Free Trade Agreements and Foreign Manpower

Mr Speaker, in his Statement, Minister Ong has explained why FTAs are critical to Singapore, as well as how they have helped us reap significant benefits for our fellow Singaporeans.

The same goes for our openness to foreign workers. We take the same approach when we decide on foreign workers coming to work in Singapore: how does it help Singaporeans?

At the start of the 1970s, our GDP was S$20 billion. Now, the economy has grown to S$454 billion. Foreign workers account for around one-third of our workforce. There are more than 2.3 million locals who are employed and our resident unemployment rate is 4.1%, half of what it was in 1970.

We need to understand the real challenges we are facing today in order to have a constructive debate on the way forward. And that is why we are having these two Ministerial Statements.

I will explain with data, with details, as to exactly how our foreign workforce policies are implemented in order to benefit our fellow Singaporeans. I will also give our perspective on the real challenges we face today and the real solutions that are demanded.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Leong asked for the number of intra-corporate transferees or ICTs, professionals and dependants that come in through CECA. Let me reiterate a point Minister Ong has made, and that is none of our FTAs, including CECA, gives intra-corporate transferees, or ICTs, unfettered access to our labour market. So, please remember that. They all have to meet MOM's prevailing work pass criteria.

Under the ICT route, the employer does not have to advertise on MyCareersFuture.sg, but the ICTs themselves are subject to additional checks on their seniority, on their employment history as well as their work and industry experience.

They are also subject to more conditions in their eligibility to bring in dependants and apply for permanent residency or future employment in Singapore. And if they have brought in dependants, the dependants do not have the automatic right to work here. They can only do so if they qualify for a work pass on their own merits. This is a very fundamental point and I hope that everyone will remember this.

Thus, and as mentioned by Minister Ong, the total number of ICTs has consistently been very small. In 2020, there were only about 4,200 ICTs. Of these, about 500 were from India. That is 500 out of 177,000 Employment Pass (EP) holders in Singapore.

As for the number of "professional visas" issued, I am afraid to disappoint Mr Leong, there is no such category within MOM. As Minister Ong explained, all 127 categories of professionals under CECA currently come in under our regular work pass framework.

The PSP has made Indian nationals coming in through CECA a focus of contention. But I am afraid they have been barking up the wrong tree. The number of ICTs coming in under our FTAs, and in particular CECA, is a very small number relative to our total number of EPs. I suggest we set aside this red herring and move on, more importantly, to the heart of the matter.

The heart of the matter is this: how do we, as a small country devoid of any natural resources, remain open to global talent for us to continue to create opportunities for our fellow Singaporeans while, at the same time, manage the attendant social repercussions?

Singaporeans are pragmatic. They understand we need to remain open to global talent. However, they also face real challenges. In particular, they are worried about three things: first, that the growth in EP holders has come at the expense of our local PMEs; second, that some workplaces have become more concentrated with a single nationality; and third, that there may be discrimination against local jobseekers and employees.

I have come from the private sector, and I understand and empathise with these fears, these concerns and these anxieties. I would like to address each of them in turn, because I want to lay out the facts and also share our approach in dealing with each one of them.

I am not suggesting that all of our approaches are perfect. Obviously, we are always a work-in-progress. But we will continue to refine them in the light of our experiences, always with a focused view to having a system that will and can deliver good jobs, good livelihoods and a thriving economy for Singaporeans. Not just for our generation but for our future generations.

I hope this will enable us to arrive at a better understanding of the choices and the trade-offs that we constantly have to make.

First, on the increased competition from foreign PMEs. In Singapore today, we have one of the best local talent pools in the world. But it is insufficient to meet the breadth, the depth, the needs of investments that generate the quality and the range of jobs that we have today. So, when we bring in new investments, we will sometimes need to attract foreign expertise, foreign talent, while we build up our local capabilities. Ms Hazel Poa, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked for the breakdown of local and foreign workforce numbers by sector. Given the issue at hand, let me focus on EPs.

As of 2020, we have around 177,000 EPs, or Employment Pass holders, in our overall workforce. Manufacturing and construction account for about one-tenth. The rest are in the services sector. If you look at the top three subsectors: infocomm and professional services, these two sectors account for around one-fifth each; while finance accounts for another one-seventh.

If you look at the change from 2005, I think that was around the time when CECA was signed, to 2020, the total number of EPs has increased by around 112,000. This was also mentioned in Minister Ong's speech earlier on. Over this period, the total number of local PMEs increased significantly by more than 380,000.

There have been questions asked, both inside and outside of this House, whether most of the growth in local PME jobs was accounted for by Singapore Citizens.

If you look at our unemployment statistics, we provide the figure for Singapore Citizens. The citizen unemployment rate over the past 10 years has been consistently low, at around 3%. Hence, the answer must be a yes.

For those of you who have asked how much of this local PME job growth has gone to born and bred Singaporeans, notwithstanding the divisive intent of this kind of questioning, let me state simply that the majority of this growth over the past decade went to Singaporeans born in Singapore. And as we have also shared in response to a written Parliamentary Question yesterday, 87% of Singapore Citizens were born here.

Much attention has been placed on the finance and the infocomm sectors, which alone accounted for 40% of the increase in EP holders. This is significant but what is even more significant is that these two sectors saw even stronger job creation for local PMEs. In infocomm, the number of EPs increased by around 25,000. The number of jobs created in this sector alone for local PMEs was greater, at 35,000.

In finance, the number of EPs increased by around 20,000, but the number of jobs created for local PMEs was even greater, at around 85,000. This is more than four times.

We focus on these two sectors because they bring good quality jobs and Singapore, our beloved Singapore, can carve out an advantage and value-add significantly in these areas. And as a result, there has been significant job creation.

As we attract foreign banks, infocomm companies to create jobs here, they will inevitably need foreign workers to complement the Singaporean workforce.

I want to deal with a fundamental misconception which lies at the heart of some of the things being misconstrued.

When a company decides to come into Singapore to invest and they need about 3,000 people, they may be able to find about 2,500 of these talents in Singapore. But they still need to supplement the 2,500 with the other additional 500 from overseas. If we object and we insisted that the balance of their 500 must all come from Singapore irrespective, then how do we expect that investment to take off? How do you expect an investment to come in? These 2,500 jobs for the locals would be compromised greatly.

The simple point is that while we have a good Singaporean talent pool, our pool is not large enough to fulfil all of the needs, the breadth and the depth of these enterprises. Very often, foreigners also bring in skills which complement Singaporeans' skillsets as well.

The misconception is that if we said no to the foreigners coming in, these jobs they would have taken would, therefore, all go to Singaporeans. How can this be possible? This is a misconception. How do I know that this is a misconception? Because today, even as we speak, we still have 22,000 PME jobs that are not filled. Companies are desperate to fill these jobs. They would love to take in Singaporeans if they could, because they would be more productive. But these jobs up till now are still not filled. Perhaps Mr Leong would like to think deeply about that and deliberate and offer us some advice.

Mr Leong also suggests that doing away with foreigners will reduce the displacement of our older PMEs. I wish that were so, but the private sector and the real economy do not operate this way. There will always be displacement of PMEs, whether older or younger in any economy. Why? Because the business world is never static. Industries change, companies downsize, they expand, they relocate, they pivot, they transform.

Regardless of whether you have foreigners or not, that would not change because this is the function of the business world. What matters most for us is whether we are able to find jobs for these displaced PMEs. To do this, we need an eco-system where there are also new companies willing to come and start up in Singapore, new investments, new foreign direct investments coming in and expanding multinational corporations.

So far, I think we have done credibly in this regard. New jobs created have far exceeded the jobs that have been lost and our unemployment rate has been kept low. And the re-entry rates for displaced PMEs are high.

That said, it is not always easy or possible to find every single displaced PME an equivalent job in the same industry, especially if there is a skills mismatch. An IT sales manager who loses his job may not find a job as a cybersecurity expert. But we do our best to help them find jobs in other growth sectors.

If we tell companies which want to invest in Singapore that they can only employ Singaporeans, or first employ Singaporeans who have been displaced regardless of skills, I think the answer will be quite stark. They, I think, will opt not to come into Singapore to invest.

All companies will want to hire Singaporeans, but companies will also need to have that flexibility to hire the best available talent from around the world to complement our Singaporean workforce.

I understand. I understand what displaced Singaporeans are going through. Rest assured, we are doing our best to help you and your families. But it is important that we go to the root cause of the problem, that we are able to tackle it and we are able to diagnose the situation accurately, and not provide treatment to just treat and relieve the symptoms. Because only when we can identify the right solution, we are able to prescribe, we are able to provide the precise and the appropriate treatment.

The fundamental question now is, how do we strike a balance between ensuring that businesses have access to skillsets, to manpower, to grow and succeed, whilst creating opportunities for our local workers to grow and to progress?

Our strategy to achieve this has always been two-pronged: ensuring that our workers can compete fairly and can compete strongly. So, the first is to ensure that our local workers can compete fairly. We do this through our work pass controls. Our view, our prevalent view, is that foreign manpower should not come to Singapore just because they are cheaper to hire than locals. They should complement but not displace our local workforce. They should bring in extra skills to help the companies and, at the same time, create more Singaporean jobs.

In line with these objectives, at the Work Permit and the S Pass level, we have quotas. And we have levies in place to regulate foreign worker numbers. We have been progressively tightening quotas, we have been progressively raising levies to reduce manpower reliance, spur job redesign, push for quality growth. Over the past decade, we have consistently and steadfastly held our course in spite of numerous calls from businesses to relax our rules.

We commit to productivity-led growth because we believe many of these jobs have the potential to be transformed into good jobs that provide higher real wages and rewarding careers for Singaporeans. For EPs, we do not impose quotas or levies because there is fierce competition for global talent and worldwide shortages in areas such as tech and digital skills. A quota would be a hard cap that would limit our ability to compete at the high end of the global economy, while for a levy to have any impact or any effect at all on EP numbers, it would have to be set very high and would substantially increase business costs.

Instead, what we have done is that we have focused on setting and raising the quality bar for EP holders through requirements on salary and qualifications to make sure that the EPs who come in are at the right level and they bring the right skillsets, the necessary expertise and experience to contribute significantly to our economy.

Last year, we raised the EP minimum qualifying salary in two steps, from $3,600 to $3,900; and then, we raised it again to $4,500. The salary requirement increases with age, it is also on a graduated scale, which reflects the candidate's experience, his length of time in the workforce, in order to provide sufficient protection for our mature workers.

We also introduced a higher bar of $5,000 for applicants in the finance sector to take into account the higher wage norms in that sector.

We will continue to review and revise these thresholds regularly to ensure that they remain appropriate and they remain in tandem as our economy develops, as our skills, as our income levels, go up.

Mr Leong has also previously raised in this House his concern that foreign Employment Pass (EP) holders are cheaper to hire than locals, simply because their employers do not make CPF contributions.

I think he fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of our CPF. CPF is set aside for our retirement needs. It can also be used for housing. As foreign PMEs who are not working in Singapore on a permanent basis, I do not think we should be responsible for their retirement adequacy or home ownership needs. Hence, I do not think it makes sense for us to extend our CPF benefits and coverage to them.

Fundamentally, our CPF system is designed to benefit our resident workers, not to help attract or deter foreigners. Instead, when reviewing the qualifying salary to maintain a level playing field, we take into account CPF contributions as part of the cost to employers. That is packaged into the cost to employers.

Mr Leong did not suggest that employers should pay foreigners CPF too. I think he realises this. Instead, he says he wants to impose a $1,200 levy on EP holders. But as I have just explained, a levy is not the most effective or the right way to manage the population of foreign PMEs. I think that it would be better managed by appropriately setting the right salary level for entry into Singapore.

Ms Hazel Poa has asked for numbers on dependants in Singapore. This is relevant insofar as they are competing with locals for jobs.

As shared previously, the vast majority of Dependant's Pass (DP) holders do not work during their stay in Singapore. The number of DP holders who have sought employment in Singapore via a Letter of Consent (LOC) – for DP holders, up to May, if they wanted to work, they needed to get an LOC – this number constitutes only about 1% of all work pass holders.

In fact, Members would remember we have already regularised the work arrangements of DP holders in May this year. From May this year, DP holders who wish to work in Singapore can no longer obtain an LOC. Instead, they will have to qualify for a relevant work pass on their own merit. So, they go through the normal work pass routes.

There will always be calls from workers to tighten our foreign workforce policies further, just as there will always be calls from businesses to relax them. I can tell you that in my past life, I was also guilty of that. I have also lobbied to relax work pass policies; that was a function of a listed company. It is the tightrope that MOM and MTI have to constantly navigate very delicately amidst highly competitive global markets for both investments and talent.

Ladies and gentlemen, there are limits as to how far we can tighten our controls without eventually hurting Singaporeans.

With remote working becoming more prevalent, companies increasingly do not need to site their manpower in Singapore. In fact, we may find more businesses simply choosing to move entire business functions offshore if it becomes too difficult, onerous or expensive to operate here. Singaporeans will end up with the shorter end of the stick as well by losing some jobs too.

This is precisely why the second prong of our approach – that of ensuring that our Singaporeans can compete strongly – is just as important.

In an open and globalised labour market like ours, competition is intense and stiff. There will be some of our fellow Singaporeans who are displaced from their jobs and we need to help them find replacement jobs. This happens not just because of competition from foreign workers but because of other factors like technological change and industries phasing out.

This is why the Government invests so heavily in retraining and skills development so that displaced workers can gain new skills and reinvent themselves either by doing a different job in the same industry or transiting to another industry altogether. In fact, for some industries, as they get sunsetted, we have to help workers to pivot and transform even faster. That is really the subject of the 23 Industry Transformation Maps that we have set up over the last couple of years.

As Mr Lim Swee Say used to say, in Singapore, we are unable to guarantee your employment but rest assured, we will work very, very, very hard to ensure your employability. Upgrading skills and staying relevant is, ultimately, our workers' best form of protection.

We do this through our system of education, through training and that goes beyond formal schooling. We do this via SkillsFuture. We also help displaced Singaporeans through job facilitation and support.

COVID-19 has been an especially difficult time for many Singaporeans. Therefore, we have stepped up support.

As announced at Budget this year, we have extended the SGUnited Jobs and Skills (SGUJS) Package. MOF has set aside an additional $5.4 billion to support the hiring of 200,000 locals through the Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) and provided 35,000 traineeships, attachments and training opportunities just this year alone. These programmes are in addition to long-standing programmes such as Workforce Singapore (WSG)'s career conversion programmes.

To make our career matching services even more accessible to locals, WSG has set up in all 24 HDB towns SGUnited Jobs and Skills (SGUJS) Centres. The retrenchment taskforce led by WSG and supported by NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) reached out to nearly all retrenched local workers in 2020. Of those who took up the taskforce's employment facilitation assistance, you will be happy to note that more than two-thirds of them have found jobs within six months.

Ms Mariam Jaafar asked about the effectiveness of the different capability development schemes in building a local talent pipeline. As of end April 2021, more than 110,000 locals have been placed into jobs and skills opportunities as a result of the SGUJS Package. Within the first three months of implementation, the Jobs Growth Incentive supported 27,000 employers who hired 130,000 new locals.

With the support of employers and the unions, the policies that we have put up have preserved jobs for Singaporeans amidst the crisis of our generation. The numbers speak for themselves. Total employment in 2020, excluding migrant domestic workers, shrank by 166,600. Foreign employment took the most hit, shrinking by 181,500. Resident employment, on the other hand, managed to expand by 14,900 in spite of the downturn.

We are not quite out of the woods yet and there is more work yet to be done but, ladies and gentlemen, let us also build on what we have collectively achieved so far.

A second part on safeguarding diversity. I want to talk about nationality concentration amongst foreign PMEs. Mr Leong and Ms Poa have asked for the nationality profile of our work pass holders and their dependants from China, from India, from the US and from Australia. Ms Poa has asked for even more granular data on the sector and jobs commonly held by these same nationalities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for foreign policy reasons, we do not publish detailed statistics on our foreign workforce, especially by nationality. I am not aware of any country that reports at that level of granularity requested. Nevertheless, we recognise that if misconceptions continue to spread, in spite of all of our attempts to address them in many other ways, even more damage will be done. So, I will share some numbers to address the misconceptions and allow for a meaningful engagement on the issue at hand.

The top nationalities that comprise around two-thirds of our EP holders have been consistent since 2005, namely, China, India, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines and the UK.

I believe the interest is really in the Indian EP holders. The proportion of EP holders from India has increased from about one-seventh in 2005 to about a quarter in 2020. In comparison, the proportion of EP holders from China has remained relatively stable across this same time period.

Is this the result of more favourable treatment for Indian EP holders due to the CECA? The answer is no. As I have shared earlier, all work pass holders in Singapore have to meet the same criteria before they are allowed to enter our labour market. There is no differentiation based on nationality. Rather, these numbers reflect trends in the global demand and supply of tech talent.

The larger increase in Indian EP holders compared to other nationalities is driven by the result of rapid growth and choices of growing our digital economy and finance. As every sector seeks to be digitally enabled, their need for tech talent has grown significantly. We do not have enough locals to fill the jobs available. In the infocomm sector alone today, 6,000 jobs currently remain unfilled.

Companies can decide which overseas countries they want to bring in their manpower from. Based on their needs and the availability of the required talent, China and India, over the last decade or so, are two of the largest suppliers of tech talent.

But you would have read that China has sprouted so many unicorns and the Chinese companies themselves have a huge demand of their own. So, many Chinese talent decide to stay in China to work. I can tell you that these are the numbers that we are seeing across the construction industry amongst the migrant workers as well. I think prior to my coming onboard as the Minister for Manpower, many Members here would know that I deal with the dormitories most of the time. I can share with you the same statistics.

India's talent, on the other hand, have continued to look outwards. They also have the advantage of being English speaking. This phenomenon is not unique to Singapore. It is global.

Currently, India is the largest country of origin for international migrants; this is in the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) Report published in January 2021. In 2020 alone, it accounted for 18 million international migrants, up by 10 million from 2000. India has grown to become the second largest source of immigrants in the US and the third largest in the UK. These two countries are also heavily invested in developing their technological capabilities.

Our companies, our industries, our enterprises, they are both creators of technology and also adopters of the talent that is needed to create these technologies. Given our relative shortage of manpower, even if the workers do not come from India, they will come from somewhere else.

I hope that Mr Leong is not objecting to Indians per se. The point I think we should ask ourselves is this: are they helping our companies? Are they helping our enterprises? Are they helping us to grow our economy and create better Singaporean jobs? The answer is yes.

It is not surprising, however, that this increasing concentration has caused some social frictions and anxiety to Singaporeans. In some ways, this is understandable and to some, we may even say that it is expected because these EP holders are transient. They work in Singapore for a number of years and they contribute to our economic growth. Apart from some EP holders who settle down and become PRs or Singapore Citizens, most of them, most EP holders work here for a few years and they either return home or they move on elsewhere.

So, it is to be expected that they are different and we do feel that they are different. And this is the challenge of living in our multi-cultural society and a globalised world, as Minister Lawrence Wong spoke about recently.

This is something that we will have to, and have been, proactively and constantly monitoring and managing. Indeed, when a single nationality becomes too prominent and that can have a disproportionate impact on our existing culture, our beliefs, it can cause our fellow Singaporeans, ourselves included, to feel less at home in our workplaces and in our neighbourhoods. In the early 2000s, we experienced a similar situation when the share of PRCs in our foreign workforce increased significantly, before tapering as China’s growth took off. Both then and now, the larger numbers did not go unnoticed and they created frictions within our communities.

We understand these concerns, which is why we review and update our work pass policies regularly. We always seek to balance the needs of our economy with the needs of our society. We have to bring in the talent and the skills to keep our economy growing, while tracking that the number of foreigners in our midst stays at a level that we are able to cope with, and manage the social frictions that will arise from time to time. This is a series of trade-offs. It is not going to be a once-off adjustment. It will be a constant balance that we have to continuously monitor and get right.

Today, the Government does monitor the concentration of nationalities at the firm level. Mr Leong Mun Wai asked whether the threshold percentage of a company's workforce from a single nationality is a criterion for the Fair Consideration Framework, or FCF, Watchlist. The answer is yes. In shortlisting firms, MOM looks at whether they have a high concentration of foreigners from a single nationality source, in addition to a high share of foreign PMETs relative to their industry peers.

However, being flagged in the FCF Watchlist is not evidence that the firm has committed any wrongdoing. Potentially, it could be a sign that some unfair hiring may be occurring. The purpose of this Watchlist is to have the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices, or TAFEP, actively engage these companies to review and improve, where needed, their hiring practices and their human resource capabilities. The majority of the firms are cooperative. They respond positively and they exit the Watchlist. For the small minority that are unresponsive, they can have their work pass privileges curtailed or they can be suspended for a specific time period. And this is not a small penalty.

Today, this is an effective process, albeit resource-intensive. We currently have about 400 firms placed on the FCF Watchlist. There are limitations in terms of the reach and the number of firms that we can put through this process. We will be looking to complement, to strengthen the FCF Watchlist with a more scalable approach.

As mentioned in MOM’s Committee of Supply (COS) speech this year, we are also exploring further refinements to our EP framework. Today, we rely primarily on salary as a gatekeeper to select complementary talent, because this is easy to understand and administer. But we are also exploring further additional refinements to achieve our objectives of a strong Singaporean Core, complemented by a diverse foreign workforce. I hope to share more details in due course.

Last but not least, I want to deal with discrimination. We know that not all employers play by the rules. We have zero tolerance, zero tolerance towards discriminatory hiring practices. All employers are expected to comply with the requirements of the FCF and not discriminate on characteristics that are not related to the job.

When it comes to hiring foreign PMEs, employers must first advertise on MyCareersFuture.sg and consider all candidates in the local workforce fairly, before submitting a work pass application. TAFEP investigates potential cases of pre-selection based on proactive surveillance – we use data analytics and AI as well to find out. So, we actually sort of study the data quite aggressively. We also receive complaints from the public and we act on them as well.

Since its introduction in 2014, MOM has been progressively enhancing this framework. In January 2020, we stiffened penalties further for discrimination cases, so that errant employers can have their work pass privileges suspended for at least 12 months and, sometimes, up to 24 months.

Last year, we extended the FCF job advertisement requirements to cover S Passes as well as EPs and we doubled the minimum advertisement period from 14 days to 28 days to give local jobseekers more time to respond to job openings.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa has asked about the results of our efforts. Over the past three years, TAFEP has handled an average of 170 nationality discrimination cases arising from complaints annually. The top three sectors making up about half of the complaints are the wholesale and retail trade, administrative and support services and other service activities. These cases are investigated by TAFEP and, where warranted, they are referred to MOM for enforcement.

Going forward, we will do more to clamp down on egregious employers with discriminatory employment practices. Several Members of Parliament like Mr Louis Ng, Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Vikram Nair had earlier suggested strengthening our levers to give more bite to our Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices. We take these suggestions seriously and we have been studying various options.

Ladies and gentlemen, on a fundamental level, the Government’s goal has always been to create a better life and a future for Singaporeans. We do that through growing the economy, through enlarging the pie so that more locals can enjoy better jobs and a higher standard of living. We do that by tirelessly building up the Singaporean Core through a world-class education system, through continuous upskilling and reskilling; and we do that through working closely with all stakeholders involved to stamp out discriminatory employment practices and ensure a fair playing field to protect our Singaporean workers.

There are careful balances and trade-offs to be made all the time. The Government is intent on keeping this balance right to achieve the goal of creating win-win outcomes for all. MOM will always be both pro-worker and pro-business.

This is necessarily a joint effort. The power and the responsibility to make this happen does not lie with the Government alone.

Businesses must be fair and progressive employers. They must win the confidence and the trust of their employees and the wider public by investing in a strong Singaporean Core, even as they complement it with a diverse foreign workforce.

Workers, too, must adopt a growth mindset and continuously develop their skills. This is the spirit of our Pioneers, who were resilient in the face of challenges and daring in new opportunities.

Unions and trade associations and chambers, or TACs, must continue to serve as multipliers of these positive changes. They help to build the bridge between Government and businesses and workers and they have spearheaded important initiatives to help our businesses and workers transform and upskill.

And I hope Members of all parties must take their responsibility as representatives of the people seriously and work towards constructive solutions and avoid exploiting divisive fault lines.

This tripartite partnership – between unions, employers and the Government – is the real reason why we have managed to succeed over the years.

We are at a critical inflexion point in our economic development. The pandemic has caused significant economic damage the world over. We face many challenges in the post-pandemic era, but there are also abundant opportunities if we play our cards right.

We have distinguished ourselves internationally with how we managed COVID-19 and we have enhanced our trust premium. Many businesses are now looking seriously at investing more in Singapore, which will create good jobs, but only if they can get enough workers, foreign workers as well, to supplement our local workforce. If we can bring them in, we can continue to grow our economy for another five to 10 years. But if we lose this opportunity, we will not only take longer to recover, the impact will be borne by our older workers and also by our youths who will graduate into the workforce over the next few years.

This is a golden opportunity for Singapore to pull ahead. But if we turn protectionist and we make it difficult for companies to hire talent from around the world, then we will lose this opportunity. A business hub means being cosmopolitan, having people from around the world, doing business with the whole world and creating more opportunities for Singaporeans. It will bring in competition. But if the competition is not here, it will be outside. The competition would be helping other companies in other countries to beat ours here and displace our workers.

Let us work together to continue improving Singaporeans’ lives and building a better future for all.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I just take a couple more minutes in Mandarin, please?

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We have always put Singaporeans at the heart of our economic policies, and have always strived to create good job opportunities for Singaporeans and improve their livelihoods.

Singapore's open economy has contributed to our strong economic growth over the past few decades. We have not only attracted many multinational corporations (MNCs) to invest and set up regional headquarters here, but also helped many local enterprises seize opportunities to expand and venture into overseas markets.

Foreign companies, especially those in specialised or emerging sectors, will inevitably need to bring in foreign professionals to complement the local workforce with skills that are currently in short supply. Nevertheless, such specialised capabilities can be transferred to local workers as these companies grow and develop. Over time, local workers will acquire new skills which will in turn raise their competitiveness.

I understand that the presence of such foreign professionals has caused some anxiety to Singaporeans. Some Singaporeans may feel that they face stiffer competition for jobs compared to the past, or that they have been treated unfairly when applying for jobs. Others may worry about whether Singapore's social fabric will change.

I understand the concerns of our Singaporeans. I would like to give the assurance that as we promote sustained economic growth, the Government will always continue to safeguard the livelihoods of Singaporeans. This is our firm commitment to Singaporeans.

Our strategy to achieve this is two-pronged. The first is to ensure that our local workers can continue to have access to good job opportunities. Over the past few years, we have been progressively tightening quotas for foreign workers, especially at the S Pass level. Last year, we also raised the Employment Pass (EP) minimum qualifying salary twice to ensure the quality of foreign professionals brought in by companies. At the same time, we have invested heavily in developing the skills of Singaporeans to ensure that they can maintain their competitive edge in the global market and succeed.

Second, we want to ensure that Singaporeans are treated fairly at work. We have been progressively enhancing the Fair Consideration Framework and stiffened penalties for discriminatory employers. MOM has also been exploring how to further refine the EP framework.

As the saying goes, "Life is like the waves on the sea, with occasional ups and downs. Whether in good times or bad times, we still have to work hard."

(In English): Somehow, it sounds different when I speak in Mandarin. [Laughter.] It is supposed to be sung in Hokkien. I think even Mr Pritam Singh knows that it is a Hokkien song.

(In Mandarin): Over the years, Singaporeans have gone through many ups and downs and never bowed to any challenges. After all, we believe in "working hard to succeed". In the face of this crisis caused by the pandemic, Singaporeans have upheld the spirit of selflessness and adaptability of our forefathers. This shows that Singaporeans are willing to work hard, but we also care about being treated fairly.

This requires the effort and cooperation of many parties. Companies must continue to innovate and transform to create more jobs that attract Singaporeans. At the same time, Singaporeans should continuously upgrade their skills and keep an open mind when looking for job opportunities. The Government will provide comprehensive assistance to help Singaporeans tide over this difficult period and maintain a fair and just society.

Over the past year, we have been hard at work dealing with the many challenges posed by the pandemic. At this juncture, I hope that we will stay united and uphold the Singapore Spirit. The Government will work together with Singaporeans to overcome the difficulties ahead, emerge stronger from this crisis and build a better future for all.

Thank you, Sir. Not a speech, but just a clarification. If I could ask Minister Tan See Leng whether moving forward, we will consider legislating the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices. I think that is important because it is not just discrimination based on nationality, but also based on race, religion, gender, family responsibility, disability, amongst many others. So, I really hope we will consider legislating those guidelines.

I thank the hon Member Mr Louis Ng for his suggestion. As I have shared in my speech earlier on, we are looking at refining and strengthening not just TAFEP, but also the Fair Consideration Framework. Give us a bit of time. We are reviewing it with the different parties because it is of a tripartite nature. And in the months forward, I should be able to come back and update this House again.

I thank the two Ministers for their Ministerial Statements, providing a wide range of information and explanation, and for this additional opportunity for us to seek clarifications on an issue that is of great concern to many Singaporeans. An open debate based on the right information can only be beneficial to all parties involved, whether in or out of this House.

I would like to seek a few clarifications. The first one relates to Minister Ong's claim that PSP has made false allegations that CECA is allowing a free flow of Indian PMEs. Can I ask the Minister to provide the specifics of these false allegations that he mentioned, including details like when and where and who? He gave partial quotes, but partial quotes can be taken out of context and if he can provide the specifics, we can look into it further.

Secondly, Minister Ong said at the beginning of his Statement that he would be happy to provide all information that we request for in order to have a more robust debate on the Motion subsequently. But at the end of the two Ministerial Statements, unfortunately, the bulk of the information that we have requested for in our nine Parliamentary Questions is not released. So, will there be any more data forthcoming in the form of Written Answers?

Thirdly, we agree that FTAs are important to Singapore's economy and we are not calling for the abolition of FTAs. Our concern is over specific provisions in FTAs relating to the movement of natural persons. In CECA, just now Minister Ong mentioned that the listing of the 127 professions does not mean that anybody who applies under this will be approved, but it can be rejected even if they apply. Article 9.5, clause 2, under the heading of "Professionals", states that "each party shall grant temporary entry and stay for up to a year" and it goes on to list several conditions.

So, my question here is, because it says "shall grant temporary entry and stay for up to a year", if an applicant meets the criteria that are listed in this clause, namely, proof of nationality, letter of contract or similar documentation, educational certificates or similar documentation, as well as the minimum salary requirements for EPs, for anybody who satisfies these conditions, are we obliged to approve their application?

Fourthly, under this clause, temporary entry and stay is up to one year. I would like to seek a clarification: can this entry and stay be further extended or renewed or re-applied?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me try to answer the hon Member's four questions. I hope I got them all correct.

Proof of the allegations of PSP:

On 3 August 2019, Dr Tan Cheng Bock – I think he was then Secretary General of PSP – stated on The Online Citizen Asia Facebook page, I quote, "PSP will call for a review of the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, known as CECA. This agreement, you must understand, was negotiated by our current Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat and signed in 2005. Amongst the terms of CECA, it allowed the free movement of professionals in 127 sectors to enter and work in Singapore."

On 7 July 2020, Dr Tan, in an interview with Mothership said, I quote, "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 actually, practically free hand, to come and work here."

On 31 August 2020, Mr Francis Yuen, on the PSP Facebook page and website, he urged the Government to release more data on the matter, which is fair enough. But then went on to state that the Government, I quote, "could not share the next level of details, including the number of Indian nationals converted to PR and those who subsequently gotten citizenships within the eight years under the intra-corporate transferee provision of the agreement." And then that starts to suggest that they come in and then become PRs and citizens as well.

Most recently, on 22 June 2021, in a Facebook post, Mr Leong Mun Wai said, "the most important economic policies that have affected the jobs and livelihoods of Singaporeans relate to foreign PMEs and Free Trade Agreements, in particular, the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement with India."

As Members of the House and also members of the public, through our handphones, we would also have received many other unattributable divisive messages coming through our feeds and chat messages. And I think these quotes and all these messages you receive, if you are Singaporean, especially one facing challenges at the workplace, feeling insecure, you are bound to feel upset and angry. You are bound to feel, "I do not want to welcome foreign PMEs". You will grow suspicious of them, even reject them. And that will be a natural reaction because the messages feed on our worries and our fears.

We have seen how this has turned out in so many other countries, how the extreme right, nativist, populist parties have grown in strength, just by tapping into that fear and insecurity because of globalisation. It is there.

But these far-right or nativist parties, they have been growing stronger in many places around the world and created divisions in societies. Sometimes, they have replaced the governments who take a more moderate policy. I really hope that it does not happen here because if it happens in Singapore, as it happened elsewhere, our policies, our politics would have gone disastrously wrong.

Ms Hazel Poa said that I promised to give all the data they requested. We tried. We tried our best. But as Dr Tan See Leng explained, no country release data to that level of granularity. But if I may just go back to my speech, what I said is, "Dr Tan will provide more detailed answers to the specific questions, including providing the data which will be useful for our subsequent debate and putting that data in context". I did not promise that all the data will be tabulated and provided, and Dr Tan explained why. We try to provide as much as we can, but I think there is a limit to what we can do.

Ms Hazel Poa also asked about Chapter 9 of CECA. As a trade negotiator, we always look out for the word "shall". When you see "shall", it means you must do something. If you do not do it, you are in breach of the agreement. So, what is the "shall" here? You "shall grant temporary entry and stay up to one year for the duration of the contract."

That is what we agreed to. That means if we approve, if you meet our work pass conditions, we shall grant you one year of admission. I think that is very reasonable. Imagine if you apply for something to the government, and then they tell you, "I approve but we do not know for how long"; tomorrow, revoke it. It cannot be. It is not market-friendly at all.

Remember, the ordering of the clauses matter as well. I was mentioning page one. I printed a copy and I highlighted the second and third paragraphs, the carve-outs. Carve-outs come at the beginning. You read this Chapter, you know that this Chapter does not apply to immigration measures. Government policies on immigration and on the granting of work passes, permanent residency and citizenship are not covered in this Chapter.

Then it goes on to say what the parties must then do. So, later on in the Chapter, it says that you "shall" grant one year of approval should you approve. That is how you read the agreement.

I hope I have answered all of Ms Hazel Poa's questions.

But I do have some questions too for PSP. If I may ask these. I tried to correct the falsehoods of CECA because the whole purpose of this Statement is that I know PSP is preparing for a Motion debate. But I am also hoping that we all go into the debate with some common ground.

First of all, common ground must be, let us put aside the falsehoods. Therefore, I clarified which are the falsehoods and let us put them aside. Do not bring them into the Motion. What are the falsehoods?

First, CECA does not allow a free flow of intra-corporate transferees to Singapore. Most companies prefer to apply for EPs than to use the intra-corporate transferee route, which is actually more cumbersome. Hence, I mentioned, as of 2020, there were only 500 intra-corporate transferees from India, in Singapore.

Second falsehood: CECA also does not give Indian nationals from 127 professions a free hand to come to Singapore to live and work. CECA allows them to apply for EPs. It does not oblige Singapore to approve the applications. Approval is subject to them meeting our criteria. Immigration measures are carved out from the agreement, like for all FTAs.

In the spirit of seeking common ground, we come to this House and we recognise that globalisation is a difficult thing. There are lots of pros but there are also cons. In the case of Singapore, globalisation has allowed us to grow and to create a lot of good jobs and has benefited many Singaporeans. If we had not done that, today, we will be having a very different kind of debate, of massive unemployment, of stagnating wages, of graduates not being able to find jobs.

But we also recognise there are downsides. There are two social downsides, other than the increased competition.

First, while foreign EP holders have come in to help us sustain our growth and though the growth in local PMEs outnumber that of foreign EP holders, the presence of foreign EP holders has nevertheless created more competition, discomfort and social issues. We must manage this.

Second, Singaporeans want to know that they will be given fair treatment at the workplace. It is entirely justified. We have rules to achieve such fairness and we will continually review these rules and framework, and how they are implemented to ensure that fairness is assured.

This is what the Government, on its part, has done in the spirit of trying to achieve some common ground as we go into the debate.

So, may I ask PSP, our two hon Non-Constituency Members of Parliament from PSP, after hearing all the explanations from Dr Tan and I, will you agree to the following?

First, the FTAs, including CECA, are fundamental to Singapore's economic survival and our ability to earn a living and we should not shake this bedrock for political purposes.

Second, CECA does not allow a free flow of Indian PMEs into Singapore. This is a gross misunderstanding of the agreement and FTAs in general. Nor is CECA the cause of the challenges faced by our PMEs. We must put a stop to the spreading of the falsehoods.

If you agree to this, I think we have a good chance to have some common ground that when we come into the House again for a debate on the Motion, we can have a meaningful and constructive debate.

If I may seek the clarifications of our two Members from PSP, please.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank Minister Ong Ye Kung for the clarifications on our position. I also thank Minister Ong Ye Kung and Minister Tan See Leng for their detailed explanation of the situation on foreign PMETs, foreign manpower, Free Trade Agreements and CECA.

As to Minister Ong Ye Kung's questions, I will leave them to the last or we will leave them to be answered in the debate that we are going to conduct later on. But there are a few things I would like to bring up here or a few questions I would like to ask to clarify the situation further.

One, we are not against FTAs. We know the importance of FTAs for Singapore, as an open economy and especially as a small city state. However, what we are concerned about is what price we are paying.

The first question I would like to ask is, in the process of negotiating an FTA, what are the bargaining positions that we can give? I read things like, because we do not have many bargaining chips, the implication is that we may have to be a bit more relaxed with the movement of people. One question I want to ask is, is the movement of people or natural persons used as one of the bargaining chips when we are negotiating an FTA?

The whole purpose of PSP – as well as Hazel and I – bringing up the issue about foreign manpower or foreign PMETS or foreign talent, whatever term is used, and the FTAs is because it is about Singaporeans' jobs and livelihoods. When PSP's Dr Tan Cheng Bock raised the issue at the August 2019 launch of PSP, it is due to the huge amount of feedback that we got from the ground. By raising the issue, we had hoped that we would get some response from the Government to explain more about FTAs, in particular, CECA.

Indeed, you would admit that no other FTA has given and stated specifically that 127 professions can come in to work. You may say that no one has come in through the CECA route but the clause is there. It is up to the other party, whether they want to use it or not and, most importantly, up to our Government to administer our employment policies. Because our employment policies are already quite relaxed in granting work passes to foreigners, so the Indian nationals do not have to come to Singapore through the CECA route.

So, the first question I want to ask is whether the movement of people is used as a bargaining chip.

The second question I want to ask is, we should not focus on the number of people that got into the job market through the FTAs or CECA. They have provided some conditions. Most importantly is how those conditions under the FTAs interplay with our domestic employment policies.

The number to focus on is, how many of the respective FTAs' nationals – in the case of CECA, it is Indian nationals – have come to Singapore and taken up our PMET jobs? What is the share of that as a percentage of our foreign PMETs, and then, of our total PMET jobs? That is my second question.

The next point I want to bring up or question is, the Government has admitted that something needs to be done. There are concerns by Singaporeans regarding jobs and livelihoods. This has been going on and on. Have sufficient measures been taken to address them?

One of the questions I want to ask is, has the Government actually tried to find out what the total number of displaced Singaporeans is?

I would think that you cannot deny that there are Singaporeans who are displaced. Your narrative is that it is because they do not have the skills. Let us not push the blame to the Universities and the Polytechnics so easily. It has been 20 years since we started the foreign talent policy. Within 20 years, have we still not got our act together in training our people?

That is my third question, what is the total number of Singaporeans that are displaced over the last 10 years? They would like to have the job that was taken by a foreigner, but were not able to. They lost their current job and when they got another job, they got a lower pay.

There is also a significant number of Singaporeans who are under-employed. If you look at the growth of the Grab driver population, the growth of our traineeship programme and many of our independent workers, are they voluntarily opting for the independent lifestyle or are they facing difficulty in getting a permanent job? Has MOM done a study on those? Have you got the statistics? That is the third question.

The fourth question is, of course, we are particularly concerned about the finance and the IT sectors. Minister Tan See Leng has given some numbers. Unfortunately, we do not have enough time to digest those numbers. We will maybe discuss that in our debate in the future. But the fourth question I want to ask is, really, how many foreigners are there in the IT and finance sectors versus the number of Singaporeans and PRs? That is the fourth question. I think the Minister might have given some figures just now.

The fifth question is, the Minister said that we are not competitive, Singaporeans are not competitive but —

I do not understand what you mean by meaningful, because I am going through those points. Okay, never mind, I will try.

The fifth question is, we have had this foreign talent policy for 20 years. But if you look at the way MOM has administered and regulated the flow of foreign PMETs into Singapore, you find that the policies, of course, over time, there is a bit of tightening at a time but, generally, it seems to be too little and too late.

For example, the foreign talent policy has started in the late 1990s or around the year 2000. But the Fair Consideration Framework was only introduced in 2014. Only in 2016, I was told that the Fair Consideration Framework watchlist was started. Do you mean there were no problems the one- and a half decade before that? And the threshold salaries that we have, just EP alone, up till 2020 last year, it was still $3,600. At the kind of threshold salary plus no CPF, do you think we are attracting the right foreign talent into Singapore? That is the fifth question.

My sixth question is, I totally agree with Minister Tan See Leng about what we are driving at, it is not abolishing things, it is not totally eradicating things. We are also talking about a rebalancing, but the rebalancing cannot come as a result of a natural attrition from COVID-19. There must be a policy recognition that whether our past foreign talent policy was on the right track or not. If we review the policy and we think that there are certain things that we need to change, then make it a policy point. Do not allow natural attrition to come by and say tens of thousands have left Singapore. That is not the way we conduct policy.

So, it is about rebalancing and when we talk about rebalancing, Minister Tan also said, one thing is to ensure that Singaporeans can compete fairly or there is no unfair competition. He explained that not having to pay CPF for the Employment Pass holders is not a disadvantage. I respect you for your experience in the private sector, Minister Tan. As an employer, is that not a wage concession? So, how can we say that Singaporeans are not being treated unfairly in the job market competition? That is my sixth question.

My seventh question is, Minister Tan said that there is simply not enough local talent. Again, I will raise the point which I have said just now: then what happened to our education system? What happened that after 20 years, you are still telling Singaporeans that we have not enough talent? Of course, we are not saying that we can substitute the foreign PMETs completely. But at least there can be some rebalancing, and we get back to my question just now. And if the Minister admits that there is some displacement of Singaporeans, then that rebalancing means we must slowly allow Singaporeans to be given the first opportunity to take up the jobs first.

My last question is, the Minister talked about diversity, but here again, is it not something that MOM should have done long ago about diversity in the workforce when we introduced our foreign talent policy? We also know, because we have worked in an international environment before, that the group dynamics at the workplace can change very fast with changes in the nationality composition in the company. So, especially when MOM is monitoring and regulating the granting of the work passes, do you mean you have not, at the beginning, taken that as an important consideration?

And, today, then you have to say that, "On my watchlist, I have this number of companies that have a very large concentration of PMETs from a single nationality". So, we really want to understand how MOM actually administers this whole foreign PMET policy.

After this, maybe I will add a few more points, I will ask a few more questions about the approval process, some of the experiences I had in the private sector with regard to MOM and its approval process. But my questions are these questions for now.

It is a long list of questions which I am not sure would help us bring the discussion forward.

Let me take questions four to eight and then one to three. Four to eight is for MOM but I think let us not prolong this because, as Mr Speaker has noticed, many of the questions were actually addressed in our speeches. But if you do not accept what we say, there is very little room for us to further explain.

The long and short is, we have been extremely successful, as I have explained in my Ministerial Statement, in growing the Singapore economy, creating this multitude of jobs. I gave examples of our port, airport, financial services, ICT, manufacturing, you name it, we are a hub of all hubs. All these would not have been possible if we have not ridden on the wave of globalisation, welcomed foreign talent and given our own people very good training and education to rise up and take the positions.

I mentioned that our only problem is there is not enough of us. Investors come here, they want to hire Singaporeans. They know our education system is solid and we have such a wonderful reputation around the world, something that, as Singaporeans, we should be proud of. The education system is a bit stressful still, but we should be very proud of that. The problem is, there is still not enough of us.

There are some questions, and we have given figures, so I do not think I would answer those. He mentioned a whole series of procedural policy, how come the Fair Consideration Framework came in so late, why is the salary bar for entry raised only later. MOM's successive Manpower Ministers have been reviewing policies all the while. Policies are never static.

Old policies worked for a period of time. Then, when China and India grew, you get a different influx of workers. You need to adjust your position, hence, you review. And this process will continue and we will debate in this House on the pros and cons of prevailing and new policies.

You cannot say because we implemented something new now to respond to the situation, therefore, we have failed. Why did you not do it five years ago? It does not work like that. That is not policy-making. That is not how this House works. If it were so, then, for every Bill that is tabled in this House, we have failed, because we should have tabled this Bill five years ago. It does not make sense.

I will go back to the first three questions that the Member posed to me, but actually I posed to him first. [Laughter.]

Ms Hazel Poa made a point, if I heard correctly, she said, "We are not against FTAs, we support the FTAs". I thought we started to have some common ground. Then, she asked me about Chapter 9. She is not a trade negotiator, so, I think those are fair questions. I have been a trade negotiator for many years, I explained how the chapter ought to be read. And when she asked that, I hope it is because she might have read the chapter wrongly to think that Singapore shall allow professionals from 127 categories to enter, no questions asked. After my explanation, I was hoping that she would come to the conclusion that they might have interpreted the chapter wrongly but after hearing Mr Leong Mun Wai speak, I think my assumptions are all wrong.

I had two questions for the Members and was hoping to hear "yes" to both. But after hearing Mr Leong, although he said he is not against FTAs, but he then went on to say that, "you use movement of natural persons as a bargaining chip and sell away our rights for immigration". I already explained that is untrue.

So, after all the explanation and you still come to that conclusion, then I say this: number one, PSP you are against globalisation, you are against FTAs, even though I have gone to great lengths to explain that this is the bedrock of Singapore's economic survival; number two, you are really not taking back the falsehoods and the allegations. I do not think you are taking it back. You do feel that the FTA, that CECA, despite our explanation, let in Indian professionals freely into Singapore. I think those are your positions.

Please prove me wrong, but after hearing you, I am afraid these are your positions.

Mr Speaker, I must admit that, notwithstanding the fact that this is my first Ministerial Statement, I actually struggle to follow Mr Leong's line of reasoning. I guess it is because of the fact that, for quite a number of the issues, I think he is looking at it, first and foremost, from a hindsight kind of perspective: why is it that we did not do this, why is it that we did not do that?

If you look at the entire thing – and I am going to take a bit of time on this, to try and gather my thoughts and to connect his thoughts together which, like I said, I am struggling with. So, please be patient with me.

I think what is important is that, if we look at the evolution of our industry, how we started in the 1970s, in the very early part of my speech, at that time, our GDP was about S$20 billion; I think we are at S$454 billion now.

We started with a very conscious effort in the 1970s to go and build heavy industries. So, we developed Jurong Island. There were all these heavy industries that we built up. Our Pioneer founding generation leaders under former Minister Mentor Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Dr Goh Keng Swee and so on, I think at that time when we first started, we were very, very heavily invested in these heavy industries. We went on then into manufacturing. In the 1980s, we went into electronics. We did disk drives, wafer fabrication and then, eventually, in early part of 2000, we went into services, we went into bio-pharmaceutical, life sciences and so on and so forth. And now, we are into tech, we are into infocomm and we are into finance.

Every 10 to 15 years, we have seen fairly dramatic transformation. I think it is inconceivable that you would expect that policies that you enact do not get refined, do not get tweaked and do not get adjusted over time.

So, I guess to his point about the fact that why is it that we did not do this and so on, I think in the last 15, 20 years – and he has sort of pointed out the fact that I have been from the private sector; perhaps, I have not been in the Government long enough – if anything at all, for the last 20 years, change was the constant. Change is a constant and change will be a constant. We will continually face disruption, we will face transformation.

So, to his other point about why is it that we are not able to have all this workforce ready in spite of all of our education upgrades and so on, I think if we all had a crystal ball 20, 30 years ago and we could gaze so clearly into the future, perhaps, even for himself, as a CEO of a private equity firm, I think all the necessary investments made would have been perfect and spot on. But, perhaps, I think, hindsight, like what they always say, is perfect.

To the other point about private sector and how we package the CPF into it, indeed, I can share with you. Perhaps my experience is very limited; I have just been in healthcare all my life. I do admit that I lobbied at that time, five, six years ago, for an increase in the number of S Passes because of the fact that I needed to deliver a certain level of nursing care. I just could not hire enough healthcare personnel, for example, nurses, to come in and help us.

While we do not pay CPF, the overall costs of bringing them in is higher because we have to package in housing and other allowances. And, really, because the employer part of it is imputed into our cost, I can tell you with conviction, because I have done it for many, many years in my life, that that package that we pay out is higher than what we do pay to locals. The only difference of course is the overtime charges and so on. But I think that is another sort of thing altogether.

To the Member's point about the education system, I just want to share one bit. In the early 2000s, our Universities, our Institutes of Higher Learning, the number of IT students that they produced at that particular point in time, today, we are training about four times more what we used to be training before. The entry levels, in terms of the grades, the credits and so on, that are required for the students to make it to get into the Universities are also significantly higher.

So, I guess the point of this is that every single initiative, every single policy, we can always do better. And that is something that I have acknowledged. But the point is this, we are not that far worse off.

Today, if you look at the absolute PME growth numbers, three quarters are our local PMEs in good jobs; one quarter are filled by foreign work pass holders. Our glass is not even half full; our glass is three-quarters full. And we are looking at it from that perspective. Are you saying that we should even adjust that? Of course, we should try to bring it up to 90% or 100% full. But let us also be mindful of the sentiment, the worries and also the hard work of the other three-quarters in that glass that is three-quarters full.

I look forward to a robust debate with Mr Leong and Ms Poa. I think when they can put up questions which I do not struggle so hard to follow, that would be very welcoming. Thank you very much.

I thank Mr Leong for that. I will just summarise that yes, PSP now agrees that FTAs are fundamental to Singapore's economic survival and that includes CECA. So, at least, that is common ground that we have established. I think that is useful and I thank Mr Leong for that.

And, second, the PSP now agrees movement of natural persons, Chapter 9, is not used as a chip and we are not giving away our rights for immigration. There is no free flow of Indian professionals into Singapore.

If I hear him right, I think he is confirming that. He is not sure about the overall balance of the Free Trade Agreement. I think we will leave it there for our debate later on. But I think these two, I will say, form quite good common ground, but it will also mean —

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you. Well, I was not intending to speak, but since Minister Ong Ye Kung mentioned that I was the chief negotiator for CECA, I thought I must put on record the question that Mr Leong Mun Wai asked.

Let me first say that I am terribly troubled by the way that PSP has taken this. And I want to put on record clearly, that the movement of natural persons is a very important chapter but it was not used as a bargaining chip to trade for what else we got. It was not.

So, let me give you a very brief history of FTAs because I was in MTI at that time, first, as a Deputy Secretary and then as a Permanent Secretary.

In 2000, the Doha round of WTO negotiation was launched and then-Minister George Yeo and I were at Doha. We saw the entry of China into the WTO.

But soon after the launch, our assessment and Minister George Yeo's assessment then, was that it looked like the Doha round would not go very far. And, indeed, he was proven correct. And he said, what does Singapore need to do to ensure our continued survival? Minister Ong Ye Kung earlier mentioned the importance of free trade to Singapore. Trade is more than three times our GDP and it will continue to be so.

So, he decided that we should pursue Free Trade Agreements, and our very first Free Trade Agreement was with New Zealand, two small little economies. And I must say that people were laughing; what could two small little economies do to advance the cause of free trade? But we persisted and we got the first agreement done and, thereafter, we went on to do a number of other agreements. When I was Permanent Secretary, I was in the trenches negotiating many agreements with our ASEAN counterparts. And that is how we had the ASEAN Economic Free Trade Agreement; that was enhanced to the ASEAN Economic Community. Thereafter, it was not just ASEAN. There were two things that we did. One was Free Trade Agreements between Singapore and other countries, far bigger economies: Japan, Australia, US; and then, more recently, the European Union.

You asked quite correctly, what is Singapore's bargaining chip?

The honest answer is very little. We only have tariffs on three items: beer, stout, samsu. And what is that as a bargaining chip? But I think a very important quality for our public policy is that we must be creative and we must learn to meet the needs of other countries to see what may be in the agreement that is of benefit to them.

So, how did we manage to negotiate trade agreements with big economies that have a lot of concerns? For example, Japan was very concerned about agriculture. In the case of India, there was an even wider range of concerns. So, let me tell Mr Leong and his team that I spent three years of my life negotiating this agreement because although I was a Permanent Secretary – and Permanent Secretaries usually just supervise, they do not get into the trenches – the Indian side decided that it was an important agreement, they would have a permanent secretary, and Minister George Yeo said, "Well, you have no choice". So, I ended up being the chief negotiator for CECA.

I can tell you the amount of homework I had to do to look at how we can come to an agreement. I went to different parts of India because there was objection from every part of India, from business groups to states. And I can share with you long stories about some of those most intriguing demands which I managed to explain why we cannot do. So, the movement of natural persons was a chapter which, indeed, the Indian negotiators were very keen on because they said, "What do we get?"

Well, I said no. Because this is of great importance to Singapore. You have a population that is over a billion. Singapore has a population of, at that time, probably about three-odd million, and I said we will be easily swamped. So, we must have very strict agreements on this. And that was, in fact, among the last chapters. There were two chapters that were the most difficult to conclude for which I never let go and we got what we needed.

So, I think Mr Leong Mun Wai must not think that, well, you said, "I hope that the Government has the people's interests at heart". Of course! Why do we negotiate FTAs and why do we do this in public service if it is not with the interest of our people at heart? Why do I spend three years of my life doing the agreement? So, please be reasonable and do not mislead Singaporeans.

I want to raise two other issues which are very important too.

First, you said, "Why is it that we do not have talents and what happened to our Universities?"

Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean was the Education Minister. So, was I, and all our former and current Education Ministers are sitting here. I must say that I am extremely proud of what our schools and our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) have done over the years to groom Singaporeans. The World Bank has ranked Singapore the best in the world in educating our people. So, please do not go around thinking that we have not put in enough effort. And, in fact, we have increased cohort participation rates from 20% of cohort to now 40%, Government-funded. We now have six Universities. We have Polytechnics and ITEs which provide the most valuable practice-oriented learning. We have enhanced it with SkillsFuture. We have now the Earn and Learn Programme and a whole range of programmes.

So, I think, Mr Leong, you will better serve Singaporeans if you help Singaporeans understand how changes are taking place so quickly and you must help to encourage people to upgrade and learn new skills, and work to support our unions in forming Company Training Committees and Job Security Councils and the like, in order to raise the ability of Singaporeans to compete.

So, I think to say that our education system has not done a good job or that the Government has not put in enough, I would seriously ask you to rethink that, and come back and debate us on that.

Let me end by mentioning two very important points which two Members have just raised. Prof Hoon Hian Teck made an excellent point that the future of competition will be a future of competition of innovation and technology. And it is very important for us to bring in some of the best people to work with Singaporeans, grow Singaporeans to be able to excel in that new realm. It is going to be a different world. So, please do not get stuck in the old world and think that we can excel all on our own. Let us have an open attitude to work with countries around the world who are willing to cooperate and work with us.

Just last week, I had a very good session with the Minister of Higher Education, Research and Innovation of France and we talked about what France and Singapore can do together in our research agenda, in our innovation agenda. France is not a small country and they have a long history of science and innovation. So, that is a very important point that Prof Hoon Hian Teck had made.

The other important point is from Ms Janet Ang, who talked about digital opportunities and the new market.

No sector in our economy is going to be immune from competition. Economists used to have this concept of tradable and non-tradable sectors. Non-tradable sectors are naturally protected because they are in your neighbourhood. Your neighbourhood shops, who is going to compete with them? Today, with e-commerce, our neighbourhood shops are under stress. That is why we have a programme, as part of our industry transformation, to help our neighbourhood shops upgrade. That is why IMDA has put in so much effort on SMEs Go Digital programme.

I think it is very important for the right policy in Singapore: (a) to stay open; (b) to learn how to cope with changes which will be accelerating; (c) to make the best use of science, technology and innovation to allow us to move forward; and (d) to maintain unity so that businesses, unions, workers and the Government work closely together to make the very significant changes that you need to make. [Applause.]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just have two supplementary questions: one for Minister Ong and one for Minister Tan.

For Minister Ong, in 2016, my parliamentary colleague and Workers' Party Member of Parliament Leon Perera asked the then-Minister for Manpower – and this was arising out of feedback from the ground about CECA – issues about a lot of Indian nationals working on the ground. And the question Mr Leon Perera asked was about the number of intra corporate transferees (ICTs) that were working in Singapore through CECA. At that point, the reply that came was the Ministry does not disclose the data on foreign manpower with breakdown by nationality, including data on ICTs.

In February this year, Mr Leong Mun Wai of PSP asked a question about the number of ICTs working in Singapore. This time, the Government disclosed the overall ICT numbers over Employment Pass (EP) holders. And the number was something like 5% of EP holders. Today, we have more information, that for last year at least, 500 of these ICTs originated from India.

The point I want to make to the Minister and to the Government at large is the opportunity to quell or at least to nip some of these issues in the bud when they start moving into the realm of xenophobia and nativism. One important way to prevent that is the availability of information.

In August 2020, a Straits Times reporter mentioned that "ICTs were a key bone of contention with respect to CECA".

If this information on the number of ICTs had been made known earlier, it does occur to me that a lot of the misunderstanding and the reaction we see about CECA could have been addressed and actually nipped in the bud.

I hope the Government understands that with more information, actually, we can hold the line better before these discussions move into a realm of xenophobia and so forth.

My question to Minister Tan See Leng pertains to TAFEP and the strengthening of the enforcement arm of TAFEP. We had an exchange at the opening of Parliament about this and I would just like to confirm with Dr Tan whether raising the numbers in the enforcement arm of TAFEP is on the cards and what discussions have taken place since August last year insofar as how TAFEP will be beefed up. The Workers' Party has a position about anti-discrimination legislation. Is that something that MOM will be prepared to look into?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, for his question.

We are reviewing our existing frameworks. The suggestion that he talked about, the position he had alluded to, in terms of legislation and all that, it is not something that has just come out from the Workers' Party. If you go back in terms of the past proceedings, I believe that quite a number of the Labour Members of Parliament, including Mr Patrick Tay and even non-Labour Members of Parliament, such as Mr Louis Ng, have also raised it at different times.

The assurance that I want to give to the House – to everyone who has raised it and who is concerned about this – is to allow myself, together with the team, together with the tripartite partners, to go deep, look at all the different implications, look at also the various options that we have to see how we can strengthen it. As I have alluded to in my speech, Mr Pritam Singh, I think you will appreciate the fact that given where we are today, it is a very tight rope that we are navigating.

On the one hand, we want to continue to strengthen, to tighten. On the other hand, businesses have the competing interest of asking us to be a bit more lax. One of the reassurances that our Ministry wants to give to Members of the House here is our consistent focus on – and we have never diverted our attention away from it – developing the Singaporean Core. We are fully cognisant of the angst, the fears, the worries about making sure that there is fair, there is equal opportunity in terms of capability development, capability transfer, fair hiring, promotions and so on and so forth. All those things, we will be reviewing in order for us to strengthen that framework.

I do not want to sort of go down a prescribed route today because we are exploring the entire universe. I hope that answers your question.