Published in Straits Times here.
The original To dream (too) big:
Until I saw framed photos of people in ‘funny gowns and square hats’ in the Tiong Bahru home of a Christian family hosting local school children in the 1970s, I did not know there was such a thing called ‘university’.
Years later while conducting fieldwork in a factory, Mary asked if ‘big school’ (‘university’ in Mandarin) is the same as ‘secondary four’.
‘O’ levels were beyond the imagination of this incredibly gifted seamstress. How was she to inspire her children to ‘dream big’; aspire to university?
The converse is also a problem: parents forcing their children to dream ‘too big’; aspirational parents who are ignorant of a wide range of careers that their children could aspire to (podiatrists, phlebotomists, paralegal, product designer, personal shopper).
When we insist that anything less than becoming a doctor, lawyer or engineer is ‘failure’, we condemn children to a stressful and unhappy childhood.
We need just as much – and therefore appropriate rewards and respect should be accorded – people with excellent service skills to give customers a memorable shopping or dining experience.
But let us not throw out the baby with the bath water. Exams can open doors to ‘poor children’.
Take my English (for speakers of other languages) student Hunta, a refugee and cleaner.
Her sons could have gone to a secondary school assigned by the local council. Instead these aspirational young men chose to sit gruelling exams which gained them admission to possibly the best free grammar school, where 20 boys compete for each place.
Hunta’s older son is already in a Russell Group university. Her younger has been offered a place at Oxford. As a ‘poor’ household, both qualify for substantial financial assistance.
If we view each child as a ‘gift to the nation’, each should be valued for the totality of their natural talents. We need smaller class sizes where professionals (teachers, careers advisers, psychologists) can identify these talents (academic, sporting, artistic, relational or otherwise).
Then, working closely with parents (eg signposting to opportunities and funding), we invest in developing these talents to the fullest.
Only then can we (again) get children of factory workers to top schools and universities, the athletes and artists that make our nation proud, and the service staff who will make it pleasurable for everyone to spend their hard-earned money.
Saturday, 16 June 2018
Thursday, 14 June 2018
Let children from all backgrounds have access to opportunities to nurture talents
This was published in Todayonline Voices on 14th June. Not possible to give the specific (deep) link. Neither Straits Times nor Todayonline was prepared to use the word 'Marxist' and the guiding light to my social analysis was reduced to nought.
The original here:
According to the “French Marxist* sociologist” Henri Lefebvre, binary oppositions do not always help in social analysis. (*Lefebvre, a scholar of Marxist theory, was expelled by the French Communist Party.)
Instead he formulated a system of triadic dialectics. Like a tripod that holds your camera steady, a triad of concepts – a heuristic tripod – allows us to investigate relationships, causes and effects.
In debating inequalities, the question of whether it is ‘nature’ or ‘nurture’ that brings about social mobility is missing a third leg: ‘opportunities’.
This is what middle-class parents do: buy opportunities (tuition, enrichment, moving into school catchment areas) to maximize opportunities for their children.
I wish for a Singapore where children from the poorest families can access those opportunities.
Take my English (for speakers of other languages) student “Hunta”, a refugee and cleaner who works split shifts starting at 4.30am.
Her sons opted to sit gruelling exams and gained admission to one of the best grammar (free) schools in Britain. Every year, 20 boys compete for each place at this school.
Hunta’s older son now studies in a Russell Group university. Her younger has been offered a place at Oxford. After means-testing, both are eligible for substantial fee reductions and other bursaries are required to pay only one-third of the usual fees.
But not every child is academically-gifted.
Our misplaced emphasis on academic brilliance as the only culturally-acceptable path to success has meant that we have lost some two generations of people who could have been trained to be skilled, well-paid AND RESPECTED artisans, technicians, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, designers, print-makers, chefs, specialist craftsmen (and women) in all areas of life.
Instead we now import people to do this work while our own languish. We had been trying to fit square pegs into round holes.
We have sacrificed the futures of these people at the altar of academic prowess and what parents thought – hoped – it could bring. The cycle repeats, and we wonder why our children are distressed.
My job as a parent is to seek out the opportunities to nurture the natural talents that my child has. The role of the government is to ensure that such access to opportunities is not blocked by the accident of one’s birth or gatekeeping interest groups.
We need a new mindset where we seek to discover – and accept – the natural gifts of our children – academic, sporting, technical, relational, or otherwise – no matter what their background might be, and then supply them with the opportunities to excel.
We need a (Swiss?) school system where small class sizes allow (teaching) professionals to identify talents in children.
The published version:
I refer to the report, "Government aiming for 'best of Singapore and Swiss' education system: Ong Ye Kung (June 7), and the recent discussions about tackling inequalities in our society.
In debating inequalities, the question of whether it is "nature" or "nurture" that brings about social mobility is missing a third leg: "opportunities".
This is what middle-class parents do: Buy opportunities (tuition, enrichment, moving into school catchment areas) to maximise opportunities for their children.
I wish for a Singapore where children from the poorest families can have access to those opportunities.
Instead, we now import people to fill these positions and more. We had been trying to fit square pegs into round holes.
We have directed people to chase after academic prowess and what parents thought or hoped it could bring. The cycle repeats, and we wonder why our children are distressed.
A parent's job is to seek out the opportunities to nurture the natural talents that their children have. The role of the Government is to ensure that such access to opportunities is not blocked by the accident of one's birth or gatekeeping interest groups.
We need a new mindset where we seek to discover and accept the natural gifts of our children — be they academic, sporting, technical, relational, or otherwise — no matter what their background might be, and then supply them with the opportunities to excel.
We need a school system where small class sizes allow teaching professionals to identify talents in children.
The original here:
According to the “French Marxist* sociologist” Henri Lefebvre, binary oppositions do not always help in social analysis. (*Lefebvre, a scholar of Marxist theory, was expelled by the French Communist Party.)
Instead he formulated a system of triadic dialectics. Like a tripod that holds your camera steady, a triad of concepts – a heuristic tripod – allows us to investigate relationships, causes and effects.
In debating inequalities, the question of whether it is ‘nature’ or ‘nurture’ that brings about social mobility is missing a third leg: ‘opportunities’.
This is what middle-class parents do: buy opportunities (tuition, enrichment, moving into school catchment areas) to maximize opportunities for their children.
I wish for a Singapore where children from the poorest families can access those opportunities.
Take my English (for speakers of other languages) student “Hunta”, a refugee and cleaner who works split shifts starting at 4.30am.
Her sons opted to sit gruelling exams and gained admission to one of the best grammar (free) schools in Britain. Every year, 20 boys compete for each place at this school.
Hunta’s older son now studies in a Russell Group university. Her younger has been offered a place at Oxford. After means-testing, both are eligible for substantial fee reductions and other bursaries are required to pay only one-third of the usual fees.
But not every child is academically-gifted.
Our misplaced emphasis on academic brilliance as the only culturally-acceptable path to success has meant that we have lost some two generations of people who could have been trained to be skilled, well-paid AND RESPECTED artisans, technicians, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, designers, print-makers, chefs, specialist craftsmen (and women) in all areas of life.
Instead we now import people to do this work while our own languish. We had been trying to fit square pegs into round holes.
We have sacrificed the futures of these people at the altar of academic prowess and what parents thought – hoped – it could bring. The cycle repeats, and we wonder why our children are distressed.
My job as a parent is to seek out the opportunities to nurture the natural talents that my child has. The role of the government is to ensure that such access to opportunities is not blocked by the accident of one’s birth or gatekeeping interest groups.
We need a new mindset where we seek to discover – and accept – the natural gifts of our children – academic, sporting, technical, relational, or otherwise – no matter what their background might be, and then supply them with the opportunities to excel.
We need a (Swiss?) school system where small class sizes allow (teaching) professionals to identify talents in children.
How else might a cleaner’s son get to Oxford, or a gifted athlete to the Olympics?
==
I refer to the report, "Government aiming for 'best of Singapore and Swiss' education system: Ong Ye Kung (June 7), and the recent discussions about tackling inequalities in our society.
In debating inequalities, the question of whether it is "nature" or "nurture" that brings about social mobility is missing a third leg: "opportunities".
This is what middle-class parents do: Buy opportunities (tuition, enrichment, moving into school catchment areas) to maximise opportunities for their children.
I wish for a Singapore where children from the poorest families can have access to those opportunities.
Our misplaced emphasis on academic brilliance as the foremost, culturally acceptable path to success has meant that we have lost some two generations of people who could have been trained to be skilled, well-paid and respected artisans, technicians, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, designers, print-makers, chefs, specialist craftsmen (and women) in all areas of life.
We have directed people to chase after academic prowess and what parents thought or hoped it could bring. The cycle repeats, and we wonder why our children are distressed.
A parent's job is to seek out the opportunities to nurture the natural talents that their children have. The role of the Government is to ensure that such access to opportunities is not blocked by the accident of one's birth or gatekeeping interest groups.
We need a new mindset where we seek to discover and accept the natural gifts of our children — be they academic, sporting, technical, relational, or otherwise — no matter what their background might be, and then supply them with the opportunities to excel.
We need a school system where small class sizes allow teaching professionals to identify talents in children.
Wednesday, 6 June 2018
Teach disadvantaged families how to help themselves
Published in Straits Times here.
Original as follows:
From my infrequent visits back to Singapore, it appears that the meritocratic system my generation benefitted from has all but disappeared. Boundaries have become entrenched. Upward social mobility has become increasingly difficult.
I agree with Prof Teo You Yenn that we need to understand the individual personal and familial circumstances of those at the bottom of our social hierarchy before we can help them.
In my voluntary role in Greater London I have had to deal with too many clients whose families are trapped in a vicious circle of debt (it usually starts with a small high-interest loan or credit card debt), unemployment (uncompetitive because of their low skills), poor health (depression arising from unemployment, other health issues from abuse of drugs or medicines) and a lack of education which means they did not even know where to start looking for help.
As a result, children suffer from poor housing/homelessness, poor nutrition, poor attendance at school (they do not dare open the doors to bailiffs chasing legitimate debts), and ultimately a lack of qualifications.
Despite all the resources thrown at them by schools which get a ‘premium’ for disadvantaged children, free health (NHS) and free education, these children still fail to thrive.
Meanwhile taxpayers are disbursing huge benefits payments for unemployment, housing, health issues (mental and physical) that seem to offer an abysmal ROI (return on investment).
And we haven’t even touched on the issue of crime that results from such dire circumstances.
In my ideal world, I will send in a mentor – not necessarily a social worker, retired management consultants may apply – to identify what their skills and resources are, why these are under-utilized, and arrive at a holistic 12-/18-/24-month plan to get both the adults and children back onto a level playing field (debt-free, employed, in good physical and mental health).
From my perspective as a social anthropologist, such families cannot be freed from such ‘benefits traps’, ‘poverty traps’ or ‘inequality traps’ until they have been helped to help themselves (ie NOT to reproduce these cultural patterns).
Sometimes it could as simple as knowing how to discipline children, what to feed them, or perhaps even learning how to cook.
Original as follows:
From my infrequent visits back to Singapore, it appears that the meritocratic system my generation benefitted from has all but disappeared. Boundaries have become entrenched. Upward social mobility has become increasingly difficult.
I agree with Prof Teo You Yenn that we need to understand the individual personal and familial circumstances of those at the bottom of our social hierarchy before we can help them.
In my voluntary role in Greater London I have had to deal with too many clients whose families are trapped in a vicious circle of debt (it usually starts with a small high-interest loan or credit card debt), unemployment (uncompetitive because of their low skills), poor health (depression arising from unemployment, other health issues from abuse of drugs or medicines) and a lack of education which means they did not even know where to start looking for help.
As a result, children suffer from poor housing/homelessness, poor nutrition, poor attendance at school (they do not dare open the doors to bailiffs chasing legitimate debts), and ultimately a lack of qualifications.
Despite all the resources thrown at them by schools which get a ‘premium’ for disadvantaged children, free health (NHS) and free education, these children still fail to thrive.
Meanwhile taxpayers are disbursing huge benefits payments for unemployment, housing, health issues (mental and physical) that seem to offer an abysmal ROI (return on investment).
And we haven’t even touched on the issue of crime that results from such dire circumstances.
In my ideal world, I will send in a mentor – not necessarily a social worker, retired management consultants may apply – to identify what their skills and resources are, why these are under-utilized, and arrive at a holistic 12-/18-/24-month plan to get both the adults and children back onto a level playing field (debt-free, employed, in good physical and mental health).
From my perspective as a social anthropologist, such families cannot be freed from such ‘benefits traps’, ‘poverty traps’ or ‘inequality traps’ until they have been helped to help themselves (ie NOT to reproduce these cultural patterns).
Sometimes it could as simple as knowing how to discipline children, what to feed them, or perhaps even learning how to cook.
Wednesday, 11 October 2017
Racist? Me?
What a week!
Baffled by the admonition for Chinese in Singapore to make the minorities feel welcome I wrote to Straits Times with a "question-comment". It was published here.
251 words in the original reduced to 174.
The next thing I knew this letter was all over FB because someone had used this letter to define "humblebragging" ( TRY NOT TO OPEN THIS as it will only increase its hit count: https://mothership.sg/2017/10/chinese-sporean-woman-recognised-her-chinese-ness-after-strange-men-hit-on-her-in-europe/) and an award-winning novelist had written a considered FB response as a person in the minority.
How recounting unpleasant experiences pertinent to the discussion on racism in Singapore could be twisted into a piece about humblebragging was quite beyond me.
But never mind. Free speech. He's allowed to state his opinion.
I was curious as to why the people who then came on to FB to comment assumed that I was trying to get the attention of these "white men". So, it was my fault for trying to emulate Suzie Wong, I've been told.
Calm down, people, I will never look like Suzie Wong in a million years. I went to Amsterdam as a missionary in my thirties! By the way, it is never nice to be accosted by strangers. Period.
Yesterday the onlinecitizen published this article, all 1900 words, where I set out what I believe had gone wrong. It's my view. I may be right. I may be wrong.
Ultimately I want us to get back to that kind of Singapore I knew where one's skin colour is not the defining issue.
By sheer coincidence, Mr Lim Siong Guan wrote this commentary piece on building a gracious society on Today on the same day.
Grace, not race. Let's be gracious, not racist.
Meanwhile, enjoy Bette Midler here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLPj2h0N3bU
Baffled by the admonition for Chinese in Singapore to make the minorities feel welcome I wrote to Straits Times with a "question-comment". It was published here.
251 words in the original reduced to 174.
The next thing I knew this letter was all over FB because someone had used this letter to define "humblebragging" ( TRY NOT TO OPEN THIS as it will only increase its hit count: https://mothership.sg/2017/10/chinese-sporean-woman-recognised-her-chinese-ness-after-strange-men-hit-on-her-in-europe/) and an award-winning novelist had written a considered FB response as a person in the minority.
How recounting unpleasant experiences pertinent to the discussion on racism in Singapore could be twisted into a piece about humblebragging was quite beyond me.
But never mind. Free speech. He's allowed to state his opinion.
I was curious as to why the people who then came on to FB to comment assumed that I was trying to get the attention of these "white men". So, it was my fault for trying to emulate Suzie Wong, I've been told.
Calm down, people, I will never look like Suzie Wong in a million years. I went to Amsterdam as a missionary in my thirties! By the way, it is never nice to be accosted by strangers. Period.
Yesterday the onlinecitizen published this article, all 1900 words, where I set out what I believe had gone wrong. It's my view. I may be right. I may be wrong.
Ultimately I want us to get back to that kind of Singapore I knew where one's skin colour is not the defining issue.
By sheer coincidence, Mr Lim Siong Guan wrote this commentary piece on building a gracious society on Today on the same day.
Grace, not race. Let's be gracious, not racist.
Meanwhile, enjoy Bette Midler here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLPj2h0N3bU
Wednesday, 26 July 2017
SingPass 2FA does 'eff all'
I arrived in Singapore on 4th July. This was published on 7th of July 2017:
Have a new system for public? Test it rigorously first
All my attempts to apply for a SingPass two-factor authentication (2FA) have disappeared into a black hole.
Late last year, I was instructed to obtain a 2FA to make government transactions more secure.
But none of the options on the relevant website applied to me, as I live overseas.
After several e-mails and submitting scans of various documents, my application ground to a halt. I could not proceed with the registration online.
I called the helpline, whereupon a robotic voice took me from one option to another and landed me back at square one.
When I finally spoke to a human officer, I discovered that Assurity, the private company charged with dishing out 2FAs, has no records of my London address to which a token is supposed to be sent, and it insisted that it could not send one to my Singapore address.
I had to go down in person, I was told, and at least this helped resolve the matter.
If I did not happen to be back in Singapore, I would forever be locked out of the Singapore system. I could not even renew my passport.
This is not a complaint about personal inefficiency or individual unpleasantness.
It is a reminder that if the authorities wish to attempt such an onerous exercise, then the system should first be piloted with a group of disparate potential users.
Why allow only users of Singapore-registered mobile phones?
Call in some user-experience experts, test every scenario, and note that Singaporeans living overseas are as varied as they can get.
If the authorities cannot exhaust the ways of dealing with anomalies, then at least have an option within the protocol to deal with such matters satisfactorily.
===
The original:
BLACK HOLES DO EXIST
All my attempts to apply for my SingPass 2FA have disappeared into a black hole.
Late last year I was instructed to obtain a ‘2FA’ to make government transactions more secure.
I get that. My banks require two- or even three-part verification.
But boy! Do they make it difficult for Singaporeans who reside overseas!
None of the options on the relevant website applies to me.
After several emails, and having submitted scans of various documents, my application ground to a halt.
As I am in Singapore, I queued up at a CPF office to resolve this matter.
I could not proceed with the registration online as the (not so) civil servant said I could.
I called the helpline whereupon a robotic voice took me round and around the different options and landed me back at square one.
When I finally spoke to a human being (Daniel) I discovered that Assurity, the private company charged with dishing out 2FAs, have no records of my London address to which a token is supposed to be sent.
First they refused to register my overseas address. Now they insist that they cannot send it to my Singapore address.
Or I must attend one of two addresses in Singapore, which defeats the purpose of going online, surely.
If I did not happen to be back in Singapore, I will forever be locked out of the Singapore system. I can’t even renew my passport.
Am I now a lesser-spotted Singaporean?
This is not a complaint about personal inefficiency or individual unpleasantness. It is a reminder that if you wish to attempt such an onerous exercise, then pilot-test the system with a group of disparate potential users.
Mapping processes on a flowchart is inadequate. Reality does not always fit in with your limited categories. Why only allow Singapore-registered mobile phones?
Call in some user experience experts. Test every scenario. Note that Singaporeans living overseas are as varied as you can get.
If you cannot exhaust the ways of dealing with anomalies, then at least have an option within your protocol to deal with such, satisfactorily.
Incidentally, why ‘2FA’? Have you not heard the term ‘eff (sounds like ‘fook’) all’?
For me, ‘2FA’ = ‘total eff all’. So far.
Have a new system for public? Test it rigorously first
All my attempts to apply for a SingPass two-factor authentication (2FA) have disappeared into a black hole.
Late last year, I was instructed to obtain a 2FA to make government transactions more secure.
But none of the options on the relevant website applied to me, as I live overseas.
After several e-mails and submitting scans of various documents, my application ground to a halt. I could not proceed with the registration online.
I called the helpline, whereupon a robotic voice took me from one option to another and landed me back at square one.
When I finally spoke to a human officer, I discovered that Assurity, the private company charged with dishing out 2FAs, has no records of my London address to which a token is supposed to be sent, and it insisted that it could not send one to my Singapore address.
I had to go down in person, I was told, and at least this helped resolve the matter.
If I did not happen to be back in Singapore, I would forever be locked out of the Singapore system. I could not even renew my passport.
This is not a complaint about personal inefficiency or individual unpleasantness.
It is a reminder that if the authorities wish to attempt such an onerous exercise, then the system should first be piloted with a group of disparate potential users.
Why allow only users of Singapore-registered mobile phones?
Call in some user-experience experts, test every scenario, and note that Singaporeans living overseas are as varied as they can get.
If the authorities cannot exhaust the ways of dealing with anomalies, then at least have an option within the protocol to deal with such matters satisfactorily.
===
The original:
BLACK HOLES DO EXIST
All my attempts to apply for my SingPass 2FA have disappeared into a black hole.
Late last year I was instructed to obtain a ‘2FA’ to make government transactions more secure.
I get that. My banks require two- or even three-part verification.
But boy! Do they make it difficult for Singaporeans who reside overseas!
None of the options on the relevant website applies to me.
After several emails, and having submitted scans of various documents, my application ground to a halt.
As I am in Singapore, I queued up at a CPF office to resolve this matter.
I could not proceed with the registration online as the (not so) civil servant said I could.
I called the helpline whereupon a robotic voice took me round and around the different options and landed me back at square one.
When I finally spoke to a human being (Daniel) I discovered that Assurity, the private company charged with dishing out 2FAs, have no records of my London address to which a token is supposed to be sent.
First they refused to register my overseas address. Now they insist that they cannot send it to my Singapore address.
Or I must attend one of two addresses in Singapore, which defeats the purpose of going online, surely.
If I did not happen to be back in Singapore, I will forever be locked out of the Singapore system. I can’t even renew my passport.
Am I now a lesser-spotted Singaporean?
This is not a complaint about personal inefficiency or individual unpleasantness. It is a reminder that if you wish to attempt such an onerous exercise, then pilot-test the system with a group of disparate potential users.
Mapping processes on a flowchart is inadequate. Reality does not always fit in with your limited categories. Why only allow Singapore-registered mobile phones?
Call in some user experience experts. Test every scenario. Note that Singaporeans living overseas are as varied as you can get.
If you cannot exhaust the ways of dealing with anomalies, then at least have an option within your protocol to deal with such, satisfactorily.
Incidentally, why ‘2FA’? Have you not heard the term ‘eff (sounds like ‘fook’) all’?
For me, ‘2FA’ = ‘total eff all’. So far.
Homeless in Singapore
This was published in Straits Times Forum (Web) Letters on 15th July 2017:
Difficult for returning S'porean to get HDB flat
When I decided to come home to Singapore after 26 years abroad, I began my search for long-term accommodation for my husband and me.
Years ago, when I tried to apply for a HDB flat, I was made to understand by a HDB officer that I did not qualify because there was no record of my marriage to my husband (who is a non-citizen) in Singapore. Hence, we put off trying to buy an HDB flat.
Friends suggested that if HDB deems me a single, I should buy a resale flat as a single.
But, the HDB now says I am definitely "married".
While it does allow joint applications with a non-citizen spouse, it is only for a two-room flat.
However, I am told that my husband has to sell his overseas property.
But if we do that, where is our teenage son, who could not come back to Singapore because he was not granted citizenship, going to live?
The only possible solution seems to be to divorce my husband - that is, to regain my single status - just so that I can buy a resale flat, after which I can settle to find work here.
With so many foreigners in Singapore, I am sure I am not the only one in this predicament.
===
The original:
Divorce (verb) to return to Singapore
After more than two infuriating hours at the HDB Hub I came to the conclusion that the only way for this reluctant migrant to return to Singapore permanently (after 26 years abroad) is to divorce her husband.
I cannot afford to work in Singapore until I get a home. Thus I began my search for long-term accommodation for my husband and me.
Years ago an HDB officer told my sister that I could not apply for an HDB flat with my husband because there is no record of my marriage in Singapore.
As such we put off trying to buy an HDB flat.
Friends suggested that if HDB deems me a single, I should buy a resale flat as a single.
HDB now says I am definitely “married”.
HDB does allow joint applications with a non-citizen spouse, which seems a very enlightened step, but only for a two-roomed flat.
However it reverts to the Dark Ages by requiring my husband to sell his overseas property.
Where is our teenage son going to live if we are forced to sell this, his only home?
Our son is not coming with us because he has not been given citizenship. (I am an inferior woman Singaporean married to a foreign man.)
The only possible solution seems to be to divorce my husband (ie regain my single status) just so that I can buy a resale flat, after which I can settle to find work.
With hindsight I did not have to declare my married status, nor that my husband owns an overseas property. But we are honest Christians who don’t know how to lie.
Perhaps it is far easier for me to get a divorce from Singapore.
Difficult for returning S'porean to get HDB flat
When I decided to come home to Singapore after 26 years abroad, I began my search for long-term accommodation for my husband and me.
Years ago, when I tried to apply for a HDB flat, I was made to understand by a HDB officer that I did not qualify because there was no record of my marriage to my husband (who is a non-citizen) in Singapore. Hence, we put off trying to buy an HDB flat.
Friends suggested that if HDB deems me a single, I should buy a resale flat as a single.
But, the HDB now says I am definitely "married".
While it does allow joint applications with a non-citizen spouse, it is only for a two-room flat.
However, I am told that my husband has to sell his overseas property.
But if we do that, where is our teenage son, who could not come back to Singapore because he was not granted citizenship, going to live?
The only possible solution seems to be to divorce my husband - that is, to regain my single status - just so that I can buy a resale flat, after which I can settle to find work here.
With so many foreigners in Singapore, I am sure I am not the only one in this predicament.
===
The original:
Divorce (verb) to return to Singapore
After more than two infuriating hours at the HDB Hub I came to the conclusion that the only way for this reluctant migrant to return to Singapore permanently (after 26 years abroad) is to divorce her husband.
I cannot afford to work in Singapore until I get a home. Thus I began my search for long-term accommodation for my husband and me.
Years ago an HDB officer told my sister that I could not apply for an HDB flat with my husband because there is no record of my marriage in Singapore.
As such we put off trying to buy an HDB flat.
Friends suggested that if HDB deems me a single, I should buy a resale flat as a single.
HDB now says I am definitely “married”.
HDB does allow joint applications with a non-citizen spouse, which seems a very enlightened step, but only for a two-roomed flat.
However it reverts to the Dark Ages by requiring my husband to sell his overseas property.
Where is our teenage son going to live if we are forced to sell this, his only home?
Our son is not coming with us because he has not been given citizenship. (I am an inferior woman Singaporean married to a foreign man.)
The only possible solution seems to be to divorce my husband (ie regain my single status) just so that I can buy a resale flat, after which I can settle to find work.
With hindsight I did not have to declare my married status, nor that my husband owns an overseas property. But we are honest Christians who don’t know how to lie.
Perhaps it is far easier for me to get a divorce from Singapore.
Sunday, 2 July 2017
Ethnic enclaves in Britain
Another letter was published in Straits Times on 8th of June:
The original under-400-word letter reads:
The original under-400-word letter reads:
===
My thesis supervisor asked, “Do you think multiculturalism is a good thing?” His tone of voice suggested that he did not approve, which is most unusual for a British academic.
My answer: Multiculturalism is great. Public services can be run on religious holidays as we take turns to go on leave.
What is there not to like?
However British children do not start the school day by pledging unity with fellow citizens ‘regardless of race, language or religion’.
Previously school assemblies were required to be ‘Christian’ in perspective, providing some semblance of cultural glue. These days, liberals, humanists, agnostics, atheists, etc have ensured that religion, and especially the Christian religion, is kept out of the classroom.
An elderly friend was furious on learning that her grandchildren were being taught – at school – that divorce is ‘normal’. (What, I wonder, would she think of same-sex relationships being taught.)
Previously most immigrants chose to integrate. We hear accounts of people changing their surnames (hiding their German/Jewish/Polish/etc roots), adopting Anglicized names (my son says I should call myself ‘Susan’) and adopting western dress, even to the point of cutting their hair and removing their turban, just so to find work.
Even Muslim immigrants adapted, becoming vegetarians as there was no halal food. They worked hard and learned the English language. They needed to feed their families.
Multiculturalism became more prevalent in the late 1990s. Two things happened.
‘White flight’ is the phenomenon of locals (of whatever colour) ‘fleeing’ to other areas to avoid being swamped by people of a ‘wrong’ ethnicity.
The vacuum was filled by new migrants, leading to monocultural ethnic and linguistic enclaves.
Women in particular did not learn to speak/read English and instead became dependent on husbands and so-called community leaders in matters of marriage and politics, including their right to vote (by post).
If children did not have a chance to interact with families outside of their own ethnic group in monocultural schools, how are they to learn ‘British ways’?
If university students are unable to use a knife and fork, how are they going to land (well-paid) jobs requiring fine-dining with clients?
Some insist on wearing Islamic robes to interviews, and then claim racism for their continuing unemployment.
Frustration, boredom, drug addiction, criminal behaviour, and then it’s only one small step to being radicalized by someone who promises an alternative to such purposelessness.
My answer: Multiculturalism is great. Public services can be run on religious holidays as we take turns to go on leave.
What is there not to like?
However British children do not start the school day by pledging unity with fellow citizens ‘regardless of race, language or religion’.
Previously school assemblies were required to be ‘Christian’ in perspective, providing some semblance of cultural glue. These days, liberals, humanists, agnostics, atheists, etc have ensured that religion, and especially the Christian religion, is kept out of the classroom.
An elderly friend was furious on learning that her grandchildren were being taught – at school – that divorce is ‘normal’. (What, I wonder, would she think of same-sex relationships being taught.)
Previously most immigrants chose to integrate. We hear accounts of people changing their surnames (hiding their German/Jewish/Polish/etc roots), adopting Anglicized names (my son says I should call myself ‘Susan’) and adopting western dress, even to the point of cutting their hair and removing their turban, just so to find work.
Even Muslim immigrants adapted, becoming vegetarians as there was no halal food. They worked hard and learned the English language. They needed to feed their families.
Multiculturalism became more prevalent in the late 1990s. Two things happened.
‘White flight’ is the phenomenon of locals (of whatever colour) ‘fleeing’ to other areas to avoid being swamped by people of a ‘wrong’ ethnicity.
The vacuum was filled by new migrants, leading to monocultural ethnic and linguistic enclaves.
Women in particular did not learn to speak/read English and instead became dependent on husbands and so-called community leaders in matters of marriage and politics, including their right to vote (by post).
If children did not have a chance to interact with families outside of their own ethnic group in monocultural schools, how are they to learn ‘British ways’?
If university students are unable to use a knife and fork, how are they going to land (well-paid) jobs requiring fine-dining with clients?
Some insist on wearing Islamic robes to interviews, and then claim racism for their continuing unemployment.
Frustration, boredom, drug addiction, criminal behaviour, and then it’s only one small step to being radicalized by someone who promises an alternative to such purposelessness.
===
Spot the difference. This is the published version:
===
Spot the difference. This is the published version:
===
It is not hard to see how someone could be radicalised.
In the past, immigrants to Britain chose to integrate.
We heard accounts of people changing their surnames to hide their German, Jewish or Polish roots, and adopting Anglicised names and western dress.
Some removed their turbans and cut their hair so as to find work. Muslim immigrants became vegetarian, as there was no halal food.
They learnt English and worked hard to feed their families.
When multiculturalism became more prevalent in the late 1990s, two things happened.
Residents in some areas moved en masse to other neighbourhoods to avoid being swamped by people of a "wrong" ethnicity.
This led to a vacuum, which was filled by new immigrants, resulting in monocultural ethnic and linguistic enclaves.
Women, in particular, did not learn to speak or read English, and instead became dependent on their husbands and community leaders in matters of marriage and politics, including their right to vote (by post).
Children did not have a chance to interact with families outside of their ethnic group because the schools were monocultural.
How, then, are they to learn "British ways"?
The isolation brought about by living in ethnic enclaves could provide fertile ground for radicalisation.
===
In the past, immigrants to Britain chose to integrate.
We heard accounts of people changing their surnames to hide their German, Jewish or Polish roots, and adopting Anglicised names and western dress.
Some removed their turbans and cut their hair so as to find work. Muslim immigrants became vegetarian, as there was no halal food.
They learnt English and worked hard to feed their families.
When multiculturalism became more prevalent in the late 1990s, two things happened.
Residents in some areas moved en masse to other neighbourhoods to avoid being swamped by people of a "wrong" ethnicity.
This led to a vacuum, which was filled by new immigrants, resulting in monocultural ethnic and linguistic enclaves.
Women, in particular, did not learn to speak or read English, and instead became dependent on their husbands and community leaders in matters of marriage and politics, including their right to vote (by post).
Children did not have a chance to interact with families outside of their ethnic group because the schools were monocultural.
How, then, are they to learn "British ways"?
The isolation brought about by living in ethnic enclaves could provide fertile ground for radicalisation.
===
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)