Dr Tan Cheng Bock (pictured here with Mrs Tan) has confirmed that he will contest the upcoming Presidential Election
By Nigel Tan
Chief Editor
The year was 1999, and Singapore was reeling from the effects of the Asian economic crisis. The PAP government’s “foreign talent” policy was in its early stages of inception, and the party’s most vocal backbencher, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, was of the opinion that Singaporeans needed to be made a priority. The Minister for Information and the Arts, Mr George Yeo, disagreed – he felt that the attraction of foreign professionals remained a necessity because of Singapore’s small population size and talent pool.
The duo crossed swords in Parliament in 1999 over the hot-button issue of immigration – when the PAP government’s “foreign talent” scheme was in its early stages of inception. Twelve years on, both men are no longer Members of Parliament. They could cross swords yet again, however – as opponents at the upcoming Presidential Election.
Dr Tan, who was then an MP for Ayer Rajah, called on the government to “tone down” its call for foreign talent. At a time when Singapore was still suffering the aftershocks of the Asian crisis, the sentiment on the ground was fearful and apprehensive. Dr Tan felt that the government should stand in solidarity with Singaporeans who had lost their jobs, and make them a priority.
He said: “Our message to Singaporeans must be clear and loud. We will help Singaporeans to get back the lost jobs. We must take care of their basic needs. Now, this is a more important priority call than foreign talent. I can understand the rationale and need to inject such talent. I accept and I support this. But many still don’t. It makes them feel threatened. I feel that at this juncture, this call for foreign talent might be a bit misplaced. Let’s think Singaporeans first.”
In reply, Mr Yeo, who then represented Aljunied GRC in addition to being a minister, argued that imposing restrictions on foreign talent would be contrary to Singapore’s national interests.
He said: “It is in a crisis that the true character of a person comes forth, and very often, when we assess our friends, the people whom we work with, we watch them in a crisis. Do they turn selfish and inwards? Do relationships suddenly sour or would they continue to share and feel a sense of solidarity? So, precisely at a time like this, when we need many foreigners to help us take our economy to the next phase, we must not send the wrong signal.”
“We are not Israel, we are not a continental nation, we have a small population base. To succeed, we need many foreigners to help us, some living overseas, some living here. Yes, in the short term, some Singaporeans would be pleased that we are protecting them, we are saving them from foreign competition. But such an emotional line of attack will do great disservice to Singapore, and to ourselves in the long term. It is crucial that while we are friends with (the foreign talents) in good times, we remain friends with them in bad times.”
Dr Tan’s comments in Parliament also drew flak from then-Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew. Mr Lee said to The Straits Times: “So, when I heard Dr Tan Cheng Bock, I decided I would stand up and tell him he’s wrong. You have to decide whether you think he knows more or I know more. You have to decide whether he will give you the answer to Singapore’s future, or that I am likely to give you the better road to the future.”
Potential Presidential candidate George Yeo said in 1999 that Singapore needed foreigner because of its small population and talent pool
The issue of immigration has bred resentment against the PAP government, with many blaming the government’s “foreign talent” policy for suppressing wages despite the country’s impressive GDP growth in recent years. As a result, the PAP scored its lowest percentage of the national vote (60.1%) in Singapore’s post-independence history, with a record 6 seats lost to the opposition. All the opposition parties took issue with the PAP’s liberal immigration policy, proposing various solutions ranging from a points-based system to the raising of Employment Pass salary thresholds from the current $2,500 to $4,000.
However, immigration is unlikely to be made into an election issue at the upcoming Presidential Election, mainly because the President does not have a direct role in shaping public policy. However, the Parliamentary exchanges between Dr Tan and Mr Yeo – outdated as they may be – could serve as a useful indication of where the respective candidates stand on an issue that remains as a top priority for most voters.
Dr Tan has confirmed that he will be contesting the election, having already resigned his membership of the PAP and collected his nomination forms. Mr Yeo has said that he is “thinking hard” about whether or not to contest, although his representatives collected the forms on his behalf earlier this week. He has said that he will make a decision within two weeks. Apart from Dr Tan and Mr Yeo, the only other serious contender is likely to be former NTUC Income chief executive Tan Kin Lian.
The incumbent, President S R Nathan, has said that he has not decided on whether he will seek a third term, but conceded that his age was an issue – he is currently 87 years old.
–
The author is the Chief Editor of The Satay Club
Never mind if the President has no powers we must still vote for someone that will not be a yes man.
Enough of them we need change we must not be cowed by the PAP we need to be brave and vote who we want.
Suddenly we find out the President has no powers because they know they are going to lose.
What key to the reserves real rubbish.
Welcome to the real world.
The EP has no exective or decision making powers.
The mAjority decides, for checks and balances many of the elected MPs or NCMPs lack the needed to debate except for a very few. Even so the populace infactuation with qualifications is ludicrous and a testimony of the lack of deliberation and erosion of judgement from the Public, through years of equating academic excellence with qualities of leadership. Perhaps the result of the education policy etc. Whatever the case, the EP cannot help in any way directly.
Stemming the tide of workers
The Star 11 June 2011
Insight Down South
By SEAH CHIANG NEE
The Singapore government has cut down by nearly half the number of foreign workers and there will be fewer foreign work permits and professional visit passes as well as permanent residents.
A LIKELY verdict of the immigration backlash by Singaporean voters is being felt by foreign workers half a world away – foreign hopefuls ranging from middle-aged professionals to fresh-faced graduates, from technicians and waitresses to construction workers, seeking to land a well-paying job here.
After years of open immigration, tens of thousands are facing unpromising prospects these days.
When the then economically weak countries in the West were closing their doors, this city – Asia’s second richest – virtually turned itself into a free port for job seekers.
It welcomed all types of workers in large numbers from East and West to its shores, pushing a three million population in 1990 to 5.08 million.
Quite a few were talented by any standards, but many were also people who had few capabilities to contribute but who merely took away local jobs.
Thousands ended up as prostitutes or cardboard collectors.
In the May 7 election, public anger boiled over, forcing the authorities to backtrack.
For years, citizens had been protesting that the foreign deluge was causing hardship to them and their families.
Civil action groups and social networks took protest action in sympathy with unemployed and underemployed Singaporeans – many from the middle class – who were replaced by foreigners.
The demonstrations will not go away. The impact is already being felt at the policy level.
The government has cut down by nearly half the number of foreign workers from an average of 130,000 a year each in 2007, 2008 and 2009 to 80,000 last year.
Further tightening is on the cards. There will be fewer foreign work permits and professional visit passes as well as permanent residents (PR).
The surge in foreign workers began in 2005 as the government sought to diversify the economy away from manufacturing into services such as tourism.
Two stresses are at play. On the one hand is Singapore’s low fertility and ageing population and manpower shortage (or mismatch of work skills) that force employers to turn to foreign sources.
The other is insufficient protection for workers against abusive employers.
Nothing can stop an employer from sacking a Singaporean and hiring a foreigner just to save money.
Neither is there any law that prevents a boss from hiring a foreigner even if local skills are available.
The extent of the current tightening is unknown, although leaders are insisting that foreigners are still needed.
The future, however, may well be dictated by the hard realities on the ground.
“If they turn the flood back on again, the People’s Action Party will lose the next election in 2016. Period,” a political researcher said.
“(The government’s) only hope is to gradually reduce the numbers and look after Singaporeans first.”
Some believe that the poorly-handled policy may have forced Singapore to retract its expansion – at least until it can meet housing, public transport and healthcare needs.
The government may have no choice but to cut back, even at the expense of weaker growth. The public emotions appear too strong to overcome.
In the last days of campaigning, it was evident that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was very worried about a possible thrashing – including in his own candidacy in Ang Mo Kio.
Two days before polling, Lee apologised twice for mistakes his government had made in the past few years – including overcrowded trains and housing shortage.
“It was a great relief to him that it did not happen,” a reporter said.
But the 6.5% drop in votes probably made him resolve to go for drastic change to avoid trouble in 2016, including an immigration solution.
For hundreds of thousands of prospective foreign job-seekers – many from countries like Malaysia, China, India and the Philippines – the change is their worst fears come true.
Many had been watching the heated debate with rising apprehension, fearing a curbing of the flow.
Since then, there has been widespread talk that companies are finding it hard to bring in foreign workers.
The most worried lot are fresh graduates from several Asian countries facing a shrinking job market at home and seeking relief abroad.
This means that unless foreigners have special talents – or their skills are unavailable in Singapore – getting approval will become harder.
Not only that. Those workers who have arrived and found wanting may find it harder to get renewal.
It is not just the work applicants. Families and spouses, and PRs, too, are coming under increasing scrutiny.
Even foreign wives of Singaporeans who lack job qualifications are finding it hard.
All this by no means signifies a closed-door strategy. Singapore will likely continue to employ foreigners but it will be at a more acceptable pace.
The criteria of what is talent may be stricter to ensure locals are not discriminated against.
“The election result has become a hard reality for the government,” the researcher said.
“The PAP has lost its stranglehold. It will no longer be able to decide all the options in future.”
For Singapore, it could spell an end to its ambition to have a 6.5 million to seven million population for a long time to come.
When it was first mooted, making Singapore a metropolis comparable to the top global cities – London (population 7.4 million), Paris (2.14 million), New York (8.3 million) and Hong Kong (seven million) – Singaporeans reacted with pride.
They liked the idea, the image and the buzz. But after years of crowd-jostling and dense living, few people today like a population of that size.
In fact, quite a few prefer it smaller and more comfortable.
My PR’s friend told me that a lot of their PR friends recently suddenly received letters from government to ask them to convert to citizens. This happen only after the election. Anyone know of this news from their PR friend?
Is PAP trying to gear for more votes from all the new citizens in the next election? Although next election is 5 years later, doing it slowly from now will not raise suspicion later.
I’m no expert, but historically Tan Cheng Bock has categorically lost the argument, surely?
George Yeo is still very much PAP man. Also former army guy- very obedient- they are all trained to say YES. they say that everyday to their bosses.
Ong Teng Cheong was also a PAP man but he took on the PAP and didn’t shy away from tackling even LKY. He had the guts to speak up in the interests of Singapore even if this meant that he had to clash with his former party colleagues. Don’t write off someone just because of their former party affiliation. Dr Tan Cheng Bock was also a former PAP man but he has proven that he dares to speak his mind when he disagrees with the PAP. This article provides a good example of a time when he did exactly that.
Our first choice is Tan Kin Lian and 2nd choice is Tan Cheng Bock. As for George Yeo, please do not contest, we do not dislike you but still, you are a ‘PAP man’ and we doubt you can be independent enough to do a good job. As for Nathan, please do not continue to be so shameless, do all Singaporean a favour, vanish!
Somehow over the months of reading more and more articles that recollecting the past political comments and debates happened in past parliament seating, my distaste of our country thought leaders grew. I sincerely like to thank the Oppositions and PM Lee, I am really glad that these folks are no longer in cabinet or parliament to do us more damage. Althought there are still a few still hanging around but I think we had little choice as the talent is running thin in PAP (maybe that is the area we need foreign talents).
I hate to beat the dead horse to death, but I find that the unjust done to Singaporean need to hear over and over again until our life see some real improvement, and the sad part we can’t even voice this in our own media.
On George Yeo’s statement above: “…It is crucial that while we are friends with (the foreign talents) in good times, we remain friends with them in bad times…”
I do agreed we need to remain friends with our friends (FT) in bad times BUT we have to take care of our family first, not in a million years I would give up the only small loaf of bread that I need to keep my kids alive to first feed my neighbour’s kids, what kind of genius will do that. And that does not mean I am hostile to my friends. The leaders have a moral and social obligation to the people (Singaporean) that entrust and paid them (Millions of $$$, not by choice) to be the custodian of not only our home (Singapore) but also our survival (Singaporean, where Singaporean=Nation).
On LKY’s statement above: “…You have to decide whether he will give you the answer to Singapore’s future, or that I am likely to give you the better road to the future…”
I think LKY context of “you” is not referring to Singaporean but rather the privilege top earners (which are represented by the million dollars salary ministers in the parliament seating). We don’t need to be an economist or very smart to know that when a country is recovering from a recession, where jobs are scarce we should first give it to the citizen then to foreigner. Put it bluntly, I (Singaporean) won’t be very smart to hire a housekeeper (Government) to do disservice to me (Singaporean) by giving away my only loaf of bread to my friend (FT).
We need the right mix of foreign talents to complement us and to help our economy grow, but the timing and mix is important and need to done right, if we need to err then it should be err toward Singapore first. If the millionaire minister cannot get it right, then he is not worth his keep. In the real world they will be gone in split of second instead of getting a second chance to try his luck with another ministry. I am a great fan of Star War, like Yoda said “Do or Do Not. There is No Try” but yet they continue to try.
Though the duties of the President of SGP are mainly ceremonial in nature, still it is more desireable to have a President who love his people.
One who have a heart for the people he represents. One who, though not possesing executive power, but have the moral courage to seek the well being of his citizens and uses the influence of his office for such. One who does not say vainly that such and such is good for the country, even though those things have detrimental effects on the ground. One who knows undoubtedly that the ‘country’ is the ‘people’ and not some kind of imagery in a technocrat’s mind.
Most of all, the highest office in this land should be fill by a person of the integrity.
Between the two, I will pick TCB. GY mooted the idea of the casinos for the good of Singapore, despite knowing first-hand the problems it could bring families who had relatives with a gambling addiction. Again, for the good of Singapore, he was all for bringing in FTs amidst the uncertainties of the Asian financial crisis. A man who has the IQ but no EQ. No thank you. Enough of these bright sparks for me.
Tan Cheng Bock anytime
I definitely support Tan Cheng Bok. His thoughts are for the people (Singaporeans) and his decision to quit PAP shows that he had his integrity knowing PAP can’t give the people better policy and cause the people to suffers!
Frankly between the 2 of them, Dr. Tan should be voted as our future President.
While for that so called christian ‘yes’ man that :-
1) stumbles his brothers by pro-grambling ( casino)
2) that speaks with fork tongue, one moment is no and later is yes
Yet claims is a christian , you think he is worthy to be President of Singapore?
One psychologist friend analysed GY this way:
Having lost Aljunied , he is now in a state of denial, depression even. He has not tasted defeat all his educational/professional/political life. Losing Aljunied was a first for him. Now, just becos’ some supporters have urged him to stand for Pres Election, his ego is aroused. He wants to be in the news again. But he will be making a BIG MISTAKE (not a BIG DECISION as he called it) if he contest again – he will lose for sure. Most of the 40% that voted opposition in GE will not vote for him. Most of those that voted PAP will not vote GY now that PAP is already in govt. Two defeats in a span of 3 mths will be devastating. His ego will be destroyed for good. So pl George, do yourself a favour, do not contest.
Do you really think that GY will lose? The fact that it is likely to be a 3-cornered fight increases the likelihood that he will win. And aside from that, I do think that GY is popular enough to win more than 50% of the votes on his own. Even some opposition supporters are won over by his sincerity and humility, given that he accepted his defeat in a dignified manner. Realistically, GY remains the favourite if he decides to put himself forward as a candidate.
GY may have a realistic in the contest. But there’s a doubt if he is the front runner or favorite for the Presidency.
Pingback: Daily SG: 9 Jun 2011 « The Singapore Daily
Sorry, but none of this is relevant. The President is not going to be able to change immigration policies or any policies for that matter. The President’s role is a ceremonial role as head of state. His job includes acting as a “second key” to safeguard the reserves, to veto public service appointments and to serve as a unifying figure for Singaporeans. Similar to the Queen of England. She cannot get involved in politics and NEVER comments publicly on any issues concerning Parliament or government policies. So, those who are thinking that the President can come in and change government policies are confusing the issues. That is not his role. We don’t need a President who oversteps his role and tries to interfere in the smooth running of the government.
On the contrary, it is very relevant to note who has the feel of the citizens of Singapore. It also provides a synopsis of the sort of perception that each of the potential Presidential candidate holds.
Nani, I have already rebutted this view of yours but apparently you still did not get the message. If you are saying that the President’s duties should only be limited to being “our ceremonial head of state” and be the manager of the reserves, then I think all the more he would be undeserving of his $4million salary.
What’s the point of being paid such an obsene amount of money when your job is nothing more than showing your face in front of other world leaders and managing the reserves? The scale of your duties are totally miniscule compared to other world leaders whose salaries are not more than $600’000 a month.
The president’s job is also to ensure that Singaporeans benefit from policies that are about to be passed, and if that particular policy does not, in the President’s opinion, seem beneficial to the country, then of course it is his job to debate it. After all, the president’s job, since he is elected by the people, is also to represent the people right??
Nani, If the President does not have the power to make any executive decisions, then let me ask you, what’s the point of being a President already??
Please do not get the British Queen involved in this. We have already been independant from the British for decades and our political system have changed drastically. The fact that Britain is a monarchy while we are a parliamentary republic already spells out a lot of differences between our two political systems. The British political system and the Singaporean political system is different, so your whole point about the British Queen is totally irrelevant.
*Not more than $60’000 a month
Do not need to think hard. Just go for it. But I hope G.Yeo would not loss for the second time.
The way I see it : George Yeo wants to be the President because he is in shock of his recent loss and he is desperately wanting to get back in the limelight, Tan Cheng Bock wants to be the President because he truly wants to serve the people. I am clear whom I will vote for between the two and I hope my fellow Singaporeans will see through the motives of the men, too.
Dr Tan Cheng Bock looks very “Presidential” in the photo, with his wife. They would look very good as our Presidential couple when their photos have to appear in all our schools and offices.
If Dr Tan Cheng Bok is elected, is he going to pressure the PM to review the current quotas for WP/SP/EP and introduce a points-based system to ensure only quality immigrants? I don’t think Singaporeans are so extreme to want a complete ban on FTs. Instead, we are against the mass importation of mediocre foreign “talents” who are performing entry-level PMET jobs. Many of them are using fake degrees to secure these jobs. Who scrutinises them? Do employers, especially SMEs, have the resources to do spot-checks and make sure they are not duped?
I will vote for Tan Cheng Bock. Despite his former PAP affiliation, he was even more vocal than some opposition MPs (think of Ling How Doong and Cheo Chai Chen) and definitely more vocal than Tan Kin Lian who doesn’t exactly have a great track record himself. Tan Cheng Bock will be a real people’s president. Why do you think the people of Ayer Rajah and Ama Keng love him so much?
He set 2 birds free and praised about it on his website http://www.tanchengbock.org but supports the Operation Spectrum that saw 22 people arrested and detained without trial, some of them detained for many years http://newspapers.nl.sg/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19870730.2.26.2.aspx. He is definitely more of an animal (birds) lover……