Sunday, April 22, 2007

Treatise on Foreign Talent

Forty years of racial harmony ingrained through government policy into the culture of her citizens has seen successes in reducing ethnic conflict and promoting integration amongst the main racial groups in Singapore. Race, as such, in the conventional sense of the word, is no longer a pertinent issue to the life of Singaporeans as it was in the tumultuous years of the mid twentieth century - manifested in workplace discrimination and a plural society. However, this is not to say that the Race, as a concept, has been thoroughly eliminated from the consciousness of locals here. In fact, the policies that sought to promote racial integration, although accurate in aims, have had negative repercussions on the psyche of the average Singaporean, who is integrated via reduction in racial awareness. This is engineered through suggestions of the 'sensitivity' of the topic, and hence it’s marking as out-of-bounds to the average Singaporean. The corollary, of course, is that when this bubble of homogeneity is pierced by a foreigner, the most spectacular forms of Xenophobia are made manifest. It is therefore no wonder that not many outside Asia would think of Singapore as the first city when it comes to diversity, unlike London and New York. Thus is the reason why Singapore almost never features amongst the developed and major cosmopolitan cities of the globe, if it was not for strong advertisement.

Contrary to widespread opposition on the ground against foreigners, it is government policy at the top to continue the import of foreign labour and talent. The recent announcement of the 6.5 million population forecast by the year 2050 and current circumstances of below-replacement-level birth rates suggest that the major part of this projected population increase is likely to be derived from foreign sources. In accordance with the economic pragmatism of the current government, it is also safe to assume that the majority of immigrants will be what is officially and commonly termed foreign talent.

Foreign talent, however, resonates with negative connotations within the majority of Singaporean citizens. Foreigners are viewed as threats to locals' livelihoods, they are viewed with suspicion and envy; yet many a Singaporean would fawn and grovel before white customers, often at the expense of their local 'brethren'. This love-hate relationship that exists in Singapore is one-of-a-kind, and does not exist in other premier cities. It might be argued that worn-out remnants of Singapore's colonial legacy have not sunk into history; if it is so, then the imperative is to resolve these obstacles. The contradiction must be resolved before any headway can be made in integrating these foreigners into our population.

In the short term, the government has ostensibly shown to throw its support behind the worried local populace with the recent decision to accord more privileges to Singaporean citizens vis-à-vis Permanent Residents, who are largely composed of skilled foreign labour. The downward revision of healthcare subsidies for Permanent Residents and non-citizens announced in December 2006 is thus a milestone in government policy, in that this deviation from the government's usual stance can be viewed as an assertion of the growing need for national integrity in face of homogenizing foreign influences. While homogeneity might be prized as an objective for cosmopolitan conurbations such as Tokyo and Berlin, that is only because these megalopolises are merely cities within a nation, and as such, the threat of destabilizing foreign influences is absorbed by the sheer depth of national identity embodied in the rest of the country. In the context of Singapore, however, she is both a city and a nation - even the term city-state is a misnomer for her, for these ancient Greek political entities included the rural territories surrounding the central polises - and, as such, the term city-nation is the more relevant term. The immediate implication is that the cultural diversity so necessary for the economic development of the city is in direct conflict with the cultural homogeneity so essential to the social integrity of the fabric of the nation. The fact that economic development has largely been the sole defining factor for the growth, and in fact, the existence, of the Singaporean nation makes the conundrum no less a matter of concern.

As such, the other aspect of this policy change becomes apparent - the reflection of the need to restrict the mobility of foreign talent, who are, by definition, in search of the best job opportunities around the globe, and thus, tie them permanently into the fabric of Singapore city's economic growth. By claiming citizenship status, these foreign talents are now in fact driving a stake in the Singapore nation.

It is essential to note, however, that what has occurred is merely a postponement of the inevitable conflict. Although the policy change might be viewed as remarkable by un-attuned observers, the essence defining it has remained essentially the same: buying social security with economic growth. This logic was pursued during the fast-tracked period of growth in the early post-independence years with remarkable success, for the requirements of labour and capital-intensive industrialization were a homogenous labour which could be pursued in tandem with social integration. Towards the 1980s, however, with the promulgation of the Knowledge-based Economy, problems arose as labour self-sufficiency gave way to the need to import foreign talent to remain competitive with the rest of the world, and the social and the economic hence began to diverge. Towards the end of the twentieth century, the scope of this dilemma has expanded as foreigners began competing not only in the workplace, but in educational institutions as well.

Thus, two problems are identified in the above paragraph. Firstly, with the onset of slower growth, the un-sustainability of the abovementioned method of nation building becomes apparent. This is evident from the fact that in the recent readjustment of subsidies, the government has had to make a choice in favouring the citizen over the non-citizen, and hence, trade economic growth for social security. Secondly, by competing (and usually triumphing over) Singaporean youth, foreigners are liable to be the object of resentment of disillusioned youth. If even premier institutions can be utterly defeated in televised debates – un-helped by the immodest responses of the victors, stating that that was merely the case in the outside world - then it becomes a double setback for impressionable youth. While the issue might currently be restricted to a select few, however, as the influx of foreigners in tandem with the projected population growth increases, it is inevitable that this contact and friction with local youths also accumulates.
Foreign talent, then, becomes an issue pertinent to both young and old, educated and uneducated. This is no new phenomenon, however. What Singapore is currently, or about to experience in the future, has already occurred in other more mature cities. Foreign talent is a concept that applies throughout the globe, one that has been prevalent throughout the course of history since the migration of man. Foreign talent is, in essence, a double-edged sword. In times of prosperity, they are the main driving force behind the economy and accordingly venerated. In times of recession, however, they become the focus of a violent nationalism. It is thus no wonder that Anti-Semitism was the strongest in Europe during the desperate era of the Dark Ages, and found its greatest resonance during the time of the Great Depression. The problem is as pertinent as it was in recent or ancient history, made no less obscure by the fact that depressions are an essential, unavoidable feature of the Kondratiev cycle that defines our global economic system.
The policy mechanisms of income redistribution in favour of equity thus assume paramount importance during growth slowdowns, as opposed to growth-centric policies per se. The important consequences of slumps and depressions are not the short-term economic ones but the indirect social repercussions. This is not to say that economic growth should not feature heavily in any governmental policies aimed at arresting recessions; but to the extent that societal disgruntlement has sparked a frenzy of nationalism and scuttled foreign talent and investment, then efforts should be directed towards the straightforward cure of this disease than the application of vitamins to boost the patient's ailing health.
Foreign talent, then, is here to stay. Racial Harmony that has hitherto focused on the Chinese, the Malay and the Indian will soon have to accommodate this much neglected 'Other'. It is perhaps time to give a face to this nebulous 'Other', to recognize its essential place in Singapore City, and as such, weave it into the Fabric of our Nation.