Who Is Really Being Marginalised?
When statistics give the lie to perceptions
Much has been written in reaction to Singaporea's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's remarks about the Chinese population in neighbouring countries being "systematically marginalised". Not infrequently, commentators have also taken side swipes at Singapore's foreign talent policy, with insinuations that the policy aims to marginalise its minority races while boosting the majority race.
Consider the column that appeared in the Malay newspaper Utusan Malaysia on Sept 30, with the headline, "Who Is Really Being Marginalised?".
Using the pseudonym "Political Observer", the writer demanded to know how Singapore explained its foreign talent policy in light of its much-vaunted multicultural, multiracial policy.
"What we are trying to question is this, whatever happens to the cosmopolitan character of the Singapore population? Why was priority for citizenship given to the Chinese in Hong Kong when the territory reverted to Beijing in 1997? Now, is there still priority for Hongkongers and Taiwanese to become citizens, and whether this same privilege will be extended to the Malays, Indians and Javanese? Singapore must answer this question to defend its status as a multiracial country," he wrote.
Here is the background to the policy: In 1989, the Singapore Government set up the Immigration Affairs Committee (Imac) to woo professionals and skilled workers to come and obtain permanent residence here. The first batch invited comprised 25,000 Hong Kong residents, chosen on the assumption that, with political control of Hong Kong due to be handed back to communist China in a few years' time, many would be prepared to consider making Singapore their home.
Two special task forces were also formed to attract talented Malays and Indians, including Singaporeans who had emigrated.
When the policy was announced, minority races were understandably concerned that the influx of Chinese immigrants would dilute their own numbers.
Even Chinese Singaporeans had expressed reservations -- for totally different reasons. Some still do.
The Government assured Singaporeans then that it would treat all potential permanent residents equally.
"We do not have a special door for a particular group," George Yeo, the chairman of Imac then, and Acting Minister for Information and the Arts, told the Malay newspaper Berita Harian in 1991, in response to a question on whether there was a quota on the number of foreign Malay-Muslim talent invited here.
The perception then, as it is now, was that there would be droves of immigrants from China as a result of the Republic's open-door policy, which would eventually either increase the proportion of the Chinese here, or at least preserve their ratio in the overall population, since Malays as a whole were reproducing more than the Chinese. Only for the first time last year did the birth rate for Malays fall slightly below replacement level - from 2.10 in 2004 to 2.07.
The same concern was raised by Malays as recently as August, during a dialogue among Malay community leaders to discuss the Prime Minister's National Day Rally speech, in which the hunt for talented foreigners had featured prominently.
How valid are these concerns? Two sets of statistics - the 2000 Census of Population and the General Household Survey of 2005 - throw up some surprises.
The 2005 survey showed that out of 3.5 million residents (citizens and permanent residents) in that year, the percentages of Chinese and Malays had dropped slightly -- from 76.8 per cent in 2000 to 75.6 per cent for the former, and from 13.9 per cent to 13.6 per cent for the latter.
However, there was a significant increase in the percentage of Indians during the five-year period, from 7.9 per cent to 8.7 per cent.
This was due to the inflow of Indian PRs.
The 2000 Census of Population had a similar trend: Chinese and Malays both suffered a slight drop in percentages, from 77.8 per cent in 1990 to 76.8 per cent for the Chinese, and 14 per cent to 13.9 per cent for the Malays.
The percentage of Indians went up from 7.1 per cent to 7.9 per cent.
The clearest indication of the trend is in the field of education: While all ethnic groups showed improvement in the number of those with polytechnic or university qualification, the biggest jump was among Indians -- from 20 per cent in 2000 to 31 per cent last year. For Chinese, it went from 20 per cent to 27 per cent, while for Malays, it went from 4.9 per cent to 8.6 per cent.
'The increase in proportion of Indian university graduates was partly due to the inflow of Indian permanent residents with university qualification,' the report noted. Some 60 per cent of Indian PRs were university graduates in 2005, up from 51 per cent in 2000, it noted.
It is the same with average monthly household incomes. While it rose from S$4,940 (US$3,110) in 2000 to S$5,400 (US$3,400) last year, with all races enjoying bigger pay packets, it rose the highest for Indian households, from S$4,560 (US$2,871) in 2000 to S$5,170 (US$3,255) last year.
The Chinese saw their average monthly household wages grow by S$410 (US$258) to S$5,630 (US$3,544), while those of Malay households rose from S$3,150 (US$1,983) to S$3,440 (US$2,165).
For comparison, the average monthly household income for the Chinese between 1990 and 2000 rose from S$3,213 (US$2,022) to S$5,219 (US$3,285), from S$2,246 (US$1,414) to S$3,148 (US$1,981) among the Malays and from S$2,859 (US$1,799) to S$4,556 (US$2,868) among the Indians.
The bottom line: Contrary to the common perception that the foreign-talent policy has brought in proportionately more Chinese from China, it is actually the Indians from India who are taking full advantage of the Republic's search for talent.
(By Mafoot Simon - The Straits Times )
North Korea: A Pouting Paper Tiger
One mustn’t make too much light of the presumed North Korean underground nuclear test. But the fact is that whenever your instruments detect a lot of ground-shaking in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, it could be because of almost anything.
The shaking could be due to the mass collapse of thousands upon thousands of North Koreans from starvation, or even from the raucous rattling of malfunctioning test rockets that come crashing to the ground shortly after take-off. Some day perhaps, an odd and ominous sound may be triggered by the surprise thud of a thunderous Chinese coup against Pyongyang.
Don’t laugh. This most unlikable regime’s widely publicized boast of having conducted a small explosion cannot paper over the fact that North Korea is a pouting paper tiger. To keep things in perspective, the alleged nuclear test was minute in size _ so small, in fact, that a conventional explosion could have had the same seismic impact.
Hoax or not, fear often spreads disproportionately to reality.
The Japanese people have the most justification for emotional over-reaction. New Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, completing a timely fence-mending mission to South Korea and China, said all the right things about the need to deter North Korea. In truth, Abe, a political patrician, has always expressed grave doubts about Kim Jong-il’s intentions and has consistently advised intimates to expect nothing but the worst from this North Korean government.
But the Japanese attitude should not become a self-fulfilling prophecy. North Korea is as bribable today as it was in 1994 when a Geneva conference, spearheaded by the United States, managed to freeze the regime’s nuclear program in return for a goodie-basket full of Western aid. That accord eventually broke down, but with blame on both sides.
If that kind of accord cannot be revived, then certain developments become more probable. One is the unprecedented intensity in Japan to neutralize its pacifist Constitution and nuclearize its arsenal. That millennial development would send shock waves throughout the region, and could well inspire a nuclear South Korea as well.
In relatively short measure, you would have gone from an East Asia with few nuclear powers to a region with quite a few. You would also get public pressure, in Japan as well as in the U.S., for the erection of a very costly (and very possibly inadequate, despite the cost) Asian regional missile-defense system.
If you add all these costs up, what you get is a colossal bundle of public expenditures and a boatload of missile-psychosis in Asia and America. How better, then, it would be to chart a sly return to the framework of 1994 _ you know, the standard international deal: swords into plowshares for dough.
It remains difficult to imagine that ever-calculating North Korean leaders can hope for anything better than this. It is no more able to use its military force on its neighbors than the neighbors could use force on them. Both sides are caught in a stalemate of reality: South Korea’s options are limited by Seoul’s precarious proximity to North Korea’s deadly non-nuclear rocket installations; the U.S. options are similarly limited by that, not to mention by its heavy military investment and preoccupation in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is one last card to play. Washington could go ahead with some sort of economic sanctions attack, which will be ineffective and/or will hurt the wrong people in North Korea. Nonetheless, such a move would assuage outraged American and Japanese public opinion. To continue the 1994 Framework Agreement reprise, Washington would have to agree to meet one-on-one, publicly, with Pyongyang and hammer out a re-visitation of Geneva.
The Chinese have long been urging precisely this, but Washington has declined, insisting on the multi-national modality of the six-party talks. This stance is more stubborn than anything else: ``Standing on principle about the modality for talks, that is, insisting on 6-Party rather than bilateral talks, strikes me as nuts, when the stakes are stopping a country from getting and perfecting nuclear weapons. It reminds me of arguing over the shape of the table even before agreeing to conduct peace talks for stopping the war in Vietnam more than 30 years ago.’’
That angry perspective comes from Robert Gallucci, who is now dean of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service. In 1994 he was the lead American official in negotiating the Geneva Framework Agreement. Something of this nature needs to be cobbled together anew.
Will the North Koreans, quite irrationally, decline _ or, very dangerously, cheat on a denuclearization deal? If they do, then collective military action against the North may become the last remaining option. China, which has sponsored the Six Party Talks with little to show for that, might even decide to come onboard. Says a well-connected Asian diplomat who has been to North Korea but who does not want to be identified as speaking for his government: ``Beijing would not hesitate to dump Kim Jong-il if doing so helps safeguard its own credibility.’’
But we are not at the collective-action, military-option panic point yet _ not by a long shot. This is not the time for hollow calls-to-arms but for rational, self-interested calculation and the most clear-headed of thinking.
(Tom Plate -
Professor at University of California, Los Angeles
Director of Asia Pacific Media Network)
Aftermath of Nuclear Test
A day after North Korea stunned the world by testing its first nuclear bomb, the domestic financial markets rebounded Tuesday. The markets’ quicker-than-expected return to normalcy should come as a relief for both policymakers and investors, who had braced up for a much worse situation. It is too early to relax, however, as the crisis would aggravate if our allies toughen their sanctions and Pyongyang responds with another nuclear test. Seoul should both prevent and prepare for this worst-case scenario.
Fortunately, the stock market showed quick recovery from Monday’s crash, in which it lost $21 billion worth of aggregate value, the biggest since 9/11. Two factors played critical roles in restoring markets’ stability; foreign investors’ buying spree and international credit rating agencies’ cautious response to the test. In stark contrast, some domestic media outlets’ exaggerated reports about market panic appeared to instigate market jitters. It’s time to discard sensationalism and overreaction.
A real problem will occur if the confrontation prolongs amid an escalating war of nerves between Washington and Pyongyang. One cannot completely rule out a mass exodus of foreign investors if the drawn-out conflict starts to weigh on the nation’s industry and exports. Of course, the nation’s foreign exchange reserves are enough to preclude a situation similar to the 1997-98 financial crisis, but the impact will deal a crippling blow to the already faltering economy. Seoul should go all out to prevent this.
Another economic problem stemming from the nuclear test is how to handle economic cooperation projects between the two Koreas. Hard-liners call for the immediate suspension of Mt. Kumgang tour and light industrial manufacturing in Kaesong just north of the inter-Korean border. But it would be too hasty to unilaterally abandon the fruits of the ``sunshine’’ policy. Some even say the engagement policy only helped to finance the manufacture of atomic bombs, but this is too rash and simple a viewpoint.
Seoul should move in step with key allies and the international community to deal with the aftermath of Pyongyang’s nuclear detonation. Still the engagement policy has served as a coolant in volatile regional security situation as well as payment in advance for eventual reunification. In similar context, those who say the demise of the six-way talks ought to think twice. If there still remains room for diplomacy as President Bush said, the existing format would work for dismantling the North’s arsenal.
The North’s latest provocation should be reason to control the tempo of the South’s existing policy but not one for its complete about-face. This is basically a duel between Washington and Pyongyang, and Seoul should continue to play a mediator’s role, although it will have to use more sticks than carrots and move closer to its allies as long as the Stalinist regime sticks to its military adventurism.
North Korea, Nations Respond to Possible Sanctions For Nuke Test
UNITED NATIONS — North Korea is reportedly willing to give up its nuclear program if the United States takes what one official calls "corresponding measures," a South Korean news agency reported Tuesday.
Reportedly, a North Korean official also threatened that the communist nation could fire a nuclear-tipped missile unless the U.S. acts to resolve its standoff with Pyongyang.
"We hope the situation will be resolved before an unfortunate incident of us firing a nuclear missile comes," the unnamed official said, according to South Korea's Yonhap news agency.
South Korea's news agency quotes the official as saying that the North's nuclear test was aimed at getting the U.S. to the negotiating table. He says the North wants to ensure its security as well as guarantee its "system."
"We still have a willingness to give up nuclear weapons and return to six-party talks as well. It's possible whenever the U.S. takes corresponding measures."
Comments from the official were reported from Beijing where China may reportedly accept tough Chapter 7 U.N. sanctions on North Korea following its announced nuclear test, a South Korean envoy said Tuesday.
"China seems to have different position than it had before on a Chapter 7 resolution," Chun Young-woo told The Associated Press after returning from Beijing, referring to the section of the U.N. Charter that deals with threats to international peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression.
"I think (China) will employ all available means to prevent North Korea from further aggravating the situation and to bring them back into diplomatic efforts," Chun said after returning from a two-day trip where he met Chinese officials.
The announcement comes after U.S. responded Monday to North Korea's claim that it had successful detonated a nuclear weapon by circulating a tough draft resolution to the United Nations Security Council condemning the nuclear test and impose wide-ranging sanctions on the country for disregarding the world body's admonishments to not move forward with the test.
A copy of the Security Council document obtained by The Associated Press says that the United States wants the resolution to fall under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which deals explicitly with threats to international peace and security, as well as acts of aggression. Chapter 7 grants the council the authority to impose a range of measures that include breaking diplomatic ties and imposing economic and military sanctions to taking military action.
The resolution would enact tough restrictions, including a trade ban on military and luxury items, the power to inspect all cargo entering or leaving the country, and freezing assets connected with its weapons programs.
The draft also adds new proposals from Japan that would ban all countries from allowing any North Korean ships in their ports or any North Korean aircraft from taking off or landing in their territory and impose travel restrictions on high-ranking North Korean officials.
• CountryWatch: North Korea | South Korea
Early U.S. requests came as U.S. Ambassador John Bolton told the Security Council that Washington would view any North Korean aggression against South Korea or Japan as an attack on the United States, U.N. diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the meeting was closed. The United States has defense agreements with Tokyo and Seoul, and thousands of U.S. troops are stationed in both countries.
Bolton echoed the stern warning delivered earlier in the day by President Bush, who called North Korea's nuclear test "unacceptable" and "provocative," and warned the regime of Kim Jong Il that the U.S. would honor its commitments to protect its Asian allies
• Video: U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Bolton Speaks Out About What the Next Steps on North Korea
"The United States will meet the full range of our deterrent and security commitments," Bush said during a brief White House appearance.
The president said North Korea was "one of the world's leading proliferaters" of weapons technology, including transfers to Iran and Syria.
President Bush called the transfer of nuclear weapons or material would constitute "a grave threat to the United States, and we hold North Korea fully accountable for the consequences of such actions."
The president said North Korea was "one of the world's leading proliferators" of weapons technology, including transfers to Iran and Syria.
President Bush called the transfer of nuclear weapons or material would constitute "a grave threat to the United States, and we hold North Korea fully accountable for the consequences of such actions."
Bush also charged that North Korea had defied the international community, "and the international community will respond," a reference to Monday morning's meeting of the United Nations Security Council.
"No one defended [the test], no one even came close to defending it," Bolton told reporters during a brief break in the Security Council talks. "I was very impressed by the unanimity of the council ... on the need for a strong and swift answer to what everyone agreed amounted to a threat to international peace and security."
Security council members earlier condemned North Korea, demanding the communist nation return to six-party talks on its weapons program, U.N. ambassadors said.
The U.S. proposals were among several ideas for a Security Council resolution that the United States shared with council diplomats after North Korea claimed to have set off an underground nuclear explosion. Military action, however, is far from anyone's minds.
"We believe that highly provocative act requires a very strong resolution explicitly under Chapter 7 that provides for sanctions against the North Korean regime," the document said.
Among the proposals were to:
— Prohibit trade in materials that could be used to make or deliver weapons of mass destruction.
— Require states to make sure that North Korea not use their territory or entities for proliferation or illicit activities. Financial transactions that North Korea could use to support those programs would also be banned.
— Require states to freeze all assets related to North Korea's weapons and missile programs, as well as any other illicit activities it conducts.
— Authorize inspection of all cargo to and from North Korea to limit proliferation.
— Ban trade with North Korea in luxury goods and military items
• Raw Data: North Korean Statement on Alleged Nuke Test
U.S. officials say the White House will seek "much stronger punitive measures," although they do not believe the country's oil supplies will be targeted.
Bush, meanwhile, said he had called the leaders of South Korea, China, Russia and Japan and all had reaffirmed a commitment to a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. China and Russia are permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, along with Britain, France and the United States.
"Threats will not lead to a brighter future for the North Korean people," Bush said.
Speculation surfaced late in the day that North Korea may have decided to go forward with a test as a way of showing its displeasure for the nomination of South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon to be the new secretary-general, replacing Kofi Annan, whose term is expiring.
The Security Council began its Monday morning session by formally naming Ban as its candidate, and passing the nomination on to the General Assembly, where he likely will be confirmed.
If approved, Ban said his first task would be to "contribute as much as I can to the resolution of all kinds of problems including the North Korean nuclear issue that may threaten international peace and security."
"This should be a moment of joy. But instead, I stand here with a very heavy heart," Ban said. "Despite the concerted warning from the international community, North Korea has gone ahead with a nuclear test."
North Korea's U.N. ambassador offered a different and defiant perspective, saying the Security Council should congratulate his country for its nuclear test instead of passing "useless" resolutions or statements.
Pak Gil Yon told reporters he was proud of the North Koreans who conducted the test, and said the Security Council ought to be, too. Asked if the North planned any more tests, Pak said: "That will be enough. You don't think so?"
Earlier Monday, Bush spoke with Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. A statement from the Japanese Foreign Ministry said that the two leaders had agreed to push for "decisive action" against North Korea at the U.N. Security Council over the communist regime's claim it had carried out a successful nuclear weapons test.
The two leaders, who spoke by phone, called the reported test a grave threat to international security, the statement said.
Bush fell short, however, of officially confirming that a nuclear explosion had actually taken place.
Late Sunday night, however, a senior Bush administration official told FOX News that North Korea had completed a successful test of a nuclear weapon.
The official said that initial readings from South Korea reported only a 3.58-magnitude seismic reaction, which is smaller than what would be expected from the 4-kiloton explosion the communist nation sought. To put the bomb's capabilities in context, a 20-kiloton explosion could conceivably kill 200,000 people.
"North Korea may not have got what they wanted," the official said.
The U.S. Geological Survey, however, said it detected a 4.2-magnitude tremor at 10:35 p.m. EDT, which could mean the device was potentially deadlier than initially believed. Australia also said there was seismic confirmation that North Korea conducted a nuclear test.
"It was a success from their perspective in that they achieved a nuclear yield, though that is not very difficult," the official said. "It's within their technical capabilities."
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Michigan, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, called the reported test, "another attempt by its erratic leader Kim Jong-Il to intimidate the West into negotiating directly with his regime."
"His actions will instead further isolate the country from the international community, and we need to continue to work to ensure the stability of the region," Hoekstra said Monday.
"While not unexpected, if North Korea indeed carried out a nuclear test, it has needlessly and recklessly demonstrated that the world remains a dangerous place. The world community must pursue all diplomatic and economic options as it considers its response to the provocation."
U.S. officials told FOX News' Bret Baier that they were warned by allies in advance of the test. China reportedly received a 20-minute heads up and immediately notified officials in the U.S., Japan and South Korea.
• Related Story: South Korean Stocks Plunge After Reported North Korea Nuclear Test
The North's official Korean Central News Agency said the underground test was performed successfully "with indigenous wisdom and technology 100 percent," and that no radiation leaked from that test site.
"It marks a historic event as it greatly encouraged and pleased the (Korean People's Army) and people that have wished to have powerful self-reliant defense capability," KCNA said. "It will contribute to defending the peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in the area around it."
China, the North's closest ally, said Beijing "resolutely opposes" the nuclear test and hopes Pyongyang will return to disarmament talks.
Chun said Beijing reiterated their commitment to a peaceful diplomatic solution to the issue during his two-day trip where he met with Chinese leaders.
Russian President Vladimir Putin told his Cabinet that Moscow "certainly condemns the test conducted by North Korea." The Foreign Ministry called Pyongyang's ambassador to Russia in for consultations, demanding that North Korea immediately take steps to return to the six-nation talks.
Iranian state radio blamed North Korea's reported test on U.S. pressure, saying the test "was a reaction to America's threats and humiliation."
Iran has said it will not abandon uranium enrichment despite the threat of international sanctions over its disputed nuclear program, which Tehran insists is purely for peaceful purposes to be used for nuclear energy.
China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States have held intermittent talks with North Korea since 2003 in hope of getting Pyongyang to abandon nuclear weapons in exchange for aid and security guarantees.
South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun condemned the reported test, saying it would make it difficult for Seoul to maintain its engagement policy with its communist neighbor. Roh said Seoul would try to resolve the situation through dialogue, but his government reportedly delayed the planned delivery of 4,000 tons of cement to the North on Tuesday as emergency relief.
South Korea had said the one-time aid shipment was separate from its regular humanitarian aid to the North, which it halted after Pyongyang's missile launches in July.
Impoverished and isolated North Korea has relied on foreign aid to feed its 23 million people since its state-run farming system collapsed in the 1990s following decades of mismanagement and the loss of Soviet subsidies.
South Korea also raised its military's alert level, and its intelligence agency warned that Pyongyang could conduct more tests, the Yonhap news agency reported. South Korea, which does not have nuclear weapons, has shared the world's most heavily armed border with North Korea since the 1950-1953 Korean War ended in a truce, without a peace treaty.
The European Union and NATO condemned the reported test, and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said the test reflects the "upside-down" priorities of North Korea's leadership.
"It's very bad news for the people of North Korea," Solana said. "At the end of the day, the government of North Korea is spending lots of money for something which is not going to be for the benefit of the people, while the people in North Korea continue to be starving."
British Prime Minister Tony Blair criticized the North for defying the international community.
"The international community has repeatedly urged them to refrain from both missile testing and nuclear testing," he said. "This further act of defiance shows North Korea's disregard for the concerns of its neighbors and the wider international community."
Germany, France and Australia also condemned the move and called for immediate U.N. Security Council action.
India and Pakistan, South Asian rivals whose nuclear arms race has concerned the world, too, said North Korea's reported test could destabilize northeast Asia.
Pakistan said the reported nuclear test could spark a proliferation "chain reaction."
"This will be a destabilizing development for the region," Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said.
The North is believed to have enough radioactive material for about a half-dozen crude bombs, using plutonium from its main nuclear reactor located at Yongbyon, north of the capital Pyongyang.
The North also has active missile programs, but it isn't believed to have a nuclear bomb design small and light enough to be mounted on a long-range rocket that could strike targets as far as the U.S.
If confirmed, the North would be the ninth country in the world known to have nuclear weapons. The other countries are the United States, Russia, France, China, Britain, India, Pakistan and Israel.
UN N Korea Pyongyang Nuke Test Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew Singaore Malaysia
Much has been written in reaction to Singaporea's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's remarks about the Chinese population in neighbouring countries being "systematically marginalised". Not infrequently, commentators have also taken side swipes at Singapore's foreign talent policy, with insinuations that the policy aims to marginalise its minority races while boosting the majority race.
Consider the column that appeared in the Malay newspaper Utusan Malaysia on Sept 30, with the headline, "Who Is Really Being Marginalised?".
Using the pseudonym "Political Observer", the writer demanded to know how Singapore explained its foreign talent policy in light of its much-vaunted multicultural, multiracial policy.
"What we are trying to question is this, whatever happens to the cosmopolitan character of the Singapore population? Why was priority for citizenship given to the Chinese in Hong Kong when the territory reverted to Beijing in 1997? Now, is there still priority for Hongkongers and Taiwanese to become citizens, and whether this same privilege will be extended to the Malays, Indians and Javanese? Singapore must answer this question to defend its status as a multiracial country," he wrote.
Here is the background to the policy: In 1989, the Singapore Government set up the Immigration Affairs Committee (Imac) to woo professionals and skilled workers to come and obtain permanent residence here. The first batch invited comprised 25,000 Hong Kong residents, chosen on the assumption that, with political control of Hong Kong due to be handed back to communist China in a few years' time, many would be prepared to consider making Singapore their home.
Two special task forces were also formed to attract talented Malays and Indians, including Singaporeans who had emigrated.
When the policy was announced, minority races were understandably concerned that the influx of Chinese immigrants would dilute their own numbers.
Even Chinese Singaporeans had expressed reservations -- for totally different reasons. Some still do.
The Government assured Singaporeans then that it would treat all potential permanent residents equally.
"We do not have a special door for a particular group," George Yeo, the chairman of Imac then, and Acting Minister for Information and the Arts, told the Malay newspaper Berita Harian in 1991, in response to a question on whether there was a quota on the number of foreign Malay-Muslim talent invited here.
The perception then, as it is now, was that there would be droves of immigrants from China as a result of the Republic's open-door policy, which would eventually either increase the proportion of the Chinese here, or at least preserve their ratio in the overall population, since Malays as a whole were reproducing more than the Chinese. Only for the first time last year did the birth rate for Malays fall slightly below replacement level - from 2.10 in 2004 to 2.07.
The same concern was raised by Malays as recently as August, during a dialogue among Malay community leaders to discuss the Prime Minister's National Day Rally speech, in which the hunt for talented foreigners had featured prominently.
How valid are these concerns? Two sets of statistics - the 2000 Census of Population and the General Household Survey of 2005 - throw up some surprises.
The 2005 survey showed that out of 3.5 million residents (citizens and permanent residents) in that year, the percentages of Chinese and Malays had dropped slightly -- from 76.8 per cent in 2000 to 75.6 per cent for the former, and from 13.9 per cent to 13.6 per cent for the latter.
However, there was a significant increase in the percentage of Indians during the five-year period, from 7.9 per cent to 8.7 per cent.
This was due to the inflow of Indian PRs.
The 2000 Census of Population had a similar trend: Chinese and Malays both suffered a slight drop in percentages, from 77.8 per cent in 1990 to 76.8 per cent for the Chinese, and 14 per cent to 13.9 per cent for the Malays.
The percentage of Indians went up from 7.1 per cent to 7.9 per cent.
The clearest indication of the trend is in the field of education: While all ethnic groups showed improvement in the number of those with polytechnic or university qualification, the biggest jump was among Indians -- from 20 per cent in 2000 to 31 per cent last year. For Chinese, it went from 20 per cent to 27 per cent, while for Malays, it went from 4.9 per cent to 8.6 per cent.
'The increase in proportion of Indian university graduates was partly due to the inflow of Indian permanent residents with university qualification,' the report noted. Some 60 per cent of Indian PRs were university graduates in 2005, up from 51 per cent in 2000, it noted.
It is the same with average monthly household incomes. While it rose from S$4,940 (US$3,110) in 2000 to S$5,400 (US$3,400) last year, with all races enjoying bigger pay packets, it rose the highest for Indian households, from S$4,560 (US$2,871) in 2000 to S$5,170 (US$3,255) last year.
The Chinese saw their average monthly household wages grow by S$410 (US$258) to S$5,630 (US$3,544), while those of Malay households rose from S$3,150 (US$1,983) to S$3,440 (US$2,165).
For comparison, the average monthly household income for the Chinese between 1990 and 2000 rose from S$3,213 (US$2,022) to S$5,219 (US$3,285), from S$2,246 (US$1,414) to S$3,148 (US$1,981) among the Malays and from S$2,859 (US$1,799) to S$4,556 (US$2,868) among the Indians.
The bottom line: Contrary to the common perception that the foreign-talent policy has brought in proportionately more Chinese from China, it is actually the Indians from India who are taking full advantage of the Republic's search for talent.
(By Mafoot Simon - The Straits Times )
**********
North Korea: A Pouting Paper Tiger
One mustn’t make too much light of the presumed North Korean underground nuclear test. But the fact is that whenever your instruments detect a lot of ground-shaking in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, it could be because of almost anything.
The shaking could be due to the mass collapse of thousands upon thousands of North Koreans from starvation, or even from the raucous rattling of malfunctioning test rockets that come crashing to the ground shortly after take-off. Some day perhaps, an odd and ominous sound may be triggered by the surprise thud of a thunderous Chinese coup against Pyongyang.
Don’t laugh. This most unlikable regime’s widely publicized boast of having conducted a small explosion cannot paper over the fact that North Korea is a pouting paper tiger. To keep things in perspective, the alleged nuclear test was minute in size _ so small, in fact, that a conventional explosion could have had the same seismic impact.
Hoax or not, fear often spreads disproportionately to reality.
The Japanese people have the most justification for emotional over-reaction. New Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, completing a timely fence-mending mission to South Korea and China, said all the right things about the need to deter North Korea. In truth, Abe, a political patrician, has always expressed grave doubts about Kim Jong-il’s intentions and has consistently advised intimates to expect nothing but the worst from this North Korean government.
But the Japanese attitude should not become a self-fulfilling prophecy. North Korea is as bribable today as it was in 1994 when a Geneva conference, spearheaded by the United States, managed to freeze the regime’s nuclear program in return for a goodie-basket full of Western aid. That accord eventually broke down, but with blame on both sides.
If that kind of accord cannot be revived, then certain developments become more probable. One is the unprecedented intensity in Japan to neutralize its pacifist Constitution and nuclearize its arsenal. That millennial development would send shock waves throughout the region, and could well inspire a nuclear South Korea as well.
In relatively short measure, you would have gone from an East Asia with few nuclear powers to a region with quite a few. You would also get public pressure, in Japan as well as in the U.S., for the erection of a very costly (and very possibly inadequate, despite the cost) Asian regional missile-defense system.
If you add all these costs up, what you get is a colossal bundle of public expenditures and a boatload of missile-psychosis in Asia and America. How better, then, it would be to chart a sly return to the framework of 1994 _ you know, the standard international deal: swords into plowshares for dough.
It remains difficult to imagine that ever-calculating North Korean leaders can hope for anything better than this. It is no more able to use its military force on its neighbors than the neighbors could use force on them. Both sides are caught in a stalemate of reality: South Korea’s options are limited by Seoul’s precarious proximity to North Korea’s deadly non-nuclear rocket installations; the U.S. options are similarly limited by that, not to mention by its heavy military investment and preoccupation in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is one last card to play. Washington could go ahead with some sort of economic sanctions attack, which will be ineffective and/or will hurt the wrong people in North Korea. Nonetheless, such a move would assuage outraged American and Japanese public opinion. To continue the 1994 Framework Agreement reprise, Washington would have to agree to meet one-on-one, publicly, with Pyongyang and hammer out a re-visitation of Geneva.
The Chinese have long been urging precisely this, but Washington has declined, insisting on the multi-national modality of the six-party talks. This stance is more stubborn than anything else: ``Standing on principle about the modality for talks, that is, insisting on 6-Party rather than bilateral talks, strikes me as nuts, when the stakes are stopping a country from getting and perfecting nuclear weapons. It reminds me of arguing over the shape of the table even before agreeing to conduct peace talks for stopping the war in Vietnam more than 30 years ago.’’
That angry perspective comes from Robert Gallucci, who is now dean of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service. In 1994 he was the lead American official in negotiating the Geneva Framework Agreement. Something of this nature needs to be cobbled together anew.
Will the North Koreans, quite irrationally, decline _ or, very dangerously, cheat on a denuclearization deal? If they do, then collective military action against the North may become the last remaining option. China, which has sponsored the Six Party Talks with little to show for that, might even decide to come onboard. Says a well-connected Asian diplomat who has been to North Korea but who does not want to be identified as speaking for his government: ``Beijing would not hesitate to dump Kim Jong-il if doing so helps safeguard its own credibility.’’
But we are not at the collective-action, military-option panic point yet _ not by a long shot. This is not the time for hollow calls-to-arms but for rational, self-interested calculation and the most clear-headed of thinking.
(Tom Plate -
Professor at University of California, Los Angeles
Director of Asia Pacific Media Network)
Aftermath of Nuclear Test
A day after North Korea stunned the world by testing its first nuclear bomb, the domestic financial markets rebounded Tuesday. The markets’ quicker-than-expected return to normalcy should come as a relief for both policymakers and investors, who had braced up for a much worse situation. It is too early to relax, however, as the crisis would aggravate if our allies toughen their sanctions and Pyongyang responds with another nuclear test. Seoul should both prevent and prepare for this worst-case scenario.
Fortunately, the stock market showed quick recovery from Monday’s crash, in which it lost $21 billion worth of aggregate value, the biggest since 9/11. Two factors played critical roles in restoring markets’ stability; foreign investors’ buying spree and international credit rating agencies’ cautious response to the test. In stark contrast, some domestic media outlets’ exaggerated reports about market panic appeared to instigate market jitters. It’s time to discard sensationalism and overreaction.
A real problem will occur if the confrontation prolongs amid an escalating war of nerves between Washington and Pyongyang. One cannot completely rule out a mass exodus of foreign investors if the drawn-out conflict starts to weigh on the nation’s industry and exports. Of course, the nation’s foreign exchange reserves are enough to preclude a situation similar to the 1997-98 financial crisis, but the impact will deal a crippling blow to the already faltering economy. Seoul should go all out to prevent this.
Another economic problem stemming from the nuclear test is how to handle economic cooperation projects between the two Koreas. Hard-liners call for the immediate suspension of Mt. Kumgang tour and light industrial manufacturing in Kaesong just north of the inter-Korean border. But it would be too hasty to unilaterally abandon the fruits of the ``sunshine’’ policy. Some even say the engagement policy only helped to finance the manufacture of atomic bombs, but this is too rash and simple a viewpoint.
Seoul should move in step with key allies and the international community to deal with the aftermath of Pyongyang’s nuclear detonation. Still the engagement policy has served as a coolant in volatile regional security situation as well as payment in advance for eventual reunification. In similar context, those who say the demise of the six-way talks ought to think twice. If there still remains room for diplomacy as President Bush said, the existing format would work for dismantling the North’s arsenal.
The North’s latest provocation should be reason to control the tempo of the South’s existing policy but not one for its complete about-face. This is basically a duel between Washington and Pyongyang, and Seoul should continue to play a mediator’s role, although it will have to use more sticks than carrots and move closer to its allies as long as the Stalinist regime sticks to its military adventurism.
North Korea, Nations Respond to Possible Sanctions For Nuke Test
UNITED NATIONS — North Korea is reportedly willing to give up its nuclear program if the United States takes what one official calls "corresponding measures," a South Korean news agency reported Tuesday.
Reportedly, a North Korean official also threatened that the communist nation could fire a nuclear-tipped missile unless the U.S. acts to resolve its standoff with Pyongyang.
"We hope the situation will be resolved before an unfortunate incident of us firing a nuclear missile comes," the unnamed official said, according to South Korea's Yonhap news agency.
South Korea's news agency quotes the official as saying that the North's nuclear test was aimed at getting the U.S. to the negotiating table. He says the North wants to ensure its security as well as guarantee its "system."
"We still have a willingness to give up nuclear weapons and return to six-party talks as well. It's possible whenever the U.S. takes corresponding measures."
Comments from the official were reported from Beijing where China may reportedly accept tough Chapter 7 U.N. sanctions on North Korea following its announced nuclear test, a South Korean envoy said Tuesday.
"China seems to have different position than it had before on a Chapter 7 resolution," Chun Young-woo told The Associated Press after returning from Beijing, referring to the section of the U.N. Charter that deals with threats to international peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression.
"I think (China) will employ all available means to prevent North Korea from further aggravating the situation and to bring them back into diplomatic efforts," Chun said after returning from a two-day trip where he met Chinese officials.
The announcement comes after U.S. responded Monday to North Korea's claim that it had successful detonated a nuclear weapon by circulating a tough draft resolution to the United Nations Security Council condemning the nuclear test and impose wide-ranging sanctions on the country for disregarding the world body's admonishments to not move forward with the test.
A copy of the Security Council document obtained by The Associated Press says that the United States wants the resolution to fall under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which deals explicitly with threats to international peace and security, as well as acts of aggression. Chapter 7 grants the council the authority to impose a range of measures that include breaking diplomatic ties and imposing economic and military sanctions to taking military action.
The resolution would enact tough restrictions, including a trade ban on military and luxury items, the power to inspect all cargo entering or leaving the country, and freezing assets connected with its weapons programs.
The draft also adds new proposals from Japan that would ban all countries from allowing any North Korean ships in their ports or any North Korean aircraft from taking off or landing in their territory and impose travel restrictions on high-ranking North Korean officials.
• CountryWatch: North Korea | South Korea
Early U.S. requests came as U.S. Ambassador John Bolton told the Security Council that Washington would view any North Korean aggression against South Korea or Japan as an attack on the United States, U.N. diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the meeting was closed. The United States has defense agreements with Tokyo and Seoul, and thousands of U.S. troops are stationed in both countries.
Bolton echoed the stern warning delivered earlier in the day by President Bush, who called North Korea's nuclear test "unacceptable" and "provocative," and warned the regime of Kim Jong Il that the U.S. would honor its commitments to protect its Asian allies
• Video: U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Bolton Speaks Out About What the Next Steps on North Korea
"The United States will meet the full range of our deterrent and security commitments," Bush said during a brief White House appearance.
The president said North Korea was "one of the world's leading proliferaters" of weapons technology, including transfers to Iran and Syria.
President Bush called the transfer of nuclear weapons or material would constitute "a grave threat to the United States, and we hold North Korea fully accountable for the consequences of such actions."
The president said North Korea was "one of the world's leading proliferators" of weapons technology, including transfers to Iran and Syria.
President Bush called the transfer of nuclear weapons or material would constitute "a grave threat to the United States, and we hold North Korea fully accountable for the consequences of such actions."
Bush also charged that North Korea had defied the international community, "and the international community will respond," a reference to Monday morning's meeting of the United Nations Security Council.
"No one defended [the test], no one even came close to defending it," Bolton told reporters during a brief break in the Security Council talks. "I was very impressed by the unanimity of the council ... on the need for a strong and swift answer to what everyone agreed amounted to a threat to international peace and security."
Security council members earlier condemned North Korea, demanding the communist nation return to six-party talks on its weapons program, U.N. ambassadors said.
The U.S. proposals were among several ideas for a Security Council resolution that the United States shared with council diplomats after North Korea claimed to have set off an underground nuclear explosion. Military action, however, is far from anyone's minds.
"We believe that highly provocative act requires a very strong resolution explicitly under Chapter 7 that provides for sanctions against the North Korean regime," the document said.
Among the proposals were to:
— Prohibit trade in materials that could be used to make or deliver weapons of mass destruction.
— Require states to make sure that North Korea not use their territory or entities for proliferation or illicit activities. Financial transactions that North Korea could use to support those programs would also be banned.
— Require states to freeze all assets related to North Korea's weapons and missile programs, as well as any other illicit activities it conducts.
— Authorize inspection of all cargo to and from North Korea to limit proliferation.
— Ban trade with North Korea in luxury goods and military items
• Raw Data: North Korean Statement on Alleged Nuke Test
U.S. officials say the White House will seek "much stronger punitive measures," although they do not believe the country's oil supplies will be targeted.
Bush, meanwhile, said he had called the leaders of South Korea, China, Russia and Japan and all had reaffirmed a commitment to a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. China and Russia are permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, along with Britain, France and the United States.
"Threats will not lead to a brighter future for the North Korean people," Bush said.
Speculation surfaced late in the day that North Korea may have decided to go forward with a test as a way of showing its displeasure for the nomination of South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon to be the new secretary-general, replacing Kofi Annan, whose term is expiring.
The Security Council began its Monday morning session by formally naming Ban as its candidate, and passing the nomination on to the General Assembly, where he likely will be confirmed.
If approved, Ban said his first task would be to "contribute as much as I can to the resolution of all kinds of problems including the North Korean nuclear issue that may threaten international peace and security."
"This should be a moment of joy. But instead, I stand here with a very heavy heart," Ban said. "Despite the concerted warning from the international community, North Korea has gone ahead with a nuclear test."
North Korea's U.N. ambassador offered a different and defiant perspective, saying the Security Council should congratulate his country for its nuclear test instead of passing "useless" resolutions or statements.
Pak Gil Yon told reporters he was proud of the North Koreans who conducted the test, and said the Security Council ought to be, too. Asked if the North planned any more tests, Pak said: "That will be enough. You don't think so?"
Earlier Monday, Bush spoke with Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. A statement from the Japanese Foreign Ministry said that the two leaders had agreed to push for "decisive action" against North Korea at the U.N. Security Council over the communist regime's claim it had carried out a successful nuclear weapons test.
The two leaders, who spoke by phone, called the reported test a grave threat to international security, the statement said.
Bush fell short, however, of officially confirming that a nuclear explosion had actually taken place.
Late Sunday night, however, a senior Bush administration official told FOX News that North Korea had completed a successful test of a nuclear weapon.
The official said that initial readings from South Korea reported only a 3.58-magnitude seismic reaction, which is smaller than what would be expected from the 4-kiloton explosion the communist nation sought. To put the bomb's capabilities in context, a 20-kiloton explosion could conceivably kill 200,000 people.
"North Korea may not have got what they wanted," the official said.
The U.S. Geological Survey, however, said it detected a 4.2-magnitude tremor at 10:35 p.m. EDT, which could mean the device was potentially deadlier than initially believed. Australia also said there was seismic confirmation that North Korea conducted a nuclear test.
"It was a success from their perspective in that they achieved a nuclear yield, though that is not very difficult," the official said. "It's within their technical capabilities."
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Michigan, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, called the reported test, "another attempt by its erratic leader Kim Jong-Il to intimidate the West into negotiating directly with his regime."
"His actions will instead further isolate the country from the international community, and we need to continue to work to ensure the stability of the region," Hoekstra said Monday.
"While not unexpected, if North Korea indeed carried out a nuclear test, it has needlessly and recklessly demonstrated that the world remains a dangerous place. The world community must pursue all diplomatic and economic options as it considers its response to the provocation."
U.S. officials told FOX News' Bret Baier that they were warned by allies in advance of the test. China reportedly received a 20-minute heads up and immediately notified officials in the U.S., Japan and South Korea.
• Related Story: South Korean Stocks Plunge After Reported North Korea Nuclear Test
The North's official Korean Central News Agency said the underground test was performed successfully "with indigenous wisdom and technology 100 percent," and that no radiation leaked from that test site.
"It marks a historic event as it greatly encouraged and pleased the (Korean People's Army) and people that have wished to have powerful self-reliant defense capability," KCNA said. "It will contribute to defending the peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in the area around it."
China, the North's closest ally, said Beijing "resolutely opposes" the nuclear test and hopes Pyongyang will return to disarmament talks.
Chun said Beijing reiterated their commitment to a peaceful diplomatic solution to the issue during his two-day trip where he met with Chinese leaders.
Russian President Vladimir Putin told his Cabinet that Moscow "certainly condemns the test conducted by North Korea." The Foreign Ministry called Pyongyang's ambassador to Russia in for consultations, demanding that North Korea immediately take steps to return to the six-nation talks.
Iranian state radio blamed North Korea's reported test on U.S. pressure, saying the test "was a reaction to America's threats and humiliation."
Iran has said it will not abandon uranium enrichment despite the threat of international sanctions over its disputed nuclear program, which Tehran insists is purely for peaceful purposes to be used for nuclear energy.
China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States have held intermittent talks with North Korea since 2003 in hope of getting Pyongyang to abandon nuclear weapons in exchange for aid and security guarantees.
South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun condemned the reported test, saying it would make it difficult for Seoul to maintain its engagement policy with its communist neighbor. Roh said Seoul would try to resolve the situation through dialogue, but his government reportedly delayed the planned delivery of 4,000 tons of cement to the North on Tuesday as emergency relief.
South Korea had said the one-time aid shipment was separate from its regular humanitarian aid to the North, which it halted after Pyongyang's missile launches in July.
Impoverished and isolated North Korea has relied on foreign aid to feed its 23 million people since its state-run farming system collapsed in the 1990s following decades of mismanagement and the loss of Soviet subsidies.
South Korea also raised its military's alert level, and its intelligence agency warned that Pyongyang could conduct more tests, the Yonhap news agency reported. South Korea, which does not have nuclear weapons, has shared the world's most heavily armed border with North Korea since the 1950-1953 Korean War ended in a truce, without a peace treaty.
The European Union and NATO condemned the reported test, and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said the test reflects the "upside-down" priorities of North Korea's leadership.
"It's very bad news for the people of North Korea," Solana said. "At the end of the day, the government of North Korea is spending lots of money for something which is not going to be for the benefit of the people, while the people in North Korea continue to be starving."
British Prime Minister Tony Blair criticized the North for defying the international community.
"The international community has repeatedly urged them to refrain from both missile testing and nuclear testing," he said. "This further act of defiance shows North Korea's disregard for the concerns of its neighbors and the wider international community."
Germany, France and Australia also condemned the move and called for immediate U.N. Security Council action.
India and Pakistan, South Asian rivals whose nuclear arms race has concerned the world, too, said North Korea's reported test could destabilize northeast Asia.
Pakistan said the reported nuclear test could spark a proliferation "chain reaction."
"This will be a destabilizing development for the region," Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said.
The North is believed to have enough radioactive material for about a half-dozen crude bombs, using plutonium from its main nuclear reactor located at Yongbyon, north of the capital Pyongyang.
The North also has active missile programs, but it isn't believed to have a nuclear bomb design small and light enough to be mounted on a long-range rocket that could strike targets as far as the U.S.
If confirmed, the North would be the ninth country in the world known to have nuclear weapons. The other countries are the United States, Russia, France, China, Britain, India, Pakistan and Israel.
UN N Korea Pyongyang Nuke Test Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew Singaore Malaysia
posted by Ah Yun Wong at
6:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home