Taking A Pinch of Salt

Amidst the furore and heated exchange at public rallies, online forums and social networking websites, we ought to take a pinch of salt out of everything, to sit down and think through what they mean for the individual, and to analyse whether they are for the best interests: FIRST for the nation, THEN the individual.

I'm surprised at myself for the level of interest I have in GE 2011. I can't even vote yet! (I'm a year short of age.) If somebody were to ask me why I am so interested, I probably won't be able to answer. "I don't know what to say!"

The GE 2011 has almost descended into some sort of serial drama, or concert. Like some of my friends put it, it has the plot, the characters, the setting, the camera. All it needs is a proper broadcast and producer!

I don't particularly support any party. I think I'd prefer to be a civil servant any time, as compared to be involved in all these messy politics.

Here is but a few issues that make me tick recently.

In this xinmsn article, WP pretty much shot back at everything PAP said. It seems quite valid to me. It is unfortunate that PAP has to shoot itself in the leg while trying to defend itself.

Whether it is about the voters' interests, or about "not rocking the foundation", shouldn't we question where this "status quo" has gotten us today? Shouldn't we be doing something about the "status quo" that has bred an atmosphere of apathy and laziness among Singaporeans and dependency on the PAP to solve all our problems?

Nonetheless, as much as we want a change in the status quo, we can't just lump all of the opposition together and say, "Hey as long as I vote for the opposition, they can solve my problems!" I don't think it is that simple. The government can solve and alleviate our problems, but it is not all-powerful, it is not God. It is not capable of doing everything you want it to do.

People keep complaining about the rising costs of living etc. Their complaints are warranted; they are after all bread-and-butter issues that concern every Singaporean. But costly housing, rising food prices, flooding of our roads, and the influx of foreigners aren't issues that the government has complete control over.

Prices of housing are market-based: the government can't just intervene and change the prices as and when it likes. In the face of the new global climate, with natural disasters and financial instability, our food (mostly imported) will of course be affected. One can't expect the prices of commodities to be the same 30 years ago as compared to now either.

Flooding at Orchard Road and wherever else being a 1-in-50-years event can't exactly be blamed on the government. I don't think it makes sense for the government to be spending all our taxpayers' money just to protect ourselves against events that happen once every SO LONG. What we can do is mitigate, and not come up with a fool-proof plan to prevent every disaster from happening. Be thankful we don't have hurricanes, earthquakes and volcanoes already.

The issue of foreigners is the most sensitive. It flames nationalistic sentiments. But we seriously should ask ourselves, aren't we immigrants in the past ourselves? I was born in Hong Kong, but came to Singapore as a kid. It has been awkward growing up in limbo: I don't really know whether I should be called a Singaporean or a Hong Konger sometimes. But having spent about the last 20 years in Singapore, I do call this place home.

Isn't Singapore a cosmopolitan country? Yes, the Chinese are the majority, but Singapore does accept people of other races and religions too. That is what makes Singapore unique: a true melting pot of people and cultures. We can't just say, "Now, every time I take the train, it feels like I’m in a different country. It is like taking a holiday, I don’t even need to bring my passport."

Singaporeans losing jobs to foreigners comes as a tacky issue. I'm still pondering over this. Who wouldn't feel sad if he lost his job to a non-Singaporean because the company could pay the other less? Unfortunately, it is a realistic world. But I very much appreciate the fact that there are skills upgrading programmes to allow Singaporeans to improve and value-add themselves, to give them a chance to vie for hopefully better-paying jobs.

In another article, SDP exclaims, "What is wrong with our education system?" From what I know, Singapore has one of the best education systems in the world, and we boast a literacy rate of 95%. SDP suggests downsizing classes. Of course that'd be good! Even I love my classes to be small, so that my teachers can provide more attention to students. But, like in many fields (such as ministry work), "the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few." (Luke 10:2) The job of a teacher ain't easy. If on May 7, the government decides to downsize every class, not only do we have a shortage of teachers to fill in all the classes, but we also do not have enough classrooms. Perhaps the government will start building schools upwards, and in the future, my children will climb 10 stories to reach their classroom. Nice.

Improvements can of course be made to our education system, but in an increasingly competitive world that we live in today, matched with insufficient resources and facilities, simply shouting "How come after over 50 years of PAP rule we still have 40 students in a class and not 20 students in a class — as in a First World nation? I feel so sad that the system has deteriorated." shows how much consideration one has put into the debate.

A minimum wage system. No go. In economics class, we have learned that implementing a minimum wage is akin to causing people to lose their jobs. "This is because a greater number of workers are willing to work at the higher wage while a smaller numbers of jobs will be available at the higher wage." (refer to Wikipedia) In other words, from the company's perspective, I would hire someone of better qualification and experience to fill in a job that is previously held by someone who may not have equal qualification or experience but is willing to work for less. This would probably lead to the unemployment of a lot of people, especially the lower-skilled.

There are many arguments for and against implementing a minimum wage system. To me, it might seem that everyone in the workforce will get paid a minimum wage, but there might be the case where companies choose not to hire them at all. Furthermore, implementing a minimum wage for workers translates to higher production costs for companies. Notwithstanding a overhaul to the current wage system, Singapore, being a small, open, market-based economy made up of mostly SMEs, would be seriously hurt by a minimum wage system. SMEs will bear the brunt of these rising costs and to cut costs, they will simply hire more competent workers. With this increase in demand for competent workers, wages for the higher-skilled increase.

This socialist approach, on the contrary, will leave Singapore with higher unemployment and a wider income gap. Isn't this what Singapore wants to avoid, accentuating the "haves" and the "have-nots"?

"And if you think a minimum wage is going to bankrupt our economy, 173 countries of the world have minimum wage. China has a minimum wage. We can afford to pay our young people and hardworking elders enough money for them to live, not just to survive." Let's face it, Singapore isn't any other country. It doesn't mean that if every other country has minimum wage, Singapore has to have minimum wage. Hong Kong faces the same issue, too. "We can afford"? Who is "We"? The government isn't going to fund everyone's wages. The companies do that.

This has been very intense. I'm going to take a break.