First, I begin by apologizing for the lack of postings. Obviously I have not been keeping my promises of a post a week, but then again, I’ve been much busier in Singapore than the UK.

And so, the time of the National Day Rally is upon us. I’ve only recently finished reading the full speech and I find it much better than listening to the man, able to get far more information out of it. For this post, I shall attempt to type out my thoughts in the chronological order in the speech, just because I can’t be bothered to group them together properly.

The first of this few situations were linked with the rise of foreigners in Singapore.

Housing

The policies introduced was that there would be an increase of HDB income ceiling, and a concurrent increase in supply of HDB flats to quell this increase in demand. There is also an introduction of 7000 rental flats to keep the supply up, and postponing the demolition of SERS blocks.

We all understand that the prices of properties have been rising recently, but I would like to question the roots of the issue at hand. What exactly is the problem here? I hazard a guess that the issue might not be just a case of demand and supply, but more of an issue of different goals for different groups of people, specifically home owners and people looking for a home. On one hand, the government would like to reduce the prices of HDB flats so that potential home owners can afford it, yet on another, they would like for the worth of the HDB flats to remain at a respectable value, so that flat owners feel that they have a stake in the country, as well as being a source of income for them in the future. The price of the HDB has to be low, but respectable at the same time. Certainly contradictory.

Education

2000 places will be left for local students, and the cap on foreign students will remain as it is today.

There was a story of a mother whose child was trying to get into a university but did not get a place. I begin by stating that if she looked for PM Lee for help because she did not have enough money to send her child to SIM or such, or some other special reasons, then fair enough. Otherwise, if it was simply a plea for help because her son was unable to get to university due to bad results, then I say, I have absolutely no sympathy for you. I’m sorry, but your son has not done well enough for his studies, be it A-Levels or Polytechnics to qualify for a place in a university. The idea of Singaporean First does not justify the fact that your son had not work hard enough or put in enough effort to push himself towards qualifying for a university education. To accept your son is to ridicule the meritocratic process in the country. In addition to that, there is a reason why students were chosen by their academic abilities. Say what you want, but if your son has not done well enough in post-secondary education, the likelihood that he would perform exceptionally well in university examinations is extremely unlikely. Look at it this way, it he came from polytechnic, he would be applying for a similar course as he did, and would probably score similarly. If he came from a JC, then shame on him even more, as he had more opportunities to take the A Levels in the 2 years in the army to redeem himself, an opportunity that he either took and further prove an inability to cope university work, or did not take at all.

I admit that Singapore has a low percentage of a local cohort per year entering university annually, but given the competitive nature of the universities in Singapore compared to other countries, I would say that it was probably for the better, until mindsets start to change in the system. Also, students and parents in Singapore should start to consider applying for university in terms of a cost benefit analysis, rather than simply trying to get their children in without much thought. In the end, a university education carries with it opportunity costs. One’s child might be better off working for 4 years then slugging for a university education and only coming out with a mediocre result.

Labour

Nothing new added. Just stating why we do the awesome things we do.

Since he has broken the groups into low, middle and high quality professionals, I shall do so too. First, on low quality professionals, I agree that tightening is called for, especially when it forms the largest group of people coming in, and that the growth of foreigners in Singapore recently has caught the infrastructure within the country off guard. 20 years ago, it was at 10.2% of the population and today they stand at 25.2%. There has to be control for the infrastructure to keep up, and the low quality side is where the government can exercise control with the least repercussions. Regarding middle quality professionals, on one hand, I agree that there must be a degree of competition within the nation. As the world globalizes, the domestic markets of every country would be soon shared by the world, and so will the labour markets. Looking at the trends, perhaps the recent crisises might slow the pace of globalization down, but since protectionism would get them nowhere anyways, it would never stop. On the issue of high quality professionals, there is a stronger call for competition, however I would like to leave you with an interesting tidbit. Only in Singapore, will they ever name a dean of a university that is not Singaporean, or almost the CEO of a sovereign wealth fund of a country. What you take from that, I leave to you.

On a side note, what’s up with that China example? Seems too close to a scare tactic for my liking, though quite a possible situation in the future.

The next few posts are hinged on the idea of social safety nets. Most of it made plenty of sense, so not too much thoughts about it. I’m just quite surprised that there was no further information about the push for more doctors and nurses within the country to cope with the aging population. Otherwise, there have been no surprises as this part is shortly followed by a rhetoric portion about the Singapore spirit.

I generally thought that there was a general sense of 'warning' in this rally. Foreshadowing the trials and tribulations that would come in the future rather than giving new plans as solutions for these problems. The speech is centered more with the message of, "Hey guys, shit's gonna go down. Here's a shovel, do your part." I question if this is a good idea from a political point of view but then again, you can't blame him for laying it down.

And less jokes too. Sad.