Josephine Teo in sharp parliamentary exchanges with opposition MPs on PMET jobs issue

• WP’s Jamus Lim questioned if limiting the work visas given out would help local PMETs keep jobs
• PSP’s Leong Mun Wai asked whether the growth of new citizens and PRs outstripped the growth in local PMETs
• WP’s Leon Perera wanted to know if the Government has considered enacting anti-discrimination laws

SINGAPORE — Manpower Minister Josephine Teo on Tuesday (Sept 1) engaged in sharp exchanges with opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) over the issue of white-collared workers and whether they are being displaced by foreigners.

After Mrs Teo gave a speech laying out the Government's plan for supporting low income workers and professionals that went beyond the normally allocated 40 minutes, Progress Singapore Party's (PSP) Leong Mun Wai, a new Non-Constituency MP, headed to the rostrum to seek clarifications from the minister on the thorny subject.

He wanted to find out the number of new citizens and permanent residents (PRs) added to the population each year, and whether this number was greater than the growth in local PMETs (professionals, managers, executives and technicians).

The Workers’ Party’s (WP) Associate Professor Jamus Lim then asked whether Mrs Teo believed simply slowing down the rate of Employment Pass (EP) and S Pass holders is sufficient to ensure that local PMETs do not get displaced by foreigners.

Mr Leon Perera, WP's MP for Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC), also raised a question about whether Singapore should consider enacting anti-discrimination laws.

The exchanges happened on the second day of debate on the President’s Address.

LIMITING WORK VISAS 'INSUFFICIENT’

Assoc Prof Lim was responding to Mrs Teo’s point that the Government had since 2014 been slowing down the growth of EP and S Passes issued — which are work visas for foreign PMETs and mid-level skilled staff respectively.

The newly elected MP for Sengkang GRC sought to find out if this strategy — which he described as a “very blunt instrument”— was the Government’s only approach to prevent local PMETs from being displaced.

In Mrs Teo’s speech, she said that in the past five years, the number of EP and S Pass holders had grown by less than 9,000 annually on average, compared to 30,400 in the 2009-2014 five-year period. At the same time, the number of locals in PMET jobs had grown on average by 35,000 a year in the past five years.

But Assoc Prof Lim countered that it is misleading to draw conclusions from the two statistics, adding that the issue should be looked at not by how much the numbers have grown, but in absolute terms.

“I understand that 35,000 people is larger than 9,000 but the point is that the slowdown in the rate of EP and S Pass issuance is less dramatic than Minister Teo claims,” he said.

Mrs Teo in response said she did not make the comparison. “I merely stated the facts. I did not say that one contributed to the other,” she said.

She added that the Manpower Ministry’s (MOM) priority is to help Singaporeans stay in employment, to achieve income growth and to retire with enough funds. If that can be done without adding to the number of EP and S Pass holders, then the ministry would do so.

But Singapore is a small city-state and MOM’s approach is figuring out the best way to help Singaporeans within those constraints, “not some predetermined ideas about what you want to bring down”, she added.

“Suppose we can bring (the number of EP and S Pass holders) down to a different number, but at the same time, the job opportunities for Singaporeans have shrunk,” she said. “Is that going to be better for us?”

Ms Jessica Tan, a PAP MP for East Coast GRC, then jumped in to ask Assoc Prof Lim to elaborate on what he thought the best approach should be.

Assoc Prof Lim reiterated his argument that simply decreasing the growth of EP and S Pass holders was insufficient. “What we want, ultimately, is the ability to think more flexibly about how we approach PMET issues and potential displacement by the foreign workforce.”

But Ms Tan replied that no member of the House had said that the only way to solve the PMET issue was to simply cut the number of work visa holders. “Are you suggesting that we stop the number of EPs or S Passes completely?” she asked.

Assoc Prof Lim said he had brought up his question because Mrs Teo had, in her speech, said that the Government’s raising of the qualifying salary for foreign PMETs to get EPs would, in effect, push foreign PMETs at the lower end of the salary range to the mid-skilled S Pass level, where there are quota controls.

NEW CITIZENS AND PRS

PSP’s Mr Leong, in his clarification, highlighted that Mrs Teo said the number of locals in PMET jobs has grown by 35,000 annually on average over the past five years

He then cited a 50,000 figure as the number of new citizenships and PRs granted each year during that period and asked Mrs Teo if she had any data on this.

Mrs Teo confirmed the figure but questioned Mr Leong’s intention in raising the figures.

“I think what Mr Leong is trying to suggest is that all of your gains (in getting locals into PMET jobs) are meaningless because it's all occupied by PRs and citizens,” she said.

She said he was wrong to believe so because a “significant number” of new citizens and PRs are the spouses and children of Singaporeans and may not be part of the workforce.

“Is Mr Leong suggesting that these new citizens are any less of a citizen?” she asked. 

Mr Leong stressed that his point was not whether it was Singaporeans or new citizens and PRs taking up the PMET jobs, but that the addition of new citizens and PRs would exert pressure on the PMET job market.

Said Mrs Teo: “I accept that there is pressure. And we have said right from the beginning that we understand the anxieties of Singaporeans.”

She added: “However, this constant obsession — if I may put it that way — with drawing lines, I'm not sure if it is good for us as a society.”

ANTI-DISCRIMINATON LAWS

WP’s Mr Perera asked Mrs Teo if the Government had considered enacting laws against companies that engage in discriminatory practices that allow punishment to be meted out on errant companies beyond the current practice curtailing work pass privileges.

“How does MOM handle cases where the axis of discrimination is in fact not nationality, but something else, for example, gender?” he said. 

Responding, Mrs Teo said that even if Singapore enacted anti-discrimination laws like other countries, it might not result in better employment outcomes for vulnerable groups.

“The proof is in the pudding,” she said. “Are we more interested in the form, or are we more interested in the substance?”

Singapore’s senior employment and women’s participation rates are higher than other countries that have anti-discrimination laws protecting these groups, she said.

She added: “The answer to this cannot be: Let's come to Parliament, let's debate a law, pass another law and expect that it will be done. I think that is not a very realistic approach.”