I was part of a panel on Al Jazeera's 101 East programme last week. The YouTube videos seem to have been making the rounds in the forums and blogosphere already, but here they are anyway.
Part 1
Part 2
Showing posts with label immigrants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immigrants. Show all posts
Monday, 25 January 2010
Sunday, 17 August 2008
WPQ 21 July 2008: Issuance of Employment Passes, S Passes, Dependant's Passes and Long Term Social Visit Passes
I filed this question in a continuing quest to -- in the absence of any freedom of information legislation in Singapore -- get into the public domain statistics that I am interested in, which the Government may not otherwise release. Immigration statistics are one such area.
Comparing this reply with a previously asked WPQ, it seems that there may be over 600,000 work permit holders (i.e. semi-skilled and unskilled foreign workers) in Singapore. What would be even more interesting, would be the breakdown between EP and S Pass holders -- something that the Government declines to provide.
[Update: upon further reflection, this 600,000 figure is almost certainly incorrect -- the EP and S Pass figures below reflect the passes that are issued annually, whereas the 756,000 figure cited in the previously asked WPQ is a cumulative figure.]
Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Acting Minister for Manpower for each of the past 5 years (a) how many Employment Passes and S Passes have been issued; (b) how many Dependant’s Passes have been issued to dependants of Employment Pass and S Pass holders; (c) how many Long Term Social Visit Passes have been issued; (d) wh at is the average duration of the Long Term Social Visit Passes issued; and (e) how many Long Term Social Visit Pass holders have been issued with work passes.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: See Table below for the detailed statistics.
The stock of Employment Passes (EP) and S Passes has generally increased in the last few years in tandem with the robust economic growth and job creation. As of December 2007, there were about 143,000 EP and S Pass holders.
Foreigners on EP and selected S passes may apply for Dependant Passes or Long Term Social Visit Passes for their dependants, such as spouses and children below 21 years of age. As of December 2007, there were about 69,000 dependants on Dependant Passes or Long Term Social Visit Passes.
Long Term Social Visit Passes are also issued to other groups of foreigners such as family members of Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents. In 2007, there were about 64,000 Long Term Social Visit Passes issued. Long Term Social Visit Passes can be issued for up to 5 years.
Long Term Social Visit Pass holders and Dependant Pass holders must apply for work passes to work in Singapore. The number of these pass holders working in Singapore is not high. As of December 2007, there were about 6,600 Long Term Social Visit Pass holders and Dependant Pass holders with work passes.
Comparing this reply with a previously asked WPQ, it seems that there may be over 600,000 work permit holders (i.e. semi-skilled and unskilled foreign workers) in Singapore. What would be even more interesting, would be the breakdown between EP and S Pass holders -- something that the Government declines to provide.
[Update: upon further reflection, this 600,000 figure is almost certainly incorrect -- the EP and S Pass figures below reflect the passes that are issued annually, whereas the 756,000 figure cited in the previously asked WPQ is a cumulative figure.]
WPQ
ISSUANCE OF EMPLOYMENT PASSES, S PASSES, DEPENDANT’S PASSES AND LONG TERM SOCIAL VISIT PASSES
(Statistics)
ISSUANCE OF EMPLOYMENT PASSES, S PASSES, DEPENDANT’S PASSES AND LONG TERM SOCIAL VISIT PASSES
(Statistics)
Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Acting Minister for Manpower for each of the past 5 years (a) how many Employment Passes and S Passes have been issued; (b) how many Dependant’s Passes have been issued to dependants of Employment Pass and S Pass holders; (c) how many Long Term Social Visit Passes have been issued; (d) wh at is the average duration of the Long Term Social Visit Passes issued; and (e) how many Long Term Social Visit Pass holders have been issued with work passes.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: See Table below for the detailed statistics.
| Year | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 |
| Number of Employment Pass (EP) and S Pass holders | 80,000 | 90,000 | 110,000 | 143,000 |
| Number of dependants of EP and S pass holders on Dependant Pass/Long Term Social Visit Pass | 53,000 | 59,000 | 60,000 | 69,000 |
| Number of Long Term Social Visit Passes issued | 51,000 | 58,000 | 62,000 | 64,000 |
The stock of Employment Passes (EP) and S Passes has generally increased in the last few years in tandem with the robust economic growth and job creation. As of December 2007, there were about 143,000 EP and S Pass holders.
Foreigners on EP and selected S passes may apply for Dependant Passes or Long Term Social Visit Passes for their dependants, such as spouses and children below 21 years of age. As of December 2007, there were about 69,000 dependants on Dependant Passes or Long Term Social Visit Passes.
Long Term Social Visit Passes are also issued to other groups of foreigners such as family members of Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents. In 2007, there were about 64,000 Long Term Social Visit Passes issued. Long Term Social Visit Passes can be issued for up to 5 years.
Long Term Social Visit Pass holders and Dependant Pass holders must apply for work passes to work in Singapore. The number of these pass holders working in Singapore is not high. As of December 2007, there were about 6,600 Long Term Social Visit Pass holders and Dependant Pass holders with work passes.
Tuesday, 19 June 2007
Question for Written Answer #1: 21 May 2007
In the May sittings, I filed mostly WPQs. In fact, I allowed the single OPQ I filed to be converted into a WPQ. It was too far down the schedule to be answered on the first day of sittings, and I had a full slate of 5 WPQs on the second day of sittings (there were only 2 days of sittings in May) which I wanted answers for.
The bulk of the WPQs were aimed at gathering information on the proposed Penal Code amendments, which some have said would be tabled for debate in July or August this year. As the amendment bill was not tabled for the first reading in May, the earliest this debate can now take place is in August. That gives me a second bite at the cherry for a couple of those WPQs. I will be posting all of these questions over this week.
This first WPQ was filed to request for figures on PRs and citizens. The New Paper reported on the figures on 8 June, and the piece mentioned why I requested for these figures. I phrased the question in a certain way, intended to extract very specific data.
As would be immediately apparent, the response does not even come remotely close to providing much of the information requested in my question, which is something I found extremely disappointing. I fully intend to ask even more point-blank follow-up questions in July.
Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs, for each of the last ten years (a) how many persons were granted permanent residency in Singapore; (b) what were the 20 most common nationalities of such persons granted permanent residency; and (c) how many Singapore Permanent Residents became Singapore citizens.
Mr Wong Kan Seng: Over the last ten years i.e. from 1997 to 2006, an average of about 36,000 persons were granted permanent residence (PR) in Singapore annually. They came predominantly from South-East, South and East Asia and some were from diverse places such as the Americas, Oceania and Europe (see table 1 below).
The total PR granted has generally been on an upward trend. Since 2001, the number of PR granted was consistently more than 30,000. For the years 2005 and 2006, the number of PR granted was above 50,000.
Over the last ten years, an average of about 8,500 Singapore Permanent Residents became Singapore Citizens annually.
The bulk of the WPQs were aimed at gathering information on the proposed Penal Code amendments, which some have said would be tabled for debate in July or August this year. As the amendment bill was not tabled for the first reading in May, the earliest this debate can now take place is in August. That gives me a second bite at the cherry for a couple of those WPQs. I will be posting all of these questions over this week.
This first WPQ was filed to request for figures on PRs and citizens. The New Paper reported on the figures on 8 June, and the piece mentioned why I requested for these figures. I phrased the question in a certain way, intended to extract very specific data.
As would be immediately apparent, the response does not even come remotely close to providing much of the information requested in my question, which is something I found extremely disappointing. I fully intend to ask even more point-blank follow-up questions in July.
WPQ
PERMANENT RESIDENTS
(Figures)
Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs, for each of the last ten years (a) how many persons were granted permanent residency in Singapore; (b) what were the 20 most common nationalities of such persons granted permanent residency; and (c) how many Singapore Permanent Residents became Singapore citizens.
Mr Wong Kan Seng: Over the last ten years i.e. from 1997 to 2006, an average of about 36,000 persons were granted permanent residence (PR) in Singapore annually. They came predominantly from South-East, South and East Asia and some were from diverse places such as the Americas, Oceania and Europe (see table 1 below).
Table 1: Average number of PR granted annually for 1997-2006
| Nationality | Average number of PR granted annually for 1997-2006 | Percentage |
| South East Asian Countries | 17,522 | 48.4% |
| Other Asian Countries | 16,183 | 44.7% |
| Others | 2,487 | 6.9% |
| Total | 36,192 | 100% |
The total PR granted has generally been on an upward trend. Since 2001, the number of PR granted was consistently more than 30,000. For the years 2005 and 2006, the number of PR granted was above 50,000.
Over the last ten years, an average of about 8,500 Singapore Permanent Residents became Singapore Citizens annually.
Thursday, 15 March 2007
Supplemental Question: 27 February 2007
This is the official transcript from Hansard, on an OPQ filed by Dr Lily Neo about the news on the Government's concept plan for 6.5 million Singaporeans, where I asked a supplemental question.
I thought the Minister's response was a fair one. Having said that, I think earlier this week or last week, there was a report on a statement that Singapore's ethnic mix will not change greatly because most of the immigrants are expected to be from Malaysia, India and China. I thought that statement a little odd, because I would expect most Malaysians settling down in Singapore to be Chinese, not Malay. So we will have Indians, Chinese and "Others" coming to Singapore, but what about the Malays?
Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the plan to accommodate population growth in Singapore and (b) what is the target population growth in the next 10 years.
The Minister for National Development (Mr Mah Bow Tan): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Concept Plan is the long-term land use and transportation planning framework for Singapore. By "long-term", I am talking about the next 40 to 50 years. It is a rolling plan. In other words, we review it regularly, every 10 years, taking into account changing economic and population trends and the land use needs. The Concept Plan ensures that we use our land resource efficiently and effectively, so that our quality of life is not affected, and indeed improve even as we continue to develop.
In view of fast-changing developments in recent years, URA and other Government agencies carried out a mid-term review of the Concept Plan 2001. The review concluded that we have sufficient land to cater to our land needs in the future, if we use this limited resource judiciously and wisely.
With higher projected population and new growth sectors, land demand for housing, industry, transport and other uses will increase. We will need to optimise land use. We will have to explore new ways of creating space, whether it is through reclamation, building upwards, or building downwards using subterranean space. We will also need to invest in the necessary infrastructure, such as roads and rail networks, and power and utilities to meet future needs. While trade-offs among uses will intensify, we will be able to meet the needs of economic growth and a projected population of 6.5 million in future if we plan ahead and we address these potential concerns now. Singapore will then remain a sustainable, liveable and vibrant environment that will continue to be attractive to talents and businesses by offering a high quality of life.
On the population figure, let me stress that the 6.5 million population number is not a target. Singapore does not target a specific population number or a population growth. What we are looking for is a viable and self-sustaining population profile – one which will help us to grow a bigger economic pie, and also sustain a livelier and a more vibrant society.
The 6.5 million population is what we use as a planning parameter. It is what we base our plans and methodology on. It takes into account the current demographic trend. I believe it is a realistic number for planners because they need something to base their projections and plans on, so that we are ready for future growth opportunities.
For Concept Plan 2001, we had adopted a long-term population parameter of 5.5 million as a basis for planning. If Members will recall, at that time, our population was 3.9 million. Today, our population is close to 4.5 million. It is thus timely to revise the long-term population parameter to something higher than 5.5 million. So we have decided that 6.5 million is a realistic number for the next 40 to 50 years. Whether and when we achieve this figure will depend on many factors, but our long-term land-use planning will help to ensure that we are prepared for such a population in future, if it does come about.
Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar): Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether the URA Concept Plan 2001 to add 99 square kilometres of land is still attainable presently and at what cost. Will the tens of billions of dollars required to achieve it be better spent to develop the 40% of still undeveloped land in Singapore to accommodate growth?
Mr Mah Bow Tan: I think the two are not mutually exclusive. It does not mean that since we have vacant land, we do not need to reclaim. Or indeed that if we reclaim, we do not use our vacant land. In fact, in the Concept Plan review, we have taken into account our future needs. So all the so-called currently vacant land, either land that is not used at the moment or land that is reserved, has been taken into account in the planning to meet future needs. We safeguard this land for industrial, recreational, commercial, housing uses and so on. Of course, such developments will not take place straightaway. They will take place as and when needed.
When I say that reclamation and use of vacant land are not mutually exclusive, what I mean is also that sometimes the vacant land that we have available today cannot be used for some of the purposes that we need to reclaim for. Let me just give an example - waterfront land. We need waterfront land for some industrial uses or for industries that require waterfront access. So for such purposes, we will still continue to reclaim land, even if we have vacant land nearby. In the longer term, I see that we will still need to reclaim land and we will continue to do so where our development needs so require. But, of course, we will always do this within our own territorial waters so that there is no question of affecting boundaries, and so on.
Mr Siew Kum Hong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister how will this population growth affect our ethnic mix and what are the steps that will be necessary to preserve our racial harmony.
Mr Mah Bow Tan: I think this is a genuine concern. It is an anxiety that we all feel, with so many immigrants coming in, what will that do to our ethnic mix, our social cohesion and stability. But let us remind ourselves that this is not something new. This is not a new phenomenon. We are a nation of immigrants. Our forefathers came from many parts of Asia and even beyond. Even today, as in the past, we keep our doors open for immigrants. In 1970, our population was around 2 million. Today, our population is close to 4.5 million. But in spite of this major influx of new immigrants as well as, of course, from natural births, our social stability and cohesion has, I submit, not been affected. In fact, it has been strengthened over the years.
There is no doubt, of course, that immigration will bring more diversity. There is no doubt that there will be a challenge for us to maintain this social stability and cohesion, and multi-racial harmony. But I think that we need to continue to remain true to our key principles - principles like meritocracy and multi-racialism. Of course, when we talk about meritocracy, we should continue to make sure that the less well-off in our society are looked after. If we continue to remain true to our principle of multi-racialism, even as we practise diverse religions, and if we continue to strengthen those institutions that promote and strengthen social cohesion - our schools, our public housing estates, our grassroots network for they also help to maintain this glue that binds us together, national service - I see no reason why, as in the past 40 years, we cannot continue to maintain a stable and a socially harmonious society even as we welcome new immigrants into Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Dr Lily Neo, last question.
Dr Lily Neo: Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I ask the Minister whether there has been any study done to ascertain the impact on Singapore from the rise of sea level as a result of global warming? Is there a possibility of reclaimed land being inundated as they have been reclaimed to cope with 59 cm of sea level rise whereas there is a study that estimated the rise to be as high as 140 cm?
Mr Mah Bow Tan: This is an understandable concern. In the light of recent discussions about the impact of global warming on sea levels and the impact on small states, or small island states particularly, I think the Member's concern is understandable. But let me assure her that various agencies in Singapore do recognise that this is a challenge and are constantly monitoring the situation. In fact, for her information, all our reclaimed land in Singapore is reclaimed to a certain level above sea level, ie, above the highest tide. I believe the figure is something like 128 cm. She cited some figures that, perhaps, the sea level will rise 140 cm. But based on what we currently know today, and I guess that is as much as we all know, even the most pessimistic of scientists believe that if global warming does cause the sea level to rise, the rise will be in the order of magnitude of, say, 60 to 80 cm.
Given current information and technical wisdom, we are able to withstand any such impact. But for the longer term, we will continue to monitor the situation and we also need to better understand what is going on and how the potential climate change will impact Singapore. So, for this reason, I would like to inform her that there is actually an inter-agency group working on this. Several agencies - including the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources, National Environment Agency, Ministry of National Development (MND) - are studying the localised impact of climate change on Singapore. We also have another inter-agency taskforce that is led by MND and its job is to review the existing infrastructural developments in Singapore and to see how we can adapt them to any changes in the sea levels. For example, we will review our foreshore areas and work out new measures, if necessary, to address any impact of climate change.
In summary, I would like to assure the Member that the various agencies in Singapore are monitoring the situation closely.
I thought the Minister's response was a fair one. Having said that, I think earlier this week or last week, there was a report on a statement that Singapore's ethnic mix will not change greatly because most of the immigrants are expected to be from Malaysia, India and China. I thought that statement a little odd, because I would expect most Malaysians settling down in Singapore to be Chinese, not Malay. So we will have Indians, Chinese and "Others" coming to Singapore, but what about the Malays?
OPQ
CONCEPT PLAN TO ACCOMMODATE POPULATION GROWTH
Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the plan to accommodate population growth in Singapore and (b) what is the target population growth in the next 10 years.
The Minister for National Development (Mr Mah Bow Tan): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Concept Plan is the long-term land use and transportation planning framework for Singapore. By "long-term", I am talking about the next 40 to 50 years. It is a rolling plan. In other words, we review it regularly, every 10 years, taking into account changing economic and population trends and the land use needs. The Concept Plan ensures that we use our land resource efficiently and effectively, so that our quality of life is not affected, and indeed improve even as we continue to develop.
In view of fast-changing developments in recent years, URA and other Government agencies carried out a mid-term review of the Concept Plan 2001. The review concluded that we have sufficient land to cater to our land needs in the future, if we use this limited resource judiciously and wisely.
With higher projected population and new growth sectors, land demand for housing, industry, transport and other uses will increase. We will need to optimise land use. We will have to explore new ways of creating space, whether it is through reclamation, building upwards, or building downwards using subterranean space. We will also need to invest in the necessary infrastructure, such as roads and rail networks, and power and utilities to meet future needs. While trade-offs among uses will intensify, we will be able to meet the needs of economic growth and a projected population of 6.5 million in future if we plan ahead and we address these potential concerns now. Singapore will then remain a sustainable, liveable and vibrant environment that will continue to be attractive to talents and businesses by offering a high quality of life.
On the population figure, let me stress that the 6.5 million population number is not a target. Singapore does not target a specific population number or a population growth. What we are looking for is a viable and self-sustaining population profile – one which will help us to grow a bigger economic pie, and also sustain a livelier and a more vibrant society.
The 6.5 million population is what we use as a planning parameter. It is what we base our plans and methodology on. It takes into account the current demographic trend. I believe it is a realistic number for planners because they need something to base their projections and plans on, so that we are ready for future growth opportunities.
For Concept Plan 2001, we had adopted a long-term population parameter of 5.5 million as a basis for planning. If Members will recall, at that time, our population was 3.9 million. Today, our population is close to 4.5 million. It is thus timely to revise the long-term population parameter to something higher than 5.5 million. So we have decided that 6.5 million is a realistic number for the next 40 to 50 years. Whether and when we achieve this figure will depend on many factors, but our long-term land-use planning will help to ensure that we are prepared for such a population in future, if it does come about.
Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar): Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether the URA Concept Plan 2001 to add 99 square kilometres of land is still attainable presently and at what cost. Will the tens of billions of dollars required to achieve it be better spent to develop the 40% of still undeveloped land in Singapore to accommodate growth?
Mr Mah Bow Tan: I think the two are not mutually exclusive. It does not mean that since we have vacant land, we do not need to reclaim. Or indeed that if we reclaim, we do not use our vacant land. In fact, in the Concept Plan review, we have taken into account our future needs. So all the so-called currently vacant land, either land that is not used at the moment or land that is reserved, has been taken into account in the planning to meet future needs. We safeguard this land for industrial, recreational, commercial, housing uses and so on. Of course, such developments will not take place straightaway. They will take place as and when needed.
When I say that reclamation and use of vacant land are not mutually exclusive, what I mean is also that sometimes the vacant land that we have available today cannot be used for some of the purposes that we need to reclaim for. Let me just give an example - waterfront land. We need waterfront land for some industrial uses or for industries that require waterfront access. So for such purposes, we will still continue to reclaim land, even if we have vacant land nearby. In the longer term, I see that we will still need to reclaim land and we will continue to do so where our development needs so require. But, of course, we will always do this within our own territorial waters so that there is no question of affecting boundaries, and so on.
Mr Siew Kum Hong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister how will this population growth affect our ethnic mix and what are the steps that will be necessary to preserve our racial harmony.
Mr Mah Bow Tan: I think this is a genuine concern. It is an anxiety that we all feel, with so many immigrants coming in, what will that do to our ethnic mix, our social cohesion and stability. But let us remind ourselves that this is not something new. This is not a new phenomenon. We are a nation of immigrants. Our forefathers came from many parts of Asia and even beyond. Even today, as in the past, we keep our doors open for immigrants. In 1970, our population was around 2 million. Today, our population is close to 4.5 million. But in spite of this major influx of new immigrants as well as, of course, from natural births, our social stability and cohesion has, I submit, not been affected. In fact, it has been strengthened over the years.
There is no doubt, of course, that immigration will bring more diversity. There is no doubt that there will be a challenge for us to maintain this social stability and cohesion, and multi-racial harmony. But I think that we need to continue to remain true to our key principles - principles like meritocracy and multi-racialism. Of course, when we talk about meritocracy, we should continue to make sure that the less well-off in our society are looked after. If we continue to remain true to our principle of multi-racialism, even as we practise diverse religions, and if we continue to strengthen those institutions that promote and strengthen social cohesion - our schools, our public housing estates, our grassroots network for they also help to maintain this glue that binds us together, national service - I see no reason why, as in the past 40 years, we cannot continue to maintain a stable and a socially harmonious society even as we welcome new immigrants into Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Dr Lily Neo, last question.
Dr Lily Neo: Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I ask the Minister whether there has been any study done to ascertain the impact on Singapore from the rise of sea level as a result of global warming? Is there a possibility of reclaimed land being inundated as they have been reclaimed to cope with 59 cm of sea level rise whereas there is a study that estimated the rise to be as high as 140 cm?
Mr Mah Bow Tan: This is an understandable concern. In the light of recent discussions about the impact of global warming on sea levels and the impact on small states, or small island states particularly, I think the Member's concern is understandable. But let me assure her that various agencies in Singapore do recognise that this is a challenge and are constantly monitoring the situation. In fact, for her information, all our reclaimed land in Singapore is reclaimed to a certain level above sea level, ie, above the highest tide. I believe the figure is something like 128 cm. She cited some figures that, perhaps, the sea level will rise 140 cm. But based on what we currently know today, and I guess that is as much as we all know, even the most pessimistic of scientists believe that if global warming does cause the sea level to rise, the rise will be in the order of magnitude of, say, 60 to 80 cm.
Given current information and technical wisdom, we are able to withstand any such impact. But for the longer term, we will continue to monitor the situation and we also need to better understand what is going on and how the potential climate change will impact Singapore. So, for this reason, I would like to inform her that there is actually an inter-agency group working on this. Several agencies - including the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources, National Environment Agency, Ministry of National Development (MND) - are studying the localised impact of climate change on Singapore. We also have another inter-agency taskforce that is led by MND and its job is to review the existing infrastructural developments in Singapore and to see how we can adapt them to any changes in the sea levels. For example, we will review our foreshore areas and work out new measures, if necessary, to address any impact of climate change.
In summary, I would like to assure the Member that the various agencies in Singapore are monitoring the situation closely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)