Of immigrants and a more equitable Singapore
By Clement Tan from Asian Correspondent
When I was an undergraduate student at the National University of Singapore, I never understood why there were so many students from China in our school who were basically studying in NUS on a full ride, using taxpayers’ money to fund their education…and at the end of it, all they had to do was just to work for three years at a Singapore-registered company. I don’t know what the figures for compliance are like, but I was told most work around that requirement.
Forgive me for being too simplistic in my perception here, and I’ve got nothing against a more liberal talent policy, but it made me wonder: Is Singapore so desperate for foreign talent that we are willing to set our bar so low for a free education? The joke back then, totally unverified I must add, was that we were so desperate, even for China’s third-tier talent after the first two-tiers have left for the U.S. and Europe.
I am under no illusion that we should expect immigrants to switch their allegiance and loyalty to Singapore after studying in that little red dot of ours, even if they have been brought over as thirteen-year-old’s (yes, the Singapore government has intricate schemes bringing China students into Singapore schools at various stages). You can’t buy these things, these things are cultivated organically. Besides, it is our expectation that they switch their loyalty overnight — and not theirs.
Yes, Singaporeans still have a lot of growing up to do politically and socially, but at the same time, it is also realistic to expect the Singapore PAP government to put their electorate first before all else. It doesn’t have to compromise our commitment to free trade and a liberal migration policy…all it means, is for us to have some sort of dignity without being too arrogant. This is particularly urgent, as this Economist article illustrates how our mind-boggling GINI coefficient, second only to Hong Kong in the world, is threatening fragile economic and social fabric. Read this for a further illustration.
Yes, the government has taken steps to combat this problem, but I am not sure what slowing down the intake of migrants and investing in a new National Integration Council would do to help mitigate the present situation. Dr Vivian Balakrishnan said as much when he told The Economist that it may take years before success with integration is apparent…which makes me wonder: why don’t the Singapore government use the money to invest in our young people instead? What are they doing in the interim?
Honestly, I am not sure whether this is anything beyond a public relations problem for the Singapore PAP government. To give the PAP the benefit of the doubt, I am not sure if they aren’t doing things differently because they don’t want to, as much as they simply do not know how and what that alternative looks like.
This is a policy paradigm that would value well-being, going beyond the GDP and good employment figures to make sure that greater equity — note, not the utopia of equality — exists in Singapore society (including and especially the ministers’ wages). Maybe considering introducing greater sophistication into our social security system, as Mukul G. Asher and Amarendu Nandy from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy have suggested.
So the problem isn’t so much that we have so many foreign students being given free rides at our universities. It’s still a problem, but approaching it as a “problem” is a negative approach that deals with the phenonemon without resolving the conundrum. A “positive” problem-solving approach would be to consider ground realities and how it should matter in the overall picture. The greater problem is therefore, the government’s fundamental economic strategy for Singapore and how it contributes to increasing inequity in every aspects of Singapore society.
Source: Asian Correspondent
Loading ...
Anonymous on Tue, 17th Nov 2009 8:06 pm
Immigration influx, if poorly handled of quality intake, can be a long-term costs burden of albatross for generations to come beside seriously destablising our society tearing it at its seam.
Once trapped in overpopulation, our macro public policies will be severely constraint forward because we will be continuously struggling with resources limitation rather than searching for opportunities.
TL on Tue, 17th Nov 2009 8:56 pm
In fact, some government sponsored foreign students are just as ordinary as most of the local undergraduates. There are some who even have to struggle with their study and the question we should ask is why our government just squander the tax-payer money ?????
Anonymous on Tue, 17th Nov 2009 10:49 pm
… The greater problem is therefore, the government’s fundamental economic strategy for Singapore and how it contributes to increasing inequity in every aspects of Singapore society…..
Good concluding points.
If we noticed it carefully, it is disjointed incrementalism for macro-economic policies – in “small baby steps” of slow evolutionary of economic strategy based on cockroach capitalism of relying on foreigners, muddling through in public housing but REVOLUTIONARY QUANTUM LEAP in migration influx.
HOW CAN THE MIGRATION INFLUX NOT DESTABLISING of employment, housing, educational opportunities when the economy basically stalled since end of last year??
They moved and are still moving now at DIFFERENT PACE, so how could the essential pillars of our society – education, housing, and employment and economy generally gel and synchonised with leapfrogged migration influx??
The scholarly minds must have left their brains behind in the toilets of some ivory towers I assume.
ronin on Tue, 17th Nov 2009 11:27 pm
S’poreans alao shun national service….so using the logic of our brilliant ministers, shouldn’t we get foreigners to serve in our army????
qussl3 on Tue, 17th Nov 2009 11:33 pm
Misaligned incentives for policy makers has created this situation.
Currently, our policy makers justify their compensation by delivering nominal GDP growth. Whether nominal GDP growth actually translates to improved standards of living for citizens is not a consideration.
As far as my knowledge indicates, policy makers (ministerial) compensation is paid within a short window. This results in a situation where as long as nominal GDP is delivered on an annual basis, policy makers realize a tangible payoff (million dollar plus salaries). As that payoff is so substantial, the long term sustainability of policies being considered may be relegated to a secondary concern.
Much like how UK and US govts are considering regulation to force bankers to adopt compensation plans to encourage senior management to deliver long term value rather than take the easy route of outsized short term risk taking (which landed the world in the financial crisis), our policy makers need to be compensated in a manner where the welfare of singaporeans for the long term is the primary consideration .
Compensation is only a part of the solution, electoral reform to encourage political accountability is another critical piece towards more responsible policy making.
fair and square on Tue, 17th Nov 2009 11:37 pm
@Anonymous
Did they leave their brains? behind in the toilets,you were saying?..i think i better hurry down to those “ivory towers”
and get the’ singaporean’ toilet aunties to quickly flush those toilets so that we all could be saved form more misery?
what’s the use of “brains” if are full of “sh@ts”?!
Michael Chick on Tue, 17th Nov 2009 11:40 pm
Friends, we have all been looking in the wrong direction. Singaporeans are all seeing foreigners on SIngapore soil, as “taking advantage” of our tax Dollars. Well, not everything revolves around money. The much larger issue which no one seems to see, is on a scale much more grave than most would consider or want to believe.
Let me give you an ultra-quick history lesson. shortly after 1811, the majority of the Singapore Population arrived in boats. Yes, some came from Johore, but essentially the Population Gene Pool remained the same for the past 200 years or so. This is where the danger is. INCEST !!! If one removes all those incoming “migrants”, then you have an extremely serious in-breeding problem. I do not need to remind you of the dangers of incest. Nor do I need to remind you of the outcome in a very short period of time, Remember that up until last year, there were only 4.3 million Singaporeans on the island. If these numbers do not rise soon, you will start to have in-breeding with dire results in a very short period.
Go read up everything you can on in-breeding, and see if you will start to look for spouses from “outside” in a hurry …
I can almost hear you say, “Ooops…” now. Go spread the word quickly.
Peace.
fair and square on Wed, 18th Nov 2009 12:33 am
very simple…just go look for another honourable man-of -honour…get us another ‘goh keng swee’…founder,thinker,
long-term strategist,nation-builder and he was like some say
cheaper,better and i must add,his policies last longer.
true-blooded men of honour do not merely think of their
own sumptuos bread and butter,that’s why,quss13,they could think for “our” future! you get it?
qussl3 on Wed, 18th Nov 2009 3:37 am
@Fair and Square
Yeah sg needs long term planners not the current breed of “we deserve 2 million + a year cos we can more in the private sector” caliber ministers.
Public service should never be about compensation it is public SERVICE after all. Depending on outsized compensation as the central draw for talent to public SERVICE seems to attract individuals more concerned with meeting “goals” regardless of whether those “goals” actually serve the public good to justify and perpetuate their incumbency.
No one is saying that ministers should be paid a pittance but when their compensation is a 25 times the average GDP/capita (an already VERY generous measure of wages here), they begin to lose the moral footing that all politicians require.
Unhappy on Wed, 18th Nov 2009 4:34 am
ronin I couldn’t agreed with you more. I am beginning to doubt the value of NS when foreigners can eventually collect their IC easily without the need to serve NS, as long as they contributed sufficiently to the so call GDP. I really feel my 2 years wasted, especially when our government are funding foreigners school fees with taxpayers’ money and young Singaporeans on the other hand are paid pittance to serve NS, when they could have pursued further study earlier.
By the way, my request for deferment of reservice due to examination in April is rejected by MINDEF. And now I have to see a MP to help me write letter, again.
Eli James on Wed, 18th Nov 2009 5:27 am
It is interesting to note that while Singapore is struggling with the influx of foreign undergraduate students, America is welcoming them. They are welcoming the influx of brains, of talents, and of potential market leaders. One half of the Google founders immigrated from Russia at age 6, and is probably the single reason for a thousand more jobs today. America is reveling in its ability to create, to innovate, and it is powered by minds from other places.
My question is this: why is there such a difference in perception between Americans and Singaporeans? Both have good universities. Both have progressive immigration policies. America makes it easy for people to enter for education, not only because they hope to be paid (i.e.: their education industry), but also because they hope these people would then settle down in America, to contribute to the economy). Singapore has both as well. So what is different?
The answer, I believe, lies in integration. For some strange reason, people are more inclined to become American than they are to be Singaporean. Why? I have my theories; I am sure you will have yours. One of them could be that Singapore lacks a compelling narrative, one that may appeal to immigrants. The other may be that it lacks a national identity – a soul; that immigrants still view it as a place to go to make money, not as a potential home.
Having undergraduates study in Singaporean universities is not the problem – in fact, it would be quite the opposite if this compelling policy were to disappear. It makes perfect sense – devious sense, even – to build yourself into an innovation hub on the minds of others. To be the destination of the brain-drain of other countries. The question, then, is that of integration. Or perhaps of finding other compelling reasons for immigrants that are not so expensive, so taxing on the Singaporean citizen.
But this cannot happen without a soul, or a narrative, and as that does not yet exist I cannot say how or where this compelling reason would come. But I can say this, surely as LKY’s hair is white: get rid of the ‘free rides’, and you get rid of the opportunity of a lifetime.
Autocracy foster innovation fat hope on Wed, 18th Nov 2009 11:30 am
Eli James on Wed, 18th Nov 2009 5:27 am
……”.It is interesting to note that while Singapore is struggling with the influx of foreign undergraduate students, America is welcoming them……America is reveling in its ability to create, to innovate, and it is powered by minds from other places……….My question is this: why is there such a difference in perception between Americans and Singaporeans…… So what is different?……For some strange reason, people are more inclined to become American than they are to be Singaporean. Why? I have my theories; I am sure you will have yours…..”
Good points of observations and questioning. America is FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT from Singapore. America is BIG AND ALREADY ON THE CUTTING EDGE OF INNOVATION AS ALWAYS. Knowledge is an expanding circle, the more you discover, the more you will find you DON’T KNOW and need to explore further. Has Singapore any invention in any field that open the pathway since independence?? ZILCH!! America therefore has a critical mass of research already just like the Israelis military establishment’s researc prowness for military and civilian use application. Singapore has NONE.
The next question is why is there such a poverty of innovation success. IT IS EDUCATION AND EDUCATION PHILOSOPY. Ours is like robotic rote learning, cramping knwoledge whether it is relevant or irrelevant to new frontier of discovery or outdated knowledge of limited application. This is like China where the masses learn enough to be good workers but not innovators. China is the factory of the earth, not the science laboratory discovery centre of the world. Even India leads the world in software IT technology. We can’t be there!
Why? The society AND EDUCATION SYSTEM IS TOO OPPRESSIVE TO ENCOURAGE CRITICAL THINKING AND LEARNING. Ask yourself this simple question – how is the creativity in learning going to thrive in a sea of political oppression of all thoughts including the Universities? A nominated MP, Wiswa Sadasivan asked the Universities here be DE-POLITICISED, WHAT WAS THE GOVERNMENT RESPONSE?? We all know, it is hostile of openness.
To hope for creative innovation in our institutions of higher learning is like pulling a ripple from a 5 cent-size piece of puddle at best and at worse, farting on earth expecting the moon to hear the tremor.
Every other strong democracies like USA, UK, Australia, Germany, France, Sweden, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, India Israel and Korea all engender innovation and technology. Of course one might rebut me to say Russia is autocratic but nuclear capable. The falsity of this argument is Russian technology is solely military and nothing else.
Are we prepared for this kind of educational “perestroika” the way British universities reform is now heading.
http://www.uwe.ac.uk/solar/Publications/Recreating_Universities.pdf
I BET NOT – politically it is too dangerous to experiment for Government here and too politically threatening.
In a stifling climate of oppression in society, how is creativity going to achieve a sudden burst of inspiration in thinking and learning in universities and our research laboratory.
WE WILL NOT GET A SERGER BRIGIN OR A LARRY PAGE in Singapore. Which is why Creative Technology has to be listed in the USA!Our only innovation success story has been EXPORTED to thrive.
So the simple answer to your point is – IT IS INTEGRATION OF MIGRANT not by the people of Singapore or Govcernment BUT IT IS THE INTEGRATION OF THE PEOPLE OF SINGAPORE INCLUDING MIGRANT BY THE AUTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT IS THE STUMBLING BLOCK.
But that won’t change – probably my life-time AND maybe YOURS AS WELL.
Autocracy foster innovation fat hope on Wed, 18th Nov 2009 12:30 pm
Eli James on Wed, 18th Nov 2009 5:27 am
See the kind of UNTHINKING ROBOTIC BEHAVIOUR in Singapore society after years of conditioning?
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/cna/20091117/tap-797-dover-park-hospice-fund-raising-231650b.html
People behave like stupid caterpillars – one follows the other!
Autocracy foster innovation fat hope on Wed, 18th Nov 2009 12:34 pm
Eli James on Wed, 18th Nov 2009 5:27 am
This is a good example of UNTHINKING ROBOTIC behaviours in Singaporeans after years of conditioning.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/cna/20091117/tap-797-dover-park-hospice-fund-raising-231650b.html
People behave like stupid caterpillars – one follow the other.
Eli James on Wed, 18th Nov 2009 7:45 pm
@Autocracy foster innovation fat hope:
I quote thee: WE WILL NOT GET A SERGER BRIGIN (sic) OR A LARRY PAGE in Singapore.
Your confidence is quite infectious. I’m sure many young Singaporeans would be heartened to know that they can never be creative or clever, even before they try.
Time for Change on Thu, 19th Nov 2009 10:58 pm
Yes, it is true that only the foreign trash is coming to Singapore after being rejected in the US, Europe and Australia.
I will never understands why the MIW are keeping their legs wide open for any Tom,Dick or Harry to come here.
But one thing I know is that I am voting for Change.
Don't cry for me, Singapore on Thu, 19th Nov 2009 11:50 pm
How could immigrant afford a more equitable treatment and sharing of Singapore?
With so much advantages hardly differentiable to citizen which has other onerous burden of military service and reservist commitment disruptions to career, WHICH DUMB PR would convert to citizenship to lock himself/herself into such similar disadvantages (just like the overly generous but immeasurably stupid host of Singapore and Singaporeans) when PR is just ideal and enabling of them to cut cake and eat it exclusively?.
All these while Singaporeans continues in baking them for the immigrants’ ever ready and eager to maximise of these opportunities?
Why should they stupidly sacrifice themselves to unnecessarily endure the contraint of citizenship conversion to the known advantages of newcomers of fresh PRs when they are on the same gravvy train?
Singapore is exploited to temporary good use by foreign PRs because of its own stupidity.