Most Singaporeans and permanent residents agree that immigration is generally good for the country's economy, but slightly more than half of them also feel strongly that foreigners are taking away their jobs, and that the government has spent too much money assisting immigrants, according to a survey released on Thursday.
In a marathon 11-hour debate over foreign talent policy and job competition in Parliament earlier this month, the opposition Progress Singapore Party had raised concerns that the government’s foreign talent policy has led to Singaporeans being displaced from their jobs. They singled out the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA), claiming that it allows unfettered entry of certain Indian professionals in the island-state.
The researchers, who published the report based on a survey of about 2,000 Singaporeans and permanent residents (PRs), said while Singaporeans are generally agreeable to the benefits of immigration and globalisation, they may still have questions about whether government policy regarding immigration is really benefiting them, the TODAY newspaper reported.
The face-to-face survey, which was conducted between September and November last year by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), sought to explore the general perceptions of Singaporeans including the topic of immigration, it said. The IPS is part of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in the National University of Singapore.
Respondents were asked several questions relating to immigration, and had to answer on a four point scale of “to a great extent”, “to a moderate extent”, “to a small extent” and “not at all”.
When asked to what extent they agreed that immigrants are generally good for the economy, 75.3 per cent answered “to a great extent” (17.2 per cent) and “to a moderate extent” (58.1 per cent).
Some 68.3 per cent of those surveyed also supported the statement either to a “great extent” or “to a moderate extent” that immigrants improve Singapore society by bringing in new ideas and culture.
However, when asked to what extent they agree that immigrants take jobs away from people born in Singapore, 50.3 per cent chose either “to a great extent” or “moderate extent”.
More than half, or 53.4 per cent, also supported the statement “to a great extent” or “moderate extent” that the government spends too much money assisting immigrants.
Dr Mathew Mathews, one of the four authors of the report, in a press conference said Singaporeans and PRs have been “quite positive” when it comes to issues like immigration and globalisation, despite the recent scrutiny that free trade agreements such as CECA had been under.
Dr Tan Ern Ser, another author of the report, noted, however, that while most Singaporeans may not be ideologically opposed to immigration, they may be worried about how immigration policies could lead to their jobs being taken away.
“Singaporeans are not anti-globalisation...neither are they anti-immigrants. I think they have more problems with their perception of a policy, where they think Singapore can do better in terms of ensuring that local Singaporeans are not discriminated against,” Tan said.
The implication is that Singapore needs to continue to calibrate its immigration policy, he added.
The survey also found that less educated, lower income individuals were more concerned that immigrants would take jobs away from Singaporeans.
When asked how much they agree with the statement that immigrants take jobs away from individuals born in Singapore, 21.9 per cent of those who classified as coming from a less educated background chose “to a great extent”, compared to the 2 per cent of mid-educated respondents, and 9 per cent of higher-educated respondents.
Those of lower education levels attained an education level of secondary school and below, mid-educated respondents attained at least a post-secondary diploma and those who are higher-educated attained a degree and above.
The difference, however, was less stark when comparing socio-economic status (SES) with 17.9 per cent of those who are of lower SES indicating “to a great extent” compared to 15.9 per cent of mid-SES and 13.9 per cent of high-SES respondents.
Mathews said this trend towards lower income workers feeling this way could have been exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, which has brought about job uncertainties, particularly for this group.
“When people lose jobs and have financial difficulties, you do have the big rhetoric that immigrants are competing for jobs and maybe sometimes unfairly. It pushes people to think that immigration is probably the cause of all the lack of jobs, which may not necessarily be the case,” he said.
