Xenophobia: A convenient label against anyone who speaks up

[Hephaestus]

As the exclusive period lapsed, here it is

 

I am writing this in response to Mr Albert Tye's Rein in offensive, insensitive one-eyed dragons online on Aug 29 2012.

I will just state that, most of the Singaporean that I know are accommodating and many of us, myself included have friends that are neither born nor bred in Singapore.

 

I firmly believe also that hate post towards foreigner have no place in our society, and in fact, I staunchly believe that hate post and such vitriol have no place at all, no matter who starts it and who it targets.

 

Of course, there will be those who hated foreigners to the bone and are vocal about it. While most Singaporean bears no malice against foreigners and this feeling is generally reciprocated, there are at times a good few exceptions. Case in point, Rachelle Ann Beguia, Gay Chao Hui, Sun Xu and Wang Peng Fei to state just a few whereby these people were welcomed in, treated not too shabbily but Singaporean were spit on the face, stomp to the ground and casted in the dirt, figuratively speaking.

 

I believe that most Singaporean generally are not confrontational, preferring to swallow all the indignation silently and move on. So, when outraged and reacted, instead of being ask what the issue is, Singaporean are instead, asked to reflect upon themselves.

 

While I agree that Singaporean should not be one-eyed dragon, I urge Mr Tye to also heed his own calling and look at things at both sides, before branding those who refuse to be insulted silently as xenophobes.

 

As for the immigration policy, Mr Lee has himself come out and said that it needs to be recalibrated. While I realised its necessity, the immigration policy has only until recently been anything but rational. To see the proof, look at the peak hour MRT crowd, in fact, the last major breakdown was contributed as much by its high utilisation beyond what it was designed for as its maintenance regime.

 

Xenophobia is neither unique nor novel, and we as a society descended from immigrants should renounce such irrational fear resoundingly. But to use it as a convenient label against anyone who speaks up, against a rowdy newcomer or someone disagreeing with policies is deceitful and despicable.

 

penned by putitthisway EDMW forum member, that was never published in ST forum

www.hardwarezone.com.sg - View Single Post - Xenophobia: A label to silence critics of liberal immigration poliy

[Hephaestus]

Gerald announced his intention to contest East Coast GRC in 2016, character assassination sure starts early...

 

www.hardwarezone.com.sg - View Single Post - PAP MP Sim Ann article in Straits Times

 

Pity. It was a great article initially (she was a Hwa Chong humanities scholar after all). The initial part was very good and indeed does show the need for a balanced approach to foreigners. But in the later part, she sexposed herself by attacking Gerald Giam. To me, Gerald was just painting what I think most people in the Internet agreed. That the attacks on the foreign trash is partly due to our need to express the anger at the govt. In the end, her purpose of her article was seen as just political rather than a good view of a MP on the ground. And how come straits times can allow such a partisan article. What does "for the straits times" ?

 

The ending sounds even more pathetic. Like a national pledge gone wrong.

 

sad.

 

 

By Sim Ann, For The Straits Times

 

LOCAL-FOREIGNER relations can be dicey, to say the least.

 

I see this in my work as a Member of Parliament. It is not unusual for residents, complaining about noise or litter created by their neighbours, to whisper to me in lowered tones: "You know, they are foreigners." Sometimes they are; frequently they are not.

 

Any community dispute where one party is a permanent resident or a foreigner is likely to have an invidious dimension. It takes all the tact and skill one can summon to keep both sides focused on the actual problem, and not let identity conflict cloud the issue. That is easier said than done, and I for one don't always succeed.

 

Recently, I was asked to adjudicate between two households quarrelling over corridor space.

 

It was clear that one household - let's call them Mr and Mrs C - was being unreasonable. Their shelves, potted plants and other belongings took up so much space along the walls that their neighbours were left with only a miserable corner for a small shoe rack. And now their things were advancing into the middle of the corridor too. "Our plants need more sun," explained Mr and Mrs C.

 

Mrs D, from the flat next door, pleaded with me to speak to Mr and Mrs C. According to her, prior attempts at reasoning with them had failed.

 

I was glad to try. Handling neighbourly disputes is bread- and-butter work for any MP.

 

But there was a slight hitch. Mrs D's Mandarin accent was almost local, but I could hear remnants of an unfamiliar lilt. When I asked, she told me she came from a province in southern China. On the other hand, both Mr and Mrs C were true-blue locals.

 

Uh-oh. An alarm bell went off in my head. Visions of imaginary online headlines spewing vitriol flashed across my mind. "Pro-foreigner MP sides with PRC woman in corridor dispute!" or something nastier.

 

Mrs D must have noticed my hesitation, because she quickly added: "I have been living here for many years."

 

I caught sight of a man inside Mrs D's flat. "Is that your husband," I asked. "Please ask him to come out and speak with me," I said. As it turned out, Mr D is a Singaporean, born and bred. Let me be honest - I was relieved.

 

He was not as articulate as his wife, but I insisted on dealing with him. It became a mediation involving locals: Mr D, Mr and Mrs C, facilitated by me.

 

This scene has been replaying itself in my mind lately. I have asked myself whether I did right not to include Mrs D in my effort to mediate. I could not help wondering if Mrs D's foreign origins had something to do with the fact that they could not settle the dispute among themselves.

 

More than anything else, I have asked myself what I would have done if it had turned out that both Mr and Mrs D were not local-born.

 

I share this personal experience to make the point that local-foreigner relations are real issues on the ground. For those of us whose job it is to maintain peace and harmony in the community, it is something we wrestle with constantly. But we also know there are many potential pitfalls whenever the subject is raised, that few are motivated to talk about it.

 

This is why I was particularly moved by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's decision to speak about this issue in his National Day Rally speech last month. It was an example of moral leadership.

 

Addressing the soul of Singaporeans, the Prime Minister asked us to choose the "better angels of our nature", to quote Abraham Lincoln, and not give way to prejudice or intolerance. He did so even though he had nothing to gain politically in speaking out on this issue.

 

Just as visions of hateful headlines had flashed instantaneously across my mind as I stood in that cluttered corridor, I had no difficulty imagining the howls of protest from netizens who would not hesitate to use the Prime Minister's statement as a stick to beat the Government.

 

The Prime Minister chose to make his statement nevertheless because it was the right thing to do - morally.

 

What sort of people do we Singaporeans want to be? Open, generous and tolerant or closed, surly and intolerant? These are important questions that must be asked.

 

The vast majority of Singaporeans understood the PM's message and agreed with it, according to a Reach poll.

 

The pot shots, however, did come. But I have to say, I was surprised by some who hurled them.

 

I read for example an article by Mr Gerald Giam, Non-Constituency Member of Parliament of the Workers' Party, published in this paper last Saturday. It was disappointing, for I had expected better from Mr Giam.

 

According to Mr Giam: "Anyone who examines the online comments about foreigners will realise that much of the anger is actually not directed at the foreigners, but at the Government for its liberal immigration policies."

 

Hang on a minute, Mr Giam.

 

As the Prime Minister acknowledged, people have every right to express their view on the Government's immigration policy. Indeed, the disquiet some feel about the spike in immigrants is understandable. As with all other policies, the Government will make adjustments on this front. The flow of immigrants has been tightened, and I support the shift.

 

The Government welcomes further debate on how we might fine-tune our population policies. The ongoing process leading to the proposed White Paper on population is precisely about consultation and discussion.

 

But online comments that clearly spew hate and prejudice against individuals or groups are simply that - hate speech.

All of us, politicians and netizens, must take a clear stand against hate speech. Abuse of foreigners, or any human being, is not acceptable, whether it is verbal or physical, online or offline. Interpreting such vile comments, as Mr Giam does, as misdirected anger intended originally for the Government is deeply questionable.

 

It also strikes me as disingenuous, for Mr Giam's party only six months ago criticised the Government for tightening the availability of work permits on the grounds that it was hurting small and medium-sized enterprises.

 

Above all, it raises the question of choice and responsibility. Mr Giam's article suggests that the online vitriol is ultimately the Government's fault; what is more, the vitriol is justified, for the foreigners, abetted by the Government, have made our lives miserable. It boils down to "don't worry, be nasty" - a suggestion that is no doubt appealing to those seeking an excuse to hate.

 

I choose to say no to that. I say no because I believe we all have a choice in deciding how we behave. Hate speech online or in person is wrong, no matter who the target and whatever the alleged provocation. As moral beings, we can and should choose not to indulge in hate speech. That was the Prime Minister's simple point.

 

I say no because I do not think it is responsible to argue that the minority among us who choose to behave badly are helpless victims of the environment.

 

I say no because I believe my fellow countrymen, whom I have pledged to serve, can weigh right and wrong - and we can choose to do right or refrain from doing wrong even when confronted by seductive voices suggesting wrong is right.

 

The Prime Minister appealed to our better natures: Singaporeans, let us treat foreigners as we would want to be treated ourselves. And immigrants, whatever the difficulty, learn Singaporean norms and become better integrated into the larger Singapore family.

 

How we choose to respond to this simple message, too, would be a reflection of ourselves.

 

For my part, I choose to respond with new resolve. I resolve to carry out my duties on the ground fairly, always with compassion and, if necessary, with firmness. I resolve to uphold social harmony and community relations in my country. I resolve to support vigorous and honest, but civil, debate.

 

And I also resolve to speak up against vitriol and hate - and excuses people may make for them.

 

The writer is Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Education and Ministry of Law, and a People's Action Party MP for Holland-Bukit Timah Group Representation Constituency.

[Moredhel]

Pui*

[Rncw]

i love all ATBs....love your neighbors' pussy cats

[TVT]

What's this all about? Can someone please summarize...

[Carnoob]

Basically, the so-called MP still dun realise the PROBLEM of work permit holders...

 

Singaporeans are worried about "Skilled" and "Unskilled" but "Academic qualified" work permit holders over the totally unskilled and uneducated ones who are usually working as cleaners, sweepers etc.

 

I had quoted an example in another discussion "No.1 reason for hiring foreigners"... Singaporeans can choose how they want to react but when your rice-bowl is affected who can be rational...

[Hephaestus]

will ISA be invoked to arrest political xenophobes?

Edited September 7, 2012 by Hephaestus

[Hamburger]

walking dog.....

[Joseph22]

Basically, the so-called MP still dun realise the PROBLEM of work permit holders...

 

Singaporeans are worried about "Skilled" and "Unskilled" but "Academic qualified" work permit holders over the totally unskilled and uneducated ones who are usually working as cleaners, sweepers etc.

 

I had quoted an example in another discussion "No.1 reason for hiring foreigners"... Singaporeans can choose how they want to react but when your rice-bowl is affected who can be rational...

that thread become pro-FT thread liao leh.

[Ysc3]

food for thought :

 

is the pin-pointing directed at certain races or nationalities ?

 

coz I just heard that the new intake of foreign workers - be it WP or SP holders will be majority of Korean and Taiwanese origin ...

[TVT]

food for thought :

 

is the pin-pointing directed at certain races or nationalities ?

 

coz I just heard that the new intake of foreign workers - be it WP or SP holders will be majority of Korean and Taiwanese origin ...

 

You heard from where?

[Jman888]

food for thought :

 

is the pin-pointing directed at certain races or nationalities ?

 

coz I just heard that the new intake of foreign workers - be it WP or SP holders will be majority of Korean and Taiwanese origin ...

 

 

it is happening for some time liao now than you heard!

 

yah they came under WP (aka FW! )

[Galantspeedz]

food for thought :

 

is the pin-pointing directed at certain races or nationalities ?

 

coz I just heard that the new intake of foreign workers - be it WP or SP holders will be majority of Korean and Taiwanese origin ...

 

but i have been renting rooms out to Jap / korean / taiwanese more than 10 years ago liao leh

[Chickenfarm]

Politicians are politicians after all.

 

They can't speak from their hearts because they have to tow the party line. This is all in the name of collective responsibility.

 

This also means that nilly willy, they have to speak against their own beliefs when partisan politics is in operation.

 

An MP is human after all, they will be in a self-denial state of mind if they say that they are not taken in by frivolous attacks by foreigners.

 

Enough said.

[AhJason]

food for thought :

 

is the pin-pointing directed at certain races or nationalities ?

 

coz I just heard that the new intake of foreign workers - be it WP or SP holders will be majority of Korean and Taiwanese origin ...

 

MOM forgot what happened in 1985? Bet many can't rmb.

[TVT]

 

MOM forgot what happened in 1985? Bet many can't rmb.

 

I can't even remember my wedding anniversary date, how to remember about 1985.

 

So what happened then?

[The_Bear]

 

I can't even remember my wedding anniversary date, how to remember about 1985.

 

So what happened then?

 

as long as you remember getting married is good enuff already

[Ysc3]

 

as long as you remember getting married is good enuff already

 

heng ah ...