News

Everything About the Debate on S’pore Jobs & Livelihoods in the Parliament on 14 Sep

2021-09-15 , 1:36 pm

Lest you’re unaware, there was a parliamentary debate that took place on Tuesday, 14 September. The debate saw MPs from both sides of the House, Finance Minister Lawrence Wong and Progress Singapore Party (PSP) Non-Constituency MP Leong Mun Wai, talking about issues regarding jobs and livelihoods, as well as our foreign talent policy.

If you didn’t get to watch it, don’t worry about it. Here’s everything you need to know about the debate.

1. We Have More Good Jobs Now Thanks to Implemented Policies

Mr Wong said in his speech that statistics have shown that the economic policies that we have in place have indeed allowed Singaporeans to have better living standards. The policies have also contributed to the creation of more good jobs for locals.

The PSP challenged that there wouldn’t be a scarcity of jobs if we reduced the number of foreigners entering the country. In fact, they believe that the jobs would be automatically filled once not many foreigners come into Singapore.

Mr Wong argued that this opinion was “fatally flawed”, and that if we were to have a policy that was overly restrictive, it could result in companies relocating instead. At the end of it, Singaporeans will be the ones getting the shorter end of the stick.

He substantiated his point by noting that Singapore currently has more than 25,000 job openings for professionals, managers, executives, and technicians (PMETs). If we did reduce the number of foreigners entering the country, there would be additional tens of thousands of job openings, yet no one with the right skill sets to fill these positions, evident from how companies are facing challenges in doing so even right now.

He reiterated that the whole point of bringing in investments and growing our economy was to ultimately “create good jobs and improve the lives of all Singaporeans.”

2. Nationality Caps

The PSP said that it would be better if there were higher qualifying salaries for Employment Passes (EPs) and S Passes who are looking to work in Singapore. Mr Leong believes that this policy should be carried out in stages and done over the next three years.

Other than asking for higher qualifying salaries, Mr Leong also proposed that companies have a nationality cap. This would be based on the number of staff in each company in each business function. This would mean that there would be a cap on workers of a single nationality, preferably 10%. The reason for this number, Mr Leong explained, was so that there would be greater diversity in our workforce.

He hopes that companies would be able to seek talent not just from one predominant country or region, but rather, seek talents worldwide.

He also added that there should be “a 25% to 30% combined PMET cap on work pass holders and PRs in the long run”.

3. Alleged Racism

Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam brought up the point that Mr Leong’s statements seem to carry “clear racial undertones”. This is further proven by the fact that he has been making a lot of comments on the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (Ceca) ever since he entered Parliament in 2020.

He then challenged Mr Leong and asked for a clarification of whether he himself felt that he was being racist, or if he would accept the fact that people thought his comments were racist. It seems that many people, even the ones in his own party, have said that his views were racist.

To this, Mr Leong simply said that he was not a racist just because “one or two party members” have remarked that his comments in Parliament are racist.

As PSP is an “open party”, members have the freedom to express their own opinions, and of course, there are times where a small group of members feels differently from the majority. Despite this, PSP is not a party “who will prevent all our members from having their own opinions”.

4. Legal Provisions in Ceca

Mr Shanmugam asked for clarifications from Mr Leong regarding his stance on the legal provisions of Ceca. He also mentioned that the free trade agreement did not provide any free movement of Indians into Singapore.

Mr Leong responded that he was not talking about the legal provisions of the Ceca at all. Instead, he was talking about the economic effects of the provisions of Ceca. This then prompted Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin to ask Mr Leong to elaborate on his views. Mr Tan added that the legal documents are necessary and are what dictate how we interact with other countries.

Mr Leong simply said that he was arguing more on the fact about how the legal documents are implemented and that there could be a better way of doing so that could lead to better economic effects.

The argument later ended with no resolution, and both sides decided to move on to the next point.

5. Alleged Xenophobia

Another point that was brought up during the debate was the alleged xenophobia that was displayed by Mr Leong during this maiden speech in Parliament in 2020. He expressed that DBS Bank was still without a home-grown chief executive, and was deeply disappointed in this fact.

At this point in time, the CEO of DBS was actually Mr Piyush Gupta, a naturalised Singaporean. Of course, this led many, including Mr Shanmugam, to naturally interpret it as Mr Leong being unhappy that DBS’s CEO was a naturalised Singaporean instead of a home-grown one.

As such, he asked if Mr Leong still believed that top positions should not be held by naturalised Singapore citizens. He continued to say that the fact that Mr Leong and the PSP even brought up that statement in the first place was “race-baiting and nationality-baiting”.

Mr Leong rejected this claim and maintained his position that that was not their intention at all. In fact, none of the motions that he and the PSP have brought up were related to race or xenophobia.

6. Introduction of Fixed-Term Employment Passes, Tracking & Solving Underemployment

In relation to fixing the local-foreigner divide, the leader of the Opposition, Pritam Singh (Aljunied GRC), brought up a few suggestions. One of which was to introduce fixed-term employment passes tied to skills transfers.

This suggestion was also previously brought up by Workers’ Party (WP) MP Leon Perera (Aljunied GRC) back in March.

A fixed-term employment pass can only be renewed if the applicant company is able to show evidence that under the previous employment pass, Singaporean workers in the company or in the industry were able to benefit from the upgrading of skills.

Moving forward, Mr Perera asked for the government to track and come up with a solution for underemployment. This point was also initially brought up in Parliament by fellow WP MP Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC), which prompted the government to collaborate with the International Labour Organisation to develop appropriate measures to track underemployment.

The house has yet to hear the results of the collaboration, and Mr Singh is hoping that there would be news soon. After all, WP seems to suggest that this should be a priority.

Mr Singh also said that it may be good to establish a permanent Parliament Standing Select Committee solely focused on the problems faced regarding jobs and foreign employment. This would allow the policymakers to take on a greater level of accountability.

7. Proactive Release of Information on Jobs & Employment Prospects

In relation to Mr Wong’s motion, Mr Singh suggested that it should instead focus on developing policies that would address the concerns of Singaporeans.

He also asked for the government’s support in proactively releasing details on job openings and employment prospects of Singaporeans. The costs and benefits of FTAs should also be disclosed so that we can develop better policies that will guarantee Singaporeans a secure job in Singapore. These policies would also enable Singaporeans to know their rights and not be disadvantaged.

In relation to PSP’s motion, WP MP He Ting Ru (Sengkang GRC) suggested that there could be better ways that the topics of foreign talents and Ceca are brought up. These topics have been a subject of debate for many years now, and if we continue to have a “top-down approach to immigration”, resentment amongst Singaporeans could build up.

Ms He hopes that there could be more opportunities for conversations on the ground so that there is more understanding of what is going on, instead of deciding “what is best for Singaporeans” and dictating “our story for us”.