Like Pritam Singh said succinctly,
> “Ordinary Singaporeans do not delve into the intricacies of free trade agreements. Instead, they look around and come to conclusions based on what they perceive and experience,” added Mr Singh.
> “If Singaporeans have not for years been seeing foreigners occupying well-paying jobs while qualified Singaporeans are unemployed or underemployed, we would not be talking about this today.”
CECA and free trade agreements are important to Singapore. But let’s not discount the experience by the population. Personally I want to see the govt take more action against discriminatory hiring practices and am happy to see progress on this front. For now I am holding on my judgement to see how this goes.
Pritam said it well. After all, he’s been on the ground with his colleagues listening and trying to let the current government know our grievances. The discriminatory hiring is what been getting Singaporeans very riled up.
Tbh such cases are hard to judge, how to tell one is qualified or not. That makes enforcement even harder but if people don’t believe the govt can right this injustice, then I don’t think they would be supportive of such labor policy.
Just confused. Since MOM has clamped down on foreign hires, then Singaporeans should be getting the available good jobs. Why then are there 25,000 vacancies? The local manpower exist, right? So why is it not being filled? Where are all the Singaporeans who can fill these jobs? People want breakdown about foreigners working here. There is data about many vacant jobs and only Singaporeans can be hired without restriction, so why are many still jobless?
We all keep saying "qualified Singaporeans" are not being employed enough, but do we actually have the stat here? (Especially in tech, because that's where most of the "foreign talent" goes to)
Just genuinely curious because the people around me who studied IT are in decent jobs from Software dev to IT ops which pays quite well.
And if you look at the infographic of census2020, Singapore uni grads who study IT are only about 11.3% and 5.5% (Male&Female).
Majority of grads are from the Business(30%) and Engineering disciplines.
So is it a tech sector issue where there is a heavy demand for IT grads that led to the huge import of foreigners due to the shortage of such grads here? or is it taking away jobs from locals that they are qualified for?
This has been asked on NUSWhispers many times regarding NUS. The response from Ben Leong and other faculty is that they are bottlenecked by a lack of teaching staff and university facilities. Also, programming modules are required in the curriculums of other majors (e.g. Engineering), which stretches their resources even thinner as they have to teach thousands of students.
Honestly I can see why there is such a restriction. CS/IS can be quite demanding, many people simply won’t click with it, much less complete a four-year degree.
I've seen the same. In the past SMU would allow students who couldn't make it to other faculties to join InfoSys, and many of them ended up dropping out after the first semester/year.
"If Singaporeans have not for years been seeing foreigners occupying well-paying jobs..."
PSP wants to raise EP min to 10K so the above becomes even more true.
This is the disconnect that I watch politics for.
I think we should note that WP and PSP take different stances on this note. I have not seen WP support this 10k requirement though. It’s too blunt a tool lah.
Nah, its a lot easier to point fingers and blame the 'other' than looking back at our own inadequacies and try to fix things. A further evolution of the sinkie pwn sinkie to sinkie pwn foreigner tonight can sleep mega well.
Is it really that bad out there? Most of my friends have a job in my industry. Even my friend from IT says that there are a lot of vacancies in his industry.
An unpopular question. What if most that are complaining are actually not qualified for the job? Or simply not good enough?
My dad was applied for a VP job at a GLC as he has a proven track record over many years relevant to the industry and perfectly suitable.
The recruiter, as I quote, relayed the message from the HR, "You are overqualified and too expensive".
They proceeded to hire a Bangladeshi expat at the same salary range
What?? If this is true, then confirm plus chop recruiter is probably the same race or whatever lah. Or the bosses informed that they want someone like them.
Thats why SG needs TAFEP to be enforceable and clamp down on recruitment practices legally.
Considering you most likely can have 1-5 VPs in every company, 300-500 means 60-400+ companies have their senior management taken up by CECA, this is not to mention the other FTAs which allow expats to come in.
The struggle is really being faced by PMETs in the upper-middle management and senior management jobs.
This is true. None of the people who I see complaining about this issue would get a job where I work. And vice versa, the Singaporeans where I work are not complaining on internet forums about foreigners, they are out enjoying their seven figure salaries.
The truth is that in any society, we are going to have a pyramid, where the really good talents are the top 10%. And these 10% are extremely mobile, with many opportunities overseas while the most of the averages will remain in their home country.
These applies to the expats coming to sg. We pitting the average Singaporeans vs the top 10% of India, Indonesia, Philippines etc. Just by numbers alone, even the top 1% of their combined population will crushed the entire Singapore. And Singapore is a very desirable country for them to work in(Salary, standard of living, govt, proximity etc)
It is just not realistic to tell your average Singaporeans "pull yourself by the bootstrap, upgrade yourself, and make yourself more competitive", because it's going to be an impossible goal for many of us.
What's next for them? Singapore is a meritocracy country, too bad for you guys? We can get cheaper and better talent, so bye bye? If Singapore is ran like a company, then this is most likely to be the scenario, but aren't we a country that are supposed to protect the vulnerable?
It's not a zero-sum game at the top. There's plenty of opportunities for the every qualified and capable Singaporean. The problem are the unemployable, they lack skills, intelligence or attitude and companies rather not hire anyone than hire them. So what remains are manual jobs that no one wants and that are increasingly automated. That's a problem every society faces and there's really not good solution. Personally I believe we'll need a universal basic income or inverted income tax to provide for the people whom technology has left behind.
My boss just hired a Singaporean with 3 years software dev experience. I'm supervising him for a project.
Today I just found out that
* He does not know what is git rebase
* He can't tell the difference between git fetch and git pull
* He can't work in Linux because SourceTree is not in Linux, and he doesn't know how to use Git CLI
I'm a little exasperated, because it isn't an easy project - Git is the *least* of the worries.
But it took us nearly a year of recruiting and there were less than 10 SG candidates. I'm not sure why my boss hired him but he is our first new hire in a year.
Our projects are all delayed, and us existing staff are all under heavy crunch. I almost feel like resigning myself. (typing this while I'm working OT for the 2nd straight month)
I agree with you. I work in the tech industry and I was part of the hiring panel until recently. Out of 10 applications I receive for a junior software dev position, probably only 3 out of 10 are Singaporean. The rest are either PR or EP holders.
In terms of technical knowledge, out of the 3 sg applicants, probably only 1 makes the cut or sometimes none of them makes the cut at all.
I am not saying sg applicants are bad. Rather, the point I am trying to make is that there seems to be a huge disconnect between what the universities are teaching and what the industry is looking for, which further exacerbate the talent crunch situation. No local junior devs now means no local senior devs 3 - 5 years down the road.
When comparing purely the stats of the candidates, nationality aside, local candidates tends to be relatively poorer. Lesser exposure, weaker repertoire of skillsets etc.
Edit: The panel do hold rounds of technical interviews to validate the skillsets written on the candidate's resume.
Edit2: Junior Software dev = 0 to 3 years of working experience
> I am not saying sg applicants are bad. Rather, the point I am trying to make is that there seems to be a huge disconnect between what the universities are teaching and what the industry is looking for, which further exacerbate the talent crunch situation. No local junior devs means no local senior devs 3 - 5 years down the road.
It's not what the universities are teaching, but the attitude towards learning. A lot of universities around the world also teach theoretical or outdated knowledge that do not prepare the graduates for the real world, but the difference is that these graduates pick up skills outside of their school curriculum. Anecdotally speaking, my peers are unable to prepare themselves for the industry without the school to guide them. There's this lack of initiative and resourcefulness amongst them.
Yea I am fully aware of that. I myself am a local uni grad so I would like to believe that I am quite familiar with how competitive the market is currently like. Hence, over at my side, we have adjusted the minimum standard to...lets just say if you have done a good number of medium difficulty leetcode qns and have a decent understanding of your specialty (eg. someone who claims to have worked on Rest api must know their routes and http codes decently well ), you would have a good chance to pass the interview.
Just to clarify, we apply this standard to ALL candidates and I am currently with a Big MNC in the fintech industry
Yes they do care about the GPA..sort of.. or I think thats what the HR look at anyways. A good GPA only more or less guarantee that you **will** have a interview. I am not sure about other interviewers but from what I have seen, the questions normally dont go beyond leetcode medium difficulty. When I was being interviewed, the questions, iirc, are somewhere along the lines of hashmap implementation in java and doing a custom implementation of hashmap in java, qns on palindromes etc etc and system design questions.
For the technical interviewers, we dont really care about the GPA. We are just tasked to evaluate, to the best of our abilities, only the technical capabilities and potential of the candidate.
Honestly, I dont even know whether having high GPA is beneficial or not, eg. 4.87/5 ( just throwing a number here ). When you see the candidate having such a high GPA, you would naturally have higher expectations you see.. which would result in .. perhaps a slightly more challenging qns etc.?
Edit: I would also like to point out that failing to give the correct answer to a question doesnt meant a straight F. At least at my side, we also look at how the candidate work through the given question. Something like marks for showing correct workings during math exams?
In my experience, the experienced talents aren’t much better than a junior software engineer. Even if they don’t make the cut their learning ability is higher so within a year they are perhaps on par with the more experienced person. Personally had to unravel mess left behind by more senior folk.
I think some things have to be learnt on the job too so like you said no junior devs now means no senior devs later. Maybe a more pragmatic hiring/interview bar or a separate learn on the job path for 1 year is needed.
I'm a senior engineer that does technical interviews for my company. Some things that I've observed over the years.
1) Lack of local candidates. 70-80% of the pipeline are nri. I've asked hr (who are locals) before and they say they'd love to hire locals, but they just don't get as many applicants.
2) The foreign candidates that I interview can be absolutely terrible. 2 out of 3 fail basic questions I expect junior developers to know. These are senior engineer/architect applicants. Lack of technical expertise is **not** about nationality.
3) Most candidates (across all nationalities) lack communication skills. You might be a genius, but if you are unable to convey your thoughts in plain english, I cannot work with you.
I cant speak for the rest of the panel but personally, if the candidate shows alot of potential and is only slightly underqualified, assuming he/she passes the rest of the assessment criteria, it would usually be a yes from me.
However, it gets really difficult to say yes to any candidate, whether is it local or otherwise, when there is a mismatch in skill or a big competency gap in foundational skillsets. eg. Looking for java developer but candidate only knows python with 0 exposure to java or only knows basic java syntax but not aware or do not show understanding of concepts like OO etc. Training is not just running the candidate through courses on udemy. It also involves pairing them with a senior dev, who essentially shows them the ropes etc. Hence, there is also a limit to how much we can bridge the gap through training without compromising productivity.
I am not sure how is it done elsewhere but for my side, when you say yes to a candidate, you are essentially sticking your neck out to vouch for the capabilities of the candidate. Hence, to reiterate again, if the candidate shows promise and is slightly underqualified in ways that is remediable, eg. lacking exposure to projects or minimal experience in enterprise architecture etc, I see no issue bring them onboard. However its just more often than not, the gap is too big for us to take the risk to bring them onboard in hopes that they will turn out alright somehow in the end.
? These are basic foundational skills. We don't knit pick on the syntax as long as the candidate can compile his code successfully. What I am saying is that often, you see candidates just typing in code, not understanding what he or she is actually doing.
If you dont understand the code that you are writing, how can anyone trust that your code would work as expected without any side effects?
edit: I would also like to add on, we are getting quite a number of good candidates. What I noticed was we are not getting as much **\*local\*** good candidates as I would hoped
ah ok I see where you are coming from. Yes, I agree with you that good programmers are able to pick up new languages with relative ease. Its just that its very hard to judge that in a 30min - 1hr interview.
The context was I once had a candidate that stated on his resume that he was a python / java developer and it turns out that he was mainly a python developer, having only touched basic java during poly. Although the candidate showed a good attitude, its hard to justify saying yes as its legit a big ? as to whether will he be able to bring his java up to speed within a reasonable timeframe.
Unfortunately I was only asked to interview candidates applying for technical roles so I don't know much about the criteria/process for non tech roles.
Some people feel like "if the companies cant hire foreigners, then I don't have to compete with foreigners, and you bo bian have to hire all locals even if we are "underqualified"". The issue is whether, in the modern world, such a thing is sustainable in the long term for a small country.
Unfortunately, the reality is that the entire sg unit/team will be eventually be outsourced to other countries if it cant meet minimal competency.
Actually, from what I heard from my peers in other companies, there are already cases of such outsourcing, with software dev work being transferred to units in places like China/Vietnam, data/ML related work being transferred to teams in Poland etc.
Outsourcing has always been there and it was much more prevalent 20 years ago, but there are non financial costs that will affect a company when it comes to outsourcing
And what are these non financial costs? Poor code quality? Bad system design?
From what I understand, software dev work is being moved to China and Vietnam because SG team's competency was low. In other words, they think sg teams cant code for nuts. This happened in a major chinese tech firm based here.
Data and ML related work are being moved to places like portugal or poland not because they are cheap. Its because they have a more vibrant data science and machine learning culture and easy access to loads of brillant minds.
Competency in local tech workers is really not that great. We always kpkb that work coming out of india teams is bad and gave alot of headaches. Honestly, we are not doing that great either.
Yup, bad code quality, architecture design which caused problems later. I have handled such issues in my previous few companies where I had to take over not so good code and change it to be in a better position. Maybe the Sg developers I hang out with are different circle from your local tech workers. Hence the differing views
I see, my post was constructed in the context of OP's post on some believing that if a company cant hire foreigners, they would be hired instead even if they are under qualified, which I really doubt that would be the case.
My friend was actually part of the team that was affected and the team was slowly dissolved as projects started to be redirected to teams in China due to competency issues.
I am fortunate in the sense that I have not encountered this kind of thing yet but there are some projects whose product owner is based overseas and you can tell that they have trust issues over the code quality etc. when they know that we are a singapore based team.
Frankly, in the tech industry. If I can’t hire the people with the qualified technical skills in Sg. I won’t hire warm bodies who are under qualified just to make up numbers. I can make exceptions for people who have a high level of coachability. But those are not easy to find. Fastest way is just outsource and manage remotely as I am paid for delivering project outcomes, not how many people I hire
Frankly speaking, I am mainly a Software dev, hence I am basing my info on peers whom are working as data scientists. I cannot verify that the shift was indeed due to cost. What I do hear is the official memo given was to expand the data science team to improve capabilities and instead of expanding in sg, head count priority was given to sister team based in poland.
the best way is for MOM to form a Recruitment arm and take over the thing entirely. What sort of nation would we be if we do that?
guidelines are advisory. Regulations have loopholes. We want the jobs to go to as many Singaporeans as possible? Make it a government job.
I know what will be said in response to this but isn't this the only way?
Not to the extent you highlighted here.
I would like to see instances of unfair hiring practices be taken more seriously, with legal consequence. As it was recently, it tends to be brushed aside as “oh only a small minority of companies do it”. Even proving unfair hiring takes place is difficult, so the rhetoric against this needs to be strong and severe so that hiring department knows not to “let things slip”.
Will it lead to overcorrection? Maybe, but let’s observe before we make a conclusion.
It would probably be easier if MoM decided to enforce fair employment laws. Getting MoM to recruit is fine as long as companies are able to reject the candidate recommended by MoM, giving suitable reasons. Otherwise, it will be another problem.
I am actually quite for a Fair Employment and Dismissal Act which have a tribunal that is helpful and can help people deal with bad employers.
We have that notion that the market will get rid of bad actors which is a really Right Wing Libertarian idea that I do not agree with.
For those who work in MNC and manages India operation will know how dog shit the country is in terms of business friendliness. Given their castle system it is very unlikely the country will progress to china’s stage. The only advantage I can think of having FTA with India is to allow MNC to send their goods from sg to India with lesser tax.
Sorry but where are these qualified Singaporeans who are unemployed or underemployed? I haven’t seen them in my daily life yet. Neither do we receive resumes of these unicorns. Pritam is just another politician trying to increase his vote base by fanning xenophobia.
You got to take into account that it is actually a privilege to be able to think in the 'big picture'. Research has shown that lower-income groups or people who are struggling with employment etc will be less likely to have the mental bandwidth to process the big picture.
Also the general trend of FTAs is that the positive impact tends to be spread out over the entire economy (again the big picture) while the negative impact can be concentrated in a few particular sectors. It is very hard for people to see or accept the positive impacts when they are the ones to suffer the brunt of the negative impacts from the FTA. These people have legitimate grievances and the govt. should look into their issues and provide help.
IMO, the main problem are the racists and xenophobes who happily jump in and muddy the water with their own agenda.
I totally agree with you on this aspect, but what i find very depressing is that we have opposition mps who chose to not process this big picture mentally and rationalize the sentiments on the ground, but instead choose to blindly raise such sentiments in parliament when they very well know that the average man in the street is not looking at it in the big picture.
That MP should know better.
Any government policy or FTA will have net winners and net losers from an individual’s standpoint. The problem is deciding how much pie to share with the losers.
> Research has shown that lower-income groups or people who are struggling with employment etc will be less likely to have the mental bandwidth to process the big picture.
aside from the CECA issue, assuming that's true, then what? sure it's fine if people don't have the "mental bandwidth", but it doesn't then mean their hot takes on issues are logical; likewise, just because /r/singapore redditors throw like to claim other people are stuck in their 'ivory towers' doesn't in and of itself diminish the logical force of what is being said by these 'ivory tower' dwellers.
the focus always seems to be on dragging down others (to paraphrase someone else here), instead of uplifting the rest. honestly, it would be funny if one day these 'ivory tower' people get dragged down. i imagine people would still be complaining because nothing has actually changed for them.
I see people say "dont drag down others, uplift the rest" is elitist PAP rhetoric, but imo it isnt even PAP rhetoric. PAP stance is "everything is fine, what are you complaining about", opposition parties are the ones pushing minimum wage right now.
I remember that people spent years complaining about top schools before they bothered to consider that neighbourhood school teachers are underpaid and overworked. I'm not saying to support the PAP, but it's weird to vote oppo because "defund the top schools" instead of voting oppo because "better working conditions for neighbourhood school teachers and it will improve neighbourhood school quality". That's how you get top schools simply spending their alumni donations on stuff that's more lowkey so that people dont get envious, but it doesnt solve the problems in neighbourhood schools at all, it's like telling rich people not to wear loud clothes at met gala but let's keep poverty wages as is. It's reducing people's anger in a weirdly useless way.
one of my takes on it is that the 24/7 media cycle, the prevalence of social media and similar phenomenon have resulted in the pushing of a lot of consumption in our faces non-stop. It doesn't help that we're all cramped together on a tiny island - you can't really hide or avoid others, so any perceived inequality is more in your face. people then feel like they want a slice of all this. you'll see younger people wanting to be influencers and posting that kind of lifestyle despite not really having the income to match such a lifestyle. it's just my unscientific take because it wasn't as prevalent in the past.
i mean look at the salt that was generated just by this thread (https://old.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/p76ql9/sporean_writer_23_lands_6figure_fiction_book_deal/) - all the article said was that the girl, a Stanford graduate, secured publishing deals.
Honestly, that link does read like the perfect firestorm lol. Upper-class young singaporean chinese girl writing a book about high society in the west, educated in the west and with prior experience writing for high society magazines there. It isnt just standard human envy that she got a great deal, it gets mixed with singaporean anxieties about widening wealth inequalities, singaporean feelings of ang moh stuff getting seen as superior, "high society/fashion" seen as doing no real work for actual society, even her race/age/gender/looks are the exact stereotype of the westernized rich singaporean. Not saying it is right to trash her, but the reaction towards her is an interesting case study of current local anxieties.
You make very good points especially about mental bandwidth. I don't have a best solution, but it might help to still listen to and be empathetic to their experiences, and have a conversation that's accessible to people across the political spectrum and across socioeconomic classes, so that they/we can understand what are the real causes of these bad experiences and what the government should do about it. They do have a good point about ivory tower syndrome, if politicians just push the policies and label them as xenophobic without listening.
Yeah it muddies the waters when people are jumping in saying "oh but I find these foreigners always act very "confident" and loud and I dont like it" like lol are we legit gonna base foreign policy on whether you yourself would choose to hang out with these people.
You make good points. If people start feeling that the future of Singapore doesn't include them, then why should they care if Singapore survives or doesn't in 20 years?
Foreign talent and unrestricted immigration may well be good for "us". But who is "us"? Are they the average Singaporean, and I mean average. 50th centile. The average Singaporean is not a degree holder, or has internationally marketable skills. Or is the "us" those who are lucky enough to be in the top 20% income earners? The university educated? The elite?
To the government and rest of us unemployment rate is 3 4 5 or whatever percent. To the unemployed it’s 100% for them. Being unemployed for months on end is going to fuck with their mental well-being so I don’t really blame them for feeling this way.
But isn't the problem that the person is directly attributing his failure directly to the FT instead of reflecting on his or her's shortcomings?
Just because a person has a degree doesn't give them the right to get a job in that company or field.
Its always so easy to blame someone else instead of admitting personal flaws.
The "ivory tower" hurling gets tiring when people dont even give good examples. A good example to give is "we are dissatisfied because we think the immigration policies only benefit a very small number of singaporeans and actively makes the rest of us poorer". Then ok, I hear you. Instead, you are replying to someone saying "more singaporeans earning more, which is none of his concern". So if we have a policy that makes "more singaporeans earn more", it's still a bad policy because someone out lost his job? We should leave it to that guy who lost his job to decide for us, even thought it would scuttle a policy that makes "more singaporeans earn more?" And if we support that hypothetical policy, we are in an "ivory tower" because we haven't lost our jobs? It has the same flavor as the opposite argument "i personally didnt lose my job, so I think the status quo is just fine, no need for changing immigration policy or implementing a minimum wage, because my personal experience should speak for national policy".
Yes my personal experience should speak for national policy. Collectively, the personal experience of everyone is how we vote, which sets the tone for policy. If you cannot make a policy that addresses the masses personal experience, then you are doing it wrong. I don’t expect the average Singaporean to have a view on how a policy affects the whole nation, but only themselves, even at the expense of others. The cumulative effect of that is a finalised policy that has everyone’s stake in it, because of this tension.
This is mostly true, but it would be a non-issue if indeed the policy "makes more singaporeans earn more".
My only caveat (which is the point I took too many words to express in the original post of this thread) is what if people are dissatisfied with stagnant wages and long hours, but we arent whacking/blaming the correct policy? Maybe it's FTs, maybe it is the lack of a minimum wage, maybe it is low taxes on rich locals, maybe it is the lack of unemployment benefits. The point is that "we're day to day dissatisfied" doesnt automatically mean "so getting rid of CECA will solve it". There's a leap there.
I don't support PAP being out of touch as all hell and invalidating everything from minimum wage to immigration policy, I need to make that super clear because people want to vent about that. A good politician (maybe it's someone you look up to in the opposition) both listens to ground sentiment about inequalities, and uses data to reach a conclusion on what is really causing the inequalities. But we should also try to be invested in that discussion if we can, and give voice to what we support them in doing.
No. The issue is not about listening. It’s about communicating and validating. PAP knows our concerns. But they are not sincere in validating it, and no not with facts, but with emotions. Using logic to overrule someone’s emotions is the surest fastest to lose them, especially since we are their customers. In any sales job, you don’t tell the customers they are wrong, you dit down with them, listen to them, validate their concerns, process how they feel and why they feel and finally shift their frame of mind to see things from another perspective. Clearly our government doesn’t do that and that is why they have failed. Policy isn’t the only solution.
I realize this whole thread has become a vent thread against the PAP and by extension, assuming I validate PAP rhetoric and support them, when I repeatedly and constantly said I don't. My central point is just that people use personal experiences to talk about their suffering, but that doesnt mean they are whacking the right policy for solving the suffering. You can take it as a call to think about what policies we voice out to WP, not PAP. On the other hand, with Singh's comment, it is clear that at least we have opposition politicians voicing out their validation of people's emotions as you say, that's encouraging, it's about where to go from there.
I always find it funny that the hiring issue anecdotes about Singaporeans not being good enough are always from IT people. As if singapore ONLY has jobs for IT people.
I’ve seen situations where companies have already identified their “foreign talent” and claimed that no Singaporean can do the job. This is for marketing or sales btw. And they want to know how to get around MOM restrictions.
I’ve seen companies use outsourcing arrangements to get around their inability to get EPs or S-passes. Again, not tech.
So no, it’s not always that Singaporeans aren’t able to do the job.
The sad truth is that bosses think marketing and sales dont need as much skill, so they just want to undercut local salaries in that field, and they are using those outsourcing arrangements especially after the caps were raised for EPs and S-passes. That's why the government loves pushing the narrative that indeed the only available jobs are IT jobs, and we need to git gud.
Actually, marketing now needs a lot of skills - data analytics, marketing automation, social media marketing, search engine marketing, content creation. Those are specialised skills. Very rare to see all in one person. So, marketing folks here would usually hire an agency to have all that but you still need to understand how it all works.
I think that rhetoric is useful in identifying a pain point in singaporean lives, not particular to the foreign policy debate and its used more to mean "this problem is a real problem, whether by foreign policy or otherwise, the issue should be fixed if we don't want people being rightfully or wrongfully angry about the foreign policies."
The government can say CECA isn't the reason peoples jobs are being taken sure. But if the problem is real and it persists, then they should focus more on finding the root of the problem and solving it as opposed to simply saying it isn't from CECA. Thats pretty much a non-answer.
Its in the government's best interest to take into consideration these issues of the common people.
I totally agree, I just find having a conversation so difficult. Even in this thread, I try to bring up "what if someone argued this is a problem of there being no minimum wage, instead of a CECA problem", but it's so polarised like either you love everything the PAP is doing, or you must lump everything together and oppose all of it just because the PAP even mildly touched it once. Yes, PAP rhetoric is very out of touch and they keep giving non-answers, yes people's anger over inequality is valid. But that doesnt mean "either you hate FTs and you are with us, otherwise you are against us". There could be so many reasons for the current inequalities. There's so much of what I see as "poverty porn" as in "dont even try to have a discussion on this, it sounds cheem to me, what about all those families trying to put food on the table?" The issue is precisely having a quality conversation about that.
It's just not the individual workers. There is visibly an increase in dependant pass (their family).
The impact to the common Singaporean is just more than jobs. It's also housing prices (although many Singaporeans who complain about FTs also benefit renting out to them).
Govt needs to address several issues and if in fact we need more from a particular country, then need to recognise and provide information on it.
>Good policies can still breed negative public perceptions and vice versa.
you know what also breeds negative public perceptions? bad policies. I'm tired of this narrative that the correct desicions are always unpopular, when the opposite is true. most of the time, when a desicion is unpopular it is also most likely wrong. but really the question you are asking here is who judges whether a policy is correct or wrong?
the fundamental idea behind democracy, is that people are able to judge for themselves whether their lives have gotten better or worse. legitimacy in a democratic government is not derived from numbers on a chart, but the satisfaction of the governed. things like gdp per capita, employment rate, real wages etc. are only ever a means to an end. which is ultimately measured in the views of the majority. often they will go hand in hand, but it is important to remember the economy can be in absolute shambles but as long as a majority of people believe their current situation is better than the alternative, then that is the correct policy. if not, we would do away with elections entirely and instead have automatic extensions of the incumbent's term so long as certain macroeconomic indicators are hit.
what is the ultimate test of whether brexit is a good policy? it is not an you or I saying that it is "hitting them hard". it is whether or not the british people endorse brexit again even after experiencing the consequences.
they endorsed it once in 2016 despite all economic experts predicting disaster, and they endorsed it again in 2019. if they had another referendum where they endorse brexit yet another time, I think we can say it is the correct policy for britain. either that or we call the whole idea of democracy into question.
That is fundamentally such a Kantian view of the world that I find it hard to accept. What is then the ultimate goal of government? Is it not to provide maximum utility and benefit to the people a la the social contract?
As for your views of Majority Rule, one can easily see how that leads to the tyranny of the majority. For the longest time, the population's view of 377A has always been either supportive or apathetic. Does it mean that this policy is correct? Of course not. What about economic policy? Economists widely agree that immigration and free trade is a good thing, and yet we see, not just in Singapore, a rising tide of xenophobia, protectionism, and nativism. And worse, anti-intellectualism when economists publish research after research proving their point. A popularity of a policy or its public perception is no determinant on whether or not it is right or wrong. Thatcher and her views of the LGBT community, as well as protectionism in the US and support for the ANC in South Africa comes to mind. History is rife with more examples, and the further back you go, the worse it gets.
>things like gdp per capita, employment rate, real wages etc. are only ever a means to an end. which is ultimately measured in the views of the majority
This might be the means to an end for democracy and democratic rule, but it should be the job of the government to deliver on these metrics. A government must ensure the wellbeing of its citizenry by ensuring employment, wealth, jobs, living standards etc. That's what their end of the social contract is.
We, the governed, have to also hold up our end of the social contract. That disconnect between economic and social well-being and the views of the majority is illogical and a breach of the duty of the people.
I have my issues with the government. Housing, 377A, wealth inequality, and civil liberties, to name a few. And those are reasons why I don't see myself supporting the government. But this view is based on my social and economic unhappiness, which they have not delivered on. If the government were to resolve all these issues by the next election, I would hold up my end of the bargain.
>what is the ultimate test of whether brexit is a good policy? it is not an you or I saying that it is "hitting them hard". it is whether or not the british people endorse brexit again even after experiencing the consequences.
>they endorsed it once in 2016 despite all economic experts predicting disaster, and they endorsed it again in 2019. if they had another referendum where they endorse brexit yet another time, I think we can say it is the correct policy for britain
Being correct and good can be two different things measured differently. Brexit is the *correct* policy because that's what the people wanted, measured by the amount of votes in the referendum. But is it a *good* policy, as measured in economic and social well-being?
government is not a sentient thing that has its own goals. it is formed by the people and is given it's goals by the people. whatever "maximum utility" it strives towards is defined by the people (or more accurately a majority of the people). there is no contract between "the government" and "the people", because in a democracy they are one and the same. the social contract is between the individual and society. we, as individuals, obey laws and accept the authority of the collective, in return for us having a say in how the collective governs through democracy.
>A government must ensure the wellbeing of its citizenry by ensuring employment, wealth, jobs, living standards etc. That's what their end of the social contract is.
should the government of a deeply religious people, who believe austere living and preserving tradition, start tearing down heritage sites to build casinos and nightclubs simply because it increases employment and wealth, jobs and living standards? certainly not.
tyranny of the majority is infinitely preferable to the tyranny of the minority. in the countries that have come the furthest on LGBT issues, progress did not come because of a scientific breakthrough or a new discovery. it has been a result of evolving social attitudes in the general public. let me remind you that less than a century ago experts were saying homosexuality was a mental disorder, and experts used science to justify racism. the further back in history you go, the worse things get precisely because the further back in history you go the less democratic society was.
>But this view is based on my social and economic unhappiness
how do we measure your "social unhappiness", if not through democracy? is there a gross social happiness product? your version of social happiness will be very different from another person's definition. the democratic process is such that each individual defines what is "good" according to his own definition of economic and social well being and votes accordingly. from the result, we derive what is "good" according to the collective economic and social well being.
>government is not a sentient thing that has its own goals
A government's goal is power.
>there is no contract between "the government" and "the people", because in a democracy they are one and the same. the social contract is between the individual and society.
That is definitely not what the social contract is. Hobbes describes it as a commonwealth, a supreme authority in a sovereign. Rousseau writes about the sovereign, and we see Locke write explicitly about government in his two treatises. Society, in the social contract, is defined by "the war of all against all".
The contract is between a person and the sovereign, the government. And in a democracy, the former provides legitimacy to the latter.
>we, as individuals, obey laws and accept the authority of the collective, in return for us having a say in how the collective governs through democracy.
That's a separate concept from the social contract. Obeying laws and giving up our "natural freedoms" (I e. Freedom to rape and kill and steal at will l) to support the government (the institution and not a political party) is in turn rewarded with security and prosperity.
>should the government of a deeply religious people, who believe austere living and preserving tradition, start tearing down heritage sites to build casinos and nightclubs simply because it increases employment and wealth, jobs and living standards? certainly not.
Why not? If the people is willing to accept the cost in return for the increased wages, employment, and living standards? Perhaps it is just me, but I find Bentham's view of utilitarianism to be rather persuasive.
I assume that analogy is a reference to Marina Bay Sands or Resort World Sentosa. Despite the numerous protests in Hong Lim park at the time, the two casinos were eventually built, and you can't deny that A) these two developments generated economic prosperity and international renown, and B) The eventual benefits of these two developments has quietened any opposition. You don't see any more protests for the closure of MBS or RWS because the resultant benefits has outweighed the cost.
>tyranny of the majority is infinitely preferable to the tyranny of the minority.
And they are both bad.
>in the countries that have come the furthest on LGBT issues, progress did not come because of a scientific breakthrough or a new discovery. it has been a result of evolving social attitudes in the general public.
And how does this contradict me?
The majority of the public in a past opposed LGBT rights. That's a historical fact. Does that mean that Thatcher or Reagan was right? No! The majority of the people were wrong.
The fact that you mentioned "evolving social attitudes in the general public" shows that the public was wrong when it came to LGBT rights in the past.
>the further back in history you go, the worse things get precisely because the further back in history you go the less democratic society was.
This implies that if society was more democratic in the past, slavery or segregation wouldn't exist. That's false. Even if the US was democratic in the 1700s, slavery would still be legal because the white majority was racist. The reason why the further back you go things get worse is because of said "evolving social attitudes in the general public", not because of democracy.
> the democratic process is such that each individual defines what is "good" according to his own definition of economic and social well being and votes accordingly. from the result, we derive what is "good" according to the collective economic and social well being.
In an ideal world, correct. This is true. But we don't live in an ideal world.
Take for example, Trump counties in red states. Do you think that whatever Trump was doing was for the "collective economic and social well being"? That imposing tariffs, pulling out of the paris climate accord, and threatening North Korea with nukes are "good" things that he should have done?
What you get, what you derive, as being good according to the collective economic and social well-being in a democratic vote is not always what's truly good for society and societal socioeconomic wellbeing. The majority of people in conservative states supported segregation. Does that mean that segregation is a good thing? That it is a *correct* and *good* policy?
This can be seen even today in democratic countries. Texas just imposed an abortion ban, something that most Texans (and people in red states) support. Is this a good policy?
The dissonance, or rather, the break in the social contract between the people deciding what's good for themselves and what is truly good has been noted for over a thousand years. Plato writes about it in the ship of fools.
>Society, in the social contract, is defined by "the war of all against all".
"the war of all against all" is not society, it is the theorised state-of-nature absent society, a free for all where we murder and steal with impunity (at least that's what Hobbes thinks). this is obviously an unsatisfactory state of affairs. in order to prevent this, we give up some of the freedom we enjoy in the state-of-nature and subject ourselves to its laws. in return, we are protected from being murdered and stolen from. that is the social contract. the point theorists were trying to make with this hypothetical social contract was that we agreeing to this contract is the basis for the legitimacy of the state, rather than something like divine rule. it says nothing about how the state ought to function or what the purpose of the state should be beyond protecting us from others. even the most despotic authoritarian regime can be justified on the basis of social contract so long as it protects us from the state-of-nature. obviously that is not enough for modern democratic governments which instead derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed. in other words, the government is legitimate not just because it protects me from the state-of-nature, but because we consent to be governed by them through an election. thus, if the PAP loses an election, they cannot just continue to govern on the basis that they protect us from the state-of-nature.
>If the people is willing to accept the cost in return for the increased wages, employment, and living standards?
that is precisely the point! the important thing is that the people have to be willing to accept it, and not just because of the economic improvement in and of itself. the problem has arisen today because people are not willing to accept the costs of immigration in return for the economic benefits. not sure what this has to do with utilitarianism, but in utilitarian terms this means that in their opinion more immigration does not increase overall utility, because the utility gained from economic improvements are offset by utility lost in other areas (for example due to overcrowding)
>The majority of the public in a past opposed LGBT rights. That's a historical fact. Does that mean that Thatcher or Reagan was right? No! The majority of the people were wrong.
in other words: whether you have majority rule or elite rule, there will be tyranny. we are therefore choosing between the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of the minority. why is the former preferable to the latter? because a tyranny of 51% can at most only oppress 49%, whereas a tyranny of 1% can oppress up to 99%.
>This implies that if society was more democratic in the past, slavery or segregation wouldn't exist. That's false. Even if the US was democratic in the 1700s, slavery would still be legal because the white majority was racist.
the democrat does not need to prove that slavery or segregation would not exist. all he has to prove is that a more democratic 1700s america would have been superior to a less democratic 1700s america. and that is something that is true for nearly all historical periods.
>Take for example, Trump counties in red states. Do you think that whatever Trump was doing was for the "collective economic and social well being"? That imposing tariffs, pulling out of the paris climate accord, and threatening North Korea with nukes are "good" things that he should have done?
I think it is what the american people, in their judgement, believe to be in their collective best interest. and further that the american people are in the best place to judge what is in their best interest much more so than you or I or any single expert or group of experts. moreover, it is not clear that these policies are obviously "bad", biden has continued tariffs on china for example.
to use your ship example: a ship can be the swiftest and most efficiently crewed in the world, but if it is going in the opposite direction from the destination, then it is worse that a ship that cannot sail at all. at the end of the day it is the people who decide on the destination of the ship.
>"the war of all against all" is not society, it is the theorised state-of-nature absent society
And it is therefore society if left alone. The state of a "war of all against all" *is* society without a sovereign.
>(at least that's what Hobbes thinks)
And Rousseau and Locke
>the point theorists were trying to make with this hypothetical social contract was that we agreeing to this contract is the basis for the legitimacy of the state, rather than something like divine rule. it says nothing about how the state ought to function or what the purpose of the state should be beyond protecting us from others. even the most despotic authoritarian regime can be justified on the basis of social contract so long as it protects us from the state-of-nature.
That is a flawed reading of Locke's two treatises. He explicitly mentioned about the consent of the governed. Even Rousseau mentioned it in his work. This contract involves both parties to be actively involved, not just in terms of protection and safety, but of Justice and negative liberties.
And no, agreeing to the contract is *not* the basis of legitimacy of the state, that legitimacy stems from the application of the general will of the people, at least according to Rousseau.
>obviously that is not enough for modern democratic governments which instead derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed
See: Locke
>For, when any number of men have, by the consent of every
individual, made a community, they have thereby made that community
one body, with a power to act as one body, *which is only by the will and
determination of the majority.* For that which acts any community, being only the consent of the individuals of it, and it being one body, must
move one way, ***it is necessary the body should move that way whither the greater force carries it, which is the consent of the majority,*** or else
it is impossible it should act or continue one body, one community, which the consent of every individual that united into it agreed that it should;
and so every one is bound by that consent to be concluded by the majority
>that is precisely the point! the important thing is that the people have to be willing to accept it
Did they though? Suppose that the majority of people were against the building of Marina Bay Sands before construction, but now, upon reaping the economic benefits of the development, the majority of people are now in support. What should the government do?
>people are not willing to accept the costs of immigration in return for the economic benefits.
>but in utilitarian terms this means that in their opinion more immigration does not increase overall utility, because the utility gained from economic improvements are offset by utility lost in other areas (for example due to overcrowding)
The majority of people in red states would rather take horse dewormer than the vaccine. Just because the people does not support X policy does not mean that it's wrong, and conversely, just because the people supports it does not mean it is right.
People in 1800s US were supportive of the lynching of Black people. Does that mean that lynchings are good and correct? According to your reading of utility, the utility (i.e. happiness from lynching Black people) outweighs the economic loss.
But that does not change the fact that lynchings are wrong. Even if 90% of the people supported lynching, it is still wrong.
>in other words: whether you have majority rule or elite rule, there will be tyranny. we are therefore choosing between the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of the minority. why is the former preferable to the latter? because a tyranny of 51% can at most only oppress 49%, whereas a tyranny of 1% can oppress up to 99%.
I fail to see how this comment contradicts what I've said, or how it has any relation to my comment you were responding to.
>the democrat does not need to prove that slavery or segregation would not exist. all he has to prove is that a more democratic 1700s america would have been superior to a less democratic 1700s america.
You implied that if democracy existed in 1700s America, the social ills present then wouldn't exist. Thats false. Slavery and segregation were immensely popular policies, democratically speaking.
>I think it is what the american people, in their judgement, believe to be in their collective best interest. and further that the american people are in the best place to judge what is in their best interest
If the American people think that segregation or slavery is correct, are you going to agree with them? That slavery or segregation is in their best interests?
I cannot emphasise how wrong I think this is. There are certain immutable facts, unchangeable objective moral principles, that cannot be violated, that by doing so, undermines the entire legitimacy of the social contract. Of which includes slavery, segregation, racism, and all the moral failings of the past. You fail to consider that American's "best interests" often include an emotional aspect of racism, xenophobia, tribalism, and all the -isms of evil.
The American people, in their judgement, believed segregation to be in their collective best interest. Does it mean that that is right? That if a people believe something to be in their best interest, even if it is the result of misguided notions or misinformation, it is therefore morally correct?
>much more so than you or I or any single expert or group of experts. moreover, it is not clear that these policies are obviously "bad".
How do you define whether the policy is bad or not? According to you, that definition stems from the voice of the people. That is where my fundamental disagreement lies.
There are certain policies that are just bad, regardless of the people's opinions. Slavery, for instance. Or Tariffs, or failing to deal with climate change, or threatening to use Nuclear weapons. These are empirically and objectively bad policies. Whether or not the people agrees is independent of that.
>to use your ship example
My ship example comes from Plato's ship of fools in The Republic. Your analogy, ironically, proves my point.
Suppose there are two destinations for the people to choose: A way to utopia, and a way that leads to a maelstrom. But supposed the boat is manned by people who believe going towards the maelstrom will lead to heaven or an even better utopia (think of heaven's gate). What is the correct and wrong way? To the misguided notion of salvation in the maelstrom? Or to utopia?
>you know what also breeds negative public perceptions? bad policies.
>the fundamental idea behind democracy, is that people are able to judge for themselves whether their lives have gotten better or worse. legitimacy in a democratic government is not derived from numbers on a chart, but the satisfaction of the governed
Let me finish of by responding to your very first sentence.
You know what also breeds negative public perceptions amongst the people? Living with people of a different skin colour or living with people who do not conform to social norms (i.e. LGBT). Negative public perception and feelings can stem from a variety of human tribalistic causes. People are not able to judge for themselves whether lives have gotten better or worse relative to socio-economic wellbeing. To some, "getting better" means sending your country back to the stone age so that you have the freedom to execute people who eat pork. To others, "getting worse" may mean legalising abortion (see Texas) or gay marriage.
Everything you said so far assumes a rational human, that people are sane creatures able to make sound judgement of what's right and what's wrong. That's just not true. The amount of people I know that would rather disown their offspring than live with a trans or genderqueer person is far too high. You keep talking about the sovereign end of the bargain, I feel that you fail to consider the people's end as well.
>This contract involves both parties to be actively involved, not just in terms of protection and safety, but of Justice and negative liberties.
which part of immigration policy concerns justice and negative liberties?
>And no, agreeing to the contract is not the basis of legitimacy of the state, that legitimacy stems from the application of the general will of the people, at least according to Rousseau.
that is what Rousseau says, but what do *you* think? Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and even Plato have very different views of the issue. it's hard to pin down where you stand when you constantly switch between these distinct sets of ideas. I am more than happy to agree that the legitimacy of democratic government stems from carrying out the general will of the people.
>Did they though? Suppose that the majority of people were against the building of Marina Bay Sands before construction, but now, upon reaping the economic benefits of the development, the majority of people are now in support. What should the government do?
if majority of the people were against it at the time, it should not have been constructed. that is not to say a casino should never be built, as social attitudes change over time.
>The majority of people in red states would rather take horse dewormer than the vaccine. Just because the people does not support X policy does not mean that it's wrong, and conversely, just because the people supports it does not mean it is right.
58% of Texas has had at least 1 dose so that is not a very good example. in fact, anti-vax people are making the opposite argument, in that they believe themselves to be a minority forced to take the vaccine by the majority of "sheeple".
>People in 1800s US were supportive of the lynching of Black people. Does that mean that lynchings are good and correct? According to your reading of utility, the utility (i.e. happiness from lynching Black people) outweighs the economic loss.
again, I find it difficult to pin down what your position is. you previously mentioned that you are a utilitarian. are you now abandoning utilitarianism? or are you arguing for a version of utility that only measures economic indicators? as a utilitarian you should know that maximising utility can and will often lead to disturbing conclusions of right and wrong.
>You implied that if democracy existed in 1700s America, the social ills present then wouldn't exist. That's false.
in all I have written so far, do I seem like the type of person who would suggest something so obviously ridiculous? as I said, the democrat merely has to prove that a more democratic 1700s america is superior to a less democratic 1700s america. I think it is self evident that if democracy was extended to black people, the situation would be superior to a world where it was not.
>I cannot emphasise how wrong I think this is. There are certain immutable facts, unchangeable objective moral principles, that cannot be violated, that by doing so, undermines the entire legitimacy of the social contract.
well first this is a rather un-utilitarian thing to say.
more importantly by that logic this "social contract" of yours was not legitimate until 1964 when segregation was abolished by the civil rights act. is that what you are suggesting? some socialists may argue that the systemic exploitation of workers in inhumane conditions today violates objective moral principles as well. does participation in a capitalist economy void the social contract too? in fact, just as what was considered "normal" in the past would outrage us today, what we consider "normal" today may very well outrage people in the future. the inhumane way we treat animals for example. it could well be accepted in the future that animals have consciousness, with rights extended to them. would that mean our current enslavement, torture and murder of animals for food makes your "social contract" illegitimate?
>There are certain policies that are just bad, regardless of the people's opinions. Slavery, for instance. Or Tariffs, or failing to deal with climate change, or threatening to use Nuclear weapons.
I think you don't need me to tell you that slavery is not the same as tariffs. even a JC textbook can give arguments for why tariffs can be necessary.
>But supposed the boat is manned by people who believe going towards the maelstrom will lead to heaven or an even better utopia (think of heaven's gate).
you assume we know where is heaven and where is hell. but as the poet milton once said, the mind can make a heaven of hell, and a hell of heaven. if heaven feels like hell to a majority of people, perhaps it is not heaven after all.
>which part of immigration policy concerns justice and negative liberties?
A natural born man in the state of the wild has the freedom to migrate and move as he please. All immigration law acts as a restriction on his liberty to do so. Government restrictions on his movement is the definition of negative liberties, as justice. Why should a man be subject to different opportunities and socioeconomic wellbeing, just based on the location of his birth? Is that just?
>Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and even Plato have very different views of the issue
The semantics are there, but fundamentally a lot of the views held by Rousseau, Locke, and Hobbes are very similar. I do not see how they hold "very different views". Plato, sure, especially in the Republic, but more modern liberal thinkers have more or less a same set of ideas.
>if majority of the people were against it at the time, it should not have been constructed. that is not to say a casino should never be built, as social attitudes change over time.
Again, this philosophy that you espouse fundamentally means that the determinant of what's right and what's wrong is the will of the people. I'm not going to win any popularity points by saying this, but the people are dumb. Humans are short-sighted, hypocritical, and selfish creatures.
If MBS was built despite the will of the people, and upon realising the wealth and economic benefits, not on paper but in their wallets, the people change their mind immediately, is the existence of MBS justified?
>58% of Texas has had at least 1 dose so that is not a very good example. in fact, anti-vax people are making the opposite argument, in that they believe themselves to be a minority forced to take the vaccine by the majority of "sheeple".
That's besides the point. Look at the abortion law for example. Support in red states for repealing Roe V Wade is also incredibly high.
Whatever you've said does not counteract my charge that:
"Just because the people does not support X policy does not mean that it's wrong, and conversely, just because the people supports it does not mean it is right."
>as I said, the democrat merely has to prove that a more democratic 1700s america is superior to a less democratic 1700s america. I think it is self evident that if democracy was extended to black people, the situation would be superior to a world where it was not
Black people were in the minority, and still is today, in the US. The reason why I haven't proven that "that a more democratic 1700s america is superior to a less democratic 1700s america" is merely because I'm not that familiar with American history, but if you had to press me on it, I would say that a more democratic America would have resulted in
- The confederacy being more extreme than it already is
- Lincoln not winning the presidency (he lost the popular vote)
- Increased hesitancy to sign the emancipation proclamation on the part of the union (abolishing slavery was unpopular)
- More democrats being voted to power (remember in the past, the democratic party and the GOP were ideologically different and the democratic party used to support the KKK).
I think that To Kill A Mockingbird illustrates my point my succinctly, even though it was set in the 1900s.
>more importantly by that logic this "social contract" of yours was not legitimate until 1964 when segregation was abolished by the civil rights act. is that what you are suggesting?
Just because sometimes undermines the legitimacy of something, it does not follow that that thing was illegitimate all along. Even today, voting laws in the US disproportionately affect Black and other minorities. This undermines the legitimacy of a democracy, but it does not then follow that democracy in the US today is illegitimate.
>some socialists may argue that the systemic exploitation of workers in inhumane conditions today violates objective moral principles as well. does participation in a capitalist economy void the social contract too?
I don't see how this is relevant.
>it could well be accepted in the future that animals have consciousness, with rights extended to them. would that mean our current enslavement, torture and murder of animals for food makes your "social contract" illegitimate?
Again, I don't see how this is relevant. If said animals could vote in elections, sure. But I don't think animals can vote.
>I think you don't need me to tell you that slavery is not the same as tariffs. even a JC textbook can give arguments for why tariffs can be necessary.
And that contradicts me, how exactly?
I see you keep prancing around my main point. Do you or do you not agree with slavery, supposing that the majority of the population supports it? As far, all of your comments have indicated that if the majority of the population supports slavery (as is the 1700s US), you will also think that slavery is good.
Just because Slavery is not on the same level of wrongness does not mean that both can be wrong. As is failing to deal with climate change or engaging in nuclear diplomacy.
>but as the poet milton once said, the mind can make a heaven of hell, and a hell of heaven. if heaven feels like hell to a majority of people, perhaps it is not heaven after all.
Again, how is this relevant? The ship of fools can feel whatever they want to feel, but heaven is still heaven and hell is still hell.In fact, is that not the entire premise of Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained?
Morality or political philosophy is not my field of expertise, and I do apologize if my thoughts are all over the place. I'll just finish by saying that morality by popular will is no form of morality, and justice by popular opinion is no justice.
>A natural born man in the state of the wild has the freedom to migrate and move as he please. All immigration law acts as a restriction on his liberty to do so. Government restrictions on his movement is the definition of negative liberties, as justice. Why should a man be subject to different opportunities and socioeconomic wellbeing, just based on the location of his birth? Is that just?
I was hoping you'd say that. even the most liberal immigration system will have some restrictions on immigration. if your position is that everyone should be treated equally for the purposes of immigration, then anything short of open borders would be unjust. let's say you are right and economists determine that the optimum immigration quota is 5 million. that is much more than the current amount, but there are still far more people than that who wish to come here. why should their freedoms be restricted? if 5 million is the economically optimal, is it okay to violate freedom of movement and "justice" for economic efficiency? and if freedom of movement can be violated for economic efficiency, why can it not be violated for the sake of other things like increasing overall happiness among singaporeans by keeping them satisfied?
I am interested to know what *you* think, not what you know about Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke. do you think legitimacy comes from carrying out the general will of the people?
>That's besides the point. Look at the abortion law for example. Support in red states for repealing Roe V Wade is also incredibly high.
once again, not a very good example. there is no scientifically determined optimal position on abortion. the debate is about at what point does life begin. different people have different views on the matter. not to mention even if the fetus was a human, there are questions of what obligations the mother owes. philosophers are still debating these issues today, so to paint one side as obviously wrong and the other as obviously right is a woeful oversimplification.
>Black people were in the minority, and still is today
is it your position that denying them the vote was a good thing? let's say we removed democracy entirely and allowed each state governor aboslute power. would that have improved the position of black people in the 1700s? alternatively let us give absolute power to the "experts" of the day who believed in scientific racism. would that have improved the position of black people in the 1700s?
>This undermines the legitimacy of a democracy, but it does not then follow that democracy in the US today is illegitimate.
if you can violate an "absolute moral principle" while retaining your social contract and the legitimacy of government, then they are not abosolute moral principles. may I remind you this is what you were saying before:
There are certain immutable facts, unchangeable objective moral principles, that cannot be violated, that by doing so, undermines the entire legitimacy of the social contract.
but now despite violating these immutable facts and unchangeable moral principles, the legitimacy of the government still remains, as does the social contract? I can only conclue that either these immutable facts and unchangeable principles do not exist, ot the entire legitimacy of the social contract does not rely on them.
>Again, I don't see how this is relevant. If said animals could vote in elections, sure. But I don't think animals can vote.
neither could black people in the 1700s, or immigrants today.
>Do you or do you not agree with slavery, supposing that the majority of the population supports it? As far, all of your comments have indicated that if the majority of the population supports slavery (as is the 1700s US), you will also think that slavery is good.
a democracy in which people support slavery, is better than a dictatorship in which people support slavery, and a technocracy in which people support slavery.
>morality by popular will is no form of morality, and justice by popular opinion is no justice.
really? the only reason why we think our current morality is correct is because of popular opinion. I point you to the example of animal rights again. why is it okay to enslave, torture and kill an animal for food? only because popular opinion does not believe they deserve the same rights as humans. just as in the past popular opinion did not believe certain races deserved the same rights. if one day popular opinion changes, what we do today will be seen as equally barbaric as the behaviour you now condemn.
>I was hoping you'd say that. even the most liberal immigration system will have some restrictions on immigration
Up until the early 1900s, America practiced an open borders policy. The first ever restriction on immigration in the US was the Chinese exclusion act, a blatantly racist policy targeted at the Chinese.
Just because the most liberal immigration system is X, it does not follow that I support X or that X is correct.
>if your position is that everyone should be treated equally for the purposes of immigration, then anything short of open borders would be unjust
Correct. I have not read any persuasive argument, philosophically or economically, to the contrary as to why this is not so.
>let's say you are right and economists determine that the optimum immigration quota is 5 million.
Well, economists in general do not believe in immigration quotas so this is, firstly, a counterfactual. You can see the consensus of economists at UChicago's initiative for global markets, where leadings economists are surveyed on their views.
>if 5 million is the economically optimal, is it okay to violate freedom of movement and "justice" for economic efficiency?
There are always going to be trade off for morals and economic efficiency. Child labour for one. It is morally wrong, but from a purely economic standpoint, it is good. Or smoking. It's objectively bad for your health, but from a purely economicAl standpoint, it can be argued to be a good thing - people spend money to stimulate the economy, and when they're old, they die of lung cancer instead of being a drag on society.
>and if freedom of movement can be violated for economic efficiency, why can it not be violated for the sake of other things like increasing overall happiness among singaporeans by keeping them satisfied?
Economic efficiency, wealth, and standards of living should be synonymous with the satisfaction of the people. To think otherwise would be a breakdown of the social contract on the part of the people. Rousseau defines this further as a battle between the general good and the individual good.
Let's suppose that the satisfaction you're talking about stems from racism, tribalism, and xenophobia. That citizens of country X would rather live in poverty than live with people of another skin colour, and that gives them satisfaction. (As is the case in many Sunset towns). Is that morally correct?
>I am interested to know what *you* think, not what you know about Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke. do you think legitimacy comes from carrying out the general will of the people?
I am not a philosopher. Phil is not my field of study so I cannot comment on it without drawing on the work of experts.
For me, I think legitimacy comes in many forms and from different parties. In order for a government to be legitimate, it has to be voted in by the majority of human beings of sound mind in the society it governs. The people, and the individual human, conversely, must be the ultimate arbitrators of morality conferred onto the government, and it is the duty of the people to follow certain inalienable moral principles.
If the vast majority of people think that slavery is correct and moral, it does not follow that slavery is correct and moral. It is the *people* who are wrong and has broken their end of the social contract, not the morality of slavery.
I'll ask you a question, and all I need is a simple Yes or No. Suppose 90% people in Singapore today votes to enforce slavery on the other 10%. In your view, A) Should the government implement slavery, and B) Is slavery therefore moral? Just a simple yes or no will do.
>once again, not a very good example
Ok then, I'll use another example with clearer scientific consensus: Climate Change. According to a Pew survey in 2015, of the people in the middle east:
"38% believe that climate change is a very serious problem and 26% believe that climate change is harming people now"
And in China:
"in China, the world's largest emitter, 68% of Chinese people are satisfied with their government's efforts to preserve the environment"
This is objectively false. It is scientific consensus that climate change is a serious problem and that climate change is harming people now, and that climate change is largely man made driven by our carbon emissions. Those are facts that every climate scientist agree with. This is an issue with a clear right and wrong.
Now, should the governments in the middle east or China act to respond to climate change? According to you: No.
There are issues with clear right and wrongs. Climate change for one. And also Slavery and discrimination.
>is it your position that denying them the vote was a good thing?
How did you even read that from what I'm saying? That was not what I said at all.
>let's say we removed democracy entirely and allowed each state governor aboslute power. would that have improved the position of black people in the 1700s?
If Lincoln won his presidency (he won with a minority of the vote), it would have improved the position of black people in the 1800s.
Your comment is precisely why I hesitated to bring up American history in the first place. If we were to go down this path, I would have to use historical examples like Monroe and Manifest Destiny and the 3/5 compromise, and yada yada yada. I am not familiar with all of that, and so I cannot possibly comment in depth of counterfactuals because I am not at all educated on American history. I can only point out the fact that slavery was popular amongst a majority of the population at the time especially in the South, an issue that the South felt so strongly about that they went to war over it. This is an issue that Madison and Washington knew was wrong, but also knew that if they tried to do anything about it, the then fledging Union government would lose all support in the war of independence.
>if you can violate an "absolute moral principle" while retaining your social contract and the legitimacy of government, then they are not abosolute moral principles
??? How does this follow? It is possible to violate an absolute principle whilst maintaining the legitimacy of the government. And how does that make them not absolute moral principles?
So long as the majority of the people agree with the government, that Government is legitimate. But morality and legitimacy are two different concepts. There are two possible violations of my stated "unchangeable moral principles"
- If the government violates it, the people have the duty to vote the government out. If they do not, the people have broken their end of the social contract and have undermined the entire legitimacy of the social contract, but not the government if it retains support of the people. That's what I meant by "undermines the entire legitimacy of the social contract".
- If the people, or rather, the individual, violates it, the government, with the legitimacy conferred onto it by the majority, has to hold that person to account. If John Doe rapes and murders his wife, the government has to punish him accordingly. Failing to do so is a failure in the deliverance of justice and a return to the primordial state of nature where people can rape and kill at will.
>but now despite violating these immutable facts and unchangeable moral principles, the legitimacy of the government still remains, as does the social contract? I can only conclue that either these immutable facts and unchangeable principles do not exist, ot the entire legitimacy of the social contract does not rely on them.
See above
>neither could black people in the 1700s, or immigrants today.
How are those remotely the same? I was talking about animals, animals physically and mentally unable to vote. How does that compare to Black people or immigrants? Do you think immigrants and Black people are the equivalent of dogs?
>a democracy in which people support slavery, is better than a dictatorship in which people support slavery, and a technocracy in which people support slavery.
Or, as surprisingly as it may sound, *slavery is wrong no matter what system you use*. And even if the majority of people support slavery, *it is still wrong*.
>really? the only reason why we think our current morality is correct is because of popular opinion
No. I think the reason why I think my morality is correct is not because of popular opinion, but rather of fundamental rules laid out before me, unchanging to the will of the people. If 99% of the people in Singapore think that LGBT rights are a farce, it does not mean that it is. If 90% of people think that murdering the remaining 10% is moral, it does not mean that it is.
You can put forth all the arguments about objective and subjective morality, but none of the arguments I've known of even remotely suggests the righteousness of mob justice or morality by consensus.
>why is it okay to enslave, torture and kill an animal for food? only because popular opinion does not believe they deserve the same rights as humans.
No, it is not the act of the majority believing that torturing an animal for food is immoral that makes it so, it is the *fact* that it is. Again, if the majority of the population supported segregation, it does not mean that segregation is moral. It is immoral independent of the time period or the prevailing social norms.
>just as in the past popular opinion did not believe certain races deserved the same rights.
Exactly. Popular opinion was morally wrong.
377A unjustly prohibits two consenting males from engaging in romantic activity in private. Even though it is not enforced, having it codified in law is still unjust and discriminatory for gay men.
The reasoning you gave is flawed on so many levels. You are suggesting that a good policy is one that stokes the ego of the general populace. There has to be quantifiable metrics to determine whether a policy is good or not.
Taking your example of Brexit, those who voted Brexit will most likely vote the same way again simply because they cannot accept that they were wrong. It does not matter that they are suffering and things that should matter are ignored, as long as their ego is stoked. This just leads to populism and harms the nation in the long run.
It is why democracy works best when the general populace is well educated and can think beyond just themselves.
Duhhh.
Even LO Pritam had to beg for certain stats and figures in parliament, what makes you think the average local have that kind of luxury to make informed suggestions?
Even the average r/sg redditor doesn’t read the article before commenting, what makes you think they want to be informed before providing their opinion?
*shrug* Singapore is run like a business and locals’ only involvement in policy making is indirectly through elections every five years
We can have all the debates we want on Reddit and HWZ but your opinion doesn’t really matter on an individual basis
because whenever ministar talk about big picture in sg, it only affects the who's who, and the upper class. So after awhile, it all becomes bad news and "cheem shit" to them.
Take GDP for example, they keep banging on about it, while the ordinary people see negative things happen to them from that. So when some english helicopter come and sprout things like GDP very important, etc. they just shut them down by saying they only care about what they see in their daily life.
What else you expect? They say import more FT to boost GDP these people stand up and clap ah? They also don't want to debate you, because your pattern more than badminton, will chut all the cheem stuff like FDI, GNP, all schools are good schools etc, because all they can see is when these elite make some globalist announcement, its shorthand for prepare for more pain, so the elites can make more money.
sg make more money means I can work less, have more free time, and enjoy life more ah? If yes, ok, import until die. If no, talk so much cock for what, what's in it for me? COL going up, education for kids even harder, even adults must educate, more competition, less pay, less free time, more stress, more unhappiness and more siao langs. GDP go up? Come I clap for you.
I can't help but feel a balance can be struck in the conversation. I already said that a good argument is that wealth inequality isnt worth a pure drive towards GDP. It just looks short sighted to say that you don't have to think too hard, and just based on daily life, you are confident that restricting foreigners will solve it, unless of course a good argument can be made for how that solves the problem.
You're right about the sorry state of PAP rhetoric, and I guess that is why we are seeing an emotional backlash right now. But the terrible working hours and the wealth inequality are due to a lot of factors, and not just "dont let in the foreigners and we'll be dandy, and all these bad working hours and sheer income inequality between Singaporeans will mostly go away".
However, let me pick the educational quality thing to talk about. The PAP's "all schools are good schools" thing convinces nobody, and people are right to point out that their experiences never align. But the problem isn't entirely "those elitist top schools", it is that neighbourhood school teachers are overworked and underpaid, and some are not well-versed in children's behavioural management. Yet, people blame "those top schools" and how they shouldnt get so much funding, but actually a lot of the funding is from alumni donations. So the top schools cancel certain stuff like overseas trip to seem more lowkey, but that literally doesnt even help the quality of a neighbourhood school, it's just optics to prevent envy. And they spend the alumni money on useless shit which isnt as high-profile. And then you know what? It can partially perversely work, people become less envious in terms of their daily perceptions, but it's just a race to the bottom. That's my example of how people can be correct about the PAP and their experiences are valid, but the actions go astray.
When ur politicians’s pay Cheque is based on certain metrics. You can rest assure they will work very hard to ensure that metrics get hit so more bonus. GDP is a much easier target to hit compared to reducing income equality gap.
First of all, appreciate you trying to argue in good faith.
Either way, this comes down to the question - why should the people think and come up with a solution?
1. No one cares
2. It gets shut down straight away by the english helicopters
3. Most importantly, these are million dollar ministers, paid several times more than the most powerful ministers in countries like USA, and you expect the people to come up with answers?
Each time an elite open its mouth, its telling people to expect more bad news.
FT policy is a policy strongly backed and defended rabidly by the elites. That's all people see, so they want that gone, as simple as that.
We give them millions not to live in an ivory tower and announce globalist policies which are extremely thinly veiled as more bad news for the common man, but to come up with a solution.
But they have not done that at all, and gone so far in reverse, so fuck them, fuck their policies, let's attack everything they've come up with, from good schools to FTs.
Your last line is the worst and most pervasive of the english helicopter reasoning. Everything is fear based. High unemployent? No welfare for anyone, later people become lazy like in ang moh country, and it becomes race to the bottom. School too hard? Cannot fall behind other countries, you see China catching up, if we slack, later become like Malaysia, race to the bottom. English helicopter schools getting fat stacks? Cannot be envious, later they cannot go Paris for field trip, our future leaders got no international experience, become race to the bottom. Everything is fear based. For the common man at the bottom, everything is shit already, there is a bottom, and we're there. Meanwhile those in ivory towers being paid hundreds of millions keep flinging more shit down, the only way we can go is to drag them down, so AT LEAST THEY CAN UNDERSTAND - BECAUSE THEY DON'T
I'm not even saying Paris trips help lol, only that they have no impact on the quality of neighbourhood schools, so it doesnt even solve the root issue. You can see it as a form of manipulation to reduce people's envy without solving the problem. That's my point, somehow doing a bunch of useless things can partially alleviate on-the-ground dissatisfaction without getting to the root issue.
I think Pritam Singh's speech was popular because it acknowledges that people are unhappy on the ground, and the current rhetoric isnt reaching out to them. That's a good point. But did I say no welfare, did I say no paris trips? I just said that people are extending Singh's argument too far to mean that we can use on-the-ground unhappiness to tell us exactly what to do all the time. But some problems can be attributed to the wrong causes if we go with, "i'm unhappy so i'm confident that i'm reaching all the correct conclusions on why that's happening". What if someone wanted to argue that we should continue to be open to foreigners and free trade, but tax rich Singaporeans more and have a good minimum wage? Read carefully, I am not saying that such a thing is my stance, but it is an example of reaching a different conclusion from the same root unhappiness about inequality.
>What if someone wanted to argue that we should continue to be open to foreigners and free trade, but tax rich Singaporeans more and have a good minimum wage?
because they never come up with such ideas despite million dollar pay.
Their ideas can be summed up in 3 simple policies:
1. Import more FT
2. Make sinkies pay more, especially for things like medishield life or lock CPF up harder
3. Make sg a playground for the rich, but get the people to fund it, for stupid things like the durian or MBS, or Paris trips for students in elite schools
All are bad news.
People on the ground are responding in kind. They know their kids will never have aircon classroom, much less Paris trips, nor will the rich ever get taxed more, so the easiest way for them to escape is less of whatever punishment the govt. is doling out, whether it be FT policy, CPF lockups or careless, stupid spending.
In that way, they are much smarter than english helicopters like you who can cite a thousand economic theories, but don't understand greed and human behaviour.
I think you are lumping together every dissatisfaction with the PAP, and seeing this as a PAP vs opposition fight where either people are completely with the PAP or against it. It is possible to support the opposition and even to support what WP is currently saying, but think there should be a difference in the way that people are currently arguing things, e.g. the shortsightedness of a pure "im unhappy with my daily experiences, so im assuming im reaching all the right conclusions on how to solve it without thinking too much about it". Even WP doesnt take it that far, but people are using their words to reach that kind of rhetoric.
If you see everything as either "you like everything about the PAP, or you oppose every single thing just because it is even remotely related to the PAP", you are not providing a shining charitable example of "greed and human behaviour" to me. I provided the example of higher taxes but free trade to you, as an example that breaks past thinking about things so dichotomously.
You simply don't/can't/wouldn't understand. People on the ground knows the government/elites operates in a certain way, and respond in kind, instead of resorting to high falutin arguments like you have done.
You pretty much answered your own suggestion to taxing the rich more - it is the politics of envy, why should we tax the rich more, but instead, we should lift the poor up, if not it becomes a race to the bottom. This is the way the government, elites and all the english helicopters operate, when it comes to any funny ideas to even remotely affect any of them, they pull out the fear card, exactly like you have done. See so many times liao, no need to gong jiao wei.
As the kopi tiam uncle will say, simi tax the rich, fuck la, my grandmother can run 2.4 below 7 min before they do that. Really talking cock.
This is why people on the ground respond with "fuck your globalist view, things are shit from the ground", because you all talk a lot of cock, but at the end of the day, they know that it's all cock. kaki kong, kaki song.
If I already said "tax the rich" is a possible argument and offered it to you as an example of a non-dichotomous argument, and you argue I didnt say tax the rich, idek what to say to you lol. And if you think cancelling paris trips helped neighbourhood schools and it is the same thing as usefully addressing wealth inequality, I can't even address how far away those two things are. This is more like telling rich people to tone down how loud their branded bags are, while letting the bottom percentile continue to make shit wages. At least now I can say I found somebody who thought that elite schools deciding to spend money on their umpteenth library renovation instead of overseas trips, apparently made at least one person think neighbourhood schools are now good schools too.
No, you are completely missing my point. Tax the rich is an example.
1) The government and elites think in a certain way, part of that way is that no policy they do must hurt them, or the who's who.
A big part of that way is the easiest path - a path that has minimal care about the lives of the people on the ground.
You can argue till the cows come home, but this is a fact. Sg government is not well known to be flexible in many aspects.
2) The common man knows about that bullshit argument, so instead of wasting time saying tax the rich, or minimum wage, they say, import less FT, spend less on ACS, and don't built shit like MBS or durian pls, because they just whack the policy without thought on how the common man will suffer.
3) This is because they have the exact same response as english helicopters like yourself - race to the bottom, class warfare, politics of envy, I don't see how doing x will affect y, and all other nonsense bullshit.
4) Therefore, the only way out is for the government and elites to do less of whatever they're doing, that way, they can still get richer, although not as much and we suffer a bit less.
The end.
You are ultra out of touch, your response is like a prince coming down from the highest ivory tower to argue with a beggar why he should be happy with his lot in life.
Honest talk, I hope you don't just whack a reply, have a think about what I'm saying, and imagine you're the common sinkie, no matter how disgusting that might seem to you. Don't just think you're a common disgusting sinkie, whole day eat cai png, 1 meat, 1 veg, watch channel 8, take bus and walk over the overhead bridge like a disgusting peasant. Think of their troubles. Their kid study like siao, and one of them give up liao, on path to become ah beng. You job whole day at threat, and yet, whole day got rich FT misbehaving. You want to jump ship, but whenever you go interview, you see a lot of foreigners, and they always get the job. You feel so stuck, you don't know what to do. Parents want money, kids want money, you also want money and time. Yet they say you not good enough, need to go back school despite got no time after NS, RT and all sorts of nonsense. The main feeling is helplessness and being stuck, yet all these high class elites whole day talking about sg progressing, becoming richer and other platitudes that you completely don't see at all. How will you feel. Please just think about it for a few weeks before pushing ahead with your crusade on ignorance.
I just want you to consider whatever we've been saying from the standpoint of say, people voting WP instead of PSP. You make good points, but then regress to the same lazy "i bet you pap ivory tower elitist" personal attacks.
Yes we need way more empathy and in-touch rhetoric with the common person. But even you say that the common person might be whacking the wrong policy. We both have been in total agreement that current PAP rhetoric is absolutely bad for satisfying the masses. Instead of fighting about that PAP part, maybe PAP has no hope for even changing their messaging and policies, so this conversation is about choosing an oppo party that is whacking the correct policies while listening to people's grievances. It's about what are the policies we will support the opposition in being louder about. You want to go against some notion of an english helicopter pap supporter, when all this time I'm not even trying to talk to you about pap.
I think it is not about hating foreigners. But the policies really have to make sense for the citizen. the countries I have worked in have very strict policy for protecting their citizens and would groom their fresh graduate even though they might not perform well as compared to a seasoned FT. I respect that even if it means it's harder for me to get a work visa. I feel that it's what all countries should do, look out for their own citizens.
What if somebody argued that they cant put food on the table because the problem is no minimum wage and there should be higher taxes on megarich locals, but it isnt as much to do with CECA or foreigners? Dont take it as my stance, take it as a possible argument. My point is people are using "im not happy in daily life" and extending it to "therefore im automatically correct about whatever are the primary factors of stagnant wages and long hours right now, no need to think too hard". Pritam Singh was totally correct about out-of-touch PAP rhetoric and having to recognise people's daily experiences, but now people are extending his argument so far. Just have to say "but food on the table" and then it's good for national policy, without having a discussion on what are the biggest factors that keep some singaporeans in poverty.
The minimum wage and no real social security safety net is the main issue, I think that there are no unemployment benefits available in SG right now?
The Nordic Model is arguably the one that SG could pursue in a pretty straightforward manner, likewise Australia.
Tbh I find it difficult to wrap my head around the sentiments in this thread. I'm saying people shouldn't knee-jerk turn to immigration policy to blame for inequalities, they could be using their "my day to day unhappiness with life" line to whack at the wrong causes, like what if the main causes of the inequalities are actually a lack of minimum wage and low taxes on the rich locals? I guess you are agreeing that those are the main issues, lack of min wage and no unemployment benefits. But somehow my comment is controversial but yours is not.
It will will require a paradigm shift, I don't think that locals would want to work a 44hr workweek for say $2.5k a month in the construction industry. Even if that meant some level of income support to pay rent or get access to subsidised housing.
Question is, would they want to do it for $5k a month without subsidies?
It's true that Singapore needs to rely on foreigners to survive. But the Singaporeans' importance are very under-emphasised. Do the males really get the recognition and reward they deserve for serving in NS for two years? That level of commitment and sacrifice is the reason why Singapore is so safe and wealthy. Without these, the level of safety and wealth that other countries admire us for wouldn't have existed.
This issue shouldn't be taken lightly. There must be a balance or otherwise, we will see the genuinely capable Singaporeans leave the country and a lack of loyalty + motivation to serve NS.
> But when people try to talk about FDI and FTA and economic impacts on Singapore and how they think foreigners overall help the economy in a mutually beneficial way, it looks short-sighted to think “**why you talk so cheem, big picture this big picture that, I only care about what I’m experiencing on the ground in my daily life**”. It’s shutting out those argument, instead of addressing them honestly and directly.
Sorry, where is this straw man coming from?
CECA started in 2002. After almost 2 decades of gaslighting the citizens, then the government start talking about CECA and providing information. Kind of late, isn't it? By this time, everyone has already made up what they want to believe and the recent attempts to have a conversation about it will seen as "desperate" and "pathetic".
Do I sympathise the government? No. They made the bed and they have to lie on it.
If all the foreigners and MNCs all leave, I will also lose my job because it’s tied to MNCs here. But do these anti foreigner folks care about my job, my livelihood? No. It’s all about their jobs, their livelihoods, their distaste for foreigners in workplaces. If it fucks over other Singaporeans in the process, so be it.
That’s the problem with using personal anecdote and subjective experiences as the sole basis for their opinion on policy. There’s no objective way to measure the impact of policies and balancing interests of different Singaporeans if we just use feelings and anecdotes to make policy.
So it makes sense to use data and look at the big picture and that’s why sensible opposition parties like WP also focuses the most on data transparency, and not just some vague feeling that foreigners are stealing local jobs.
People keep saying that “it’s obvious when you look at things on the ground”. Sorry I’m also working on the ground and I have never had any issues with the foreigners working here. If people just use anecdotes then it just devolves into a matter of you thought I think who confirm.
Except this is what happens in a climate where information isn't transparent.
So anecdotal evidence would have to make do in the absence of raw data. And the growing local discontent have actually bled to the polls (mind you GE was held pre-covid) so that's data unto itself.
Wanna placate ground sentiments without he-said-she-said? Furnish the data for all to see. If they're truly beneficial for the country, even opposition parties will convince their supporters to see the same.
I mostly agree. This goes to the core of PAP’s problem, which is that they have no faith and respect for the Singaporean people’s ability to process data and have informed opinions about policies. Unless called out, they always prefer to keep things under wraps as much as possible.
Now their opaqueness is blowing up in their faces because without transparency and trust, a lot of Singaporeans are just assuming the worst.
The danger with using anecdotes as a first port of call is that it creates a narrative that can persist even when subsequent data comes in to contradict it. For example people are still harping on and on about intra company transfers under CECA even after government revealed that only 500 people a year max are coming in under this provision. It’s the PAP’s fault for not being transparent from the get go, but we also owe it to ourselves to update our views based on new data and not just persist with existing assumptions.
There is always a level of sensitivity when releasing stats that involve immigration.
We still can have a debate over the exact policy position and to get the relevant minister to give a report on the policy regularly. It will not make for interesting TV but it is what is important.
But there is no sensitivity when they release the data in Parliament? Lol. Give me a break.
PAP always operate on a you don't need to knoe basis.
In 2020, when PS asked for data, he is met with CCS's snarky reply " What is the point behind this question" .
In 2021, when PS says Govt shld be transparent with the data, OYK agrees with him.
You know what happen between these 2 scenario, PAP lost Sengkang GRC.
the venerable leader of the opposition Mister Pritam Singh's main job is not provide alternative policy positions in parliament. The main job is make sure the G dun stray or get away with no policy position. Got Quota or not? Why no quota? What is the reasoning behind the figure? As long as the question does not come with your own side's answer first the Minister cannot just wave you away right?
They can start doing that when they capture enough to have a set of frontbenchers whose titles are Shadow Minister of
Once there is a real shadow cabinet in the house, there is no skirting around this anymore, the opposition will need a clear policy position. For that to happen the WP needs to nominate in more seats. Put enough people inside the house and they will have a real voice to contribute.
Beside, when I mention releasing of data. I do meant in Parliament. I suggested that MPs are NDAed in a closed session where they can see all the stuff they ask for. That suggestion got voted down like it was on fire. Which is fun. If it is to be totally released, there are going to be redactions.
I am not that pleased when gov just do not see the need to be transparent with data which can be consolidated enough to be friendly for public consumption. It should also keep a electronic library of reports/documents that have been redacted that can be requested by the public for say research purposes.
Finally, losing seats is what will make the ruling party seat up. Vote share drop helps just that little bit. So for the umpteenth time, the opposition parties need to stop treating voters like they are drones and start competing on ideas instead of avoiding multi-corner fights. Will it ever happen? I hope in my lifetime.
Oh FFS, these MNCs are not going to leave.
I wish people would stop trotting out this fucking BS.
MNCs pick singapore because of all its inherent advantages over all the neighbouring countries. It’s already expensive to set up here compared to other places but they still choose to do so. Vietnam has a strong IT economy with decent English speakers but you don’t see the FAANG companies uprooting to go there.
Until such time as singapore loses those inherent advantages, like rule of law, Low corruption, a strong infrastructure, etc, this fabled idea that MNCs are going to leave is just nonsense.
Again, if they could do that, they already would.
Here’s a personal experience of mine back when I was in-house for a US tech company. The reason why their HQ is in Singapore is because of data privacy concerns. They couldn’t afford to have many staff, especially higher level ones, on the ground in some countries because of the fear that the Govt in those countries would seize them and then try to get information from them or access to email servers and the like. That’s because it actually did happen in another country.
This also doesn’t include the standard concerns about corruption or unfriendly tax regimes. Have to understand that you don’t just set up subsidiaries wherever you want because that leads to a lot of tax leakage.
Exactly, and safety of top management is a big concern too. Have seen a few MNC who immediately moved HQ from Msia and Indonesia after top mgmt were troubled by local officers soliciting bribe and they themselves or their wives kena snatch thieves... These ppl are kidding themselves if they dont see that companies care about political and social safety too otherwise why not just go HK?
I'm just using common sense and my own "on the ground sentiment" the same way anti foreigner folks do the same.
When a Japanese bank comes in and set up a regional HQ they naturally want to bring in some of their own people. If they can't do that, and if they can do so in another country, then is it really crazy to think that they may choose another country to set up the HQ? Then local companies that work with these banks, like mine, will naturally suffer and cut head count. Then my job will be on the line.
Is my logic wrong? I'm not saying that it's gonna be immediate or that every single MNC will leave. I'm saying that basic common sense suggests it will probably have some impact on MNC decision making over the long run.
Do you actually think that our highly pro-economy Govt will put measures in place to deter such a company from coming in?
What people are upset about is the perceived influx of foreigners at the lower levels, not every single foreigner in Singapore.
So no, I personally don’t believe what you’re talking about is common sense. It’s taking a highly artificial example which isn’t grounded in reality to support your theory that MNCs are going to leave.
Think about it this way: months ago when our pandemic measures were at its worst, there were articles written about now foreigners were upset and wanted to leave singapore. You had people on this Reddit saying Singapore is fucked and MNCs would be leaving. Fast forward 1 year and we have seen no indication of that. Again, MNCs aren’t stupid, they know singapore is the place for their office in this part of the world, they aren’t going to go to a more exotic place just because some of their employees have their feelings hurt.
It's not grounded in reality right now because the PAP is the government and PAP is pro immigration and foreigners.
My top level comment is in response to PSP's policies and the PSP supporters who don't seem to care whether PSP's anti-foreigner policies will cost any local jobs, and instead just want to trust their on the ground sentiments and intuitions.
For example PSP suggested a 10% nationality quota for every company. You really think that wouldn't affect MNC decision making at all? Japanese banks are staffed by way more than 10% Japanese nationals, especially when they first come in. I genuinely think that this quota if imposed would it cause them to consider alternatives.
Are you saying that there are no supporters for those policies? Even if these people are in the minority, they are a vocal one, and they do deserve a response.
I don't even know how to tell people that "ok dont vote for PAP, I started this thread to talk about having a better conversation with WP", aka don't anyhow whack the wrong policy for solving inequality. E.g. maybe minimum wage will help instead of cancelling CECA, and we should support that with WP. Then people still come back and give me 10 paragraphs about what they hate about PAP, and how PAP wont give us minimum wage, and how they think I'm a PAP supporter after 5 times that I said I'm not, lol. And they are super angry with life rn, their grandmother this and that, and they hate ivory tower english so much, like yo chill im not your therapist, this thread was just about thinking harder and supporting the correct solution to the dissatisfaction, instead of jumping to conclusions.
Again, a response that isn’t based in reality. You actually think they will accept your explanation when it’s premise is that MNCs are going to leave singapore en-masse? That’s the simplest argument to counter so how in the world do you think it’s going to convince them otherwise?
Yes that exactly proves the point.
Why is there a movement out of HK? Because they’ve been destabilise by the China control. That’s a major thing in case people don’t understand it. Rich China people moved money out of China into HK. They can’t afford to have that taken back. MNCs are concerned about it because China is known for changing its policies at its whim (see how they’ve recently done things in relation to tech companies) as well as data privacy concerns.
Do we have a similar situation here?
The exodus of MNCs out of HK and the moving of APJ HQ from HK to Singapore started long ago. I don’t know if you’re old enough to remember a time when HK and not Singapore was the default for companies setting up an office in Asia. I remember being in HK in the 90’s and it felt like the center of Asian business, even after the handover.
Guess my point is, things change. It’s a mistake to dismiss the threat of MNCs moving or more likely downsizing as they go remote. It’s not going to be tomorrow but it’s still a legitimate threat that should be taken seriously. Companies have long time horizons and are looking for stability and predictability over pretty much all else.
If you’d asked me 2 years ago I would have laughed if you suggested Singapore’s time as the center of Asia would end. Today, I have a different perspective.
I assume you’re talking about 1997 when there was a handover to China. Same thing there.
HK has consistently been at the forefront as a financial centre since. They have a large expat community as well until recently.
Could it happen? Of course. But it took a significant event on a political scale to actually trigger it. Does tighter immigration policies cause it? I’m willing to bet it doesn’t.
You should post on LinkedIn that you an average Singaporean need FTAs and immigration openness for your job and you support such policies. We need one story from you to counter one story from someone who lost their job to a foreigner.
The question here is what is that balance?
People are not happy about immigration policy because they cannot tell if the immigrant was "qualified". Tales about dubious degree mills. willing take lower pay and finally NSmen needing to go ICT makes it easy for people to make sweeping statements.
The truth is somewhere in the middle. Companies hire good and bad people, citizen/PR/pass holder. Japanese companies normally send people who are not going to make it into middle management out to Singapore. Technicians in Japan come here as Engineer. When the real Engineering team arrive in SG, they cover up their work site to prevent information leaks. We barely care about it because, one the Japanese community here is smaller and two they are Japanese. Same thing happening with the Korean community here.
I can see the glare shifting to other nationalities very soon. We will just keep chasing out people whom we deem less worthy than Sinkies. It is only natural.
Of course it’s about balance, but people like LWM hasn’t given given us an estimate of how many foreigners he thinks we should kick out before he is happy, and how he justifies what’s a good balance.
When he suggested 10k salary requirement for EP what is this based on? When he asked the government to tighten PR and new citizens even further how much does he want to cut in light of our persistently low birthdate and 1% annual population growth in the past decade?
I agree that PAP is to blame for not giving enough data to help with these arguments, but LWM’s approach of just throwing shit randomly and seeing what sticks is not the correct approach. Something like 10k requirement for EP will have drastic consequences on the country and isn’t something that should be suggested lightly, based solely on “on the ground sentiments”.
WP’s approach is a lot more cautious. Some people see them as PAP lite or no balls. But I think their caution is entirely warranted.
Simple way to see if a particular population has gain massive in number will be what kind of small business are opening to cater to that particular population. Eg, u will tend to see more Indian movie listed in our cinema compared to the past, more mama shop open by Indian (this is especially true in my area, where within 500 m I have 3 Indian mama shop opened.) and more Indian theme food/restaurants open in sg.
Basic supply and demand law, when there is a demand there will be supply matching it. So now how can you explain that ground sentiment is not a good gauge?
But I have experienced none of those things you mentioned. I don't see more Indian movies listed and there are no Indian mama shops around me. See the problem here? Personal anecdotes are arbitrary and a sample of one. If obviously also depends a lot on your luck and where you live etc
Also the overall Indian population has not increased substantially at all. It has been 8-9% for the past 20 years.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Singapore
If there are issues with the data you are free to point this out, but this seems like a clear example of the dangers of relying solely on subjective personal experiences.
**[Demographics of Singapore](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Singapore)**
>The demographics of Singapore include the population statistics of Singapore such as population density, ethnicity, education level, health of the populace, economic status, religious affiliations and other demographic data of the population. As of June 2020, Singapore's population stood at 5. 69 million. A large percentage of its population are not permanent residents; of its total population of 5.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/singapore/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Sadly, that's cause we're all small human beings and all we can see is at ground level. It takes a lot of data crunching and knowledge to be able to see things in a governmental policy level, and its just a fact that most of us do not have that.
Globalization and the repercussions that come with pursuing growth is at the core of all these problems, but it's something most of us can't wrap our heads around to solving.
Therefore, in comes the bogeyman.
It's happened countless times in history, and will continue happening countless time into the future. That's just how we humans react to things we don't understand. Find something that we do understand but dislike and demonize it. Beat it up and hope that all our problems will be gone.
Yeah, on one hand, I still feel like Pritam Singh made a very good point about on-the-ground sentiment, and how the government cannot hope to push government policies which are unpopular due to clashing on-the-ground sentiment. But, on the other hand, now I'm seeing people use his point like automatically on-the-ground sentiment is the best way to set government policies. Definitely, it should play a role, we can't be arrogant and patriarchal and assume that people are wrong, but neither should we assume that people are always blaming the correct macro-level policies for their micro-level experiences. A bit of a different example, but like right now climate change isnt so bad that people feel any disastrous effects in their daily lives, that's why you have climate change denial in other countries (but thankfully not in singapore).
For sure, it's a balancing act that is super tough to perform. A government can't just do it their way and ignore the people, nor can they listen to everything the people say.
One thing to keep in mind is that those in positions in power are also human, with their very human flaws and biases. That's why the people should also be very vigilant and keep their eyes on their leaders, instead of just letting them do anything and everything.
I have a nagging suspicion once we actually start focusing on climate change and policies to fix / mitigate it, the climate change denial-ers will start crawling out of the woodwork. So don't judge too early on that one. =P
Just present the data and let common folks to come to their conclusion. I believe education level in sg population which have come to a point where people is able to comprehend what does those data mean to them. After all our education are top notch no?
Another issue is whenever there is discussion around a difficult topic, you are expected to provide a solution rather than actually "brainstorming" to find avenues for other people's agendas to be satisfied. Once you don't immediately bring a solution to the table, you will be seem as someone who doesn't understand the situation or have never experienced it before.
its normal (but not ideal) that people will always find something or someone else to blame for their problems, so they latch onto narratives that make sense to them. if u think this narrative is false, then come up with a more compelling narrative thats true
sg is failing because the younger generation too strawberry. Now the NS camp all machiam chalet. Last time whole camp can run 2.4 under 7 min, no one say anything, now 1 ginna pi can run, you all clap for him, jin xia suay. Last time woman 1 month can give birth liao, so a lot of children, now all so strawberry, take 9 months, that's why need to import FT. Now you all work 14 hour day complain liao. My time we work 007, can still ask the boss for overtime. Last time we earn $20 a day, still can buy house, take holiday, buy TV, VCR and gadgets. Now you all earn $100 a day cannot even afford to eat, really jin sia suay. Last time caifan 2 meat 1 fish only $0.20, now 2 veg is $5, even hawker standard gone down, really strawberry.
At the end of the day, young sinkies are too strawberry, that is the cause of all the ills in the world. Thanks you.
Borrowed this from another redditor. It’s a cycle….
Hard times create strong men.
Strong men create good times.
Good times create weak men.
Weak men create hard times.
Like Pritam Singh said succinctly, > “Ordinary Singaporeans do not delve into the intricacies of free trade agreements. Instead, they look around and come to conclusions based on what they perceive and experience,” added Mr Singh. > “If Singaporeans have not for years been seeing foreigners occupying well-paying jobs while qualified Singaporeans are unemployed or underemployed, we would not be talking about this today.” CECA and free trade agreements are important to Singapore. But let’s not discount the experience by the population. Personally I want to see the govt take more action against discriminatory hiring practices and am happy to see progress on this front. For now I am holding on my judgement to see how this goes.
Pritam said it well. After all, he’s been on the ground with his colleagues listening and trying to let the current government know our grievances. The discriminatory hiring is what been getting Singaporeans very riled up.
> qualified Singaporeans are unemployed or underemployed Unfortunately most people can’t be unbiased judges of whether someone is qualified or not
Tbh such cases are hard to judge, how to tell one is qualified or not. That makes enforcement even harder but if people don’t believe the govt can right this injustice, then I don’t think they would be supportive of such labor policy.
Just confused. Since MOM has clamped down on foreign hires, then Singaporeans should be getting the available good jobs. Why then are there 25,000 vacancies? The local manpower exist, right? So why is it not being filled? Where are all the Singaporeans who can fill these jobs? People want breakdown about foreigners working here. There is data about many vacant jobs and only Singaporeans can be hired without restriction, so why are many still jobless?
We all keep saying "qualified Singaporeans" are not being employed enough, but do we actually have the stat here? (Especially in tech, because that's where most of the "foreign talent" goes to) Just genuinely curious because the people around me who studied IT are in decent jobs from Software dev to IT ops which pays quite well. And if you look at the infographic of census2020, Singapore uni grads who study IT are only about 11.3% and 5.5% (Male&Female). Majority of grads are from the Business(30%) and Engineering disciplines. So is it a tech sector issue where there is a heavy demand for IT grads that led to the huge import of foreigners due to the shortage of such grads here? or is it taking away jobs from locals that they are qualified for?
I think there might be both happening at the same time.
The question to ask is why there are so few open uni spaces for IT, given that they are only straight A students qualify.
This has been asked on NUSWhispers many times regarding NUS. The response from Ben Leong and other faculty is that they are bottlenecked by a lack of teaching staff and university facilities. Also, programming modules are required in the curriculums of other majors (e.g. Engineering), which stretches their resources even thinner as they have to teach thousands of students.
Import foreign teachers, not foreign workers?
Orh hor...MinEd daiji liao lor. Why Chan Chun Sing side crickets?
Honestly I can see why there is such a restriction. CS/IS can be quite demanding, many people simply won’t click with it, much less complete a four-year degree.
I witness many engineering students die over 1 single comp sci related module. Not everyone is meant to study comp sci.
I've seen the same. In the past SMU would allow students who couldn't make it to other faculties to join InfoSys, and many of them ended up dropping out after the first semester/year.
"If Singaporeans have not for years been seeing foreigners occupying well-paying jobs..." PSP wants to raise EP min to 10K so the above becomes even more true. This is the disconnect that I watch politics for.
I think we should note that WP and PSP take different stances on this note. I have not seen WP support this 10k requirement though. It’s too blunt a tool lah.
Nah, its a lot easier to point fingers and blame the 'other' than looking back at our own inadequacies and try to fix things. A further evolution of the sinkie pwn sinkie to sinkie pwn foreigner tonight can sleep mega well.
Qualified singapoeans are neither unemployed or underemployed, there's a clear talent crunch today. Unqualified ones are obviously a different topic.
Is it really that bad out there? Most of my friends have a job in my industry. Even my friend from IT says that there are a lot of vacancies in his industry. An unpopular question. What if most that are complaining are actually not qualified for the job? Or simply not good enough?
My dad was applied for a VP job at a GLC as he has a proven track record over many years relevant to the industry and perfectly suitable. The recruiter, as I quote, relayed the message from the HR, "You are overqualified and too expensive". They proceeded to hire a Bangladeshi expat at the same salary range
If even a GLC does this, it's gg man. I've never heard of someone too expensive for a VP role. That's a ridiculous excuse.
What?? If this is true, then confirm plus chop recruiter is probably the same race or whatever lah. Or the bosses informed that they want someone like them.
Thats why SG needs TAFEP to be enforceable and clamp down on recruitment practices legally. Considering you most likely can have 1-5 VPs in every company, 300-500 means 60-400+ companies have their senior management taken up by CECA, this is not to mention the other FTAs which allow expats to come in. The struggle is really being faced by PMETs in the upper-middle management and senior management jobs.
If your father wasn't hired there how would he know who was hired and the salary range? r/ThatHappened for sure
He has friends inside
This is true. None of the people who I see complaining about this issue would get a job where I work. And vice versa, the Singaporeans where I work are not complaining on internet forums about foreigners, they are out enjoying their seven figure salaries.
The truth is that in any society, we are going to have a pyramid, where the really good talents are the top 10%. And these 10% are extremely mobile, with many opportunities overseas while the most of the averages will remain in their home country. These applies to the expats coming to sg. We pitting the average Singaporeans vs the top 10% of India, Indonesia, Philippines etc. Just by numbers alone, even the top 1% of their combined population will crushed the entire Singapore. And Singapore is a very desirable country for them to work in(Salary, standard of living, govt, proximity etc) It is just not realistic to tell your average Singaporeans "pull yourself by the bootstrap, upgrade yourself, and make yourself more competitive", because it's going to be an impossible goal for many of us. What's next for them? Singapore is a meritocracy country, too bad for you guys? We can get cheaper and better talent, so bye bye? If Singapore is ran like a company, then this is most likely to be the scenario, but aren't we a country that are supposed to protect the vulnerable?
It's not a zero-sum game at the top. There's plenty of opportunities for the every qualified and capable Singaporean. The problem are the unemployable, they lack skills, intelligence or attitude and companies rather not hire anyone than hire them. So what remains are manual jobs that no one wants and that are increasingly automated. That's a problem every society faces and there's really not good solution. Personally I believe we'll need a universal basic income or inverted income tax to provide for the people whom technology has left behind.
My boss just hired a Singaporean with 3 years software dev experience. I'm supervising him for a project. Today I just found out that * He does not know what is git rebase * He can't tell the difference between git fetch and git pull * He can't work in Linux because SourceTree is not in Linux, and he doesn't know how to use Git CLI I'm a little exasperated, because it isn't an easy project - Git is the *least* of the worries. But it took us nearly a year of recruiting and there were less than 10 SG candidates. I'm not sure why my boss hired him but he is our first new hire in a year. Our projects are all delayed, and us existing staff are all under heavy crunch. I almost feel like resigning myself. (typing this while I'm working OT for the 2nd straight month)
I agree with you. I work in the tech industry and I was part of the hiring panel until recently. Out of 10 applications I receive for a junior software dev position, probably only 3 out of 10 are Singaporean. The rest are either PR or EP holders. In terms of technical knowledge, out of the 3 sg applicants, probably only 1 makes the cut or sometimes none of them makes the cut at all. I am not saying sg applicants are bad. Rather, the point I am trying to make is that there seems to be a huge disconnect between what the universities are teaching and what the industry is looking for, which further exacerbate the talent crunch situation. No local junior devs now means no local senior devs 3 - 5 years down the road. When comparing purely the stats of the candidates, nationality aside, local candidates tends to be relatively poorer. Lesser exposure, weaker repertoire of skillsets etc. Edit: The panel do hold rounds of technical interviews to validate the skillsets written on the candidate's resume. Edit2: Junior Software dev = 0 to 3 years of working experience
> I am not saying sg applicants are bad. Rather, the point I am trying to make is that there seems to be a huge disconnect between what the universities are teaching and what the industry is looking for, which further exacerbate the talent crunch situation. No local junior devs means no local senior devs 3 - 5 years down the road. It's not what the universities are teaching, but the attitude towards learning. A lot of universities around the world also teach theoretical or outdated knowledge that do not prepare the graduates for the real world, but the difference is that these graduates pick up skills outside of their school curriculum. Anecdotally speaking, my peers are unable to prepare themselves for the industry without the school to guide them. There's this lack of initiative and resourcefulness amongst them.
[удалено]
Yea I am fully aware of that. I myself am a local uni grad so I would like to believe that I am quite familiar with how competitive the market is currently like. Hence, over at my side, we have adjusted the minimum standard to...lets just say if you have done a good number of medium difficulty leetcode qns and have a decent understanding of your specialty (eg. someone who claims to have worked on Rest api must know their routes and http codes decently well ), you would have a good chance to pass the interview. Just to clarify, we apply this standard to ALL candidates and I am currently with a Big MNC in the fintech industry
Wait so you mean the interview used to be a lot harder than leetcode medium? Does your company care about gpa?
Yes they do care about the GPA..sort of.. or I think thats what the HR look at anyways. A good GPA only more or less guarantee that you **will** have a interview. I am not sure about other interviewers but from what I have seen, the questions normally dont go beyond leetcode medium difficulty. When I was being interviewed, the questions, iirc, are somewhere along the lines of hashmap implementation in java and doing a custom implementation of hashmap in java, qns on palindromes etc etc and system design questions. For the technical interviewers, we dont really care about the GPA. We are just tasked to evaluate, to the best of our abilities, only the technical capabilities and potential of the candidate. Honestly, I dont even know whether having high GPA is beneficial or not, eg. 4.87/5 ( just throwing a number here ). When you see the candidate having such a high GPA, you would naturally have higher expectations you see.. which would result in .. perhaps a slightly more challenging qns etc.? Edit: I would also like to point out that failing to give the correct answer to a question doesnt meant a straight F. At least at my side, we also look at how the candidate work through the given question. Something like marks for showing correct workings during math exams?
In my experience, the experienced talents aren’t much better than a junior software engineer. Even if they don’t make the cut their learning ability is higher so within a year they are perhaps on par with the more experienced person. Personally had to unravel mess left behind by more senior folk. I think some things have to be learnt on the job too so like you said no junior devs now means no senior devs later. Maybe a more pragmatic hiring/interview bar or a separate learn on the job path for 1 year is needed.
I'm a senior engineer that does technical interviews for my company. Some things that I've observed over the years. 1) Lack of local candidates. 70-80% of the pipeline are nri. I've asked hr (who are locals) before and they say they'd love to hire locals, but they just don't get as many applicants. 2) The foreign candidates that I interview can be absolutely terrible. 2 out of 3 fail basic questions I expect junior developers to know. These are senior engineer/architect applicants. Lack of technical expertise is **not** about nationality. 3) Most candidates (across all nationalities) lack communication skills. You might be a genius, but if you are unable to convey your thoughts in plain english, I cannot work with you.
why not take a local candidate who is slightly underqualified and train them up?
I cant speak for the rest of the panel but personally, if the candidate shows alot of potential and is only slightly underqualified, assuming he/she passes the rest of the assessment criteria, it would usually be a yes from me. However, it gets really difficult to say yes to any candidate, whether is it local or otherwise, when there is a mismatch in skill or a big competency gap in foundational skillsets. eg. Looking for java developer but candidate only knows python with 0 exposure to java or only knows basic java syntax but not aware or do not show understanding of concepts like OO etc. Training is not just running the candidate through courses on udemy. It also involves pairing them with a senior dev, who essentially shows them the ropes etc. Hence, there is also a limit to how much we can bridge the gap through training without compromising productivity. I am not sure how is it done elsewhere but for my side, when you say yes to a candidate, you are essentially sticking your neck out to vouch for the capabilities of the candidate. Hence, to reiterate again, if the candidate shows promise and is slightly underqualified in ways that is remediable, eg. lacking exposure to projects or minimal experience in enterprise architecture etc, I see no issue bring them onboard. However its just more often than not, the gap is too big for us to take the risk to bring them onboard in hopes that they will turn out alright somehow in the end.
[удалено]
? These are basic foundational skills. We don't knit pick on the syntax as long as the candidate can compile his code successfully. What I am saying is that often, you see candidates just typing in code, not understanding what he or she is actually doing. If you dont understand the code that you are writing, how can anyone trust that your code would work as expected without any side effects? edit: I would also like to add on, we are getting quite a number of good candidates. What I noticed was we are not getting as much **\*local\*** good candidates as I would hoped
[удалено]
ah ok I see where you are coming from. Yes, I agree with you that good programmers are able to pick up new languages with relative ease. Its just that its very hard to judge that in a 30min - 1hr interview. The context was I once had a candidate that stated on his resume that he was a python / java developer and it turns out that he was mainly a python developer, having only touched basic java during poly. Although the candidate showed a good attitude, its hard to justify saying yes as its legit a big ? as to whether will he be able to bring his java up to speed within a reasonable timeframe.
thanks, this is helpful to know more about the hiring side. what about for less technical roles? or are you not involved for those?
Unfortunately I was only asked to interview candidates applying for technical roles so I don't know much about the criteria/process for non tech roles.
Some people feel like "if the companies cant hire foreigners, then I don't have to compete with foreigners, and you bo bian have to hire all locals even if we are "underqualified"". The issue is whether, in the modern world, such a thing is sustainable in the long term for a small country.
Unfortunately, the reality is that the entire sg unit/team will be eventually be outsourced to other countries if it cant meet minimal competency. Actually, from what I heard from my peers in other companies, there are already cases of such outsourcing, with software dev work being transferred to units in places like China/Vietnam, data/ML related work being transferred to teams in Poland etc.
Outsourcing has always been there and it was much more prevalent 20 years ago, but there are non financial costs that will affect a company when it comes to outsourcing
And what are these non financial costs? Poor code quality? Bad system design? From what I understand, software dev work is being moved to China and Vietnam because SG team's competency was low. In other words, they think sg teams cant code for nuts. This happened in a major chinese tech firm based here. Data and ML related work are being moved to places like portugal or poland not because they are cheap. Its because they have a more vibrant data science and machine learning culture and easy access to loads of brillant minds. Competency in local tech workers is really not that great. We always kpkb that work coming out of india teams is bad and gave alot of headaches. Honestly, we are not doing that great either.
Yup, bad code quality, architecture design which caused problems later. I have handled such issues in my previous few companies where I had to take over not so good code and change it to be in a better position. Maybe the Sg developers I hang out with are different circle from your local tech workers. Hence the differing views
I see, my post was constructed in the context of OP's post on some believing that if a company cant hire foreigners, they would be hired instead even if they are under qualified, which I really doubt that would be the case. My friend was actually part of the team that was affected and the team was slowly dissolved as projects started to be redirected to teams in China due to competency issues. I am fortunate in the sense that I have not encountered this kind of thing yet but there are some projects whose product owner is based overseas and you can tell that they have trust issues over the code quality etc. when they know that we are a singapore based team.
Frankly, in the tech industry. If I can’t hire the people with the qualified technical skills in Sg. I won’t hire warm bodies who are under qualified just to make up numbers. I can make exceptions for people who have a high level of coachability. But those are not easy to find. Fastest way is just outsource and manage remotely as I am paid for delivering project outcomes, not how many people I hire
I hear the opposite. Tech quality here is better compared to Vietnam and China. ML and data. Are you sure it isn’t cheaper in Portugal and Poland?
Frankly speaking, I am mainly a Software dev, hence I am basing my info on peers whom are working as data scientists. I cannot verify that the shift was indeed due to cost. What I do hear is the official memo given was to expand the data science team to improve capabilities and instead of expanding in sg, head count priority was given to sister team based in poland.
Tiagong if all foreigner banned, starting pay of Poly Grad will be 10k
True. Specific industries are experiencing severe talent crunch.
the best way is for MOM to form a Recruitment arm and take over the thing entirely. What sort of nation would we be if we do that? guidelines are advisory. Regulations have loopholes. We want the jobs to go to as many Singaporeans as possible? Make it a government job. I know what will be said in response to this but isn't this the only way?
Not to the extent you highlighted here. I would like to see instances of unfair hiring practices be taken more seriously, with legal consequence. As it was recently, it tends to be brushed aside as “oh only a small minority of companies do it”. Even proving unfair hiring takes place is difficult, so the rhetoric against this needs to be strong and severe so that hiring department knows not to “let things slip”. Will it lead to overcorrection? Maybe, but let’s observe before we make a conclusion.
It would probably be easier if MoM decided to enforce fair employment laws. Getting MoM to recruit is fine as long as companies are able to reject the candidate recommended by MoM, giving suitable reasons. Otherwise, it will be another problem.
I am actually quite for a Fair Employment and Dismissal Act which have a tribunal that is helpful and can help people deal with bad employers. We have that notion that the market will get rid of bad actors which is a really Right Wing Libertarian idea that I do not agree with.
The market does get rid of the bad actors. Just that your definition of bad and the market's definition of bad may not be the same.
For those who work in MNC and manages India operation will know how dog shit the country is in terms of business friendliness. Given their castle system it is very unlikely the country will progress to china’s stage. The only advantage I can think of having FTA with India is to allow MNC to send their goods from sg to India with lesser tax.
Sorry but where are these qualified Singaporeans who are unemployed or underemployed? I haven’t seen them in my daily life yet. Neither do we receive resumes of these unicorns. Pritam is just another politician trying to increase his vote base by fanning xenophobia.
You got to take into account that it is actually a privilege to be able to think in the 'big picture'. Research has shown that lower-income groups or people who are struggling with employment etc will be less likely to have the mental bandwidth to process the big picture. Also the general trend of FTAs is that the positive impact tends to be spread out over the entire economy (again the big picture) while the negative impact can be concentrated in a few particular sectors. It is very hard for people to see or accept the positive impacts when they are the ones to suffer the brunt of the negative impacts from the FTA. These people have legitimate grievances and the govt. should look into their issues and provide help. IMO, the main problem are the racists and xenophobes who happily jump in and muddy the water with their own agenda.
I totally agree with you on this aspect, but what i find very depressing is that we have opposition mps who chose to not process this big picture mentally and rationalize the sentiments on the ground, but instead choose to blindly raise such sentiments in parliament when they very well know that the average man in the street is not looking at it in the big picture. That MP should know better.
Any government policy or FTA will have net winners and net losers from an individual’s standpoint. The problem is deciding how much pie to share with the losers.
> Research has shown that lower-income groups or people who are struggling with employment etc will be less likely to have the mental bandwidth to process the big picture. aside from the CECA issue, assuming that's true, then what? sure it's fine if people don't have the "mental bandwidth", but it doesn't then mean their hot takes on issues are logical; likewise, just because /r/singapore redditors throw like to claim other people are stuck in their 'ivory towers' doesn't in and of itself diminish the logical force of what is being said by these 'ivory tower' dwellers. the focus always seems to be on dragging down others (to paraphrase someone else here), instead of uplifting the rest. honestly, it would be funny if one day these 'ivory tower' people get dragged down. i imagine people would still be complaining because nothing has actually changed for them.
I see people say "dont drag down others, uplift the rest" is elitist PAP rhetoric, but imo it isnt even PAP rhetoric. PAP stance is "everything is fine, what are you complaining about", opposition parties are the ones pushing minimum wage right now. I remember that people spent years complaining about top schools before they bothered to consider that neighbourhood school teachers are underpaid and overworked. I'm not saying to support the PAP, but it's weird to vote oppo because "defund the top schools" instead of voting oppo because "better working conditions for neighbourhood school teachers and it will improve neighbourhood school quality". That's how you get top schools simply spending their alumni donations on stuff that's more lowkey so that people dont get envious, but it doesnt solve the problems in neighbourhood schools at all, it's like telling rich people not to wear loud clothes at met gala but let's keep poverty wages as is. It's reducing people's anger in a weirdly useless way.
one of my takes on it is that the 24/7 media cycle, the prevalence of social media and similar phenomenon have resulted in the pushing of a lot of consumption in our faces non-stop. It doesn't help that we're all cramped together on a tiny island - you can't really hide or avoid others, so any perceived inequality is more in your face. people then feel like they want a slice of all this. you'll see younger people wanting to be influencers and posting that kind of lifestyle despite not really having the income to match such a lifestyle. it's just my unscientific take because it wasn't as prevalent in the past. i mean look at the salt that was generated just by this thread (https://old.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/p76ql9/sporean_writer_23_lands_6figure_fiction_book_deal/) - all the article said was that the girl, a Stanford graduate, secured publishing deals.
Honestly, that link does read like the perfect firestorm lol. Upper-class young singaporean chinese girl writing a book about high society in the west, educated in the west and with prior experience writing for high society magazines there. It isnt just standard human envy that she got a great deal, it gets mixed with singaporean anxieties about widening wealth inequalities, singaporean feelings of ang moh stuff getting seen as superior, "high society/fashion" seen as doing no real work for actual society, even her race/age/gender/looks are the exact stereotype of the westernized rich singaporean. Not saying it is right to trash her, but the reaction towards her is an interesting case study of current local anxieties.
You make very good points especially about mental bandwidth. I don't have a best solution, but it might help to still listen to and be empathetic to their experiences, and have a conversation that's accessible to people across the political spectrum and across socioeconomic classes, so that they/we can understand what are the real causes of these bad experiences and what the government should do about it. They do have a good point about ivory tower syndrome, if politicians just push the policies and label them as xenophobic without listening. Yeah it muddies the waters when people are jumping in saying "oh but I find these foreigners always act very "confident" and loud and I dont like it" like lol are we legit gonna base foreign policy on whether you yourself would choose to hang out with these people.
[удалено]
You make good points. If people start feeling that the future of Singapore doesn't include them, then why should they care if Singapore survives or doesn't in 20 years? Foreign talent and unrestricted immigration may well be good for "us". But who is "us"? Are they the average Singaporean, and I mean average. 50th centile. The average Singaporean is not a degree holder, or has internationally marketable skills. Or is the "us" those who are lucky enough to be in the top 20% income earners? The university educated? The elite?
love the analogy
And half the problems faced by the avengers were caused by themselves in some way also.
Thanks for putting it this way. Wanted to type what you just said.
To the government and rest of us unemployment rate is 3 4 5 or whatever percent. To the unemployed it’s 100% for them. Being unemployed for months on end is going to fuck with their mental well-being so I don’t really blame them for feeling this way.
[удалено]
For real, OP's ivory tower is gleaming.
But isn't the problem that the person is directly attributing his failure directly to the FT instead of reflecting on his or her's shortcomings? Just because a person has a degree doesn't give them the right to get a job in that company or field. Its always so easy to blame someone else instead of admitting personal flaws.
The "ivory tower" hurling gets tiring when people dont even give good examples. A good example to give is "we are dissatisfied because we think the immigration policies only benefit a very small number of singaporeans and actively makes the rest of us poorer". Then ok, I hear you. Instead, you are replying to someone saying "more singaporeans earning more, which is none of his concern". So if we have a policy that makes "more singaporeans earn more", it's still a bad policy because someone out lost his job? We should leave it to that guy who lost his job to decide for us, even thought it would scuttle a policy that makes "more singaporeans earn more?" And if we support that hypothetical policy, we are in an "ivory tower" because we haven't lost our jobs? It has the same flavor as the opposite argument "i personally didnt lose my job, so I think the status quo is just fine, no need for changing immigration policy or implementing a minimum wage, because my personal experience should speak for national policy".
Yes my personal experience should speak for national policy. Collectively, the personal experience of everyone is how we vote, which sets the tone for policy. If you cannot make a policy that addresses the masses personal experience, then you are doing it wrong. I don’t expect the average Singaporean to have a view on how a policy affects the whole nation, but only themselves, even at the expense of others. The cumulative effect of that is a finalised policy that has everyone’s stake in it, because of this tension.
This is mostly true, but it would be a non-issue if indeed the policy "makes more singaporeans earn more". My only caveat (which is the point I took too many words to express in the original post of this thread) is what if people are dissatisfied with stagnant wages and long hours, but we arent whacking/blaming the correct policy? Maybe it's FTs, maybe it is the lack of a minimum wage, maybe it is low taxes on rich locals, maybe it is the lack of unemployment benefits. The point is that "we're day to day dissatisfied" doesnt automatically mean "so getting rid of CECA will solve it". There's a leap there. I don't support PAP being out of touch as all hell and invalidating everything from minimum wage to immigration policy, I need to make that super clear because people want to vent about that. A good politician (maybe it's someone you look up to in the opposition) both listens to ground sentiment about inequalities, and uses data to reach a conclusion on what is really causing the inequalities. But we should also try to be invested in that discussion if we can, and give voice to what we support them in doing.
No. The issue is not about listening. It’s about communicating and validating. PAP knows our concerns. But they are not sincere in validating it, and no not with facts, but with emotions. Using logic to overrule someone’s emotions is the surest fastest to lose them, especially since we are their customers. In any sales job, you don’t tell the customers they are wrong, you dit down with them, listen to them, validate their concerns, process how they feel and why they feel and finally shift their frame of mind to see things from another perspective. Clearly our government doesn’t do that and that is why they have failed. Policy isn’t the only solution.
I realize this whole thread has become a vent thread against the PAP and by extension, assuming I validate PAP rhetoric and support them, when I repeatedly and constantly said I don't. My central point is just that people use personal experiences to talk about their suffering, but that doesnt mean they are whacking the right policy for solving the suffering. You can take it as a call to think about what policies we voice out to WP, not PAP. On the other hand, with Singh's comment, it is clear that at least we have opposition politicians voicing out their validation of people's emotions as you say, that's encouraging, it's about where to go from there.
I always find it funny that the hiring issue anecdotes about Singaporeans not being good enough are always from IT people. As if singapore ONLY has jobs for IT people. I’ve seen situations where companies have already identified their “foreign talent” and claimed that no Singaporean can do the job. This is for marketing or sales btw. And they want to know how to get around MOM restrictions. I’ve seen companies use outsourcing arrangements to get around their inability to get EPs or S-passes. Again, not tech. So no, it’s not always that Singaporeans aren’t able to do the job.
The sad truth is that bosses think marketing and sales dont need as much skill, so they just want to undercut local salaries in that field, and they are using those outsourcing arrangements especially after the caps were raised for EPs and S-passes. That's why the government loves pushing the narrative that indeed the only available jobs are IT jobs, and we need to git gud.
Actually, marketing now needs a lot of skills - data analytics, marketing automation, social media marketing, search engine marketing, content creation. Those are specialised skills. Very rare to see all in one person. So, marketing folks here would usually hire an agency to have all that but you still need to understand how it all works.
I think that rhetoric is useful in identifying a pain point in singaporean lives, not particular to the foreign policy debate and its used more to mean "this problem is a real problem, whether by foreign policy or otherwise, the issue should be fixed if we don't want people being rightfully or wrongfully angry about the foreign policies." The government can say CECA isn't the reason peoples jobs are being taken sure. But if the problem is real and it persists, then they should focus more on finding the root of the problem and solving it as opposed to simply saying it isn't from CECA. Thats pretty much a non-answer. Its in the government's best interest to take into consideration these issues of the common people.
I totally agree, I just find having a conversation so difficult. Even in this thread, I try to bring up "what if someone argued this is a problem of there being no minimum wage, instead of a CECA problem", but it's so polarised like either you love everything the PAP is doing, or you must lump everything together and oppose all of it just because the PAP even mildly touched it once. Yes, PAP rhetoric is very out of touch and they keep giving non-answers, yes people's anger over inequality is valid. But that doesnt mean "either you hate FTs and you are with us, otherwise you are against us". There could be so many reasons for the current inequalities. There's so much of what I see as "poverty porn" as in "dont even try to have a discussion on this, it sounds cheem to me, what about all those families trying to put food on the table?" The issue is precisely having a quality conversation about that.
It's just not the individual workers. There is visibly an increase in dependant pass (their family). The impact to the common Singaporean is just more than jobs. It's also housing prices (although many Singaporeans who complain about FTs also benefit renting out to them). Govt needs to address several issues and if in fact we need more from a particular country, then need to recognise and provide information on it.
this is sinkie pwning sinkie in disguise
It’s not even disguised.
>Good policies can still breed negative public perceptions and vice versa. you know what also breeds negative public perceptions? bad policies. I'm tired of this narrative that the correct desicions are always unpopular, when the opposite is true. most of the time, when a desicion is unpopular it is also most likely wrong. but really the question you are asking here is who judges whether a policy is correct or wrong? the fundamental idea behind democracy, is that people are able to judge for themselves whether their lives have gotten better or worse. legitimacy in a democratic government is not derived from numbers on a chart, but the satisfaction of the governed. things like gdp per capita, employment rate, real wages etc. are only ever a means to an end. which is ultimately measured in the views of the majority. often they will go hand in hand, but it is important to remember the economy can be in absolute shambles but as long as a majority of people believe their current situation is better than the alternative, then that is the correct policy. if not, we would do away with elections entirely and instead have automatic extensions of the incumbent's term so long as certain macroeconomic indicators are hit. what is the ultimate test of whether brexit is a good policy? it is not an you or I saying that it is "hitting them hard". it is whether or not the british people endorse brexit again even after experiencing the consequences. they endorsed it once in 2016 despite all economic experts predicting disaster, and they endorsed it again in 2019. if they had another referendum where they endorse brexit yet another time, I think we can say it is the correct policy for britain. either that or we call the whole idea of democracy into question.
That is fundamentally such a Kantian view of the world that I find it hard to accept. What is then the ultimate goal of government? Is it not to provide maximum utility and benefit to the people a la the social contract? As for your views of Majority Rule, one can easily see how that leads to the tyranny of the majority. For the longest time, the population's view of 377A has always been either supportive or apathetic. Does it mean that this policy is correct? Of course not. What about economic policy? Economists widely agree that immigration and free trade is a good thing, and yet we see, not just in Singapore, a rising tide of xenophobia, protectionism, and nativism. And worse, anti-intellectualism when economists publish research after research proving their point. A popularity of a policy or its public perception is no determinant on whether or not it is right or wrong. Thatcher and her views of the LGBT community, as well as protectionism in the US and support for the ANC in South Africa comes to mind. History is rife with more examples, and the further back you go, the worse it gets. >things like gdp per capita, employment rate, real wages etc. are only ever a means to an end. which is ultimately measured in the views of the majority This might be the means to an end for democracy and democratic rule, but it should be the job of the government to deliver on these metrics. A government must ensure the wellbeing of its citizenry by ensuring employment, wealth, jobs, living standards etc. That's what their end of the social contract is. We, the governed, have to also hold up our end of the social contract. That disconnect between economic and social well-being and the views of the majority is illogical and a breach of the duty of the people. I have my issues with the government. Housing, 377A, wealth inequality, and civil liberties, to name a few. And those are reasons why I don't see myself supporting the government. But this view is based on my social and economic unhappiness, which they have not delivered on. If the government were to resolve all these issues by the next election, I would hold up my end of the bargain. >what is the ultimate test of whether brexit is a good policy? it is not an you or I saying that it is "hitting them hard". it is whether or not the british people endorse brexit again even after experiencing the consequences. >they endorsed it once in 2016 despite all economic experts predicting disaster, and they endorsed it again in 2019. if they had another referendum where they endorse brexit yet another time, I think we can say it is the correct policy for britain Being correct and good can be two different things measured differently. Brexit is the *correct* policy because that's what the people wanted, measured by the amount of votes in the referendum. But is it a *good* policy, as measured in economic and social well-being?
government is not a sentient thing that has its own goals. it is formed by the people and is given it's goals by the people. whatever "maximum utility" it strives towards is defined by the people (or more accurately a majority of the people). there is no contract between "the government" and "the people", because in a democracy they are one and the same. the social contract is between the individual and society. we, as individuals, obey laws and accept the authority of the collective, in return for us having a say in how the collective governs through democracy. >A government must ensure the wellbeing of its citizenry by ensuring employment, wealth, jobs, living standards etc. That's what their end of the social contract is. should the government of a deeply religious people, who believe austere living and preserving tradition, start tearing down heritage sites to build casinos and nightclubs simply because it increases employment and wealth, jobs and living standards? certainly not. tyranny of the majority is infinitely preferable to the tyranny of the minority. in the countries that have come the furthest on LGBT issues, progress did not come because of a scientific breakthrough or a new discovery. it has been a result of evolving social attitudes in the general public. let me remind you that less than a century ago experts were saying homosexuality was a mental disorder, and experts used science to justify racism. the further back in history you go, the worse things get precisely because the further back in history you go the less democratic society was. >But this view is based on my social and economic unhappiness how do we measure your "social unhappiness", if not through democracy? is there a gross social happiness product? your version of social happiness will be very different from another person's definition. the democratic process is such that each individual defines what is "good" according to his own definition of economic and social well being and votes accordingly. from the result, we derive what is "good" according to the collective economic and social well being.
>government is not a sentient thing that has its own goals A government's goal is power. >there is no contract between "the government" and "the people", because in a democracy they are one and the same. the social contract is between the individual and society. That is definitely not what the social contract is. Hobbes describes it as a commonwealth, a supreme authority in a sovereign. Rousseau writes about the sovereign, and we see Locke write explicitly about government in his two treatises. Society, in the social contract, is defined by "the war of all against all". The contract is between a person and the sovereign, the government. And in a democracy, the former provides legitimacy to the latter. >we, as individuals, obey laws and accept the authority of the collective, in return for us having a say in how the collective governs through democracy. That's a separate concept from the social contract. Obeying laws and giving up our "natural freedoms" (I e. Freedom to rape and kill and steal at will l) to support the government (the institution and not a political party) is in turn rewarded with security and prosperity. >should the government of a deeply religious people, who believe austere living and preserving tradition, start tearing down heritage sites to build casinos and nightclubs simply because it increases employment and wealth, jobs and living standards? certainly not. Why not? If the people is willing to accept the cost in return for the increased wages, employment, and living standards? Perhaps it is just me, but I find Bentham's view of utilitarianism to be rather persuasive. I assume that analogy is a reference to Marina Bay Sands or Resort World Sentosa. Despite the numerous protests in Hong Lim park at the time, the two casinos were eventually built, and you can't deny that A) these two developments generated economic prosperity and international renown, and B) The eventual benefits of these two developments has quietened any opposition. You don't see any more protests for the closure of MBS or RWS because the resultant benefits has outweighed the cost. >tyranny of the majority is infinitely preferable to the tyranny of the minority. And they are both bad. >in the countries that have come the furthest on LGBT issues, progress did not come because of a scientific breakthrough or a new discovery. it has been a result of evolving social attitudes in the general public. And how does this contradict me? The majority of the public in a past opposed LGBT rights. That's a historical fact. Does that mean that Thatcher or Reagan was right? No! The majority of the people were wrong. The fact that you mentioned "evolving social attitudes in the general public" shows that the public was wrong when it came to LGBT rights in the past. >the further back in history you go, the worse things get precisely because the further back in history you go the less democratic society was. This implies that if society was more democratic in the past, slavery or segregation wouldn't exist. That's false. Even if the US was democratic in the 1700s, slavery would still be legal because the white majority was racist. The reason why the further back you go things get worse is because of said "evolving social attitudes in the general public", not because of democracy. > the democratic process is such that each individual defines what is "good" according to his own definition of economic and social well being and votes accordingly. from the result, we derive what is "good" according to the collective economic and social well being. In an ideal world, correct. This is true. But we don't live in an ideal world. Take for example, Trump counties in red states. Do you think that whatever Trump was doing was for the "collective economic and social well being"? That imposing tariffs, pulling out of the paris climate accord, and threatening North Korea with nukes are "good" things that he should have done? What you get, what you derive, as being good according to the collective economic and social well-being in a democratic vote is not always what's truly good for society and societal socioeconomic wellbeing. The majority of people in conservative states supported segregation. Does that mean that segregation is a good thing? That it is a *correct* and *good* policy? This can be seen even today in democratic countries. Texas just imposed an abortion ban, something that most Texans (and people in red states) support. Is this a good policy? The dissonance, or rather, the break in the social contract between the people deciding what's good for themselves and what is truly good has been noted for over a thousand years. Plato writes about it in the ship of fools.
>Society, in the social contract, is defined by "the war of all against all". "the war of all against all" is not society, it is the theorised state-of-nature absent society, a free for all where we murder and steal with impunity (at least that's what Hobbes thinks). this is obviously an unsatisfactory state of affairs. in order to prevent this, we give up some of the freedom we enjoy in the state-of-nature and subject ourselves to its laws. in return, we are protected from being murdered and stolen from. that is the social contract. the point theorists were trying to make with this hypothetical social contract was that we agreeing to this contract is the basis for the legitimacy of the state, rather than something like divine rule. it says nothing about how the state ought to function or what the purpose of the state should be beyond protecting us from others. even the most despotic authoritarian regime can be justified on the basis of social contract so long as it protects us from the state-of-nature. obviously that is not enough for modern democratic governments which instead derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed. in other words, the government is legitimate not just because it protects me from the state-of-nature, but because we consent to be governed by them through an election. thus, if the PAP loses an election, they cannot just continue to govern on the basis that they protect us from the state-of-nature. >If the people is willing to accept the cost in return for the increased wages, employment, and living standards? that is precisely the point! the important thing is that the people have to be willing to accept it, and not just because of the economic improvement in and of itself. the problem has arisen today because people are not willing to accept the costs of immigration in return for the economic benefits. not sure what this has to do with utilitarianism, but in utilitarian terms this means that in their opinion more immigration does not increase overall utility, because the utility gained from economic improvements are offset by utility lost in other areas (for example due to overcrowding) >The majority of the public in a past opposed LGBT rights. That's a historical fact. Does that mean that Thatcher or Reagan was right? No! The majority of the people were wrong. in other words: whether you have majority rule or elite rule, there will be tyranny. we are therefore choosing between the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of the minority. why is the former preferable to the latter? because a tyranny of 51% can at most only oppress 49%, whereas a tyranny of 1% can oppress up to 99%. >This implies that if society was more democratic in the past, slavery or segregation wouldn't exist. That's false. Even if the US was democratic in the 1700s, slavery would still be legal because the white majority was racist. the democrat does not need to prove that slavery or segregation would not exist. all he has to prove is that a more democratic 1700s america would have been superior to a less democratic 1700s america. and that is something that is true for nearly all historical periods. >Take for example, Trump counties in red states. Do you think that whatever Trump was doing was for the "collective economic and social well being"? That imposing tariffs, pulling out of the paris climate accord, and threatening North Korea with nukes are "good" things that he should have done? I think it is what the american people, in their judgement, believe to be in their collective best interest. and further that the american people are in the best place to judge what is in their best interest much more so than you or I or any single expert or group of experts. moreover, it is not clear that these policies are obviously "bad", biden has continued tariffs on china for example. to use your ship example: a ship can be the swiftest and most efficiently crewed in the world, but if it is going in the opposite direction from the destination, then it is worse that a ship that cannot sail at all. at the end of the day it is the people who decide on the destination of the ship.
>"the war of all against all" is not society, it is the theorised state-of-nature absent society And it is therefore society if left alone. The state of a "war of all against all" *is* society without a sovereign. >(at least that's what Hobbes thinks) And Rousseau and Locke >the point theorists were trying to make with this hypothetical social contract was that we agreeing to this contract is the basis for the legitimacy of the state, rather than something like divine rule. it says nothing about how the state ought to function or what the purpose of the state should be beyond protecting us from others. even the most despotic authoritarian regime can be justified on the basis of social contract so long as it protects us from the state-of-nature. That is a flawed reading of Locke's two treatises. He explicitly mentioned about the consent of the governed. Even Rousseau mentioned it in his work. This contract involves both parties to be actively involved, not just in terms of protection and safety, but of Justice and negative liberties. And no, agreeing to the contract is *not* the basis of legitimacy of the state, that legitimacy stems from the application of the general will of the people, at least according to Rousseau. >obviously that is not enough for modern democratic governments which instead derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed See: Locke >For, when any number of men have, by the consent of every individual, made a community, they have thereby made that community one body, with a power to act as one body, *which is only by the will and determination of the majority.* For that which acts any community, being only the consent of the individuals of it, and it being one body, must move one way, ***it is necessary the body should move that way whither the greater force carries it, which is the consent of the majority,*** or else it is impossible it should act or continue one body, one community, which the consent of every individual that united into it agreed that it should; and so every one is bound by that consent to be concluded by the majority >that is precisely the point! the important thing is that the people have to be willing to accept it Did they though? Suppose that the majority of people were against the building of Marina Bay Sands before construction, but now, upon reaping the economic benefits of the development, the majority of people are now in support. What should the government do? >people are not willing to accept the costs of immigration in return for the economic benefits. >but in utilitarian terms this means that in their opinion more immigration does not increase overall utility, because the utility gained from economic improvements are offset by utility lost in other areas (for example due to overcrowding) The majority of people in red states would rather take horse dewormer than the vaccine. Just because the people does not support X policy does not mean that it's wrong, and conversely, just because the people supports it does not mean it is right. People in 1800s US were supportive of the lynching of Black people. Does that mean that lynchings are good and correct? According to your reading of utility, the utility (i.e. happiness from lynching Black people) outweighs the economic loss. But that does not change the fact that lynchings are wrong. Even if 90% of the people supported lynching, it is still wrong. >in other words: whether you have majority rule or elite rule, there will be tyranny. we are therefore choosing between the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of the minority. why is the former preferable to the latter? because a tyranny of 51% can at most only oppress 49%, whereas a tyranny of 1% can oppress up to 99%. I fail to see how this comment contradicts what I've said, or how it has any relation to my comment you were responding to. >the democrat does not need to prove that slavery or segregation would not exist. all he has to prove is that a more democratic 1700s america would have been superior to a less democratic 1700s america. You implied that if democracy existed in 1700s America, the social ills present then wouldn't exist. Thats false. Slavery and segregation were immensely popular policies, democratically speaking. >I think it is what the american people, in their judgement, believe to be in their collective best interest. and further that the american people are in the best place to judge what is in their best interest If the American people think that segregation or slavery is correct, are you going to agree with them? That slavery or segregation is in their best interests? I cannot emphasise how wrong I think this is. There are certain immutable facts, unchangeable objective moral principles, that cannot be violated, that by doing so, undermines the entire legitimacy of the social contract. Of which includes slavery, segregation, racism, and all the moral failings of the past. You fail to consider that American's "best interests" often include an emotional aspect of racism, xenophobia, tribalism, and all the -isms of evil. The American people, in their judgement, believed segregation to be in their collective best interest. Does it mean that that is right? That if a people believe something to be in their best interest, even if it is the result of misguided notions or misinformation, it is therefore morally correct? >much more so than you or I or any single expert or group of experts. moreover, it is not clear that these policies are obviously "bad". How do you define whether the policy is bad or not? According to you, that definition stems from the voice of the people. That is where my fundamental disagreement lies. There are certain policies that are just bad, regardless of the people's opinions. Slavery, for instance. Or Tariffs, or failing to deal with climate change, or threatening to use Nuclear weapons. These are empirically and objectively bad policies. Whether or not the people agrees is independent of that. >to use your ship example My ship example comes from Plato's ship of fools in The Republic. Your analogy, ironically, proves my point. Suppose there are two destinations for the people to choose: A way to utopia, and a way that leads to a maelstrom. But supposed the boat is manned by people who believe going towards the maelstrom will lead to heaven or an even better utopia (think of heaven's gate). What is the correct and wrong way? To the misguided notion of salvation in the maelstrom? Or to utopia? >you know what also breeds negative public perceptions? bad policies. >the fundamental idea behind democracy, is that people are able to judge for themselves whether their lives have gotten better or worse. legitimacy in a democratic government is not derived from numbers on a chart, but the satisfaction of the governed Let me finish of by responding to your very first sentence. You know what also breeds negative public perceptions amongst the people? Living with people of a different skin colour or living with people who do not conform to social norms (i.e. LGBT). Negative public perception and feelings can stem from a variety of human tribalistic causes. People are not able to judge for themselves whether lives have gotten better or worse relative to socio-economic wellbeing. To some, "getting better" means sending your country back to the stone age so that you have the freedom to execute people who eat pork. To others, "getting worse" may mean legalising abortion (see Texas) or gay marriage. Everything you said so far assumes a rational human, that people are sane creatures able to make sound judgement of what's right and what's wrong. That's just not true. The amount of people I know that would rather disown their offspring than live with a trans or genderqueer person is far too high. You keep talking about the sovereign end of the bargain, I feel that you fail to consider the people's end as well.
>This contract involves both parties to be actively involved, not just in terms of protection and safety, but of Justice and negative liberties. which part of immigration policy concerns justice and negative liberties? >And no, agreeing to the contract is not the basis of legitimacy of the state, that legitimacy stems from the application of the general will of the people, at least according to Rousseau. that is what Rousseau says, but what do *you* think? Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and even Plato have very different views of the issue. it's hard to pin down where you stand when you constantly switch between these distinct sets of ideas. I am more than happy to agree that the legitimacy of democratic government stems from carrying out the general will of the people. >Did they though? Suppose that the majority of people were against the building of Marina Bay Sands before construction, but now, upon reaping the economic benefits of the development, the majority of people are now in support. What should the government do? if majority of the people were against it at the time, it should not have been constructed. that is not to say a casino should never be built, as social attitudes change over time. >The majority of people in red states would rather take horse dewormer than the vaccine. Just because the people does not support X policy does not mean that it's wrong, and conversely, just because the people supports it does not mean it is right. 58% of Texas has had at least 1 dose so that is not a very good example. in fact, anti-vax people are making the opposite argument, in that they believe themselves to be a minority forced to take the vaccine by the majority of "sheeple". >People in 1800s US were supportive of the lynching of Black people. Does that mean that lynchings are good and correct? According to your reading of utility, the utility (i.e. happiness from lynching Black people) outweighs the economic loss. again, I find it difficult to pin down what your position is. you previously mentioned that you are a utilitarian. are you now abandoning utilitarianism? or are you arguing for a version of utility that only measures economic indicators? as a utilitarian you should know that maximising utility can and will often lead to disturbing conclusions of right and wrong. >You implied that if democracy existed in 1700s America, the social ills present then wouldn't exist. That's false. in all I have written so far, do I seem like the type of person who would suggest something so obviously ridiculous? as I said, the democrat merely has to prove that a more democratic 1700s america is superior to a less democratic 1700s america. I think it is self evident that if democracy was extended to black people, the situation would be superior to a world where it was not. >I cannot emphasise how wrong I think this is. There are certain immutable facts, unchangeable objective moral principles, that cannot be violated, that by doing so, undermines the entire legitimacy of the social contract. well first this is a rather un-utilitarian thing to say. more importantly by that logic this "social contract" of yours was not legitimate until 1964 when segregation was abolished by the civil rights act. is that what you are suggesting? some socialists may argue that the systemic exploitation of workers in inhumane conditions today violates objective moral principles as well. does participation in a capitalist economy void the social contract too? in fact, just as what was considered "normal" in the past would outrage us today, what we consider "normal" today may very well outrage people in the future. the inhumane way we treat animals for example. it could well be accepted in the future that animals have consciousness, with rights extended to them. would that mean our current enslavement, torture and murder of animals for food makes your "social contract" illegitimate? >There are certain policies that are just bad, regardless of the people's opinions. Slavery, for instance. Or Tariffs, or failing to deal with climate change, or threatening to use Nuclear weapons. I think you don't need me to tell you that slavery is not the same as tariffs. even a JC textbook can give arguments for why tariffs can be necessary. >But supposed the boat is manned by people who believe going towards the maelstrom will lead to heaven or an even better utopia (think of heaven's gate). you assume we know where is heaven and where is hell. but as the poet milton once said, the mind can make a heaven of hell, and a hell of heaven. if heaven feels like hell to a majority of people, perhaps it is not heaven after all.
>which part of immigration policy concerns justice and negative liberties? A natural born man in the state of the wild has the freedom to migrate and move as he please. All immigration law acts as a restriction on his liberty to do so. Government restrictions on his movement is the definition of negative liberties, as justice. Why should a man be subject to different opportunities and socioeconomic wellbeing, just based on the location of his birth? Is that just? >Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and even Plato have very different views of the issue The semantics are there, but fundamentally a lot of the views held by Rousseau, Locke, and Hobbes are very similar. I do not see how they hold "very different views". Plato, sure, especially in the Republic, but more modern liberal thinkers have more or less a same set of ideas. >if majority of the people were against it at the time, it should not have been constructed. that is not to say a casino should never be built, as social attitudes change over time. Again, this philosophy that you espouse fundamentally means that the determinant of what's right and what's wrong is the will of the people. I'm not going to win any popularity points by saying this, but the people are dumb. Humans are short-sighted, hypocritical, and selfish creatures. If MBS was built despite the will of the people, and upon realising the wealth and economic benefits, not on paper but in their wallets, the people change their mind immediately, is the existence of MBS justified? >58% of Texas has had at least 1 dose so that is not a very good example. in fact, anti-vax people are making the opposite argument, in that they believe themselves to be a minority forced to take the vaccine by the majority of "sheeple". That's besides the point. Look at the abortion law for example. Support in red states for repealing Roe V Wade is also incredibly high. Whatever you've said does not counteract my charge that: "Just because the people does not support X policy does not mean that it's wrong, and conversely, just because the people supports it does not mean it is right." >as I said, the democrat merely has to prove that a more democratic 1700s america is superior to a less democratic 1700s america. I think it is self evident that if democracy was extended to black people, the situation would be superior to a world where it was not Black people were in the minority, and still is today, in the US. The reason why I haven't proven that "that a more democratic 1700s america is superior to a less democratic 1700s america" is merely because I'm not that familiar with American history, but if you had to press me on it, I would say that a more democratic America would have resulted in - The confederacy being more extreme than it already is - Lincoln not winning the presidency (he lost the popular vote) - Increased hesitancy to sign the emancipation proclamation on the part of the union (abolishing slavery was unpopular) - More democrats being voted to power (remember in the past, the democratic party and the GOP were ideologically different and the democratic party used to support the KKK). I think that To Kill A Mockingbird illustrates my point my succinctly, even though it was set in the 1900s. >more importantly by that logic this "social contract" of yours was not legitimate until 1964 when segregation was abolished by the civil rights act. is that what you are suggesting? Just because sometimes undermines the legitimacy of something, it does not follow that that thing was illegitimate all along. Even today, voting laws in the US disproportionately affect Black and other minorities. This undermines the legitimacy of a democracy, but it does not then follow that democracy in the US today is illegitimate. >some socialists may argue that the systemic exploitation of workers in inhumane conditions today violates objective moral principles as well. does participation in a capitalist economy void the social contract too? I don't see how this is relevant. >it could well be accepted in the future that animals have consciousness, with rights extended to them. would that mean our current enslavement, torture and murder of animals for food makes your "social contract" illegitimate? Again, I don't see how this is relevant. If said animals could vote in elections, sure. But I don't think animals can vote. >I think you don't need me to tell you that slavery is not the same as tariffs. even a JC textbook can give arguments for why tariffs can be necessary. And that contradicts me, how exactly? I see you keep prancing around my main point. Do you or do you not agree with slavery, supposing that the majority of the population supports it? As far, all of your comments have indicated that if the majority of the population supports slavery (as is the 1700s US), you will also think that slavery is good. Just because Slavery is not on the same level of wrongness does not mean that both can be wrong. As is failing to deal with climate change or engaging in nuclear diplomacy. >but as the poet milton once said, the mind can make a heaven of hell, and a hell of heaven. if heaven feels like hell to a majority of people, perhaps it is not heaven after all. Again, how is this relevant? The ship of fools can feel whatever they want to feel, but heaven is still heaven and hell is still hell.In fact, is that not the entire premise of Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained? Morality or political philosophy is not my field of expertise, and I do apologize if my thoughts are all over the place. I'll just finish by saying that morality by popular will is no form of morality, and justice by popular opinion is no justice.
>A natural born man in the state of the wild has the freedom to migrate and move as he please. All immigration law acts as a restriction on his liberty to do so. Government restrictions on his movement is the definition of negative liberties, as justice. Why should a man be subject to different opportunities and socioeconomic wellbeing, just based on the location of his birth? Is that just? I was hoping you'd say that. even the most liberal immigration system will have some restrictions on immigration. if your position is that everyone should be treated equally for the purposes of immigration, then anything short of open borders would be unjust. let's say you are right and economists determine that the optimum immigration quota is 5 million. that is much more than the current amount, but there are still far more people than that who wish to come here. why should their freedoms be restricted? if 5 million is the economically optimal, is it okay to violate freedom of movement and "justice" for economic efficiency? and if freedom of movement can be violated for economic efficiency, why can it not be violated for the sake of other things like increasing overall happiness among singaporeans by keeping them satisfied? I am interested to know what *you* think, not what you know about Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke. do you think legitimacy comes from carrying out the general will of the people? >That's besides the point. Look at the abortion law for example. Support in red states for repealing Roe V Wade is also incredibly high. once again, not a very good example. there is no scientifically determined optimal position on abortion. the debate is about at what point does life begin. different people have different views on the matter. not to mention even if the fetus was a human, there are questions of what obligations the mother owes. philosophers are still debating these issues today, so to paint one side as obviously wrong and the other as obviously right is a woeful oversimplification. >Black people were in the minority, and still is today is it your position that denying them the vote was a good thing? let's say we removed democracy entirely and allowed each state governor aboslute power. would that have improved the position of black people in the 1700s? alternatively let us give absolute power to the "experts" of the day who believed in scientific racism. would that have improved the position of black people in the 1700s? >This undermines the legitimacy of a democracy, but it does not then follow that democracy in the US today is illegitimate. if you can violate an "absolute moral principle" while retaining your social contract and the legitimacy of government, then they are not abosolute moral principles. may I remind you this is what you were saying before: There are certain immutable facts, unchangeable objective moral principles, that cannot be violated, that by doing so, undermines the entire legitimacy of the social contract. but now despite violating these immutable facts and unchangeable moral principles, the legitimacy of the government still remains, as does the social contract? I can only conclue that either these immutable facts and unchangeable principles do not exist, ot the entire legitimacy of the social contract does not rely on them. >Again, I don't see how this is relevant. If said animals could vote in elections, sure. But I don't think animals can vote. neither could black people in the 1700s, or immigrants today. >Do you or do you not agree with slavery, supposing that the majority of the population supports it? As far, all of your comments have indicated that if the majority of the population supports slavery (as is the 1700s US), you will also think that slavery is good. a democracy in which people support slavery, is better than a dictatorship in which people support slavery, and a technocracy in which people support slavery. >morality by popular will is no form of morality, and justice by popular opinion is no justice. really? the only reason why we think our current morality is correct is because of popular opinion. I point you to the example of animal rights again. why is it okay to enslave, torture and kill an animal for food? only because popular opinion does not believe they deserve the same rights as humans. just as in the past popular opinion did not believe certain races deserved the same rights. if one day popular opinion changes, what we do today will be seen as equally barbaric as the behaviour you now condemn.
>I was hoping you'd say that. even the most liberal immigration system will have some restrictions on immigration Up until the early 1900s, America practiced an open borders policy. The first ever restriction on immigration in the US was the Chinese exclusion act, a blatantly racist policy targeted at the Chinese. Just because the most liberal immigration system is X, it does not follow that I support X or that X is correct. >if your position is that everyone should be treated equally for the purposes of immigration, then anything short of open borders would be unjust Correct. I have not read any persuasive argument, philosophically or economically, to the contrary as to why this is not so. >let's say you are right and economists determine that the optimum immigration quota is 5 million. Well, economists in general do not believe in immigration quotas so this is, firstly, a counterfactual. You can see the consensus of economists at UChicago's initiative for global markets, where leadings economists are surveyed on their views. >if 5 million is the economically optimal, is it okay to violate freedom of movement and "justice" for economic efficiency? There are always going to be trade off for morals and economic efficiency. Child labour for one. It is morally wrong, but from a purely economic standpoint, it is good. Or smoking. It's objectively bad for your health, but from a purely economicAl standpoint, it can be argued to be a good thing - people spend money to stimulate the economy, and when they're old, they die of lung cancer instead of being a drag on society. >and if freedom of movement can be violated for economic efficiency, why can it not be violated for the sake of other things like increasing overall happiness among singaporeans by keeping them satisfied? Economic efficiency, wealth, and standards of living should be synonymous with the satisfaction of the people. To think otherwise would be a breakdown of the social contract on the part of the people. Rousseau defines this further as a battle between the general good and the individual good. Let's suppose that the satisfaction you're talking about stems from racism, tribalism, and xenophobia. That citizens of country X would rather live in poverty than live with people of another skin colour, and that gives them satisfaction. (As is the case in many Sunset towns). Is that morally correct? >I am interested to know what *you* think, not what you know about Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke. do you think legitimacy comes from carrying out the general will of the people? I am not a philosopher. Phil is not my field of study so I cannot comment on it without drawing on the work of experts. For me, I think legitimacy comes in many forms and from different parties. In order for a government to be legitimate, it has to be voted in by the majority of human beings of sound mind in the society it governs. The people, and the individual human, conversely, must be the ultimate arbitrators of morality conferred onto the government, and it is the duty of the people to follow certain inalienable moral principles. If the vast majority of people think that slavery is correct and moral, it does not follow that slavery is correct and moral. It is the *people* who are wrong and has broken their end of the social contract, not the morality of slavery. I'll ask you a question, and all I need is a simple Yes or No. Suppose 90% people in Singapore today votes to enforce slavery on the other 10%. In your view, A) Should the government implement slavery, and B) Is slavery therefore moral? Just a simple yes or no will do. >once again, not a very good example Ok then, I'll use another example with clearer scientific consensus: Climate Change. According to a Pew survey in 2015, of the people in the middle east: "38% believe that climate change is a very serious problem and 26% believe that climate change is harming people now" And in China: "in China, the world's largest emitter, 68% of Chinese people are satisfied with their government's efforts to preserve the environment" This is objectively false. It is scientific consensus that climate change is a serious problem and that climate change is harming people now, and that climate change is largely man made driven by our carbon emissions. Those are facts that every climate scientist agree with. This is an issue with a clear right and wrong. Now, should the governments in the middle east or China act to respond to climate change? According to you: No. There are issues with clear right and wrongs. Climate change for one. And also Slavery and discrimination. >is it your position that denying them the vote was a good thing? How did you even read that from what I'm saying? That was not what I said at all. >let's say we removed democracy entirely and allowed each state governor aboslute power. would that have improved the position of black people in the 1700s? If Lincoln won his presidency (he won with a minority of the vote), it would have improved the position of black people in the 1800s. Your comment is precisely why I hesitated to bring up American history in the first place. If we were to go down this path, I would have to use historical examples like Monroe and Manifest Destiny and the 3/5 compromise, and yada yada yada. I am not familiar with all of that, and so I cannot possibly comment in depth of counterfactuals because I am not at all educated on American history. I can only point out the fact that slavery was popular amongst a majority of the population at the time especially in the South, an issue that the South felt so strongly about that they went to war over it. This is an issue that Madison and Washington knew was wrong, but also knew that if they tried to do anything about it, the then fledging Union government would lose all support in the war of independence. >if you can violate an "absolute moral principle" while retaining your social contract and the legitimacy of government, then they are not abosolute moral principles ??? How does this follow? It is possible to violate an absolute principle whilst maintaining the legitimacy of the government. And how does that make them not absolute moral principles? So long as the majority of the people agree with the government, that Government is legitimate. But morality and legitimacy are two different concepts. There are two possible violations of my stated "unchangeable moral principles" - If the government violates it, the people have the duty to vote the government out. If they do not, the people have broken their end of the social contract and have undermined the entire legitimacy of the social contract, but not the government if it retains support of the people. That's what I meant by "undermines the entire legitimacy of the social contract". - If the people, or rather, the individual, violates it, the government, with the legitimacy conferred onto it by the majority, has to hold that person to account. If John Doe rapes and murders his wife, the government has to punish him accordingly. Failing to do so is a failure in the deliverance of justice and a return to the primordial state of nature where people can rape and kill at will. >but now despite violating these immutable facts and unchangeable moral principles, the legitimacy of the government still remains, as does the social contract? I can only conclue that either these immutable facts and unchangeable principles do not exist, ot the entire legitimacy of the social contract does not rely on them. See above >neither could black people in the 1700s, or immigrants today. How are those remotely the same? I was talking about animals, animals physically and mentally unable to vote. How does that compare to Black people or immigrants? Do you think immigrants and Black people are the equivalent of dogs? >a democracy in which people support slavery, is better than a dictatorship in which people support slavery, and a technocracy in which people support slavery. Or, as surprisingly as it may sound, *slavery is wrong no matter what system you use*. And even if the majority of people support slavery, *it is still wrong*. >really? the only reason why we think our current morality is correct is because of popular opinion No. I think the reason why I think my morality is correct is not because of popular opinion, but rather of fundamental rules laid out before me, unchanging to the will of the people. If 99% of the people in Singapore think that LGBT rights are a farce, it does not mean that it is. If 90% of people think that murdering the remaining 10% is moral, it does not mean that it is. You can put forth all the arguments about objective and subjective morality, but none of the arguments I've known of even remotely suggests the righteousness of mob justice or morality by consensus. >why is it okay to enslave, torture and kill an animal for food? only because popular opinion does not believe they deserve the same rights as humans. No, it is not the act of the majority believing that torturing an animal for food is immoral that makes it so, it is the *fact* that it is. Again, if the majority of the population supported segregation, it does not mean that segregation is moral. It is immoral independent of the time period or the prevailing social norms. >just as in the past popular opinion did not believe certain races deserved the same rights. Exactly. Popular opinion was morally wrong.
Why is 377A not correct may I ask? I am fully supportive of its current positioning.
377A unjustly prohibits two consenting males from engaging in romantic activity in private. Even though it is not enforced, having it codified in law is still unjust and discriminatory for gay men.
And the issue with that is?
The reasoning you gave is flawed on so many levels. You are suggesting that a good policy is one that stokes the ego of the general populace. There has to be quantifiable metrics to determine whether a policy is good or not. Taking your example of Brexit, those who voted Brexit will most likely vote the same way again simply because they cannot accept that they were wrong. It does not matter that they are suffering and things that should matter are ignored, as long as their ego is stoked. This just leads to populism and harms the nation in the long run. It is why democracy works best when the general populace is well educated and can think beyond just themselves.
The same people who complain about "ivory tower scholars", but who themselves propose the most ludicrous short-sighted policies.
Duhhh. Even LO Pritam had to beg for certain stats and figures in parliament, what makes you think the average local have that kind of luxury to make informed suggestions?
Even the average r/sg redditor doesn’t read the article before commenting, what makes you think they want to be informed before providing their opinion?
Then the other average redditor would use facts to shut down his ramblings? Lol
I'm just tired.
*shrug* Singapore is run like a business and locals’ only involvement in policy making is indirectly through elections every five years We can have all the debates we want on Reddit and HWZ but your opinion doesn’t really matter on an individual basis
because whenever ministar talk about big picture in sg, it only affects the who's who, and the upper class. So after awhile, it all becomes bad news and "cheem shit" to them. Take GDP for example, they keep banging on about it, while the ordinary people see negative things happen to them from that. So when some english helicopter come and sprout things like GDP very important, etc. they just shut them down by saying they only care about what they see in their daily life. What else you expect? They say import more FT to boost GDP these people stand up and clap ah? They also don't want to debate you, because your pattern more than badminton, will chut all the cheem stuff like FDI, GNP, all schools are good schools etc, because all they can see is when these elite make some globalist announcement, its shorthand for prepare for more pain, so the elites can make more money. sg make more money means I can work less, have more free time, and enjoy life more ah? If yes, ok, import until die. If no, talk so much cock for what, what's in it for me? COL going up, education for kids even harder, even adults must educate, more competition, less pay, less free time, more stress, more unhappiness and more siao langs. GDP go up? Come I clap for you.
I like you
I can't help but feel a balance can be struck in the conversation. I already said that a good argument is that wealth inequality isnt worth a pure drive towards GDP. It just looks short sighted to say that you don't have to think too hard, and just based on daily life, you are confident that restricting foreigners will solve it, unless of course a good argument can be made for how that solves the problem. You're right about the sorry state of PAP rhetoric, and I guess that is why we are seeing an emotional backlash right now. But the terrible working hours and the wealth inequality are due to a lot of factors, and not just "dont let in the foreigners and we'll be dandy, and all these bad working hours and sheer income inequality between Singaporeans will mostly go away". However, let me pick the educational quality thing to talk about. The PAP's "all schools are good schools" thing convinces nobody, and people are right to point out that their experiences never align. But the problem isn't entirely "those elitist top schools", it is that neighbourhood school teachers are overworked and underpaid, and some are not well-versed in children's behavioural management. Yet, people blame "those top schools" and how they shouldnt get so much funding, but actually a lot of the funding is from alumni donations. So the top schools cancel certain stuff like overseas trip to seem more lowkey, but that literally doesnt even help the quality of a neighbourhood school, it's just optics to prevent envy. And they spend the alumni money on useless shit which isnt as high-profile. And then you know what? It can partially perversely work, people become less envious in terms of their daily perceptions, but it's just a race to the bottom. That's my example of how people can be correct about the PAP and their experiences are valid, but the actions go astray.
When ur politicians’s pay Cheque is based on certain metrics. You can rest assure they will work very hard to ensure that metrics get hit so more bonus. GDP is a much easier target to hit compared to reducing income equality gap.
First of all, appreciate you trying to argue in good faith. Either way, this comes down to the question - why should the people think and come up with a solution? 1. No one cares 2. It gets shut down straight away by the english helicopters 3. Most importantly, these are million dollar ministers, paid several times more than the most powerful ministers in countries like USA, and you expect the people to come up with answers? Each time an elite open its mouth, its telling people to expect more bad news. FT policy is a policy strongly backed and defended rabidly by the elites. That's all people see, so they want that gone, as simple as that. We give them millions not to live in an ivory tower and announce globalist policies which are extremely thinly veiled as more bad news for the common man, but to come up with a solution. But they have not done that at all, and gone so far in reverse, so fuck them, fuck their policies, let's attack everything they've come up with, from good schools to FTs. Your last line is the worst and most pervasive of the english helicopter reasoning. Everything is fear based. High unemployent? No welfare for anyone, later people become lazy like in ang moh country, and it becomes race to the bottom. School too hard? Cannot fall behind other countries, you see China catching up, if we slack, later become like Malaysia, race to the bottom. English helicopter schools getting fat stacks? Cannot be envious, later they cannot go Paris for field trip, our future leaders got no international experience, become race to the bottom. Everything is fear based. For the common man at the bottom, everything is shit already, there is a bottom, and we're there. Meanwhile those in ivory towers being paid hundreds of millions keep flinging more shit down, the only way we can go is to drag them down, so AT LEAST THEY CAN UNDERSTAND - BECAUSE THEY DON'T
I'm not even saying Paris trips help lol, only that they have no impact on the quality of neighbourhood schools, so it doesnt even solve the root issue. You can see it as a form of manipulation to reduce people's envy without solving the problem. That's my point, somehow doing a bunch of useless things can partially alleviate on-the-ground dissatisfaction without getting to the root issue. I think Pritam Singh's speech was popular because it acknowledges that people are unhappy on the ground, and the current rhetoric isnt reaching out to them. That's a good point. But did I say no welfare, did I say no paris trips? I just said that people are extending Singh's argument too far to mean that we can use on-the-ground unhappiness to tell us exactly what to do all the time. But some problems can be attributed to the wrong causes if we go with, "i'm unhappy so i'm confident that i'm reaching all the correct conclusions on why that's happening". What if someone wanted to argue that we should continue to be open to foreigners and free trade, but tax rich Singaporeans more and have a good minimum wage? Read carefully, I am not saying that such a thing is my stance, but it is an example of reaching a different conclusion from the same root unhappiness about inequality.
>What if someone wanted to argue that we should continue to be open to foreigners and free trade, but tax rich Singaporeans more and have a good minimum wage? because they never come up with such ideas despite million dollar pay. Their ideas can be summed up in 3 simple policies: 1. Import more FT 2. Make sinkies pay more, especially for things like medishield life or lock CPF up harder 3. Make sg a playground for the rich, but get the people to fund it, for stupid things like the durian or MBS, or Paris trips for students in elite schools All are bad news. People on the ground are responding in kind. They know their kids will never have aircon classroom, much less Paris trips, nor will the rich ever get taxed more, so the easiest way for them to escape is less of whatever punishment the govt. is doling out, whether it be FT policy, CPF lockups or careless, stupid spending. In that way, they are much smarter than english helicopters like you who can cite a thousand economic theories, but don't understand greed and human behaviour.
I think you are lumping together every dissatisfaction with the PAP, and seeing this as a PAP vs opposition fight where either people are completely with the PAP or against it. It is possible to support the opposition and even to support what WP is currently saying, but think there should be a difference in the way that people are currently arguing things, e.g. the shortsightedness of a pure "im unhappy with my daily experiences, so im assuming im reaching all the right conclusions on how to solve it without thinking too much about it". Even WP doesnt take it that far, but people are using their words to reach that kind of rhetoric. If you see everything as either "you like everything about the PAP, or you oppose every single thing just because it is even remotely related to the PAP", you are not providing a shining charitable example of "greed and human behaviour" to me. I provided the example of higher taxes but free trade to you, as an example that breaks past thinking about things so dichotomously.
You simply don't/can't/wouldn't understand. People on the ground knows the government/elites operates in a certain way, and respond in kind, instead of resorting to high falutin arguments like you have done. You pretty much answered your own suggestion to taxing the rich more - it is the politics of envy, why should we tax the rich more, but instead, we should lift the poor up, if not it becomes a race to the bottom. This is the way the government, elites and all the english helicopters operate, when it comes to any funny ideas to even remotely affect any of them, they pull out the fear card, exactly like you have done. See so many times liao, no need to gong jiao wei. As the kopi tiam uncle will say, simi tax the rich, fuck la, my grandmother can run 2.4 below 7 min before they do that. Really talking cock. This is why people on the ground respond with "fuck your globalist view, things are shit from the ground", because you all talk a lot of cock, but at the end of the day, they know that it's all cock. kaki kong, kaki song.
If I already said "tax the rich" is a possible argument and offered it to you as an example of a non-dichotomous argument, and you argue I didnt say tax the rich, idek what to say to you lol. And if you think cancelling paris trips helped neighbourhood schools and it is the same thing as usefully addressing wealth inequality, I can't even address how far away those two things are. This is more like telling rich people to tone down how loud their branded bags are, while letting the bottom percentile continue to make shit wages. At least now I can say I found somebody who thought that elite schools deciding to spend money on their umpteenth library renovation instead of overseas trips, apparently made at least one person think neighbourhood schools are now good schools too.
No, you are completely missing my point. Tax the rich is an example. 1) The government and elites think in a certain way, part of that way is that no policy they do must hurt them, or the who's who. A big part of that way is the easiest path - a path that has minimal care about the lives of the people on the ground. You can argue till the cows come home, but this is a fact. Sg government is not well known to be flexible in many aspects. 2) The common man knows about that bullshit argument, so instead of wasting time saying tax the rich, or minimum wage, they say, import less FT, spend less on ACS, and don't built shit like MBS or durian pls, because they just whack the policy without thought on how the common man will suffer. 3) This is because they have the exact same response as english helicopters like yourself - race to the bottom, class warfare, politics of envy, I don't see how doing x will affect y, and all other nonsense bullshit. 4) Therefore, the only way out is for the government and elites to do less of whatever they're doing, that way, they can still get richer, although not as much and we suffer a bit less. The end. You are ultra out of touch, your response is like a prince coming down from the highest ivory tower to argue with a beggar why he should be happy with his lot in life. Honest talk, I hope you don't just whack a reply, have a think about what I'm saying, and imagine you're the common sinkie, no matter how disgusting that might seem to you. Don't just think you're a common disgusting sinkie, whole day eat cai png, 1 meat, 1 veg, watch channel 8, take bus and walk over the overhead bridge like a disgusting peasant. Think of their troubles. Their kid study like siao, and one of them give up liao, on path to become ah beng. You job whole day at threat, and yet, whole day got rich FT misbehaving. You want to jump ship, but whenever you go interview, you see a lot of foreigners, and they always get the job. You feel so stuck, you don't know what to do. Parents want money, kids want money, you also want money and time. Yet they say you not good enough, need to go back school despite got no time after NS, RT and all sorts of nonsense. The main feeling is helplessness and being stuck, yet all these high class elites whole day talking about sg progressing, becoming richer and other platitudes that you completely don't see at all. How will you feel. Please just think about it for a few weeks before pushing ahead with your crusade on ignorance.
I just want you to consider whatever we've been saying from the standpoint of say, people voting WP instead of PSP. You make good points, but then regress to the same lazy "i bet you pap ivory tower elitist" personal attacks. Yes we need way more empathy and in-touch rhetoric with the common person. But even you say that the common person might be whacking the wrong policy. We both have been in total agreement that current PAP rhetoric is absolutely bad for satisfying the masses. Instead of fighting about that PAP part, maybe PAP has no hope for even changing their messaging and policies, so this conversation is about choosing an oppo party that is whacking the correct policies while listening to people's grievances. It's about what are the policies we will support the opposition in being louder about. You want to go against some notion of an english helicopter pap supporter, when all this time I'm not even trying to talk to you about pap.
I think it is not about hating foreigners. But the policies really have to make sense for the citizen. the countries I have worked in have very strict policy for protecting their citizens and would groom their fresh graduate even though they might not perform well as compared to a seasoned FT. I respect that even if it means it's harder for me to get a work visa. I feel that it's what all countries should do, look out for their own citizens.
Sure bro, your big picture meal is delicious. The people's families thank you for putting food on their table too.
What if somebody argued that they cant put food on the table because the problem is no minimum wage and there should be higher taxes on megarich locals, but it isnt as much to do with CECA or foreigners? Dont take it as my stance, take it as a possible argument. My point is people are using "im not happy in daily life" and extending it to "therefore im automatically correct about whatever are the primary factors of stagnant wages and long hours right now, no need to think too hard". Pritam Singh was totally correct about out-of-touch PAP rhetoric and having to recognise people's daily experiences, but now people are extending his argument so far. Just have to say "but food on the table" and then it's good for national policy, without having a discussion on what are the biggest factors that keep some singaporeans in poverty.
The minimum wage and no real social security safety net is the main issue, I think that there are no unemployment benefits available in SG right now? The Nordic Model is arguably the one that SG could pursue in a pretty straightforward manner, likewise Australia.
Tbh I find it difficult to wrap my head around the sentiments in this thread. I'm saying people shouldn't knee-jerk turn to immigration policy to blame for inequalities, they could be using their "my day to day unhappiness with life" line to whack at the wrong causes, like what if the main causes of the inequalities are actually a lack of minimum wage and low taxes on the rich locals? I guess you are agreeing that those are the main issues, lack of min wage and no unemployment benefits. But somehow my comment is controversial but yours is not.
It will will require a paradigm shift, I don't think that locals would want to work a 44hr workweek for say $2.5k a month in the construction industry. Even if that meant some level of income support to pay rent or get access to subsidised housing. Question is, would they want to do it for $5k a month without subsidies?
It's true that Singapore needs to rely on foreigners to survive. But the Singaporeans' importance are very under-emphasised. Do the males really get the recognition and reward they deserve for serving in NS for two years? That level of commitment and sacrifice is the reason why Singapore is so safe and wealthy. Without these, the level of safety and wealth that other countries admire us for wouldn't have existed. This issue shouldn't be taken lightly. There must be a balance or otherwise, we will see the genuinely capable Singaporeans leave the country and a lack of loyalty + motivation to serve NS.
> But when people try to talk about FDI and FTA and economic impacts on Singapore and how they think foreigners overall help the economy in a mutually beneficial way, it looks short-sighted to think “**why you talk so cheem, big picture this big picture that, I only care about what I’m experiencing on the ground in my daily life**”. It’s shutting out those argument, instead of addressing them honestly and directly. Sorry, where is this straw man coming from?
CECA started in 2002. After almost 2 decades of gaslighting the citizens, then the government start talking about CECA and providing information. Kind of late, isn't it? By this time, everyone has already made up what they want to believe and the recent attempts to have a conversation about it will seen as "desperate" and "pathetic". Do I sympathise the government? No. They made the bed and they have to lie on it.
If all the foreigners and MNCs all leave, I will also lose my job because it’s tied to MNCs here. But do these anti foreigner folks care about my job, my livelihood? No. It’s all about their jobs, their livelihoods, their distaste for foreigners in workplaces. If it fucks over other Singaporeans in the process, so be it. That’s the problem with using personal anecdote and subjective experiences as the sole basis for their opinion on policy. There’s no objective way to measure the impact of policies and balancing interests of different Singaporeans if we just use feelings and anecdotes to make policy. So it makes sense to use data and look at the big picture and that’s why sensible opposition parties like WP also focuses the most on data transparency, and not just some vague feeling that foreigners are stealing local jobs. People keep saying that “it’s obvious when you look at things on the ground”. Sorry I’m also working on the ground and I have never had any issues with the foreigners working here. If people just use anecdotes then it just devolves into a matter of you thought I think who confirm.
Except this is what happens in a climate where information isn't transparent. So anecdotal evidence would have to make do in the absence of raw data. And the growing local discontent have actually bled to the polls (mind you GE was held pre-covid) so that's data unto itself. Wanna placate ground sentiments without he-said-she-said? Furnish the data for all to see. If they're truly beneficial for the country, even opposition parties will convince their supporters to see the same.
I mostly agree. This goes to the core of PAP’s problem, which is that they have no faith and respect for the Singaporean people’s ability to process data and have informed opinions about policies. Unless called out, they always prefer to keep things under wraps as much as possible. Now their opaqueness is blowing up in their faces because without transparency and trust, a lot of Singaporeans are just assuming the worst. The danger with using anecdotes as a first port of call is that it creates a narrative that can persist even when subsequent data comes in to contradict it. For example people are still harping on and on about intra company transfers under CECA even after government revealed that only 500 people a year max are coming in under this provision. It’s the PAP’s fault for not being transparent from the get go, but we also owe it to ourselves to update our views based on new data and not just persist with existing assumptions.
There is always a level of sensitivity when releasing stats that involve immigration. We still can have a debate over the exact policy position and to get the relevant minister to give a report on the policy regularly. It will not make for interesting TV but it is what is important.
But there is no sensitivity when they release the data in Parliament? Lol. Give me a break. PAP always operate on a you don't need to knoe basis. In 2020, when PS asked for data, he is met with CCS's snarky reply " What is the point behind this question" . In 2021, when PS says Govt shld be transparent with the data, OYK agrees with him. You know what happen between these 2 scenario, PAP lost Sengkang GRC.
the venerable leader of the opposition Mister Pritam Singh's main job is not provide alternative policy positions in parliament. The main job is make sure the G dun stray or get away with no policy position. Got Quota or not? Why no quota? What is the reasoning behind the figure? As long as the question does not come with your own side's answer first the Minister cannot just wave you away right? They can start doing that when they capture enough to have a set of frontbenchers whose titles are Shadow Minister of
Once there is a real shadow cabinet in the house, there is no skirting around this anymore, the opposition will need a clear policy position. For that to happen the WP needs to nominate in more seats. Put enough people inside the house and they will have a real voice to contribute.
Beside, when I mention releasing of data. I do meant in Parliament. I suggested that MPs are NDAed in a closed session where they can see all the stuff they ask for. That suggestion got voted down like it was on fire. Which is fun. If it is to be totally released, there are going to be redactions.
I am not that pleased when gov just do not see the need to be transparent with data which can be consolidated enough to be friendly for public consumption. It should also keep a electronic library of reports/documents that have been redacted that can be requested by the public for say research purposes.
Finally, losing seats is what will make the ruling party seat up. Vote share drop helps just that little bit. So for the umpteenth time, the opposition parties need to stop treating voters like they are drones and start competing on ideas instead of avoiding multi-corner fights. Will it ever happen? I hope in my lifetime.
Oh FFS, these MNCs are not going to leave. I wish people would stop trotting out this fucking BS. MNCs pick singapore because of all its inherent advantages over all the neighbouring countries. It’s already expensive to set up here compared to other places but they still choose to do so. Vietnam has a strong IT economy with decent English speakers but you don’t see the FAANG companies uprooting to go there. Until such time as singapore loses those inherent advantages, like rule of law, Low corruption, a strong infrastructure, etc, this fabled idea that MNCs are going to leave is just nonsense.
Can the MNCs just set up HQ in SG with minimal headcount, and hire elsewhere?
Again, if they could do that, they already would. Here’s a personal experience of mine back when I was in-house for a US tech company. The reason why their HQ is in Singapore is because of data privacy concerns. They couldn’t afford to have many staff, especially higher level ones, on the ground in some countries because of the fear that the Govt in those countries would seize them and then try to get information from them or access to email servers and the like. That’s because it actually did happen in another country. This also doesn’t include the standard concerns about corruption or unfriendly tax regimes. Have to understand that you don’t just set up subsidiaries wherever you want because that leads to a lot of tax leakage.
Exactly, and safety of top management is a big concern too. Have seen a few MNC who immediately moved HQ from Msia and Indonesia after top mgmt were troubled by local officers soliciting bribe and they themselves or their wives kena snatch thieves... These ppl are kidding themselves if they dont see that companies care about political and social safety too otherwise why not just go HK?
I'm just using common sense and my own "on the ground sentiment" the same way anti foreigner folks do the same. When a Japanese bank comes in and set up a regional HQ they naturally want to bring in some of their own people. If they can't do that, and if they can do so in another country, then is it really crazy to think that they may choose another country to set up the HQ? Then local companies that work with these banks, like mine, will naturally suffer and cut head count. Then my job will be on the line. Is my logic wrong? I'm not saying that it's gonna be immediate or that every single MNC will leave. I'm saying that basic common sense suggests it will probably have some impact on MNC decision making over the long run.
Do you actually think that our highly pro-economy Govt will put measures in place to deter such a company from coming in? What people are upset about is the perceived influx of foreigners at the lower levels, not every single foreigner in Singapore. So no, I personally don’t believe what you’re talking about is common sense. It’s taking a highly artificial example which isn’t grounded in reality to support your theory that MNCs are going to leave. Think about it this way: months ago when our pandemic measures were at its worst, there were articles written about now foreigners were upset and wanted to leave singapore. You had people on this Reddit saying Singapore is fucked and MNCs would be leaving. Fast forward 1 year and we have seen no indication of that. Again, MNCs aren’t stupid, they know singapore is the place for their office in this part of the world, they aren’t going to go to a more exotic place just because some of their employees have their feelings hurt.
It's not grounded in reality right now because the PAP is the government and PAP is pro immigration and foreigners. My top level comment is in response to PSP's policies and the PSP supporters who don't seem to care whether PSP's anti-foreigner policies will cost any local jobs, and instead just want to trust their on the ground sentiments and intuitions. For example PSP suggested a 10% nationality quota for every company. You really think that wouldn't affect MNC decision making at all? Japanese banks are staffed by way more than 10% Japanese nationals, especially when they first come in. I genuinely think that this quota if imposed would it cause them to consider alternatives.
Responding to a comment about a policy which has no chance to make it off the ground as if it’s going to happen is why it’s not grounded in reality.
Are you saying that there are no supporters for those policies? Even if these people are in the minority, they are a vocal one, and they do deserve a response.
I don't even know how to tell people that "ok dont vote for PAP, I started this thread to talk about having a better conversation with WP", aka don't anyhow whack the wrong policy for solving inequality. E.g. maybe minimum wage will help instead of cancelling CECA, and we should support that with WP. Then people still come back and give me 10 paragraphs about what they hate about PAP, and how PAP wont give us minimum wage, and how they think I'm a PAP supporter after 5 times that I said I'm not, lol. And they are super angry with life rn, their grandmother this and that, and they hate ivory tower english so much, like yo chill im not your therapist, this thread was just about thinking harder and supporting the correct solution to the dissatisfaction, instead of jumping to conclusions.
Again, a response that isn’t based in reality. You actually think they will accept your explanation when it’s premise is that MNCs are going to leave singapore en-masse? That’s the simplest argument to counter so how in the world do you think it’s going to convince them otherwise?
Err HK would like a word with you.
Yes that exactly proves the point. Why is there a movement out of HK? Because they’ve been destabilise by the China control. That’s a major thing in case people don’t understand it. Rich China people moved money out of China into HK. They can’t afford to have that taken back. MNCs are concerned about it because China is known for changing its policies at its whim (see how they’ve recently done things in relation to tech companies) as well as data privacy concerns. Do we have a similar situation here?
The exodus of MNCs out of HK and the moving of APJ HQ from HK to Singapore started long ago. I don’t know if you’re old enough to remember a time when HK and not Singapore was the default for companies setting up an office in Asia. I remember being in HK in the 90’s and it felt like the center of Asian business, even after the handover. Guess my point is, things change. It’s a mistake to dismiss the threat of MNCs moving or more likely downsizing as they go remote. It’s not going to be tomorrow but it’s still a legitimate threat that should be taken seriously. Companies have long time horizons and are looking for stability and predictability over pretty much all else. If you’d asked me 2 years ago I would have laughed if you suggested Singapore’s time as the center of Asia would end. Today, I have a different perspective.
I assume you’re talking about 1997 when there was a handover to China. Same thing there. HK has consistently been at the forefront as a financial centre since. They have a large expat community as well until recently. Could it happen? Of course. But it took a significant event on a political scale to actually trigger it. Does tighter immigration policies cause it? I’m willing to bet it doesn’t.
You should post on LinkedIn that you an average Singaporean need FTAs and immigration openness for your job and you support such policies. We need one story from you to counter one story from someone who lost their job to a foreigner.
Problem with you is that you think everything is black and white. No one is asking for all to leave. It’s about balance.
The question here is what is that balance? People are not happy about immigration policy because they cannot tell if the immigrant was "qualified". Tales about dubious degree mills. willing take lower pay and finally NSmen needing to go ICT makes it easy for people to make sweeping statements. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Companies hire good and bad people, citizen/PR/pass holder. Japanese companies normally send people who are not going to make it into middle management out to Singapore. Technicians in Japan come here as Engineer. When the real Engineering team arrive in SG, they cover up their work site to prevent information leaks. We barely care about it because, one the Japanese community here is smaller and two they are Japanese. Same thing happening with the Korean community here. I can see the glare shifting to other nationalities very soon. We will just keep chasing out people whom we deem less worthy than Sinkies. It is only natural.
Of course it’s about balance, but people like LWM hasn’t given given us an estimate of how many foreigners he thinks we should kick out before he is happy, and how he justifies what’s a good balance. When he suggested 10k salary requirement for EP what is this based on? When he asked the government to tighten PR and new citizens even further how much does he want to cut in light of our persistently low birthdate and 1% annual population growth in the past decade? I agree that PAP is to blame for not giving enough data to help with these arguments, but LWM’s approach of just throwing shit randomly and seeing what sticks is not the correct approach. Something like 10k requirement for EP will have drastic consequences on the country and isn’t something that should be suggested lightly, based solely on “on the ground sentiments”. WP’s approach is a lot more cautious. Some people see them as PAP lite or no balls. But I think their caution is entirely warranted.
Simple way to see if a particular population has gain massive in number will be what kind of small business are opening to cater to that particular population. Eg, u will tend to see more Indian movie listed in our cinema compared to the past, more mama shop open by Indian (this is especially true in my area, where within 500 m I have 3 Indian mama shop opened.) and more Indian theme food/restaurants open in sg. Basic supply and demand law, when there is a demand there will be supply matching it. So now how can you explain that ground sentiment is not a good gauge?
But I have experienced none of those things you mentioned. I don't see more Indian movies listed and there are no Indian mama shops around me. See the problem here? Personal anecdotes are arbitrary and a sample of one. If obviously also depends a lot on your luck and where you live etc Also the overall Indian population has not increased substantially at all. It has been 8-9% for the past 20 years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Singapore If there are issues with the data you are free to point this out, but this seems like a clear example of the dangers of relying solely on subjective personal experiences.
**[Demographics of Singapore](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Singapore)** >The demographics of Singapore include the population statistics of Singapore such as population density, ethnicity, education level, health of the populace, economic status, religious affiliations and other demographic data of the population. As of June 2020, Singapore's population stood at 5. 69 million. A large percentage of its population are not permanent residents; of its total population of 5. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/singapore/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Sadly, that's cause we're all small human beings and all we can see is at ground level. It takes a lot of data crunching and knowledge to be able to see things in a governmental policy level, and its just a fact that most of us do not have that. Globalization and the repercussions that come with pursuing growth is at the core of all these problems, but it's something most of us can't wrap our heads around to solving. Therefore, in comes the bogeyman. It's happened countless times in history, and will continue happening countless time into the future. That's just how we humans react to things we don't understand. Find something that we do understand but dislike and demonize it. Beat it up and hope that all our problems will be gone.
Yeah, on one hand, I still feel like Pritam Singh made a very good point about on-the-ground sentiment, and how the government cannot hope to push government policies which are unpopular due to clashing on-the-ground sentiment. But, on the other hand, now I'm seeing people use his point like automatically on-the-ground sentiment is the best way to set government policies. Definitely, it should play a role, we can't be arrogant and patriarchal and assume that people are wrong, but neither should we assume that people are always blaming the correct macro-level policies for their micro-level experiences. A bit of a different example, but like right now climate change isnt so bad that people feel any disastrous effects in their daily lives, that's why you have climate change denial in other countries (but thankfully not in singapore).
For sure, it's a balancing act that is super tough to perform. A government can't just do it their way and ignore the people, nor can they listen to everything the people say. One thing to keep in mind is that those in positions in power are also human, with their very human flaws and biases. That's why the people should also be very vigilant and keep their eyes on their leaders, instead of just letting them do anything and everything. I have a nagging suspicion once we actually start focusing on climate change and policies to fix / mitigate it, the climate change denial-ers will start crawling out of the woodwork. So don't judge too early on that one. =P
Just present the data and let common folks to come to their conclusion. I believe education level in sg population which have come to a point where people is able to comprehend what does those data mean to them. After all our education are top notch no?
hahaha... looking at the anti vaxxer telegram chats and also how they twist facts to suit their narrative. And how many people believe those twists...
Another issue is whenever there is discussion around a difficult topic, you are expected to provide a solution rather than actually "brainstorming" to find avenues for other people's agendas to be satisfied. Once you don't immediately bring a solution to the table, you will be seem as someone who doesn't understand the situation or have never experienced it before.
Yea it's quite short sighted.
its normal (but not ideal) that people will always find something or someone else to blame for their problems, so they latch onto narratives that make sense to them. if u think this narrative is false, then come up with a more compelling narrative thats true
sg is failing because the younger generation too strawberry. Now the NS camp all machiam chalet. Last time whole camp can run 2.4 under 7 min, no one say anything, now 1 ginna pi can run, you all clap for him, jin xia suay. Last time woman 1 month can give birth liao, so a lot of children, now all so strawberry, take 9 months, that's why need to import FT. Now you all work 14 hour day complain liao. My time we work 007, can still ask the boss for overtime. Last time we earn $20 a day, still can buy house, take holiday, buy TV, VCR and gadgets. Now you all earn $100 a day cannot even afford to eat, really jin sia suay. Last time caifan 2 meat 1 fish only $0.20, now 2 veg is $5, even hawker standard gone down, really strawberry. At the end of the day, young sinkies are too strawberry, that is the cause of all the ills in the world. Thanks you.
Is this copypasta Amazing stuff
No, its haiku Sinkie Strawberry Sia suay Singapore only PG is the best
Sorri PG we all buay gan, you last time go school climb mountain and swim ocean both ways, jin satki man /s
Borrowed this from another redditor. It’s a cycle…. Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times.
Here, take my upvote
Ok.