By Chua Suntong
From 1971 to 1984, the Singapore economy grew steadily. The ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) regime began to set long-term targets for Singapore to become a developed nation. In 1984, first Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong set the target for Singapore to attain the 1984 Swiss Per Capita GNP by 1999. In 1991, a Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) was announced.
In October 1997, the Centre for Advanced Studies in the National University of Singapore organized a “Singapore towards a developed status” conference. One of the presenters, chief statistician Dr Paul Cheung stated growth rates of total population had been consistently higher than the resident population of citizens and permanent residents since 1990, reflecting the large inflows of foreigners. Annual permanent residencies granted rose from 9,000 in 1988 to 25,000 in the 1992-1996 period.
In the immediate period before and after the Asian financial crisis of 1997, PAP politicians were openly talking about significantly increasing the population size. In April 1997 Deputy Prime Minister Dr Tony Tan said Singapore would face a shortage of 7,000 undergraduates in 2000. On Aug 1997 Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong called for proactive effort to attract what he termed as foreign talents.
An important decision was to increase the population to the 4 million mark by 2002. This was 30 years earlier than anticipated by the SEP. In Sep 1997 Home Affairs Minister Mr Wong Kan Seng announced he was planning for 35,000 to 40,000 PRs each year. Another academic presenter, Dr Tan Khee Giap of the Nanyang Business School predicted an annual inflow of 35,000 or more immigrants which were said to be skilled and talented.
Dr Tan presented arguments in favour of a massive population increase. Firstly, the supposed tight labour market could be eased. Singapore could look beyond greater flexibility from its existing labour force pool. Secondly the presumed labour shortage could be sensitively managed to ensure productivity and moderate competitive wage growth. Thirdly, he hoped “an oasis of talent with global links” would probably be the strongest basis for achieving the long-term sustainable growth path.
The vision for a bigger population occurred when the resident total fertility rate (TFR) dropped from 2.1 in 1975 to 1.4 in 1986. After the PAP regime officially started a pro-natalist policy in 1987, the TFR rose slightly to 1.75 in 1996 but consistently below the 2.1 replacement level. Dr Cheung attributed the falling TFR largely due to education and career advancements of women.
Immigration was also to counter population ageing. From 1997 to 2009, the resident population increased by 19.5% from 3.12 million to 3.73 million. Within the same period, TFR decreased from 1.61 to 1.22 and resident median age increased by 4.3 years from 32.6 years to 36.9 years. In an earlier similar period from 1985 to 1997, resident median age increased by 5.4 years from 27.2 years in 1985 to 32.6 years in 1997. More residents meant less resident babies.
Dr Cheung did not mention how employment pressures and rising costs on both males and females would bring down TFR. The PAP regime’s main focus was on rising female expectations. This could be seen through a brief browsing of women’s lifestyle magazines (Her World, Go, Female) published by the mainstream media from 1994 to 1996. The main topic revolved around changing social values and career advancement for young adult women. The future costs of raising children were not important.
The tight labour market mentioned by Dr Tan was indeed eased. Together with one economic downturn after another from 1997 to 2010, hiring and promoting became very flexible. According to the mainstream media, a population segment with the socially acceptable term “jobseekers in between jobs” took shape. This was a collection of long-term structurally unemployed and underemployed persons. Some were forced to become self-employed because they had difficulty seeking regular employment.
With more young people between the ages of 13 and 30 were brought in. National Service (NS) responsibilities became an issue. This liability was based on existing 16.5 year old male PRs and Citizens. The proactive immigration policy meant more foreign males between 21 and 35 years old were able to obtain Permanent Residencies and Citizenships without having to serve any NS.
Technological and tactical changes had reduced existing NS manpower needs. The PAP regime was mainly concerned about long term needs. Therefore it did not see the existing inequality as a problem. It hoped these 1st generation NS-exempted PRs would have NS-serving sons. When it was highlighted some NS-exempted PRs were planning how to enable their male children to continue residing in Singapore while legally evading NS, the PAP regime had no answer.
Dr Tan had emphasized the importance of being able to attract a substantial core group of foreign talent with high-technology skills and professionals with international exposure to Singapore. The influx of NS-exempted young foreign males in the information technology, financial and engineering sectors at various workplace levels became one of the bitter complaints against the immigration policy.
Dr Tan highlighted the challenges of a bigger population in land use and population density. He held that these could be overcome with good planning, the willingness of people to accept a living space per head and disseminated of information emphasizing the expected contribution of supposedly foreign talents. In later years, packed subway trains became a symbol of increasing public anxiety on whether Singapore had become overcrowded
The crowding issue occurred with more PRs. They rose from 112,100 in 1990 to 287,500 in 2000 and to 533,200 in 2009. This meant an approximate doubling per decade. The anxious public argued various pressures in Singapore meant more foreigners were mainly interested in making money in Singapore before relocating. The anxious public doubted more foreigners meant more beneficial long-term social effects.
Dr Tan did not support a “Singaporean will always come first” policy. The immigrant influx eventually created a debate over the Singaporean identity. The immediate topic was Citizens versus PRs. Other variations of the debate also emerged. These included but not restricted to Home-grown Citizens versus Newly Naturalized Citizens and NS-serving PRs versus their counterparts who did not serve.
Some people began to wonder whether the Swiss target meant anything in a period of continuous living costs increases. There was another lesser-known Swiss standard. Dr Cheung noted as of 1990, Switzerland had a 17% foreign population. It was engaged in a greater range of economic sectors compared to foreigners in Singapore. This situation might have influenced the PAP regime’s immigration policy planning.
Dr Tan suggested that acceptance of more immigrants could be cultivated by integrating the younger population of the notion, experience and challenges of a cosmopolitan society. PAP politicians later acknowledged the younger home-grown population had become more critical of the PAP, especially its immigration policy. In 2009, the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports announced the formation of a $10 million integration fund with the hope of easing social tensions.
Dr Cheung assumed that with the existing rate of economic expansion, there would be a clear shortage of potential job entrants. On a macro level, an increase in younger foreigners in the workforce was supposed to support the local elderly. However, after 1997, the mainstream media had continuously highlighted more locals in various sectors above the age of 35 were simply pushed out of the workforce in order to make way for these foreigners.
Government and related organizations were not necessarily friendlier to the re-employment retention of older employees. One measurement used by Dr Cheung was the ratio of 20-39 year olds to 40-59 year olds within the population. He described the 40-59 year olds as retirees and older workers due for retirement. If this was the prevailing social attitude, it was certainly not good for extending the employment of older persons.
Total population increased by from 3 million in 1990 to 4 million in 2000 and to 5 million in 2009. This was a 1 million net addition per decade, 100,000 annually or a cumulative 67%. Critics disagreed on when the immigration policy became a problem due to the varying impact of a marginal population increase. Meanwhile, they agreed foreign talent was too broad. It seemed to include anyone who was above the status of low-end construction workers or equivalent.
The immigration policy supporters did not differentiate between various foreigner categories. For example, when critics were unhappy with more foreign engineers, these supporters told these critics to take over the jobs of foreign construction workers. Alternatively, they countered the critics’ immigrant ancestry meant no right of opposition. A closer understanding of history showed the PAP regime’s existing immigration policy had little to do with the labourers of a century ago.
Some supporters continued to insist the foreign influx was only restricted to a small group of sector positions despite obvious evidence to the contrary. One example was the formation of Contact Singapore in 2008 by the Economic Development Board and the Ministry of Manpower. It has the stated aim of attracting what it claimed to be global talent to be work, invest and live in Singapore. The relevant industries had a wide range from aerospace to the public sector with conventional executive and managerial positions.
The big immigration increase was the strategic objective of the PAP regime. From 1990 to 2009, the population had largely grew at 3% annually while the resident component growing at about 2%. Since 1990, the resident population had generally been growing between 1-2% annually. It consistently rejected any attempts to slow the immigration flow after economic problems emerged since 1997.
The immigration policy became a repeated General Election topic. The PAP remained confident as it won 75.3% valid votes in 2001 and 66.6% in 2006. It thought socio-economic integration between immigrants and existing locals would occur quickly and generate more value. It felt this supposed integration would turn Singapore into a developed global hub. It was not worried about crowding out effects.
Bibliography
- Low Linda (editor), Singapore Towards a Developed Status Published by Oxford University Press 1999 ISBN 0 19 588484 1 NLB Call Number 338.90095957
- Chapter 5. Beyond Regionalization, Basis for Sustainable Growth and Potential Sources of Expansion by Tan Khee Giap and assisted by Lee Wee Keong.
- Chapter 9. Needs and Challenges of New Demography by Paul Cheung
- Singapore Yearbook of Statistics NLB Call Number 315.957 1985, 1997 and 2010 website http://www.singstat.gov.sg
- Contact Singapore website www.contactsingapore.sg
Chua Suntong is a home-grown Singapore citizen whose interests include finance, history, languages and logistics.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
This is another flood that they created and don’t know how to control. It just shows that they really don’t know what they are doing. They must be voted out within 3 elections.
If the miw still return to power with 2/3 majority in the coming election, we can forget about getting rid of those white underwears.
The next election will be the last chance for Singaporeans to wakeup and reclaim the country from the pigs. It is now or never.
We have 50% of foreigners here now. Joke, right?
They made an unconvincing argument regarding population growth vis economic growth. Unless Singapore has abundant land and it’s natural resources is mainly domestically secured then an external immigration is recommended. We are dependent on other nations for our consumption and labour including human capital. In reality we don’t exist as an “independent” nation. Singapore is a dependent nation.
Another theory is to envisage how Asia will look like in 30 years. I predict a dominant China, India and Indonesia. Furthermore many of our neighbours might have reach our current standard of living. Being vibrant is not about being large but about being relevant. How does Singapore remain relevant in those times.
I seriously think a milder immigration strategy might work for Singapore. This will deter Singaporeans themselves from emigrating. Other factors like work/life balance and having a comprehensive social security might improve our well being as citizens. In the long term it might have a more positive outcome like increasing our population naturally.
Let’s treat Singapore as a nation. This is our only solution.
The era of strategic planners with foresight is over. This generation of politicians lack foresight and take the easy way out and only good in fire fighting.
They are creating more mess than paving a way to a better furture for the citizens.
Yes, let hope they are voted out this election.
There are still those who are oblivious and waiting for a miracle to happen. They rather spoil votes than to consider the importance of the future of Singapoe. These are the people I have no respect for.
Time is due that we do alot of spring cleaning and amend all the failed policies that are screwing up Singapore. It’s also time to expose all the smelly skeletons in the closet. So make all your votes count!
# Sawdust
You are so right. Spoil your vote, spoil your future. Should be a slogan.
Good article.Painful to read. It just kept going on and on. Things started to deteriorate rapidly in the last 10 years.
It must have been growth at all cost strategy.
Yesterday,I visited the MD of a factory supplying steel parts to local and foreign electronic equipment companies. I asked him what happens if the govenment ceases immigration. His factory will close, he came back like a shot. I told him. Mine too. His management is local, with a few highly qualified foreign technical staff and lots of low level skilled PRCs and Malaysians. Mine too. Result? We and many locals lose our jobs, the ancillary companies (IT, transport, legal, accoutning, etc)lose 2 valuable customers and shred jobs, the government collect less taxes. If this scenario is replicated across the land, we have higher unemployment, lower GDP, lower taxes, lower government reserve, weaker Singapore dollar, higher inflation.
Meabwhile, we continue to have 2 or less children and do not even want to marry.
In the circumstances, standing in a MRT train and dealing with non-English speaking salesgirls are not a bad trade-off, don’t you think?
These academics with their population theories remind me of weather scientists who keep poring over their supercomputer models to predict the rain, but forgot to take a look out of the window.
It frightens me that people obviously have so much IQ but so little common sense. And these are the number crunchers deciding our lives.
georgia tong,
“…This generation of politicians lack foresight and take the easy way out and only good in fire fighting….”
if they are the one who started the fire in the first place and now even if they are successful in putting out the fire, should we be happy and reward them for a job well done? Joke right?
Traveller,
Companies surviving on low cost labour cannot expect to hang out much longer in this economy. Over reliance on low cost labour is akin to dropping into a deadly spiral that it is so hard to be pulled out from. I hate to point fingers, but apart from politicans who view economic growth as a higher priority that the well-being of the country’s citizens, what Singapore needs least is exactly the kind of mercenaries you are talking about.
Anyway, you have completely missed the points raised by the author. Please refer to the last 4th and 5th paragraph of the article.
Marcus,
I agree with you that companies like what is being operated by traveller should move out asap.
I still remember vividly that in 1984,I tiik one foreign investor to EDB,he had wanted to set up a trucking factory in Spore,he was told by EDB that Spore did not welcome low tech industry,and he should perhaps look into Batam
This hige wages policy by then PM GCT failed largely because our workers then were not ready as they were mostly poorly educated with low skill.
Now 26 years later,the situation has completely reversed,most of our workers are now tertiary educated,IT literate,etc,and yet we pursue low tech,high labour industry like no tomorrow.
I wonder what happens to the eco theory that GCT mastered in his Williams College!
I have heard people said PAP is a branch of communist party of china , flooding singapore with one million chinese nationals to win the next election. turning the whole country into geylang.
Yes, my factory can move out. About 60 foreigners will lose their jobs but about 60 Singaporeans who earn anything from 2k to 20k per month will also lose theirs too. Except for 2 foreigners who come from the parent company, all the senior management staff are Singaporean. We export to more than 50 countries. By next year, our equipment will be the most advanced in Asia, outside Japan. We srive to be more productive to keep costs down but frankly, the cost gap is just too wide in some cases. According to the union, we pay the highest in the industry but the Singaporean is not interested.
I don’t know the numbers in the steel component-making company but I guess about the same ratio of local management/foreign low skill.The steel company make precision engineering parts and need foreign workers to cut the steel. Most of the engineers are Singaporean.
You really think both of us should close down? Your parent, brother or sister may lose their jobs.Some of us can emigrate, sure, but I happen to love this country
It’s a fact of life that the well-being of a country is very much related to economic growth. Without growth, whither defence, schools, hospitals, law enforecement, culture? There are limits to be sure, whether social, environmental, health, etc. But please don’t make the mistake that we can do away with immigration without paying a price. The many people who complain will complain even more when they lose their jobs.
In the 80s I had to face several of my local staff to tell them that their jobs were no longer teanble as the company was moving a large junk of its operations to Batam and Jakarta. You see that they are immediately diminished. We can sit here as middle-class armchair critics and economists and say companies such as mine should move out.Please consider the human cost as families lose their self-respect and face an uncertain future.
Traveller,
At first you claimed that the two companies are each with a few highly qualified foreign technical staff and lots of low level skilled PRCs and Malaysians.
Now yr statement is that each company employs 60 foreigners and 60 Singaporeans who earn range fr 2k to 20k a month,equal no of Singaporeans and foreigners.
You know in the net,we can make any cliam,but yr case is hardly convincing.
If you are indeed telling the truth then I am sorry but I have no more interest to discuss yr case.
But I am still convinced that Singapore with a few highly qualified foreign technical staff and lots of low level skilled PRCs and Malaysians should move up,asap.
traveller, 2 September 2010
bosses that use threats like “but about 60 Singaporeans who earn anything from 2k to 20k per month will also lose theirs too.” dun deserve any sympathy.
pay is a major push/pull factor in job consideration, but its not an end-it-all factor. the same problem plagues civil service.
as a boss, what drives economic growth? what contributes to the well-being of a country? how do you define a country’s well being?
The singapoor inc group which is singtech/alatemasick inc already played us ALL out…they closed singtech to fire ALL the ex-armforces colonels who refused to leave on their own accords to start a new ventures on their OWN with leekingyou promised them a $1 for $1 subsidies deal..all the singtech inc factories already moved out of jtc/uras factories and moved to china/india and jaimaca(yog thinggie) which noe leaved ALL of our experienced managers/engineers above 40s UNEMPLOYED!
where do you expect ALL the unemployed to go? bangaloor/shanghai lanes? leavin behin prettee spouses and huggable kids?
for HEAVEN’s sake..don’t even dream of bringin your huggable kids along..you cannot afford to send them to international schools abroad..try payin US$1,000/month on school fees alone PER KID!!!
Peter, we have a lot of salesmen and merchandizers who are not technically highly qualified but make a decent living. These are all locals. We also have a few foreigners from the parent company in management and technical positions. In order to support the managements and sales force we need the lower paid foreigners on the production floor under the supervision of Singaporeans but the parent company also send in a few technical people to ensure technical standard. This scenario is not a claim but a fact.
A company is not an altruistic enterprise but we work hard to be fair to the employees. Yes, pay is not the only factor but in the hierarchy of needs, it is pretty important. If you want to know, we also provide generous medical, dental and education benefits. Our attrition rate is pretty low and we keep folks who are older than 62.
“…I am still convinced that Singapore with a few highly qualified foreign technical staff and lots of low level skilled PRCs and Malaysians should move up,asap.” I am not sure if you know the typical profile of a Singapore company in industry and understand the implications of what you are saying.
I see myself and the MD of the steel company as decent folks doing our best to grow the company and hopefully, make a contribution. The last thing we need is sympathy. I hope through these exchanges that certain people can understand how difficult it is for governments to make decisions. Nothing is black and white. Each policy touches each one of us in a different way. But we need to see the over-riding needs of the country as a whole.Of course, government don’t always get it right. And our priorities and even values (re debate on casino) may differ.But I am convinced that we have honorable people at the heart.
Traveller, 2 September 2010
while no company should be viewed in the same light as a charity, companies on the whole could adopt more corporate socially responsible practises. by that i mean that it should be a govt lead initiative.
i disagree with you on “But we need to see the over-riding needs of the country as a whole.” because the govt has got it wrong for long enough with this approach. hence, maybe an approach whereby the needs of individuals should be placed ahead of the country. this would directly imply how the country/govt values its people, & may in turn take S’pore’s economy to greater heights by maximising the potential of individuals, not making them fit into moulds.
m.i.n
come to think of it….
how come a person running a company can end up comparing itself to a country?…
Traveller, you from S’pore Inc har? do you expect staff to also see the over-riding needs of your company like S’pore Inc?
govt often over citizens’ concern, & reprimand its people when they raise questions.
Traveller
through these exchanges that certain people can understand how difficult it is for governments to make decisions
…………
difficult? resigned/retired lor..if blair/brown or black can resigned gracefully when he makes unneccssary/unpopular decision..
why not leekingyou inc?
It is meant to perpetuate political power (ie one-party rule) and yet benefitting money-wise (GDP). Intuitively that is how it feels lah. I could be wrong but immigration the way it is allowed here, one cannot help be suspect lor.
Self-serving is the only word that seems to be popping out of me puny brain lah.
Never heard of any country who allows such immigration at the costs – detrimental both social and economic to locals and what is there to analyze.
It is easy to project, futurize but it does not detract from what is.
Singaporeans, if they do not jettison/eschew this sheep-like mindset or mentality and if they still bleat away -it is the demise of this nation and the poor children are the ones who are going to pay dearly for the indiscretions of fools!
The National Day Rally speech brings out random selection of examples but prove nothing to us. When all these examples were put together, it has no meaning to a little dot as compared to a big continents where spaces are in abundance, yet these big countries have posed strict restriction to foreigners as compared to our reckless policies. Than microsoft was brought in to justify the needs for talents in the form of recruiting foreign bus drivers and chambermaids. When all else fails knowing the audiences were unmoved, a carrot was thrown for our NS Men as last straw, and yes just like workfare, the carrot is not meant to be cash. This is just so rediculous.
No, I do not expect each worker to see the over riding interest of the nation but I do expect it from commentators on websites such as these, who have the national interest at heart. As I hace said, we do not need sympathy but I hope commentatosrs will have sympathy for workers who lose their jobs. It’s nice to debate on the web but in the real world, lives are been affected.
Dr Tan Khee Giap is not a locally born and bred Singaporean.
He was a Malaysian and he has never served NS.
@traveller:
i assume you’re in manufacturing? in NDR speech, LHL mentioned kepple and semb corp employ 20,000 people, of which 5,000 are local.
the ratio should be fairly similar for your biz?
i have no doubt you and your fellow MD are not evil one eyed monsters looking to devour lower class singaporeans…
the point of contention here is: our economy is not efficient in creating jobs for local. we need roughly 3 foreigners to support 1 local job.
this would not be a problem if we had as much land space as malaysia. but we don’t.
so it becomes a delicate balance in ensuring the island does not become overcrowded and thus inhospitable.
i would argue, that companies which need such a large ratio (3:1) of foreign workers to create local jobs, should be allowed to die natural deaths and replaced by companies with lower foreign:Sg ratios.
to this end, Work permits and EP quotas should be further tightened than what is currently proposed.
side note: easy access to cheap labour is a disincentive for companies to innovate using technology. look at japan – minimum foreign workers allowed in, maximum technological innovations.
the pap policy of using cheap labour to create jobs is no longer tenable.
No, I do not expect each worker to see the over riding interest of the nation but I do expect it from commentators on websites such as these, who have the national interest at heart. As I hace said, we do not need sympathy but I hope commentatosrs will have sympathy for workers who lose their jobs. It’s nice to debate on the web but in the real world, lives are been affected.
>> When you sacked the local, over 40 years old, Singaporean with low skill over a cheaper, younger, foreigner to ensure that your company remains competitive… you can try to tell him that the survival of the country/company is very very important.
When you tell a fresh graduate that he’s not qualified, and you picked an “experienced” foreign technical staff, you can try to tell him that the survival of the country/company is very very important.
Oh, by the way, these people engages the web and sometimes comments as well.
PS: a few highly qualified foreign technical staff, and singaporean not up to the job, yeah, my foot. I personally spoke to CEO, CIO, HODs, who know nuts about technology, but claims to tell whether a person is “highly” technical or not. This is like a non-medical train person whom can tell who is a more “qualified” doctor.. the greatest joke of the decade in singapore.
Traveller,
I find the conversation interesting and wish to join in. I consult around the region as far as Europe and so I understand the business of manufacturing.
The point I think is that the govt itself through the years have got us into this place where we are simply still a provider of manufacturing services without our own house-brands!!
The obvious reason was the huge suport they gave to MNCs and a few GLCs, all of which owes Singaporeans no living. When the weather is dark, they pack and go.
A few years ago, I apporached EDB, Spring, MDA, NUS, etc, etc…. for 12 months running around begging for funding for a startup. One answer I cannot forget is ” Oh, the govt is now talking about nano-tech and renewable and green energy and water recycling….. but yours is not in these groups”..
Eventually I got overseas funding and now talking with overseas partners to take the product out.
Trust you get what I mean? The whole manufacturing strategy should have switched to the higher gear to grow SMEs in the 80′s. But most of all the top brains are in the govt sector, you see? Thats why your company and largely the Singapore economy is in a cheap labor dependency mode today.
Most of the top idiots are in the govt.
Traveller, 3 September 2010
why are you contradicting yourself in the same post as of below?…
quote:
“As I hace said, we do not need sympathy but I hope commentatosrs will have sympathy for workers who lose their jobs.”
if a boss who is more concerned about the company’s bottomline at the expense of social costs in doing business in any particular country, why should people be made to save such companies at all? some companies are better left to fail then to grow bigger & hold more people “hostage” when business go sour.
i have the interest of the nation at heart, but not companies that seek profit by exploiting the locals.
PAP will give the foreign MNC buffet and local SME dog food. This is their style.
andrew leung, 3 September 2010
let me add further…
& reprimand locals for being choosey, “got dog food you very lucky already, other countries people starving.”
“champion complainer”
>.<
Travellor, it is undeniable that the current Singapore economic model needs to be changed. Local companies reaping from the benefits brought about by the current model needs to be changed. As a business owner whose company produces the most advanced equipment in Asia (outside Japan) which were exported to more than 50 countries, I would think you are more than capable of taking a more strategic business view than “You really think both of us should close down? Your parent, brother or sister may lose their jobs”. Have a look at the business operating models of the MNCs (especially those in the biomedical and semiconductor industry) operating in Singapore and you will understand the value Singaporeans can bring to them.
Sarkozy said this in a speech earlier this year:
“We are suffering from the consequences of 50 years of inadequately controlled immigration that led to a failure of integration. We are so proud of our system of integration, but perhaps we should wake up to see what it has produced. It has worked. It works no longer.”
PAP, are you listening?
With skyrocketing costs of living from all quarters and wages lagging behind (cos of no-minimum wage policy and also discrimnation) and the so-called incentives offered by the incumbents remains puny and bordering on lip-service. SIngaporeans feel unmotivated lah.
Intuitively, a few foreigners may set up home but eventually to return. The majority are migratory birds.
Lest one forgets the lagging support FOR Pap by the locals is a known phenomenon and hence this ill-conceived policy. I could be utterly wrong but the motive seems all along to perpetuate political power (the one-party) and the hope amongst the incumbents is that foreigners will vote them in. Also, MIWs wages are pegged to GDP performance. To guess who are the real beneficiaries is unnecessary. The benefits to the nation and the citizens a puny one and merely a trickle effect.
PS – Lest it is misconstrued, immigration should be welcome but it presupposes an equitable, fair and transparent, accountable governance and what-have-you. Is it so? The fact that some MIWs are coming out to defend or cajole is evidence enough to say that it is an utter mess. The price is Singaporeans are paying and going to pay in many ways for the indiscretion of fools.
Funny complain again ! Next !
I am (Indian) travelling to India from Korea transit one day at Singapore.Please let me konow whether i can get the on arrival vis at Singapore immigration in Air Poert.
Can i buy airplane in singapore ?
This TOC is super funny …. No need to buy funny cartoon to read …
i have visited singapore 3 times.but from now i dont like visit the countrey because singapore airport immigration is not good with internatinal visitor.every time when i arived in singapore changi airport immigration want money from me but i dont give any money.the make some time problem and say to me give dollar.oh really a bad countrey immigration police.
Take care all if you go to singapore.