- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
<TABLE id=msgUN border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>
Coffeeshop Chit Chat - New citizens and the next GE</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead vAlign=top><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>kojakbt_89 <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>9:12 am </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 4) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>35101.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>Jun 24, 2010
New citizens and the next GE
Open question if, and how, number of new citizens will affect voting
<!-- by line -->By Rachel Chang
http://www.straitstimes.com/PrimeNews/Story/STIStory_544785.html
THERE is a conspiracy theory floating around that the influx of new citizens in recent years is due only in part to Singapore's need for 'foreign talent'.
The fast and furious pace of about 20,000 new citizens a year is actually politically motivated, say some. New citizens overwhelmingly support the ruling People's Action Party (PAP), and hence will augment its already substantial share of the vote in the coming general election (GE), due by February 2012.
Some cynics maintain that the gates were deliberately flung open to foreigners because the Government wanted a counterweight to its slipping support among homegrown citizens.
Rhetoric aside, it is worth asking whether these new Singaporeans will have an impact on the next general election, and of what kind. Their numbers are not insignificant, but neither are they decisive.
Since the 2006 election, about 70,000 new citizens have been minted. Going by the average proportion of under-21s in the population, about 70per cent are over the voting age.
In the 2006 GE, 57per cent of voters saw their wards contested, and thus were able to cast a vote. Ceteris paribus, about 28,000 new citizens will soon be casting their first ballot.
How will they vote? Without the benefit of proper surveys, I sought answers from some of them randomly. I was, in fact, hard-pressed to find a new citizen who harbours anything but admiration for the ruling party.
The new citizens I have spoken to - originally from India, China, Israel, Myanmar and Malaysia - ranged from the placidly approving to the aggressively proselytising. A common theme recurs in their story of how they became citizens: Their decision to buy Singapore stock was in large part because of the PAP remisier.
'The difference between me and somebody who is born here is that I consciously chose to be here, despite whatever criticism one may have,' says university lecturer Ori Sasson, 39. Originally from Israel, he became a citizen in 2007.
To him, the Government's strictures on political expression are welcome: 'In Israel, we have a lot of demonstrations. I personally never felt the need to participate. You are outside, you are very sweaty, 100,000 people pushing you around.
'Many of these countries may give you full freedom of expression, but the tax rate is higher, so the freedom to keep your money is not intact.'
For A*Star research officer Niu Liming, 35, from Beijing, it is his experience of another political system that makes him more pro-PAP than, perhaps, a born-in-Singapore peer.
'I often tell my local friends they should have a broader perspective,' he says. The problems which Singaporeans complain about, like high property prices and the lack of a social safety net, pale in comparison to the scale of the problems in other countries, he adds.
And perhaps in implicit contrast to the government of his country of birth, 'the PAP is very open', says the Young PAP member.
But comparing Singapore to other high immigrant-receiving countries such as the United States or Britain, one might wonder: Are our new citizens failing to make the distinction between country and government?
In the US, the 'migrant vote', for want of a more sophisticated term, is increasingly influential. Hispanics, the fastest-growing new citizen group, used to vote Republican given their religiosity and social conservatism. But in recent years, they have turned to the Democrats instead because of the party's more liberal stance on immigration.
They voted for Republican George W. Bush over Democrat John Kerry in 2004, but swung in favour of Democrat Barack Obama over Republican John McCain in 2008.
In Britain - though voting statistics are not broken down by race - news reports suggested new citizens turned against the ruling Labour Party in the May election in the same proportion as the electorate as a whole.
Of course, Singapore differs from these countries in many ways, not least of which is size. As Ms He Li Fang, 41, a teacher from China who became a citizen three months ago, notes, 'when the country is small, the government makes more of a difference'. This is why new citizens will not waver in their loyalty to the ruling party, she suggests.
Dr Sasson also argues that a new citizen of the US may not be buying into one political party or another, but is implicitly buying into something which the country stands for - like its emphasis on individual freedoms, free expression or good governance.
The other critical factor is that independent Singapore has never experienced a change of government. To those from the outside, the PAP and Singapore are perhaps interchangeable simply because a PAP-less Singapore is thus far merely hypothetical.
But a more important question needs to be asked: Will it matter? Even if every new citizen votes for the PAP in the next election, this will amount to less than 4per cent of the 750,000 who voted for the PAP in the 2006 GE.
But though new citizens as a voting bloc may not decide the election, discontent among Singaporeans towards immigrants could snowball into an election issue.
To assuage unhappiness, the Government has tweaked its policies in areas such as health-care subsidies and access to top primary schools to prefer citizens. But though there is now a sharper differentiation between citizens and non-citizens in terms of the benefits they receive, there are Singaporeans who disagree that new citizens should enjoy the same largesse as those who have been around longer.
That is an untenable position: Why should someone who has been a new citizen for say, five years, have fewer privileges than one who has been here for six years? How long must one live in Singapore before that prefix 'new' is dropped?
Semantics aside, it remains a fact there are 'old' citizens who feel threatened by immigrants. Perhaps this sentiment is overwrought and will not ultimately translate into votes against the ruling party.
Only time will tell if the new citizen vote matters - not because of the way they might exercise it, but from the mere fact that they have one.
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
New citizens and the next GE
Open question if, and how, number of new citizens will affect voting
<!-- by line -->By Rachel Chang
http://www.straitstimes.com/PrimeNews/Story/STIStory_544785.html
THERE is a conspiracy theory floating around that the influx of new citizens in recent years is due only in part to Singapore's need for 'foreign talent'.
The fast and furious pace of about 20,000 new citizens a year is actually politically motivated, say some. New citizens overwhelmingly support the ruling People's Action Party (PAP), and hence will augment its already substantial share of the vote in the coming general election (GE), due by February 2012.
Some cynics maintain that the gates were deliberately flung open to foreigners because the Government wanted a counterweight to its slipping support among homegrown citizens.
Rhetoric aside, it is worth asking whether these new Singaporeans will have an impact on the next general election, and of what kind. Their numbers are not insignificant, but neither are they decisive.
Since the 2006 election, about 70,000 new citizens have been minted. Going by the average proportion of under-21s in the population, about 70per cent are over the voting age.
In the 2006 GE, 57per cent of voters saw their wards contested, and thus were able to cast a vote. Ceteris paribus, about 28,000 new citizens will soon be casting their first ballot.
How will they vote? Without the benefit of proper surveys, I sought answers from some of them randomly. I was, in fact, hard-pressed to find a new citizen who harbours anything but admiration for the ruling party.
The new citizens I have spoken to - originally from India, China, Israel, Myanmar and Malaysia - ranged from the placidly approving to the aggressively proselytising. A common theme recurs in their story of how they became citizens: Their decision to buy Singapore stock was in large part because of the PAP remisier.
'The difference between me and somebody who is born here is that I consciously chose to be here, despite whatever criticism one may have,' says university lecturer Ori Sasson, 39. Originally from Israel, he became a citizen in 2007.
To him, the Government's strictures on political expression are welcome: 'In Israel, we have a lot of demonstrations. I personally never felt the need to participate. You are outside, you are very sweaty, 100,000 people pushing you around.
'Many of these countries may give you full freedom of expression, but the tax rate is higher, so the freedom to keep your money is not intact.'
For A*Star research officer Niu Liming, 35, from Beijing, it is his experience of another political system that makes him more pro-PAP than, perhaps, a born-in-Singapore peer.
'I often tell my local friends they should have a broader perspective,' he says. The problems which Singaporeans complain about, like high property prices and the lack of a social safety net, pale in comparison to the scale of the problems in other countries, he adds.
And perhaps in implicit contrast to the government of his country of birth, 'the PAP is very open', says the Young PAP member.
But comparing Singapore to other high immigrant-receiving countries such as the United States or Britain, one might wonder: Are our new citizens failing to make the distinction between country and government?
In the US, the 'migrant vote', for want of a more sophisticated term, is increasingly influential. Hispanics, the fastest-growing new citizen group, used to vote Republican given their religiosity and social conservatism. But in recent years, they have turned to the Democrats instead because of the party's more liberal stance on immigration.
They voted for Republican George W. Bush over Democrat John Kerry in 2004, but swung in favour of Democrat Barack Obama over Republican John McCain in 2008.
In Britain - though voting statistics are not broken down by race - news reports suggested new citizens turned against the ruling Labour Party in the May election in the same proportion as the electorate as a whole.
Of course, Singapore differs from these countries in many ways, not least of which is size. As Ms He Li Fang, 41, a teacher from China who became a citizen three months ago, notes, 'when the country is small, the government makes more of a difference'. This is why new citizens will not waver in their loyalty to the ruling party, she suggests.
Dr Sasson also argues that a new citizen of the US may not be buying into one political party or another, but is implicitly buying into something which the country stands for - like its emphasis on individual freedoms, free expression or good governance.
The other critical factor is that independent Singapore has never experienced a change of government. To those from the outside, the PAP and Singapore are perhaps interchangeable simply because a PAP-less Singapore is thus far merely hypothetical.
But a more important question needs to be asked: Will it matter? Even if every new citizen votes for the PAP in the next election, this will amount to less than 4per cent of the 750,000 who voted for the PAP in the 2006 GE.
But though new citizens as a voting bloc may not decide the election, discontent among Singaporeans towards immigrants could snowball into an election issue.
To assuage unhappiness, the Government has tweaked its policies in areas such as health-care subsidies and access to top primary schools to prefer citizens. But though there is now a sharper differentiation between citizens and non-citizens in terms of the benefits they receive, there are Singaporeans who disagree that new citizens should enjoy the same largesse as those who have been around longer.
That is an untenable position: Why should someone who has been a new citizen for say, five years, have fewer privileges than one who has been here for six years? How long must one live in Singapore before that prefix 'new' is dropped?
Semantics aside, it remains a fact there are 'old' citizens who feel threatened by immigrants. Perhaps this sentiment is overwrought and will not ultimately translate into votes against the ruling party.
Only time will tell if the new citizen vote matters - not because of the way they might exercise it, but from the mere fact that they have one.
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
