Follow us on Telegram for the latest updates: https://t.me/mothershipsg

The Workers' Party (WP) reiterated its stance that the inflow of foreigners must create "tangible benefits" for Singaporeans and that to be able to make Singaporeans understand, the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) government must not create an "information vacuum".

Speaking on the fifth day of the debate on the Motion of Thanks to the President's Address, Pritam Singh, who is both the Secretary-General of the Worker's Party and Leader of the Opposition, said that the lack of information might turn the subject "ugly", and the PAP must not see calls for information "as a Trojan horse for ulterior motives or a red herring".

However, Singh's points were contended by PAP ministers, who said there were other considerations behind choosing not to release such information.

Foreign talent in Singapore: Lack of information can result in the subject turning ugly

Speaking on Apr. 21, Singh highlighted that Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong had stated, in his response to the President's Address, that the government is committed to "carefully manage foreign workers, and immigration flows" into Singapore to ensure "tangible benefits" for Singaporeans as well as making newcomers feel that they are welcome in the country.

With respect to having "tangible benefits" for Singaporeans, Singh said that WP has repeatedly called for it, as they see it as an "important requirement" to ensure society remains welcoming of foreigners.

He then pointed out that the publication of outcome-based indicators of government policies would be useful in ensuring either continued public support or at least an understanding of the government's policies.

"Providing evidence of how foreign talent policies help Singaporeans in concrete ways will help prevent xenophobia, something we must always guard against," he said.

Getting the PAP to reveal information at September 2021 debate on CECA was "like squeezing blood out of a stone"

Singh then proceeded to cite the Sep. 2021 debate on the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA), in which he said that getting the People's Action Party (PAP) to reveal information about the number of intra-corporate transferees from India that work in Singapore, on the introduction of the agreement, was akin to "squeezing blood out of a stone."

He elaborated:

"Parliamentary questions had been filed by the Workers' Party on the issue from 2016. But forthright answers were not forthcoming. In the meantime, pressures and tensions on the ground built up.

It's not a small number of Singaporeans (who) became emotionally charged about CECA, using it as an adjective and in very uncharitable and downright racist ways.

The Workers' Party sought information — answers to which could have shed light and reduced heat before things reached a boiling point."

Singh then addressed a statement by Health Minister Ong Ye Kung on Apr. 20, in which he said that the government has always addressed the concerns raised by various MPs:

"Sometimes, filing a parliamentary question does not guarantee receiving an adequate and substantive answer from the the PAP government from which alternatives can germinate."

Growth of family offices is another tinderbox government should look at closely

Singh said another "potential tinderbox" that the Government should look at closely is the growth of family offices in the country, inflows of foreign wealth and how Singaporeans are taking to these developments.

He claimed that there are already "murmurings of discontent led by emotional perspectives".

He noted that these viewpoints had been created by "facts" such as foreigners' "mass-buying spree" of properties in single developments.

"If the government does not step in early and fill the information vacuum on how outcomes for Singapore and Singaporeans are enhanced, this subject may turn ugly too," he said.

"In future, the PAP must not see calls for information as a Trojan horse for ulterior motives or a red herring. When there are requests for detailed figures, the PAP must not turn defensive in response to the parliamentary opposition of the day, playing its role, checking the government of the day."

Says PAP shouldn't be dismissive and withhold information from people

Singh brought up the point that PAP MP Murali Pillai had said during the debate that "people's psyche will change" and as they do, the government "must change to a degree and at speed unprecedented".

Singh elaborated:

"Likewise, the interventions of the opposition in this House, the questions it asks, and the proposals it advances must reflect this new psyche.

Going forward, the 4G PAP leadership cannot be dismissive, or breezily use national security or sensitivity as reasons for withholding information without good reason."

Singh felt that "a greater openness to releasing information" will be fundamental to the refreshed social compact that the 4G PAP leadership seeks to forge with Singaporeans through the Forward Singapore exercise.

500-person poll found that 80 per cent of S'poreans favour English test

On the issue of better integrating newcomers into Singapore's society, Singh brought up his proposal of implementing an English test requirement for new Permanent Residents and citizens.

He then cited a local survey which found that almost 80 per cent of 500 Singapore-born citizens, aged between 18 and 69, favour an English test for new Permanent Residents (PRs) and citizens.

"Prior to the release of the survey result, in some limited quarters, the proposal for an English requirement was incorrectly understood as a divisive one, with the implicit point being that mother tongue languages would somehow be compromised, or that an English requirement was actually a test for 'Singaporeaness'."

However, these criticisms missed the key points of his proposal, which was focused on integration.

"I am gratified that the demographically representative survey respondents did not miss the point," he said.

He added that the widespread support for an English requirement could perhaps be traced back to the historical use of English in Singapore, as established by the pioneer generation of PAP leaders.

Acknowledges difficulty of English requirement for foreign spouses

Singh acknowledged that the possible difficulty of an English requirement for a foreign spouse is a legitimate concern.

He suggested that an English requirement for foreign spouses can be one of the criteria for fast-tracking these applicants.

All other things being equal, additional points of consideration could be given for PR and citizenship to foreign spouses who have a working proficiency in English.

Given that the government has stated that Singapore's immigration policy and intake are calibrated to preserve the country's racial balance, an English requirement would not favour one racial group over another just because some applicants already use English and others do not, he elaborated.

"The English requirement would serve as a plus one criteria or bonus criteria. It would nudge and better align immigration policy with our bilingualism policy which is a fundamental aspect of the Singapore system."

Tan See Leng: Numbers publicly available but other information confidential

In response to Singh's allusion to "drawing blood from stone", Manpower Minister Tan See Leng rose to seek clarification, and highlighted that the number of intra-corporate transferees had already been provided in his July 2021 Ministerial Statement.

He said that there were 4,200 transferees in 2020, which is a number that remained consistently small, and the information is publicly available on various platforms.

Tan then pointed out that both the WP and PSP had not only asked about numbers but also asked for information such as the breakdown of the jobs and whether the Singapore citizens who held them had been born in the country or were naturalised Singaporeans, among other types of confidential information not readily released.

He said manpower officials replied to these questions "to the best extent that is possible" by putting up statistics required by the MPs.

"To your point about the...confidential information that could have been released earlier, I believe that it cannot be the reason for the ugly xenophobia, the racial undertones surrounding CECA," he said.

WP thinks xenophobia can be "punctured" with early release of info

Singh clarified that WP doesn't want Singapore's social compact to be disrupted and overturned because of xenophobia.

Singh then highlighted that the issue of the intra-corporate transferees was raised in Parliament well before Tan's speech in July 2021, with WP MP Leon Perera asking about it as far back as 2016.

At that time, the answer from the Manpower Ministry was that such numbers are not revealed, he added.

Had these numbers been released instead, because the numbers were low, the xenophobia could have been "punctured" quite early, Singh claimed.

"The point I'm making was I could not understand why it is difficult to provide the information in 2016. But then when things are descending into an abyss, the numbers start coming out."

Singh then referred to something that Health Minister Ong Ye Kung had said back in 2021, in response to the same argument Singh made back then about disclosing information early.

Ong had said that with such information, falsehoods could be quelled earlier. However, in a bureaucracy some data is classified secret, confidential and so on, and they are not always at liberty to disclose them. Nevertheless, he acknowledged that it could have been better if some information had come out earlier, and issues concerning racism and xenophobia could be discussed earlier.

Ong Ye Kung warns against "raw emotions"

Ong then replied to Singh, as he was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition. He took the point then, and he said "I think it's the same answer today."

While he took to heart the feedback and releasing information earlier could have quelled the raw emotions, the fact was that such information about transferees was not ready for release as it could have other ramifications, with comparisons being drawn to other countries.

Ong explained that such information is not readily released for Parliament, but in light of the situation with CECA becoming a big issue with "a lot of raw emotions", the ministers had a "serious" discussion and decided to release it.

"Let's not blame this whole debate and raw emotions around CECA on MOM because they never released intra-corporate transferee data. It's not because of that...It could have quelled it, but I think many other factors took place, resulting in those raw emotions which is most unfortunate."

Singh subsequently responded to both Tan and Ong by saying that the question is whether such information will be problematic and what is in Singapore's interests.

He noted that from 2015 to 2017, the question of CECA did not just "drop from the sky"; around that period, the government's website also had to come out and clarify the issues surrounding the agreement.

"So in that context, I'm not blaming MOM or pointing the figure at MOM, but making a larger meta point about how important it can be for information to be released and to take a different attitude towards it."

Top images via MCI/YouTube