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.
Other articles by Bhaskaran Kunju:
>> Why social cohesion is at the forefront of the Prime Minister’s National Day Rally
>> Changes in political system to allow more alternative voices
>> The untimely departure of Chip Goodyear
>> Should universities be re-politicized?
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.
Read More →
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...
Trump-Putin deal on Ukraine will be Europe’s moment of... I refer to the CNA’s Commentaries, “Trump-Putin deal on Ukraine will be Europe’s moment of reckoning” (Feb 20) and “Ukraine can survive with the ‘least worst’ peace” (Feb 22).
Now, In the eyes of European Union, they have lost trust and confidence in the United States, it is solely due to the flip flop...
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...
Putin escalates Ukraine war I refer to The CNA’s Commentary: “Putin escalates Ukraine war by a step, not a leap, with missile experiment” (Nov 23).
Foremost, Zelenskyi’s intention to join Nato has greatly threatened the security and survival of Russia. Hence, Zelenskyy has offended Putin and Putin has no choice but to launch a war with...
Will PM Wong address the astronomical ministerial salaries? I refer to The TR-Emeritus opinion article, “Will PM Wong address the astronomical ministerial salaries” (June 14) by Mr Yoong Siew Wah.
It has always been a controversial topic which concerns about our top political leaders who receive their salaries that are many times higher than those foreign political leaders.
Our...
