LIBERALIZATION OF RULES FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE (Review of criteria for other immigration requests)

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether, in view of the recent liberalization of rules for permanent residence, he will (i) review the criteria for approving other immigration requests, such as applications from foreigners married to Singaporeans to become permanent residents, and (ii) reconsider those applications and appeals which were pending on 10th July 1989.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Member's Question is related to the announcement of the Government on the liberalized immigration policy, let me preface my answer by reiterating the reasons for the liberalization of this policy.

I think Singaporeans have been aware for some time of the problem of population decline. Despite the Government's efforts to increase fertility rates, this decline is likely to continue because too many women are not marrying and those who do marry are doing so later and having fewer children. Emigration of Singaporeans, especially the better qualified ones, to countries like the United States, Australia, Canada, further compounds the problem.

The long-term consequences of population decline are quite grave. Over the next 20-30 years, the population will age dramatically. We now have a young, vigorous population. Today, only 8 out of every 100 Singaporeans are over the age of 60. But in just over 30 years, 22 out of every 100 will be over 60. The burden of such older people on working Singaporeans - what we call the dependency ratio - will become much heavier. Our economic vitality will be affected and there will also be fewer young men available to do National Service. Our security will be threatened.

We must therefore top up our population. We should try to top up each cohort size to at least 50,000 by the time that cohort reaches working age. In the 1950s, our cohort size at birth was over 60,000. Our average is now well below 50,000. Last year, we had 52,000 but I think, as Members know, that was only because it was a dragon year and those 52,000 babies were produced by parents who were themselves born in the boom years of the fifties. The next dragon year in the Year 2000, I am told, will certainly see far fewer births than in 1988. But we must not top up indiscriminately. Every immigrant should be an asset, not a liability.

The objective is to strengthen our nation and not weaken it. If we only want numbers, we can easily get hundreds of thousands overnight. But surely that would be madness. Our immigration policy obviously must be selective. The higher the quality of the immigrants the better off all Singaporeans will be. We must also consider the multi-racial character of Singapore. The present racial composition in Singapore has worked well for us. We should not lightly change it. The statement of the Ministry of Home Affairs of 10th July did stress that this liberalization applies to immigrants from all sources, whatever their ethnic background, so long as they can be integrated into Singapore society without upsetting the present balance in its multi-racial character, a balance which the Government will maintain. If the numbers from Hong Kong are so large as to increase the percentage of the Chinese population, the Government will admit more Malay and Indian immigrants to restore the balance.

As for immigration from Hong Kong, it is not in our interest to weaken the Hong Kong economy or drain it of its talent. That is why we are offering Hong Kong residents in principle approval for PR without requiring them to come down to Singapore. In fact, it is in Singapore's long term interest for Hong Kong to be assured and confident of its future. But if those in Hong Kong are going to leave Hong Kong anyway, it is better for them, in our view, to remain in this region than for them to cross the vast Pacific Ocean to North America or Australia, from where they may never return.

If I may now turn to the specifics of Dr Arthur Beng's question. Following the liberalization of the immigration policy, my Ministry has already reviewed the criteria for approving other immigration requests such as applications for permanent residence from Singaporeans married to foreigners. I wish to assure the House that we will further liberalize this policy for applicants with Singaporean ties, especially if they are wives and children of Singapore citizens or if they have strong roots or family ties in Singapore. Those who are married to Singaporeans or have strong family ties will be considered for permanent residence more favourably than applicants who have no roots here. For example, my Ministry will now grant permanent residence to the wife and children of a Singaporean who can show that he and his family will not be a burden on the State. Similarly, it will now be easier for the foreign husband of a Singaporean woman to qualify for employment pass and permanent residence.

However, for those from Hong Kong who do not yet have links to Singapore, they must fulfil a certain educational level and earn at least $1,500 per month before they and their families can be considered for permanent residence. The requirements which we impose on those from Hong Kong are an indication of the minimum economic status that we are looking for.

As for the third part of the Member's question, my Ministry will consider all applications and appeals pending on 10th July 1989, that is the date when the new policy was announced, under these liberalized guidelines. Indeed, Sir, in the two weeks following the announcement of the new policy, about 60% of appeals from MPs to my Ministry were approved, where previously about 20% to 30% were approved. Those who had been previously rejected but are now eligible to apply for permanent residence will be so advised when they renew their social visit pass.

Although our immigration guidelines are now more liberal, I must reiterate that marriage to a Singaporean or a Singaporean permanent resident still does not confer an automatic right of permanent residence for the foreign spouse. We can accept those as permanent residents who can integrate into our society and contribute to our society and unlikely to become a burden on the State.

If I may sum up, Sir, Singapore's immigration policy aims to correct the population decline and to keep our nation young, vigorous and talented. Singapore is competing with developed countries for skilled workers, technicians and professionals. To grow, our economy requires more such people than we can produce ourselves. Shortage of talent means fewer foreign investors establishing businesses here, slower growth and fewer opportunities for Singaporeans. Singapore therefore welcomes foreign immigrants who can contribute to Singapore's economy and be integrated into our society.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have three supplementary questions. Firstly, will the Minister please clarify further on the liberalization of permanent residence status for the spouses of Singapore citizens? For example, will he allow those spouses who do not have five '0' levels but whose husbands have got good earning capacity to be allowed to come in as permanent residents? Secondly, what measures are being planned to ensure that enclaves of foreigners are not formed and what measures are being taken to ensure that these immigrants will be integrated into our society? Thirdly, will the Government consider giving priority to the residents of Hong Kong who are working in Singapore-based companies, that is Singapore companies who have branches or offices in Hong Kong?

Prof. Jayakumar: If I may deal, Sir, with his first supplementary question. It was with regard to spouses married to Singaporeans who may not fulfil the educational requirements but whose husbands may well be able to afford. The general approach which we take is whether the sponsor will be able to maintain the wife and the family. So in the type of case that he described, if the wife does not meet the requirements but a Singaporean citizen sponsor can satisfy us, I can assure him that my Ministry will view such cases sympathetically.

As to the second part of his question, the formation of enclaves, I must point out that we are not expecting thousands to descend on Singapore immediately. This is going to be a gradual process over a period of years. I think we will be lucky if we get several hundreds to come in the next year or so. But his point is taken. And if I may respond, there is a committee which is coordinating all aspects of integration. Obviously, matters of schooling, housing and other consequential matters when we launch an exercise like this have to be coordinated. In this coordination, the concern expressed by Dr Arthur Beng will be borne in mind.

As for integration into society, as far as the Government is concerned, this is being looked into not only by Immigration but also by other agencies which are involved in placing the workers, their families, and housing, schools and so on. But I would say their integration, whether or not it is smooth and less painful, depends not only on the Government agencies but also depends on how Singaporeans receive these Hong Kong residents.

Thirdly, his point about Singapore companies. Yes, the answer to that, Sir, is yes; Singapore companies which are recruiting workers directly from Hong Kong are able to make block applications for such workers when applying for permanent residence. Similarly, Hong Kong companies in Hong Kong who wish to make block applications for permanent residence are also able to do so and these will be processed as such by EDB and Immigration.

Mr Ng Pock Too (Nee Soon Central): Sir, can I ask the Minister, in view of the relaxation in the rules for permanent residence and the expected influx of more workers coming to Singapore as a result, whether a situation will arise where our workers will face greater competition for jobs and in the process result in a reduction in wages for our own workers in Singapore?

Prof. Jayakumar: I am aware of the concern which the Member has expressed - that Singaporeans fear greater competition. First, we must remind ourselves that we have a labour shortage problem. Employers are crying out for more workers and we have some 150,000 work permit holders here. Secondly, it should also be borne in mind that many of the Hong Kong workers generally earn more than Singaporeans and I think quite a number of them in coming to Singapore would actually suffer a loss in wages.

I would also like to add that in a sense, whether or not the Hong Kong workers come here, Singaporeans have always been competing with people in Hong Kong at a long distance, shall we say. And if the Hong Kong residents do not come here, Singaporeans will still have to compete with Hong Kong residents who may not come to Singapore and settle elsewhere and will have to compete with them for the world market. I think it is far better that we try to get them here and be part of our team, the Singapore team. In the longer term, talented immigrants will not shrink the share of our economy, will not shrink the economy which accrues to Singaporeans. On the contrary, the enterprise, the ability, the skills which they will bring with them should make Singapore really more competitive internationally, provided of course we admit the right quality of people. The immigrants we hope to attract should be able to bring in more investments, in turn to generate more jobs, expand our economy and eventually create more opportunities and greater prosperity for Singaporeans. In a sense, this is what had happened in the past when our own forefathers came and built up modern Singapore.

Mr Chng Hee Kok (Tiong Bahru GRC): Sir, under the very liberal policy granted to Hong Kong residents, the Minister cannot be really certain of the numbers that will finally come to Singapore, will he? In other words, the Hong Kong resident may apply for PR as an insurance cover only but not make his way here eventually.

Prof. Jayakumar: The answer to that is yes, we cannot be very certain. But we hope, and we are confident, that a good number of them will come across because they know that if they do not accept the offer, this is not something that Singapore will hold out indefinitely or forever.

Dr Dixie Tan (Ulu Pandan): Sir, may I ask the Minister whether he could assure the House that whatever rules and guidelines that might be applied to the granting of permanent residence or citizenship would be equally applied to relatives of men or women Singapore citizens.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought that was the substance of my reply. In any case, if that was missed, let me assure the Member that that is the principle on which we work.

Dr Dixie Tan: In relation to the admission of husbands into Singapore, did the Minister not mention the question of work in regard to employment pass? Is there going to be this requirement? Would it not be fairer to say that whatever requirements are made applicable to the men citizens of Singapore would be equally applicable to the women citizens of Singapore?

Prof. Jayakumar: I will give that further consideration, Mr Speaker, Sir. But I think we are quite liberal in the case of women citizens who qualify under the guidelines for sponsorship. What we do is to allow the foreign spouse ample time to come to Singapore on renewable social visit pass to obtain an employment pass. I am sure the Member will agree that it is necessary that he gets some employment here. Otherwise, he may be caught by the strict immigration laws for illegally working here.