During the debate at the Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Manpower on 7 March, Progress Singapore Party (PSP) Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Leong Mun Wai raised concerns about Singaporeans being displaced by foreign PMETs, particularly in key industries such as finance, technology, and professional services.
He questioned whether the influx of foreign professionals under Employment Pass (EP) and S Pass schemes had negatively impacted the job prospects of local workers.
Leong also pointed out that many Singaporeans continue to face difficulties securing stable, high-paying jobs despite the government’s claim of strong PMET job growth. He asked MOM to provide a detailed breakdown of:
- How many of these new PMET jobs were actually taken by Singapore-born citizens (excluding PRs and new citizens)?
- Whether PMET job growth reflected real job creation, or simply a shift of non-PMETs into newly classified PMET roles.
- How many Singaporeans had to accept lower-paying or contract-based jobs despite being counted as “employed.”
Manpower Minister Tan See Leng rejected the claim that foreign PMETs were displacing Singaporeans. He maintained that the data reflected a healthy job market where local-born Singaporeans had significantly benefited.
“63% of PMET Growth Went to Local-Born Singaporeans”
Dr Tan claimed that between 2014 and 2024, 63% of the increase in PMET jobs went to local-born Singaporeans. He emphasised that for every 1 new foreign PMET, there were 3 to 6 new local PMETs.
Dr Tan also pointed out that:
- The total number of EP and S Pass holders increased by 38,000 over the past decade, while resident PMETs (citizens + PRs) grew by 382,000.
- In sectors like finance, professional services, and ICT, EP and S Pass holders increased by 18,000, while resident PMETs increased by 172,000.
- The employment rate for Singapore citizens remains one of the highest globally, with low unemployment compared to other developed nations.
However, while Tan painted a positive picture of PMET job creation, he did not directly address Leong’s questions about the breakdown between Singapore-born citizens and PRs/new citizens.
Without MOM providing a precise breakdown, it is unclear how many of these jobs actually benefited local-born Singaporeans versus just an expansion of the PR/new citizen workforce.
The 1-in-3 Job Reclassification Issue: Was It Real Job Growth?
The overall growth in the resident labour force (261,000 between 2014-2024) does not match the 382,000 PMET jobs claimed.
If the resident workforce did not expand significantly, where did these jobs go? If they were truly new jobs, we should see a proportional increase in overall employment numbers, but that does not appear to be the case.
A significant portion of this growth could have gone to PRs and new citizens rather than existing Singapore-born workers.
Without MOM providing a precise breakdown, it remains unclear who actually benefited from this PMET job expansion.
Dr Tan briefly acknowledged that 1 in 3 of the increase in resident PMETs came from non-PMETs being “upgraded” to PMET roles. However, he did not explain whether this reflected real job creation or merely an administrative shift in classification.
This raises a fundamental question: If the total resident workforce only grew by 261,000, where did the 382,000 new PMET jobs come from?
Reclassification: The Likely Explanation
The answer likely lies in job reclassification rather than the creation of entirely new, high-skilled jobs.
Many clerical, administrative, and associate professional roles were moved into the PMET category, often without substantial changes in job scope, salary, or career prospects.
MOM’s own data supports this concern:
- Clerical Support Workers declined from 268,400 in 2014 to 209,600 in 2024 (a drop of 58,800).
- Service & Sales Workers saw a net decrease of nearly 3,000 despite fluctuations.
- Craftsmen, Plant & Machine Operators, and Labourers all declined collectively by over 40,000.
- Meanwhile, “Associate Professionals & Technicians” increased from 391,500 in 2014 to 483,100 in 2024 (+91,600), which overlaps with the reclassification of administrative roles.
- For example, “Business & Administration Associate Professionals” alone accounted for 248,900 jobs, raising doubts about whether these roles truly reflect a shift toward high-skilled employment or are simply renamed lower-tier jobs.
Instead of widespread job creation, the data suggests that many workers were simply moved from one employment category to another, without significant improvements in wages or career opportunities.
Tan See Leng’s Explanation of Job “Churn” in Unemployment Figures
Tan also addressed concerns about unemployment, arguing that Singapore’s 2.8% unemployment rate includes short-term transitions between jobs (“churn”).
He stated: “If you take off the long-term unemployment rate of 0.7% or 0.8%, that 2% delta is actually churn within six months where people find a new job or something that fulfills their calling and they get onto a new career.”
However, this explanation does not account for the rising issue of underemployment—where Singaporeans may be counted as “employed” but are:
- Working fewer hours than they need.
- Earning lower wages in downgraded jobs.
- In contract or freelance work instead of stable, full-time employment.
Leong Mun Wai had previously pointed out that job security and wage stagnation remain key concerns for Singaporeans, even for those technically classified as “employed.”
Job Growth Narrative Needs More Transparency
While Dr Tan See Leng that job opportunities for Singaporeans have improved, key questions remain unanswered:
- How many of these 382,000 “new” PMETs were actually new jobs, and how many were just reclassified roles?
- What proportion of these PMET jobs went to Singapore-born citizens, rather than PRs or new citizens?
- How many Singaporeans are actually underemployed, stuck in part-time or contract jobs instead of stable PMET careers?
Until MOM provides a clear breakdown of job classifications and employment figures, the claim that Singaporeans have benefited from massive PMET job growth remains uncertain.
Additionally, the fundamental question remains: if the local-born workforce did not grow at a comparable rate, how can the government justify its claim that 63% of PMET job growth went to this group?
Without clear data on how many of these PMET jobs went to Singapore-born citizens rather than PRs and new citizens, the claim that Singaporeans have significantly benefited remains unverified.
MOM must provide a clearer distinction between reclassified jobs and actual new employment opportunities to ensure public trust in the data.
Underemployment Could Be Worse Than What MOM Claims
While Dr Tan emphasized low unemployment rates as proof that Singaporeans are benefiting from job creation, MOM’s own data suggests that underemployment could be far worse than what the government presents.
1⃣ Weak Resident Job Growth in Recent Years
- From 2021 to 2024, total employment grew primarily due to foreign workers, while resident employment saw minimal growth and even declined in 2023.
- If Singaporeans were truly benefiting from massive job growth, we would expect strong resident employment gains, but the opposite has happened.
- Despite the government’s claim of strong PMET job growth, MOM’s data from the last three years shows that job expansion has been overwhelmingly tilted towards non-residents.
2⃣ Many PMET Jobs Are Not Stable or High-Paying
- The rise in contract-based and gig work suggests that many PMETs counted as “employed” may not have secure, full-time roles.
- MOM does not provide data on how many new PMET jobs are contractual, part-time, or lower-paying.
3⃣ Mismatch Between Jobs and Pay
- While Tan claims that PMET job growth means better opportunities for Singaporeans, data on real wages shows that income growth has stagnated for many workers.
- The fact that MOM does not disclose the median wage of newly created PMET jobs raises concerns about whether many of these jobs offer meaningful career progression.
4⃣ If Recent Job Growth Favoured Foreigners, Where Does That Leave Singaporeans?
- If most job growth since 2021 has gone to foreign workers, while many existing workers were simply reclassified into PMET roles, then Singaporeans may be worse off than before.
- Many older PMETs who lose their jobs struggle to find comparable positions, leading them to accept lower-paying jobs, gig work, or remain underemployed.
A Crisis Hidden Behind Positive-Sounding Data
MOM’s broad claims about PMET growth and low unemployment ignore the reality of underemployment. If the government wants to prove that Singaporeans have truly benefited, it must:
Provide data on permanent vs contract-based PMET jobs. Show the breakdown of median wages for newly created PMET roles. Account for how many workers moved into lower-paying or temporary roles despite being technically “employed”.
Without this transparency, the claim that Singaporeans have benefited from PMET job growth remains questionable at best.
Fairness in Debate: Dr Tan’s Remarks Against Leong Mun Wai Were Uncalled For
Dr Tan’s remarks directed at Mr Leong during the summing up of the debate were uncalled for and dismissive, further compounded by the fact that Mr Leong was not even given the opportunity to respond.
In responding to Leong’s persistent questioning on labour issues, Dr Tan remarked that Leong had “refused to accept repeated explanations” on the matter, implying that further debate was futile.
Instead of addressing Mr Leong’s concerns substantively, Dr Tan invoked a quote from the 2004 Hong Kong film Blood Brothers, delivering a theatrical monologue that drew laughter in the House.
“Even if I’d said it, you wouldn’t listen to it. Even if you’d heard me, you wouldn’t understand. Even if you understood, you wouldn’t do it. Even if you did it, you would do it wrongly. Even if you did wrong, you wouldn’t own up to it. Even if you owned up, you wouldn’t correct yourself. Even if you corrected yourself, you did so begrudgingly.
Then what am I supposed to do?”
While rhetoric and humour have their place in parliamentary debate, mocking an opposing MP instead of addressing legitimate concerns reduces a serious policy discussion to a spectacle.
Leong had raised critical issues about job displacement, the transparency of employment data, and the reclassification of PMET jobs—all of which have a direct impact on Singaporean workers. Instead of addressing these concerns meaningfully, Dr Tan’s response was condescending and trivialised the debate.
What makes the situation even more troubling is that Mr Leong was not allowed to respond. The time allocated for the Committee of Supply debate had been entirely used up by clarifications from Dr Tan and Minister for National Development Desmond Lee.
This raises serious questions about fairness in parliamentary debate. If a minister is permitted to make remarks about an MP, should the MP not have the right to reply?
Parliament is meant to be a platform for serious discourse, where differing viewpoints can be debated fairly. Yet in this instance, one side was given the last word, while the other was denied even the chance to respond.
This not only undermines the spirit of parliamentary debate but also raises concerns about whether ministers are using procedural rules to shield themselves from further scrutiny.
If the government is confident in its job creation figures, it should provide a transparent breakdown distinguishing actual new jobs from reclassified ones, and show precisely how many of these jobs benefited Singapore-born citizens rather than PRs and new citizens.
Without such clarity, the claim that Singaporeans have significantly benefited remains unverified.
The post Tan See Leng’s job growth claim questioned: 1 in 3 “new” PMETs were just reclassified appeared first on The Online Citizen.
