Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans

Now how does one account for who is Singaporean and who is not. Simple right? The Singaporeans are those carrying the pink or red IC with them.

And correct is the answer.

Why all the debate? It is because starting about 5 years ago, the government has started to differentiate the difference between Singapore and non-Singaporean. Previously the joke was that the difference between a Singaporean and a PR is that Singaporeans get to vote, which essentially means the same as PR as most of the time Singaporean hardly need to think about who to vote for (again this has changed in the past 5 years)

So it has come to this. Singaporeans get to enjoy better reimbursements for healthcare, education, welfare, workfare bonus, etc etc etc and the list goes on and on and on.

Where as PR, get to enjoy some, but not all of this.

And foreigners.. well enjoy none of this.

In today's Today paper, it seems that some foreigners are starting to raise a stink about this. It was said that would Singaporeans living overseas stand for having multiple classes of service or payment if they were living in say, the US or UK?

Which has got me wondering... I've spent a good amount of my time in the US, Malaysian and now Singapore.

And I have to say this.

I think the government is right to differentiate between Singaporean and non-citizens. Why? Because it's real duty is first and foremost to the country and the citizens of the country.

Now comes the hard part. Foreigners (including PRs) make up 25% of the population, therefore, not small change.

Differentiate too much and it becomes discriminatory. Even now, you hear people saying that jobs should go to Singaporean first and then only foreigners. THis is also the same in the US where before an employer can hire a foreigner, they must "proove" (in the loosest sense of the word) that no citizens can meet the criteria for the job. I've heard that this is something easy to overcome as the employers would just find some kink in the guy's resume that no one else has and then make this criteria why he's hiring this foreign guy.

Therefore, a PR or foreigner in Singapore, in the typical sense, would be upper-middle class family, with possibly 1 or 2 income earners, and thus do not require much financial assistance from the government. However the opposite was true as well, in arguing that these people also pay taxes to the government, thus should also enjoy some benefit of the services provided by the government to all people residing in Singapore.

Therefore, how do we distinguish such services? Roads are equally shared amongst the people irregardless of what IC and passport you carry. Water, Electricity but these are not subsidized (at least not that I know of) by the government. And healthcare and education is most likely one of the most important services that is common across all spectrum of people in Singapore.

With the exception of those going to international school, I do believe that it is not justifiable that foreigners pay full-rate for the public school system and healthcare system. All foreigners going to a restructured hospital is automatically considered a full paying patient.

So unless the government is able to clearly and transparently show that even "full paying" students and patients are partially subsidized by the government, then I fear that Singapore is headed down the path of discriminatory practices for her PRs and resident foreigners.

Rather than leaving this commentary hanging, perhaps in a too simplistic sense, the government should tier the payment for the 3 classes of residents: 80 or 90% payment for foreigners residing in Singapore, 40 or 50% payment for PRs, and full subsidy or token payment for Singaporeans.

THe only thing I can say is that I can appreciate the difficulty these bureaucrats have in trying to determine the line, for it is a fine line between making the citizens feel like citizens and the foreigners feeling discriminated against.

GOOD LUCK !