Ideals of having new citizens and the reality

SINGAPORE – Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew made a rhetorical call to treat new citizens as equals at a National Day dinner at Tanjong Pagar. He added:”Once the new immigrants become citizens, they must be treated as equally as native-born Singaporeans, or our society will be fractured.”

Lee made an interesting point about our society getting fractured due to discrimination against new citizens. Much will depend on what we understand by the term “society”. The encroachment of foreigners could lead to unhappiness and dissatisfaction among local Singaporeans towards the former. A possible “us Singaporeans” versus “them foreigners” situation could result. If there is any fracturing, it will not be amongst existing Singaporeans, but rather between Singaporeans and foreigners. Thus, the society of Singaporeans will remain intact, but relations between Singaporeans and foreigners will hit a low. However, if we consider society at the level that includes Singaporeans, Permanent Residents and foreigners, there will undoubtedly be fracturing. There will not be much of a fracturing problem between new Singapore citizens and existing Singaporeans since the former would have been integrated into the Singapore society and share similar ethos and traits with typical Singaporeans upon receiving their citizenship, which allows them to better relate to other Singaporeans. The problem will be more acute between foreigners (those on work visas) and Singaporeans.

Lee also makes a point that Singapore accepts only skilled and educated immigrants “who increase the average level of competence of Singaporeans”. One would assume that this statement has got little to do with wage demands, since we are talking about skill sets. Thus, technically, the foreigners that our immigration authorities should let in through the gates should possess superior skill sets, that letting them in would increase the competence of Singaporeans in these skills. Thus, ideally, the foreigner will come in to take the position that no Singaporeans can fill based on abilities and capabilities alone. However, when foreigners and Singaporeans have similar levels of skill sets and experience, then the talk about increasing the average level of competence of Singaporeans becomes empty. Consider this situation involving a foreign fresh graduate from a Thailand university and a Singaporean fresh graduate from the National University of Singapore, both of whom are armed with an I.T. degree applying for a job at an I.T. firm. Both have similar class of honours or GPAs. But, if we consider the stature of the universities they graduated from, in which NUS is above the Thailand university, we would assume that the undergraduate program at NUS is more superior than that of the Thailand university. Thus, it would be safe to assume that the fresh graduate from NUS will be more competent in terms of I.T. knowledge and skills as compared with his Thai counterpart. Thus, skills and education of foreigners is only one aspect when it comes to assessing their competency. Another important aspect is their background that led them to acquire their skills and education. If their background is inferior to those of Singaporeans, it is not logical to conclude that these foreigners will increase the competency of Singaporeans. In fact, it will be vice versa.

The ideal aim of the foreign talent policy is to bring in intellectual capital which Singapore lacks. Many of such positions are in academia and in Research and Development. Diversity is usually desired, and it is not possible to find Singaporean academics and researchers with expertise in all areas. Thus, it is not uncommon for our universties and research institutions to appoint foreign academic staff or researchers to bring much needed expertise in areas that they lack.

Lee further reiterated the need to embrace immigrants, warning that Singapore will risk having its population and economy shrink from its low fertility rate. Lee was perhaps optimistic in labelling these foreigners “immigrants”. The fact of the matter is that they come from third world countries, where the costs of living is much lower than Singapore. The Economic Intelligence Unit did a cost of living survey, and Singapore is now the 10th most expensive city to live in, up from its position of 15th last year. The influx of foreigners was a mechanism to depress wages to the extent that it will lead to a difficulty in coping with the costs of living. The depressing of wages will only lead to widening income inequality, and the Gini coefficient figures serve as a stark reminder. It was 0.481 in 2008. The costs of living already deters Singaporeans from having children. Foreigners from third world countries are also subjected to the same costs of living in Singapore too. It is a case of what is bad for the goose is also bad for the gander. Thus, it doesn’t come as a surprise that foreigners treat Singapore as a temporary station, somewhere to make their pile before retiring back to their country. They have no plans to immigrate to Singapore. Why should they subject themselves to the costs of living in the 10th most expensive city when what they have made can ensure they live like kings in their homeland? Nomads is a more apt term to describe these foreigners as opposed to immigrants.

The government has always preached certain ideals surrounding the benefit that new citizens can bring. However, the way in which these ideals are implemented will ultimately determine success or failure. Prevailing circumstances play an important part too. The combination of these will translate into the ground reality or end product. The final verdict will be either a successful end product or an absolute failure.