October 7, 2009 by admin
Filed under Opinion
Leave a comment
By Bhaskaran Kunju, Political Correspondent
On 15 September Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong gave a speech to
NTU students as part of the NTU Student’s Union Ministerial Forum
2009. The theme of the event was ‘Is there room for more?” a
rhetoric question on the capability of Singapore in the face of
growth on the financial and social front.
With a significant slice of public debate being taken up by the
issue of social integration in the run up to the speech, it was
little surprise that a large portion of PM Lee’s speech was
dedicated to this issue as well. Having already touched on the
topic in his National Day Rally and the National Day Message, there
was little else he could expound upon other than to provide
assurance to Singaporeans that their positions were not being
usurped
PM Lee started the speech with an update on the state of the
economy, stating the relative state of recovery and the success of
fresh graduates in finding employment, albeit gradually. But the
focus of his speech was, as stated by him ‘on the long term’
effects on Singapore as whole.
The most recent statistics from the Department of Statistics
indicates a rise in the nation’s population to 4.99 million, with
foreigners (non-residents) comprising 1.25million of that figure
compared to 1.2million the year before. Additionally there are
533,000 Permanent Residents (PRs) a rise of 55,000 from the year
before.
In the wake of such staggering numbers one might question the
sustainability of the country, physically, economically and
socially as population figures rise, almost entirely due to the
increase in foreigners and PRs.
It might even appear that a state of our size will have its
resources stretched to the limit. While these worries seem logical
and even justified with the various social problems that have been
in the news, from increased competitions in public schools to
crowded public transports, the Prime Minister provides some
critical views on these.
In his speech PM Lee urged students not to be restrained by
constraints and to create more room. In his opinion critical
constraint is not physical but people, as we need good people who
can provide creative ideas that will help in building the
country.
Just as it happened decades ago when our forefathers migrated
here. The immigration process is needed to cover labour needs and
the low birth rates, which according to the latest statistics is at
just 40,000 for 2008, far short of the required natural replacement
number of 60,000.
While trying to justify the need for foreigners, he at the same
time also concedes in the limit by acknowledging the failing
economy. He cites this as a reason for the administration to scale
back the admission of foreigners henceforth. With more than
100.000 new foreigners being admitted per year in recent years,
that number is now expected to drop.
According to PM Lee, most of the foreigners comprise of
transient workers. More than half (55%) of the non-citizens here
are transient workers with 15% students and dependants and the
remaining 30% PRs.
This group of transient workers is expected to stay only
temporarily and for as long as they are required by the
economy.
He also states that not taking in foreign workers will be a
mistake as that would mean they could be absorbed by other
competitor nations, much to our own hindrance. While this is true
theoretically, the statistical figures for foreign workers are
still unusually high with a 2007 estimate placing Singapore as
having the highest proportion of foreign workers in Asia.
PM Lee stated 4 reasons that he believed stood as hurdles in the
integration process, competition arising from new arrivals,
differences in cultures, a change in the social landscape and the
indifferent treatment of citizens and PRs.
While it is welcoming to see the administration being able to
acknowledge reasons other than that of xenophobia for the lingering
dilemma of social integration between locals and foreigners, it
still falls short of practical solutions that are most definitely
long overdue.
All 4 reasons are pretty much on target with the worries of the
general public, and having known that, one could not help but
wonder why relevant actions weren’t taken much earlier instead
of just providing lip service over the years, or even worse
no acknowledgement at all. After all these issues are not new and
have been at the forefront of even the mainstream media for just
under a decade now.
It would be wrong to deny that foreign workers are needed at all
and as pointed out by the Prime Minister in his speech a number of
them take up jobs that most Singaporeans refuse to do. Another key
point he raised was the added competitiveness brought in by
foreigners. He compared Singapore to the likes of New York and
Shanghai and stated his desire for our city-state to be of a
similar level. The worrying problem in this desire is that
Singapore, unlike New York City or Shanghai cannot just function as
a financial centre.
The notion that Singapore is first and foremost a home to
millions of citizens and needs to fulfill its purpose as a
residential hub for its citizens before anything else, seems to be
lost on the government.
While it’ll be naïve to halt economic growth for these reasons,
greater micro management must be in place to ensure that growth on
the financial front does not mean the displacement of another,
namely social. One example of an ill effect of this will be the
rising housing costs, a similar trait in New York and Shanghai.
Given such a scenario could the average Singaporean then
continue to afford to live here? Could we continue to sacrifice the
needs of the average citizen in favour of perpetual economic
expansion? New York City and Shanghai could afford being financial
centres as the respective country’s citizens could easily reside
anywhere else in their vast country, away from the carry over
effects of high costs. But given the physical limitations of
Singapore these effects are felt throughout the country and are
inescapable.
With the rapid population boom these fears are no longer
unfounded. As mentioned in my previous article “A question of
fairness: PRs competing with citizens for Primary 1 places,” I
believe the issues of social integration are deeply rooted in the
failure to account for these needs and wants of the citizens before
any other. It is not too far off the mark to predict the demise of
the lower and middle class strata in Singapore.
In fact the population displacement by foreigners is not an
unlikely scenario either with many qualified young Singaporeans
preferring to migrate instead.
The consolation from PM Lee’s speech is the detail in which he
discussed the issue. For example, he pointed out the problems of
service line staff who do not speak English and the difficulty in
integration for International Students in local varsities. It is
thus heartening to note that the most plebian of problems are still
under the watchful eye of the government. But as mentioned before
the issue being left unattended to in depth for so long does not
bode well for the government at all.
The Prime Minister does however cite some miniscule examples of
these issues being dealt with. In the case of non-English speaking
staff, he mentioned SBS Transit’s intensive English course for its
drivers from China. Regular patrons of SBS Transit may however beg
to differ on the level of English of foreign drivers and the
letters to Straits Times and STOMP and even news reports of
incidents on public transports attest to this as well.
While this policy is at least in place with SBS Transit, it is
still not a requirement for other companies. The Prime Minister did
however mention the Ministry of Manpower’s decision to study the
means of implementing a basic English course for all foreign
service line personnel.
In addition to this he also mentions the National Integration
Council, which was set up in April as an effort in integrating New
Citizens and PRs and promises that more will be done.
However as mentioned before these problems aren’t new and have
been at the forefront long enough. In fact so have the promises of
distinction between PRs and Citizens and putting the needs of
citizens first. In his speech PM Lee once again repeated this
promise.
He said, “But in the midst of all this discussion about
Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans, I think I should emphasize one
point. And that is that in Singapore, the interests of citizens
always have to come first…..I think it is right that we make a
clear distinction between citizens and PRs and others. And we will
make this differentiation sharper over time to reflect the
responsibilities and privileges of citizenship. But of course, we
cannot make it so onerous for PRs and non-residents that nobody
wants to come to Singapore.”
It is almost an exact match for a quote given by PM Lee some 3
years ago at the backend of the 2006 General Elections and I
included it in my last article “A question of fairness: PRs
competing with citizens for Primary 1 places” as well. Little
concerted has been done and it seems only the declining economy has
brought the matter to attention, given the possible social and
economic repercussions that would arise.
The argumentation of the government on most socio-political
topic has always been one based on false dichotomy. In other words
if the solution isn’t Option A then it must be Option B with Option
A being what’s already been implemented and Option B a radical
alternative that could savage society and upset the carefully
calibrated balance of the nation. But socio-political problems are
far more complex and are not easily characterised by dual options.
There are accessible middle-ground options that are just as
compatible if not more.
In the case of justifying the need for foreigners it is no
different either. It is true that immigration policies are needed
to sustain the work force and in part also make up for the falling
birth rates. But the extent of this policy is the biggest variable
and the latest statistics are rather staggering.
The middle ground options include further boosts to encourage
Singaporeans to have more children and providing avenues to
Singaporeans to realise their dreams here without feeling hindered,
to stop the outflow of our already diminished labour pool. For the
former, while policies are already in place with little
improvements, it must be noted that increases in birth rates do not
occur overnight. Shifts in social attitudes are better measured in
the long run.
In his speech the Prime Minister mentions policies to encourage
and develop Singaporeans. A new university, the Singapore
University of Tech and Design is in the pipeline. He also mentions
plans to allow Singaporeans space to realise their dreams locally
and to keep in touch with Singaporeans abroad in hopes of bringing
them back in the near future.
The exodus of local talent as mentioned before is a worrying
phenomenon and Mr Viswa Sadasivan mentioned this in his maiden
speech in Parliament as well. He said,
“Look at the results of a scientific survey done in 2007 by the
Singapore Polytechnic. 800 Singaporean youth – between the
ages of 15 and 29 – were polled. They all went to Singapore
schools and attended National Education sessions, as
required. Thirty-seven percent of the youths polled said
categorically that they are not patriotic. More than 50% said
they would migrate if given a chance. The findings of this
survey are not very different from many others conducted with
youths, younger working adults, overseas Singaporeans and even
National Servicemen.
I read a July 2009 article in AsiaOne.com that quoted a major
survey by Experiences 2009 (the organiser of an annual US education
convention) that highlighted that of the 153 Singaporean students
studying overseas polled, 79% prefer to work in the USA after they
graduate. Earlier this year, at Chung Cheng High
School’s 70th anniversary celebration, Senior Minister Goh Chok
Tong revealed that more than one-fifth of the students who
performed well in their “A” level examination between 1996 and 1999
are no longer working in Singapore today, a decade later. Now
even though these findings may not be surprising for some of us,
they must certainly become a cause for concern.
To me, the biggest challenge we face, as a nation, is not so
much the sluggish GDP growth or flight of capital. It is not
about whether we have enough able bodies here to create economic
prosperity, but whether we have enough hearts and souls committed
enough to make this home, not just a convenient place to live, work
and play.
At the heart of the matter the problems are a lot deeper than
just the lack of social integration between locals and
foreigners.
There is 1) The unattended needs, wants and concerns of citizens
that spill over to other issues and 2) The failure to realise that
immigration policies while serving their purpose bring with it its
own set of problems that add to the pre-existing woes.
It is indeed of some comfort to note the Prime Minister’s pledge
to alleviate the concerns of the citizens but as mentioned earlier
the promises are long standing and are still not yet fully
resolved. Perhaps with the General Elections right around the
corner there could be some practical changes in the immediate
timeline.
About Author:
Bhaskaran Kunju is a political science undergraduate in a local
varsity. He is a regular contributor to the Straits Times Forum and
TODAY Voices.
Source:
http://www.temasekreview.com/2009/10/07/is-there-room-for-more-foreigners-in-singapore/