Response to ‘Tak Boleh Tahan on his/her comment on the article ‘ Certain ethnic groups marginalised by government policies, UN expert says’ in TOC

Certain ethnic groups marginalised by government policies, UN expert says

Tak Boleh Tahan:

“Some people keep saying they are marginalised because they are the minority. But the majority are the ones who are really marginalised. For instance, why are more and more food stuffs in Singapore halal? Halal food is for Muslims. Why should Muslims force halal food upon non-Muslims??? That is AGAINST our faiths and basic human rights! Will the Muslims not be angered if more and more food stuffs in Singapore become Christianised, Buddhistised, Hinduised, Jewishised, etc.?”

I agree that supermarkets, food outlets etc. should always ensure there is enough supply of halal food for Muslims, but can anyone still find non-halal foods in supermarkets these days? All the fresh produce, packaged foods and even drinks! are now halal. The only thing that is not halal is pork, and even that may disappear here one day because it is not halal.”

Oh dear, how can this be an argument? Before you start using such argument, find out about what ‘halal’ food means, else you are just making a mockery of yourself. How can non-muslims be ‘forced upon’ halal food? In fact, there are more non halal food options available in this country than halal food. Just visit any food outlet or hawker centre and prove otherwise. There are many things one can cite against the majority chinese. For example, how would non-chinese feel when some chinese burn incense paper thus polluting the air and affecting those living around? In fact, it is definitely a health hazard for those who are living within close proximity where the burning occurs, let alone having all those ashes flying around the public area and even into houses.


Tak Boleh Tahan:

“Some posters here claim that some people bring in discussion of Malaysia’s bumiputra policies because the latter refuse to face racist issues in Singapore. Where is the correlation? Aren’t those posters the ones who refuse to face the facts themselves? In fact, Singapore’s special treatment of any particular race is itself racist.”

‘Affirmative action’ is a policy which the state can adopt to help elevate the disadvantaged position of a particular race/ community hence providing a more level playing field for all within the society. Similarly, would you term policies which help the poor and needy ‘racist’? Both policies have the same objective in helping those who are disadvantaged within the society.

Tak Boleh Tahan:

“As for job criteria, if a job requires you to work with a lot of Malays in another country, you need to speak and write good Malay. If an employer states so in their job advertisement, it is not racist. But if a job requires you to work with a lot of Chinese or Indians in another country, and an employer states so in their job ad, it is suddenly racist. Isn’t such an attitude itself racist?”

Any multi-racial society/ country, be it Malaysia or Singapore which adopts (covertly or overtly) such practice would be deemed discriminatory. Besides, the working language and the first language taught in schools for all here is English. Therefore, there is no sound justification for such practice at all and should therefore be prohibited. Singaporeans of different races should at least learn to speak the common language (English) at the basic level. There should not be any preferential treatment for employment base on one’s ability to speak a particular language other than English and one’s ethnicity.

Tak Boleh Tahan:

“When all is said and done, it all boils down to one thing. If anyone is unhappy in Singapore because they feel they are marginalised, whether they are the majority or minority, they are free to leave. Migration is the in thing now if you have the means. One less person frees up more precious resources for the rest of us.”

As much as one has the right to leave a country, one also has the right to stay and fight for equal and fair treatment. Making such a statement above, are you suggesting that the marginalised should accept all forms of inequalities they suffer and keep mum about it or else leave the country? If the country’s first generation population took that approach during British occupation, Singapore could still be under the former’s rule. Yes, maybe then speaking English would be preferred; not mandarin. ; )

Who are we actually letting go and why?

Referring to the article titled: ‘Time we learnt to let go?’ in ‘today’, a letter from Kwan Jin Yao, he wrote:

‘The advent of globalisation has brought about heightened communications and enhanced mobility, encouraging Singaporeans to venture into different parts of the world for work and study. It is not a coincidence that many of these individuals are the creme de la creme of the Singaporean population; students and professionals who excel in their respective fields and possess tremendous potential and abilities.

It is disheartening to hear that many of these citizens make the decision to remain abroad instead of returning - after all, Singapore is a place that has done much for them in their formative years. Mr Tan seems to attribute the trend of an increasing number of "absent citizens" to the fading sense of belonging - exacerbated by extended periods overseas - as well as the mantra that the grass is greener on the other side.’

Well, i wonder if the author realise that over the couple of decades, Singapore has turned into a nation which promotes and favours one culture over the rest. There are plenty of evidences which seem too hard to ignore. For instance, the promotion and campaign for speaking one particular language, the nation wide publicity of speaking that particular language is ‘cool’ slogan, hosting mega celebration of one particular culture in central location (eg. marina bay), special education programme which targets additional resources to students to master one particular language/culture so that once these students graduated, they would be able to have better understanding and fostering closer ties with people from the so called ‘mother land’ and the list goes on...

So before the author can start getting emotional against those citizens who have remained abroad, he needs to differentiate those who have despite benefitted from the advantageous position described above and still choose to remain abroad and those who have not. The author got to show good reason/s for the latter to return to the country even though they may be called a citizen. Till the nation starts showing genuine interest in promoting and practicing multiculturalism over what is currently being practiced, the outflow of people from the relatively disadvantaged culture (as described above) will continue. It would be the nation lost as it is the essence of multiculturalism that promotes among the people the ability to notice and appreciate differences and thus making sense of things from a multifaceted perspective which is required in a dynamic environment people are living in now and even more so in the ‘advent of globalisation’.

Substantial help for low-income, over a lifetime - Or is it?

Reading the article in 'today' titled :

'Substantial help for low-income, over a lifetime', Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam argued against some of the MPs and NMP views:


"By allowing in more foreign workers, Singaporeans at the lower end of the income ladder saw their wages being depressed, they argued.

This argument was "wrong and misleading", Mr Shanmugaatnam said. In fact, between 2006 and 2008, the earnings of lower-income households grow by about 16 per cent in real terms - this "corresponded to the period when the foreign workforce was growing most rapidly", which had allowed businesses to seize opportunities, grow and create more jobs for Singaporeans.

During the second half of the decade also, Singapore would have missed the boat had it not allowed businesses to invest and expand in Singapore, including leading investors like Shell or Exxon-Mobil. "We would have ended up with a decade of very weak income growth. In particular, low growth would have hit our low-income families the hardest, as it did in the first part of the decade."

Firstly, an interesting point Mr Tharman brought up was the correlation he presented on the period of rapid influx of foreign workers and the increase in earnings of lower-income households by 16 percent in real terms, between 2006 & 2008. A question i would like to raise is, what is the profile of the said 'lower-income households'? Are they citizens (new/old), PRs or foreigners? Since he mentioned this period coincided with the influx of foreign workers, it could well be this group of workers/ households who have 'benefited' from the said increase in 'earnings'. Also, If the wages of the 'lower-income households were already way below the means to pay for the living expenses(i.e relative to the cost of living; housing, transport, food etc) in 2006, a 16% increase (if that is true) would still not be able to help in lifting them out of poverty.

Then, he made a causation on the need for more foreign workers for the businesses to grow and the ability to attract ‘leading investors like Shell or Exxon-Mobil to invest and expand in Singapore’. I do wonder how do other countries who do not employ such strategy to attract these ‘leading investors’ still able to make these ‘leading investors’ continue to invest and expand in their countries? Go to these companies sites and one can find a long list of countries these companies are operating and how many of these countries employ the said policy/ strategy?

Even if he can prove that the foreign worker policy can help the economy to grow, he still can’t show that those ‘lower income households’ or individuals are benefitting equally from it compared to the higher income groups. The income gap between the two groups might have widen even greater over this period of ‘growth’. Yes, growth might be good if it benefits all and not more for a selected group as we have witnessed so far.