Burmese Group In Malaysia Demonstrate Against Singapore Business Ties With Junta Tuesday, Oct 23 2007

Two Malaysian riot police, foreground, stand guard as Myanmar activists from All Burma Democratic Force hold placards during a demonstration outside US embassy in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2007. Some 50 Myanmar activists turned out in front of the Singapore High Commission against its trading involvements with the Myanmar military junta, and called for stronger US support while demonstrating near the US embassy. (AP Photo/Lai Seng Sin)

A Myanmar activist from All Burma Democratic Force wearing a headband is seen behind police line during a demonstration in front of the Singapore High Commission in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2007. Some 50 Myanmar activists demonstrated in front of the Singapore High Commission against its trading involvements with the Myanmar military junta, and called for stronger U.S. support while demonstrating near the U.S. embassy. (AP Photo/Lai Seng Sin)

With a background of Malaysia’s landmark Petronas Twin Towers, a Myanmar activist from All Burma Democratic Force holds a placard as he marches through to the Singapore High Commission during a demonstration in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2007. Some 50 Myanmar activists demonstrated in front of the Singapore High Commission against its trading involvements with the Myanmar military junta, and called for stronger U.S. support while demonstrating near the U.S. embassy. (AP Photo/Lai Seng Sin)

A Myanmar activist from All Burma Democratic Force, who wears a T-shirt with a print of Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi holds a placard during a demonstration outside U.S. embassy in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2007. Some 50 Myanmar activists demonstrated in front of the Singapore High Commission against its trading involvements with the Myanmar military junta, and called for stronger U.S. support while demonstrating near the U.S. embassy. (AP Photo/Lai Seng Sin)

Myanmar nationals protest against S’pore’s business ties with junta by By Carolyn Hong, Malaysia Bureau Chief In Kuala Lumpur, 23 Oct 2007, Straits Times website

KUALA LUMPUR – About 50 Myanmar nationals demonstrated outside the Singapore High Commission here on Tuesday to demand that the Republic break its business ties with Myanmar.

Holding placards with bold red lettering and wearing red head bands, the group, who called themselves “All Burma Democratic Force”, chanted slogans like “Free Burma” under the watchful eyes of policemen.

Hundreds of curious motorists slowed down their cars on the busy road fronting the High Commission to watch them.

Their spokesman Dr Mohammad Sadek read out a memorandum claiming that Singaporean companies are among the biggest investors in Myanmar, and supporters of the country’s military junta.

He also charged that that Singapore companies have supplied computers and communications equipment to Myanmar’s army, and that the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation has invested heavily in Burma.

“We urge the Government of Singapore to immediately review its policies and to cut off all kinds of supports to the Burmese military,” he said.

The memorandum was later handed over to Singapore High Commission’s first secretary Mr Heng Aik Yeow.

But in Parliament on Monday, Foreign Minister George Yeo had said that Singapore’s trade with Myanmar last year amounted to just $1 billion, or 0.1 per cent of total trade.

He added that Myanmar was only 50th among Singapore’s trading partners, and that cumulative total direct investments by Singapore firms at the end of 2005 was just $742 million.

The Minister also stressed that defence sales to Myanmar over the years have not been substantial, and that Singapore will always behave in a responsible manner.

One Response »

 

Singapore Parliamentarians Debate Retention Or Repeal Of Section 377A Tuesday, Oct 23 2007

Singapore parliamentarians debate gay sex laws by Sylvia Tan, 23 Oct 2007, Fridae.com

Lawmakers in Singapore began a rigorous debate on the retention or repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code in the Parliament yesterday as voices calling for equal treatment of Singapore’s gay citizens was heard possibly for the first time in the Parliament House.

“We’re not going away; we’re here for the long run.” Said Dr Stuart Koe, CEO of Fridae.com and one of the three who started the Parliamentary Petition, when asked what the group’s plan was should the petition not be successful. The two other petitioners are Tan Joo Hymn, a full-time mother, and lawyer George Hwang.

“If we don’t address this in a timely manner, it is very possible tensions will rise. It is very possible that people will feel like they can continue to make very intolerant and degrading remarks. It is possible that people will feel that 377a allows them to discriminate against (gay) Singaporeans.”

Dr Koe was speaking to reporters at a repeal 377A press conference held at The Arts House which was formerly the old Parliament House less than three hours before Parliament convened at the new Parliament house across the road.

“To have a law that they articulate they are not going to enforce really brings the law into disrepute.” He said referring to the government’s promise to not enforce the law despite not repealing it.

“Either put the gun down, or pull the trigger.”

Later in the afteroon, lawmakers in Singapore began a rigorous debate on the retention or repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code in the Parliament yesterday as voices calling for equal treatment of Singapore’s gay citizens was heard possibly for the first time in the Parliament House.

Under current laws, any male persons found guilty of engaging in “gross indecency” with another male, whether in private or in public, faces a jail term of up to two years.

Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs and Law Professor Ho Peng Kee reiterated that the “majority finds homosexual behaviour offensive and unacceptable” and thus the law will remain on the books.

Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Siew Kum Hong tabled a petition{video}{text} signed by 2,341 persons from all walks of life who called for the repeal of the said section as they view the retention of that section as discriminatory and unconstitutional when a related Section 377 is to be repealed in the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill which is having its second reading in the same session. The last time the parliament received such petition was in 1985.

Siew presented the petition in Parliament shortly after the sitting commenced at 1.30pm. In his 30-minute speech in the late afternoon{video}{text},he challenged the selective use of the law for moral ‘signposting’ highlighting that other ‘immoral’ acts such as adultery are not criminalised. Disagreeing with critics who argue that “this is not the right time to repeal 377A,” he retorted: “I disagree. I say there is no wrong time to do the right thing.”

“It is not harm that results from such acts being performed between adult men, but the moral disgust the majority says it feels.

“The ’signposting’ argument is fundamentally flawed. It is couched in the language of ‘the majority’. But let us not forget another phrase involving the majority: the tyranny of the majority.”

Nine of the 12 parliamentarians who spoke touched on the issue. MP Hri Kumar joined Siew in questioning the reasons for not repealing the law while the others including MP Alvin Yeo, Christopher de Souza, Indranee Rajah, Zaqy Mohamad and NMP Thio Li-ann supported its retention.

In what was described by the local broadsheet as a “fiery oratory against the ‘radical political agenda’ of gay rights activists” which had “many Members of the House (thumping) their seats in approval,” Prof Thio spoke for 30 minutes{video}{text} – the maximum time allotted.

The law professor at a local university said: “Like many, I applaud the government’s wisdom in keeping 377A which conserves what upholds the national interest. ‘Conservative’ here is not a dirty word connoting backwardness; environmental conservation protects our habitat; the moral ecology must be conserved to protect what is precious and sustains a dynamic, free and good society.

“The welfare of future generations depends on basing law on sound public philosophy. We should reject the ‘argument from consent’ as its philosophy is intellectually deficient and morally bankrupt.

“The real question today is not ‘if’ we should repeal 377A now, or wait until people are ready to move. This assumes too much, as though we need an adjustment period before the inevitable. The real question is not ‘if’ but ’should’ we ever repeal 377A. It is not inevitable; it is not desirable to repeal it in any event.

“‘Sexual minorities’ and ‘sexual orientation’ are vague terms – covering anything from homosexuality, bestiality, incest, paedophilia – do all these minority sexual practices merit protection?

“Anal-penetrative sex is inherently damaging to the body and a misuse of organs, like shoving a straw up your nose to drink. The anus is designed to expel waste; when something is forcibly inserted into it, the muscles contract and cause tearing; fecal waste, viruses carried by sperm and blood thus congregate, with adverse health implications like ‘gay bowel syndrome’, anal cancer. ‘Acts of gross indecency’ under 377A also covers unhygienic practices like “rimming” where the mouth comes into contact with the anus.”

She farther listed what “pro-gay academics” have identified as the “5 main steps in this agenda in their study of foreign jurisdictions” including “to prohibit discrimination based on ‘sexual orientation’. But would this not include all sexual behaviour? ‘Sex before 8 or else it’s too late’ is the motto of the North American Man Boy Love Association. Should we judge pedophilia or be relativist and promote ‘anything goes’ sexual experimentation?”

“Sir, to protect homosexuals, some countries have criminalized not sodomy but opposition to sodomy, making it a ‘hate crime’ to criticize homosexuality. This violates freedom of speech and religion; will sacred texts that declare homosexuality morally deviant, like the Bible and Koran, be criminalized? Social unrest beckons. Such assaults on constitutional liberties cannot be tolerated.”

Applause was heard in the public gallery when Prof Thio ended her speech. A newspaper observed that the attendance in the public gallery was unusually high with academics, law students, gay activists as well as Prof Thio’s supporters including her mother Dr Thio Su-Mien. Dr Thio, a former Dean of a local law school, has notably written to the press on several occasions to warn against the ‘gay agenda’ and disagree with the government’s policy to not discriminate against the employment of openly gay individuals.

The debate on the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill continues today in Parliament, with MPs Baey Yam Keng, Lim Biow Chuan, Ellen Lee, expected to speak. Baey has expressed his support for repeal publicly at a public seminar while Lim has expressed disapproval in a press interview.

Note from Pseudonymity: You can read the 2nd page of this report, which carries excerpts of what was said in parliament, here. The links in the report are mine and not in the original report.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Organisers submit open letter to Singapore’s prime minister with 8000 signatures by Sylvia Tan, 23 Oct 2007, Fridae.com

The Open Letter To The Prime Minister of Singapore containing over 8000 signatures has been delivered to the PM’s office at the Istana on Monday.

Organisers of the Open Letter To The Prime Minister of Singapore have hand delivered the 400-page letter – urging the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code – with 8120 signatures to the PM’s office at the Istana on Monday at 2.30pm.

All signatories submitted as of midnight Oct 22 went towards the final document.

The letter was delivered by co-organiser Alan Seah, owner of former nightspot Happy, and was accompanied by actress Pam Oei who appeared in the widely publicised Youtube video and playwright/ theatre director Ivan Heng.

Seah told Fridae, “It’s as if 8000 people walked up to the Prime Minister and shook his hand, introduced themselves politely and respectfully but firmly explained their heartfelt views on this important issue.

“It is clear from the debate in Parliament yesterday that many Singaporeans still have many misconceptions about the gay community and what this whole issue is about. There is a real lack of understanding. I hope the Open Letter will help explain why we feel it is so important that the discrimination against us must end. And that we need the leadership of our Govenment to help end it.”

Launched on Oct 5, the letter which urged the abolishment of Penal Code section 377A is in response to the current parliamentary debate where the proposed Penal Code is being read the second time.

Under the proposed amendment, Section 377A, which outlaws “acts of gross indecency” between men will be retained while Section 377 which forbids “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” – understood to mean oral and anal sex – between consensual heterosexuals will be repealed.

The online Open Letter website will remain operational until further notice as an on-going record of this debate. You can see the Open Letter now in our ‘Things You Can Do‘ section.

Comments from signatories published on repeal377a.com (unedited):

I’m a doctor. People tell me that’s a noble profession. My parents are proud of me. My teachers are proud of me. You would be proud of me too, dear prime minister, if I were your son. But I’m ashamed of myself. Why so? Because I’m gay. Because I’m born not to feel sexual attraction and romantic love for women. Because I’m deeply in love with my partner, another man. Because I express my love for my partner in the same ways as you would, dear prime minister, your beloved wife. Therefore, I’m a criminal. I’m a criminal working in one of our restructured hospitals. It doesn’t matter how many lives I save, it doesn’t matter how much suffering I relieve, it doesn’t matter how much good I do, it doesn’t change one shameful fact. I’m a criminal doctor. - criminal doctor

I am 69 years old, a mother of a gay son who’s in his 40s. He and his partner have been living with me under the same roof for more than 13 years. They are the best things that happen to me in all my 69 years in Singapore. Please tell me, Mr. PM, why are you teaching me to be ashamed of them? If this country doesn’t want them, where can they go? Please tell me. - Mak Oon Ling

My son is gay. He came out to me when he was 22. And I was upset and I blamed myself why is my son gay… I blamed myself all the time. But he is my son. He has not changed since the first day i gave birth to him or the person he is today. I love him for who he is, for what he is. It sickens me that people think suggests that just because he is gay, our family isnt what it is. We are a family. What people do in their private lives shouldnt be an issue to anyone aslong as it doesnt harm anyone else. He doesn’t know i am doing this but I support this repeal. He is my son and he is not a criminal. If I can accept him, his mother who gave birth to him, who these people who so quickly judge him and condemn him? – Karen

I am a Singaporean residing in Germany with my German male partner. My company and host country RESPECT me, my partner and our homosexuality with no discrimination. I hope to return home to Singapore one day with my partner to serve HER as proud sons with human dignity and rights. But, we often struggled inside us: “Do we want to continue living in Germany as “free” men or return home to Singapore hiding as “criminals”?” Like all proud Singaporeans, I only ask to be able to return home a dignified Singapore gay son, and not a “criminal” I was never borned to be. I, therefore, support the repeal to have Section 377A abolished. - Oh Hock Chong

Abolishing Section 377A of the Penal Code will not contradict the Government’s stand of promoting Family values. It will actually send a clear signal that we should accept our fellow citizens and family members as they are. My vision for Singapore is one where its youth can develop to its fullest potential instead carrying the heavy burden of leading a double life. Singapore should be a place where we can respect each other for who we are. Having such a nurturing environment will enable our future generations to take Singapore to greater heights. - Dr. Alvin Koh

The question is not whether the law should reflect conservative values, it is whether gay people should be put in jail for sexual acts between consenting adults. The law is not meant to placate any section of the community with political clout, it is meant to protect those without. - Alfian Sa’at

Even the MNC company I worked for have the written clause on non-discrimination and among its list contains also sexual orientation. How could this givernment claimed to be progressive and yet even behind a MNC company in its non-discrimination mind set towards gay people. - Petrus

Leave a Response »

 

All Burma Democratic Force Memorandum To Government Of Singapore Tuesday, Oct 23 2007

All Burma Democratic Force of Malaysia’s Media Release: A Memorandum to the Government of Singapore, 22 Oct 2007, Source: Malaysian Bar website

On behalf of all Burmese national regardless of race and religion, we, at the All Burma Democratic Force (ABDF), Malaysia that is an umbrella organization of different ethnic, religious and political organization of Burma, which include National League for Democracy (liberated Area) led by Dr. Naing Linn, National Democratic Party for Human Rights (NDPHR) exile, Malaysia, Democratic Federation of Burma (DFB), Malaysia, All Burma Muslims Organization (ABMO), Malaysia, Burmese students and youths forces and peace loving people strongly condemn the Government of Singapore for extending supports to the brutal military regime of Burma that has been cracking down against peaceful demonstrators and so urge upon Singapore to immediately cancel your supportive hands over the regime in order to settle the crises in Burma urgently.

We notified that Singapore Inc companies have been some of the biggest investors in and supporters of Burma’s military junta, while its government, in the rare times it is asked, suggests a softly-softly diplomatic approach toward the junta. Tiny Singapore ranks alongside China and Thailand as Burma’s biggest trading partners. It is collectively known as Singapore Inc, they gather around the $150 billion state-owned investment house Temasek Holdings, controlled by Singapore’s long-ruling Lee family. With an estimated $3 billion invested in Burma (and more than $20 billion in Australia). When it comes to Burma, Singapore pockets the high morals it likes to wave at the West.

Moreover, Singapore is a crucial manager and supplier to the junta, and Burma’s economy through hotels, airlines, military equipment and training, crowd control equipment and sophisticated telecommunications monitoring devices, the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, (GIC), has invested heavily in the Myanmar Fund, an investment company set up to promote and finance investments in Burma. Lo Hsing Han’s Asia World Co. also has shares in the Myanmar Fund.

Singaporean companies also have provided computers and communications equipment for Burma’s defence ministry and army, while upgrading the junta’s ability to communicate with regional commanders – so crucial as protesters take to the streets of 20 cities in Burma, while your (Singapore) government has provided the equipment for a “cyber war centre” to monitor dissident activity, while training Burma’s secret police, whose sole job appears to be ensuring democracy groups are crushed.

Mention may be made that Lo Hsing Han controls a heroin empire and one of Burma’s biggest companies, Asia World, which the US Drug Enforcement Agency describes as a front for his drug trafficking. Asia World controls toll roads, industrial parks and trading companies, while Lo Hsing Han is tied with half of Singapore’s investment in Burma. Lo Hsing Han is a drug lord, an ethnic Chinese, from Burma’s traditionally Chinese-populated and opium-rich Kokang region in the country’s east, bordering China.

All these have been highly encouraging to commit repeated crime against humanity and against is own people. Singapore is the main responsible country for the state terrorism of Burmese regime because, the international community is calling upon the regime for immediate reform in the country and also requesting neighboring countries of Burma to review their policies towards regime as well.

The brutalities of the Burmese regime is not new phenomenon in the region but taking place for decades to which Singapore would open its eyes and ears for the welfare of innocent civilians who are the victims of gross human rights violations.

In the recent day, the regime has imposed sever restrictions on the movement of civilian including monks, activists, human rights defenders, peace loving people and religious leaders and that has intentionally bringing starvation, while brutally and crucially killed numbers of peaceful demonstrators. The regime is also systematizing women, children, young generation and aged old people in serious ways, monks and religious leaders were severely beaten up with the buds of guns as non-sense who do not have religious belief and commonsense at all.

In order to stop violence and to have peaceful settlement in Burma, Mr. Ibrahim Gambari, the appointed UN envoy visited Burma and neighboring countries. But your government did not show positive views with the UN Envoy and the International Calls. It is seemingly showing support to militarization and totalitarianism in Burma, while the regime is intentionally neglecting the calls of international community and world leaders for economic and political reforms in Burma and to release all political prisoners including Daw Aung Sann Suu, the only imprisoned Nobel Laureate of the world. This regime has along history of violent reactions to peaceful demonstrations and involved in gross human rights abuses against its own nationals, particularly against the ethnic and religious minorities like Rohingya, Chin, Kachin, Karen, Shan, Mon, Pa-Oo, Palong, Muslims, Christians, Hindus and etc.

For us, it is the time for Singapore that must immediately freeze the bank accounts of regime’s members and boycott diplomatic relationship in order to restore democracy in Burma unless the regime engage in dialogue with Burma’s political forces, including the National League for Democracy (NLD) and all ethnic groups in Burma; to take initiative to alleviate economic hardship and introduce serious reforms, ensuring human rights, peace, justice and freedom for all regardless of race, religion, color and etc.

These kinds of fascist and brutal behaviors of the regime and your supports are well known to the world and this Burmese regime is recognized as the worst regime which is totally not acceptable anyone in the world.

The Burmese regime is a threat to the regional and international peace and security as it does not respect the human rights and violates the universal declaration of human rights and international human rights mechanisms.

It is, therefore, we urge upon the Government of Singapore to immediately review its policies and to cut off all kinds of supports to the Burmese military. In case of failure to chance your motives, you may face serious problems in the future as we will not give up our rightful and legitimate struggle for the restoration of democracy and human rights in Burma, ending the brutal state terrorism of the regime; and we may urge upon the UN Security Council (UNSC) and international community to take action against the supporting countries of the regime.

We also call upon the UNSC to send UN Peace keeping forces in Burma rather than sending UN envoy as the situation is deteriorating day by day. China and Russia must warn Burmese regime that they would support full consideration of the situation there by the Security Council, as well as adoption of a Council’s Resolution on the same issue.

We also call on the international community, particularly China, India, and ASEAN countries to increase pressure on the SPDC to immediately cease its violence against unarmed peaceful protesters and to commence political dialogue focused on genuine reforms.

All Burma Democratic Force (ABDF), Malaysia is an umbrella organization of different organizations of different races and religions.

For Media Contact:

Mr. Mohammad Sadek (English) Tel: 0163094599
Dr. Naing Linn (Burmese & English) Tel: 0123788408
Mr. Aung Kyaw Moe (Bahasa Melayu) Tel: 012-2430774

One Response »

 

Foreigners Make Up 30 Percent Of Singapore’s Population Tuesday, Oct 23 2007

Reuters, 23 Oct 2007

SINGAPORE, Oct 22 – Foreigners living in Singapore make up 30 percent of the city-state’s population, up from 14 percent in 1990, following a decade-long policy of attracting people to boost economic growth, according to government figures released on Monday.

Minister for Home Affairs Wong Kan Seng said Singaporeans accounted for 3.2 million or 70 percent of the city-state’s 4.5 million population as of mid-2006, in a response to queries from opposition Member of Parliament Sylvia Lim.

Foreigners with permanent residency status accounted for 10.3 percent of the population, while people from overseas on work passes or study visas and their dependents made up 19.5 percent.

The government in recent years has not given figures for the breakdown of its population into Singaporeans and permanent residents.

Singaporeans accounted for 86 percent and 74 percent of the total population in 1990 and 2000 respectively, Wong added.

Singapore – one of the most densely populated countries with a land area of about 704 square kilometres – said earlier this year it wanted to boost its population to 6.5 million in coming decades to further broaden its economy.

Singapore has one of the lowest birth rates in the world.

@@@@@@@@@@@

The Singaporean nudged aside by Seah Chiang Nee, theStar Online, 6 Oct 2007

For some time now, the island state’s Statistics Department has stopped classifying population the way other countries do, i.e. between citizens and foreigners.

IN THE face of a foreigner influx, a question that government officials are not rushing to answer is: “Who is a Singaporean?”

Strictly speaking, the Singaporean doesn’t exist in many official references, and has been displaced by ”the Singaporean resident.”

The Singapore resident has become a special category that officials generally use when talking about population and manpower.

Lumped together in this category are Singaporeans born and naturalised and foreigners who have been offered permanent residence (PR) before they apply for or are granted citizenship.

For some time now, the Statistics Department – in line with Manpower and other Ministries – has stopped classifying population the way other countries do, i.e. between citizens and foreigners.

Instead they are either ‘‘Singaporean residents’’ or ‘‘foreigners’’ (those on work passes as professionals, workers and students plus family members).

The word ‘‘Singaporean’’ to refer to true-blue citizens is rarely, if at all, used – especially when talking about jobs.

So when the government announces that that the majority of new jobs had gone to locals, it is referring to Singaporean residents, which, of course, include foreign-born PRs.

Many people have been surprised to learn that there is no longer any separate listing for Singaporean citizens.

It is not clear when the unannounced classification came into effect, but reference to it apparently became widespread in the 90s when immigration gathered steam.

The new distinction officially appeared for the first time in the 1980 Census, which listed Singapore’s population at 2.41mil and “Singaporean residents” at 2.28mil.

That Census Report said that only 9% of the total population was foreigners, 3.6% of them being Permanent Residents (PRs) and 5.5% foreign workers. Singaporean citizens totalled 2.19mil or 91%.

Since then, a historical demographic shift has taken place. Last week, the government announced that the population had topped 4.68 million, almost double that 27 years ago.

This is believed to be one of the fastest growth rates in the world.

More importantly, the number of citizens is believed to have dropped below three million, or roughly 63% of total population – a far cry from the 91% in 1980.

This was, of course, due to low birth rates and a high flow of locals abroad.

For the first time, the number of foreigners who are working or studying in Singapore has exceeded a million, evidence of a stronger economy.

The programme to attract foreign PRs has gone into high gear. During the last 10 years, a total of 360,000 PR were offered mostly to people from Malaysia, China, India and a dozen other countries.

In the past two years alone, there were more than 110,000. The total number has never been announced but is believed to number more than 700,000.

More will be admitted. Over the next five years, Singapore hopes to add about 40,000 citizens and 200,000 PRs that could push the population towards the five million mark by 2011.

As the figures rose so did public emotions about it. Feelings are running high among Singaporeans who feel bitter about being eased out of jobs and other opportunities.

But it’s not entirely one sided. The increase has been good for businesses because it has fuelled a surge of consumerism, contributing to higher sales and job creation.

The large foreign influx has helped push up property prices, and the Sing dollar to a 10-year high, but has also propelled inflation to a 12-year record.

But above all, it has arrested a serious population decline and rejuvenated an ageing society.

But for a small city-state that is already one of the densest in the world, the downside, too, has been formidable for the masses.

It has helped to widen the wealth gap in Singapore and stirred a desperate sense of being crowded out of jobs and space.

The first complaint is that the government has been too aggressive in opening its doors to foreigners, a concept that is generally accepted as a necessity.

The feeling is that the numbers and the speed could be slower.

“The hot economy actually pushed up manpower needs,” said one economist, “but these could be met by having more foreign workers, not PRs.”

The second complaint is that in bending backward to attract foreigners, the government is giving too much to them at the expense of locals. For example, they are exempted from the two-year national service that Singaporeans have to undergo.

Eventually, as the city heads towards a six million or seven million population, tensions are likely to increase – not to mention pollution and over-crowdedness.

When the day arrives, the foreigners will outnumber Singaporeans. That could upset Singapore’s racial and community harmony which has been so carefully crafted for over 40 years.

A visit to online forums will sometimes reveal how bitter some Singaporeans feel about the foreign challenge. “No one can dismiss the danger of trouble breaking out one day,” a blogger warned.

Leave a Response »