Immigration continues to be a hot button issue in Singapore. From 2000 to 2014, Singapore’s foreign-born population swelled from 1 to 2 million. Public unhappiness at the government’s liberal immigration policies has led to foreigners being blamed for overcrowded public transport and high property prices, among other things. This discontent surfaced in the discourse surrounding the 2011 General Election, and has continued in the form of xenophobic sentiments expressed towards foreigners in the online space.
Public reaction to Singapore’s immigration policy and the response by politicians and policymakers to these concerns have been reported extensively by the media. The main English-language newspaper in Singapore, The Straits Times, can be seen as a repository of these views and responses. I conducted a study of articles on immigration published between 2006 and 2011, which included coverage of the 2006 and 2011 general elections. An analysis of articles which contained statements made by politicians and policymakers gave a sense of their position on immigration policy, and allowed me to glean any shift in rhetoric over the years.
Here are three key findings of the study and some suggestions about their relevance to immigration policy making.
Two views of immigration
Singapore’s economic imperatives leave it with little choice but to be a globalised city. It has been open to foreign workers to relieve the tight labour market, a situation compounded by persistently low fertility rates and sustained economic growth. Skilled foreign workers are seen as being able to bring skills and expertise to grow industries that Singapore wants to develop.
Immigration-related social problems have come to the fore in the last decade. In 2013, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong admitted that the influx occurred quicker than what Singapore’s physical infrastructure could cope with, and the government was not prepared to deal with the repercussions.
The impact of immigration on Singaporeans, as described by Singapore media, is conventionally distilled into two dimensions, either economic or cultural in nature. Immigrants are sometimes seen as displacing the locals from jobs, places in schools and housing. On the other hand, they are also seen as infringing local cultures and norms.
In my study, I observed a distinct change in the types of discomfort Singaporeans experienced over the years, and a corresponding shift in the response of policymakers. I coded articles, which contained statements on immigration from policymakers and figures of authority and were published from 2006 to 2011, into two broad frames (see above).
The “economic enhancer” frame consisted of messages that reflected a recognition of the economic threat posed by the influx of immigrants. They were meant to reassure citizens that the influx would not be detrimental to their livelihood.
Emphasising the economic benefits that immigrants would bring was one key rhetoric. For instance, then-Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng said in 2006 that “new immigrants are here to help us grow a bigger economic pie and make for a livelier and more vibrant society”. (The Straits Times, 24 Aug 2006).
As a comparison, the “cultural reassurance” frame consisted of messages that responded to the threats on worldviews and values cherished by Singaporeans.
This came in the form of reassuring Singaporeans that their culture and norms would not be diluted. An example was a statement in 2011 by then-Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Vivian Balakrishnan, who said: “There is merit in having a more structured naturalization process that ensures that all citizens understand the fundamentals of our Singapore society and our values.” (The Straits Times, 11 March 2010)
In 2006, 48% of the articles published in The Straits Times fell into the “economic enhancer” frame and 6% were classified in the “cultural reassurance” frame.
A major shift occurred in 2009, and in 2011, 59% of messages fell into the “cultural reassurance” frame, with 25% of in the “economic enhancer” frame.
The value of being Singaporean
The findings are not surprising. The values and ethos attached to Singapore citizenship have come under greater scrutiny amidst the influx of foreigners.
Singaporeans also feel that their values and norms are under threat. In a 2012 IPS Survey on social integration, 56.9% said that it was “too easy to become a PR”, and 53.8% said that is was “too easy for PRs to be citizens”.
Many feel that the government’s focus on productivity as the basis of citizenship dilutes its value to one of pragmatism rather than loyalty and cultural rootedness.
Hence, the government has responded to reassure Singaporeans that it will aim to preserve national values and identity, and encourage foreigners to recognise and learn local norms.
National identity as we move to the next lap
The question of what it means to be a Singaporean has entered immigration discourse in recent times and is not likely to go away.
Harnessing a salient and unique Singaporean identity can help reassure Singaporeans of their place here despite the changes wrought by globalisation and a foreign population influx.
To their credit, the government has implemented policies to ensure that Singaporeans have sufficient access to economic opportunities at home.
The Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) was implemented on 1 August 2014 to alleviate perceptions that foreigners are given preferential treatment in hiring processes. Employers must now consider Singaporeans before hiring Employment Pass (EP) Holders. This initiative is aimed at countering discriminatory hiring practices such as “hiring own kind” in certain expatriate dominated industries.
In addition, tighter control of employment passes and PR status has been in place in the last couple of years to systematically reduce the influx of immigrants.
To ensure that immigrants are not seen as a threat to Singapore culture, the Singapore Citizenship Journey was implemented in 2011 as a compulsory component for citizenship applicants, to enhance their understanding of what it means to be Singaporean and highlighting the responsibility that comes with it.
This is aimed at reaffirming a citizen’s cultural identity and to mitigate fears that citizenship is easily obtained.
However, more can be done in the cultural sphere. The government can take the lead in strengthening the Singapore identity – however fuzzy and disparate it may be currently — and work towards articulating a unique Singapore discourse to build up our cultural assurance.
A roadmap to a stronger Singapore identity can be established, tapping on our ‘softer’ platforms of local arts, film, music and even Singlish to bring out the essence of our identity.
This will help reinstate the cultural significance and prestige associated with our citizenship.
The SG50 celebrations that will take place this year will be a perfect platform for the government to highlight our distinctiveness and cultural traits, and work towards championing a Singapore identity to bring us forward into the next lap.
2015 will indeed be a unique milestone for Singapore if it is the year that consensus is reached on a distinct Singapore identity.
Clarence Lim is a Research Intern at IPS
Top photo from Flickr