OPINION
The twin issues of immigration and foreign workers have perpetually hogged the headlines since last year, an indication of how it has become a "national obsession" of Singaporeans.
Despite the ruling party's fervent attempts to assuage rising resentment, frustration and anger on the ground, Singaporeans remain unconvinced by their reasoning that foreigners are "essential" to Singapore.
To be fair to the PAP, there is nothing fundamentally wrong in Singapore recruiting more foreigners to boost its declining birth rate - the root cause of the problem lies in the way the policies are implemented which takes into little consideration the possible long-term impact on the rest of the populace.
Three questions come to mind immediately:
1. Why do we need immigrants?
2. How many immigrants do we need?
3. Who are we targeting exactly?
The first question has been addressed many times by the PAP leaders and academics - being a small nation without any natural resources, human resource is our greatest asset.
Singapore's birth rates has been declining to below the level needed to replace the population and if no measures are taken to rectify the situation, we will end up like Japan - an aging society with manifold repercussions for the nation.
Hence, we need immigrants to keep our population growing and to economy competitive.
Unfortunately, the PAP appeared to have implemented the policies too hastily under their ambitious plan to increase Singapore's population to 6.5 million people while neglecting the other intangible consequences of immigration.
Six major flaws of the PAP's immigration policies:
1. Too many, too soon:
Singapore has been accepting immigrants since the 1980s and 1990s from Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong Kong and Taiwan without causing much discomfort to the local population.
This is because the immigrants have come in smaller numbers and are similar to Singaporeans in terms of culture, language and beliefs and have few problems assimilating into Singapore society.
The pace of immigration picked up when Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong assumed office in 2003 and all of sudden the floodgates are opened to accept foreigners from all over the world especially China and India where the majority of the newcomers hail from.
In the span of less than 5 years, foreigners now make up 36 per cent of Singapore's population, up from 14 per cent in 1990. Of the remaining 64 per cent who are citizens, a significant proportion are new immigrants born overseas.
Does Singapore really need to let so many foreigners into the country within such a short period of time?
In 2008 alone, there were over 90,000 PRs and 20,000 new citizens which is obviously stretching the nation's infrastructure, such as public housing to accommodate all of them.
PM Lee now promised Singaporeans that the rate of immigration will be continued in a "measured and calibrated" manner. Is this a tacit admission that the uncontrolled influx of immigrants between the years 2003 - 2008 had been a mistake?
2. Inadequate infrastructure such as public housing to accommodate newcomers:
It doesn't take a genius to realize that with so many foreigners flocking to study, work and live in Singapore, one needs to increase the number of public amenities and upgrade the infrastructure to accommodate them such as public housing.
Only slightly more than 11,000 new flats were built between the years 2006 – 2008 when there were over 90,000 PRs and 20,000 new citizens alone in 2008:
[Source: HDB Financial Report 2008/2009]
Below is a graph illustrating how the rise in the prices of resale flats coincides with the rise in the number of foreigners in Singapore between the years 2000 and 2008, courtesy of Kojakbt, the moderator of 3in1kopitiam:
The lack of foresight on the part of HDB to plan beforehand to build more new flats to house the immigrants is appalling and its failure to do so has led to sky-rocketing HDB flat prices today.
Due to the lack of new flats, especially those in the prime districts, Singaporeans have to compete with PRs in the resale flats which resulted naturally in the rise of the prices of resale flats.
Public transport such as buses and MRTs are also poorly prepared for the increase in population as evidenced by the packed buses and trains every morning.
3. Targeting the wrong people:
Singapore should be targeting foreigners who can add value to Singapore and not open its doors indiscriminately to every Tom, Dick or Harry.
Mainland China is one important source of immigrants for Singapore, but we are not getting their cream of the crop.
According to a Gallup poll done in July 2009 among Chinese college students, their top emigration destination is the United States, followed by France and South Korea. Singapore isn't even featured among the top five.
Why isn't Singapore attracting the best Chinese talents? Instead of examining the cause, we settle for their "lesser talents", many of whom are uncouth peasants from the poorer inland provinces.
What Singapore is getting are not first class talents but economic migrants who cannot survive in their own countries and they are now competing with Singaporeans for limited jobs because they cost much less.
China is vast country with 23 provinces and more than 1 billion people of various races and religions.
The ethnic Chinese in Singapore come mostly from the southern provinces of Guangdong and Fujian.
Singapore should be focusing on luring prospective migrants from these two provinces instead of allowing Chinese from all across the mainland to come here.
As they share the same dialect and culture as local Chinese, they will have fewer problems integrating into Singapore society as compared to Chinese from far-flung inland provinces who come from a completely alien world altogether.
4. Ease of getting PR and citizenship:
Unlike countries, getting a PR and citizenship in Singapore is incredibly easy without any major restrictions.
Most developed countries like Australia, Canada and U.K set an English proficiency test for immigrants and only those who pass the test are able to work and live there.
In Australia, one has to live there three out of a period of five years before they are eligible to become PRs.
However in Singapore, the newcomers are "fast-tracked" to become PRs and citizens without first familiarizing themselves with the country first and spending adequate time to make the decision.
A Chinese national and Singapore PR Zhang Yuanyuan who worked as a teacher in a private institution in Singapore revealed to the media that she became a PR within 2 months of application.
Even construction workers, cleaners, masseurs and prostitutes are able to lay their lands on a Singapore PR, the stepping stone for citizenship.
According to the Home Affairs Ministry, two out of every three PR applicants are successful, an astonishingly high success rate for a first world country.
Because citizenships are given out too soon to foreigners, there is insufficient time for both parties to assess if they are really "compatible" with each other.
5. Lack of a comprehensive plan to integrate the newcomers:
Due to the large number of unsuitable migrants who are given citizenships too soon, we now end up with the problem of having to integrate them.
Again, the ruling party did not come up with a comprehensive plan to integrate the newcomers when they embarked on their ambitious plan to increase Singapore's population via immigration way back in 2003.
It is now very difficult to integrate those who are already in Singapore because they have come in such big numbers that they tend to congregate within their own communities than to reach out to the rest of Singapore.
We are already seeing ethnic "enclaves" emerging in different parts of Singapore such as the Chinese in Geylang, Indians in Punggol and Filipinos in Tampines.
Furthermore, as they share few similarities with the Chinese, Malays and Indians though they may be of the same race, it is near impossible to expect them to assimilate into our society any time soon.
As usual, the ruling party comes up with a grandiose $10 million Community Integration Fund to throw money at the problem.
How does organizing tea parties, community events and free language courses help to "integrate" the immigrants into Singapore is anybody's guess when they should have done their homework first before opening the floodgates to immigration.
They will simply turn up for the free food and goodies before return to their own cliques as before - do you call this "integration"?
6. Neglect of native Singaporeans:
The key reason why many Singaporeans are so vehemently against the ruling party's immigration policies is because they feel they are not getting a fair deal as citizens from the elected government of the day.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan said the government cannot "shield" Singaporeans from competition, but they are the ones who forced Singaporeans to compete with foreigners on unequal terms.
Firstly, the Singapore male is already disadvantaged by having to spend 4 weeks away from work annually due to reservist obligations.
Secondly, there is no way Singaporeans can compete with foreigners in terms of cost because they do not have a family here and they can easily support them back home with their meager pay earned in Singapore.
While in the past only extremely qualified professionals and blue collar workers in sectors shunned by Singaporeans are allowed into Singapore, we are now seeing an increasing number of semi-skilled foreigners on S-passes and these are the group of foreigners who are competing with locals for jobs and depressing their wages in the process.
To exacerbate the situation, there is a dearth of social welfare benefits for Singapore citizens who have to depend entirely on their CPF and medisave for retirement and medical expenses.
CPF is proving to be grossly inadequate to support Singaporeans through their twilight years and many have to continue working just to feed themselves and their families.
With so many grouses bottled up inside, it is only natural to expect Singaporeans to blame foreigners for their woes, whether rightly or wrongly.
Had the ruling party taken the necessary measures to ensure that Singaporeans are well taken care of first before they let the foreigners in, there will not be so much anger against them now.
Conclusion:
The PAP has screwed up badly on the immigration and foreign talent issues and there is no way it can salvage the situation now that we have accepted so many foreigners into our midst.
This policy oversight is the result of having a dominant one party in parliament without adequate opposition to keep it in check and to challenge its policies.
During a speech made yesterday at an event to celebrate HDB's 50th anniversary, Singapore's octogenarian leader Lee Kuan Yew, one of its strongest proponents for its "foreigner first" policy, admitted tacitly that it was a mistake:
"We've grown in the last five years by just importing labour. Now, the people feel uncomfortable, there are too many foreigners. Trains are overcrowded with foreigners, buses too, property prices have gone up because foreigners with permanent residence are buying into the market."
We cannot afford to give the PAP another 5 years to make more mistakes. Singaporeans have to vote wisely in the next general election or they will really be reduced to being in the minority one day, swarmed by the new citizens whom the PAP is actively recruiting and wooing to shore up its flagging support base so as to preseve and perpetuate its political hegemony for eternality.
EDITORS' NOTE:
This article was first published on 28 January 2010 and now republished for further discussion on PM Lee's National Day Rally speech.
Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us.
The UBS Series:
>> Part 1: Singapore has lowest wages and domestic purchasing power among Asian Tigers
>> Part 2: Moving towards a Russian standard of living
>> Part 3: Why Singaporeans are paupers in a first world economy
Related articles:
>> Urgent need for population debate in Singapore
>> The fallacy of using lax immigration policies to solve low fertility and aging population issues
>> PAP mass-recruiting Taiwanese PMETs to compete with Singaporeans
>> Halimah Yacob: Not true that employers hiring foreigners over Singaporeans
>> Conversation with a PRC prostitute given Singapore PR by the PAP
>> Teo Chee Hean: PAP’s immigration policy has always been “strict”
>> How the PAP allows foreigners into Singapore to compete with locals for jobs
>> Why Singaporeans ‘fear’ of new immigrants is absolutely rational
>> SM Goh reassures immigrants that they are still welcomed in Singapore
>> Singaporean working in China lashed out at grouses of Singapore PRs
>> Eight reasons why foreign workers will be preferred over local ones
>> Declining wages of Singaporeans and the continued denial by PAP leaders
>> Halimah Yacob refutes UBS study findings
>> Halimah Yacob: Productivity drive will be derailed if foreign worker challenge not addressed
>> Exposing the six major flaws in the PAP’s immigration policies
>> Wong Kan Seng promises to tighten immigration policies
>> SM Goh: Foreign workers numbers may still rise
>> Malaysian car mechanic applying for Singapore citizenship
>> PAP launches Singapore Citizenship Journey to help new citizens integrate
>> Compulsory for new citizens to attend “sharing sessions” with grassroots leaders
>> Wong Kan Seng urged Singaporeans to be more tolerant of foreign workers
>> Tharman: Foreign workers increase income of low-income families
>> Sylvia Lim: Pace and influx of foreigners over last few years is wrong
>> Amy Khor urges Singaporeans to welcome foreigners
>> PAP MP wants more money to be spent to make new citizens feel welcomed in Singapore
>> Shanmugam: Foreigners generate jobs for Singaporeans
>> Vivian happy there are 4,500 new citizens serving as grassroots leaders
>> Cosmetic changes made to immigration policy
>> SM Goh: New immigrants needed to make up population shortfall
>> PAP ministers hailed contributions of foreigners
>> SM Goh expressed support for Zhang Yuanyuan
>> State media: citizens have more rights over PRs
>> Zhang Yuanyuan got her Singapore PR in only 2 months
>> Official reply from government on the Zhang Yuanyuan fiasco
>> Singapore PRC PR proclaimed loyalty to China publicly
>> PRC resident hung China flag to celebrate its National Day
>> PRC student in Singapore wants more scholarships for foreigners
>> PRC prostitutes solicit for customers on Singapore’s cyberspace
>> ERA: 40 per cent of resale flats buyers are PRs
Read More →
Survey finds 30% of Singapore secondary school students claim... I refer to the CNA report, “An underreported problem? Survey finds 30% of Singapore secondary school students claim they have been bullied.” (May 30) and “Jail for man who punched taxi driver for overtaking him” (June 05).
Most of us don’t like to see the occurrences of bullying in schools, as it reflects where...
Trump blinked again on tariffs, but China isn't in the clear I refer to the CNA’s Commentary: Trump blinked again on tariffs, but China isn't in the clear. (May 15)
One deniable fact: There are no winners on either side (between China and the United States) in the trade and tariff war. Yet, Trump still persists to do it.
It is not surprising that Trump has increased China's...
Podcasts didn't decide GE2025 I refer to the CNA’s Commentary: Podcasts didn't decide GE2025, but they changed how Singaporeans engage with politics (May 9).
The 2025 General Election has several features/characteristics that deserve our attention, discussion and
reflection:
In today era, technological revolution, innovation and advancement...
This is not a game of cards I can appreciate parties wanting to hold their cards close to their chest, but the smoke and mirrors games on nominations day, the shuffling of the DPM from a seat he had openly been declared to be defending, and other ministers shuffling constituencies leaves one feeling the PAP thinks it is playing a game of cards.
Constituency...
Is a Parliament full of PAP MPs really better for Singaporeans? I refer to The Online Citizen GE2025 news report, “Lee Hsien Yang: Is a Parliament full of PAP MPs really better for Singaporeans?” - (April 14), and “The Straits Times’ report, “GE2025: Singaporeans will go to the polls on May 3, Nomination Day on April 23” (April 15), and The Online Citizen GE2025 report,...
𝐈𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝... Is the PAP of today exceptional, with unmatched competence and delivery? Afterall, that is their justification for the highest salaries in the world. Let’s look at its more recent track record.
Large numbers of NRIC numbers were recently unmasked, leaving Singaporeans exposed to identity theft, fraud, abuse and scams....
GE2025: Red Dot United to contest in Holland-Bukit Timah I refer to the CNA news, “GE2025: Red Dot United to contest in Holland-Bukit Timah GRC but may make way for Singapore Democratic Party” (April 10),
“More opposition 'star catches' are emerging. Is Singapore's political scene maturing?” (April 10) and “PSP says government response to Trump tariffs 'overblown',...
How the end of Ukraine war could be secured, even with waning... I refer to the CNA’s commentaries, “How the end of Ukraine war could be secured, even with waning US support” (Mar 4), “Lessons from the Trump-Zelenskyy meltdown- for friends and foes” (Mar 1) and “Will Trump tariffs push China to change economic tack?” (Mar 3).
Foremost, we need to recognise the reality...
Singapore Army Recruits Deserve a Minimum Wage Singapore Army Recruits Deserve a Minimum Wage: National Service Should Not Come at the Expense of Opportunity Costs
Singapore’s National Service (NS) has long been a cornerstone of the nation’s defense, requiring young men to dedicate two years of their lives to military, civil defense, or police service. While...
From Deepseek to Huawei, US tech restrictions on China are... I refer to the CNA’s Commentary, “From Deepseek to Huawei, US tech restrictions on China are backfiring” (Jan 31).
Would it be practical, useful and effective for the United States to continually pursue an aggressive containment strategy to hobble China’s tech push? Undoubtedly, the answer is obviously not.
There...
