Townships for foreign workers

According to ChannelNewsAsia, Foreign Minister George Yeo said that the Ministry of National Development is considering the creation of sustainable and self-contained townships for foreign workers to solve the housing problem faced by the increasing number of foreign workers in Singapore.

This throws us back to colonial times when separate townships or enclaves were marked out by the British for the different ethnic groups. And where did that lead us?

Segregating foreign workers may make it easier to manage them initially and is a simple solution to appease the population, but how would it help the workers to integrate into Singapore society? More importantly, how would it help to change Singaporeans' attitudes towards them?

No doubt the view is that most of these workers are transient migrants, but as their numbers grow larger, they will become a bigger social force.

Keeping them out of sight of Singaporeans may, I fear, be a mistake. We need to learn to live with foreigners in our midst. Just as how we have embraced the other ethnic groups and expatriates among us, we also need to learn to accept our 'guest workers'. Where do you draw the line between these different groups? Race? Gender? Income status? And where or how will this line be redrawn in future?

It perturbs me that there were even some teenagers and young Singaporeans among the vocal Serangoon Gardens residents who voiced their concerns about having foreign workers as neighbors. What does this say about us as a nation? What values are we imparting to our children?

We are after all a nation of immigrants so the issue of co-existence between cultures has always been critical to our development. So far, the government has done well to maintain racial harmony among citizens, but as the number of non-citizens continue to rise, it must take the initiative to set the tone for our relations with them. 

We need to develop measures that contribute towards tolerance, and not just resort to simple short-term measures that only sweep the differences under the carpet. 

I seriously hope the government would reconsider these townships. It's our attitude that needs to change to adapt to the new reality.

Winds of Change

These are rather interesting times. What with socio-political developments in Malaysia, Pakistan, Thailand, USA, Hong Kong and elsewhere around the world. The winds of change are definitely stirring.

Why, even in our little red dot, we are getting some semblance of socio-political action, and I'm not talking about the ERP (ha!).

I read with interest and concern about the residents of middle-class suburb Serangoon Gardens who protested vehemently against the setting up of a dormitory for foreign workers in their area. Concerned residents galvanized other neighbors to sign a petition against the proposal, and they even organized a special meeting with their member of parliament to voice their displeasure with the proposal. They cite safety and security (how will they ever be able to leave their parents and children alone at home), as well as economic (the value of their property will decrease significantly) reasons for their protest.

Foreign workers, in the Singapore context, usually refer to the thousands of men and women from China, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Bangladesh and Myanmar, who work in low-paying, manual jobs such as construction or domestic help.

The lack of special housing and recreational facilities for these workers drive them to spend their weekends (mainly Sundays) in large numbers in various 'enclaves' throughout the island. You can also sometimes see them resting in open fields or at the void decks of HDB flats in the vicinity of the worksites. They are definitely hard to overlook when they congregate. With the greater influx of foreign workers due to the increased demand for their services, it is indeed laudable that the government is looking into meeting their basic needs (such as housing) with plans to convert unused government buildings into dormitories for these workers.

However, as shown in the Serangoon Gardens case, such plans may not be welcomed by the populace. Fear and suspicion are not uncommon emotions when dealing with people of other cultures or ethnic backgrounds. More so, when these same people are perceived as being of a lower socio-economic group.

The perfunctory acknowledgment of the workers' important contribution to the Singapore economy, which prefaced most residents' arguments against the dormitory ring hollow and do little to mask their deep-seated prejudices. Indeed, Singaporeans would not be the first to go to arms over increasing numbers of foreigners in their midst. This issue brings to mind the tense relations between Europeans and Australians with their own immigrant populations.

Today's article in the Sunday Times titled "Where 5,000 expats call home" about the warm welcome experienced by expats in Serangoon Gardens only serve to highlight such prejudices. I thought the paper did a good job of revealing the residents' double standards when it came to welcoming foreign talent to their neighborhoods.

Indeed neighbors (though admittedly probably not the same ones who signed the petition) were quoted as being happy to have expatriates (usually white, white-collar families in the local context) in their midst. A former teacher even has fond recollections of playing with European kids while growing up.

Although the foreign worker dormitory will house mainly single, male workers who form a rather different demographic than the welcomed white families, one can't help but note the difference in acceptance levels that these two migrant groups arouse in the community.

I'm not sure if this has to do with race or gender (what if the foreign workers were Caucasian or female?) discrimination, but it is indeed sad that we are unable to see them for who they really are. Human beings who are like us, and who should be treated with a bit more respect and less suspicion.

Women may never get it

A follow-up article in The Straits Times today by Li Xueying [The Men Don't Get It. Why? Paternity leave would hit the bottom line hard, say companies] details some of the reasoning behind why policy makers decided against extending paternity leave to fathers, at least for now.

Apparently, the government had gathered feedback from women, who indicated that "they would prefer that the extra month of leave be given to them, rather than to their spouses" because "they want to spend more time with their babies." I'm curious whether any men had also been surveyed since only the female viewpoint was shared. Also, who exactly were these women and how many of them were there? How was this survey conducted? It would really interest me to find out more details about this feedback.

According to the same article, analysts suspect that economics too had played a part. Aside from the fact that men comprise 57% of the Singapore workforce (which by the way includes PRs too), compared to 43% of women (a difference of 14% or 281,000 individuals), men are also paid 27% more than women on average, suggesting that they hold more senior positions and that their absence from companies would have a greater impact on the organizations' daily operations.

So, what should we infer from these arguments? That females are more expendable than their male colleagues, and that there would be no point in promoting women to more senior positions since it would be more costly for the company when they take their maternity leave?

Puh-leeze!

Be Fruitful and Multiply

Among the latest incentives from the government to boost our birth rate are longer maternity leave (4 months!), additional childcare leave, subsidies for couples trying to conceive (finally!) and of course, more baby bonus.

But I don't understand how increasing the length of the maternity leave would encourage more couples to have children. I think there are very few couples, if any, who decide to have children so that the mother can take 'leave'. Wouldn't the long absence place added pressure on companies and female employees instead?

How are companies, especially the smaller ones or even lean departments in larger organizations be expected to cope with the long absence of their employees. Four months is no joke. That's a quarter of a year. And essentially, employers would end up having not only to pay the mother's salary, but also that of a replacement staff, leading to additional costs that would burden their cash flow. Plus, other colleagues would have to portion out the mother's workload and they may not take that too kindly. All this may lead to further discrimination of mothers and by extension, women, in the workplace.

Come on, let's be a bit more radical here so that we can really bring about a change in mindset with regard to parenting. Why not implement shared parental leave instead so that both the mother and the father have the same entitlement to paid leave to care for the newborn? After all, fathers must also bond with their children and learn how to care for them. And if both parents take turns, say the mom takes the first two months off followed by the dad, the shorter length of time both are absent from the office would be much appreciated, I'm sure. It would also provide fewer reasons for companies to discriminate against female employees.

Also, how about encouraging (whether with financial or legal 'incentives') companies or groups of companies within the same building or area to set up childcare centers for their staff, thus allowing parents to be closer to their children?

Workplaces should be made more child- or baby-friendly so that parents would have no qualms about bringing their children to work, for example if junior's school is suddenly closed due to illness.

In fact, companies and at the very least, building owners, should be required to make creche or nursing facilities available to their staff. I believe that many parents would feel more reassured to have their children nearby and may not even need to rush home so early in order to make sure that their children are fed.

I don't think couples need incentives in order to have children. At least, I don't believe that they could be so calculative. Even if they were, simple arithmetic would show them that the cost (real or opportunity) of having children is definitely much greater than any financial incentives handed out by the government. However, family friendly policies, especially those that impact employment and the workplace, would really go a long way in making parenting easier and less stressful for the parents and their co-workers.

What about the dad?

Have you watched the new anti-dengue campaign commercial on telly?

It features a little boy in ICU and his mother having flashbacks of happier moments. A voiceover expresses her regret that she was not more vigilant in eradicating sources of stagnant water from their home.

It irks me that the dad is only featured playing with the boy in the flashback scenes. Shouldn't he also play a role in protecting his family and home?

In today's society, where dual career couples form the majority of families, women definitely need more support from their husbands in raising families. They cannot be expected to bear the brunt of contributing to the family income and taking care of the household. Men need to also do their part, and I'm sure that many do.

So what's with the archaic gender stereotype then?

A medal for sin

Congratulations to the Singapore women's table tennis team for getting into the finals at the Beijing Olympics!

We're now assured of at least a silver medal. The first Olympic medal for Singapore after 48 years. Wow!

No one is expecting the Singapore team to win against formidable China. But as they say in football, the ball is round. Hmm, this should apply here too :)

Anyway, all the best to the women and may they put up a good fight tonight.

Like I always say, leave it to the women to get the job done ;)

My problem with the least favorite child

In a recent article published in Singapore's daily, The Straits Times, on 10 August 2008 (Feeling like the least favorite child), a Malay Muslim columnist expresses her disappointment at being treated differently (rather unfairly, from the tone of her article) because she belongs to one of Singapore's ethnic minorities. She brings up the perception that members of this particular minority need to work much harder to prove themselves and that they are burdened by the expectation or belief that their individual actions are regarded as a reflection of the entire community's capabilities or shortcomings. More interesting is her suggestion that such stereotyping is institutionalized through her anecdotes on family members being excluded from national service or the army, and I'm surprised that there has been no official response on that particular point. 

What disturbs me about this article is not the fact that I felt a certain kinship with the author, as I believe many Malay Singaporeans would (or for that matter readers from other minority groups), but that she made certain generalizations that appear to stem from the very same stereotypes that frustrate her. Does she actually have evidence that the large number of votes for the Singapore Idols were mainly from the Malay community, and is she aware that Malay Muslim boys do perform their national service in the army? Is it just me or did her article seem like one long gripe?

No doubt many Malay Singaporeans, including yours truly, would have felt the burden of the community's expectation while we were growing up, and we would have also lamented (or heard our parents lament) the injustice of the stereotypes attached to our ethnicity. However, by focusing on such perceptions and allowing them to rule our actions, would we not be guilty of stereotyping ourselves and of using them as a social crutch? Have we considered that by repeating these stereotypes, we would actually reinforce and internalize them, and impose extra pressure on ourselves and others? Or that we would start viewing the world through the eyes of those who want us to fit into a certain mould, i.e. self-fulfilling prophecy?

Perhaps it's time we stop complaining and start defining ourselves through our own actions, regardless of how we perceive or expect others to perceive us. There would always be people who refuse to see us for who we are, whether we like it or not. But there's nothing to stop us from taking charge of our own destiny.