[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – A question from non-electoral MP Leong Mun Wai sparked a lengthy debate in Parliament on Tuesday (September 1), with several opposition MPs questioning Human Resources Minister Josephine Teo about the government’s efforts. to protect local PMETs from being displaced by foreigners.
In her speech, Ms Teo said that the number of locals in professional, managerial, executive and technical jobs (PMET) had grown by approximately 35,000 a year between 2014 and 2019. In the same period, the number of Employment Pass (EP ) and S Pass holders grew by less than 9,000 a year, he added.
Mr. Leong, who is from Singapore’s Progress Party, asked how many people became permanent residents and new citizens during that period.
He added that previously reported data put the figure at around 50,000 a year.
Ms. Teo acknowledged that around 20,000 people become citizens each year, while another 30,000 become PRs. “I think what Mr Leong is trying to suggest is that all of her earnings are meaningless because they are all occupied by PR and (new) citizens,” she said.
But this is not the case, added the minister.
A significant number of new citizens and PRs are children who are not part of the workforce, while others are married to citizens. One in three marriages is now between citizens and non-citizens, he noted.
“Is Mr. Leong suggesting that these new citizens are less citizens? Is Mr. Leong suggesting, therefore, that we should discard them, not include them?” Mrs. Teo asked.
She suggested that Singaporeans should instead look at the bigger picture of the larger proportion of locals in PMET jobs, and decide if this is an “astonishing achievement” not easily achieved elsewhere.
‘The picture is not as pink as the one painted by Mrs. Teo’
He also asked Mr. Leong whether Singapore should begin to distinguish between new citizens and “real” citizens and, if so, how many years of citizenship would qualify a person as a “real” citizen.
Responding, Leong said, “Whether it’s the original Singaporeans or the new Singaporeans, we don’t really make that distinction.”
He added that his problem was the impact of each year’s harvest of new citizens and public relations on the existing population.
If there are 50,000 new citizens and PRs each year, but the number of locals in PMET jobs increases by just 35,000, then there is undeniable pressure on the PMET job market, he said. “So the situation is not as optimistic as what he has painted.”
Ms Teo acknowledged his point of view, but reiterated her earlier points that many new citizens and PRs are not in the workforce or are not married to Singaporeans.
“They have a family connection. Are we going to say, ‘Please don’t work. Please stay out of the workforce,'” he asked. “I don’t think Mr. Leong is saying that at all. However, this constant obsession, if I can put it that way, to draw the lines, I’m not sure it’s good for us as a society.”
He urged MPs to consider these issues carefully and think about the values and attitudes that drive such questions.
“It is not that the question cannot be asked, but I think we have to search our hearts and ask ourselves, before asking ourselves these questions: What is our thinking? What is our attitude? And what is the value that we are even expressing asking this question? “
When Mr. Leong got up again, spokesman Tan Chuan-Jin deliberately asked him if he would answer the minister’s questions. “It’s okay if you don’t want to answer the question that was asked,” Tan added.
Mr. Leong went on to ask about another topic.
Dr. Jamus Lim weighs in on job pass numbers
Workers’ Party MP Jamus Lim (Sengkang GRC) then asked whether the government believes that slowing the growth of EP and S pass holders is enough to prevent local PMETs from being displaced.
He added that comparing the two numbers is misleading, since the overall base numbers in both groups are different. This means that the slowdown in the rate of EP and S pass holders is “less dramatic” than Ms Teo said.
Also, many PMET positions may have already been filled by foreigners, Dr. Lim added, so it is not surprising that the required number of EP and S pass holders has decreased.
Ms. Teo replied, “I just laid out the facts, I didn’t say one contributed to the other. I said the facts; this is what they were.”
Regarding Dr Lim’s question on whether Singapore is satisfied with how much the growth rate of EP and S pass holders has slowed, Ms Teo said her ministry has four goals.
These are to keep employment high and unemployment low, as well as to help Singaporeans achieve income growth and adequate retirement.
If this can be done without using foreigners as a supplement to the workforce and without reducing reliance on labor-intensive working methods in certain sectors, the answer is yes, he said.
But Singapore, as a small city-state, has limitations. Still, you need to find the best solutions, she added.
He asked the House to envision a scenario where the number of EP and S pass holders has been significantly reduced. Also, job opportunities for Singaporeans. “Will it be better for us? Well, we’ll have to think hard if the answer is yes.”
Ms. Jessica Tan (East Coast GRC), who is Vice Chair, asked Dr. Lim for suggestions on the numbers that Singapore should consider, given the issues she had previously noted with the “mismatch” numbers.
Dr. Lim replied, “I was not suggesting that the numbers were wrong.” He said he had tried to emphasize that simply reducing the number of EP and S Pass headlines was a “blunt instrument”, and it is misleading to think that doing so is enough.
“I think this was something that Minister Teo clarified: that ultimately we do not want to look for a single number in which we can reduce the EP or S pass holders,” he added. “What we ultimately want is the ability to think more flexibly about how we address PMET issues and displacement, the potential displacement of the foreign workforce.”
Ms Tan replied that this viewpoint was not one of many MPs, who had emphasized in Monday’s session that the number of EP and S pass holders was just one of the metrics to consider.
“In fact, in my speech yesterday … along with many of our colleagues, that was precisely the point we made: that it is not the only thing to watch and it has to be done in a balanced way.” he said, asking Dr. Lim again for suggestions on how to handle the situation.
Dr. Lim said that he did not attribute this opinion to other members of the House, but had asked Ms. Teo for clarification, as the minister had mentioned the EP and S Pass numbers in her speech.
“I wanted to clarify that this was only a very forceful instrument and it is insufficient,” he said. “And more importantly, I also wanted to clarify that the numbers themselves are misleading … We should not look at pure numbers to draw our conclusions about whether PMETs are being displaced or not,” he added, without elaborating. .
[ad_2]
