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.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

DBS: S'pore retrenchments expected to reach 45,600, GDP growth revised to -5.7% this year

According to a DBS report on Monday (27 April), retrenchments in Singapore…

Don’t sidetrack on issue of public housing, Low tells Mah

Ko Siew Huey / Picture by Woon Hian Chong. Rebutting National Development…

残忍!从车窗丢弃小狗遗体 动物与兽医事务组已介入调查

日前,有人涉嫌在车行驶过程中将小狗丢出窗外,被紧追其后轿车的行车记录器录下并放到网络上,引起网民的关注。动物与兽医事务组也随之介入调查。 该丢弃事件发生在15日,淡滨尼附近的罗弄哈鲁士,晚上约8点左右,网友将相关视频放到Singapore Uncensored 上,视频约9秒左右,在最后8秒可见一个不明物体被扔出窗外,网友也将被弃置的物品拍摄下来,原来是狗狗的遗体。 对此,动物与兽医事务组表示将积极介入调查中,目前正联络提供有关消息的人,以获取更多资料。 动物与兽医事务组也呼吁民众若有相关证据或录像可拨打1800-476-1600,联络动物与兽医事务组,而所有提供者的资料将会严格保密。 动物与兽医事务组也呼吁民众保障动物福利是人民的共同社会责任。 因此若民众有目睹涉嫌动物虐待案件可以直接通过www.avs.gov.sg/feedback网站告知,并提供相关证据。 “与所有调查一样,证据在侦办案件过程起到至关重要的帮助,因此若民众能够提供证据,会对案情发挥很有效的作用。” 根据《动物和鸟类法》,初犯将被处以最高1万5000元的罚款,或被判入狱18个月,或两者兼施。

【选举】符策涫赞佘雪玲关注人民所需 工人党团队“不需明星效应”

在坊间名气不小的佘雪玲,此次披工人党战袍随同出战东海岸集选区,乃至于行动党也作出“惊人”举动,原副总理王瑞杰,不得不弃守淡滨尼坐镇东海岸。早前,工人党秘书长毕丹星也点评,这说明行动党不敢怠慢该党的攻势。 今早亦有媒体询及,对于佘雪玲有“明星效应”,东海岸其他成员如何看待?对此工人党东海岸候选人符策涫直言,实则佘雪玲本身平日就已非常专注与居民接触,积极了解居民需要什么,“她根本不需要明星效应。” 符策涫指出,团队五人从事不同行业、有不同背景和专长,例如他自身参与慈善组织,而阿都沙利(Abdul Shariff)强项在研究。她相信若五人团结一致,必能为国人带来更多。 “毕竟明星效应是一晃而过的。” 2011年选举人气王之一 若看佘雪玲履历,他本身是跨国营销集团的总监,2011年曾代表代表国民团结党出征马林百列集选区,当时年仅24岁的她就立即备受选民瞩目,成为选举中的人气王之一。 2017年初,她就开始协助工人党走访东海岸集选区。她关注的议题包括缩小不平等差距、建议公平透明机制等。 符策涫也指出,五年前工人党就已走访东海岸选区,了解居民的需要;他分析东海岸居民有40巴仙在有地房产,60巴仙在组屋区,而组屋区居民关注年长家人、就业和孩子未来等。 今早(1日),工人党东海岸集选区候选人黄富荣、陈励正、符策涫、佘雪玲和阿都沙利,偕同该党党魁毕丹星,走访凤山区勿洛北4街第85座的湿巴刹与熟食中心一带。 至于毕丹星在今早重申,王瑞杰转攻东海岸,且在昨日约提名截止前15分钟才现身提名中心,这说明他有意达到出其不意的战略。 再者,工人党并非等选区划分报告出炉后才走基层,而是长期深耕基层。