One united nation: What has fuelled the 'us vs them' sentiment in Singapore, and how will we move ahead?

Janice Heng

Published Fri, Aug 6, 2021 · 05:06 PM

ON Monday, Singapore will mark its second National Day spent in Covid-19 times. The businesses and people of this cosmopolitan city yearn for borders to reopen safely; while the pandemic has underscored the importance of solidarity on this tiny island, which both residents and non-residents currently call home.

Yet the pandemic's pressures have also stirred up calls for stricter border closures, and hostility towards those seen as being outsiders.

One focus has been the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA), a trade agreement signed in 2005 that has resurfaced in public discourse in recent years - often with a xenophobic tone.

In Parliament on July 6, Health Minister Ong Ye Kung and Manpower Minister Tan See Leng addressed questions about foreign professionals, managers and executives (PMEs), free trade agreements (FTAs) and CECA.

Some of these queries were from Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) of the Progress Singapore Party (PSP), which plans to file a motion on those issues. The ministers set out arguments for FTAs and foreign talent, and clarified misconceptions about CECA.

Yet broader questions remain. What fuels this animosity? To what extent is it addressed by existing arguments? And what else can be done?

The -phobia in xenophobia

This fear of foreigners - as xenophobia might be etymologically understood - is partly an economic fear, say sociologists.

National University of Singapore (NUS) associate professor Vincent Chua cites the split labour market theory, raised by Edna Bonacich in the 1970s, but "extremely relevant today". This is when two groups of workers do similar work, but one is paid less - in this case, foreign workers. (see amendment note)

For businesses, lower-cost labour is more attractive. "Meanwhile, resentment grows among the locals towards the foreigner group whom they 'perceive' to be taking away their jobs, even if that perception is unfounded."

NUS associate professor Daniel Goh notes three groups to which the bases of xenophobia are linked in many advanced economies: the working classes for whom globalisation has had adverse effects; the middle classes who have not benefited as much as others; and "the politicising of a narrow, extremist nationalism", with the idea that migrants are "stealing the benefits" of globalisation.

In Singapore's case, the latter two factors seem to be in play, with two additional ones, says Dr Goh. One is proximity: "We are a city-state, one of the densest cities in the world, and the migrant workers share our urban spaces as our close neighbours." Another factor is that "CECA, as an FTA, is a ready symbol acting as a lightning rod to capture all the xenophobic energies"

"The recent focus on CECA is linked to a specific economic anxiety: the 'squeezed' middle classes who have been shaken by the disruptions of globalisation," he adds. "I believe this anxiety is projected on all PMET migrants, whether they are from India, China or the Philippines, especially when they are also neighbours."

Covid-19 has not helped matters. Says Nanyang Technological University (NTU) assistant professor Laavanya Kathiravelu: "The pandemic has no doubt put additional economic pressures on the population as a whole and generated anxieties."

Besides the perception that elite migrants take away resources such as jobs, many foreigners may appear to have a higher standard of living than the average Singaporean as they live in condominiums and send their children to private schools - even though that may be due to lack of access to public options, she adds.

"This negativity is also linked to increasing numbers of foreign migrants in our midst - issues of increased visibility. Non-Singaporeans are now not just working in specific industries or living in enclaves such as Bukit Timah, but work across a range of professions and live in HDB estates."

Perceptions of greater visibility may occur even if actual numbers have not risen much. In December 2019, before Covid-19 hit, there were 193,700 Employment Pass (EP) holders, up from 187,900 in 2015 - a growth of just 3 per cent over four years. By December 2020, amid the pandemic, the figure had fallen to 177,100.

There may also be a sense of "cultural threats", adds Dr Chua, such as the perception that new arrivals have norms or practices that do not conform to those of the host society.

Covid-19 has exacerbated public anxieties, not just with economic precarity, but also public health uncertainties, says Yasmine Wong, senior analyst at the Centre of Excellence for National Security in NTU's S Rajaratnam School of International Studies. "In situations of helplessness and frustration, fear has fuelled the desire for scapegoats."

"However, it is important to note that xenophobic sentiments in Singapore did not begin with the pandemic, and have always featured heavily in the politics of immigration locally," she adds, citing the example of the "Singaporeans first" or "Singapore for Singaporeans" narrative which harks back to protests against the Population White Paper of 2013.

Of course, to acknowledge the economic underpinnings of some xenophobic sentiments is not to excuse their expression; nor does it imply that all racist or xenophobic sentiment has that source.

Dr Goh notes, for instance, that anti-immigration sentiments "can interact with existing racism against Indians" and erupt in racist episodes.

Says Ms Wong: "While these feelings of economic abandonment should be heard and addressed, the fact that they are expressed through xenophobic and racist discourse is a cause for concern."

Unlike legislation to quell threats against racial and religious harmony, the "formal apparatus to counter xenophobia in Singapore falls short", she says: "The combination of the lack of legislation against xenophobia, and the justification of xenophobia as the mere expression of economic anxieties rather than an emotional response or outright discrimination, has normalised anti-foreign sentiments."

While racism remains taboo, xenophobia has entered public discourse, becoming a means via which racism is often expressed, she adds.

Fairness and reassurance

The economic case for foreign labour has been made many times. Given the limited size and rising age of Singapore's workforce, "to meet the needs of our economy and businesses, foreign manpower is needed to augment our Singapore core", says Singapore Business Federation chief executive officer Lam Yi Young.

"Having access to sufficient manpower and global talent is crucial to support the growth of our economy and for businesses to be able to create and secure good jobs for Singaporeans," he adds.

Some foreign workers help to fill jobs that are unattractive to Singaporeans. Others help "to bridge critical skills gaps in high skills areas like digital technology, advanced manufacturing, and cutting-edge research", and Singapore would not be able to attract such investments without them.

"Third, the posting of foreign employees in and out of Singapore is an essential part of the smooth operations of multinational companies using Singapore as their regional or global hub," says Mr Lam.

That said, firms must keep reskilling and upskilling local employees, and facilitate the transfer of "niche and business-critical skills" to local employees, to build a sustainable pipeline of local talent, he adds.

In a July 15 Institute of Policy Studies lecture, Monetary Authority of Singapore managing director Ravi Menon called for the "affective divide" to be resolved, saying: "Singapore cannot afford to be seen either as lacking in opportunity for our own citizens or unwelcoming of foreigners."

He suggested higher minimum qualifying salaries for S Pass and EP holders, as well as stricter penalties for discriminatory hiring.

In Parliament on July 6, Mr Ong and Dr Tan reiterated the need to stay open to talent, which helps create jobs for locals, and recapped measures to ensure fair competition.

Yet perhaps the very fact of this repetition suggests that these points have not been entirely successful in assuaging unhappiness.

What are some reasons that these grievances endure? Firstly, existing measures may be perceived to lack the force of formal legislation.

Calls for anti-discrimination legislation in hiring have been made over the years, not least by labour MPs. Following the ministers' speeches on July 6, labour MP Patrick Tay called for strong enforcement and stiffer penalties against discriminatory hiring, while Louis Ng asked if the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices could be legislated.

In a July 8 speech in the Singapore International Chamber of Commerce Distinguished Speaker Series, Workers' Party (WP) MP and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh argued for the need to address nativism through progressive legislation.

While the WP supports the existing Fair Consideration Framework in principle, their view is that "there is room for it to be more activist and it needs to have more teeth", he said. He called for the government "to seriously consider anti-discrimination legislation with statutory penalties".

On July 26, Dr Tan announced a new Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness to consider whether legislation is "the best policy option". Its deliberations and conclusion will undoubtedly be closely watched.

But while legal reassurance might help, it too is only a partial answer.

A second possible reason for continued unhappiness is that the macroeconomic argument about the benefits of being open to foreign labour may not resonate with those whose lived experiences suggest otherwise.

"We cannot ignore the economic imperative, but it also cannot be the only and central guiding principle," says Dr Kathiravelu.

"There needs to be an acknowledgement that many Singaporeans are feeling stresses of having to compete with foreigners - and new citizens, as this distinction is not always clear - in the workplace, as well as for homes in HDB estates and school placements."

Says Singapore University of Social Sciences associate professor Leong Chan-Hoong: "Importantly, the benefit from immigration or foreign talent is reported as a collective good, but the impact of competition from foreigners is felt at the individual level."

Though there are many initiatives for workers to reskill, not every displaced worker who feels they have been outcompeted by foreigners may be able to find an ideal job. But at another level, the fear of competition might stem from a more basic fear of not being able to get by.

Prof Leong suggests that one way to cushion the effects of economic disruption is by providing a comprehensive social safety net: "That, at the very minimum, gives you the reassurance that so long as you do your best, we can ensure that your standard of living will not be compromised."

In many respects, the current unhappiness has to do with "the middle class feeling increasingly disenfranchised as costs of living become increasingly higher in Singapore, without wages necessarily keeping up," says Dr Kathiravelu.

"Taking further steps to indicate that rising inequality is undesirable for social harmony, and that it is the average Singaporean worker who is being placed at the centre of policy decisions would send a meaningful message."

Of course, she adds, this has to be alongside more grassroots efforts at workplaces, schools and neighbourhoods to encourage integration, as well as fostering stronger civic organisations that draw from both local and non-local populations.

Who we are, where we come from

Along with economic reassurance, then, there is a need to encourage social integration and acceptance. But Dr Goh flags a disquieting possibility: that some sentiments, once rooted, may be hard to weed out.

"The government has tried to emphasise the open nature of Singapore's society and the migrant origins of our country at many levels to encourage Singaporeans to treat the foreigners in our midst with equal generosity and welcome," he says.

"Unfortunately, xenophobic sentiments come from a very deep place of anxiety and resentment. The belief among some members of the public that CECA is stealing jobs from Singaporeans is reaching conspiracy theory level, where facts and evidence can be reframed and reinterpreted to bolster the belief or explained away."

In the July 6 debate, Mr Singh suggested that earlier data could have arrested the spread of xenophobia.

In 2016, then-NCMP Leon Perera had asked for the number of intra-corporate transferees (ICTs) in Singapore under CECA. The reply then was that Ministry of Manpower (MOM) does not disclose data on foreign manpower with a breakdown by nationality, noted Mr Singh.

But this February, replying to PSP NCMP Leong Mun Wai, MOM disclosed that ICTs accounted for about 5 per cent of EP holders. On July 6 itself, Dr Tan revealed that in 2020, only 500 ICTs were from India.

Mr Singh said that there is "the opportunity to quell or at least to nip some of these issues in the bud when they start moving into the realm of xenophobia and nativism", by making information available.

If the ICT figure had been revealed earlier, "a lot of the misunderstanding and the reaction we see about CECA could have been addressed and actually nipped in the bud", he added.

Ms Wong agrees that greater transparency and data could help dispel speculation "and quell fears of what is perceived to be the rapidly changing social demographics of Singapore".

But Dr Goh, a former WP NCMP who has retired from politics, says: "It may help somewhat, but I am not optimistic." With the decline of traditional trusted communication channels and the rise of social media echo chambers, the facts can be ignored.

"The issue is deeply structural, with deep socio-economic roots," he adds, asking rhetorically: Why the focus on CECA now, and not in the 2013 Population White Paper debates?

"I think it all goes back to the labour market disruptions being faced by Singaporean PMETs in the last five to six years, which means that this is not about globalisation per se, but about the pains of skills mismatch and structural economic transformation to industry 4.0 that Singapore has been facing."

Prof Leong points to an even larger structural question. Amid economic transformation, there is an existential elephant in the room: "The current rhetoric suggests that we have no choice but to keep increasing foreign labour. Where is the end point?"

The repeated emphasis on the economic imperative for foreign labour, combined with the lack of a "well-defined population blueprint", may imply that Singaporeans will become the minority at home, he adds. Yet that model - where foreign workers outnumber citizens, as in the United Arab Emirates - is probably one that Singapore wishes to avoid.

"Beyond transparency, we also need an open, candid national conversation on the next lap regarding population and the contour of our workforce beyond 2030" - the year of the 2013 Population White Paper's projections. This debate is perhaps one for the next white paper, he adds.

Beyond abstract economic arguments, bread-and-butter fears may be addressed with improvements to workers' material conditions. Cultural and existential anxieties do not have such concrete answers. The question is, quite simply, what sort of country Singapore wants to be.

"It will be useful for the government to show exactly how many Singaporean jobs were created as a result of foreign labour," says Dr Chua. "But besides the economics, foreigners create value in other ways too - for example, they add social diversity to Singapore, which enriches our society."

"The fact is that we need foreigners. But we should not see them in terms of their 'use value' - rather their intrinsic value, in terms of the social diversity, economic diversity and values they bring to our society."

Beyond economic arguments and greater transparency on data, "there is a fundamental need for a common understanding of the Singaporean identity that is more inclusive and is not predicated against the foreign 'other'", says Ms Wong.

The pandemic has called for the solidarity and cooperation of everyone on this island, even those who are not technically "resident". Perhaps this year's quiet National Day is a chance to reflect on how even those who are not Singaporeans are very much a part of Singapore.

READ MORE:

Amendment note: An earlier version of this article incorrectly referred to Vincent Chua as an assistant professor. He is an associate professor. The story has been amended accordingly.