Best to live within our means

SINGAPOREANS are most concerned about cost of living issues (“Cost of living issues top concerns: Poll“; Feb 22), but what concerns me is that many people here attribute the rise in cost of living to factors outside their control, and expect the Government to increase social spending to help them.

I have no doubt that there are people who are poor and need help to deal with the rising cost of living. However, there are others who have lifestyles that are seemingly at odds with their earning power.

Families would pack restaurants on weekends, and buy tour packages at travel fairs. Many housewives, unemployed tertiary students and even primary school children own the latest mobile phones. It is also not uncommon to see one or more big-screen TV sets and air-conditioners in many HDB households. Many such households own cars. And young couples are buying condominium units instead of cheaper HDB flats as their first homes.

So are their financial woes really due to them being poor, or are they self-inflicted due to their wants?

Like any mature economy, Singapore will face an uncertain future when state revenues dwindle or turn negative, unless we can create new products and services, in less time, to compete in this more challenging world.

In such a scenario, will Singapore, which has no hinterland to turn to in the event of an economic crisis, be able to continue to spend readily on social assistance programmes?

Singaporeans, like others in an economically successful country, face many temptations to spend. We should be more prudent and ask ourselves how we are doing financially and if we can really afford the things we want.

For the well-being of consumers and society as a whole, business enterprises should be more circumspect in their marketing for sales.

Jolly Wee
Mar 7, 2013, ST Forum

Wrong to imply new citizens can’t become ‘true’ S’poreans

THE late deputy prime minister S. Rajaratnam said: “Being a Singaporean is not a matter of ancestry. It is conviction and choice.”

The message is that one’s identity as a Singaporean does not stem from the ancestry of Chinese, Malay, Indian, or Eurasian culture.

There is no guarantee that an individual who is born and bred in Singapore will have an idea of what being a Singaporean means.

Besides, given that Singapore has been independent for less than 50 years, what makes a person Singaporean is still unclear.

Hence, to imply a new citizen could be incapable of being a Singaporean does appear biased.

While the decision to accept large numbers of economic immigrants as new citizens may be a cause for concern, invoking cultural emotions to cast doubt on their ability to adopt a Singaporean way of living is contrary to the principle of multiculturalism.

The decision to accept or reject immigrants must be made based on rational thinking and logic rather than fear and guilt about the people losing their identities as Singaporeans.

Mr Rajaratnam also said: “There are people who talk about preserving Chinese culture, Malay culture, or Indian culture, as though each of these cultures is a fixed and unchanging thing. But, in fact, this is not so. The individual elements within a culture are constantly being changed, modified or discarded.”

Indeed, the culture of the people 50 years ago is not the same as today’s. There has been a conscious choice to abandon many components of the ancestral culture in favour of multiculturalism.

Let’s not undermine the high precepts set by Singapore’s founding fathers, or invoke cultural arguments in public debates.

Sabaratnam Ratnakumar
Mar 4, 2013, ST Forum