- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=1]‘Unacceptable nearly 40% of population is made up of
foreigners’[/h]<cite class="byline vcard">
By Andrew
Loh
</cite>
Xenophobia in Singapore has raised
concern among government ministers and members of the public. (AFP
photo)
COMMENT
Since the release of the first part of the video recording on the forum on
xenophobia, some have questioned why the bloggers involved did not outright
condemn xenophobic expression online and offline. The forum, called
"Online|Offline", is an initiative by several bloggers to discuss the hot issues
of the day. Xenophobia was the topic chosen for the inaugural forum.
First, there is a misunderstanding that the forum is some sort of "movement"
against xenophobia. It was never intended to be. The purpose of the dialogue was
to kickstart discussion on the matter, especially online, on the issues related
to the topic. Also, the bloggers each have their own views on the matter, and
they do not — whether individually or collectively — represent other bloggers or
the blogging community as a whole.
But what about the topic itself, which has raised concern among government
ministers and members of the public? I do not believe we are at the stage where
xenophobia — the irrational fear or hatred for foreigners or things foreign — is
a serious matter for the moment. I do, however, believe that we are headed in
that direction, if we do nothing to look into it and fix the root cause or
causes.
Singaporeans, as filmmaker Martyn See said at the forum, have always welcomed foreigners.
Singaporeans, as indeed people anywhere, were not born xenophobic. In our
island, especially, which has always been opened to foreign influences,
Singaporeans are by and large accepting of foreigners and things foreign. Just
look around you — in entertainment, at work, etc. We have and enjoy pleasures
from many different and diverse nations and cultures.
That is not to say, however, that there is no unhappiness about the number of
foreigners in our midst, or that there is no fear of how this has influenced the
way we live, work and play. It has affected our way of life,
there are no doubts about it. Just look at the public transport system, the
prices of public housing flats, the weekend at the parks, or even your
neighbourhood.
There is unhappiness and most of us recognise this.
And this has led to the expression, online and offline, of anger towards
members of the expat or foreign community. Some irrational while others more
measured. All, however, are an extension of a deeper malaise — which, to put it
bluntly, has emerged from a government policy which was ill-conceived.
While the government has explained that the influx of 2
million foreigners (WOW) onto our
shores was an economic necessity — we either take advantage of the opportunities
which come our way or we will lose out — questions of the wisdom of allowing
such an open-door policy, especially on the consequences for our social cohesion
and infrastructural readiness, is now being raised.
The Prime Minister has tweaked some of his government's policies to "put
Singaporeans first". And so we see certain policies tilted to weigh more in
favour of Singaporeans. While these are welcomed, the more important issue is
the presence of the 2 million foreigners which the government has said little
about, except to reiterate that we need them for our economic progress. "More investments leads to more jobs which means more
foreigners", a Straits Times headline said.
That is all well and good, except that the everyday reality of life here is
causing social friction and unhappiness. And these are not limited to
Singaporeans alone. The foreigners themselves are increasingly feeling it too.
In the end, we may end up with both sides being unhappy and suspicious of each
other. We may have economic growth — but we will be a society divided. And that is a tinderbox waiting for a match.
Where do we go from here then?
First, we need to go beyond the labelling of expression of unhappiness as
xenophobic or xenophobia. These negative sentiments did not arise because
Singaporeans were born with them. They are more pronounced now, in the last few
years especially, because of national policies. While we may condemn xenophobic
expression, it would be folly to think that that is all that we need to do to
rein in xenophobia, or even these negative sentiments.
Second, we do seriously need a national dialogue on our economic strategy,
going forward. If the presence of 2 million foreigners is directly linked to our
economic growth, as the government has constantly insisted, then we need to
decide — as a nation — if this is what we want to continue to do, or if there is
another way forward.
Third, we must, despite all the unhappiness, realise the great potential that
Singapore has to truly become a great city. The fundamental pre-requisites to be
one are already there. We will next need to adopt a more global mindset to
accept the presence of foreigners, as our city continues to evolve into
something greater.
The crux of the matter then is how do we strike that sweet spot where we have
a good balance between the number of foreigners and economic growth. Both are
important. The unhappiness is that we have missed that spot and have veered
towards an irrational dependence on foreign talent and labour.
To resolve this whole conundrum, we will need for everyone to have a say, and
for the government to heed the voices which are coming from the ground.
It is unacceptable that almost 40 per cent of our
population is made up of foreigners. No other country on earth, besides Dubai,
has such a large proportion of foreigners. Is it then any surprise that
this has led to fear of or expression of xenophobia?
Instead of looking at the irrational outbursts of unhappiness in some
quarters, we should instead look at the irrational policies which have given
rise to them. How else will we root out such sentiments if not to look at the
root cause?
And that, in a nutshell, was something which all the bloggers at the forum
agreed on.
Andrew helms publichouse.sg as Editor-in-Chief. His writings have been
reproduced in other publications, including the Australian Housing Journal in
2010. He was nominated by Yahoo! Singapore as one of Singapore's most
influential media persons in 2011.
@yahooSG on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook
[h=4][/h]
foreigners’[/h]<cite class="byline vcard">
By Andrew
Loh
</cite>
Xenophobia in Singapore has raised concern among government ministers and members of the public. (AFP
photo)
COMMENT
Since the release of the first part of the video recording on the forum on
xenophobia, some have questioned why the bloggers involved did not outright
condemn xenophobic expression online and offline. The forum, called
"Online|Offline", is an initiative by several bloggers to discuss the hot issues
of the day. Xenophobia was the topic chosen for the inaugural forum.
First, there is a misunderstanding that the forum is some sort of "movement"
against xenophobia. It was never intended to be. The purpose of the dialogue was
to kickstart discussion on the matter, especially online, on the issues related
to the topic. Also, the bloggers each have their own views on the matter, and
they do not — whether individually or collectively — represent other bloggers or
the blogging community as a whole.
But what about the topic itself, which has raised concern among government
ministers and members of the public? I do not believe we are at the stage where
xenophobia — the irrational fear or hatred for foreigners or things foreign — is
a serious matter for the moment. I do, however, believe that we are headed in
that direction, if we do nothing to look into it and fix the root cause or
causes.
Singaporeans, as filmmaker Martyn See said at the forum, have always welcomed foreigners.
Singaporeans, as indeed people anywhere, were not born xenophobic. In our
island, especially, which has always been opened to foreign influences,
Singaporeans are by and large accepting of foreigners and things foreign. Just
look around you — in entertainment, at work, etc. We have and enjoy pleasures
from many different and diverse nations and cultures.
That is not to say, however, that there is no unhappiness about the number of
foreigners in our midst, or that there is no fear of how this has influenced the
way we live, work and play. It has affected our way of life,
there are no doubts about it. Just look at the public transport system, the
prices of public housing flats, the weekend at the parks, or even your
neighbourhood.
There is unhappiness and most of us recognise this.
And this has led to the expression, online and offline, of anger towards
members of the expat or foreign community. Some irrational while others more
measured. All, however, are an extension of a deeper malaise — which, to put it
bluntly, has emerged from a government policy which was ill-conceived.
While the government has explained that the influx of 2
million foreigners (WOW) onto our
shores was an economic necessity — we either take advantage of the opportunities
which come our way or we will lose out — questions of the wisdom of allowing
such an open-door policy, especially on the consequences for our social cohesion
and infrastructural readiness, is now being raised.
The Prime Minister has tweaked some of his government's policies to "put
Singaporeans first". And so we see certain policies tilted to weigh more in
favour of Singaporeans. While these are welcomed, the more important issue is
the presence of the 2 million foreigners which the government has said little
about, except to reiterate that we need them for our economic progress. "More investments leads to more jobs which means more
foreigners", a Straits Times headline said.
That is all well and good, except that the everyday reality of life here is
causing social friction and unhappiness. And these are not limited to
Singaporeans alone. The foreigners themselves are increasingly feeling it too.
In the end, we may end up with both sides being unhappy and suspicious of each
other. We may have economic growth — but we will be a society divided. And that is a tinderbox waiting for a match.
Where do we go from here then?
First, we need to go beyond the labelling of expression of unhappiness as
xenophobic or xenophobia. These negative sentiments did not arise because
Singaporeans were born with them. They are more pronounced now, in the last few
years especially, because of national policies. While we may condemn xenophobic
expression, it would be folly to think that that is all that we need to do to
rein in xenophobia, or even these negative sentiments.
Second, we do seriously need a national dialogue on our economic strategy,
going forward. If the presence of 2 million foreigners is directly linked to our
economic growth, as the government has constantly insisted, then we need to
decide — as a nation — if this is what we want to continue to do, or if there is
another way forward.
Third, we must, despite all the unhappiness, realise the great potential that
Singapore has to truly become a great city. The fundamental pre-requisites to be
one are already there. We will next need to adopt a more global mindset to
accept the presence of foreigners, as our city continues to evolve into
something greater.
The crux of the matter then is how do we strike that sweet spot where we have
a good balance between the number of foreigners and economic growth. Both are
important. The unhappiness is that we have missed that spot and have veered
towards an irrational dependence on foreign talent and labour.
To resolve this whole conundrum, we will need for everyone to have a say, and
for the government to heed the voices which are coming from the ground.
It is unacceptable that almost 40 per cent of our
population is made up of foreigners. No other country on earth, besides Dubai,
has such a large proportion of foreigners. Is it then any surprise that
this has led to fear of or expression of xenophobia?
Instead of looking at the irrational outbursts of unhappiness in some
quarters, we should instead look at the irrational policies which have given
rise to them. How else will we root out such sentiments if not to look at the
root cause?
And that, in a nutshell, was something which all the bloggers at the forum
agreed on.
Andrew helms publichouse.sg as Editor-in-Chief. His writings have been
reproduced in other publications, including the Australian Housing Journal in
2010. He was nominated by Yahoo! Singapore as one of Singapore's most
influential media persons in 2011.
@yahooSG on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook
[h=4][/h]
