My response to the ST article about a Singaporean returning home

 I have been asked to respond to an article on the ST about a Singaporean in London who has decided to return to Singapore. Clearly, it was a poorly written propaganda piece singing praises of the PAP but it is somewhat incoherent with some poorly constructed arguments. The writer of the piece is not a journalist, so perhaps his English language skills leave much to be desired - so allow me to hold Charles Tan to account for some of his rather illogical arguments.

Mr Tan is on his way back to Singapore

Mr Tan wrote: "After all the deliberation, one thing was abundantly clear - Singapore is my home. It is where friends, family and fond memories reside. It is where I come from, it is where I must return, and considering my age - 31 - it was better to do so sooner rather than later."

Firstly, Mr Tan has been working in London for ten years - you're telling me that he has failed to make any meaningful relationships in those ten years? What has he been doing then - hiding away in a little corner of Chinatown, avoiding all contact with white people? Like Mr Tan, I too grew up in Singapore and yes, thanks to social media, I have been able to keep in touch with old friends from my army day as well as my school days. However, we have inevitably drifted apart over the years. My old friends all have their lives to get on with - when I go back to Singapore, I may catch up with some of them over a coffee or a meal but that's it. We accept that we no longer really have that much in common and we would spend far more time with people we currently work with, whom we actually see on a regular basis. It comes across as rather bizarre that Mr Tan would move back to Singapore just to be close to his friends whom he has not seen much of in the last ten years. Surely they would have moved on in the last ten years - why is Mr Tan living in the past, why doesn't he accept that for the majority of us, our social circles do evolve and change over the years?

Our social circles will change and evolve as we enter the working world.

When I was moving house, I stumbled upon an old list I had printed when I was in university around 2000. That's 16 years ago. It was a list of phone numbers of my friends - back in those days, I was getting a new phone and I wasn't sure if I could transfer the numbers from my old phone to the new one, so I painstakingly typed out all the numbers in the old phone just in case I lost them. Guess how many people from that list I am actually still in touch with? If you include Facebook, I am still in touch with about 15 out of 100 of them and I actually only met two of them this year. Should this surprise you? Would you expect the kind of social circle that I have now as a middle-aged 40 year old man to be the same as that of a final year university student? I didn't exactly fall out with many of my friends (that has happened only in a very small handful of cases) - most of the time, we simply lost touch with each other as we became busy with our work and made new friends to replace the old ones. People get new jobs, pick up new hobbies, meet new neighbours, go on dates, network with other professionals from within their industries and expand their social circles thus, well, at least most of us do. Has Mr Tan really not made any new friends in the last ten years in UK? If he has, then he would have had many fond memories with his British friends in the UK in the last ten years. That is why I am convinced he had no social life at all whilst in the UK and okay, some people are introverts and not social butterflies - fair enough, but he may be in for a shock when he discovers that his old friends from Singapore may have long moved on, having hardly seen him at all in the last ten years.

Home is where you feel a sense of belonging - that means establishing a great network of friends who will be there for you. I have recently moved house and that meant moving all our earthly possessions down 15 floors (yes there is a lift) into a lorry, drive across town, unload it onto the pavement then carry it all up at least two floors in the new place (no there is no lift in the new place). It was insane, backbreaking hard work - but I managed to round up eight friends in total who helped me on both ends, making it far easier and less stressful for me. When you have friends who are willing to carry extremely heavy furniture up the stairs for you, you know you have good friends for life. I believe that friends like that give me that sense of belonging - after all, if I were to fly into Singapore tomorrow, there may be some old classmates who wouldn't mind catching up with me over a coffee, but would they be willing to carry heavy furniture like that for me? I wouldn't count on it - after all, it's kinda awkward to ask an old classmate you don't regularly see for a favour like that. The quality of the friendship inevitably deteriorates over time, it is not personal, it is just inevitable.

Like Mr Tan, yes I am from Singapore but why should I want to return there? Allow me to be pragmatic here: I would return to Singapore if it would make me happier and more successful than in the UK. But the way I see it, neither would happen. I am extremely happy and successful here in the UK, why would I give that up and leap into the unknown by moving back to Singapore? Don't get me wrong - like Mr Tan, I also have fond memories of my childhood in Singapore, but I am not the kind of person who gets sentimental over things like that. I get the feeling that Mr Tan has a habit of dwelling on the past, whilst I prefer to look forward to the future and I definitely believe that my future is far brighter in the UK than it ever can or will be in Singapore. At 31, Mr Tan still has plenty of years of reservist to serve - I hope he enjoys that whilst competing with foreign workers with no NS liabilities.

Mr Tan wrote: The primary reason for that change is the time I have spent in Europe; the experiences here have led me to rethink the role of government and the onerous task of policy-making which we too easily criticise or take for granted in Singapore.

Oh it is bizarre how you can take the man out of Singapore but you can't take Singapore out of the man. I have reacted quite differently in my time in Europe - I remember the first time watching comedians on BBC prime time programmes making fun of everyone from politicians to royalty and thinking, YES! This is the kind of freedom of speech I came to the UK for - I was so sick and tired of the way everything was censored in Singapore, with the PAP deciding for the citizens what they are allowed to watch. Don't get me wrong - there are things that the PAP do get right and credit where credit is due; but I would much rather put up with a  less efficient system of government in the UK than to have to stomach the kind of bullshit that the PAP inflicts on Singaporeans on a daily basis just to stay in power. I would gladly move to any other country in the world just to get away from the PAP and their supporters.

You see, as a child growing up in Singapore, I had been vehemently anti-PAP from the start. However, I was also very frustrated by the lack of an effective opposition in Singapore - having seen the way politics is done in Europe, the path of least resistance was simply to move away and go live in a a country where I like the system, rather than to spend the rest of my life waiting for things to change. For crying out aloud, I've just turned 40 and I'm not young anymore. Things are not going to change much in my life time in Singapore and I suppose if you're part of the 70% of Singaporeans who vote for the PAP, then things must be pretty great for you. But if you're part of the 30% who don't support the PAP, then life must suck. Well, I'm not prepared to be the 30% in Singapore - that is a pretty bad option.

Mr Tan wrote: Such public displays of support belie a smouldering resentment: The latest poll in Sweden now indicates that roughly 55 per cent of the population believe the country should not take in any more refugees (up from only about 30 per cent in September).

Well, don't forget the 70-30 split in Singapore. Such is the nature of democracy, you can never have 100% consensus on every issue and even in Singapore where the PAP has a rather strong mandate, you are still dragging 30% of the population along rather begrudgingly. So of course public opinion is split in Sweden, but what makes you think public opinion isn't split in Singapore either? Do you honestly believe that 100% of Singaporeans actually support the PAP? That was clearly not what the results of the last elections demonstrated, but Mr Tan has chosen to ignore that.

You will never have true consensus in a democracy, so...?

Mr Tan wrote: In my opinion, a government should always place the interests of its people first (that is, those who directly contribute and/or are indigenous to that community) before aspiring to nobler goals further afield .

I actually laughed out aloud when he wrote that. Yes the Singaporean government is famous for turning away refugees but how is that tantamount to placing the interest of its people first? The Singapore government has flung open her doors wide open to foreign talents and workers from all over the world to come and work in Singapore - much to the displeasure of many Singaporeans who are simply unable to cope with this influx of foreign competition. So often we hear of middle aged Singaporeans driven out of their jobs by younger, foreigner competition and turning to driving taxis as a last resort. Whether or not the Singaporean government takes in any Syrian refugees is irrelevant for the PAP has not been placing the interests of its people first for decades, ever since they had this crazy idea to grow the population by allowing so many foreign workers to settle in Singapore. As of mid-2015, the estimated population of Singapore was 5,535,000 people, 3,375,000 (60.98%) of whom were citizens, In contrast, in Sweden with a population of 9.8 million, according to Statistics Sweden around 1,921,000 (20.1%) inhabitants of Sweden were of a foreign background. So whilst the figure of 20.1% may seem high, the figure of 39.02% is far higher in Singapore. By that token, Mr Tan is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire if he is after a government who puts their own citizens first. You can't argue with the statistics dude. But it is not a matter of splitting hairs over statistics - Mr Tan clearly has a blind spot and simply sees what he wants to see.

Indeed, part of the reason why I do not want to return to Singapore is because it is no longer the country that I grew up in due to this massive influx of foreigners. On my recent trips back to Singapore, I find it strange to have to deal with PRC bus drivers who will only speak to me in Mandarin. A generation ago, my peers were so optimistic about their futures in Singapore but today, younger Singaporeans are mostly depressed and pessimistic about their chances of getting even a half decent job in Singapore when there is just so much competition from foreign workers. I see Mr Tan is a highly qualified professional like me, so he isn't that concerned about the competition - so in praising the Singaporean government for not doing more to help refugees, well that just comes across as mean spirited and evil. If Mr Tan has no desire to help Syrian refugees, that's his choice and I don't judge him for that: but for him to applaud a government for not doing so and to question the wisdom and intentions of European countries like Sweden who have been so welcoming and helpful to refugees, that just makes Mr Tan comes across as quite a nasty, selfish person.

Wouldn't it be hilarious if Mr Tan ended up driving a taxi in Singapore?

How is Mr Tan going to differentiate being a refugees fleeing a war zone and an eager young graduate from China who moves to Singapore as an economic migrant then? Regardless of what their backgrounds are, they both end up in the same position: competing with the locals, the indigenous population for jobs, housing and other precious resources. If Mr Tan is so concerned about the influx of refugees, why is he turning a blind eye to the fact that there are over one million China-born migrants living in Singapore? That's one million in a country as small as Singapore - heck, that's even more refugees living in the entire Sweden and Sweden is a much, much bigger country than Singapore. What is it with Mr Tan then, why the blind spot? Surely the situation in Singapore is very similar to that of Sweden: Sweden has opened her door to Syrian refugees whilst Singapore has welcomed over a million economic migrants from China. Singapore is made up of 39.02% foreigners whilst that figure is just 20.1% in Sweden. How are the two situations that different, I ask you?

Mr Tan wrote: Instead, I believe we need a strong government with an equally strong moral compass because we rely on our politicians to make important decisions on our behalf - decisions that will affect not just our lives, but those of generations after us.

Well that's just bullshit, really. What makes a government strong or weak? Are you justifying the PAP's autocratic style of government as superior to a genuine democracy? And since when is turning one's back on the plight of refugees somehow a show of strength? If anything, it only demonstrates how selfish and uncaring the government is and it would only please those (like Mr Tan) who are equally selfish and mean spirited. He has the cheek to talk about a strong moral compass - turning to the corrupt PAP for your moral compass is a big fat joke. Without a genuine democracy, how can you actually create a strong government who will be made up of the best politicians? The PAP are able to get people like Tin Pei Ling into government despite the fact that she was young and inexperienced - she is a far cry like Mhairi Black of the SNP, who stood on her own two feet, fought and won an election in Scotland, defeating far older and experienced candidates. I look at the utter mess of a system in Singapore and can only shake my head in despair. The whole election system is so rigged in Singapore, it is so corrupt - it is designed to keep the PAP in power. How is that going to benefit even the PAP, when poor, weak candidates are sneaked in through the back door along with stronger ones? Therefore, the PAP is ultimately shooting itself in the foot by playing dirty like that.

Can you depend on your government to lead your country in the right direction?

What I find appalling about this article is the way it is even treated as news in the ST. What the hell is wrong with the editors at the ST? Is this news?! It does show you what a lousy piece of rag the ST is. It is a blatantly pro-PAP piece and the link between the refugee situation in Europe and Mr Tan's 'strong government' rhetoric is based little more on the fact that Mr Tan has no compassion for the refugees - he would rather they get stuck somewhere in a refugee camp on the Turkish border or drown in the Mediterranean sea than to be treated like human beings in Europe. It is not like it is his tax money that is paying for the refugees who have been resettled in Sweden, so why is he feeling so much resentment towards the refugees in Sweden? All I can say is that if he had voiced his opinion in a British newspaper or website, then he would be bombarded hate mail for being a fucking evil cunt. Or as we say in Hokkien, a chao cheebye. As a British person, I can't wait for him to fuck off back to Singapore because we certainly don't need assholes like him here in the UK. So Mr Tan, allow me to extend my third finger to you: you know your way to Heathrow airport, take your evil hatred and go be someone else's problem.

So that's it from me for now. Yeah, I was so good right till the end, I nearly got through the whole blog post without fucking swearing at Mr Tan but oh well, I had to call a spade a spade in the end. It must really suck for the 30% in Singapore to have to live with the 70% who really believe in the PAP. Don't worry, Limpeh has written plenty of pieces to help you find out how to move abroad. Let me know what you think, leave a comment below. Thanks for reading.

Limpeh in Sweden.