No country for old men

This Tommy Lee Jones movie is a story of an aged Sheriff Ed Bell trying to catch an assassin on the trail of a young man on the run with some drug money he found.  The movie has a very western feel to it. Very few actually understand the ethos of the movie is about generational change, an old sheriff feeling his inadequacy and trying to make sense of a changed world.

I have a strong feeling many of the older generation in Singapore have fallen into the same rabbit hole. There is a strong bewilderment of what the hell happened from the wealth of the 1980s to a struggling existence today, and seeing a detached government that is unwilling and unable to fully address their plight.

When Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin said "Singapore can become the best place in the world to age in"  and I was deciding on a Fairprice housebrand loaf of bread or a Gardenia's, I can't make sense of the comment. Of course, one cannot appreciate a comment without knowing the audience to whom those words of wisdom were spoken. Not much money left in my bank account, but I'll wager to the last dollar he was speaking at a 12 course dinner for the well-heeled CBD crowd.

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." ...Confucius

After 10 years overseas, I thought I return to a very wealthy and well governed country. To my shock and utter dismay I see more homeless folks sleeping in odd places than I witnessed in Makati, Philippines. I see frail and bended old folks clinging to their last vestige of pride, refusing to go begging by eking a living making a few cents from collecting cardboards and selling tissue papers. But I cannot understand why ministers said these old folks are taking the opportunity to exercise.

When one travels and see these disparities of wretchedness in a rich country, one does not need to do research to know something is terribly wrong. The hundreds of millions of $ that the government pours into Formula 1 races in order to showcase Singapore to the world is diminished by one single photo of haggard old folks pushing a cardboard cart, now an ubiquitous sight, part of our landscape. Simply google 'singapore, cardboard collectors, images' and you see despair. I can't make sense of the willingness to pour millions of tax payers money into a single  project that prospers one Ong Beng Seng, the F1 organiser, but so unwilling to relief the burdens of the aged poor.

The government can boast of the many social services and aid programmes that have been rolled out but never admit these have been negated by the high cost of living and the many official left pocket to right pocket trickeries that locals deride as  'give a chicken wing and take back a whole chicken' policies.

"...any woman who is married to a citizen of Singapore may, on making application therefor in the prescribed manner, be registered as a citizen of Singapore if she satisfies the Government — that she has resided continuously in Singapore for a period of not less than 2 years immediately preceding the date of the application; that she intends to reside permanently in Singapore; and that she is of good character."... Singapore Constitution (123) (2)

I want to hightlight a small segment of Singaporeans whose lives have been devastated or made terribly intolerable by an uncaring and non-compassionate leadership. For one reason or another, many Singaporean males find a foreign-born partner late in life. Some took on the government's challenge to venture forth in foreign lands and found romance. Many find difficulties in bringing their spouse into Singapore.

The constitutional rights of these men are abrogated by subsidiary executive regulations that prevent any easy path of entry for foreign spouses. They are left to using tourist visas of one month, followed by an application for extension for 2 months. At the end of the 3rd month the spouse returns to her home country for a week or so, and then repeats the process. There is the extra cost of visa extension application and the one month return ticket which is sacrificed. The worse part is upon each entry, the spouse faces the trauma at passport checking counter. Often viewed as woman of ill-repute trying to enter our sacred golden country, the never-smiling ICA counter staff will call up an equally non-smiling bunch of ICA security personnel to rudely haul her away, in front of long queues of their fellow travellers from their home country, to the interrogation office. At the office, the same questions will be asked, as if ICA does not have the best computer data bases to rely on.

Well meaning friends will suggest approach the MP, apply for long term visit pass etc and will be told been there, done that. Their plights have been raised before, and standard ICA respond peters down to one standard line - they assess applications for LTVP on various criteria, one of which is the ability of the sponsor to support the applicant. The $ sign flashes on all doors to government offices.

Call me stupid, but there are 2 things I don't understand the line of thought here. Does the government give out financial aid to foreign spouses? NO. Are the sponsors asking for aid? NO. So why should the presupposition of aid be a criteria? In any case, LTVP is renewable bi-annualy and thus easily terminated. What then is the issue?

Allowing a foreign spouse in means one less work permit or employment pass to issue. Is that not better for official statistics? In the choice of giving a job to a foreign spouse or a foreign worker, our government chooses the latter.

Government policies discriminate the folks caught up in this situation. They cannot rent HDB apartments, whether from HDB or from the public. They cannot register as new applicants for HDB flats except for the studio apartments. An even for the studio apartments, the 'subsidy' is reduced by a higher charge for the flat.

I had a friend from Canada who spent some time here on tourist visa. He was invited to apply for Permanent Residency. Let me make it clear, he did not apply for it. Many took advantage of PR status to buy subsidised HDB flats, subsidies that our government prefers to give to PRs than to citizens with a foreign spouse. My mind cannot compute all these.

It is pure and simple discrimination of a segment of Singaporeans by the government.

I have had some discourse with folks online who are quite happy with the status quo in Singapore, espousing on the clean and green, best housing, best education, law and order, good jobs and clean government routines. My responses to them have been: Good for you. Let me guess, you must be in your late 20s-early 30s, graduate, chasing the corporate ladder, low to mid level management, probably staying with parents. Wait till you are in your 40s, with your salaries heating glass ceilings, with a wife and kids, making payments for big ticket items - a car and HDB, maybe condo or landed property, and employers wondering why they should'nt be bringing in a young MBA from India at half your cost.

You may then realise, like Sheriff Bell, that this is no country for old men.