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.

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!