Securing Singaporeans' Jobs and Livelihoods, and Foreign Talent Policy

Yes, please. Mr Leong.

Minister.

A point of order.

Mr Leong.

I think the Minister is misquoting me. I say I am supporting FTAs and, in general, including CECA, but I did not say that I am supporting CECA wholeheartedly. We need more information.

So, you are supporting or not supporting?

We do not have enough information to support.

So, are you supporting or not supporting? If you do not have enough information, are you supporting or not supporting? I am not very clear.

I am not supporting.

So, you are not supporting CECA or FTAs, is that right?

The FTAs, we need more information as well on a case-by-case basis.

I am trying to understand what your position is. So, you are not supportiing FTAs, including CECA, is that right?

We are supporting FTAs in general for the benefits that FTAs can bring: trade to our country, investments and all that. But we are concerned that modern FTAs do have provisions on the Movement of Natural Persons. So, for each FTA, we want to look into the details. That is what we are saying.

Minister.

Sir, I am quite confused by the answer.

I am quite confused as well.

So, may I ask, Sir, through you, to Mr Leong, one, just tell us does he and does PSP support FTAs? A simple answer will do.

Mr Leong.

We support FTAs in general.

Thank you. Would that include, Sir, support for CECA?

Yes, in general.

Yes. Let us then have that recorded as he and PSP support CECA and FTAs in general.

May I ask then why is CECA specifically identified in the Motion when I assume there is nothing to distinguish between CECA and other FTAs in Mr Leong's mind?

Mr Leong.

As I said, in my speech, we do not have full disclosure on the Movement of Natural Persons provisions in CECA yet and, also, some of the other FTAs. So, we would like to know more. Before we know more information about that, we cannot shut down discussion on FTAs and CECA, which the Government is trying to do.

The day after the Ministerial Statement on 6 July, the next day, in The Straits Times, the Government straightaway said CECA has no effect on our ability to regulate immigration. But the data provided by the Government is not conclusive. The Government only quoted one year's ICT numbers – 500 ICT in 2020, which is a COVID-19 year. The Government did not provide the data to prove its point.

That is what I am driving at. As a result, although the Government may say, yes, we have told you many, many times and we have discussed this again and again, each time the disclosure is incomplete. That is why we have to continue discussing. Because sometimes, the time allowed for the discussion and the debate is also not sufficient.

Of course, in the Ministerial Statement on 6 July, because we are going to file this Motion, we are also holding back some of the things we wanted to discuss. But, today, we can discuss everything.

Minister.

Again, I am a bit confused. My question was a simple one. It is simply that if you look at the Motion which I read out, it highlights CECA. I am just trying to understand whether CECA has a special place in Mr Leong's affection and mind, or is it treated the same as all the other FTAs. If it is the same as all the other FTAs, why is CECA getting special mention? That is all. A simple answer will do.

Mr Leong.

The focus of the debate today is on the impact of our foreign talent policy on jobs and livelihoods. So, we are focused on all the work pass holders and not one particular nationality. But —

Mr Leong, if you can answer the Minister's question, which is a straightforward one. Because if it was just FTAs in general, then why is CECA being flagged out specifically?

Because there is not enough data. We want to know more about CECA.

But you do want to know more data about all the other FTAs, right, from what you were alluding to earlier?

Yes.

So, why no mention of the other FTAs but CECA, in particular?

No, but in our Motion, we said FTAs and CECA. So, "FTAs" is inside the Motion.

Minister.

I think Mr Leong does not know his own Motion. It says "in some FTAs like CECA". So, there are some FTAs which do not concern him and there are some FTAs which concern him. This is your own Motion, Mr Leong. Just tell us what it means? And why CECA?

Yes, I said "some FTAs like CECA". So, these are the FTAs, including CECA —

Which ones? Sir, if I may ask, which ones?

Mr Leong.

Including the Australian FTA, the China FTA, the US FTA, for example.

Sir, may I ask, through you, which aspects of the China FTA, the US FTA and Australian FTA bother Mr Leong like CECA?

Mr Leong.

The Australian FTA also contains a clause allowing ICTs to bring in dependants. For the China FTA, we are looking at the China FTA to compare with CECA, because both countries have very big populations. For the US FTA, we have received feedback from residents about why US citizens are allowed to buy properties in Singapore without paying the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty. So, some of these FTAs, as I have said, we have to look at it on a case-by-case basis.

Minister.

Thank you. Sir, my understanding therefore, is that Mr Leong is equally concerned about the US FTA, the China FTA, the Australian FTA and CECA, and that CECA is not specifically being singled out. If I may just have that confirmation before I move on?

Mr Leong.

That is correct, Minister.

Mr Leong.

I am sorry, Sir. A point of order. That has nothing to do with what I asked.

Mr Leong.

Okay, in that case, Minister, sorry, can you repeat the question again?

Some of Mr Leong's party members interpreted his statements as being racist and I quoted. One of the quotes is "You are targeting the Indian community and it is totally a racial undertone". My question was, if his own party members can think like that, it is entirely possible for other Singaporeans to take a similar view.

Mr Leong.

We have heard that. That was not my question, Sir.

Do you have a response specifically to the Minister's question?

Sorry, Minister. I want the Minister to repeat the question again.

For the third time, Minister.

Mr Leong, it is commonsensical, is it not, that those PSP members will not be the only ones who think that your statements are racist? If they can think like that, your own party members, then, other Singaporeans can reasonably think that your statements are racist too. It is a simple point.

Mr Leong.

We are not talking about shutting out. In fact, we are having a long debate, we are going to be here for very long.

Correct.

And it will be even longer if we do not get answers. Nobody is shutting anybody out. Just a logical conclusion.

Mr Leong.

Mr Leong.

Mr Leong, will you be coming to an answer to that question?

Yes, yes. Mr Speaker, Sir, please give me some time.

You have all the time, carry on.

Mr Leong.

Minister.

Sir, first, I do not understand that answer because it says here in his Motion "anxiety among Singaporeans on jobs and livelihoods caused by the foreign talent policy and the provisions on Movement of Natural Persons in some free trade agreements like CECA". That is just untrue, based on what Minister Ong has said. We are arguing about your Motion which refers to the provisions of CECA. Sir, I am afraid Mr Leong does not even know what his Motion says. He did not even draft it. So, that is our first question.

Second question: will he now, in the context of his Motion, agree that we are debating the provisions of CECA? And will he accept that there is nothing in CECA that allows for free movement of Indians into Singapore?

Mr Leong.

Could you explain that again, please?

Economic effects of the provision.

So, the provisions are the legal agreement, as explained by the Minister. And what are your views about those provisions? They are written in black and white and we covered that quite extensively at previous Sittings. What are your views on that, please?

The legal documents dictate how these interactions take place with the other countries. So, unless you are doubting the validity of the agreement, or you are doubting the way in which it is implemented, I think we are seeking a view on that. If you could enlighten us, please?

We do not think that we can interpret, I mean, we can draw a conclusion from just the explanation given by the Minister.

Maybe if I can help to paraphrase that. The Minister has explained what the terms are. Do you agree that those are the terms of the free trade agreement as agreed between the two countries?

Sir, as a point of order, let us stop at the legal document first. I wanted to get, Sir, through you, to Mr Leong, because Minister Ong specifically raised this and Mr Leong said they need more time to study this. We have had August and September to study it.

So, first of all, the English meaning, unless some other language may be different, but the English meaning of "the provisions on Movement of Natural Persons in some free trade agreements like CECA" means what they say, which is the legal provisions in CECA. So, let us not try and wriggle out of that. That is what it means.

Second, before we talk about implementation, first, in terms of the legal provisions, I have read out what the Minister said, what these provisions are, does Mr Leong have any basis to contradict that or challenge that, or does he accept it?

Mr Leong.

Sir, may I ask my colleague Hazel Poa to come in and answer those questions?

Yes, you may.

Sir, I would like Mr Leong because Motion stands in his name; he has put this Motion, he has referred to provisions. If he does not know the answer, he can say he does not know the answer. And I am not sure the answer is going to be found in the phone.

Ms Hazel Poa.

Sir, some of these points that Minister Shanmugam has raised are in my speech. Can I suggest that we leave it here for now and we can discuss again after —

No, I think Mr Leong can answer them. I think they are pertinent to the issues that are at hand presently. You may raise it later or you can pass your speech to Mr Leong.

I would have the same answer. We went back to consider the points put up by —

Mr Leong, before we proceed, can we just answer the questions rather than cover the same ground again?

What does that mean, exactly, when you say that you do not agree with the legal documents? As in as represented by the Minister? You do not agree that that is how it was phrased or you do not agree with how it is being phrased? So that we can proceed with the argument, so that we can develop the debate further. What exactly does that mean?

Because we are looking at the economic effects of the —

No, I understand. We are talking about the provisions that are provided under the FTAs, in this case, CECA. What exactly is it about the agreements that you disagree with or whatever that might be?

Okay, then if it is not the legal opinion, what is your opinion on them? A non-legal opinion?

My non-legal opinion would include my interpretation of the economic effect. So, it will be a bit different from what the Minister is asking.

Minister.

Again, Sir, that is a confusing answer. The Minister has said that there is no free movement allowed. We apply and we are entitled to apply our workforce rules and that this is how it has been operated since CECA has come into force and, likewise, for the other FTAs. Which part of that statement does he disagree with, Sir?

We will try one more time. Mr Leong.

Yes, maybe he can look at these statements and say which part of it he disagrees with. Does he disagree that we have applied it this way? Does he say that the Minister was lying in Parliament? Or does he say that the interpretation that the Minister has given is inaccurate and that we should, in fact, or are obliged to give free movement of all Indians into Singapore?

Mr Leong.

Okay, thank you. Minister, I suggest we move on. I do not think we are going to get any further clarity on this. We will just have to agree to disagree and register both points.

Mr Leong.

Thank you, Sir.

Speaker, can I ask a question?

Sir, the floor is mine.

Later.

Mr Leong.

Thank you. Minister.

Mr Leong.

Sir, can I confirm with the Minister that he only has one question, that question? Are there other questions there?

One question for now.

So, can I take it, Sir, through you, that Mr Leong can confirm that he does not really know how many, what should the number be?

Mr Leong.

Sir, based on the data that is available and I have given him this data and much of it is available in public, can I take it that he is in no position, Sir, to tell us whether it should be 350,000 or whether it should be 400,000 or whether it should be less? He has got no basis.

Mr Leong.

And, therefore, it follows, logically, Sir, that Mr Leong is not able to assert here or anywhere else that we have too many foreign PMETs in Singapore. That would be right?

Mr Leong.

Sir, that is not accurate because we are seeing so many underemployed Singaporeans around. The number of gig workers —

How many unemployed Singaporeans do you see? You were saying that you see many unemployed Singaporeans?

Underemployed. Underemployed Singaporeans have come forward to reflect to us, feedback to us. We have also seen in statistics, the number of gig workers, they are increasing. And also the number of self-employed Singaporeans is also increasing. So, there are Singaporeans that are being displaced. So, we got some rough numbers, but we want the Government to give us more accurate numbers.

My question was a simple one. Mr Leong agreed earlier that he does not know if 350,000 is too many or too little. So, it is a natural conclusion that he does not really know if there are too many foreign PMETs here. It is basically based on what he says.

Sir, can I ask through you, that he just be consistent with what he just said three minutes ago?

Sir, I am not going to say what is the number in my head until the Government gives me more data. Not that I do not have an idea of how many Singaporeans are being displaced.

The number of PMET jobs unfilled, that thousands of jobs were being unfilled, was set out in July. So, Mr Leong had said that he will study it carefully. And I think what this House is witnessing is a Motion that has been put up and Mr Leong does not know the meaning of the Motion that he has put up. Because he says "the provisions on Movement of Natural Persons in some free trade agreements like CECA". He has given no credible explanation on why CECA is singled out. He has no credible explanation as to why he refers to the provisions, which means legal provisions, the clauses in CECA, in his Motion and then asserts here that he does not know anything about the provisions in CECA. He has got no view on that.

Then, he should not have referred to that. So, it is meaningless, the Motion; does not make any sense to him, let alone to us.

And he says, there are too many foreign PMETs. But now he says, he does not know if there are too many and he does not know what the number ought to be. He does not tell us what further data he needs.

Sir, none of this is to say that there are no Singaporeans who have lost their jobs, that there are no Singaporeans who are underemployed, that there are no Singaporeans, particularly in their 40s and 50s, who are not in a very good situation. We all know that. Those are all true. But the point is to find the right solutions.

Displacement is taking place all over the world. We have tried to keep unemployment low, we have tried to create the jobs and many people have gotten jobs and we need to help those who have not got jobs, and the way to do it is to try to reskill them and bring in the right industries. Those are legitimate points to make.

What is not legitimate is to try and create a racist, xenophobic, them-versus-us fervour, put down a Motion saying that the terms of CECA are wrong. And then come to Parliament and say, I do not know anything about the terms of CECA. That is doing serious disservice to Singaporeans. That is not the way Members should behave, I am sorry to say.

You got to take this seriously. You got to know what your own Motion says. I am a lawyer, but you do not need to be a lawyer to know that this term, "provisions on Movement of Natural Persons in some free trade agreements", has got only one meaning. It is commonsensical.

Speaker, Sir, can I —–

I am having the floor, please.

You will have a chance to respond, Mr Leong.

Yes, my chance to respond.

Thank you, Sir.

Okay. Mr Leong.

Thank you, Sir. Minister, you have made a lot of accusations there. One is that we go back to square one again about my Motion statement. I bring the Motion statement to this Parliament about the economic effect of the provisions in the FTAs. I am not bringing to Parliament the legal interpretation of the provision. But if you have a legal interpretation, I am fine. I am just telling you that I am concentrating on the economic effect of the provisions.

Second point, you say you provided the data but I asked for a lot of data that is not provided.

Three, the displacement in Singapore and that is a key point that we are debating today. The Government says it is due to global forces. I say, or PSP says, a large part of it is not due to global forces. So, that is what we are debating about. So, do not jump the gun and come and make the conclusion now.

Minister.

I should address the Speaker. Looking at the Motion, Sir, Mr Leong can fulminate as much as he wants, but it says what it says. And it says, "the provisions on Movement of Natural Persons in some free trade agreements like CECA", and that is consistent with the position that Mr Leong put forward in July and what he has said in his Facebook post and what PSP has said, that CECA allows free movement of Indians into Singapore.

So, before we get all heated up, let me refer to what was discussed here the last time around. The Motion is consistent with what Dr Tan Cheng Bock had said on 3 August 2019, which Minister Ong referenced, and I quote Dr Tan, "amongst the terms of CECA, it allowed the free movement of professionals in 127 sectors to enter and work in Singapore." Mr Leong has confirmed that that is not accurate, because he says it is subject to our work pass rules, but this was what they were thinking.

Minister Ong pointed out, on 7 July, the same; that Dr Tan said "...CECA is an agreement between Singapore and India to bring in to allow, I think, 127 categories of professionals to come to Singapore and be given that free hand, practically free hand to come and work here". And that is what the Motion says, "the provisions on Movement of Natural Persons in some free trade agreements".

So, I mean one has got to be both honest and accurate. If Mr Leong does not know what the Motion means, if it has been drafted by someone and he has put his name to it, he can say so. But this is what the Motion says. If I may move on, Sir.

Sir, can I respond?

Mr Leong, a quick one.

I disagree with what the Minister said about his interpretation of the Motion and that I do not understand the Motion and all that.

I already said again and again, that the Motion statement that I put up is about the economic effects of the provisions. I do not expect this Parliament to just argue about legal interpretation. This Parliament is about jobs and livelihoods of our people, about the economy. So, what we are arguing, actually is a larger part of, should be about economics, social, economic issues. We are not going to stand here and keep arguing about a legal interpretation of a clause.

Mr Leong, if I may, the provisions are the first step, is it not? Because if the legal provisions do not provide for that, then it provides a basis for us to discuss about the economic effect. It does not preclude discussing that part because your Motion addresses that.

So, that is the issue at hand and we are trying to understand what is your understanding of the provision. Because it is in black and white, so, what are your views on that? We can subsequently discuss about economic effect, you can take all day if you wish. But what are your views on the legal provisions? It was spelt out in black and white, as illustrated by Minister Ong previously.

Okay, Sir, as I have said just now, at this point, I do not have any legal opinion on the provisions provided under the agreement.

Do you agree that those are the provisions that were spelt out in the agreement?

Yes, but then, in order to have a legal interpretation of provisions, you must look at other parts of the agreement and then you must look at other practices.

So, for those specific parts of the agreement, do you agree that those are in black and white, what was agreed?

At the moment, I have no opinion.

Minister.

Sir, that might be useful. So, through you, Sir, therefore I can confirm that if Mr Leong has no opinion, then naturally, he has no view as to whether the terms of CECA are negative for Singapore. I am not talking about actual implementation. We can discuss that. But since Mr Leong has no opinion, it must logically follow that as far as he is concerned, there are no provisions in CECA that he is concerned about. It must follow. May I ask for confirmation of that, Sir.

You may, but I think we know the answer. Mr Leong.

My answer is, at the moment, in terms of the legal interpretation that this agreement does not have further implementation, implications and all that, I do not have an opinion.

But you do have a negative view about it? Despite the fact that you do not have a legal or otherwise opinion of it?

I do not have a view yet. I am trying to get a view, if the Government is prepared to release more data, about ICTs and about all that, then I will have an economic view.

Minister, I suggest we move, because I do not think we are going to make much progress here.

Sir, let me make a point of clarification. None of that answers the point I made. I am quoting Mr Leong, he professed his deep disappointment when Mr Piyush Gupta was and is DBS CEO, during his maiden speech, that DBS is still without a homegrown CEO. Meaning he was disappointed that it was Mr Gupta and not a homegrown CEO. So, let us not beat about the bush. I am asking whether he continues to have those beliefs or has he changed his mind.

Thank you. Therefore, Mr Leong has changed his mind, it appears, Sir, from last year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I clarify?

Mr Leong.

I did not change my mind. My stance has always been like that.

Mr Leong.

Sorry, could you say that again, please?

Sorry, Sir, can I ask that the natural interpretation of a statement that "I have deep disappointment that DBS is still without a homegrown CEO". At a time that a naturalised Singaporean is a CEO, the normal interpretation, whatever may be the workings of Mr Leong's mind, the normal interpretation would be that he is disappointed that it is Mr Gupta and not a homegrown Singaporean. Would that not be the natural interpretation, Sir?

Mr Leong, would that be a fair interpretation of what you have said?

Sir, that was not the intention.

A point of clarification, Sir. I did expressly say we leave aside whatever Mr Leong may have intended. I am simply asking whether what I have said is a fair interpretation, natural interpretation of what he said.

Mr Leong.

How it is interpreted, I think, depends on who is listening to it.

I think the question is, whether it is fair for anyone in public to interpret it the way as Minister has put across. Because that was what was said, I remembered, I think many of us would remember that. A few of us raised our eyebrows, because we were wondering what exactly you meant.

Yes.

Mr Speaker: So, would it be fair that that is how people would interpret it, notwithstanding whatever your intent might be? Because what we say in Parliament matters, because that is how the public will perceive it. Which is why the choice of words and phrases is important.

That was not my interpretation.

That is not the question at hand. Would that be interpreted the way it has been put across by the Minister?

I would say some minority of the people might interpret it that way.

Minister, please carry on.

Speaker, point of order.

Mr Leong.

All these issues that the Minister has raised are not related to the Motion today. Now he is going into the statements I made at my maiden speech. So, can I ask that we go back to the debate proper?

Minister.

Sir, I will just move on. I will just, for the record, set out exactly what was said by Mr Leong. He said and I quote: "I am deeply disappointed now ...", that these are the points that he was speaking, "...because 22 years later after Mr –" and I assume after Mr Wong's appointment in 1998, "...DBS is still without a homegrown CEO". It is open and shut. He meant 2020 and Mr Gupta was appointed in 2009. I think we can at least be honest with each other when the words are in black and white.

I would say, Sir, to this House, it is not wrong that we welcome talent when people are committed enough to take up citizenship. It is wrong to have an issue with new citizens and PRs from specific countries because it is quite clear what Mr Leong and PSP were doing. It is race-baiting and nationality-baiting without beating about the bush. And that is what the words of this Motion suggest. None of this is to deny the legitimate concerns of Singaporeans. None of this is to deny that there are people who have lost jobs, that there are people in their 40s and 50s, in particular, who are very concerned and that we have to do everything we can to help them and we have to stand by with them.

But I think race-baiting, nationality-baiting, putting down Motions and then coming to Parliament and saying, "well, I don't know, I don't have a view on the legal provisions", when your party has made it a point from day one to attack the legal provisions. I think none of those helped.

Based on his speech, Sir, Mr Leong has painted such a dark picture of what is going on in Singapore, which really bears little resemblance to reality. Is it that locals are being pushed out of PMET jobs on a large scale? We have created over 300,000 local PMET jobs. In fact, locals take up 80% of all PMET jobs.

Can we do better? I think we ought to do better by the people who have lost their jobs or who are underemployed.

Is it that our Universities have produced graduates who cannot get jobs? Over the past 10 years, nine in 10 graduates have been employed within six months after graduation, with starting salaries rising steadily. I think it is demeaning and dismissive of all the good people in our Universities and Polytechnics working hard to train our students, to say that they are producing people who cannot get employed. And it is untrue.

Would Singapore be consistently ranked highly on the UN's Human Development Index if Singaporean were oppressed in the labour market, if incomes have not risen and productivity stalled?

What we have is not perfect. It is not perfect anywhere in the world and we have to consistently work to improve. But it is not the picture that Mr Leong is describing. And I would say Mr Leong's views have been so completely distorted by his lack of understanding of CECA and his eagerness to attack Indians and CECA. And I would say what his party and Mr Leong are doing is one of the worst types of political opportunism – using race as a bait. Thank you, Sir.

Mr Leong, would you like to respond?

Sir, I strongly object to what the Minister said about PSP's position on race.

Noted.

The reason why we raised this Motion has nothing to do with race or xenophobia. We will continue to debate on why we think the situation in Singapore is far worse than what the Government has presented to Singaporeans. Okay? We will debate again. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr Pritam Singh.

The Clerk will examine your proposed amendment for compliance with the Standing Orders, but meanwhile, please continue with your speech. You may proceed.

Sir, if I may, I will just wait for maybe 15 seconds for the amendments to be distributed.

Sure. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

Sir, I beg to move the following amendments.

Under limb (c), to delete the words "supports" at the start of the sentence and to replace it with "calls for stronger".

Under limb (d), to delete the word "and".

Under limb (e), to include the word "and" at the end of the sentence after the semi-colon.

Finally, to insert a new limb (f) which reads as follows, "calls on the Government to proactively release information on jobs and employment prospects of Singaporeans and the costs and benefits of Free Trade Agreements and foreign worker policies with a view to formulating better policies to ensure Singaporeans secure good jobs in Singapore and are not disadvantaged when seeking employment."

Mr Speaker, please allow me to explain the proposed amendments very briefly.

The inclusion of the words "calls on stronger" in place of "supports", reinforces the importance of correcting course and adjusting or changing policies going forward to address the anxieties amongst Singaporeans that limb (a) of the Minister's Motion acknowledges has taken root in the recent past.

The new limb (f) captures what we in the Workers' Party believe represents a fundamental change of culture needed with respect to information disclosure.

A proactive approach to disclosure would operate to take the sting out of misinformation campaigns that ride on job and unemployment insecurity, and encourage a fact-based conversation amongst our people. This would, in turn, buttress efforts amongst Singaporeans to provide feedback on gaps and solutions that can improve outcomes for the Singaporean worker and PMET.

This limb is not inconsistent with the Government's acknowledgement in July that it is better for data, for example, such as that requested by Leon Perera on ICT numbers, and this is my example, to come out early when it concerns issues like racism or xenophobia and that it is much better to quell these issues earlier.

Sir, that marks the end of my speech. My colleague, Member of Parliament He Ting Ru will propose an amendment to the Motion by Mr Leong Mun Wai in her speech. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

It has been proposed as an amendment to the Motion standing in the name of the Minister for Finance as articulated by the Leader of the Opposition:

At paragraph (c), to delete the word "supports" at the start of the sentence and to replace it with "calls for stronger".

At (d), to delete the word "and".

At (e), to include the word "and" at the end of the sentence after the semi-colon.

And to insert a whole new limb (f), which reads, "calls on the Government to proactively release information on jobs and employment prospects of Singaporeans and the costs and benefits of Free Trade Agreements and foreign worker policies with a view to formulating better policies to ensure Singaporeans secure good jobs in Singapore and are not disadvantaged when seeking employment."

Ms Hazel Poa.

Please carry on. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.35 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 5.16 pm until 5.35 pm.

Sitting resumed at 5.35 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

(Simultaneous debate on both Motions)

Debate resumed.

Mr Patrick Tay.

I am concerned about some of the points and assertions made by hon Member Mr Leong Mun Wai earlier. I wanted to make some comments.

First, in relation to work passes, he had suggested that we raise the EP qualifying salaries from the current $4,500 to $10,000, and for S Passes to be raised from $2,500 to $4,500.

I am not sure whether Mr Leong is aware of the ground sentiments on this both from employers and workers. My union leaders have shared with me, to handle this raising in a carefully considered manner.

Why? Each time the S Pass rates, which apply to foreigners, are raised, Singaporeans who are working alongside these pass holders and doing the same job, may not always get the immediate percentage increases at the same time, which is why it has to be done incrementally and carefully in a considered manner.

Second, let me also state that we also have a significant number of S Pass and EP holders in the healthcare and essential services sectors, looking after all of us and fighting alongside us in this pandemic. Many of them are my fellow union members as well. A suggested sharp curb of S Passes and EPs in these sectors as well as in many of these essential services must also be handled with care.

Third, Mr Leong attributed the 80,000 PRs given at the height of immigration all to work pass holders. I hope Mr Leong is aware Singaporeans also marry foreigners and apply permanent residency for them.

Member Ms Hazel Poa earlier suggested that we should squeeze out more foreigners, create an even tighter labour market, and this will result in median wages going up. I think this may be a too simplistic analysis. Tighter labour market alone, by removing all foreign PMETs, does not necessarily result in higher median wages. Real average wage growth at the overall economy level depends on three factors, namely, labour productivity growth, growth in labour's terms of trade and growth in the labour share of output.

Mr Speaker, Sir, NTUC and the Labour Movement, as a symbiotic partner, is fully cognisant that Singapore has to stay open as a business hub and keep pace with the global competition. We agree and support our national operating philosophy to grow the cake so that we have a bigger slice and piece all around. In the same vein, we value and support tripartism, inclusive growth and working together with the Government to ensure we continue to strengthen the Singaporean Core.

I have been a strong advocate of strengthening the Singaporean Core and robust policies in this space since 2011, just like many of my fellow Labour Members of Parliament and PAP Members of Parliament in this House. And I am heartened that in my past 10 years of lobbying, many of these measures from advisories, guidelines, policies, programmes, regulations, have been put in place by MOM, with strong support of our tripartite partners and even our economic agencies such as the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Economic Development Board to better protect and support our Singaporean workforce and provide them with a fair and level playing field in the job market.

I, therefore, disagree with hon Member Mr Leong Mun Wai's Motion, which suggests no concrete action has been taken.

Through the NTUC-SNEF PME taskforce engagements, we have heard ground sentiments on a plethora of issues and challenges faced by Singaporean PMEs, more than 9,000 of them, all Singaporeans, in the past eight months. PMEs are most concerned with the lack of job security amidst this outlook, and their need for more support in employment and training opportunities. This is especially so as the Singapore economy continues to experience ripple effects and challenges of the COVID-19 situation and other factors like technological advances and digitalisation. These challenges seem to impact our mature PMEs aged between 40 and 60 more, as they attributed their age as the key reason for their plight. Mature PMEs have voiced concerns about displacement, disruption and the issue of competition in a globalised and fast-changing economy.

Fortunately, anecdotes from PMEs who shared how they have encountered instances of EP holders being employed for jobs that Singaporeans can take on are a minority and confined to certain sectors and companies, and not widespread.

In the converse, I also hear of positive sharing of human resource (HR) practitioners and employers taking great pains and significant efforts to convince their overseas headquarters to consider and recruit Singaporeans for positions in the region and in Singapore. I sincerely thank these HR practitioners and enlightened employers for believing in Singaporeans and doing their part to ensure that Singaporeans have a fair chance and shot at job opportunities.

In our engagements, our PMEs understand the need for a foreign workforce to complement the local workforce. They do not advocate the closing of borders to foreigners, but they want resolute actions taken against employers who are recalcitrant in their hiring policies, to protect our locals from discrimination. They also hope to pick up the in-demand skills to take on the new jobs.

The reason why some of our workers experience discrimination is not due to foreign competition, but due to a small proportion of egregious companies and employers who are out to exploit the system. While we take cognisance that many measures and policies, including the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP), the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF), Triple Weak Scrutiny, tightening of requirements for S Pass and EPs, including the formation of the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) and so on, had been put in place over the years to minimise unfair hiring and workplace practices.

I am glad to know that we are constantly asking ourselves what more needs to be done to weed out the small proportion of egregious companies out to exploit the system. We need to look at ways to ensure that local PMEs receive fair opportunities and treatment while maintaining competitiveness in the economy.

On this note and for these very facts and circumstances, I, therefore, cannot accept the Motion standing in the name of Non-Constituency Member Mr Leong Mun Wai.

I am glad that the Government has responded to our advocacy efforts and calls with the setting up of the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness, and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in his National Day Rally addressed and updated that we will look at fair employment guidelines becoming law and the set-up of a new tribunal to address workplace discrimination by those few black sheep. These are big and bold moves, and I think it is important for us to spend time engaging the tripartite partners and stakeholders before implementation.

Many union members, workers and PMEs I have spoken to are heartened by the announcements and acknowledged that these are the right steps taken to punish those errant employers and correct discriminative hiring policies and practices. They are positive that this will send a clear message against workplace discrimination and eradicate unfair hiring practices.

NTUC will represent the voices of our workers and PMEs, and contribute actively in the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness (TCWF) to look into improving workplace fairness through both legislative and non-legislative options and consider measures to tackle workplace discrimination.

Beyond legislation, we will need to continuously raise HR standards, to further enhance our HR practices and capabilities so that practices and processes are more transparent. HR practitioners, especially those in the recruitment functions, play a vital role in ensuring that the companies adhere to the employment legislation and regulations to improve compliance with fair employment practices. They are also the advocates for the recruitment of Singaporeans in positions within their companies. It is, therefore, important we move towards increasing certification and accreditation of HR practitioners, as well as providing shared HR services for SMEs.

We will also continue to surface recommendations to strengthen the Singaporean Core and this will include: first, enhancing the EP application review process by considering a range of factors beyond the individual applicant’s education, qualification and salary; second, facilitating skills transfer from foreign specialists to local PMEs through skills transfer programmes. These are suggestions we have raised in the past many years and I am glad the Leader of the Opposition has also weighed in on this; and third, strengthening TAFEP to take decisive action against errant employers who pay lip service to the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF).

Finally, beyond the above recommendations, it is important for the tripartite partners and our workers, including PMEs, to invest even more in training and skills upgrading. For a start, employers and businesses can partner NTUC and the Labour Movement in this journey. In this age of disruption, digitalisation, transformation and the next normal, the tripartite partners need to stand even more united together to support, enable and ensure our workers stay ready, relevant and resilient: ready with the new skills, relevant to the new jobs and resilient to the new changes. This is so that we can better weather any storms and pivot and transform when curved balls are hurled at us.

Mr Speaker, NTUC will continue to champion our workers’ interests to ensure that there must be fairness and zero tolerance for discrimination of any kind at the workplace and a level playing field for our Singaporean PMEs, including mature PMEs. In the same vein, we need to see that they are adequately protected, have access to quality jobs and are equipped with the relevant skills to prepare for the future economy.

I, therefore, support the Motion by Minister Lawrence Wong which acknowledges Singaporeans' anxieties and for the Government to take action to manage the population of manpower, ensuring fair treatment of workers by employers and investing in skills upgrading. This will ensure Singaporeans stay employed and employable and their lives and likelihoods are secure and improved.

Ms He Ting Ru.

Mr Speaker, while today’s Motion is ostensibly about jobs for Singaporeans, I believe an inescapable part of the conversation is about immigration and its impact on our economy and society.

Immigration is a topic that is complex and sensitive, and we must, as a society – together with the Government – learn to have difficult conversations with each other without vilifying those who may have a different opinion from ours. Too often do we hear cries of "xenophobia" and "racism" being thrown at those of us who may raise, often legitimate, concerns about the changing nature of our social fabric or the strain on our labour markets. And on the other hand, those who try to speak up in defence of greater international movement of labour and trade are labelled as sell-outs and as "opening the floodgates" at the expense of hardworking Singaporeans.

This polarising approach is neither healthy nor productive, and I believe all of us must take a more nuanced and open-minded approach.

Singapore is a young country. And immigration has been a fundamental part of our story for a very long time, from our founding as a free port in the 1800s to our transformation into a modern city in the 1980s. Immigrants have and will always continue to shape our story. We are the country we are today only because of our embrace of diversity and different histories, and this has to continue.

Indeed, for most of our pre-Independence history, immigration exceeded natural births. After Independence, the Government first tightened immigration, then implemented a policy that uses migrants to fulfil a certain role in our labour force as one of the economic tools to drive the growth of our economy.

I do not think that many will deny that this is a complex and difficult balance to get right. This is because the consequences of immigration are often felt very personally by individuals. These changes in the make-up of our society cut at our very daily experience: who we see in our communities every day, the languages we hear around us and the sheer numbers of "others" we have to share our already crowded public spaces with.

Above all, the perception of the impact of immigration on jobs. This is especially against the backdrop of unprecedented disruption caused by the shift to, amongst others, digitalisation, Industry 4.0 and a re-balanced normal, all of which have been exacerbated by COVID-19.

On the other hand, the promise is that immigrants bring skills and a diversity of experiences, and often take up the slack in our labour markets. However, these benefits brought about by our foreign manpower policy tend to accrue more generally and are less directly experienced by individuals. The argument that more trade, more foreign workers and more enterprise equals better and more jobs for Singaporeans is less visible and is not always immediately evident.

Tensions are felt when this "grand bargain" is not one that all Singaporeans have bought into.

This could be especially hard to bridge because many come to the debate with views that are seen through a personal lens, one that could bring biases due to personal life experiences, which would, in turn, lead to a very generalised view over our foreign manpower and immigration policies. And citizens may thus approach the matter without the required nuance or balance that academics or policymakers have the luxury to adopt.

Our citizens are, after all, still feeling our way through how to respectfully debate such sensitive topics. It is hardly right then that we dismiss all these views and concerns as narrow-minded and xenophobic.

The challenge to citizens to accept and accommodate more people into our communities, with the different histories, languages, accents, ways of life and cultures they bring is not always an easy one for a society to accept and it is imperative on all of us to play an active role to manage and mitigate any potential fall-out.

Indeed, we have seen how our public debate around immigration and foreign manpower has changed over the last decade. In 2013, during the debate around our Population White Paper with the now "iconic" 6.9 million figure, then Deputy Prime Minister Teo told this House that “the growth in foreign workforce, total population, infrastructure and housing are not aligned", and accepted that it "contributed to the anxiety, crowdedness, integration problems and the daily inconveniences faced by Singaporeans today".

Additionally, we must be mindful of how world events can shape the conversation. It has also been pointed out that the current era we are living in has been an unprecedented one which became hyper-globalised, with its roots in the 1980s, when Reaganism and Thatcherism took off. Movement of people, goods and services, has become much easier, and, together with the growth in the middle classes in massive and emerging economies, such as China and India, has had an impact on our domestic markets and society in general.

But it must not be forgotten that globalisation has slowed down since 2010 and the trend of increasing globalisation is not a linear process, as history has, indeed, taught us. Our reliance on foreign labour, whether skilled labour or the low-wage migrants we see taking up the slack as carers in our medical and social systems, as live-in help for households, and also for building sites, may prove to be our Achilles heel if we assume that we can simply turn on the tap for these roles to be fulfilled at any time, and that the workers will come in. Our policies, including our FTAs, need to be sensitive to this and not be blind-sided by any reverses in globalisation trends which are currently threatening to be the case.

This is especially important in the current era, where we see the rise of nativist politics and governments from around 2016, as evidenced most famously by the Brexit vote and election of Donald Trump. Too easily have immigration and migrants become convenient bogeymen, just like CECA and our FTAs appear to have done, often against all data that suggest otherwise. Singapore is vulnerable to such dangerous sentiments, and the shocks caused by COVID-19 and the anxieties wrought by a changed world only add to the fears of our people and need to be addressed through more sensitive policies and engagement with the populace.

Now, more than ever, there needs to be humility in the approach taken by our leaders to such matters, and the listening ear of the Government needs to be attuned to and prod at the genuine concerns behind why some of us feel the way we do so strongly; sometimes, in the face of endless explanations that our assumptions or understanding of these policies and FTAs are flawed. Rather than immediately take issue with the speaker, we could understand that lived realities on the ground could be very different to ours and we should pay attention to whether these views and experiences could reveal potential blind spots in the implementation of our policies.

We must also remember that widening inequality is as dangerous as any threats to our economy, as this only drives fears relating to the quality and quantity of the jobs available to Singaporeans, and can lead to anger and resentment against any incomers who are perceived to be better off and to have taken our rice bowls.

Widening inequality thus leads to increasingly polarised politics, which has a certain irony, as data suggest that it is technological advances, which are, in turn, exacerbated by the failure of politics and Government policies to address these trends, rather than globalisation trends, that drive how equal a society is.

Having said all of this, what else can we do to address the concerns and tensions highlighted above? Two big areas where we can work on more are: first, building more, stronger and meaningful bridges between immigrants and citizens; and second, embracing a strong, transparent and data-driven culture.

In order to better understand one another, much effort needs to be expended by both groups, immigrants and citizens alike, in order to have these immigrants properly integrated and accepted into society. There needs to be mutual understanding, tolerance and, finally, meaningful relationships between these two groups to minimise the pitfalls associated with "the other" and also make real the benefits and increased richness to community life that our migrants can bring to our country.

To this end, it is notable that the European Programme for Integration and Migration states that this is, quote, "a two-way process of adaption by migrants and host societies, and, of identification and respect for a core set of values that bind migrants and host communities in a common purpose", unquote.

I think this approach needs to equally apply to incomers who choose to sink roots and take up a pink IC, and those who may be here on a more temporary basis.

While I note that there are initiatives organised through the People’s Association, what has been less clear to the public is whether the organisation itself is seen to be there primarily to serve partisan interests and, more importantly, how successful these initiatives have been.

Judging by the recent episodes that have come to our national consciousness, both online and off, towards foreigners, this would suggest that we need to redouble our efforts in bridging any gaps that remain between the groups. How can we, together, in a way that is accepted by both sides, come up with a common core set of values that each of us respects, that would bind us together, to lessen any mistrust and negative feelings that may be currently amplified by uncertain economic times and the fear for one’s livelihoods?

I do not think this is something that Government leaders and associated bodies, such as the People’s Association, should ram down the throats of a skeptical populace.

Perhaps what is lacking is the buy-in from both sides that it is not only important for Singaporeans to adapt to having "foreigners" in our midst, but that our foreign friends must also play their part in wanting to integrate into the communities they are in. Efforts need to be made to learn the norms within Singapore society, whether it is how we "chope" our tables or the inclination to queue wherever we go. This does not mean losing the richness of the culture or practices that come with one’s history; Singapore will continue to embrace diversity as being at our centre.

Indeed, I do see examples of some immigrants reaching out to us as we conduct our ground work and expressing their desire to volunteer, to work with us and give back to the communities that they live in. It is heartening, especially when we note that they do not do so because they are after priority queue numbers for school places for their children or some other benefit, but because they truly believe in doing something to further the communal spirit that should overcome differences in our backgrounds.

I only wish that we see more of these, and that we continually look for ways and means to improve the situation, to allow more ground-up, non-Government-directed avenues for interaction and understanding between citizens and immigrants, allowing voices to be heard from both sides.

That said, we also need to have a no-excuses approach to discriminatory, prejudicial behaviour and against those who seek to sow discord between immigrants and our host communities. Both groups deserve to have their rights protected stringently. Just as the law comes down hard against those who make offensive and aggressive gestures against foreigners or those from different backgrounds, we also need to ensure that Singaporeans do not face discrimination at the workplace and I hope that the welcomed but long overdue anti-discrimination legislation announced will be strong and robust enough to achieve this.

Finally, I cannot stress enough the importance of a transparent, data-driven approach to immigration and our foreign manpower policies. At the moment, decisions on whether or not to grant citizenship, permanent residence and various work passes are made by ICA and MOM respectively, but no reasons are ever given. Likewise, data relating to our resident labour force often lumps Singaporeans and Permanent Residents together.

While the Government may have reasons for doing so, the best medicine against misinformation, cynicism and resentment is cold, hard data, and to build a transparent culture around the data relating to our policies.

We also need to understand that residents who are married to foreigners or who have foreign family members are often left wondering and speculating about why their family member's application for Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP), permanent residency or citizenship was rejected and what they could do to change the outcome. They would naturally compare this against the number of immigrants moving into the neighbourhood who are granted the immigrant status that they have been applying for – some for decades – sometimes without any ostensible familial ties to Singapore Citizens. Is it any wonder that resentment would build up?

The Government thus needs to take the lead in this by being proactive about the type of data that is shared: from information about our workforce broken down into Singaporeans and Permanent Residents, to providing clear pathways to citizenship for those who are already part of our Singaporean families and communities.

Data on these hot-button topics should be published and shared regularly to allow citizens to understand the impact of Government-led policies on the shape of our economy and society and to allow our academics and commentators a fact base to start with.

A proactive, transparent and data-driven approach to the conversation around foreigners might not convince every cynic but it would go a long way to quieten any unfounded claims, leave less room for conspiracy theories to flourish and give short shrift to those who seek to sow discord amongst us and seek bogeyman, a prime example of which would be CECA and FTAs.

Mr Speaker, in Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]:  Mr Speaker, Sir, while the Motion today is about jobs for Singaporeans, this issue cannot be divorced from immigration and foreign workers. Such discussions will inevitably stir up strong reactions in today’s Singapore society. Real concerns from some Singaporeans may well be seen as xenophobic or even discriminatory.

I think a few points can serve as starting points for the discussions.

First, we must acknowledge that with globalisation, Singapore, like many other countries, faces the problems of widening income gap and rising social tensions in tandem. Second, these phenomena have, indeed, intensified the friction between the local and foreign workers. In many ways, these problems are avoidable. The key lies in whether Singaporeans, foreign workers and even the authorities are making an effort to integrate them into the society.

Faced with challenges brought about by globalisation, we must cast aside our prejudices and discrimination, especially in the workplace. In this respect, anti-discrimination legislation in Parliament is a right move. If we do not face these negative sentiments squarely, misunderstandings may well become deeper. In addition, the authorities and decision-makers should be more proactive in information disclosure, based on the principle of information transparency, so that we can engage in realistic discussions, avoid misunderstandings from happening or deepening and prevent social tensions from escalating unnecessarily.

(In English): To conclude, immigration and foreign manpower have been heated issues in Singapore for many, many years. CECA and FTAs are but the latest iterations of the debate.

This is a difficult, complicated topic and an issue that many other nations continue to struggle with. We must, therefore, create a strong ecosystem for conversation, interaction and disagreement on the topics at hand. We must say no to a continued top-down approach to immigration where we are told what is good for us.

The danger is that, over time, resentment continues to build, and anti-immigrant sentiment spills over into nasty incidents where there is a heavy element of racism and xenophobia that also affect our Singaporeans as well, such as the unfortunate events that we have seen in recent months.

I hope the Government will take this as an opportunity to rethink the way these topics have been managed and discussed so far and, instead, lean more into enabling conversations on the ground to change hearts and minds rather than continue to debate what is best for Singaporeans and dictate our story for us.

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to move amendments to the Motion proposed by the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament from the PSP. [A copy of amendments handed to Mr Speaker.]

The Member has moved to propose the amendment as follows:

To delete the words "and the provisions on Movement of Natural Persons in some free trade agreements like the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement".

And replace them with a similar paragraph as what they have proposed earlier to the other Motion, which is "by proactively releasing information on jobs and employment prospects of Singaporeans and the costs and benefits of free trade agreements and foreign worker policies, with a view to formulating better policies to ensure Singaporeans secure good jobs in Singapore and are not disadvantaged when seeking employment."

I am of the view that the last paragraph is similar to what you have proposed in a previous Motion and we should confine that to that Motion so that Members can vote accordingly.

Your proposal to delete the words "and the provisions on Movement of Natural Persons in some free trade agreements like the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement" substantively changes the tone of what that Motion was about in the first place, which is being debated.

So, in my view, the proposed amendments would not be relevant. So, we will not admit them. Let us proceed.

Okay, so be it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amended Motion put forth by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh.

Sir, free trade agreements, or FTAs, are important for our economic development and, hence, the well-being of our people. FTAs are always a compromise. As in any negotiation, we give something away to get something back. Singapore has import duties on hardly any categories of physical goods. So, we have little to give away unless we open up our services sectors or our labour market further.

I am glad that the Government has clarified that it maintains an intent to continue maintaining close control over the granting of foreign work passes without any FTA provision diluting that and this is a commitment that this House will, I am sure, hold this Government and future governments to.

Because FTAs are a negotiated compromise, at any one point in time, it is necessary to review these agreements from time to time to ensure that what we have given away is not proved too much and what we are getting back is as good as what we expected. Therefore, I echo the calls made by the Leader of the Opposition and my colleague, Member of Parliament for Sengkang, Ms He Ting Ru, to regularly study the impact of our FTAs, to engage research to quantify the net economic benefit over costs.

Furthermore, it is vital that the Government engages our SMEs when negotiating FTAs and FTA reviews. I raised this at MTI's Committee of Supply (COS) in March 2020 and through a Parliamentary Question in March 2017. The reply stated that there were roundtables and engagements conducted but numbers were not given.

Anecdotally, some SMEs on the ground do not feel that their views factor substantially into FTA negotiations, which, they perceive, may be conducted more from the perspective of creating incentives for MNCs to hub in Singapore to invest abroad.

I believe more can be done to gather feedback from SMEs to bring into FTA negotiations, something countries like New Zealand, when defending its dairy industry in the TPP negotiations, for example, seem adept at.

Moreover, the Government should regularly assess local FTA utilisation rates and perceived benefits to see if the other country is delivering on its market access commitments. FTA utilisation rates by SMEs should be published to help all stakeholders assess our efforts in public debate. Many SMEs do not fully utilise FTAs when they go abroad, for reasons that range from lack of awareness to lack of administrative bandwidth. More can be done to make these FTA benefits visible and usable by our local firms, for instance, the idea of a one-stop whole-of-Government portal, which could allow SMEs to transact with the Government and utilise Government schemes that I have spoken about in this House in the past. Such a portal could be used to allow SMEs to gain visibility on FTA benefits in different countries and enable them to transact to realise those benefits online.

At this stage, Sir, I declare my interest as the CEO of an international research consultancy that conducts studies related to FTAs and SME development, among other topics.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall devote the rest of my speech to the anxieties that exist around the granting of work passes to foreigners.

Sir, in the decades after Singapore's Independence, there was no mass anxiety about the role of foreigners in our economy, at least comparable to what we see now. It was widely recognised that they play a useful role. The same is not true of every country in the world. Singapore's attitude towards the presence of foreigners and fixed-term stays and those who choose to make Singapore their permanent home used to be more liberal to my mind than that you see in some Asian countries I can think of. That culture was shaped perhaps by around 200 years of history as a free port and open trading economy. The sense then was that the rising tide of liberal economics would lift all boats.

This is no longer the case. There is widespread anxiety, frustration and angst about the role of foreigners in the economy, as all the Motions put forth in this House today acknowledge to some degree. I want to share, Sir, two stories about how these things came home to me.

Firstly, I met a Singaporean delivery rider in full uniform at a coffee shop in the Serangoon ward of Aljunied GRC who told me, at length, with tears in his eyes, that he was laid off from his job as an aerospace engineer whereas some foreigners at his company were not, and he is now struggling to keep his family afloat.

Secondly, I met an SME business owner who said that she cannot find Singaporeans to do trades jobs. So, she is frustrated at the curbs on foreign manpower and, asked that if I knew of Singaporeans who wanted to do such jobs, could I give her a list of their names.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these concerns revolve around three "Ts".

Firstly, a deficit in trust, the first T; the sense that some Singaporeans have that they face some degree of discrimination in the job market by foreign talent hiring their compatriots.

Secondly, a deficit in transferability, the second T; the sense that there are poor pathways for Singaporeans to learn skills from foreign talents in advance. This current mood is very different from the sense people had in the 1970s and 1980s, with foreign investments from the US, Europe and Japan. To my mind, back then, there was a palpable sense that skills and know-how were being transferred by foreign companies and foreigners to locals through in-house training and foreign-Singapore joint training institutes, for example.

Thirdly, a deficit in transparency, the third T; there is angst about why foreigners seemed to leapfrog Singaporeans in some contexts in spite of our much-vaunted education system, even though those foreigners sometimes come from countries with less recognised education systems.

I should say that a transparency deficit is also felt by another group – local business owners. They wrestle with the issue of hiring talent and often say that Singaporeans do not want to do trades jobs. So, why is the supply of foreigners for those jobs being curbed?

Sir, one antidote to the trust deficit is anti-discrimination laws, something that the Workers' Party has championed in its General Election 2020 manifesto and in this House. I am glad that the Government is now moving in this direction.

One antidote to the transferability deficit is fixed-term EPs, the suggestion I made in this House previously in which the Leader of the Opposition alluded to. These would be foreign work passes granted for a fixed term with the understanding that the job has to be localised in that term and the pass, as a default, would not be renewed, unless the employer can demonstrate strong extenuating circumstances to appeal for a renewal. This differs from the current EP system, where many employees assume that they can renew their EPs and there is no assumption that the EPs would definitely not be renewed as a default. Sir, to be sure, we are not arguing for all EPs to be made fixed-term, but for some of them to possess this feature. Fixed-term work passes should be one tool in our toolkit not just to advance transferability of foreigners' skills towards locals.

There are other tools that can be used to advance transferability that Workers' Party Members of Parliament in this House have argued for, such as stimulating cross-border remote working internships for our students and young adults with cutting-edge multinational corporations abroad which were not present in Singapore, for example.

As for the antidote to the transparency deficit, the key is not just more public dialogues and communication between Government and citizens, vital though that is; the key is to set out long-term goals and clear policies to advance those goals. Let me expand on this issue of transparency.

Sir, many Singaporeans are pained and confused about our foreign talent policy because they do not understand the rationale, the mechanics, the ends and the means. One major area where this angst is being felt is when it comes to education. Singaporeans do not understand why the Government keeps praising our education system but, in some employment contexts, foreigners seem to dominate or have a large share of the better-paying jobs. Has our education system groomed us with the wrong skills and attributes? Sir, we need to interrogate the gaps in our education system that contribute to these aspects of our employment landscape and address them aggressively. My parliamentary colleague, Mr Gerald Giam, will elaborate on what needs to be done on that front.

For the remainder of my speech, I will speak about two areas of Government employment policy where the public, I sense, feels angst from a lack of transparency and whether the system is working in their best interests. And these two areas actually map onto the two anecdotes that I shared earlier.

Firstly, the notion that hiring foreigners is necessary to create good jobs for Singaporeans, even if the foreigners constitute a high share or a significant share of the better-paying jobs. I shall call this the numerical multiplier argument. Secondly, the subject of trades jobs that SMEs perceive Singaporeans no longer want to do. I will call this the trades jobs problem.

Firstly, the numerical multiplier argument. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has articulated this argument before inside and outside this House. If I were to summarise it at the risk of oversimplification, it is the view that we do not have enough Singaporeans and not of the right skills and talent to do all the cutting-edge economic activities we want to do as a global hub city. So, we need to import foreign talent and, if we do that well, this creates good jobs for Singaporeans. We try to upskill and upwage Singaporeans. But if foreigners account for a large share of the better-paid jobs, it is still okay because Singaporeans are in good jobs that they might not have if the foreigners were not here. So, Singaporeans are absolutely better off, even if, sometimes, they may feel relatively worse off in the employment hierarchy. Or to put it another way, this argument is saying if Singaporeans want to always hog all the better-paying jobs, we will end up poorer in purchasing power terms. This argument stands, by the way, on solid ground in the field of political philosophy. It reminds me of the Rawlsian theory of justice I studied as an undergraduate. According to the philosopher, John Rawls, in a seminal work "A Theory of Justice", inequality could be justified if that inequality causes the least well-off person in a society to become better off in absolute terms. Honestly, Sir, there is much to be said for the numerical multiplier thesis and it can be found as the subtext to employment policies in many countries and cities.

But to delve deeper into the empirical reality, what is of concern to many Singaporeans about this argument are a few things. One is the pathway to skills transfer, another is fair employment practices in a foreigner-heavy workplace. I have spoken about these already. But there are deeper and more subtle problems with the numerical multiplier argument. Or I should not say problems; maybe questions. A large population of foreigners to create jobs for Singaporeans places burdens on our scarce resources of land, healthcare capacity, road capacity, public transport and so on. It also runs the risk of entrenching work cultures that disadvantage Singaporeans in the longer term, especially if the foreigners start off from a higher skills base in a new industry. Initial endowments of resources, like skills, do weigh heavily on ultimate outcomes downstream. Being very reliant on foreign labour also means that we are vulnerable to global events that may make these foreigners less willing to come and work here one day. And that day may not come so soon, but it could come in our children's time, in our grandchildren's time.

So, how do we get our workforce profile towards a ratio of foreigners and locals that would better address these issues? Sir, I would like to suggest that the EDB and our economic agencies, together with our Institutes of Higher Learning, work in sync to do a few things that would optimise this ratio, that would create good well-paying jobs for Singaporeans while managing the size of the population of foreigners and, hence, overall population pressures.

Firstly, can we attract foreign direct investment projects that are better matched to existing skillsets of Singaporeans or skillsets that Singaporeans can easily acquire?

Secondly, can we catalyse continuous education and training platforms to train Singaporeans in new skills ahead of demand? By "ahead of demand", I mean to attract Singaporeans to train for skills in industries that are nascent, that are newly emerging, confident that the Government is working with investors to groom and build those industries using all the tools in the toolkit. JTC and EDB building physical infrastructure ahead of demand was a key factor in our industrial success in the 1960s. The key to our Industry 4.0 success in the 21st century would be catalysing soft infrastructure, that is, skills, ahead of demand.

Thirdly, tie foreign direct investment incentives to a number of fixed-term EPs to ensure Singaporeans' pathway into new industries, as discussed earlier.

Fourthly, can we examine if we need to expand University education places for locals in disciplines necessary for future industries, thus managing the need to import foreign manpower with degrees from, in some cases, less highly ranked universities than our local ones? This ties to another Workers' Party manifesto point on expanding University capacity to 50% of the cohort size.

Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to speak about trades jobs, that it is said, Singaporeans do not want. By "trades jobs", I mean carpenters, plumbers, highly-skilled construction workmen and supervisors, air-conditioner technicians and so on and so forth. There is a huge transparency deficit here with our local business owners.

In the decades after Independence, many of these trades jobs were done by Singaporeans. But now, many SME owners believe that Singaporeans simply do not want such jobs. If this is true, it could be due to the overall growth of the economy and population base coupled with our low total fertility rate. It could also be due to the expansion of other more attractive jobs in other sectors. There is also the fact that many of our Polytechnic and ITE graduates as well as older PMETs are going into gig work rather than a trade. Many SME owners are adamant that even if they paid more for these jobs, Singaporeans do not want to do them.

No ifs, no buts. One of them told me that when he attends construction training courses as a guest speaker, the only Singaporean trainees there are those with white hair. Yet, on the other hand, from a totally opposite perspective, another older gentleman I met on a market walkabout said that he was gainfully employed in the construction industry as a supervisor in his 20s and 30s. But now, all the jobs in this line have gone to foreigners. And even though he is willing to take a 50% pay cut from his last drawn construction industry pay, he cannot get a job. So, he became a private hire car driver. How do we reconcile these two different and seemingly contradictory perspectives?

Sir, the Workers' Party has supported moves, such as the past tightening of DRC quotas, to curb over-reliance on foreign manpower. However, that cannot be the only solution. We need to deeply address the reasons why SME business owners say Singaporeans do not want to take up trades jobs. Quotas alone should not be the solution. To move more Singaporeans into trades job sustainably needs us to go beyond quotas to tackle a few things deeply. And here I move to my suggestions.

I have about six suggestions. I am not saying that these ideas are not already being looked at or have not been attempted. But, clearly, the results are not yet there and we are far away from success in outcomes rather than just success in efforts.

Firstly, let us implement an across-the-board minimum wage, as we have called for, and PWMs to ladder and upgrade wages on top of that. We do need to accept that prices have to rise as a result to ensure that businesses can survive.

Secondly, implement job redesign to upskill these jobs with state support for productivity-enhancing investments in a more ambitious way than has been done thus far, with both carrots and sticks. For example, can we introduce harder productivity conditions for Government contracts? And there should be clear long-term timelines for phasing out low productivity work, not ad hoc short-term changes to foreign manpower quotas done in an unpredictable fashion. Sir, our low construction productivity, to take one sector as an example, has not brought low construction costs. So, Workers' Party has argued before, with the right policies, there is no reason why we cannot attain developed country productivity in trades jobs to justify higher pay for those jobs.

Thirdly, investigate and fix negative non-wage characteristics of these trades shops. For example, do employers provide adequate equipment to ameliorate the physical downsides of such jobs, like proper gloves, boots, tools? Are trades jobs persons given proper break times and reasonable expectations on hours and working at short notice? Are they treated by bosses with respect? Are they given enough paid leave? These should all be studied and addressed. As I argued in this House a few months ago, no Singaporean will take a trades job at high pay if he or she knows that they will be treated with disrespect and have to put up with awful conditions. They may prefer to do gig work or a lowly-paid office job that attracts less pay with all the attendant dangers of obsolescence from technology that those kinds of jobs bring.

Fourthly, we need to enhance the prestige and standing of trades jobs. I do not have the luxury of time to elaborate on this particular point during this speech, but more can be done to try to shift expectations and attitudes. It is worth bearing in mind that trades jobs are highly respected in many countries around the world. I think continental European countries and Japan are examples that spring to mind.

Fifthly, we need to create pathways for some good trades persons who are foreigners to become citizens in small enough numbers, not to suppress but to supplement locals moving into these sectors, and then nudge those new citizens to transfer skills to more locals in the ways we have spoken about. Are such trades persons given the opportunity to become citizens now even if they have no university degree?

And sixth – and this is another call the Workers' Party has made and the Leader of the Opposition has alluded to – we need to measure underemployment so that we can tackle it. This was a theme of a speech made by my party Chair Ms Sylvia Lim some years ago. Some gig jobs face long-term risk from technology. Today's underemployment can be tomorrow's unemployment. Can we shift local Singaporeans from some of these at-risk gig jobs to redesigned, revamped trades jobs?

In conclusion, Sir, every country struggles to find the right balance between foreigners and locals in their economy and that balance changes from one era to another. In other developed countries, one often finds a more relaxed and liberal attitude towards foreign talent in big cities like London and New York, where even those in relatively lower-income trades jobs, like taxi drivers and restaurant staff, have often benefited from the rising tide that foreigners contribute to. But go to the towns and cities where living standards have stagnated or nosedived, like some of the opioid-ravaged midwestern towns in the US, and you sometimes find bitterness towards foreigners and the cancer of racism, together with the far-right, nativist politics that go along with that.

With the right policies, goals and mindsets, Sir, I believe Singapore can return to what it was in a previous era: a country of citizens who are confident enough about their present and their future to welcome foreign talent that genuinely complements our strengths and adds value to our lives.

Leader.

Mr Speaker, as there are still quite a number of speakers who have not yet spoken, I shall need to move an Exempted Business Motion.

Please do.