Aug 25 2009
Leong Sze Hian wants to make employment a level playing field for locals vs foreigners
Before we talk about whether Singaporeans deserve to have more privileges than PRs and foreigners, perhaps we could first ask whether there may be any areas whereby foreigners or PRs have “more privileges” than Singaporeans?
Employers which employ foreigners, do not have to contribute CPF. So, the employer saves up to 14.5 per cent of the salary.
Employ a female on the S-Pass or work permit, you don’t have to worry about the four months maternity leave if you employ a Singaporean lady. As I understand it, the conditions of the S-Pass and work permit forbids them from becoming pregnant.
If you employ a Singaporean male, he has up to 40 days of reservist liability in a year. In contrast, employing a foreign or PR male, eliminates this problem.
Since those on say work permits are stuck with the same employer for up to three years, the employer may not have a turnover problem – Singaporean employees can resign anytime.
So, is the playing field level in employment, for Singaporeans, vis-à-vis foreigners?
In this regard, I think Singaporeans may not even be asking for “more privileges”, but just a more level playing field.
Moreover, since foreigners do not have to make their own employee’s CPF contribution of up to 20 per cent, their disposable income may be more than a Singaporean worker.
This may be one of the reasons why the wages of lower-income, lower-skilled jobs may have been declining over the years.
For example, cleaners that used to earn about $800 a month a few years ago, now only earn about $650.
As Singaporeans typically have families to feed, mortgages to service, relative to foreigners or PRs who may generally be here alone, Singaporeans may find it more difficult to accept lower paying jobs, for the simple fact that it may not be enough for their basic needs relative to foreigners and PRs.
The manpower regulations require employers to insure all foreign workers for at least $5,000 of medical insurance cover.
However, there is no such requirement for Singaporean workers.
So, in some companies, we have the abnormality of foreign workers being insured, whereas Singaporeans are not.
This is another example of “less privileges” rather than “more privileges”.
PR siblings (below age 35) qualify to buy resale HDB flats. However, Singaporean PR siblings (below age 35) do not. Why is it that in this aspect, even PRs may have “more privileges” than Singaporeans?
I think what may really irk Singaporeans, may not be so much about how much more or less privileges there are, but rather how many Singaporeans these “privileges” policies may be affecting.
In order to answer this question, we need for example, the break-down of the unemployment statistics into Singaporeans and PRs, instead of lumping them together as residents; HDB flats purchased by PRs relative to citizens, etc.
PRs who have no jobs may be able to more easily return to their home country, sell their HDB flats, etc, but Singaporeans generally have no choice but to find work and stay in Singapore.
We may also need to be more discerning in examining the statistics when we ask for more privileges, as sometimes, when say PRs and foreigners have to pay more for medical fees relative to Singaporeans, it may be Singaporean employers, Singaporean households, who may be bearing the brunt of the fees increase, as they are the ones paying for their foreign/PR employees, domestic maids, non-Singaporean spouses and relatives.
For example, when fees increase for foreigners and PRs, but remain the same for Singaporeans, it may not be “more privileges”.
Instead, it may be a greater financial burden for some Singaporeans, unless increase in fees for foreigners and PRs, means lower fees for Singaporeans.
An alumnus of Harvard University, Leong Sze Hian has authored 4 books, been quoted over 1000 times in the media , host of a radio show on money matters and a daily newspaper column, has been a Wharton Fellow and invited to speak more than 100 times in more than 20 countries on 5 continents. He has served as Honorary Consul of Jamaica, Chairman of the Institute of Administrative Management, and founding advisor to the Financial Planning Associations of Indonesia and Brunei.
3 responses so far
I would like to address on the issue of CPF.
1stly, CPF is still YOUR money! I am aghast that many Singaporeans treat that part. Its just like having a 14.5% bonus! In fact Singaporeans can then make themselves as competitive by lowering their expected salary by 14.5%!
2ndly, CPF is not as illiquid as you think; CPF can be used on many such as the most important housing, medical, education and many others.
3rdly, CPF is a good investment. Do you think many Singaporeans can live comfortably without the CPF scheme, which they can afford their houses without? My parents for one paid off the entire remaining HDB loan with CPF.
If the govt were to retract the CPF Scheme today, what would you think locals would react? I’m sure many of them, including you, will stand up and complain! Think thoroughly before you speak! Because in light that the CPF is an unpopular scheme, we should abolish it! Scrap it!
I do not agree that we should highly subsidize medicine because fundamentally on the fact that why would you pay for other’s medical benefits? Why should you pay, in the form of taxes, on other’s poor diet, lack of exercise, drinking and smoking habits, which are the cause of most illnesses? You should spend on your own health even if something unfortunate happens! And why PRs need mandatory insurance? Because in the event they are rendered unconscious in an accident, or bedridden etc. Who is going to pay for their bills? Many MNCs have company insurance as well for their staff, but what happens after they retrench you? My best bet is to protect yourself and buy your own insurance!
I can realize that why PR siblings can buy resale flats is because of the fact that they are less likely to form a nuclear family. However, Singaporeans too have the Orphans scheme, which allows two siblings to purchase housing when the nuclear family aka the parents have passed on. I feel that Singaporeans “chui mao qiu ci” or “ji dan li tiao gu tou” aka ‘within an egg, you are trying to pick a bone here’
Look on the positive side Singapore!
Feel free to contact me for some intellectual debate!
A question of fairness: PRs competing with citizens for Primary 1 places
August 31, 2009
By Bhaskaran Kunju, Political Correspondent
The ongoing debate over PRs balloting for places in schools with Singapore citizens seems to have once again deepened the divide between citizens and non-citizens. Readers have written in and commented online their thoughts on Mrs Sweta Agarwal’s letter which proved to be the catalyst in the debate. Most have taken offence with her insistence on PRs needing equal opportunities and questioned her intentions on not having taken up citizenship despite having been a PR for a considerable amount of time.
The incident has had me recalling my own past and I had mixed feelings over Mrs Agarwal’s predicament. I myself was once a PR and my family moved here at the start of last decade when I was just 7 years old.
Despite being born to a Singaporean father, Permanent Residency let alone Singapore Citizenship was hard to come by then. It was even more difficult to find a school to enroll in. Mind you, suitability and distance was not a factor in my parent’s consideration, getting into a school was the priority.
Unfortunately restrictions were strict and I distinctly recall being rejected by more than half a dozen schools from Yishun all the way down to Yio Chu Kang. Some wouldn’t even consider speaking to us when the term PR came up. Nevertheless, out of a random act of kindness on the part of one school Principal, we did find a school to enroll my sister and myself in, albeit more than a year later.
I have since received my citizenship, done all my years of schooling in Singapore, completed my National Service and am now enrolled in a local varsity. I can understand Mrs Agarwal point in wanting her child enrolled, as would anyone, but my sympathies end there. What Mrs Agarwal has failed to realise is that her child has not been denied the right to study and has never even come close to that situation. As someone who has come close to that, I hope, she realises how much more luckier her child is.
The predominant sentiment has been that citizens should be given a clear priority when it comes to enrolling their child in a school. The balloting process is competitive enough as it is for citizens, throwing in non-citizens into the mix only further complicates the process.
It is only fair that some amount of distinction is shown between citizens and non-citizens, be they PRs or foreigners, in every aspect of our system. It’s not discrimination but the most basic of principles that the rights, needs and wants of citizens should come before any other.
As MM Lee pointed out in his speech at the National Day Dinner for his constituency, there are sufficient places in schools for citizens and non-citizens alike, so Mrs Agarwal and other PRs should take heart that their child will not be left without a school.
The logical solution will be to include a separate round of balloting for PRs and non-citizens at the end. The onus on resolving this issue is on the Government and the Ministry of Education. Unfortunately no solution has been forthcoming, though this issue is not new, and has been brought up at least once a year for the past few years.
PM Lee focused on social cohesion in his National Day Rally and assimilating non-citizens into our population was part of it. Despite our conservative culture, I think we have been tolerant in accepting people of all races, creed and nationality. But if there is a perennial issue of citizens not feeling at home in their own country then there has to be a deeper problem that has not been addressed.
I strongly believe that despite complains of xenophobia as the reason from some quarters, the problem in fact lies in Singaporeans not being made to feel they are the priority and issues such as balloting for Primary 1 places only aggravates the problem.
I recall some comments made by Prime Minister Lee in December of 2006, some 6 months after the last elections. He said:
“While we have non-citizens here, citizens always come first. We have to treat them as the best, we have to treat visitors well too but citizens have to be treated better.”
He also added:
“Right now, PRs enjoy the same subsidies as Singaporeans for education and healthcare, and in fact in healthcare, foreign workers also receive subsidised treatment. I think we should make a clear difference – PRs should pay more than Singaporeans but less than other foreigners, there is a distinction. If you are not a PR and not a citizen, you should be given good treatment but we will not give you special privileges.”
Mr Zaqy Mohamad, MP for Hong Kah GRC agreed by saying:
“We got feedback from many Singaporeans and even from my own constituents that since everything’s equal for Singaporeans, foreigners and PRs, what’s so special about being Singaporean? To some extent, short of being nationalistic, PM’s message of ‘citizens first’ is well overdue. It’ll be much appreciated among Singaporeans who are wondering what’s in it for me holding that red passport.”
The assurance for Singaporeans is there, and in terms of payments in healthcare and education there is a difference between Singaporeans and non-citizens. Some 3 years on, the same distinction should be extended to other aspects as well.
As Mrs Agarwal pointed out, PRs pay taxes and contribute to society as well. While this is true I hope she is under no illusion that as a result Singapore or Singaporeans are somehow indebted to her. What Singapore and its population has given her in return is immeasurable.
It was a different time when my family moved to Singapore. The population was predominantly of citizens with PRs and foreigners being a small minority. What Mrs Agarwal is asking for and is already enjoying was difficult to even imagine when I was a PR. As of 2000, 7.2% of Singapore’s population was comprised of PRs and 18.8% foreigners.
In a reply to Ms Sylvia Lim’s question in Parliament in January 2007, on the number of immigrants that was expected to be added to Singapore’s population for the next 5 years, Home Affairs Minister, Mr Wong Kan Seng, provided the following figures.
“From 2001-2004, an average of 35,250 new permanent residents (PR) and 7,130 new Singapore citizens (SC) were granted per annum. In 2005, about 52,300 new PRs and 12,900 new SCs were granted. The average numbers of new PRs and SCs are 38,700 and 8,300 respectively, for the period 2001-2005. We could expect to add about 200,000 new PRs and 40,000 new SCs in the next 5 years if we get the same numbers of new PRs and SCs as in the last 5 years.”
The figures are indeed staggering and the number of PRs is fast becoming proportionately significant in comparison with citizens. Over time it might become difficult to make a distinction in terms of privileges of and treatment between citizens and non-citizens. This leads to another part of the ongoing debate. Why PRs who have shown no intention of gaining citizenship are allowed to carry on with their status quo.
In her last reply to the Straits Times, Mrs Agarwal said the matter was one of personal choice and presumably moot for discussion in public forums. While hers is, the matter in general is still debatable. In the same reply given by Mr Wong Kan Seng in 2007, he mentioned reasons for the increment in PRs and new citizens. He cited a falling birth rate among citizens and the need to augment our economy with skilled foreign immigrants as the reasons for encouraging immigration.
For the latter reason, I think it is important to distinguish between, those who are coming here for employment and those who are coming here to set their roots. In cases like Mrs Agarwal where the PR’s allegiance is with their home country and they have no intention of taking up citizenship, it is rather disheartening to note that Singapore is being used as a hostel of sorts.
A work permit with extended privileges should be sufficient. If a PR status is the best alternative then there must be restrictions in place when it comes to entitlements in healthcare and education for those who do not plan on converting to citizens. This is one reason why the issue has become such a hot topic over the past week.
If immigration is necessary, then we have to be more stringent in issuing PR or even citizenship status. Why offer PR status if their allegiance lies elsewhere. It’s difficult to define this by rule of Law, which is unfortunately how our Government has functioned. This isn’t wrong. Rule of law is needed to ensure a stable and consistent framework of governance. But as I mentioned earlier, there is a also a need to take into account matters of principles. Principles of rights, needs and wants of citizens must outweigh all other protocols wherever possible to ensure a contented society exists.
“Singapore must and will continue to welcome immigrants who can identify with our way of life and whose diverse talents can contribute to the vibrancy and viability of our country. The Government will monitor our population growth closely to ensure that the quality of life and well-being of Singaporeans will not be compromised as our population grows through careful urban planning and development.”
That was the assurance given by Mr Wong Kan Seng in 2007 and it might be time that the Government discussed this issue at length.
Jack,
Since you are so happy here, take up citizenship and stop limbo in PR status. You want the best of both worlds that’s human nature. If there is no job here for you, would you still come? Tell us where you come from if you home country is not good enough for you to make you come here.