Feeling the pulse of the post-75 generation

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
#1
Am I eager to vote for the first time in my life? You bet I am! (And I am 35 gosh!) Tongue

Apr 16, 2011
Feeling the pulse of the post-75 generation

Here comes the generation of voters born after 1975 - better-educated, more media-savvy, more exposed to the world. What are the factors that will influence their voting decisions? What issues concern them? How do they relate to the PAP and the opposition parties? The Straits Times commissioned a survey to gauge their political consciousness. Here's the report.
By Rachel Chang

ENGINEER Mohamad Fadzil, 31, wants to have another child.

His first, with his teacher wife, is turning three this year. But the rising cost of living has put a brake on their plans to expand their family.

'Basic necessities for babies are not that cheap,' he says.

A few months ago, the family, who lives in a five-room flat in Punggol, tried to cut down on water and electricity usage.

However, the rising electricity tariff triggered by the high price of oil worldwide delivered a bill that amounted to about the same.

He wishes the Government's handouts in the Budget could have been based on household income rather than on housing type, as he says his family received less than friends who earn more but live in three- or four-room flats.

After the cost of living, the issue which troubles him is the security of his job.

He notes that his aviation employer now hires a workforce that is 75 per cent foreign.

'If they continue to bring in so many foreigners,' he says, 'the younger generation will have difficulty finding work.'

Mr Fadzil's concerns are mirrored among the 402 young Singaporeans, aged 21 to 34, polled by The Straits Times in a recent survey.

They represent the post-1975 generation or Generation Y, many of whom will be voting for the first time in the coming polls.

As the survey charts (see graphics) show, bread-and-butter issues predominate.

Some 45.5 per cent of respondents say that cost of living is of the most concern to them, 23.9 per cent say jobs, 6.7 per cent, housing, and 5.7 per cent, education.

When asked to pick the issue of second most concern, cost of living still reigns supreme with 25.4 per cent, followed by 17.2 per cent for jobs, and 13 per cent, housing.

To another question on which factor would influence their vote the most, cost of living is once again No. 1 for 41.3 per cent of the respondents.

Next comes the quality and personality of candidates, with 13.2 per cent, and the party's track record, with 10.2 per cent.

The influx of immigrants and foreigners is fourth, with 5.7 per cent.

That cost of living is the foremost concern among the people in the age group is corroborated by a separate survey of over 1,000 young Singaporeans commissioned by The New Paper last month.

Close to 90 per cent of the respondents said it would be a very important or important factor influencing their vote.

Although the post-75 generation is often thought to hunger for political liberalisation, less than 1 per cent of the respondents in The Straits Times survey marked 'need for stronger opposition' and 'freedom of expression' as issues of most concern to them.

Commenting on the finding, National University of Singapore (NUS) sociologist Tan Ern Ser says that one does not preclude the other.

He argues that it is unsurprising that when allowed to pick only one issue of topmost concern from a list, respondents go with the cost of living.

'It is a pretty salient issue at this point in time, and something which we encounter every day at the petrol kiosk, the supermarket, the hawker centre,' he says.

'Perhaps, if the respondents were asked to rate each issue one at a time, we may find that desire for opposition would receive at least a 3 on a scale of 1 to 5.'

It is not difficult to find young Singaporeans whose belief in intangible notions of fair play and alternative viewpoints plays second fiddle to immediate material concerns.

Mr Prem Vasudevan, 23, a lifelong Potong Pasir resident, says that he has decided to vote for the ruling party in the coming polls, his first election.

His desire for an estate facelift - lift upgrading, more community facilities and a cleaner environment - has outweighed his belief in the necessity for opposition in Parliament.

In the survey, when asked which factor would influence their vote the most, 5.5 per cent of the respondents opt for 'upgrading'.

Only 0.75 per cent go for 'desire for an opposition presence'.

'It is not fair that we do not get upgrading because Potong Pasir voted for the opposition,' says Mr Vasudevan, who is a psychology student at the SMa Institute of Higher Learning.

'I have a lot of respect for Mr Chiam,' he adds, referring to opposition veteran Chiam See Tong of the Singapore People's Party (SPP), who has helmed Potong Pasir since 1984.

'But at times, I feel, why my estate? I feel so unlucky. It is time some other estate takes on the responsibility of sending the opposition to Parliament.'

Idealism versus indifference

WHEN 26-year-old Lester Lim was an undergraduate at NUS, he went to the United States in 2008 on a six-month exchange programme at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

The stint coincided with the historic election in which Mr Barack Obama became the country's first African-American president.

Although it was a foregone conclusion that the state's electoral votes would go to the Democratic Party (Mr Obama was the state's senator), Mr Lim remembers vividly the seriousness with which young Americans took their ballots.

His roommate, an Italian-American, locked himself in his room on Election Day because he wanted time to think over who he was going to vote for, and why.

Mr Lim recalls his incredulity then: 'I was knocking on the door, saying, are you sure you are going to spend the whole day thinking about this? The answer: 'Yes. It's my civic responsibility.''

'The civic awareness that young Americans have, I don't think Singaporeans realise it yet,' reflects Mr Lim, now working in the financial industry.

His US experience prompted him to start an online newspaper, the Kent Ridge Common, on his return to NUS.

Featuring commentaries on socio- political issues from undergraduates, the site achieved a high of 40,000 hits a month. It is now run by a new team of undergraduates, after he graduated last year.

But Mr Lim does not need to look far for examples of youthful apathy here. His girlfriend, 25-year-old Tan Ying Ling, is perfectly happy with the status quo.

'I think the standard of living in Singapore is pretty decent,' she says, explaining her lack of interest in abstract political notions like 'civic responsibility'.

Post-75 voters like Mr Lim, idealistic and involved, are in the minority; the survey findings expose a group of people for whom politics is mostly an afterthought.

Although seven in 10 say they are keen to vote in the coming elections, only three in 10 would be disappointed if there was a walkover in their constituency.

Despite being better educated and more media-savvy, four in 10 do not know who their MP is, and seven in 10 say they would 'definitely not' enter politics.

Asked which party or politician most strikes a chord with them, the majority or 64.4 per cent say 'none'.

'Apathy and indifference continues to be a marked feature of most Singaporeans, especially the younger generation,' says political watcher Derek da Cunha, noting the mismatch between those who say they would be keen to vote but yet not feel disappointed if there was a walkover in their constituencies.

'Most people are simply not interested in politics in general and very few would lift a finger to help the political process,' he says.

'If they are desirous of change, they would expect others to do the hard work to effect that change.'

This view is reflected in another finding: When asked how often they keep track of local political issues and events, 11.2 per cent say 'never', 31.6 per cent, 'seldom', 42 per cent, 'occasionally'. Only 15.2 per cent say 'often'.

National serviceman Chua Puay Kiat, 21, is typical of those who show no interest in local politics.

The former Institute of Technical Education mechatronics student lives in Radin Mas, a new single-seat constituency. Recently, he met and shook hands with opposition politician Alec Tok, formerly of the Reform Party, at a coffee shop.

But when asked about the highly anticipated contest in the ward, he replies: 'The PAP always wins, all my life, and I am fine with that.'

He is grateful to Mr Sam Tan, the PAP MP looking after Radin Mas, for helping his family get financial assistance to buy a new computer from the Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC).

Youth votes up for grabs

WHEN it comes to their attachment to political parties and politicians, ruling or otherwise, the majority of Generation Y respondents draw a blank.

Asked which party's politicians strike a chord with them, 31.6 per cent name PAP politicians, a handful cite opposition politicians Mr Chiam from the SPP, and Mr Low Thia Khiang from the Workers' Party, but 64.4 per cent say 'none'.

To observers, this finding is revealing - those who name PAP fall within the minority.

'Unlike their parents, the post-75 generation is not enamoured of the PAP's '3-to-1' narrative,' argues Singapore Management University assistant professor Eugene Tan.

'This 'Third World to First World within one generation' success story has little traction with young voters who feel that it is the Government's job to keep the good times coming,' he says, noting that an older set of survey respondents would have yielded a bigger percentage citing the PAP.

Even young voters who align themselves with the PAP, like shipping executive Mohamad Faeiz Ramley, 26, make it clear that the ruling party's past successes hold little water with young voters.

The Young PAP activist in Holland-Bukit Timah GRC says that 'every generation has its own battles to fight'.

'I think that every young Singaporean knows what the PAP has done in the past. But the party needs to show that it is the one for us now, to fight our battles, with a forward-looking perspective.'

The wartime metaphor is also invoked by Mr Lim Zi Rui, 26, who is co-head of the Reform Party's youth wing.

He interprets the finding that over 60 per cent of respondents cannot think of a party or politician which strikes a chord with them as bad news for his cause.

'After so many years, no opposition party is able to strike a chord with youngsters. There's still a big battle ahead for the opposition.'

But ironically, of the politicians who do strike a chord with the young respondents, names of the older generation spring to mind.

Of the 30 per cent who cite PAP politicians, a full third (10 per cent of all respondents) refer to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, 87.

Tied for second place, with 3.5 per cent each, are Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, 59, and Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Vivian Balakrishnan, 50, who is the youngest of the top five.

Then comes Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, 69, with 2 per cent, and opposition veteran Chiam See Tong, 76, with 1.5 per cent.

In the coming elections, widely expected to be held by June, post-75 voters will comprise more than one in four of the 2.4 million voters.

Fortunately for the younger generation of politicians, the hearts and minds of a majority of young voters are still up for grabs.

rchang@sph.com.sg

My Value Investing Blog: http://sgmusicwhiz.blogspot.com/
Reply
#2
this is a truly exciting time in singapore's modern history. victory by opposition parties may signal policy shifting in favour of the working class. cheaper public housing, less foreigners, more entrepreneurship, new industries, a more cohesive society, and a more caring government. what does this mean for the investors among us? will sph lose its monopoly; will public transport and utility companies be nationalized; will the property market finally turn bearish? and what can we expect for our nation as a whole? will we be able to relive the golden days of the 90s? or will there be more creative forms of suicide? i eagerly anticipate the results!
Reply
#3
(21-04-2011, 08:32 AM)karlmarx Wrote: this is a truly exciting time in singapore's modern history. victory by opposition parties may signal policy shifting in favour of the working class. cheaper public housing, less foreigners, more entrepreneurship, new industries, a more cohesive society, and a more caring government. what does this mean for the investors among us? will sph lose its monopoly; will public transport and utility companies be nationalized; will the property market finally turn bearish? and what can we expect for our nation as a whole? will we be able to relive the golden days of the 90s? or will there be more creative forms of suicide? i eagerly anticipate the results!

I am also hoping for some form of change (positive, of course). But I must admit the 2006 Elections disappointed me greatly.

Let's see what will happen this Election. The mud-slinging and smear campaign has already started with PAP taking pot-shots at Chen Show Mao of WP....
My Value Investing Blog: http://sgmusicwhiz.blogspot.com/
Reply
#4
As much as I love to see more opposition in parliament, I afraid this is going to be a repeat of 2006.

Or maybe worse. Seetoh will finally get elected at Potong Pasir due to a weak opposition in Lina Chiam.

Reply
#5
(21-04-2011, 09:51 AM)Musicwhiz Wrote: I am also hoping for some form of change (positive, of course). But I must admit the 2006 Elections disappointed me greatly.

Let's see what will happen this Election. The mud-slinging and smear campaign has already started with PAP taking pot-shots at Chen Show Mao of WP....

I too am hoping for some change. I probably won't get a chance to vote this round. Haven't heard of any Opposition parties signalling their intention to contest in my GRC.

I'm pretty disappointed with PAP's attempts at mud-slinging of WP's Chen after how they came out to defend all the mud-slinging of their own candidate Tin Pei Ling. I mean there's two ways to deal with competition no? One, you play dirty. Two, you play fair but have to work harder. One leads to a loss of respect though.

Putting that aside and looking at real issues, No doubt, the ruling party's policies have ensured progress but I think the progress has benefited some more than others and those that have benefited most are the ones that need the least help. (I'm saying this not as a marginalised individual. In fact, I've probably benefited a lot from their policies).

I think the presence of opposition is indeed better for Singaporeans as a whole. Just to share a story, my gf's grandma recently related that for the first time in 30 years of living in the place, her MP actually came to pay her a visit! See what wonders having a contest does for you? It makes one pull up their socks.
Reply
#6
Hot Issues : -

Guess , I am Pro- PAP despite all the hot issues raised : -

1) Public Housing
I think the Government should be more upfront about the HDB prices. While , it is true , the prices reflect the current market prices , what they have never admitted is that many large tracks of land , Ponggol , Seng Kang , Pasir Ris , Tampines , Sembawang , Yishun , Chua Chu Kang , and more were acquired by the government at pittance prices from the land owners in the 70s'. ( We are talking a few cents per square feet , and now sold for S$300+ per square feed ) Assuming it was acquried at S$0.05 per square feet and now sold for S$300 per square feet , that is a 6,000 X Increase. Anyway , that was the past ,..

I believe the current HDB prices are way too high for the typical young Singaporean Couples. I would like the subsidy to be increased further. What is the subsidy now ? S$30,000 ? Perhaps , raised it to S$50,000 for New HDB Flats and also increased the subsidy for Resale. Caveat , they cannot sell it within 5 years ? Change it to 10 years and increase the period of resale as well. I think Singaporean couples should be encourage to marry younger and the government should help with the "Money Not Enough" for the new flat. There is enough money pressure to pay for study loans , marriage and renovation of new flat. Marrying earlier , also got chance to have more than 1 child for the new family which is good for country. No need so many foreign workers.

On Foreign Workers , I see the Economic benefits of having the foreign work pool. However , reliance on foreign workers for construction work , cleaning work , road sweeping , park cleaning , estate cleaning maintenance , etc , in my mind over the long term will make our nation to be weak , unable and unwilling to do hard work. We will become a nation that see Economic Growth as the Only Reason for our society. Not hard work ( low paying ) , pride in a simple honest job ( eg., cleaner , sweepers ). We need to pay our people who do such jobs more , c'mon - the foreign migrant workers can sleep in a store room and lives on 2 square meals a day. I don't think we should let our own people compete like this.

On the Talented Foreign workers , they will displace some of our own people. They come with better education , from Top Unis , else why , we take them in ? Unlike , big countries , displaced people can move to different states , different counties where the competition is not as stiff. There are other jobs available as one move out of the cities. But in Singapore , from Tuas to Changi , the cost of living does not differ much , we don't have much room to manouevre.

So , my thoughts on foreign workers , - the influx of migrant workers need to be reduced and talented foreign workers , get more from Malaysia. We shared a common heritage , in that sense , we are closer as a people group. And reduce those from other countries.

Manufacturing ? - We don't have much chance here. Mainly , because the Manufacturing Companies are not Singapore Own . Once labour costs is too high , the companies moved. My thought is Singaporean need to be more entreprenuer as a society. Follow the government , get a job and work for a MNC , the job will move away in due time. Vicious cycle. We end up with PMET problem and the problem gets more severe with each passing year. Manufacturing people in the 40s' and 50s' feel insecure when economy turns South.

Opposition in Government ? High time , it would be good to have 8 to 10 MPs from opposition camps. The opposition will get better with each passing years. Only when there is some opposition , then more high calibre people will come into the opposition. I think , it is good to have differing views and good debates. How , can this be possible ? Reduce the GRC further. Not more than 4 members per GRC and increase the number of SMC to about 20.

My 2 cents -----





Reply
#7
(02-05-2011, 11:28 PM)Kalos_2 Wrote: Hot Issues : -

Guess , I am Pro- PAP despite all the hot issues raised : -

1) Public Housing
I think the Government should be more upfront about the HDB prices. While , it is true , the prices reflect the current market prices , what they have never admitted is that many large tracks of land , Ponggol , Seng Kang , Pasir Ris , Tampines , Sembawang , Yishun , Chua Chu Kang , and more were acquired by the government at pittance prices from the land owners in the 70s'. ( We are talking a few cents per square feet , and now sold for S$300+ per square feed ) Assuming it was acquried at S$0.05 per square feet and now sold for S$300 per square feet , that is a 6,000 X Increase. Anyway , that was the past ,..

I believe the current HDB prices are way too high for the typical young Singaporean Couples. I would like the subsidy to be increased further. What is the subsidy now ? S$30,000 ? Perhaps , raised it to S$50,000 for New HDB Flats and also increased the subsidy for Resale. Caveat , they cannot sell it within 5 years ? Change it to 10 years and increase the period of resale as well. I think Singaporean couples should be encourage to marry younger and the government should help with the "Money Not Enough" for the new flat. There is enough money pressure to pay for study loans , marriage and renovation of new flat. Marrying earlier , also got chance to have more than 1 child for the new family which is good for country. No need so many foreign workers.

On Foreign Workers , I see the Economic benefits of having the foreign work pool. However , reliance on foreign workers for construction work , cleaning work , road sweeping , park cleaning , estate cleaning maintenance , etc , in my mind over the long term will make our nation to be weak , unable and unwilling to do hard work. We will become a nation that see Economic Growth as the Only Reason for our society. Not hard work ( low paying ) , pride in a simple honest job ( eg., cleaner , sweepers ). We need to pay our people who do such jobs more , c'mon - the foreign migrant workers can sleep in a store room and lives on 2 square meals a day. I don't think we should let our own people compete like this.

On the Talented Foreign workers , they will displace some of our own people. They come with better education , from Top Unis , else why , we take them in ? Unlike , big countries , displaced people can move to different states , different counties where the competition is not as stiff. There are other jobs available as one move out of the cities. But in Singapore , from Tuas to Changi , the cost of living does not differ much , we don't have much room to manouevre.

So , my thoughts on foreign workers , - the influx of migrant workers need to be reduced and talented foreign workers , get more from Malaysia. We shared a common heritage , in that sense , we are closer as a people group. And reduce those from other countries.

Manufacturing ? - We don't have much chance here. Mainly , because the Manufacturing Companies are not Singapore Own . Once labour costs is too high , the companies moved. My thought is Singaporean need to be more entreprenuer as a society. Follow the government , get a job and work for a MNC , the job will move away in due time. Vicious cycle. We end up with PMET problem and the problem gets more severe with each passing year. Manufacturing people in the 40s' and 50s' feel insecure when economy turns South.

Opposition in Government ? High time , it would be good to have 8 to 10 MPs from opposition camps. The opposition will get better with each passing years. Only when there is some opposition , then more high calibre people will come into the opposition. I think , it is good to have differing views and good debates. How , can this be possible ? Reduce the GRC further. Not more than 4 members per GRC and increase the number of SMC to about 20.

My 2 cents -----



Finally a website that discusses things in an objective manner, without names calling and mud slugging.

I totally agree with your views above.

Am I hallucinating? Jobs employment is so high but I still hear people got no jobs in Singapore, because of foreign workers?

The problem is, Singaporeans are so comfortable with life and demand high standards for jobs as well: Tuas, too far. Factory, too low class. Shift work, too inconvenient. Casino, too immoral (btw, there are huge no. of vancancies in Casino, paying at least S$1.8k, if you're interested). But when foreign workers 'flood' these jobs - goverment is accused of looking after them.

It's not wrong to demand high standards - that's the Swiss way of life. But in Switzerland, they have huge amount of land, mountain, rivers. Even if you don't want to work, you can still own a big house. While Singapore is only a fraction of that, and we need to compete globally at all fronts.

It is weird to hear some of the arguements that go this way:
- We don't want foreign workers who took away our jobs. See, coffee shops all foreigners.
- Then when we see our old folks working the very same job - they say, throw out the government for making old people work at such an age, and such a job.

Then, what do you want? Our young people to serve coffee and wash plates in coffee shop? Is this even desirable or reasonable?

What I feel strongly is, PAP has failed to manage expectations of Singaporeans. And the tone of voice taken is far from pleasing to most people's ears.

But I cannot say for a fact that their policies are wrong.

I was born in 1974 - old by many people's definition. But I have seen how peoples lives have progressed from kumpung to such a cosmopolitan society.

As LKY said, the policies had help Singapore progressed, but NOT all boats have risen with the waters.

The key thing for PAP is to go back to basics, start listening. I like Sitoh Yipin fighting for Potong Pasir. He's a man who's hungry - which PAP used to be.

Maybe this election proceedings already woke PAP up.


Finally a website that discusses things in an objective manner, without names calling and mud slugging.

I totally agree with your views above.

Am I hallucinating? Jobs employment is so high but I still hear people got no jobs in Singapore, because of foreign workers?

The problem is, Singaporeans are so comfortable with life and demand high standards for jobs as well: Tuas, too far. Factory, too low class. Shift work, too inconvenient. Casino, too immoral (btw, there are huge no. of vancancies in Casino, paying at least S$1.8k, if you're interested). But when foreign workers 'flood' these jobs - goverment is accused of looking after them.

It's not wrong to demand high standards - that's the Swiss way of life. But in Switzerland, they have huge amount of land, mountain, rivers. Even if you don't want to work, you can still own a big house. While Singapore is only a fraction of that, and we need to compete globally at all fronts.

It is weird to hear some of the arguements that go this way:
- We don't want foreign workers who took away our jobs. See, coffee shops all foreigners.
- Then when we see our old folks working the very same job - they say, throw out the government for making old people work at such an age, and such a job.

Then, what do you want? Our young people to serve coffee and wash plates in coffee shop? Is this even desirable or reasonable?

What I feel strongly is, PAP has failed to manage expectations of Singaporeans. And the tone of voice taken is far from pleasing to most people's ears.

But I cannot say for a fact that their policies are wrong.

I was born in 1974 - old by many people's definition. But I have seen how peoples lives have progressed from kumpung to such a cosmopolitan society.

As LKY said, the policies had help Singapore progressed, but NOT all boats have risen with the waters.

The key thing for PAP is to go back to basics, start listening. I like Sitoh Yipin fighting for Potong Pasir. He's a man who's hungry - which PAP used to be.

Maybe this election proceedings already woke PAP up.
And LKY is right to say we have a footloose generation. A generation that takes Singapore all for granted.
A generation with ideals that match their dreams for a future of welfare and loan-free people.
A generation that is used to parents paying for their first car the moment they started working.

Maybe we should have 1 or 2 big crisis in Singapore, that allow Singaporean to go street protests, labour strikes that affect our airports and bus services, move MNCs out of Singapore, together with all 1.3mil foreign workers... to make the footloose generation happy to see how democratic we can be.

But I need to pay a price for their dreams. And it is not even mine.
Reply
#8
(03-05-2011, 12:06 PM)whywhy Wrote: And LKY is right to say we have a footloose generation. A generation that takes Singapore all for granted.
A generation with ideals that match their dreams for a future of welfare and loan-free people.
A generation that is used to parents paying for their first car the moment they started working.

Maybe we should have 1 or 2 big crisis in Singapore, that allow Singaporean to go street protests, labour strikes that affect our airports and bus services, move MNCs out of Singapore, together with all 1.3mil foreign workers... to make the footloose generation happy to see how democratic we can be.

But I need to pay a price for their dreams. And it is not even mine.

When i first started working in the company, we used to do multiple projects but under a single supervisor. Along came a new CEO and he changes the structure. We still do multiple projects but now we report to a few supervisors each managing different projects. Our director feels the new structure is good. This new structure does not affect him since he still report to only 1 supervisor that is the CEO. He is a high flyer and got posted out to another govt organisation. This time he knows how it feels like working under multiple supervisors. He lamented to his buddy (who is a close fren of mine) he is very busy, have few resources under him and yet have to take orders from many supervisors.

What i am trying to say is the govt will not feel the ground unless the experience it themselves. If you work in the private sector, high chance is you will know how it feels. My child is having difficulty getting into a child care center in the west region. The waiting period to get into one is a ridiculous 3 to 5 year time span. My child is now 2.5 years old and is still unable to get into one. It feels even terrible when we see many foreigners/pr child manage to get into one. There is total equality indeed between Sporeans and foreigners and PR. Now the pap here say they are going to build more child care centers if they get voted in here. I am not going to bite this carrot because how would i know my child will get into one since there is total equality here.

I think we have created a govt which takes sporean for granted. And i feel it is better for more oppositions to go into parliament.
Reply
#9
(03-05-2011, 01:05 PM)Bibi Wrote:
(03-05-2011, 12:06 PM)whywhy Wrote: And LKY is right to say we have a footloose generation. A generation that takes Singapore all for granted.
A generation with ideals that match their dreams for a future of welfare and loan-free people.
A generation that is used to parents paying for their first car the moment they started working.

Maybe we should have 1 or 2 big crisis in Singapore, that allow Singaporean to go street protests, labour strikes that affect our airports and bus services, move MNCs out of Singapore, together with all 1.3mil foreign workers... to make the footloose generation happy to see how democratic we can be.

But I need to pay a price for their dreams. And it is not even mine.

When i first started working in the company, we used to do multiple projects but under a single supervisor. Along came a new CEO and he changes the structure. We still do multiple projects but now we report to a few supervisors each managing different projects. Our director feels the new structure is good. This new structure does not affect him since he still report to only 1 supervisor that is the CEO. He is a high flyer and got posted out to another govt organisation. This time he knows how it feels like working under multiple supervisors. He lamented to his buddy (who is a close fren of mine) he is very busy, have few resources under him and yet have to take orders from many supervisors.

What i am trying to say is the govt will not feel the ground unless the experience it themselves. If you work in the private sector, high chance is you will know how it feels. My child is having difficulty getting into a child care center in the west region. The waiting period to get into one is a ridiculous 3 to 5 year time span. My child is now 2.5 years old and is still unable to get into one. It feels even terrible when we see many foreigners/pr child manage to get into one. There is total equality indeed between Sporeans and foreigners and PR. Now the pap here say they are going to build more child care centers if they get voted in here. I am not going to bite this carrot because how would i know my child will get into one since there is total equality here.

I think we have created a govt which takes sporean for granted. And i feel it is better for more oppositions to go into parliament.

Reply
#10
(02-05-2011, 11:28 PM)Kalos_2 Wrote: Hot Issues : -

Guess , I am Pro- PAP despite all the hot issues raised : -

1) Public Housing
I think the Government should be more upfront about the HDB prices. While , it is true , the prices reflect the current market prices , what they have never admitted is that many large tracks of land , Ponggol , Seng Kang , Pasir Ris , Tampines , Sembawang , Yishun , Chua Chu Kang , and more were acquired by the government at pittance prices from the land owners in the 70s'. ( We are talking a few cents per square feet , and now sold for S$300+ per square feed ) Assuming it was acquried at S$0.05 per square feet and now sold for S$300 per square feet , that is a 6,000 X Increase. Anyway , that was the past ,..

I believe the current HDB prices are way too high for the typical young Singaporean Couples. I would like the subsidy to be increased further. What is the subsidy now ? S$30,000 ? Perhaps , raised it to S$50,000 for New HDB Flats and also increased the subsidy for Resale. Caveat , they cannot sell it within 5 years ? Change it to 10 years and increase the period of resale as well. I think Singaporean couples should be encourage to marry younger and the government should help with the "Money Not Enough" for the new flat. There is enough money pressure to pay for study loans , marriage and renovation of new flat. Marrying earlier , also got chance to have more than 1 child for the new family which is good for country. No need so many foreign workers.

On Foreign Workers , I see the Economic benefits of having the foreign work pool. However , reliance on foreign workers for construction work , cleaning work , road sweeping , park cleaning , estate cleaning maintenance , etc , in my mind over the long term will make our nation to be weak , unable and unwilling to do hard work. We will become a nation that see Economic Growth as the Only Reason for our society. Not hard work ( low paying ) , pride in a simple honest job ( eg., cleaner , sweepers ). We need to pay our people who do such jobs more , c'mon - the foreign migrant workers can sleep in a store room and lives on 2 square meals a day. I don't think we should let our own people compete like this.

On the Talented Foreign workers , they will displace some of our own people. They come with better education , from Top Unis , else why , we take them in ? Unlike , big countries , displaced people can move to different states , different counties where the competition is not as stiff. There are other jobs available as one move out of the cities. But in Singapore , from Tuas to Changi , the cost of living does not differ much , we don't have much room to manouevre.

So , my thoughts on foreign workers , - the influx of migrant workers need to be reduced and talented foreign workers , get more from Malaysia. We shared a common heritage , in that sense , we are closer as a people group. And reduce those from other countries.

Manufacturing ? - We don't have much chance here. Mainly , because the Manufacturing Companies are not Singapore Own . Once labour costs is too high , the companies moved. My thought is Singaporean need to be more entreprenuer as a society. Follow the government , get a job and work for a MNC , the job will move away in due time. Vicious cycle. We end up with PMET problem and the problem gets more severe with each passing year. Manufacturing people in the 40s' and 50s' feel insecure when economy turns South.

Opposition in Government ? High time , it would be good to have 8 to 10 MPs from opposition camps. The opposition will get better with each passing years. Only when there is some opposition , then more high calibre people will come into the opposition. I think , it is good to have differing views and good debates. How , can this be possible ? Reduce the GRC further. Not more than 4 members per GRC and increase the number of SMC to about 20.

My 2 cents -----

This is a more objective observation and genuine opinion..
I agree with your comments on the issue
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)