Sep 02 2010
A STORY OF ANXIETIES By Eugene K B Tan
Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise.
Contrast that with the Singaporean anxiety that the liberal immigration policy is resulting in more competition in schools, housing, jobs, runaway property prices, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more. This sense of being overwhelmed further impinges on the fear factor that the immigration policy will do more harm than good to Singapore and Singaporeans alike.
What is obvious is that Singapore, as an immigrant society and one still in need of immigration, is anxious about immigration. The “us” and “them” divide is evident. Furthermore, the challenge with getting citizens to embrace immigration is that not every citizen gains from it – at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be conveniently blamed for a local job lost, stagnant wages, the lack of success in securing one’s ideal home, and the view that Singaporeans are doing the bulk of the “heavy lifting” while the newcomers have it easy. So the societal ambivalence and angst is to be expected.
Given the penchant for pragmatism, Singaporeans can by and large accept the economic logic of an open-door immigration policy. But that rationalistic acceptance clearly has a much harder time being translated into an affective acceptance of the policy. As they say, the longest distance is between the head and the heart.
Indeed, and ironically, our growing sense of national identity has made us more protective of the home-front. We question and doubt the ability and willingness of new immigrants to integrate and nurture a sense of belonging and loyalty to Singapore.
In his National Day Rally speech last Sunday, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong reiterated the commitment to citizens first, reflected in a pecking order of citizens being treated better than PRs, and PRs than non-residents. He also urged Singaporeans to draw a distinction between transient workers and new immigrants. It is the latter group that has to be integrated substantially if they are to grow their roots here.
Prime Minister Lee unveiled a slew of measures and policy tweaks to emphasise that citizenship has its privileges. This included the National Service Recognition Award (NSRA) for national servicemen to “recognise (their) contributions and sacrifices”. In education, the government will ensure sufficient school and university places while also creating more educational opportunities and recognising different peaks of excellence. On transport, PM Lee pledged to deal with congestion on the MRT. On housing, PM Lee promised that more HDB flats would be built and that public housing choices for the “sandwiched class”—who were previously priced out of the private property market—would be widened. Anti-speculation property measures were also introduced to curb the over-exuberance in the property market. The premise of this commitment is to “always keep HDB flats within the reach of Singaporeans”.
Are these initiatives, pledges and commitments enough to assure Singaporeans that the current immigration regime will benefit them? Reactions are, not surprisingly, strong and varied. There are already criticisms that the NSRA amount is too small and almost demeaning. At the other extreme is the view that the NSRA “cheapens” citizenship and national service. Critics argue that the anti-speculation measures are probably too late since the property price froth is already well entrenched in both HDB and private property markets. I doubt we can please everyone, especially those who are vehemently opposed to the immigration policy.
PM Lee also highlighted the importance of personal ties and friendships in the process of integration. This is timely. Integration is not something that can be orchestrated by the state. While it can be encouraged and facilitated, integration is a two-way process, and must be organic and sincere.
How can we promote integration? As we seek to top up our population, we should never make Singaporeans feel that they are inferior or that they are being taken for granted. For a start, drop ‘foreign talent’. Used in official discourse to reinforce the message that newcomers add value to our society, this superlative buzzword is terribly marginalizing and patronizing. Indeed, many of the newcomers are very much like you and me. More significantly, it harks of a neo-colonial mindset that the locals are ‘not good enough’. But, mind you, we built this fine city, and made it an attractive place to live, work, study and play in. Perhaps the new Ministry-level Population and Talent Division in the Prime Minister’s Office should be renamed.
Secondly, anecdotal evidence suggest that we give out PR and citizenship rather liberally. Talent alone is not enough. Much as we need to right-size our population, it is crucial that those who seek the Singapore franchise understand our society, our foundational ethos, our shared values and heritage, and our limitations. They need to know what they are pledging allegiance to.
It will take a while before the details of the series of measures announced since Sunday will have a persuasive effect on Singaporeans vis-à-vis the immigration policy. However, if Singaporeans are not persuaded and do not accept the new immigrants, then we will have to search for alternatives to help us deal with the reality of a declining, ageing population.
The writer is assistant professor of law at the School of Law, Singapore Management University.
[3 September 2010]
2 responses so far
PRs like to come to Singapore because of the obvious, then don’t complain. It is not a one way ticket. They can make a u-turn & balik kampong.Why don’t indian go to Bangledesh and works? Their countries are so close to each other. Why?. The reason is very obvious. If a owner of a small boutique is called an MD, then my father who own a chain of provision shops must a a super MD and big boss. To me it belittle the word MD, it means more like a Money Director, so everybody who has much money can open hundreds of boutique which is common all over the world and which has been here for years with or without PRs coming here. What is the big deal. What does the word foreigners & PRs means. Look them up in the dictionary. If u all are really serious & wants to integrate into Singapore, then take up citizenship, live work and shit like us & don’t grumble, ‘CITIZENSHIP HAS ITS PRIVILEDGES’. Look up the dictionary and memorise the word. We welcome u but we do not have to tolerate lousy habits, culture, nuisances and what have u. If you country is so gd, go back to your countries. If it is so gd there then why come here and complain. My forefathers came here because they wants to make & live a better lives here decades ago and built up what we called Singapore as it is today & they never complain. Coming here to live does not entails that u can do what u like and impose on us. When I am studying in Japan I do as the japanese do. In Rome do what the romans do or get out. Remember nobody take a gun and force u. “We don’t have a gun culture here”. The caucasian like to used the word cool, yes too cool and their countries are going to be bankrupt soon. What so cool abt that. Do u all know that foreigners took away abt $20 billions away from our economy every here and that is really “cool”. So except the differences it is everywhere even bck home in your own countries or may be even worse there and adapt or ship out. Nobody owes anybody a living just like there is “no free lunch”.
Correction. Our forefathers fought WW2. They cant be compared with the current generation of PR.
Importing FTs is a short term solution for increasing the population. Whatever reason we are not having enuff babies, they will face the same problems too. We should deal with the root of the problem