| Yawning
Bread. 11 September 2008
150,000 Singaporeans live abroad
|
|
|
|
Wong then provided the data requested for, and which I have converted into a bar chart (Numbers in the table at right).
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
Many of us are familiar with the figure of 1,000 Singaporeans giving up their citizenship each year, it having been mentioned quite a few times by our government leaders. What the above shows is that about 8,000 a year (68% of 12,000 annual applications for CNCC) are also applying for permanent residency in foreign countries, one step to leaving Singapore for good. However, as qualified by Wong in his reply, the data provided by him included Singapore permanent residents and even foreigners who had lived in Singapore for at least 6 months, so the totals are not very useful in their present form. It would have been better if the numbers had been split: Citizens, PR, foreigners. By a stroke of luck, another interesting figure was provided by Wong, and on the same day in Parliament too: There are an estimated 150,000 Singapore citizens living abroad. This time, he meant citizens specifically, because he provided this figure, not in relation to Siew's question, but in the course of the second reading of the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill which sought to expand access to overseas voting. In his words,
This is quite a large number, nearly 20 times the figure of 8,000 a year. It therefore leads me to believe that Singapore citizens make up the bulk of the 8,000 figure, for if only a small fraction of the 8,000 applying for CNCCs had been Singaporeans, it would have taken too long to build up to a total of 150,000. So, not only do we have 1,000 Singaporeans giving up their citizenship each year, as many as eight times that number are seeking permanent residency elsewhere. * * * * * The current controversy about the proposal to use a vacant school building in Serangoon Gardens as a dormitory for foreign workers is just the latest in the crescendo of complaints against "foreign talent". We seem to think that we are unusually affected by immigration. From what I have seen when I travel, this just isn't so. Many cities are similarly net recipients of all sorts of people. In fact, European cities are sometimes far more polyglot than Singapore. On my last visit to London, most of the front-desk staff at the 4-star hotel where I stayed were ethnic Chinese. The taxi-driver who took me to the airport was originally from Afghanistan. On my recent visit to Stockholm, the driver who took me to the railway station (to catch the express airport train) was originally from Somalia. In London, the MacDonalds near my hotel seemed always to be staffed by new Chinese migrants speaking heavily accented English; in Berlin, the nearest fast food joint was manned by Palestinians. I got into a conversation with one of them when he asked me if I could speak Russian -– I have no idea why he thought I might -– as he was hoping for help in telling the Russian beggar to move away from their front door. Just a week ago, when I was in Kuala Lumpur, I had a late-night supper with a fellow Singaporean on Petaling Street, the heart of the city's Chinatown. Choosing to have noodles from a roadside stall, we ordered in Mandarin Chinese with no difficulty, but my friend thought that the employee's Chinese sounded a little strange. After settling at our table, we looked at the 6 or 7 young men working there more closely and tried to eavesdrop on their internal conversation. Finally, to confirm my suspicion, I asked the waiter when he brought our order to the table, "Are from Myanmar?" Yes he was. They all were. So there you are, the new world: A traditional Chinese noodles stall manned by an entirely Burmese crew, speaking Mandarin. How Chinese is Chinatown then?
* * * * * In fact, I'd suggest that each of us write to our MPs and ask them to raise a query for information for us, on any subject that interests us. If the MP does so, you will have gained something. If he refuses to do so, then you should publish his refusal for the public to see. With regards to a Freedom of Information Act, do you know that there are 70 countries with such a provision? And that Sweden has enshrined the public's right to government information since 1766? A recent BBC 2-part radio program -- thanks to Adrian Tan for bringing it to my attention -- provided a good discussion about this subject. Of course, it's not a topic you're likely to see our Mediacorp emulating, lest it plant uppity ideas in Singaporeans' minds. Citizens checking on their government? What an outrageous notion! Do listen to the BBC program here. It speaks about how grassroots activists can use information so obtained to guide their social work, and how citizens can monitor leaders and public servants for corruption or misspending. But it also reveals that governments are generally regretting that they ever passed such laws, which in itself is a sign that the laws are proving really useful in monitoring the authorities. A right once given cannot be taken back, so there is no way now for governments to roll back the law. Instead, there is a tendency to cut back on the manpower available for dealing with citizens' requests, thus prolonging the wait for answers, or charge high fees for providing the information search. In other words, the mechanism is hardly
working well in any country. But Singapore -– we don't even have such a
law at all. While we like to boast of our No. 4 ranking in Transparency
International's 2007 Corruption Perceptions Index surely that is not the only possible
index when it comes to the question of transparency. With
70 other countries ahead of us in having a Freedom of Information Act,
here should be another country ranking table worth watching. © Yawning Bread
|
|
|
|
Footnotes None Addenda None
|
|
Trawling through the Hansard the other day in search for something else, I
spotted some statistics that the government provided in response to a
question asked by Nominated Member of Parliament Siew Kum Hong.
