http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?col=insightdownsouth&file=/2009/9/26/columnists/insightdownsouth/4777881&sec=Insight%20Down%20South
AN ELECTRONICS firm that advertised last week for a “preferably
non-Singaporean” engineer has added fuel to a worsening controversy
in this migrant city.
It particularly stipulated that “permanent residents are
welcome” to apply for this “mid-career job (salary
negotiable)”.
A copy of the advertisement found its way onto the web.
Applicants should have a diploma or a relevant trade
certificate, with 3-5 years’ work experience, and “preferably
non-Singaporean (PR welcome),” it added.
This provoked strong reactions from Singaporeans who are already
upset at the large number of foreigners allowed to work here.
One asked if such discrimination is legal. “This sort of ad
would have landed this company in heavy trouble in most developed
states,” he added.
Another writer said: “Now we know where we stand. The policy has
downgraded Singaporeans to below foreigners.”
Archilles said: “I feel left out by my own government, which is
desperately trying to attract foreign talent (and) overlooking our
own ‘local talent’. It’s sad, very sad!”
A similar storm broke some years ago when another company told a
fresh Singaporean graduate during a job interview that his chances
were slim if he had to report for annual reservist duty.
“We prefer a foreigner who has no such obligations,” the
executive had added. Besides, they are much less costly to
hire.
The reservist withdrew his application in disgust.
This is not just another act of public whining. The fact is many
Singaporeans are no longer sure about their own role or entitlement
in society.
In recent years, the rate of entry has increased sharply as the
economy flourished. Every year some 100,000 foreigners have been
arriving, putting pressure on what was already one of the most
competitive and over-crowded cities in Asia.
The controversy couldn’t have come at a worse time when the
country is emerging from a severe downturn and the people’s
uppermost concern is getting – or retaining – their jobs.
Last month Seagate (worldwide: 10,000 workers) moved out its
manufacturing capacity, retrenching some 2,000 workers. “It is
difficult to imagine the impact of Seagate’s loss on our economy,”
said commentator Harrison Goh.
Its departure, he added, may have marked the end point of
Singapore’s involvement in the global manufacturing market.
“It spells a deepening crisis that most Singaporeans may not yet
fathom, thinking that the PAP government has a ready solution.”
It is within this context that the unpopularity of the open door
policy becomes apparent.
Political leaders are now working hard to reassure embittered
Singaporeans that their interests would always come first.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced last week that his
government would reduce the inflow of foreign workers to maintain
the “tone” of society. He gave no numbers.
At the same time, his Community, Youth and Sports Minister
assured polytechnic students: “You have a birthright. Everything we
do is for your long-term benefit. Foreigners are here to help make
Singapore more viable and competitive.”
The other side of the coin is equally stark.
With 1.28 babies per couple, Singapore’s birth-rate is one of
the lowest in the world and threatens its long-term survival.
Singaporeans are also ageing rapidly, which may require young
people to pay higher taxes to look after them.
Both defects are already being felt in a manpower-short economy,
which requires immigrants to correct, according to officials.
“Companies have been coming to us to ask ‘where are the workers,
we can’t get them’,” a government official said.
Singaporeans, being descendants of immigrants themselves, have
never been antagonistic to the presence of foreigners here – until
now.
What they resent is not their coming, but the overwhelming
numbers, which they feel are threatening their jobs and education
opportunities.
They are also angry with uneven policies that benefit foreigners
more than locals, especially national service (compulsory two
years) and the subsequent annual reservist call-ups, a burden not
borne by foreigners.
Permanent residents are exempted, but their children are
not.
Not having to meet reservist call-ups and cheaper wages are
powerful attractions for employers to hire foreigners, particularly
in a weak economy.
Complaints have increasingly come from older or mid-career
Singaporeans who have been replaced by lower-cost younger workers
from China or India.
The foreigners, hungrier and without family responsibility here,
generally work longer hours for less pay – something that married
Singaporeans with a home mortgage to pay cannot possibly match.
A small industry has risen to recruit them in large numbers – as
indicated by a recruitment agency, with this advertisement: “Do you
find it difficult and expensive to hire local staff? Why not
consider hiring foreign talents?”
Claiming it was licensed by the Manpower Ministry, the agency
said that it had recruited thousands of workers from China, India,
Vietnam and Malaysia for Singapore firms in the past five
years.
Every time such an ad appears, it cuts into the popularity of
the government, which won 66.6% of the popular votes in the 2006
election.
Several months ago, the government ordered its election
machinery to prepare for a snap election in case one is called.
With the improvement of the economy, it is widely expected that
it will take place next year, instead of 2011 as scheduled. The
public discontent against massive immigration promises to be one of
the hottest campaign issues if it happens.
This intensity of public feeling has been too sensitive to be
reflected in the traditional media, which has toned down the
coverage.
On the Internet, however, where Singapo-reans can air their
grievances, the mood is more sombre. It probably requires more than
mere government assurances to placate.
