Singaporeans anti-foreigner? The Singapore Business Federation cannot be so ill-informed or naive
Sense And Nonsense by Tan Bah Bah
The Singapore Business Federation is so worried about “the recent rise in anti-foreigner sentiments” that it hosted a dialogue on October 1 with Chan Chun Sing. Representatives from 16 foreign chambers, including the American Chamber of Commerce in Singapore and the Singapore International Chamber of Commerce, voiced their concern to the Trade and Industry Minister. Quite a gathering of corporate lions.
This “dialogue” looked very much like a public relations event which served nicely the interests of both parties. The manner it was reported in the media showed that neither was yet ready to substantially address the real issues.
Is it anti-foreigner to question whether CECA or any other trade agreement has put the job security and expectations of Singaporeans at risk?
Is it anti-foreigner to question whether double standards are being practised in ensuring laws are being followed?
Is anti-foreigner to highlight the misbehaviour of some expatriates?
Is it anti-foreigner for Singaporeans, especially non-Chinese ones, to want our bus captains to able to communicate with non-Chinese Singaporeans?
Is it anti-foreigner for NS-serving male Singaporeans (and their affected family members) to ask what exactly it is that they are serving to protect – the interests of PRs and others?
Would they be wasting two years of their lives (and more, doing reservist training) so that they may end up being at a massive disadvantage in their careers and everything else in life?
Is it anti-foreigner if they totally resent being told at the same time that they are too cautious and unwilling to “take risks” (such as seek careers outside Singapore), implying they are not competitive enough, compared to risk-taking and hungrier foreigners?
How has it come to past that the victims of an unfair system are being cast as the villains by an establishment – government and business elite – too used to taking its citizens for granted?
Surely, foreign investors cannot be so ill-informed and so out of sync with ground sentiment here that they actually believe Singaporeans are anti-foreigner.
I think the SBF should try and find out what the real situation is – and not rely on the skewed reporting and “opinion” pieces in the beholden and controlled mainstream media.
Unless, of course, employers and businesses are themselves also not interested in what true-blue Singaporeans are unhappy about anyway – and have their own priorities which have the interests of Singaporeans right at the bottom of the totem pole.
Sense And Nonsense by Tan Bah Bah
The Singapore Business Federation is so worried about “the recent rise in anti-foreigner sentiments” that it hosted a dialogue on October 1 with Chan Chun Sing. Representatives from 16 foreign chambers, including the American Chamber of Commerce in Singapore and the Singapore International Chamber of Commerce, voiced their concern to the Trade and Industry Minister. Quite a gathering of corporate lions.
This “dialogue” looked very much like a public relations event which served nicely the interests of both parties. The manner it was reported in the media showed that neither was yet ready to substantially address the real issues.
Is it anti-foreigner to question whether CECA or any other trade agreement has put the job security and expectations of Singaporeans at risk?
Is it anti-foreigner to question whether double standards are being practised in ensuring laws are being followed?
Is anti-foreigner to highlight the misbehaviour of some expatriates?
Is it anti-foreigner for Singaporeans, especially non-Chinese ones, to want our bus captains to able to communicate with non-Chinese Singaporeans?
Is it anti-foreigner for NS-serving male Singaporeans (and their affected family members) to ask what exactly it is that they are serving to protect – the interests of PRs and others?
Would they be wasting two years of their lives (and more, doing reservist training) so that they may end up being at a massive disadvantage in their careers and everything else in life?
Is it anti-foreigner if they totally resent being told at the same time that they are too cautious and unwilling to “take risks” (such as seek careers outside Singapore), implying they are not competitive enough, compared to risk-taking and hungrier foreigners?
How has it come to past that the victims of an unfair system are being cast as the villains by an establishment – government and business elite – too used to taking its citizens for granted?
Surely, foreign investors cannot be so ill-informed and so out of sync with ground sentiment here that they actually believe Singaporeans are anti-foreigner.
I think the SBF should try and find out what the real situation is – and not rely on the skewed reporting and “opinion” pieces in the beholden and controlled mainstream media.
Unless, of course, employers and businesses are themselves also not interested in what true-blue Singaporeans are unhappy about anyway – and have their own priorities which have the interests of Singaporeans right at the bottom of the totem pole.
