the govt's indifferent attitude towards Singaporeans is also one
of the reasons why we don't feel we belong here.
Singapore
A little looser
Building national ties may now take a longer time, here's
why.
By Seah Chiang Nee.
littlespeck.com Jun 18, 2006
IN an increasingly "borderless" world, Singapore is finding it
harder to shake off the image that it is more "a hotel" than a
nation.
The term was coined by its citizens who are increasingly working or
migrating abroad, coming home only occasionally while top foreign
talents being courted to settle here are doing so only to use it as
transit to the West. In short, it is like a hotel.
Nation building is, of course, a long process even for larger
countries, and smallish Singapore has only had 40 years of it, but
its extraordinary speed of development had given hope that it could
have a faster momentum than others.
This now seems unlikely. Two global trends coupled with its
top-down policies are slowing its people-bonding evolution.
The first is a changed mindset of Singapore's new generation, which
sees the world as one without frontiers to work in, which dilutes
its sense of belonging.
For mature nations, the movement of people in and out causes few
ripples, but for a small state with a migrant background, it is
serious.
In January, Lee Kuan Yew voiced his concerns when he met
Singaporeans working in Qatar.
"If more Singaporeans worked abroad and their children forgot their
roots, there will be no Singapore node to send them out ... They
dissolve and disappear and there is no Singapore," the minister
mentor said.
"They become citizens of the world. What does that mean?
Lost!"
Singapore-born Prof Shirley Lim Geok-lin, who taught English at
University of California, said Lee's concern was over the loss of
the fourth generation of young citizens.
This preoccupation, she added, had taken over from his perceived
threats of regional military hostility or global isolation.
Lee was concerned that Singaporean parents, in becoming
international workers, had "opened to them a different
identity".
Official statistics are not updated, but the number of overseas
Singaporeans is put at 150,000, most of them temporarily.
What he did not mention was the problem of growing emigration of
Singaporeans who settle down elsewhere and do not come back.
Some foreign NGOs have placed Singapore as one of the world's
highest "outflow" countries on a per capita basis.
Nevertheless, Singapore remains a healthy "surplus" country,
meaning it gets more foreign migrants than it "loses" through
emigration and it is allowing its population to rise
strongly.
It is on a good wicket because of its developed economy. Hordes of
educated professionals from poorer Asian nations flock here to seek
better salaries or a higher education, so in terms of numbers
future expansion seems assured.
But in terms of quality or committed long-term immigrants, it is
doing less well.
Many of the specially sought talents, especially from China and
India, being offered scholarships here take them up but only as a
stepping stone to migrate to the West.
Singapore's Linda Lim, a professor of strategy at the University of
Michigan who has taught in the US for 20 years, in a recent lecture
to Singaporean students said that in the past decade, she had got
to know many Chinese and Indian nationals here.
They had come to study in schools and universities, often with
government scholarships and later worked for a few years before
applying for an MBA programme in America.
"To my knowledge, none has ever returned to Singapore after
graduating with MBAs, their goal all along having been to use the
place as a stepping stone to the US job market," she said.
To them, Singapore was just a place to study and work - like Ann
Arbor, Chicago, New York, San Francisco or London - whereas their
nation remained China or India or, for some, eventually the
US.
"This is only to be expected of a place which is not a nation, at
least not for those passing through," said Dr Lim.
They had opted to come because it offered a good job, lifestyle or
good education for the children, and were only interested in
Singapore as a place, not as a permanent home.
This twin force of domestic outflow and its transient nature makes
it difficult for the people here to deepen roots in Singapore and
strengthen their national identity.
Some believe that the evolution may take another one or two
generations.
In recognition of its transition character, the government is
defining its population as "residential" - which includes citizens
and permanent residents - and "foreign".
This "residential" population totals about 3.5 million while
foreign workers (about 750,000) are grouped separately.
Its workforce is similarly classified, so when the government talks
about jobs for Singaporeans, it actually means citizens and
permanent residents, which are, of course, technically
different.
Permanent residents (PR) do not vote or do compulsory national
service - although their children need to do both - but they enjoy
cheaper public housing.
Previously, they had separate listings for Singaporean citizens and
permanent residents. Lumping them together recognises the growing
importance of PRs in Singapore's future role.
The birth rate here has fallen below what is needed to replace the
population, and its ageing process is one of the region's fastest.
Both put the republic's future at risk without the foreign
influx.
Yet it is precisely this "foreign talent" policy that has upset
Singaporeans, who see it as a threat to their livelihood.
Another obstacle towards deepening roots is the government's
control of society and the public's resentment of it.
"People just feel they've lost ownership of their country and want
it back," said a critic.
Dr Linda Lim agreed. "What is the way forward? Promote active civic
and political participation and inculcate the 'sense of
ownership'," she suggested.
