SINGAPORE: A pilot study by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) has found that while Singaporeans and foreigners have little common ground on issues such as jobs, education and multiculturalism, structured discussions helped reduce some of these differences.

In collaboration with government feedback unit REACH, IPS conducted a pilot consensus conference on local-foreign integration in Changi Simei and East Coast GRC last year. Twenty-four residents of various residency statuses – 16 Singapore citizens, three permanent residents and five non-resident foreigners – participated in four full-day sessions to discuss contested issues such as employment, education and community.

According to IPS, the residents exchanged views and worked towards shared positions during the sessions.

IPS policy lab research fellow Nicholas Thomas said the pilot drew on a 2024 survey where 37.5 per cent of respondents expected anger towards certain communities if immigration issues were poorly handled, while 35.5 per cent foresaw a weakened sense of identity.

“These were really the anchors for why we wanted to do (this) and bring people, based on those surveys, into the room to see if we can actually find consensus,” he said.

Citing research on social capital, Mr Thomas noted that government policy can address resource allocation concerns related to immigration, but it cannot manufacture mutual understanding and trust.

“These require a different kind of intervention where people have to listen to one another, reason together and see if they can find common ground.”

From the pilot, researchers recommended recognising local-foreign integration as a distinct pillar of Singapore’s multiculturalism and expanding the initiative to other constituencies and contested issues.

They also called for stronger public communications. Participants felt that official messaging tends to highlight foreigners’ contributions – such as skills and investments – while overlooking citizens’ roles, including tax payments and National Service.

“This asymmetry of perception was experienced as a signal that citizens’ contributions were taken for granted,” said Mr Thomas.

Participants also expressed discomfort with what they saw as “framings of dependency” in policy language. For instance, some felt that the design of certain grants portrayed citize...