One of my latest culinary discoveries is a small stall in
Maxwell Food Centre, that sells Shwarma’s or Middle Eastern sandwiches. The man
who runs this stall is an Iraqi who has settled here and started a family with
a Singaporean
Our friendship recently added a “social media” element, when
we linked on Facebook through a mutual friend. One day, I noticed that he
posted something that was despondent. His post read as follows:
“Do not
leave your country even your country is shit, do not leave it for any reason
!!no body going to respect you when you leave your country”
The source of his unhappiness was his treatment by the
authorities when he tried to renew his residency permit. Apparently, they had
grilled him on his opinions on the 2003 American Invasion of Iraq. Somehow, in
between having the audacity to set up a small business and helping Singapore’s food
distribution industry, the powers that be felt that this man was a terrorist threat
to Singapore because he wasn’t grateful that his country was invaded by a
foreign power. I spoke to my friend about this and he kept saying, “I can see
the hatred in their eyes. “
I bring this story because there seems to be a trend of
going backwards in the so called “Civilized World.” Countries that talked about
“diversity,” and “inclusiveness” or “regardless of race, language or religion,”
have now started to make “discriminating” part of official policy. The most
famous example if the Occupant of 1600 Avenue’s famous “Muslim Ban,” which
conveniently left out the countries that actually produced people who attached
the USA (September 11 2001) but had Muslims with lots of money to spend on
overpriced real estate. The Donald is, unfortunately the most vocal of a group
of world leaders with a talent for bringing out the worst in people.
In an ideal world, we should have a situation where borders
don’t matter and we should have a situation where people choose the countries,
they want to be part of. However, I’m also old enough to realise that this isn’t
an easy process and there are times where higher ideals need to be set aside. There
may, unfortunately be a case for excluding people from certain parts of the
world based on national security issues. However, if that really was the case,
one would have to communicate it with the population at large in a clear and
somewhat honest way.
I take the example of restricting Singapore’s Malay
population from the upper echelons of the armed forces as well as from certain
parts of the armed forces. While I don’t agree with this policy (come on, you
don’t let Malays into an artillery unit but you’d let some Pom in?), the rationale
was communicated fairly clearly. Lee Kuan Yew states in his book that our most
likely opponents in an armed conflict would have been Malay majority nations
and it would not be fair to put our Malay population into having a case of “Dual
Loyalties.” The Malay population has accepted this to a certain degree.
What I do not agree with are policies designed to stir up
people’s prejudices for the sake of it. Trump’s infamous Muslim ban comes to
mind. As stated, if this was really about National Security, it would have been
focused on the nations that had a proven record of sending people with a stated
desire to do damage to America.
As vile as Trump is, I do give him credit for being openly
vile. What I take issues with in Singapore is the fact that we sell ourselves as
being “Regardless of race, language or religion,” but incidents like what
happened to my friend take place and people shrug and think it’s perfectly
acceptable.
I’ve mentioned this to government officials, where I’ve noticed
that the places where people from the proverbial “shithole” countries are in
shitty parts of town and in shitty facilities. By comparison, the places where
people from nice countries are likely to be are inevitably well spruced up.
Human history has shown that places benefit when there’s a
development of human capital. The usual success of a nation depends on its
ability to make its citizens productive. Singapore, for example takes great
pride in the amount of money we invest in our education to make our people productive.
Then there’s the other side of the coin – if you don’t have the brains, get the brains and energy from elsewhere. America is a great example of that. America excels in so many fields because it allows the brains from elsewhere to function to their full potential. I won’t stop repeating it but the parts of America that produce the things the world can’t get enough of (namely the East and West Coast) are the parts that are open to other people’s brains. China is actually similar. The parts of “future” superpower are inevitably on the Eastern Seaboard and the parts open to the world.
While America and China may have “insular” parts that don’t
produce much, Singapore cannot afford insularity. Being a spec on the global
scale means we need to be open. If we don’t have the drive and the brains, we
should get it from elsewhere.
My friend is the prime example of what we need. He has
qualifications in Bagdad but he’s willing to come to Singapore to create
something for himself and his family. He’s not “taken” jobs from anyone. His
small business buys from suppliers (local businesses) and rent (local
institutions) and if luck, it may grow and employ, dare I say, Singaporeans.
Yet, the authorities that he has dealt with, think that its
better to question him for not being a key supporter of a policy that ruined his
original life. Why is that so? How does making life miserable for a productive
member of society benefit Singapore? I’d love to know that answer.
No comments
Post a Comment