calugaruvaxile, I only questioned the name it was called under and personally I don't see it unfair. Legislation is like any other tool. The gov (indirectly the citizens) applying it to foreigners only, may win or may lose because they have no such control over them as they have over their own citizens so I still see it balanced (fair) taking into account all the different layers, social, financial etc.

[rajagainstthemachine]

Here is another blooming example which i found on my face book feed lol