Foreigners Debate in Parliament – Week 27

This was the week where the S’pore parliament sat in for their first session after elections on 10 Jul. There were a lot of first-timer politicians. A record 10 opposition party members were voted in, plus 2 additional NMP (Nominated Member of Parliament). It was a lively debate indeed and I would like to highlight some topics this week.

The PM did well with a good speech on Covid19, lessons learnt and its impact on S’pore, ending it on an emotional note. It was his mention of the word “Free Rider” on voters choosing the opposition that got everyone flustered. The new Leader of the Opposition took offence and started a mini-debate on it.

For the rest of the week, there were more heated debates and the issue of minimum wage came up in the speech of opposition member Jamus. Then the normally quiet senior minister Tharman came out of the blue to forcefully give a sharp rebuttal. “No one has a monopoly on compassion.”

If this was just a peek at what is to come for future parliamentary sessions, then we are in for exciting times. I look forward to greater debates and discussions on national topics, hopefully in a non-partisan way but for the good of the nation.

The other topic that stood out for me was on foreigners working in the country. It was argued by the opposition that there is not enough transparency on the actual numbers, that the authorities were too lax in allowing too many foreigners into the country that resulted in many locals being overlooked in the job market. This is a very sore point, especially in the Covid19 environment where more job loses are to be expected. Firms that were biased against locals had been flagged but not exposed and is that effective?

The general perception is that PR (Permanent Resident) status, a step before getting full citizenship by non-locals, is too easy to obtain. They last for 5 years and could be renewed indefinitely. Many foreigners take up PR because of the many advantages it offers. Some with no intention to eventually become citizens. Citizens question why PRs have so many of the rights which a local has, but need not work for it (eg. National Service, highly subsidized school fees). If getting PR is so easy, wouldn’t locals become second class citizens in their own country?

Most job statistics lump citizens and PRs in the same category, further infuriating voters. PMET job losses are also increasing as the call to protect citizens grew louder. The authorities had claimed that PR quotas had been reduced over recent years, but citizens are still questioning if this is still too many. The government reasoned that S’pore is a global financial centre and hence it needs to attract foreign talents and global companies to want to locate here.

Many have argued that the CECA agreement with India had unfairly punished S’pore workers, especially the PMET segment. Being a small nation compared to a much large one will make things loop sided. This will definitely be a topic on further discussions in parliament.

IMHO, I believe that the issue is that we do not allow duo passports – once you get S’pore citizenship, you have to give up your existing citizenship. Those from developed countries (eg US, EU, UK) may not want to give up their passports for a S’pore one as they can legally have duo citizenship in their home countries. So if they get PR, they may not want to proceed to citizenship. But the opposite is true for developing countries like India and ASEAN, where they are more likely to convert from PR to citizenship because of the attractiveness of our citizenship versus their countries. Hence the weakness of the PR process is exploited by a lot of foreigners.

I do believe that PR requirements should be tightened further. Renewal of PR status every 5 years should get progressively harder. If a PR renews more than 3 times (ie 15 years), it may indicate that there is no intention for them to be citizens eventually. It is still too easy to get PR status and the benefits are too similar to citizens, thereby angering locals who continue to lose jobs and get replaced by more foreigners/PRs. There should be more segregation of benefits and differences between citizens/PR and they should not be counted together in job statistics.

From my personal experience, I had lost 2 jobs over the last 8 years and the replacements were foreigners. While I have moved on from these unfortunate personal setbacks, I cannot help but think if this is happening too frequently over the last 10 years to other S’poreans. In these 1 in 100 years Covid19 shock to the economy, shouldn’t the scale tip more in favour of citizens rather than foreign talents?

This is not an easy discussion. As a small country, locals may lack the global/regional experience to take up such a role. Getting the confidence of MNC companies to invest in S’pore is one other consideration. There is a fine line between being open to the world and getting more protectionistic. Look at America and MAGA, aiming at China for all its woes. Protectionism is already happening to other countries.

This week’s sharp drop in the stock market was also a wake up call to the froftiness of the lofty valuations of tech equities due to central bank liquidity in response to Covid19. We are entering Q4 flu season and the virus is still amongst us. My UK trip is just 2 weeks away…

The Big Story Podcast: Key Parliament debate analyses (Aug 31 - Sept 4),  Singapore News & Top Stories - The Straits Times


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.