For subscribers only
Translated by ChatGPT
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/forum/views/story20260623-9250469?utm_source=android-share&utm_medium=app
2026-06-23
Lianhe Zaobao
By Goh Choon Kang
The author is a former journalist and former Member of Parliament.
=====
“Having experienced the bitter consequences of racial bloodshed during the period of merger with Malaysia, the Singapore government is highly sensitive to racial issues. It will certainly remain vigilant at all times to prevent racial harmony from being undermined, and will not allow the immigration issue to ferment and evolve into a social fault line.”
=====
=====
“......According to data from the Department of Statistics, the racial composition of the citizen population remained stable up to last year. The three major ethnic groups were: Chinese 75.5%, Malays 15.1%, and Indians 7.5%.”
=====
Recently, outsiders attempted to exploit the issue of Indian immigrants to stir up racial sentiments in Singapore, drawing close attention from the Ministry of Home Affairs. On June 6, the police announced that they had invoked the Protection from Online Criminal Harms Act to issue 14 blocking directions to social media platforms YouTube, Facebook, and X, requiring these platforms to take all reasonable measures to block the relevant content from Singapore users.
A few days later, on June 11, Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health Ong Ye Kung attended the 31st Nikkei Forum “Future of Asia” in Tokyo and delivered a speech titled “Whither Globalization?”, outlining his observations on the current state and future development of globalization. One of the key issues highlighted in his speech was the immigration challenge faced by countries around the world.
He pointed out that one of the most worrying phenomena today is the growing anti-immigration sentiment. As national borders become more open, people’s initial tolerance and acceptance of newcomers may gradually give way to feelings of being replaced or marginalized, breeding resentment. This also explains the rise of nationalist and anti-immigration parties in many countries in recent years.
During the question-and-answer session, in response to a question from moderator Fumika Sato, Singapore Bureau Chief of Nikkei, Ong Ye Kung further observed that the relationship between locals and newcomers is likely to become the principal social fault line and political divide in many societies in the future.
Singapore itself is an immigrant society. Our forebears came from all corners of the world and eventually settled here. Today, because of economic development needs and a steadily declining fertility rate, Singapore relies on a measured intake of immigrants to compensate for shortages in population and manpower. As such, we cannot avoid dealing with immigration issues.
Immigration Issues Differ from Country to Country
Immigration can be regarded as one of the major issues arising from globalization. However, what people commonly perceive as immigration problems are not necessarily caused solely by globalization. Immigration issues vary from country to country. While there are common elements, each also has its own unique characteristics. Population movement around the world is influenced not only by globalization but also by factors such as modern transportation, wars, poverty, and border controls. Since countries face different circumstances and governments adopt different approaches, the nature of the problems also differs.
The overall trend is that people from less developed, poorer, and conflict-ridden regions move to developed countries, through both legal and illegal means. While legal immigrants can create challenges for host countries—such as difficulties integrating due to language, cultural, or religious differences—the problems associated with illegal immigrants are even greater. The United States and developed European economies all face issues with illegal immigration, while some European countries also contend with refugees fleeing wars in North Africa and the Middle East. As a result, these issues are complex and difficult to resolve, often evolving into political problems and creating serious social tensions.
Leaving aside illegal immigrants and refugees for now, let us focus on the challenges that legal immigration presents to governments. Simply put, countries bring in immigrants primarily to support economic development and make up for population shortages. A curious but widespread phenomenon is that as a country becomes more economically developed, its fertility rate tends to decline, often falling below replacement level. Singapore is no exception. Consequently, immigrants must be brought in to fill the gap. Furthermore, when a country reaches a certain level of economic development, most people no longer wish to perform manual labor, making the importation of foreign workers necessary. Almost all developed economies face this reality.
Generally speaking, there are two categories of immigrants brought in through legal channels: those who can settle permanently and those who are temporary foreign workers. During the era when Western industrial nations such as the Group of Seven (G7) dominated the global economy, large numbers of immigrants flowed into these countries from poorer and less developed regions. Yet this did not create major problems because immigrants largely filled labor shortages rather than taking jobs away from locals.
Immigration tends to become an issue when the host country’s economy encounters problems first. When economic growth slows and workers’ real incomes fail to keep pace with inflation, dissatisfaction naturally grows. In the cases of the United States and Europe, globalization is closely linked to this development. These industrialized countries shifted their production lines to Third World countries with lower wages and production costs, resulting in many domestic workers losing their jobs.
Opportunistic politicians are then quick to exploit nationalist sentiments, blaming immigrants for the problems rather than addressing the root causes through economic and fiscal reforms. From this perspective, immigrants become victims of populist politics. In Britain, immigration was portrayed as the chief culprit behind virtually every economic problem and even became one of the main justifications for Brexit. Populist politicians created the false impression that leaving the European Union and controlling immigration would instantly cure Britain’s ailments. Events have proven this assumption to be seriously mistaken.
In the United States, there is little doubt that anti-immigration sentiment helped Donald Trump return to the White House. Yet one reason for America’s strength is its ability to continually attract outstanding talent from around the world. Many of the dirty and labor-intensive jobs that Americans are unwilling to do are in fact performed by immigrants, including many undocumented ones. Nevertheless, for populist politicians, immigrants are convenient scapegoats. At the same time, we must acknowledge that poor government handling of immigration can also trigger backlash. For example, during Angela Merkel’s tenure, Germany accepted more than a million migrants in a short period, mainly refugees from Iraq, Syria, and other conflict zones in the Middle East. In Britain, the government even housed refugees in hotels.
Today, right-wing populist politicians are gaining influence. Britain has Nigel Paul Farage, leader of Reform UK; France has Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Rally; and Australia has Pauline Hanson, leader of One Nation. Of course, the most prominent anti-immigration populist politician is U.S. President Donald Trump. Against the backdrop of populist politics, it is hardly surprising that immigration has evolved into a social fault line.
Singapore’s Immigration Policy Is Tightly Controlled
Singapore’s immigration policy and controls are highly stringent. In admitting new immigrants, great emphasis is placed on integration and the cultivation of a Singaporean identity, while preventing any one group from forming an ethnic enclave. The government is also careful to preserve Singapore’s existing multiracial composition when accepting new immigrants. Therefore, the notion of Singapore becoming “Indiapore” is pure fantasy.
According to official statistics, Singapore grants citizenship to about 20,000 people and permanent residency to about 30,000 people each year. Around 65% of new citizens come from various Southeast Asian countries. According to data from the Department of Statistics, the racial composition of the citizen population remained stable up to last year. The three major ethnic groups were: Chinese 75.5%, Malays 15.1%, and Indians 7.5%.
As for foreign labor, classification and regulation are also very strict. Of the more than one million foreign workers in Singapore, about 75% hold short-term Work Permits, generally valid for two years. These are blue-collar, non-skilled workers employed in sectors such as construction, ship repair, and healthcare. This group also includes approximately 300,000 foreign domestic workers, mainly from Indonesia, the Philippines, and Myanmar. Workers performing various forms of manual labor come chiefly from Bangladesh, India, China, Myanmar, and Thailand. Without these hardworking individuals, our economy would struggle to function smoothly.
Professionals, managers, executives, and technicians may apply for Employment Passes and S Passes, and generally work in specialized fields such as finance. The minimum salary requirement for an S Pass is S$3,150 per month (or at least S$3,650 in the financial sector), while the threshold for an Employment Pass is higher, starting at S$5,600 per month. The requirements are even higher for older applicants and those in the financial sector. According to Ministry of Manpower data, there are currently about 203,000 Employment Pass holders and about 178,000 S Pass holders.
Although their numbers are far smaller than those holding Work Permits, they are more sensitive from a social perspective because local job seekers often regard them as competitors in the labor market. If people of the same ethnicity become highly concentrated in a particular industry, it is even more likely to trigger public sensitivities. This situation did occur in the financial and banking sectors, particularly within information technology (IT) departments. It was also the broader context behind the intense parliamentary debates over the Singapore–India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA). The authorities have undoubtedly learned valuable lessons from the experience and have repeatedly affirmed their commitment to maintaining a Singaporean core in the workforce.
Having experienced the bitter consequences of racial bloodshed during the period of merger with Malaysia, the Singapore government is highly sensitive to racial issues. It will certainly remain vigilant at all times to prevent racial harmony from being undermined, and will not allow the immigration issue to ferment and evolve into a social fault line. Nevertheless, as an open society, Singapore must remain constantly alert and strengthen both internal and external safeguards. Internally, it must guard against populist politicians seeking attention through sensationalism; externally, it must guard against deliberate attempts to sow division and subversion.
The author is a former journalist and former Member of Parliament.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment