Parliamentary foot fetish 2: Feet planted apart?

by Bertha Henson

FEET planted apart?

What’s all this about a Singapore core? Or is it a Singaporean core? Is there a difference? Some people have been highlighting Minister Chan Chun Sing’s speech in Parliament about how the core is not exclusive. That is, it can include foreigners.

Some background on this.

The term surfaced a few years ago when the foreigners-versus-locals debate was at its height with the overwhelming presence of foreign workers in the pre-2011 days. People wanted to know what it meant to be a Singapore citizen and asked for measures to make this status distinctive. There was a unanimity over building and strengthening a Singaporean core in the economy, so much so that moves were made to ensure that companies make attempts to hire Singaporeans first if positions fell vacant. One MP even brought an apple into Parliament chambers to illustrate his point.

So when there’s a headline like, “Singaporean core does not mean S’poreans only, says Chun Sing”, which was in TODAY, you can bet that many people were flummoxed. Is he talking about permanent residents as well? Or – gasp! – foreigners?

The article said:

Labour chief Chan Chun Sing cautioned against mistakenly creating a “Singaporeans only” attitude in the country’s bid to develop a Singaporean core, which is more about creating “a diverse team of talents from cross-sector, cross-cultural backgrounds and international exposure”.

Mr Chan, who is also Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, added that the Singaporean core cannot be defined as an “exclusive and inward-looking perspective”.

In making these points about the workforce in Parliament yesterday, he cited the examples of the head honchos for the Singapore arms of ExxonMobil and Shell, who are both Singaporeans with overseas exposure and have returned to take on leadership positions.

So, given the examples he gave – that were reported in the newspaper – he is still talking about Singaporeans, including Singaporeans with international exposure. But surely, nobody is arguing that Singaporeans who have spent time abroad and come back home shouldn’t be considered as part of the core?

A Singaporean core that “does not mean S’poreans only” – this point was seized by some as a direct contradiction of earlier definitions of the Singaporean core as being Singaporeans-only.

So what did Mr Chan say exactly? We listened to the TV recording:

We believe in the Singapore core. We believe in urging and working with all the companies to build a strong Singapore core. But that Singapore core does not mean that it is an all-Singaporean workforce only.

We recognise and we accept that for Singapore to be regionally and globally competitive, we need diverse team – diverse team of talents from cross sector, cross cultural backgrounds, and international exposure.

So what does it mean to develop a real Singapore core? It means giving all Singaporeans the best shot to rise up the hierarchy. We are not asking for affirmative action – that just because we are Singaporeans, and therefore we will get ahead compared to the rest. We are asking for a fair chance.

Ah, that clarifies things a lot more. It looks as if he used Singapore core and Singaporean core interchangeably. In fact, Manpower Minister Lim Swee Say expanded on this yesterday when he referred to “one Singapore Workforce”. Perhaps, the G should tally its references to avoid confusing people.

To reiterate: It is a Singaporean core (Singaporeans-only) but within One Singapore workforce (which includes foreign workers who are needed here).

To be continued…Muslim feet firmly grounded?

 

Featured image IMG_7578 by Flickr user Brian Jeffery Beggerly. CC BY 2.0. 

If you like this article, Like the Middle Ground‘s Facebook Page as well!

For breaking news, you can talk to us via email.

The post Parliamentary foot fetish 2: Feet planted apart? appeared first on The Middle Ground.

- Bertha Henson