A question that explores what it means to be a nation, or in my context, what it means to be Singaporean:
What would you choose – slower growth (i.e. smaller bonuses, lower wage increments, skylines that change in 20 rather than 10 years) or fewer foreign workers?
Growth in the Singaporean context, is accompanied by the influx of foreign workers. An army of foreign workers are working to build the F1 track, the 2 Integrated Resorts, and the many stadiums etc that will house the Youth Olympic Games – essentially the government’s bets for growth drivers until 2011. At the same time, as we are transformed by 6-8% growth every year, fewer Singaporeans want to clean the tables in hawker centres and drive our buses. Companies too, frankly, don’t want to pay double to get a Singaporean to wait on tables when there are mainland Chinese willing to take half that pay for the same job. All this contributes to an ever increasing population of foreigners in sunny Singapore – and some of them want to stay. All this is now well and good, but as we continue to grow, and the foreign population increases to support that growth, it is a logical conclusion that one day there will be more non-Singaporeans than Singaporeans in Singapore.
Would it still be Singapore?
A few thoughts:
1) Yes, if Singapore = Singapore Inc. But Singapore, a nation of Singaporeans? (That’s my real question.)
2) Does it depend on what types of foreigners outnumber us? I think it does. If they will one day become Singaporeans, if we can see them as one of us someday, with the ‘lahs’ and the same obsession over orh luak, perhaps we wouldn’t care.
3) Does it depend on how much Singaporeans benefit? Of course. In Dubai, where citizens are more or less wealthy, the majority of the population is foreign, but the citizens don’t mind. These foreigners do the jobs that allow them to lead the lives they want to live. A good number of Singaporeans are heartlanders though, who are not independently wealthy, and perceive some foreign workers as a threat to their livelihood.
In the end I think it is about assimilation, and the time taken for assimilation. We are after all a nation of immigrants, and my grandparents were at one point “foreigners”. If we can accept those who drive our growth and want to stay as “different, but like us”, and they can accept us, becoming more “like us, but still me”, then the definition of Singapore and Singaporean stretches – and we can have our growth and not be “outnumbered”.
But realistically? I believe it is difficult for 2 reasons: 1) Generally, human beings don’t really accept and assimilate so quickly. My grandparents were from China; my parents and I who were born in Singapore are Singaporean. It seems to take at least a generation for true identity formation and association. 2) Singapore is also handicapped by the fact that we don’t even now, have a very clear idea of what it means to be Singaporean. We are still identity-forming, identity-searching as a nation – it is not easy to demand MORE flexibility and change from us to accept those who speak different, look different, eat different.
So for me?
If I were a macro nation builder, I would ask for slower growth. Slower societal changes, so that we have more time TO change as a society.
If I were in government, I want my cake and to eat it. I’d probably lean for growth, so to point to a GDP number at least when the next election comes along.
But I am me, and I’m not sure what I would choose. I do like my nice fat bonuses in good years, but I also want to be proud that I am Singaporean and of my fellow Singaporeans.
Note to self: There is some conflation between nationhood and state/citizenship in the above. Must rectify.
