Mr Singh clarified that he did not say that English proficiency should be a single point of consideration for new permanent residents and citizens.
“I made it clear in my speech today that it was a nudge to align our immigration policy and our bilingual policy,” he said.
In his speech, the opposition leader spoke about foreign spouses who may have difficulty with an English-language requirement in citizenship or PR applications.
He pointed out that the Workers’ Party’s 2020 manifesto called for the “fast-track naturalisation” of foreign spouses on long-term visit passes, subject to conditions such as having at least one Singaporean child.
An English requirement for foreign spouses could be one of the criteria for fast-tracking such applications, he suggested.
“As the government has openly stated, our immigration policy and immigration intake is calibrated to preserve the racial balance. And by extension, an English requirement would not favour one racial group over another, just because applicants in one racial group already use English and the other does not.
“In effect for foreign spouses, the English requirement would serve as a plus one criteria or bonus criteria. It would nudge and better align immigration policy without bilingualism policy, which is a fundamental aspect of the Singapore system.”
In his exchange with Mr Tong, Mr Singh referred to the findings of CNA’s poll, saying that while he does not want to lean too much into one survey alone, it may be “a good time” to consider how people’s views change through generations.
To that, Mr Tong responded that the survey findings are “not an unimportant consideration”.
“It’s one survey … but it does reflect sentiments in our society. I think we must take heed of it,” he said.
.png?itok=cq2nATw_)
