Pro-S'porean policy in jobs, housing impractical
THE notion of a pro-Singaporean policy is noble but not practical. What many policymakers and many well-meaning citizens fail to recognise is that many Singaporeans are married to non-Singaporeans.
Non-Singaporeans may, for one reason or another, not be in a position to take up Singapore citizenship. This may be because they have elderly parents in their native country or they do not meet general requirements to take up citizenship.
As someone in this category, I find that this pro-Singaporean policy penalises this segment of the population. Over the years, we have contributed thousands of dollars to the Singapore economy, we pay taxes and levies and we have decided to setup of our family unit in Singapore. We have bought an HBD flat and look forward to being proud owners of a home in Singapore.
I am not in a position to take up citizenship, as it is my responsibility to take care of my parents in Malaysia. They have chosen their home and I cannot, in good conscience, force them to relocate here.
Imagine this. Our flat will be ready only in 2012. Of our two incomes, I earn more than my wife. My income pays for almost everything, including rent (which has increased astronomically). The cost of living has gone up, and even cooking at home is no cheaper then eating outside. Paying utility bills, insurance premiums, car loan, education loans and so on leaves us with just enough to make ends meet. In recent months, we have had to dip into our savings to pay for many things.
We used to consider ourselves slightly better off than middle class, but now we are not even in that category. If I lose my job, because I am not a Singaporean, where would that leave us?
Consider this as well. I pay goods and services tax (GST), income tax, Central Provident Fund (CPF) and every other payment as Singaporeans do, but I get few if any benefits. I do not get GST refunds; nor am I a beneficiary of any other monetary initiative to relieve the sufferings of Singaporeans, despite the fact that I am forming a family unit with a Singaporean in Singapore.
Adrian Gopal
Reading these people's letters can be a headache inducing test of one's reading comprehension and logical thinking. My conclusion is that this FT is talking cock.
He says he cannot take up citizenship because his parents want to stay in matland and he must take care of them. However, he also mentioned "we" buying a flat in SG!
If he really wants to take care of his parents, he should be staying with them in Matland and not in an SG flat. If he only wants to visit his parents during the weekends, matlanders and singkies can easily cross the causeway in either directions so citizenship is irrelevant to his argument.
Who is "we" anyway? Does it factually refer to him and his spouse or is "we" a hypothetical? If "we" is just airy fairy rhetoric of how noble FTs are, then at least choose an example more grounded in reality.
BTW, "we" also consider themselves slightly better than middle class. In this case, complain what complain? You want to try living as a true peasant?
THE notion of a pro-Singaporean policy is noble but not practical. What many policymakers and many well-meaning citizens fail to recognise is that many Singaporeans are married to non-Singaporeans.
Non-Singaporeans may, for one reason or another, not be in a position to take up Singapore citizenship. This may be because they have elderly parents in their native country or they do not meet general requirements to take up citizenship.
As someone in this category, I find that this pro-Singaporean policy penalises this segment of the population. Over the years, we have contributed thousands of dollars to the Singapore economy, we pay taxes and levies and we have decided to setup of our family unit in Singapore. We have bought an HBD flat and look forward to being proud owners of a home in Singapore.
I am not in a position to take up citizenship, as it is my responsibility to take care of my parents in Malaysia. They have chosen their home and I cannot, in good conscience, force them to relocate here.
Imagine this. Our flat will be ready only in 2012. Of our two incomes, I earn more than my wife. My income pays for almost everything, including rent (which has increased astronomically). The cost of living has gone up, and even cooking at home is no cheaper then eating outside. Paying utility bills, insurance premiums, car loan, education loans and so on leaves us with just enough to make ends meet. In recent months, we have had to dip into our savings to pay for many things.
We used to consider ourselves slightly better off than middle class, but now we are not even in that category. If I lose my job, because I am not a Singaporean, where would that leave us?
Consider this as well. I pay goods and services tax (GST), income tax, Central Provident Fund (CPF) and every other payment as Singaporeans do, but I get few if any benefits. I do not get GST refunds; nor am I a beneficiary of any other monetary initiative to relieve the sufferings of Singaporeans, despite the fact that I am forming a family unit with a Singaporean in Singapore.
Adrian Gopal
Reading these people's letters can be a headache inducing test of one's reading comprehension and logical thinking. My conclusion is that this FT is talking cock.
He says he cannot take up citizenship because his parents want to stay in matland and he must take care of them. However, he also mentioned "we" buying a flat in SG!
If he really wants to take care of his parents, he should be staying with them in Matland and not in an SG flat. If he only wants to visit his parents during the weekends, matlanders and singkies can easily cross the causeway in either directions so citizenship is irrelevant to his argument.
Who is "we" anyway? Does it factually refer to him and his spouse or is "we" a hypothetical? If "we" is just airy fairy rhetoric of how noble FTs are, then at least choose an example more grounded in reality.
BTW, "we" also consider themselves slightly better than middle class. In this case, complain what complain? You want to try living as a true peasant?
