By Chua Yuan Kai
I referred to the letter “Confrontational model not for Singapore” written by Mr Patrick Tan which was published in the Straits Times on 6 April 2009. Mr Tan was referring to a dispute inside the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). The dispute resulted in its Secretary-General Mr Chiam See Tong leaving the SDP. He was succeeded by Dr Chee Soon Juan who held the post ever since.
Mr Tan praised Mr Chiam for playing the role of constructive opposition. At the same time he criticized Dr Chee for trying to set up a confrontational parliamentary system. He also quoted former Chinese senior leader Mr Deng Xiaoping’s words. Mr Deng had remarked it did not matter whether a cat was black or white so long it caught mice. Using these words, Mr Tan argued the type of political system did not matter so long it worked.
According to Mr Tan, dominance by a single group promoted unity, harmony and prosperity. In Singapore, the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) is more than just a political party. It has allies in the civil service, government-linked companies and the trade unions. This PAP Group exists in every aspect of life in Singapore. We shall now examine Mr Tan’s assertion of unified harmony within the context of the PAP Group’s immigration policy.
The concern about the proactive immigration policy started during the Asian financial crisis in 1997. The response from the PAP Group was that existing locals would not be affected. It reinterpreted history by arguing just about everyone in Singapore was of immigration origin. Being of foreign origin became fashionable. The PAP Group did not mention that by using this argument, it could also be considered as a foreign regime.
The proactive immigration policy had a negative impact on existing locals on various aspects of life. To use Mr Deng’s words further, some locals began to doubt if the cat was catching mice effectively and efficiently. As socio-economic problems worsened, these sceptics became more vocal. They began to describe the PAP Group as equivalent to a bunch of monopolistic fat cats. Foreign immigrants also became the subject of criticism.
Meanwhile, some immigrants expressed bewilderment at the PAP Group’s policy of accelerated integration between locals and foreigners. To them, Singapore was simply a place of doing business and working for a certain term before moving on to elsewhere. In particular, senior company directors which had an earlier history of hiring locals became upset when they were accused of taking away jobs. This was problematic as information from these people could be important in understanding the employment market.
The guiding principle behind the immigration policy was the emphasis on results. Anyone who lost out in the competition had the sole responsibility to sort things out. In particular the PAP Group felt it had no obligation to help disadvantaged locals. Assistance would be very limited and the PAP Group would have the final say on who should the recipients. The social price for such supreme individualism was of little concern to the PAP Group.
The PAP Group could do what it liked partly due to the dependency attitude of certain older locals. These locals venerated the PAP Group’s unofficial supreme leader Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. As socio-economic pressures mounted, more people also sought spiritual solace through religions. The PAP Group mainstream media had already reported on the existence of certain religious tensions. This had been corroborated by ground experience of various persons.
A British-based correspondent, Mr Abdul Gafoor, compared the dominance of the Lee family in Singapore to that of the Pahlavi imperial house in Iran from 1925 to 1979. Both were established relatively recently and were not related to historical ruling houses. In addition, the countries ruled by them had undergone a certain period of economic development. To ensure continuous rule, the Pahlavi regime suppressed the secular socialist liberal opposition.
When religious clerics became an opposition force, the Pahlavi regime found it harder to suppress them. Iranians became reliant on political religious ideologies. In 1979, the Pahlavis were overthrown and a theocracy was sent up. In Singapore, the social culture does not permit a critical examination of religious ideas and their leaders. Should these leaders become an opposition, the PAP Group may start to regard Dr Chee as a gentle moderate.
In conclusion, I suggest Mr Tan and other PAP Group supporters consider the following questions:
Has the PAP Group created confrontation between locals and immigrants?
Has the PAP Group created confrontation between the individual economic haves and the individual economic have-nots?
Has the PAP Group caused a religious revival which can lead to more confrontation between various communities?
About the Author:
The writer is a long-term underemployed and marginalized local-born Singapore citizen who once aimed to become successful in Singapore. Currently he is thinking how to survive.
I referred to the letter “Confrontational model not for Singapore” written by Mr Patrick Tan which was published in the Straits Times on 6 April 2009. Mr Tan was referring to a dispute inside the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). The dispute resulted in its Secretary-General Mr Chiam See Tong leaving the SDP. He was succeeded by Dr Chee Soon Juan who held the post ever since.
Mr Tan praised Mr Chiam for playing the role of constructive opposition. At the same time he criticized Dr Chee for trying to set up a confrontational parliamentary system. He also quoted former Chinese senior leader Mr Deng Xiaoping’s words. Mr Deng had remarked it did not matter whether a cat was black or white so long it caught mice. Using these words, Mr Tan argued the type of political system did not matter so long it worked.
According to Mr Tan, dominance by a single group promoted unity, harmony and prosperity. In Singapore, the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) is more than just a political party. It has allies in the civil service, government-linked companies and the trade unions. This PAP Group exists in every aspect of life in Singapore. We shall now examine Mr Tan’s assertion of unified harmony within the context of the PAP Group’s immigration policy.
The concern about the proactive immigration policy started during the Asian financial crisis in 1997. The response from the PAP Group was that existing locals would not be affected. It reinterpreted history by arguing just about everyone in Singapore was of immigration origin. Being of foreign origin became fashionable. The PAP Group did not mention that by using this argument, it could also be considered as a foreign regime.
The proactive immigration policy had a negative impact on existing locals on various aspects of life. To use Mr Deng’s words further, some locals began to doubt if the cat was catching mice effectively and efficiently. As socio-economic problems worsened, these sceptics became more vocal. They began to describe the PAP Group as equivalent to a bunch of monopolistic fat cats. Foreign immigrants also became the subject of criticism.
Meanwhile, some immigrants expressed bewilderment at the PAP Group’s policy of accelerated integration between locals and foreigners. To them, Singapore was simply a place of doing business and working for a certain term before moving on to elsewhere. In particular, senior company directors which had an earlier history of hiring locals became upset when they were accused of taking away jobs. This was problematic as information from these people could be important in understanding the employment market.
The guiding principle behind the immigration policy was the emphasis on results. Anyone who lost out in the competition had the sole responsibility to sort things out. In particular the PAP Group felt it had no obligation to help disadvantaged locals. Assistance would be very limited and the PAP Group would have the final say on who should the recipients. The social price for such supreme individualism was of little concern to the PAP Group.
The PAP Group could do what it liked partly due to the dependency attitude of certain older locals. These locals venerated the PAP Group’s unofficial supreme leader Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. As socio-economic pressures mounted, more people also sought spiritual solace through religions. The PAP Group mainstream media had already reported on the existence of certain religious tensions. This had been corroborated by ground experience of various persons.
A British-based correspondent, Mr Abdul Gafoor, compared the dominance of the Lee family in Singapore to that of the Pahlavi imperial house in Iran from 1925 to 1979. Both were established relatively recently and were not related to historical ruling houses. In addition, the countries ruled by them had undergone a certain period of economic development. To ensure continuous rule, the Pahlavi regime suppressed the secular socialist liberal opposition.
When religious clerics became an opposition force, the Pahlavi regime found it harder to suppress them. Iranians became reliant on political religious ideologies. In 1979, the Pahlavis were overthrown and a theocracy was sent up. In Singapore, the social culture does not permit a critical examination of religious ideas and their leaders. Should these leaders become an opposition, the PAP Group may start to regard Dr Chee as a gentle moderate.
In conclusion, I suggest Mr Tan and other PAP Group supporters consider the following questions:
Has the PAP Group created confrontation between locals and immigrants?
Has the PAP Group created confrontation between the individual economic haves and the individual economic have-nots?
Has the PAP Group caused a religious revival which can lead to more confrontation between various communities?
About the Author:
The writer is a long-term underemployed and marginalized local-born Singapore citizen who once aimed to become successful in Singapore. Currently he is thinking how to survive.
