Getting
darker
The immigration debate
A very rational write-up on one of Singapore’s hottest
topics. By Bart JP
Mar 7, 2007
Discussing
immigration often brings out the worst in people. In an
ironic way, this is entirely consistent with the behaviour
of Homo Economicus, the rational self-interested man. Since
he cares only about his own well-being, economic science
therefore finds it perfectly reasonable that he should react
strongly to any threat to his livelihood or lifestyle –
which immigration is perceived to be.
Wayne
Soon wrote a thoughtful article that argued for the issue
of immigration be settled through research – I gathered
by which he meant for policy to be based on rational and
substantial research into the impact of immigration. If
there are indeed methods and data to support research, this
is without doubt a good way forward. My fear, however, is
that no amount of research or evidence can really 'settle'
this issue.
This
situation is analogous to the trade debate. All mainstream
theories point to the fact that freer trade will always
bring about overall welfare gain for the country. But the
theories also acknowledge trade will create winners and
losers. Similarly, while most objective research in the
US/UK points to the overall benefits of immigration, there
are also some segments of society that will lose out economically.
This fact alone is enough to ensure that no matter how much
science one puts into formulating immigration policy, it
will always end up a political dance.
Watching
the immigration debate in the UK gives a first-hand experience
on how complicated this dance can become. In the last election,
the Tories proposed an annual immigration cap ('controlled
immigration' as they termed it). The Labour party duly rubbished
that and extolled the benefits of immigration, and at the
same time painted their opponents as a party of xenophobes.
Nevertheless, when the new states (Bulgaria, Romania) entered
the EU, the Labour government fearing a popular backlash,
slapped restrictions on their free entry and promised to
lift these only in the future. The Tories, under the new
leadership, has since ditched the 'controlled immigration'
line to soften their image. But this opened a gap for right-wing
extremists who plied on immigration fears to hammer the
Tories at local elections. Even the Tories are not right-wing
enough as far as some citizens are concerned. This Financial
Times article shows why. In the US, things are not much
better as both parties appear fractured within themselves
on how to deal with the illegal Mexicans. Immigration continues
to be one of the most divisive issues confronting the main
political parties.
In Singapore,
the mainstream media has definitely discussed the issue
in a balanced manner - pointing to the benefits of immigration
while also raising the concerns of some citizens - probably
only because it is state controlled.
However, a dark thread is definitely emerging in some blogs:
some bloggers make the claim that the ruling party is embracing
immigration to dilute or even overwhelm the political power
of native Singaporeans. Here are some examples I have picked
from various blogs.
"VOTE
VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE.....I'm rich and you are not. I voted
to keep it that way. You were too chicken to do anything.
Right now we are turning so many foreign workers into citizens.
In 3 years time, these foreign workers will VOTE the PAP
in again. Hahahahaha....I win. You dumb Singaporeans lose
AGAIN! hahahahahahah..... "
"But
who cares, I suppose there are plenty of China nationals
who are perfectly willing to take our places, and the economic
machine will trundle on. Current residents don’t matter
as long as they can be easily replaced by other units of
economic productivity."
"In
recent years most ordinary Singaporeans express frustration
with GDP growth because it only means higher cost of living
for them. They have to learn to see the bigger picture,
with a bigger population, corporations especially the GLCs
will have fatter profits - that to the PAP government can
only be a good thing. What do you expect the government
to do when its companies cannot grow profits because Singaporeans
are unable afford more of their services, import people
who can....better still, make them Singaporeans and dilute
away the poverty problem. "
"The
reason is simple: We are desperate for more Singaporeans
- as opposed to PRs. We need Singaporeans who love the PAP
style of government, who vote for PAP and who can fill in
those semi-sensitive positions in the defence and various
ministries and stats board and GLCs!
And what better way to brainwash them than when they are
young and impressionable and when we can teach them National
Education and the 5 core values via compulsory civics education
lesson in primary and secondary school and teach them "the
Singapore story" through school outings to the Discovery
Centre (the one in Jurong)?"
"When
it comes to elections, these foreigners will of course vote
for PAP. After all, all they know is that the government
has rolled out the red carpet with open arms at the painful
expense of the locals for them."
Whether
this is the tip of the iceberg or not, here we have a uniquely
Singaporean phenomenon. As if the debate over immigration
is not complicated enough, there are some early troubling
signs that some Singaporeans are beginning to project their
unhappiness with government policies onto immigrants, who
are seen as the government's allied constituents.
However
nasty the immigration debate sometimes becomes here in the
UK, there is at least no suggestion whatsoever that immigrants
are ganging up with any particular party to marginalise
the citizens.
Some
of the remarks almost insult the intelligence of immigrants,
as if they will become undiscerning PAP voters once they
join Singapore.
It is
too easy to mix unhappiness with government policies with
fear and prejudices against immigrants, as the above quotes
suggest.
This
is highly counter-productive and makes it ever less likely
for the society to form some sort of a consensus on how
to move forward on this issue.
Thankfully,
most bloggers remain commendably balanced in their views
when discussing the issue of immigration. This is a sense
of decency we could all do well to uphold.
Posted by Bart JP on Feb 10, 2007
Comments
I doubt
what you said was a uniquely Singaporean phenomenon isn't
so unique. I reckon it's just one of the many manifestations
of the feelings against a) PAP b) More foreigners WITH qualifications
c) Both.
Immigration is always and everywhere a hot potato topic.
Even in Singapore I doubt the PAP will dare, for lack of
a better word, to ram through a more liberal immigration
policy.
However this is still rather speculative, since the PAP
government has never been known to back down from a policy
position they pushed earnestly in the first place.
Policy-making isn't such a hard thing to study in Singapore
unlike other countries, cabinet ministers decide based on
some figures and projections.
They listen to some arguments for and maybe some against,
weighing what they feel its necessary based on what they
think is good for the nation down the road XX years, they
decide on the policy. The rest is "easy".
Thus I doubt they will change much from their initial position
for an enlarged population. Personally I don't really like
it.
Since there is always an element of me, a native, having
to adjust to the presence of foreign elements. I believe
you recognise this point in yawning bread sampler blog.
By ted,
Hi
Ted,
Honestly, I personally don't find it comfortable to have
many immigrants. But I also recognise Singapore practically
has very little choice on this.
More than GST, this must be one 'bitter medicine', hard
to swallow but definitely good in the long run. As you would
no doubt have read in the media, immigration debate has
gone on and on without resolution, and with increasing hysteria,
in US and Europe.
Maybe, just maybe, this is one issue the government should
debate less and 'ram through' our throats. Ouch.
By Bart JP
http://perspectiveunlimited.blogspot.com/2007/02/getting-darker-immigration-debate.html
