(Originally published 6 July 2008)
Not too long ago, I attended a National Education seminar organised by the Ministry of Education, which featured speakers from several ministries discussing various national issues. One of the topics that was presented (by a very young Deputy Director of Strategic Planning (or something like that) at the Ministry of Trade and Industry) was the issue of growing foreigner presence in the country. The presentation provided explanations for why there is a pressing need to attract foreign talents and workers, and ultimately, to have a population of 6.5 million (http://www.pap.org.sg/articleview.php?folder=PT&id=1758).
I will now try to summarise the presentation as best as I can remember it. Well, what I understood anyway. Singapore's consistent economic growth and success has largely depended on her government's ability to strategically plan its economic policies to meet the demands of the global market, overcoming significant handicaps such as the lack of natural resources and her small size. We were once a manufacturing hub, with our only 'natural' resource - our people - providing cheap and skilled labour to businesses from all over the world. Eventually as educational levels grew quickly and with other Asian nations providing the same services at lower cost, it became untenable for businesses to manufacture their goods here. If I'm not wrong (he lost me for a bit at this point, and I am prone to distractions), our economic policy then shifted towards the service industry. Or something like that. Anyway, let's move on to the current economic climate.
Now, in order to maintain economic growth and prosperity and to remain competitive, MTI has strategised that our focus should be the intellectual (R&D, etc.) and creative sectors. For this, we need a whole bunch of very educated people (which we do have, sort of - sort of, because there is the matter of the 'brain drain', where the best of our best are drawn to greener pastures abroad) and people with gumption, creativity, smarts and a whole lot of business bollocks. The speaker didn't actually use those exact words but that's what I got out of it anyway. There was a PowerPoint slide of the world map showing where these super-talents are clustered - the US West Coast, China, India, Russia. etc. Not so much in Singapore. So you can see why we need to turn to foreign talents if we are to succeed in these fields.
Now the thing is, in these sectors, it only takes several geniuses to drive the whole industry and make it successful. But there is no guarantee, with all the education and business know-how in the world, that an individual would be that genius. So we attract as many as we can in the hope that at least a few of those would realise their potential and be those economic drivers. But that's not all. Geniuses need to be surrounded by other geniuses, so we need even more of them. Like a whole lot.
On the flipside, with our people becoming more and more educated, less and less of us are willing to do low-skilled work and so again we'd have to rely on foreigners to meet this demand and supply gap. The thing is, in any country, you'd have a certain proportion of your population who are uneducated or low-skilled, and who can be relied upon to do these jobs, but with the presence of so many affluent foreigners, we simply do not have enough of the former to support the wider and truth be told, higher society. So we see an influx of foreigners from China and India and our closer neighbours.
From the macro perspective, it is easy to understand why the government is so welcoming and even defensive of foreigners. But from the micro, normal person walking in their brand new Gucci shoes in a zig-zag manner on an overly-crowded Orchard Road or inching slowly in their gleaming new BMWs on an overly-congested road in town or staring at the back of a Toni and Guy-styled head from all of two centimetres in an MRT train doing its best impression of a sardine can perspective, it's a bit harder to understand, let alone swallow. Yes, we're an affluent people but at what price?
Lest we forget, Singapore is a very small country. We can build our buildings as high as we'd like, but the fact is we can't walk or travel vertically. We wouldn’t go very far really. The affluence of foreign talents means more cars on the roads, while the presence of the not-so-affluent other foreigners means more crowded trains and buses. Our city centre pavements and roads are already unpleasantly crowded on weekends with 4.7 million (yup, that’s our population as of June 2008), one can only imagine the kind of lives we'll lead with 6.5 million. Our transport system is already running like a morbidly-obese man's arteries during peak hour at 4.7 million, what more 6.5? Fast-paced living one inch at a time.
Then there's the social issue of income and social divide. The affluence of foreign talents here sees them occupying our prime housing and enjoying the finer side of urban life more easily than our citizens. Great news for Far East Organisation and countless other property developers, but with the presence of foreign cash driving up prices, it leaves little hope for our own citizens to move beyond the brilliant work of architecture that is the HDB block. But the ones who really get left behind are those who don’t even dare to have such aspirations. The supposed prosperity that follows the presence of foreign talents seems to have eluded the poor, as they get left behind even further in the greater economic growth. Worse, some are even losing their jobs to foreign workers.
In the span of a decade, the percentage of Singaporeans in our population (including Permanent Residents) has dropped by 4%. Singapore, with a whopping 42.6% of its people being immigrants, is ranked 8th out 195 countries in Nationmaster.com’s list of countries with the biggest immigration population. Granted, aside from the native Malays, we’re a nation of immigrants anyway, but this figure surely does not include pre-independence immigrants.
The fact is, in order to attain that goal of a 6.5 million-strong population, we need to bring in even more foreigners, due to our low birth rates. Simple maths will tell us that this could possibly mean a foreigner presence of up to 60% of our population. Surely there will be some severe social repercussions.
Even now, we can observe a multi-layered society with a complex system of hierarchy perceptions. Singaporeans, in our attempt at finding our place in the absence of a bigger national identity, seem to think of ourselves as different from others (Singaporeans and foreigners), be it better or otherwise. A second-class citizen in our own home in many ways and an unwilling master to a perceived lesser breed in others. There is already a great deal of resentment on the ground towards foreigners, especially towards the many who don’t seem too interested in assimilating themselves with their hosts’ culture and way of life. This growing resentment, already simmering under the gloss of a harmonious social fabric, may prove a significant hindrance to our citizens’ sense of belonging to their own country.
It is quite common for people anywhere to be wary of foreigner presence in their country. Even in modern, first nation countries like those in Scandinavia, conservative political parties are gaining popularity as residents begin to see the negative social impact of a tolerant immigration policy. Yet the highest of immigration rates in these countries stand at a mere 12% (in Sweden), peanuts compared to our Brazil nuts of 42%.
The thing is, I am hardly a conservative (though in Singapore, the term bears little significance – there is no conservative, no right- or left-wing, etc, there’s just the PAP). In political discussions set in the context of countries with a strong culture of political diversity , I always find it hard to align myself with conservative philosophies. And yet, I find myself advocating the very conservative notion of a stricter immigration policy where Singapore is concerned, and here is why.
We are a people devoid of a national identity. At 43, we still grapple with the meaning of pariotism, of a sense of belonging and of pride in our nation. Everything we do in the name of our country, we seem to do out of sheer compliance. National Education was introduced to educate our young to become responsible and more involved Singaporeans. With typical submission, they go through the motions but with little regard for their significance and in the end, gain nothing but a superficial understanding of what being a Singaporean entails. A diluted population does little to help.
All said, there seems to be no real alternative for the government, if they are to continue to meet the majority of their countrymen’s fundamental need for economic stability, other than to place all their chips on the seemingly broader shoulders of the foreigner. That question that our politicians seem to ask ad nauseum (like a new party slogan) in response to any form of opposition to a new policy, "Can we really afford not to?" is a pertinent question indeed. History has proven many times that the lack of economic stability could severely undermine a government’s credibility, so one can understand why our government must place the economy above and beyond all others parameters of quality of life, if only to ensure that its ruling party stays in power for many years to come. So yeah, I guess we can't really afford to, can we?
Far from the apocalypse that our dear MM have repeatedly forewarned with a decline of the PAP (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080626/tap-singapore-politics-opposition-lee-06f3cb7.html - is anyone surprised?) and a rise of the dissenting voice in our government, I foresee exciting times ahead with a vibrant political landscape and a more involved population of informed citizens with greater ownership of their country, citizens who feel that they can actually make a difference beyond sharing their opinions online. Perhaps when that happens, we will see Singaporeans who feel a greater sense of belonging to their country. A first step, in our quest to forge a Singaporean identity.
Not too long ago, I attended a National Education seminar organised by the Ministry of Education, which featured speakers from several ministries discussing various national issues. One of the topics that was presented (by a very young Deputy Director of Strategic Planning (or something like that) at the Ministry of Trade and Industry) was the issue of growing foreigner presence in the country. The presentation provided explanations for why there is a pressing need to attract foreign talents and workers, and ultimately, to have a population of 6.5 million (http://www.pap.org.sg/articleview.php?folder=PT&id=1758).
I will now try to summarise the presentation as best as I can remember it. Well, what I understood anyway. Singapore's consistent economic growth and success has largely depended on her government's ability to strategically plan its economic policies to meet the demands of the global market, overcoming significant handicaps such as the lack of natural resources and her small size. We were once a manufacturing hub, with our only 'natural' resource - our people - providing cheap and skilled labour to businesses from all over the world. Eventually as educational levels grew quickly and with other Asian nations providing the same services at lower cost, it became untenable for businesses to manufacture their goods here. If I'm not wrong (he lost me for a bit at this point, and I am prone to distractions), our economic policy then shifted towards the service industry. Or something like that. Anyway, let's move on to the current economic climate.
Now, in order to maintain economic growth and prosperity and to remain competitive, MTI has strategised that our focus should be the intellectual (R&D, etc.) and creative sectors. For this, we need a whole bunch of very educated people (which we do have, sort of - sort of, because there is the matter of the 'brain drain', where the best of our best are drawn to greener pastures abroad) and people with gumption, creativity, smarts and a whole lot of business bollocks. The speaker didn't actually use those exact words but that's what I got out of it anyway. There was a PowerPoint slide of the world map showing where these super-talents are clustered - the US West Coast, China, India, Russia. etc. Not so much in Singapore. So you can see why we need to turn to foreign talents if we are to succeed in these fields.
Now the thing is, in these sectors, it only takes several geniuses to drive the whole industry and make it successful. But there is no guarantee, with all the education and business know-how in the world, that an individual would be that genius. So we attract as many as we can in the hope that at least a few of those would realise their potential and be those economic drivers. But that's not all. Geniuses need to be surrounded by other geniuses, so we need even more of them. Like a whole lot.
On the flipside, with our people becoming more and more educated, less and less of us are willing to do low-skilled work and so again we'd have to rely on foreigners to meet this demand and supply gap. The thing is, in any country, you'd have a certain proportion of your population who are uneducated or low-skilled, and who can be relied upon to do these jobs, but with the presence of so many affluent foreigners, we simply do not have enough of the former to support the wider and truth be told, higher society. So we see an influx of foreigners from China and India and our closer neighbours.
From the macro perspective, it is easy to understand why the government is so welcoming and even defensive of foreigners. But from the micro, normal person walking in their brand new Gucci shoes in a zig-zag manner on an overly-crowded Orchard Road or inching slowly in their gleaming new BMWs on an overly-congested road in town or staring at the back of a Toni and Guy-styled head from all of two centimetres in an MRT train doing its best impression of a sardine can perspective, it's a bit harder to understand, let alone swallow. Yes, we're an affluent people but at what price?
Lest we forget, Singapore is a very small country. We can build our buildings as high as we'd like, but the fact is we can't walk or travel vertically. We wouldn’t go very far really. The affluence of foreign talents means more cars on the roads, while the presence of the not-so-affluent other foreigners means more crowded trains and buses. Our city centre pavements and roads are already unpleasantly crowded on weekends with 4.7 million (yup, that’s our population as of June 2008), one can only imagine the kind of lives we'll lead with 6.5 million. Our transport system is already running like a morbidly-obese man's arteries during peak hour at 4.7 million, what more 6.5? Fast-paced living one inch at a time.
Then there's the social issue of income and social divide. The affluence of foreign talents here sees them occupying our prime housing and enjoying the finer side of urban life more easily than our citizens. Great news for Far East Organisation and countless other property developers, but with the presence of foreign cash driving up prices, it leaves little hope for our own citizens to move beyond the brilliant work of architecture that is the HDB block. But the ones who really get left behind are those who don’t even dare to have such aspirations. The supposed prosperity that follows the presence of foreign talents seems to have eluded the poor, as they get left behind even further in the greater economic growth. Worse, some are even losing their jobs to foreign workers.
In the span of a decade, the percentage of Singaporeans in our population (including Permanent Residents) has dropped by 4%. Singapore, with a whopping 42.6% of its people being immigrants, is ranked 8th out 195 countries in Nationmaster.com’s list of countries with the biggest immigration population. Granted, aside from the native Malays, we’re a nation of immigrants anyway, but this figure surely does not include pre-independence immigrants.
The fact is, in order to attain that goal of a 6.5 million-strong population, we need to bring in even more foreigners, due to our low birth rates. Simple maths will tell us that this could possibly mean a foreigner presence of up to 60% of our population. Surely there will be some severe social repercussions.
Even now, we can observe a multi-layered society with a complex system of hierarchy perceptions. Singaporeans, in our attempt at finding our place in the absence of a bigger national identity, seem to think of ourselves as different from others (Singaporeans and foreigners), be it better or otherwise. A second-class citizen in our own home in many ways and an unwilling master to a perceived lesser breed in others. There is already a great deal of resentment on the ground towards foreigners, especially towards the many who don’t seem too interested in assimilating themselves with their hosts’ culture and way of life. This growing resentment, already simmering under the gloss of a harmonious social fabric, may prove a significant hindrance to our citizens’ sense of belonging to their own country.
It is quite common for people anywhere to be wary of foreigner presence in their country. Even in modern, first nation countries like those in Scandinavia, conservative political parties are gaining popularity as residents begin to see the negative social impact of a tolerant immigration policy. Yet the highest of immigration rates in these countries stand at a mere 12% (in Sweden), peanuts compared to our Brazil nuts of 42%.
The thing is, I am hardly a conservative (though in Singapore, the term bears little significance – there is no conservative, no right- or left-wing, etc, there’s just the PAP). In political discussions set in the context of countries with a strong culture of political diversity , I always find it hard to align myself with conservative philosophies. And yet, I find myself advocating the very conservative notion of a stricter immigration policy where Singapore is concerned, and here is why.
We are a people devoid of a national identity. At 43, we still grapple with the meaning of pariotism, of a sense of belonging and of pride in our nation. Everything we do in the name of our country, we seem to do out of sheer compliance. National Education was introduced to educate our young to become responsible and more involved Singaporeans. With typical submission, they go through the motions but with little regard for their significance and in the end, gain nothing but a superficial understanding of what being a Singaporean entails. A diluted population does little to help.
All said, there seems to be no real alternative for the government, if they are to continue to meet the majority of their countrymen’s fundamental need for economic stability, other than to place all their chips on the seemingly broader shoulders of the foreigner. That question that our politicians seem to ask ad nauseum (like a new party slogan) in response to any form of opposition to a new policy, "Can we really afford not to?" is a pertinent question indeed. History has proven many times that the lack of economic stability could severely undermine a government’s credibility, so one can understand why our government must place the economy above and beyond all others parameters of quality of life, if only to ensure that its ruling party stays in power for many years to come. So yeah, I guess we can't really afford to, can we?
Far from the apocalypse that our dear MM have repeatedly forewarned with a decline of the PAP (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080626/tap-singapore-politics-opposition-lee-06f3cb7.html - is anyone surprised?) and a rise of the dissenting voice in our government, I foresee exciting times ahead with a vibrant political landscape and a more involved population of informed citizens with greater ownership of their country, citizens who feel that they can actually make a difference beyond sharing their opinions online. Perhaps when that happens, we will see Singaporeans who feel a greater sense of belonging to their country. A first step, in our quest to forge a Singaporean identity.
No comments:
Post a Comment