I see the above statement as somewhat of a skewed viewpoint. Even the poorest have colour TV's, Mobile phones, Internet access, electricity, running water and no dirt floors (with the exception of the one remaining kampong out here where I live on YCK road). And, sadly, they got an education that they don't quite know how to use. I've been to many, many countries where their poor don't have near that much and their rich have as much as the uber-rich here. In fact, I worked on one of the countries for 12 years (although I lived in Singapore). Indonesia I'm referring to, although most of the other ASEAN country's poor are in the same dire straits as well. Somehow, I don't see you logic.As I have typed just now and will reiterate again, there are no trees for the desperate and hopeless, let alone a forest. Building a country on the backs of those who have sacrificed yet giving them nothing is a recipe for disaster. Perhaps you could feedback to the RC for an equitable solution to this conundrum?
Many expats are employed in cyclical industries (banking etc), and by definition many expats are towards a higher-than-average remuneration.ariyo wrote: On a side note, I have witness a few recessions in Singapore in the last few year in 2008, 2001 and 1997. Each time there would be foreigners threatening doom and hellfire before promptly leaving en mass. property prices would collapse 30-40% and everyone would write Singapore off. The clever ones who remain here would make a killing and new talents will flow in to replace the ones who left in a seemingly predictable cycle. The same goes for Hong Kong or South Korea.
Will it really be the case? IMO the overcrowded infrastructure is something really minor and voices that mention it as the foreigner related problems do it secondary to other issues. Main of them is their perception that they are in less fortunate job situation because of the foreigners. As the influx of foreigners is not going to stopped but only be limited I am not really sure if this would change significantly anything.ariyo wrote:The main explanation is that Singaporeans are very very angry indeed. A lot of them have been displaced or relegated in their home country with less escape alternatives than you and me or other less fortunate folks. Unfortunately, their feedbacks have been disregarded by the PAP for more than a decade and the hatred of the current system have poisoned them to such an extent that borders on arnachical. For people with backs against the walls for such a long time, the future and "other" countrymen are very far and distant entities.
[..]
The current strife is caused by more than a decade of mismanagement and under-building of infrastructure that lead to overcrowding and competition for resources. You can see PAP already reactively solving these problems and when the backlog is settled in a few more years, such unsavory sentiments would naturally disperse.
I don't think anyone can answer that... what the masses really want?
Technically, PAP has lost the trust from the mass and out of touch from the ground too long.their feedbacks have been disregarded by the PAP for more than a decade
There is a difference b/w the previous recessions and what is happening now. Previous recessions atleast the confidence on the gahmen being investor friendly was intact. This time the outlook looks very very bleak indeed.ariyo wrote: On a side note, I have witness a few recessions in Singapore in the last few year in 2008, 2001 and 1997. Each time there would be foreigners threatening doom and hellfire before promptly leaving en mass. property prices would collapse 30-40% and everyone would write Singapore off. The clever ones who remain here would make a killing and new talents will flow in to replace the ones who left in a seemingly predictable cycle. The same goes for Hong Kong or South Korea.
JR8 wrote:You surprise me X9. Are you saying that your country (which I know) would be better off back under communism? Or, if you're saying some people believe this, are these the people that communism would have supported, who no longer have that support mechanism?
Communism provided a cocoon for a very large group of people. They were protected on some very basic level for their life/work stability. This level was very low as per Western standards but for many was sufficient. If they did not do anything against the government or the party there was unlikely they would lose their jobs under any typical circumstances including what was normally considered unacceptable (as per Western working culture). These people have real problem to find themselves in the reality of competitive market and economy. The paradox is that the "revolution" started from them and for them.
To make one thing clear: it is of course incomparable, the communistic state and Singapore in the context of democracy, but I see some analogies like the cocoon thing, like demand for more freedom etc. and now as I read that this is for the people "suffering" most under the current system, I could not help myself not to see also this element.
Does the freedom and opportunity that democracy provide not compensate from most downsides? And if this is not so why do you think just about every member of the 'diaspora of the dispossessed' dreams of emigrating to the USA, one of the free-est and most democratic countries that exist?
It is about the generations that are conditioned under the communistic rule. They don't know anything else and they are too old to adapt. 2-3 generations at least. The fact that everybody perceives the West as a promised land does not mean that everybody will manage to use the opportunity even if they think they would. It is also about the mentality that you will never win any fight against any authority.
p.s. I've been to a few communist countries and the people were either poor (Cuba), or poor and miserable (former East Germany) or poor and yet still making do (the 'Indochina 3'). The fact that a populace have never voted in a communist leadership via the ballot box speaks volumes to me. Rather: It always seems to enforced, and usually via terror.
Not everywhere. As far as I remember with us it was done always via the ballot boxes. There was simply no true party competition and if it was the results could always be falsified.
. That said, one must wonder why a country with such a long history of foreigners integrating would suddenly turn inwards. With almost 50% of the work force here foreigners, it is easy for people to blame them as the bogeyman. Foreigners in return, justifiably for most, would feel threaten and retaliate. The tit for tat grows and the country's seams tear. 
.How do you trust the leader who is saying "we can do better". What if he takes you to the level of rural chinese workshops? Atleast the leader who says "things aren't that bad yet" has an amazing track record. Most politicians only promise and never deliver. You should step out of the red dot to find that out. Out here you have leaders that have delivered so much and yet thats not enough for you? Good luck!ariyo wrote:Firstly I would like to address SMS: Your viewpoint is relative. Yes the poor are not the poorest in the world. They are not the rural chinese slaving away in sweatshops. The same can be said about the rural chinese by comparing them with the starving african kids, which in turn can be compared to Liberian child soldiers who are forced to murder their own parents. The point is that the poor here and the general population have decreasing standards of living through macroeconomics and bad policy implementation. Given a choice between 2 leaders, with one telling us "things aren't that bad yet" and the other say "we can do better", I would very much prefer to have the latter. It is with the same spirit that Singaporeans have been clamoring for better leadership but have been sadly denied.
Yeah right! You think masses have so much intellectual to know what is right and what is wrong for their country? Just think about it. Life is always about tradeoffs. One mans food is another mans poison.ariyo wrote:
Me thinks that the current foreigner debacle is just about locals holding the foreigners hostage to negotiate with the government. It is not something they WANT to do, but it is something they find to be particular effective in finding a listening ear from the elites. Like what therat succinctly said, the PAP has lost the ground and extreme communication was needed. It is by no means enjoyable to be held hostage, and it is probably not very comforting if i told you I have no better solution other than for the government to truly reform.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
