Am I the only one who finds JTC’s housing scheme that is “specially for foreign talents” offensive? Why should locals who are just as talented and just as willing to pay for such housing be excluded?

An astute commentator on Twitter spotted this rather odd question posed by Goh Chok Tong:

How do we bond students going abroad to Singapore, physically if possible, and if not, at least emotionally?

As the astute commentator remarks, there’s something not quite right about the order in which the ‘bonding methods’ are proposed. Before considering how to inculcate in Singaporeans an intrinsic desire to stay in Singapore, Goh considers how to physically confine people to Singapore. What are the possible reasons for this? A few possibilities:

1. An assumption that few would want to stay in Singapore of their own free will; that this is an irremediable situation.
2. An assumption that physical bonding is easier/cheaper than any attempt to win people’s hearts.
3. An authoritarian outlook that sees people primarily as untrustworthy and needing strict control; unwillingness to trust mere psychological incentives.

Accompanying the State’s Times feature of Goh Chok Tong’s warning against “religious enclaves” is a list of the “Ten challenges ahead for S’pore”. Second on the list is “How to convince Singaporeans their lives will get better?” Anyone find this a little strange? Why is it not “How to make Singaporeans’ lives better?” Why is this ‘challenge’ purely about persuading people of the truth of something that may or may not be true?

Is the government assuming here that Singaporeans’ lives will get better, and that it is a failure of public education that most Singaporeans don’t believe that? But if it is so obvious that their lives will get better, why do most people not believe it?

Or is the government itself unsure if their lives will get better, but it nevertheless wants people to believe they will?