Tapping on the Diaspora

I mentioned that I met Professor Yu Wei Shin, nearly a month ago in my piece “I KNOW I AM ATTRACTIVE – I JUST DON’T KNOW WHO I AM ATTRACTIVE TO.” (15 July 2020), via my Linkedin feed. Professor Yu had mentioned that he had read my pieces on TRemeritus and that he was an ex-Singaporean. My brief acquaintance with Professor Yu got me thinking about who these ex-Singaporeans are and whether we as a nation could tap onto people like him. I’ve invited him to give us a glimpse into his life and his feelings towards Singapore. In the brief glimpses that I’ve had of the man, it is clear that Singapore is failing to make the full use of our diaspora. Here is a well-educated man, who is building a high-tech product in his later years (A point I stress as Singapore is a place that considers you ancient and useless after 45).

The Professor has given me a short blurb, which I hope you will enjoy.

Tang Li – Singapore 20 July 2020

According to reports in Singapore’s Parliament, there are around 1,000 Singaporeans give up their citizenship every year. Many of those who have given up their citizenship and moved elsewhere are well-educated and found success in their new homes. Many also yearn to return to Singapore to share their accumulated knowledge, skills and experience, to semi-retirement, which they would do so at no cost to the tax payer.

Unfortunately, our current immigration system does not recognize that there might be a diaspora out there who could do many things for Singapore. Once you leave and renounce your citizenship, you are deemed to be like every other foreigner and if you wish to return to Singapore to work, you need to apply for an Employment Pass. In my experience, this is a discriminatory process. Ex-citizens are regarded as “traitors” for having the audacity to give up their citizenship and the system seems to prefer those who never had ties to Singapore coming in. I take myself as an example, despite have two PhD’s and conducted ground breaking scientific trials, I was advised twice “Do not apply, and if you do, your application will be rejected.”

This is sad. I think of other countries that have prospered because they tapped on the skills, experiences and even capital of their diaspora. China, for example, tapped on the diaspora in its early stages of development. India has a system known as the “Persons of Indian Origin” (PIO) card, which makes it easier for anyone of Indian origin, regardless of passport to come and contribute something to India.

Why do most of us give up our citizenship? We do so for a variety of reasons and I believe that most, if not all, of us give up our citizenship as a last resort. However, our heart is still very much anchored in Singapore- a little red dot of their forefathers, and where they were born and spent many years growing up. 

In my case, my father is Singaporean, though he returned to China to die. I was born and grew up in Malaysia, went to New Zealand to study, worked, then immigrated to Australia to work, before coming to NTU to teach in 1984.   You could say Singapore got a good deal from me. None of my education was paid for by the Singapore tax payer and I came with a PhD and with 10 years heavy engineering industrial experience. Apart from my 19 years of lecturing, I was very active as town councilor (in charge of environment matters), presidents of learned societies and consultancy to SME's, PSA, Philips, Seagate, Mobil Oil, Mindef, MFA, CleanSeas,

I only applied for Australian citizenship because of my mother's dying wish and my wish is to return to SERVE SINGAPORE UNINTERRUPTED!

While I may have renounced my Singapore Citizenship, I’ve been able to contribute in the following ways:

1.     At 56, I studied Master of Occupational Therapy at the University of Sydny and then PhD (Medicine) at University of New South Wales, graduating at 60 years, so that I can help solve some of the chronic disorders of the elderly in Singapore (-- stroke, elderly falls, etc).

2.     Even before I graduated, I returned and conducted a major clinical trial for hip fracture prevention together with Tan Tock Seng Hospital, for several hundred HDB residents, under a Government grant, using Prof Cameron's hip protector invention (USyd).  He is the internationally renowned "Father of Hip Protector".

3.     From 2012-2016, I returned as Visiting Consultant at Nanyang Polytechnic, and conducted 3 major clinical trials with TTSH using my invention: Robotic Lower Limb Rehab System, for sub-acute and chronic stroke patients, and elderly falls prevention -- all very successful!

4.     Now, together with my PhD university mate Dr Wong (www.apppliedrobotics.com.au), and Nanyang Polytechnic, I am inventing a revolutionary wheelchair system that even the Brits have no solution. It will solve many of the social economic problems in Singapore and beyond, ease the manpower shortages in nursing homes and hospitals and create many skilled jobs in Singapore!

5.     Going forward, we plan to establish a virtual Disabled Mobility Technology Research Centre, combining the expertise of University of Wollongong in Australia and NYP. 

Singapore spends millions on educating and nurturing "foreign talents" in its education system. We work hard to attract expatriates from the West and India.  We should also not overlook people like me. We have the talent and the desire to serve. Why can’t you make it easier for us, people who have the established emotional connection to come back to contribute?

Incidentally, my father served in the British Navy to defend Singapore during the war and suffered PTSD, which lead to family violence and divorce! Also, two of my children were born in Singapore, and three of them attended primary and secondary schools in Singapore. It hurts to be told on twice, "do not apply, and if you do, your application will be rejected"???

Prof YU Wei Shin
PhD(Medicine)(UNSW), PhD(Mech ENgg)(Canterbury, (BE(Hons)
Sydney

“Very fine people on both sides”

One of Donald Trump’s greatest moments came on 15 August 2017, when he was asked for his thoughts on the clashes in Charlottesville, Virginia between Neo-Nazis and normal people. The Donald proceed to stun the world by telling reporters that there were “very fine people on both sides.” The remark stunned the world because this was the leader of the nation that saved the world from the Nazis describing Nazis as very fine people, especially when its questionable if Nazis are people let alone very fine ones.

However, in fairness to Donald Trump, his words were only shocking because of the context in which they were used in. Take out the context and Donald Trump’s words would actually be an ideal of what most civilized societies should be about – very fine people on both sides of any issue. The highlight of what a civilized democracy came int 2008 when John McCain defended and praised his opponent, Barak Obama as a “Decent man, whom I happen to disagree with.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0u3QJrtgEM 

While McCain would lose the election, he has ended up winning in the hearts of people for doing the right things. Instead of trying to divide the nation, he united it and refused to go down the road of playing up to the fears and prejudices of the mob.

Unfortunately, 2008 is something of a memory. From 2016 onwards, the world entered an age of wild populism, which centred on a wonderful concept of blaming your problems on people who cannot fight back. In the words of an American customer at the Bistrot, “There is no neutrality.”

Singapore has seemingly escaped the most extreme forms of populism and in a world where calls for unthinking jingoism have become the norm, Singapore seems like an island of sanity in an insane world.

However, having been around Singapore’s “arty” and “journo” types for a good portion of my functioning life, I would argue that it’s not exactly a case of Singapore avoiding wave of populism that is sweeping the world but more of a case of Singapore’s politicians being more subtle and clever about harnessing the raw emotions of the masses.

The simplest tactic, is to label anyone who publicly questions the established way of doing things as “Anti-Singaporean.” As anyone who works who deals with any form of media will tell you, there is an art form to questioning the system in public without being labeled “Anti-Singaporean” or getting a nasty letter from a politicians solicitors and having your family’s dirty linen rolled in the mud and then washed out in public. The stories of the people who have tried to do it on a regular basis can be found at:

 https://coconuts.co/singapore/features/singaporeans-step-outside-lines-take-center-stage-naysayers-book-club/

In the old days, it was a case of being sued into bankruptcy and facing a number of potential charges on a variety of laws. I’m old enough to remember the General Election of 1997, which was a particularly good one for the ruling party. They managed to reverse a trend of a declining share of the popular vote and won a mere 81 out of 83 seats available in parliament. While a lot of credit was given to generous upgrading programs in the heartland estates, another was to target an unknown politician from the Workers Party called Tang Liang Hong (No relation) by labeling him an “Anti-Christian Chinese Chauvinist.” 

The internet has made things more interesting. Online media sites like the Online Citizen and TRemeritus (as a matter of disclosure, my blog pieces are picked up by TRemeritus) have given a space for alternative voices. However, the ruling party has also found ways to deal with this. Why label anyone “Anti-Singaporean” when you can get someone else to do it for you. It’s especially effective when that person happens to be a Pink Blotchy – the Fawning Follower comes to mind. Unfortunately, Pink Blotchies have a tendency to be listened to, even if they’re speaking gibberish. As a friend of mine noted, otherwise intelligent people actually bought into the arguments of the Fawning Follower on why it was a sign of success to keep dark skinned Asians in cages (ooopps, I mean dormitories) and how the government supported the rule of law by a law on the statute books but not enforcing it.

The Fawning Follower has been a particularly useful pawn in labeling people who disagree with the government as Anti-Singaporean or worse – Traitors. He’s labeled Kristin Han as having “a career in treachery” and his next favourite target is the play write Alfian Sa’at, whom he describes as symbolizing the egotistical rebellion of the no problem generation. 

While Kristin and Alfian have questioned things, neither have done anything that would count as “treachery” by any definition of the word. There is no record of either having said or done anything that called for violence in the streets or for a foreign nation to invade and so on. Neither have been picked up by the Internal Security Department, which would indicate that the government is well aware that the its “critics” are traitors or “anti-Singaporean” or dare I say “rebels” by any definition.

Why do these things when someone else can do them for you? You stay above the fray and the Fawning Follower and his ilk do it for you. So, when the likes of Dr. Tan Meng Wu start talking about how ethnic minorities should be grateful that they can get jobs and send their kids to school, there’s no outrage at the underlying but blatantly racist tones. The trolls have laid the ground work for you and whatever prejudices people might have become justified because, well, a member of the ruling party said so in public and it was OK.

Thankfully there are some signs of progress. I take my hat off to Professor Tommy, one of our most respected diplomats, who has stated that Singapore needs “loving critics.” Professor Koh has argued that as a strong society, Singapore needs to accept a diversity of views. Crushing the views of “loving critics” instead of accommodating them, can be bad.

Mr. Wham spent years campaigning for migrant rights. He was labeled a trouble maker. Well, surprise – surprise, Covid-19 proved Mr. Wham right (1,000 cases a day, contrary to the Following Follower is not success). Had the authorities engaged Mr. Wham earlier, they may have found the problem much earlier and instead of being with the likes of Ukraine on the list of most infected nations, we might be closer to the likes of Hong Kong or Taiwan. 

If there’s anything that we need to move away from in this General Election, it is this automatic, “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” mentality. This isn’t about who wins the most seats but whether we can move away from “Me teacher, you student” (or as my mother says “me right, you wrong) mentality in politics and more towards the politics of “You’re a good man that I happen to disagree with.”  

There is a hope for this. Two of Singapore’s better leaders from different sides of political divide have chosen to step out of the ring in this election. Apparently, both men have stated their respect for each other. Here was the message that our former Prime Minister, Mr. Goh Chok Tong left on his Facebook on veteran opposition leader Low Thia Khiang:

https://mothership.sg/2020/06/goh-chok-tong-low-thia-khiang-retirement/

Mr. Goh was labeled a “seat warmer” for our current Prime Minister. Despite having the pressures of the Old Lee above him and the Current Lee below him, Mr. Goh managed to do a few of his own things (As a long-term resident of Marine Parade, I have Mr. Goh to thank for getting MPs to try and beautify their estates. He was the first one to do so. As a beneficiary of Saudi-Relations and the Indian Business Community, I have to thank Mr. Goh for opening these markets up. – Lee Kuan Yew was quite open in his disdain for India after Indira Gandhi snubbed him). As such, I believe everyone contesting this general election should take note of his words and I think his final gift in politics is showing Singaporeans that it is possible to agree to disagree.  

Why Are You So Dark?

I’ve often argued that the human race has an incredible talent of finding areas of differences, there is one unfortunate factor that seems to unite the world. That unfortunate factor is the inability to view anyone of a darker skin tone as a normal human being.

Racism, particularly in the West, is currently a “Black-versus-White” issue. The murder of George Floyd, an African-American at the hands a “white” police officer on video ignited many years of pent-up anger that the Western world’s “black” population has had from years of laws that were designed to keep them down and when those laws were abolished, the fact that prejudices that lingered were for many parts accepted.

Unfortunately, the issue of racism is neither limited to a case of “blacks-versus-whites” nor is it limited to the Western world. In America, there is the undiscussed issue of “Asian-Black” relations. This was first seen in the 1992 LA Riots (caused by the beating of a black man by White Police officers and the subsequent acquittal of the police officers despite the evidence), when the city’s black population tried to loot stores owned by America’s Korean population. In the most recent incident, it was a cop of Asian decent who looked away while his “white” colleague murdered Mr. Floyd. More can be found at:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/officer-who-stood-george-floyd-died-asian-american-we-need-n1221311

Like it or not, Asians who have settled in the Western world have not been helpful to the issues faced by the black communities. The reason for this is simple, the Asian inability to see the suffering of other minorities in the West is the very thing that makes Asians valued immigrants – material success.

In America, they’re known as the “model-minority,” or the poor migrants who arrive with nothing and within a generation are part of the educated professional class (so much so that the Old Rogue, used to say “If American universities really admitted by merit, there wouldn’t be a single round eye). In Britain, Asians, particularly the Chinese were well regarded as the group that stuck to its corner, prospered (no state handouts) and avoided contentious politics. My stepfather, who works in a hospital in Germany says that unlike many of the other minorities, the “Yellow People,” never went onto German welfare. This same sentiment was echoed by Finnish friends who stated that Japanese and Vietnamese were welcome because they worked hard and kept to themselves.

As an Asian, who grew up in the West, I felt proud that “my people” came to the West with nothing and built something. While this achievement of Asian communities in the west is a good thing, it blinds “us” to the realities to the harsh realities of other communities. When the Black talk about social justice after screwed by the history of slavery, the Asians shrugged with the “so what, we were once poor and made it out – what’s wrong with you,” mentality. Yes, we were fresh off the boat but we didn’t have the conditioning that many American blacks suffered. Contrary to what Ben Carson would argue – slaves were not immigrants.

Being a “model minority,” has given the Asian communities a false sense of security in the status quo and many Asians forget that they too once benefited from the struggles of the African American Community as this clip from the comedian Hassan Minhaj explains:

https://etcanada.com/news/652740/hasan-minhaj-calls-on-fellow-asian-americans-to-stand-with-protesters/

The situation that “dark-skinned” people face is not exactly prejudice free in Asia too. One of the biggest examples of how Asian people are proving to b as awful was from an infamous ad from China, which showed a black man approaching a Chinese girl, who then shoves him into a washing machine, where he emerges Chinese and therefore desirable;

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/28/china-racist-detergent-advert-outrage

With attitudes like these, it’s not surprising that the Chinese in Africa are often regarded as arrogant arseholes (sure, unlike the Western Colonial powers before, there’s no lecture on human rights, but the Chinese are far from liberating heroes).

Over here in Chinese majority, Singapore, we claim to be “multi-racial.” Unfortunately, beneath the lovely exterior, it is politically acceptable to endorse racism. The official line is that, “Singapore’s majority Chinese population is not yet ready for a non-Chinese Prime Minister,” even if the one politician with global credentials and accepted by all races is a non-Chinese.

While it was heartening to see many Singaporeans (including the Chinese ones) open up their hearts and wallets to foreign workers as cases of Covid-19 erupted in the dormitories, an unhealthy number thought nothing of denigrating dark skinned labourers who were doing the work they wouldn’t do.

The only salivation for the Chinese race in this respect is that it’s not the only race in Asia with an issue with the dark skinned. The Indians (many of whom are dark skinned, particularly in the South) also have a strange fixation with trying to get fairer. Take a look at this commercial, staring Bollywood icon Shah Rukh Khan, which while not as obvious as the Chinese detergent ad, isn’t exactly subtle in its messaging:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl7pa4PPqp8

The message is clear. Fair equals handsome, hence if you’re a guy who wants to pick up girls, you invest in skin whitener. I think of one of my best friends, who is a good looking Nepali, who takes great pride in the beauty of his kids because ….they’ve got his colour.

I’d go as far as to argue that it’s almost worse than in the West. While the Western worlds are erupting into violence on the streets, the problems are clear cut. Blacks are clearly being screwed over by the system, particularly the police force. While America is the focus, I’m old enough to remember when the Algerians rioted in Paris and when the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Found Police forces in the UK to have major issues with race. Sure, current leadership hasn’t helped. However, these are problems that can be solved with the obvious – i.e. legislation, money and so on.

In Asia, its almost as if the prejudice against the dark skinned is part of accepted culture. Let’s go back to “fair and handsome.” Think of it, it’s probably not meant to be racist against dark skinned people. It’s just an accepted fact that fair automatically gets equated with handsome. I remember my late grandmother telling me, “These Indian girls are actually pretty – it’s just that they’re dark.”

Changing culture will take time. I think the obvious is to encourage mixed race marriages (or as one Jewish guy said “My dick is not racist”). This will be particularly tough, especially when you consider that most Asian marriages are about families as much as the individuals. Yet, as the Western situation has shown, the prejudice against dark skinned people has to be eradicated to a level where dark skinned people don’t feel that it’s the natural order of things for them to be screwed.

Both the West and Asia need to re look at the way they treat the dark skinned. It’s not just a black and white issue but a human issue that needs to be addressed. Racism and ancient prejudices don’t have a place in the modern world.   

Growing Too Old

I’ve been unemployed for a good portion of my working life and when I got a “corporate” job in my late thirties, everybody told me that I had to hang onto it because it was probably the only job that I would have. The reason for it was very simple, I started “working properly” in my late thirties and by the time I reached a certain level, I’d be “too old” to be employable.

Like it or not, one of the worst of the “isms” in Singapore is ageism. While “racism” (particularly with the riots in the USA) and “sexism” make media headlines, ageism affects far more of us and in an age of shorter working life cycles, is perhaps a larger and more serious issue. Singapore is filled with too many stories of people in their mid-forties who have been retrenched and unable to find work but still stuck with mortgages and children whom they need to send to school.

In a way, the down and out situation in Singapore is the mirror opposite of London. When I lived in London, the tramps camping at my door were inevitably young and white, who had fallen into a drug habit. In Singapore, by contrast, the old are inevitably old. In the pre-Covid-19 world, all you needed to do was to sit in any outdoor eating area and you’d find that the people doing the “heavy stuff” like carrying dishes were inevitably old as were the people desperate enough to go round tables trying to sell you tissue paper for a dollar or so.

What makes this scene particularly sad is the fact that Singapore claims loudly and proudly to be an “Asian” society that “respects” elders. Ironically, the biggest proponent of “Asian Values” was the late Lee Kuan Yew, who grew up with a disdain for anything Chinese until he entered politics and realized that it was the Chinese Educated who demonstrated in the streets. The late Mr. Lee was a poster boy for “active aging,” working well past his ninetieth birthday. However, while he was busy ensuring himself jobs in the cabinets of his successors, it was a singular act. All his cabinet colleagues, including Goh Keng Swee, his loyal deputy who did the work, retired in what was called “leadership renewal,” or the process of getting the old to give way to the young.

Mr. Lee was in theory right to focus on “leadership renewal.” There is such a thing known as hanging on too long and letting the things that made you great become a total liability to the people you once cared about. “Arab Spring” old folks on top who didn’t know when to let go.

However, a good idea has been taken to an extreme, where old folks who never had salaries of our well-paid ministers are pushed out of work once they hit a certain age. In many cases its usually at an age where people still have mortgages and other hefty bills to pay. How did this happen?

I believe that the heart of the problem is ideological. Singapore is famous for being the world’s “nanny state,” with the government behaving like a stern parent. For the most part, the parent has been wise in many of its decisions. However, the parent has been unable to listen to the realities on the ground. There’s been an ideological conflict at the heart of our governing philosophy. On one hand we’ve told the people that the only viable source of employment is foreign investors and the government. On the other, hand there’s also a message of “non-welfarism” where the government claims that it does not give out cash because it wants people to be self-reliant.

This was perfectly fine when we had multinationals coming in and hired people for life. However, this isn’t the case anymore. The multinationals may still use Singapore as a regional base but the real markets are in other parts of Asia, with more to offer.

Hence the situation became such that the “big” growth drivers were not hiring the way they used to and people were stuck with rising expenses and less stashed away.

Like it or not, our CPF system, while useful, is inadequate. My ex-boss at Citibank, Mr. Eddie Khoo, told me, “Ask Singaporeans about a retirement plan and they’ll tell you there’s CPF. What they fail to realise is that most of your CPF is used for housing, it doesn’t give you enough cash.”

Mr. Khoo was correct in that most of our forced savings was tied up in housing. What he didn’t add was that the government’s solutions to the “aging” problem has been to tie up CPF monies in CPF. First, they’ve been raising the minimum sum requirements along with the retirement age.  Then they’ve capped the limit of what you can use it for.

If I take myself as an example, the only thing that CPF has helped to do has been to defray my mortgage payments. However, beyond that, it’s become like a mirage, where I see more money being added to the account but with further restrictions on withdrawal, it is money I will realistically not be able to utilize as I age no matter how much I have.

In addition to increasing the retirement sum, the other method has been to raise the retirement age. Like everything else coming from the Singapore Government, this sounds good in theory. Yes, people are aging but they’re healthier than they used to be and can remain useful.  As Senior Minister, Tharman Shanmugaratnam has said, “No one is too old to hire, too qualified to adapt.”

Unfortunately, the practice is rather different and getting Mr. Tharman’s words into practice will take time. You cannot change a culture of age discrimination overnight, even if the problem needs to be solved urgently.

Again, I take myself as an example. I am turning 46 in November. I left my corporate job last year between my age and a Covid-19 ravaged economy, I’m challenged to think of what I’ll do next to feed myself. I’ve psychologically accepted that I am unlikely to ever go back to full time corporate again.

So, what does someone like me do? Effectively, my only assets are the fact that I’m relatively healthy and I’ve met a few interesting people and done one or two things.

So, to ensure I have enough money to pay for my bus card, I take up a bit of blue-collar work here and there. It’s not going to make me rich anytime soon but a few dollars in the pocket here and there. In addition to this, blue collar gigs allow me enough time to look at other things.

I write more and I look for a bit of PR work here and there, which I can put aside to pay down debts and to set aside for the day when I’m a bit too old to do very much. Hopefully, I’ll be able to do things.

However, the question remains, while I ever be able to earn enough remains on my mind and the answer for many people my age, is ironically, to look at other places to live. A lawyer I know is looking at Manchester as a retirement venue. An old editor believes that home may be in India. My kid, is telling me that we should look at Vietnam as a possibility. My Dad moved to Thailand and has a decent enough life. His point being, at 70 plus he gets the odd job here and there and he can afford a comfortable life style, which he cannot in Singapore.

Perhaps the government in Singapore should consider this. If the aging are not allowed to contribute to Singapore, why should they stay there and spend retirement funds there?