Singapore must be more flexible

 
  New Straits Times
November 22, 2003
Periscope: Yusman Ahmad


THERE is no doubting that Singapore is a well-run country. The Government is honest and efficient; the population has reached a level of affluence with almost 90 per cent owning their own homes, and support for the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) that has been in power since 1959 remains strong. But the tiny island of four million people remains a strait-jacket society and a politically repressed city-state. Singapore refuses to move to a more pluralistic system and continues to keep a lid on freedom of _expression. And many Singaporeans are now finding it hard to accept restrictions and are screaming for more freedom and a less stifling political culture.

To be fair, the Government did attempt some adjustments. However, extending the opening hours of bars, lifting the ban on dancing on bar tops and allowing homosexuals to publicly announce their sexual preference are not enough.

Not enough to put a stop to the increasing number of Singaporeans, particularly the more talented members of society who were frustrated with the snail's pace of change, from packing their bags and leaving for less regimented societies such as Australia, the United States, Canada and New Zealand. These are four favourite destinations of Singaporeans seeking a new place to call home.

Not enough to convince those still physically in Singapore, but who have given up emotionally on the country they once called home, to cancel their plans to leave and not to give up their desire and beliefs in the country. And not enough to attract the best brains from around the world to come and make Singapore their new home.

The struggling economy and the high unemployment rate, blamed on the Government's inability to anticipate problems and effect change quickly, contributed to the frustration of those who left and wanted to leave, and the reluctance of those who may be interested in entering.

Based on figures from the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand High Commissions and the United States Embassy, at least 9000 Singaporeans are given permission annually to reside permanently in the four countries.

Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong once labelled those who decided to leave as quitters, baddies, fair-weather Singaporeans. They have been characterised as an insecure and whining bunch, who wilted in the face of adversity. Several political and community leaders echoing the same sentiment, have even suggested that Singapore has no need for such people, and would rather have foreigners who are willing to call Singapore home.

But many of the foreigners who have made Singapore their home are, to say the least, rather colourful, even by Singapore standards and several have questionable backgrounds.

Most are also quitters; baddies who displayed their lack of loyalty by leaving their previous countries. And many who have decided to make Singapore their new home are not at the top of their class either. Most came to Singapore simply because they failed to achieve much in the country of previous residence.

For instance, a 29-year-old Malaysian born, Canadian-bred woman arrived in Singapore in 1977 because all she could get in Canada were boutique salesgirl jobs or temp positions.

But now she is addressed as Foreign Talent whenever she receives letters from government agencies, and earns more money than average Singaporeans who have contributed in achieving happiness, prosperity and progress for the country.

She is not an extreme example, though. Several others who are also addressed as Foreign Talent, particularly those from China, have been implicated in serious crimes, including murder, kidnap and fraud.

Not surprisingly, strains have started to show and may affect the country's anomalous status as a prosperous and stable state. And Singapore needs to introduce quick changes to make the country less politically repressed, thus making it easier to retain and attract more talented people to its shores.

For a start, it needs to allow more freedom for political discussions and a more liberal attitude towards media content and censorship laws.

The Government should change its stance from demanding what the people can do for the Government, to what the Government can do together with the people. That would eventually serve the best interests of the country, the Government and the people.


                                                      Home