Connect with us

Current Affairs

Immigration – still an issue, 12 years on

Published

on

TOC Note: Singaporeans’ concerns about the PAP’s immigration policy is not new. Indeed, it goes way back to 1998, as in the following Parliamentary speech by Dr Tan Boon Wan which, as it turned out, was quite a prescient one. The concerns he raised are exactly what Singaporeans feel today.

The question we should be asking is thus: Is the PAP serious in addressing these concerns? If it is, why is it that 12 years after Members of Parliament raised these issues, the concerns seem to have deepened and indeed, the situation gotten worse? Or is it simply that the PAP government has no clue in how to address this?

The following article is by Chua Suntong

On 12 Sep 2010, the mainstream newspaper the Straits Times Sunday Edition published a substantial report on the immigration problem in Singapore. The first part of the report was about a forum which took place the previous day where the immigration policy of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) was the main topic. This forum was organized by the Sikh Youth Association and Deputy Prime Minister Mr Teo Chee Hean was the main speaker.

On the PAP regime’s immigration policy, Mr Teo urged the forum attendees to view things in perspective. Perspective in this context meant understanding the immigration policy in a wider scope.  His explanation was in response to a prolonged wave of criticism since the Asian financial crisis of 1997 on the massive immigration influx. Part of the criticism had become emotional and communal-oriented.

Within the PAP, there was an example of a good MPs expressing the immigration problem in perspective.  Perhaps we can consider a section of this speech made by Dr Tan Boon Wan, a Member of Parliament of Ang Mo Kio Group Representative Constituency on 16 March 1998.  The context was the 1998 Budget Debate.

…Sir (The Speaker of Parliament), foreign talents have contributed to the leadership and manpower that have developed Singapore. Our policy is to open Singapore to foreign talents is a correct one. Their contributions will continue to be important. However, we are not without local talents, but our people fear being overlooked or ignored. They want to be considered for opportunities that arise.

Singaporeans want to be assured that when everything is equal or near equal, they will be given preference. We should use our own talents first and then turn to foreign talents to augment the pie. This must be so. Otherwise, our people will feel disenfranchised and being a citizen of a country must mean something.

Sir, employers must not view the foreign talent policy as a license to hire foreign talents when local talents are available to do the job. This should be made clear to employers, especially our Government Ministries, departments, statutory boards, and Government-linked companies. We must not make our people feel second class. If our people feel this way, we will find our own talents moving overseas in search of opportunities denied to them in their own country. This will indeed be a sad day for Singapore.

Foreign talent to augment our talents in Singapore is an important policy. But for the policy to work, we must make sure that Singaporeans accept that as important. I think if we can assure Singaporeans that their interests are taken care of, that they will not be denied opportunities, then the support will be forthcoming….”

(Source: PARLIAMENTARY REPORTS VOL 68 16 MARCH 1998 – 20 APR 1998 (PG 1368- 1372) MARCH 1998. BUDGET FY98 COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY –MINISTRY OF MANPOWER

The second part of the Straits Times report was a news analysis on various viewpoints. At an earlier forum, Senior Minister (SM) Goh Chok Tong talked about converting 50,000 of the existing 500,000 permanent residents (PRs) into citizens. A PAP backbencher MP Mr Hri Kumar said the ground sentiment was not about existing citizens wanting more PRs to take up citizenship. Instead, citizens felt the PAP regime should be more judicious about giving out or approving Permanent Residency.

While some PAP backbenchers had mentioned the problem of crowding out effects caused by immigration, SM Goh and other cabinet ministers saw it as an attitude problem between immigrants and existing locals. Instead of the adjusting the immigration inflow, the cabinet tried to promote its own version of social integration. Ordinary Singaporeans may wish to ask themselves whether the PAP regime has understood the immigration problem in perspective.

Chua Suntong is a home-grown Singapore citizen whose interests include finance, history, languages and logistics.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

TJC issued 3rd POFMA order under Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC) was issued its third POFMA correction order on 5 October 2024 under the direction of Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods about death penalty processes. TJC has rejected the government’s claims, describing POFMA as a tool to suppress dissent.

Published

on

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), an advocacy group opposed to the death penalty, was issued its third Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) correction direction on 5 October 2024.

The correction was ordered by Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, following TJC’s publication of what the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) alleges to be false information regarding Singapore’s death row procedures and the prosecution of drug trafficking cases.

These statements were made on TJC’s website and across its social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter).

In addition to TJC, civil activist Kokila Annamalai was also issued a correction direction by the minister over posts she made on Facebook and X between 4 and 5 October 2024.

According to MHA, these posts echoed similar views on the death penalty and the legal procedures for drug-related offences, and contained statements that the ministry claims are false concerning the treatment of death row prisoners and the state’s legal responsibilities in drug trafficking cases.

MHA stated that the posts suggested the government schedules and stays executions arbitrarily, without due regard to legal processes, and that the state does not bear the burden of proving drug trafficking charges.

However, these alleged falsehoods are contested by MHA, which maintains that the government strictly follows legal procedures, scheduling executions only after all legal avenues have been exhausted, and that the state always carries the burden of proof in such cases.

In its official release, MHA emphasised, “The prosecution always bears the legal burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and this applies to all criminal offences, including drug trafficking.”

It also pointed to an article on the government fact-checking site Factually to provide further clarification on the issues raised.

As a result of these allegations, both TJC and Annamalai are now required to post correction notices. TJC must display these corrections on its website and social media platforms, while Annamalai is required to carry similar notices on her Facebook and X posts.

TikTok has also been issued a targeted correction direction, requiring the platform to communicate the correction to all Singapore-based users who viewed the related TJC post.

In a statement following the issuance of the correction direction, TJC strongly rejected the government’s claims. The group criticised the POFMA law, calling it a “political weapon used to crush dissent,” and argued that the order was more about the exercise of state power than the pursuit of truth. “We have put up the Correction Directions not because we accept any of what the government asserts, but because of the grossly unjust terms of the POFMA law,” TJC stated.

TJC further argued that the government’s control over Singapore’s media landscape enables it to push pro-death penalty views without opposition. The group also stated that it would not engage in prolonged legal battles over the POFMA correction orders, opting to focus on its abolitionist work instead.

This marks the third time TJC has been subject to a POFMA correction direction in recent months.

The group was previously issued two orders in August 2024 for making similar statements concerning death row prisoners.

In its latest statement, MHA noted that despite being corrected previously, TJC had repeated what the ministry views as falsehoods.

MHA also criticised TJC for presenting the perspective of a convicted drug trafficker without acknowledging the harm caused to victims of drug abuse.

Annamalai, a prominent civil rights activist, is also known for her involvement in various social justice campaigns. She was charged in June 2024 for her participation in a pro-Palestinian procession near the Istana. Her posts, now subject to correction, contained information similar to those presented by TJC regarding death penalty procedures and drug-related cases.

POFMA, which was introduced in 2019, allows the government to issue correction directions when it deems falsehoods are being spread online.

Critics of the law argue that it can be used to suppress dissent, while the government asserts that it is a necessary tool for combating misinformation. The law has been frequently invoked against opposition politicians and activists.

As of October 2024, Minister K Shanmugam has issued 17 POFMA directions, more than any other minister. Shanmugam, who was instrumental in introducing POFMA, is followed by National Development Minister Desmond Lee, who has issued 10 POFMA directions.

Major media outlets, including The Straits Times, Channel News Asia, and Mothership, have covered the POFMA directions. However, as of the time of writing, none have included TJC’s response rejecting the government’s allegations.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Hotel Properties Limited suspends trading ahead of Ong Beng Seng’s court hearing

Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has halted trading ahead of his court appearance today (4 October). The announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at about 7.45am, citing a pending release of an announcement. Mr Ong faces one charge of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts and another charge of obstruction of justice. He is due in court at 2.30pm.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), the property and hotel developer co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has requested a trading halt ahead of the Singapore tycoon’s scheduled court appearance today (4 October) afternoon.

This announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at approximately 7.45am, stating that the halt was due to a pending release of an announcement.

Mr Ong, who serves as HPL’s managing director and controlling shareholder, faces one charge under Section 165, accused of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts, as well as one charge of obstruction of justice.

He is set to appear in court at 2.30pm on 4 October.

Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran.

The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.

These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha.

These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.

Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165.

Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, 2024, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.

Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.

On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong.

The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.

Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter. Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.

According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022.

CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.

Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight.

Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.

Mr Ong is recognised as the figure who brought Formula One to Singapore in 2008, marking the first night race in the sport’s history.

He holds the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix. Iswaran was the chairman of the F1 steering committee and acted as the chief negotiator with Singapore GP on business matters concerning the race.

 

Continue Reading

Trending