Feeling Singaporean?
From TODAY 24th Aug Thursday :
THE good news first, as Singapore steps
up its search for new citizens: Nearly nine
out of 10 young Singaporeans say they are
comfortable working alongside someone
of a different nationality.
But when it comes to the question of
whether they would encourage these same
foreigners to settle down and take up Singapore
citizenship, only 63 per cent said
they would.
These lines from an article in TODAY caught my eye and have caused certain thoughts about how foreigners fit into the perceptions of young Singaporeans to coalesce into the following.
In meeting up with people over the three weeks when I was back home, a common theme that emerged was a concern that foreigners were being given too many incentives to come to Singapore. “Too many” being defined by the fact that qualified and talented Singaporeans were being pushed out of jobs and had opportunities for career or academic advancement taken away from them. Here are three anecdotal examples, which cover three major groups of “foreign talent” that Singaporeans have the most concern about:
1. A former student who has just moved into a Hall of Residence at NUS claimed that Chinese students who have come to Singapore on scholarships appear to be the most well-off students in the Hall. He said that with their University tuition paid for and an allowance to cover living expenses, these students end up being able to afford more luxuries in their rooms: mini-refrigerators and special computer gaming equipment, for example.
2. A friend cited a specific company that enthusiastically hired Indian nationals who claimed to be highly-qualified with specialized computing skills, firing a large number of long-time Singaporean employees in the process. As it turned out, the Indian nationals were not as qualified as they claimed to be and couldn’t do the work that they claimed to be able to do.
3. A former lecturer of mine was talking to me about the prospects of teaching Lit at one of the local universities and hinted that having the right skin and hair color (most certainly not mine) gets foreigners of dubious talent into lectureships.
Against these instances, there are the “63%” who seem to be happy to welcome foreigners to come to Singapore and become Singaporean. Of course, 63% is already a pretty neat majority, but in the land of “80% or more”, it surely is a disappointing statistic and indicates that the government will probably put in more effort in changing these “narrow-mindsets”.
I think it is difficult to quantify, without extensive data and studies, whether foreign talent deprives the average Singaporean of opportunities. The standard government claim is that with more foreigners in the country, it doesn’t mean that there is less to go around. In fact, the government has repeatedly claimed that foreigners bring with them more economic investment: the economic pie gets larger and everyone gains. But this isn’t really the issue that I want to get at. I want to consider the emotive side of things: the lingering perception that canvassing for foreign talent to come to Singapore puts Singaporeans at a disadvantage, despite the immense propaganda campaign (including close-ups of distinctly non-Singaporean Chinese faces and shots of Ang Mohs in almost every scene of the latest National Day Music Video ...) to get Singaporeans used to the idea.
Of course having foreigners who live and work in Singapore is not a new phenomenon. When Singapore had to scurry to find some kind of quick form of economic sustenance in the 60s, it opened its doors to the MNCs and large expat workforces. Even the public infrastructure that Singaporeans are very proud of, owes a lot to foreign talent. The tunnels, for example, that make up the MRT were the result of the tunneling expertise of New Zealanders (I believe). Also, there has always been a large number of domestic and construction workers who are foreign. But these sections of Singapore were never really considered as integral to any sense of the nation’s history or destiny.
I think what now irks Singaporeans is the fact that “being Singaporean” is now easily traded, as if it were a commodity. I think that Singaporeans who disagree with government policy feel that extending citizenship so easily to individuals who come to Singapore for plainly economic incentives is a act that might lead to all sorts of unintended consequences. How will these individuals change social norms? Will foreigners be “loyal” to the country or merely use Singapore as a springboard to other lands and richer opportunities? Perhaps there is also a sense of betrayal: after almost four decades of telling Singaporeans that there has been something unique in the manner by which Singapore has managed to overcome the odds of political fortune, the turbulences of its own multi-racial past, and the obstacles of being “a small island with no natural resources”, that there is something unique to be of Singaporean stock, the government now seems all too eager to inject Singapore with a healthy dose of “non-Singaporeaness”, as if it has lost faith in its own populace.
Of course, I bandy the term “Singaporean” about as if it were a clearly defined notion or at least an emotive rallying point that moves the heart in a specific direction each time it is used. It is certainly much more ambiguous, complex, open to manipulation and re-definition than this. And it must necessarily remain in this state; otherwise, it becomes merely an administrative expedient that just affords certain perks to those living in Singapore akin to the quick passage through the immigration lanes of Changi Airport.
In ending, I will refrain from offering what I think a more genuine approach to solving Singapore’s need for more talent should look like. Instead, I’d like to suggest that behind the irritation that newly naturalized “Singaporeans” will gradually play a more active role in defining the economic and social norms of Singapore is a more deep-seated sense that “being Singaporean” doesn’t really mean much to the powers-that-be. Despite the enormous fanfare that accompanies each National Day spectacle, I don’t think the powers-that-be very interested or open to a genuine dialogue or contestation over what “being Singaporean” means.
In meeting up with people over the three weeks when I was back home, a common theme that emerged was a concern that foreigners were being given too many incentives to come to Singapore. “Too many” being defined by the fact that qualified and talented Singaporeans were being pushed out of jobs and had opportunities for career or academic advancement taken away from them. Here are three anecdotal examples, which cover three major groups of “foreign talent” that Singaporeans have the most concern about:
1. A former student who has just moved into a Hall of Residence at NUS claimed that Chinese students who have come to Singapore on scholarships appear to be the most well-off students in the Hall. He said that with their University tuition paid for and an allowance to cover living expenses, these students end up being able to afford more luxuries in their rooms: mini-refrigerators and special computer gaming equipment, for example.
2. A friend cited a specific company that enthusiastically hired Indian nationals who claimed to be highly-qualified with specialized computing skills, firing a large number of long-time Singaporean employees in the process. As it turned out, the Indian nationals were not as qualified as they claimed to be and couldn’t do the work that they claimed to be able to do.
3. A former lecturer of mine was talking to me about the prospects of teaching Lit at one of the local universities and hinted that having the right skin and hair color (most certainly not mine) gets foreigners of dubious talent into lectureships.
Against these instances, there are the “63%” who seem to be happy to welcome foreigners to come to Singapore and become Singaporean. Of course, 63% is already a pretty neat majority, but in the land of “80% or more”, it surely is a disappointing statistic and indicates that the government will probably put in more effort in changing these “narrow-mindsets”.
I think it is difficult to quantify, without extensive data and studies, whether foreign talent deprives the average Singaporean of opportunities. The standard government claim is that with more foreigners in the country, it doesn’t mean that there is less to go around. In fact, the government has repeatedly claimed that foreigners bring with them more economic investment: the economic pie gets larger and everyone gains. But this isn’t really the issue that I want to get at. I want to consider the emotive side of things: the lingering perception that canvassing for foreign talent to come to Singapore puts Singaporeans at a disadvantage, despite the immense propaganda campaign (including close-ups of distinctly non-Singaporean Chinese faces and shots of Ang Mohs in almost every scene of the latest National Day Music Video ...) to get Singaporeans used to the idea.
Of course having foreigners who live and work in Singapore is not a new phenomenon. When Singapore had to scurry to find some kind of quick form of economic sustenance in the 60s, it opened its doors to the MNCs and large expat workforces. Even the public infrastructure that Singaporeans are very proud of, owes a lot to foreign talent. The tunnels, for example, that make up the MRT were the result of the tunneling expertise of New Zealanders (I believe). Also, there has always been a large number of domestic and construction workers who are foreign. But these sections of Singapore were never really considered as integral to any sense of the nation’s history or destiny.
I think what now irks Singaporeans is the fact that “being Singaporean” is now easily traded, as if it were a commodity. I think that Singaporeans who disagree with government policy feel that extending citizenship so easily to individuals who come to Singapore for plainly economic incentives is a act that might lead to all sorts of unintended consequences. How will these individuals change social norms? Will foreigners be “loyal” to the country or merely use Singapore as a springboard to other lands and richer opportunities? Perhaps there is also a sense of betrayal: after almost four decades of telling Singaporeans that there has been something unique in the manner by which Singapore has managed to overcome the odds of political fortune, the turbulences of its own multi-racial past, and the obstacles of being “a small island with no natural resources”, that there is something unique to be of Singaporean stock, the government now seems all too eager to inject Singapore with a healthy dose of “non-Singaporeaness”, as if it has lost faith in its own populace.
Of course, I bandy the term “Singaporean” about as if it were a clearly defined notion or at least an emotive rallying point that moves the heart in a specific direction each time it is used. It is certainly much more ambiguous, complex, open to manipulation and re-definition than this. And it must necessarily remain in this state; otherwise, it becomes merely an administrative expedient that just affords certain perks to those living in Singapore akin to the quick passage through the immigration lanes of Changi Airport.
In ending, I will refrain from offering what I think a more genuine approach to solving Singapore’s need for more talent should look like. Instead, I’d like to suggest that behind the irritation that newly naturalized “Singaporeans” will gradually play a more active role in defining the economic and social norms of Singapore is a more deep-seated sense that “being Singaporean” doesn’t really mean much to the powers-that-be. Despite the enormous fanfare that accompanies each National Day spectacle, I don’t think the powers-that-be very interested or open to a genuine dialogue or contestation over what “being Singaporean” means.
posted by gary at 12:58 PM
<< Home