FOREIGNERS IN OUR HOME
in 2011, the number of foreigners in Singapore has continued to increase. Why so, and to what end? To justify the massive influx of foreigners of almost one million over the past decade, the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) has often doled out the following arguments. One, Singapore’s dismal fertility rates will lead to a rapidly ageing population, which causes strain on the productive workforce. Two, foreign labour – both high and low skilled – is required to ensure that our economy remains competitive. On both counts, these arguments make sense. They are premised, however, on the assumption that Singaporeans will continue to rank economic growth as their first priority going forward. Moreover, even if we accept that economic growth is indeed important, it does not automatically follow that we are fully willing to accept the costs associated with having more foreigners around. These costs, both tangible and intangible, have been voiced repeatedly in media channels and reflect a palpable sense of discontent. Framed this way, the question then becomes: How many more new migrants are we willing to accept in our drive for economic prosperity? Another valid concern is whether our economy, relying so heavily on foreign labour, is sufficiently strong to withstand a crisis. A case in point is the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology (IMCB) located at Biopolis. It represents Singapore’s aspirations to develop into a life-sciences research hub. It has also acquired the reputation of being extremely generous to foreign researchers, who are lured to the institute with the promise of stunning benefits. As valuable as their contributions are now, one cannot help but worry if they will stay for the long haul. Being skilled research talent, they are after all arduously courted by many countries. These foreign talents are “instant trees”, to borrow an analogy from Ngiam Tong Dow, a former leading civil servant. He believes that they can provide instant shade, but they may also “collapse at the first sight of the storm”, which is to say that they are potentially the first to leave when Singapore no longer appears attrac-
11
tive to them. Instead, Ngiam maintains that it is better for Singapore to focus on grooming local talent, however long that may take. He correctly points out that relying solely on foreigners isn’t a stable, long-term solution to our future economic issues. Such concerns indicate that no matter how convenient a solution, foreigners cannot be a long-term panacea. What complicates the picture is that the case for having more foreigners is not limited to future projections of prosperity. In fact, Singaporeans do experience certain benefits right now. Lower-paid foreign workers take up jobs that Singaporeans do not want, and many of them are willing to be employed at wage levels that Singaporeans consider unacceptable. This translates into lower labour costs for clearing the hawker centre tables, or cleaning the coffee shop toilets, costs that Singaporeans would otherwise have to bear. In the jargon of Karl Marx, foreigners provide the labour power that locals extract as surplus value. We need to realize that our current standard of living depends vitally on the presence of cheap foreign labour to increase the purchasing power of our own wages. It would be unfair for us to whine solely about the crowd of foreigners on our trains and buses without stopping to think that these systems are built and staffed primarily by foreign labour. Another much disputed issue involves the assimilation of foreigners into local society. Take the case of mainland Chinese nationals, who form the bulk of new immigrants arriving in the past 10 years. Being ethnically similar to the Chinese majority in Singapore, it was assumed by planning authorities that they would integrate with ease. As anecdotal experiences indicate, it is a different matter in practice. In my opinion, it seems rather naïve to believe that racial similarity would deterministically guarantee an easy integration. After all, China has experienced a radically different history from Singapore in the past 40 years. A case in point is the Cultural Revolution, which saw a dramatic upheaval of values. Historically speaking, the recent trajectories of Singapore and China could not have been more divergent. Perhaps then, we shouldn’t be surprised at the culture