May want to go back and delete your comments about real estate then. Honestly without exploiting foreigners to subsidize their housing, these tag line here would probably just as likely be "Singaporeans Can No Longer Afford to Live in Singapore."

If you live in an advanced urban economy, with relatively open borders and free market real estate, you have to get with the program or get forced out. You can argue that's a good thing, or a bad thing.

-------------

>Why is this exploitation? The country is offering a lot of positive things to foreigner

Pretty unsophisticated logic here. The idea that something good was obtained, therefore a policy can't be exploitive, is on face absolutely an unfounded and absurd claim.

Are foreigners kept there against their will?

I bet they're happy to live there, despite the housing costs.

Why is this exploitation? The country is offering a lot of positive things to foreigners. I'd love to have a Singaporean passport and be able to live there if I could afford.

May want to keep your comment deletion considerations to yourself.

The situation in Singapore is different. The foreigners are not high-income people who chose to live there. Only about 28% are skilled labor. The foreigners _may_ be happy to live there but I wouldn't make that assumption without checking. Just because it's better than their alternative doesn't mean it's good, or even acceptable.

Source:

> [immigrants population is] 1.23 million, out of which about 351 thousand were classified as skilled labor. Most of the foreign workforce [...is employed...] in construction and the service industry, or as domestic help.

-- https://www.statista.com/statistics/698035/singapore-number-...