Xenophobia In Singapore - Myth or Reality

Xenophobia is generally defined as an intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries. What was initially described as a psychological disposition of people towards foreigners has in recent times been ascribed to intergroup relations in the context of mass migration.

Xenophobia has been manifested as rejection, fear and hatred of an ethnic group by the society because it is not considered as part of that society. The group may be comprised of recent immigrants or already settled members of the community. Xenophobia feeds on the ideas of differences between cultures. Both lead to stereotyping, prejudice, bias, discrimination, intolerance and even aggression.

The mechanisms that lead to mass xenophobic attitudes have not been fully studied yet. Collective fear may have a basis in creating a strong solidarity in  groups, and  affiliations claiming protection of  interests tend to create a wedge against the out-group.  

Economic factors could also play an important role in determining attitudes to foreigners. At times of economic boom migrants are needed to fill in shortages of low skilled labor, deficiencies in qualified staff or for a quick transfer of technologies through the import of professionals. Migrants are at best tolerated during times of plenty, but when resources become scarce they could be considered the cause of problems.

In Singapore, comments in on-line forums recently have been labelled  xenophobic and   netizens have been advised to exercise caution in commenting about migrants.

International Migration and Problems of Managing Diversity

A  UN/ ILO Publication in 2001  mentioned  then that  one in every 50 human beings is a migrant worker, a refugee or asylum seeker, or an immigrant living in a ‘foreign’ country. The U N and the International Organization for Migration claim that some 150 million people live temporarily or permanently outside their countries of origin (2.5% of the world’s population). Majority of these, 80-97 million, are migrant workers and members of their families.. Another 12 million are refugees outside their country of origin.  The paper highlighted  a growing number of countries have become or are becoming more multi-ethnic, and are confronted with the challenge of accommodating peoples of different cultures, races, religions and languages. Addressing the reality of increased diversity means finding political, legal, social and economic mechanisms to ensure co-existence, mututal respect and understanding,  and to mediate relations across differences. 

 

Globalization and Migration

 Globalisation has accentuated the unevenness of development between countries and thereby generated significant movement of labour across borders. Some of this may be the  classic “brain-drain” of relatively skilled workers migrating to developed economies. But a significant proportion takes the form of low-skilled or even unskilled workers moving, sometimes illegally, to neighbouring countries with economies growing rapidly. Such foreign workers are recruited to do low-skilled or semi-skilled jobs at a low pay, but who are happy to repatriate such wages to their home countries where they would not have earned the equivalent salaries. This artificial depression of wages in the host countries has ramifications  for the local employees, who have no such recourse to increase their purchasing power.

The Impact of Immigration in Singapore

 One apparent  reason for frustration among the in-group of a society is the  impact of an influx of migrants . A look at the demographic changes over the last few decades may give us better insight into the issue.

 

Key Demographic Indicators, 1970 – 2013 (Singstat)
Population	1970	1980	1990	2000	2010	2012	2013
Total Population1,2,3 ('000)	2,074.5	2,413.9	3,047.1	4,027.9	5,076.7	5,312.4	5,399.2
Resident Population2,3 ('000)	2,013.6	2,282.1	2,735.9	3,273.4	3,771.7	3,818.2	3,844.8
Singapore Citizens ('000)	1,874.8	2,194.3	2,623.7	2,985.9	3,230.7	3,285.1	3,313.5
Permanent Residents ('000)	138.8	87.8	112.1	287.5	541.0	533.1	531.2
Population Density4 (Per sq km)	3,538	3,907	4,814	5,900	7,146	7,429	7,540

 

Today, almost 40% of Singapore’s population are foreigners (resident and non-resident), most of whom are working here. The sharp rise in PRs and non-residents between 2000 and 2013 has somewhat upset the gradual growth of foreigner population in the previous three decades.  This exponential growth  in the non-Singaporean population has led to unhappiness among many Singaporeans, who have complained about over-crowded subway trains, buses, shopping malls, hospitals, streets and housing estates. The recent spate of train breakdowns have also been attributed to the lack of proper maintenance due to the increased passenger traffic.

 Adding to the negative feelings , a government planning policy paper published last year projected a population  increase of a further 30 percent by 2030, to 6.9 million, at which time immigrants would account for nearly half of the island’s population. A closer look at the workforce demographics will help us understand the issue better.

Workforce Composition

There were 3.44 million persons in Singapore’s labour force in June 2013, according to the Ministry of Manpower’s Labour Force Report. The resident workforce, which comprises both Singaporeans and Permament Residents or PRs (foreign born) totalled 2.138 million, while the non-resident workforce, comprising foreign workers (non-permanent) totalled 1.305 milion. There is no breakdown of resident workforce and we may need to assume that of the half million PRs here, at least 50% must be employed or earning an income. Based on this conservative estimate, the total foreign workforce (that is, non Singaporeans) would be more than 1.5 million.  

 

Total Workforce 2013 3.,443 million	Extrapolated Total Foreign Workforce 1.56 million
Non –Resident 1.305 million	Non-Resident 1.305 million
Resident 2.139 million	P R 0.26 million (based on 531.2 PR population )

 

Singapore seems heavily dependent on foreigners . They are found mostly in the Manufacturing, Services and Construction sectors of the economy. The growth in immigration seems to correlate perfectly with growth in GDP. Singapore’s GDP  doubled in the last decade. However the negative aspect of such influx begin to surface. Feelings may be manifested by anecdotal  evidences found in the  social media sites by affected individuals and could influence the thoughts and feelings of others. We read of angry backlash, in the social media to disparage foreign workers, from highly paid “foreign talent” to “heavily exploited laborers” from China and the Indian sub-continent. Some have directed their anger at the policy makers for “having created the problem in the first place”.

The government has put forward many reasons for the immigration policy, mainly economic, but also to maintain first world standards in health, tourism, transport, education and housing.

 Serious Implications

What worries many people are the effects of the exponential increase in foreigners in a small, densely populated island. The government has acknowledged infrastructure shortcomings because of this phenomenon. Frequent train breakdowns,  overcrowded buses and trains, overcrowding in public spaces,shortage of hospital beds  are some examples of the stress on infrastructure directly brought about by the rapid increase in immigration over the last eight years. Prime Minister Lee has admitted the government did not have 20/20 foresight, and  is now taking steps to mitigate the problem, such as in regulating flow of foreign workers, speeding up public housing for Singaporeans, focusing on improving efficiency in transportation, and stepping up improvements to healthcare management  and education.

Between 2000 and 2013, population of Singaporeans grew by slightly more than half a million, while population of foreigners doubled from 1 million to 2 million within the same period. The social and cultural impact of such sharp increase in a diverse foreigner population can be daunting at the very least to a society that has been generally accomodating government policies over the years. Strong opposition to this seems to come from the post-independence generation of Singaporeans, and understandably the reactions in social media have been largely negative. It is interesting to note that the Opposition has made significant gains in the last General Election in 2011, and the two subsequent By-Elections in 2012.

But the more sinister, yet not very apparent consequences must beg government’s attention just as much. These are in the area of cultural, political and social behaviour both among and between the in-group and the out-groups.

Impact of Increased population Density

Singapore is not as densely populated as some other global cities. However there are concerns if the planned population of 6.9 million comes true. “Beyond physical limits, a small country of fixed area also has psychological limits”, says social work academic Kalyani Mehta, a former nominated member of parliament. Prof Mehta contends that phenomena like elderly abuse, family violence, road rage, or even cases of people breaking out in quarrels when jostling for space in lines or on packed buses have arisen from intensified competition that comes with overheated population growth.  She has also observed suicide and depression rates rising in tandem with population figures.

Unprecedented Phenomena

  No one was prepared for the turn of events by some foreign workers in the last two years.  In November 2012, a group of 171 SMRT bus drivers from China staged a protest  over disparity of wages between them and the Malaysian bus drivers as well as “poor living conditions”. Singapore’s last legal strike occurred in 1986 . The quiet labour relations situation took an unprecedented jolt. Then last December, hundreds of South Asian workers rioted in “Little India” , Singapore’s famed Indian enclave after being enraged by a fatal road accident, leaving 18 people injured and police vehicles burnt in the country's worst outbreak of violence in more than 40 years. Will we see a trend of foreign workers becoming increasingly willing to resort to extreme measures to make their voices heard, and in the process dismantle the social order that has made Singapore progress?

There was public outrage over both the China bus drivers’ illegal strike, and the riot by South Asian foreign workers with many expressing strong, if not unreasonable assumptions of foreign workers in the social media . The latest incident of outrage against the planned Filipino celebration of the country’s Independence Day at an iconic location in Singapore by some 5,000 Filipinos is yet another reminder of the potential impact of social behaviour of  groups that seem not in congruence. Since the Facebook group, “Say ‘No’ to an overpopulated Singapore” (SNOS) announced its objection to the Philippine Independence Day event which is scheduled to be held on 8th June at Ngee Ann City, Civic Plaza, debate about the event has been fast and furious.

 Are Singaporeans Xenophobic?  

It seems counter-intuitive to suggest that a cosmopolitan hub like Singapore might have a problem with xenophobia. Yet  xenophobia has emerged as a  concern if we note Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s comments on not only the recent  Filipino episode, but also his  statements  on  immigration and foreign workers in his National Day Rally Speeches since 2009 . In 2012 he openly warned Singaporeans to refrain from overt expressions of hostility towards foreigners. But are we really xenophobic?

 

To answer the  question one needs to understand how national cultures  come into play in  global cities.  What is culture in the first place?  We can accept any or all of these definitions:

 

The collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one human group from another. (Geert Hofstede)

The collection of beliefs, values, behaviors, customs, and attitudes that distinguish the people of one society from another. (Clyde Kluckholm)

Shared motives, values, beliefs, identities, and interpretations or meanings of significant events that result from common experiences of members of collectives that are transmitted across generations. (Robert House and GLOBE associates)

Geert Hofstede, a renowned Dutch academic, had carried out research on national cultures along six different dimensions :  

Power distance - This dimension deals with the fact that all individuals in societies are not equal.

Individualism - The degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members. It has to do with whether people´s self-image is defined in terms of “I” or “We”.

Masculinity vs Femininity - A high score (masculine) on this dimension indicates that the society will be driven by competition, achievement and success, with success being defined by the winner / best in field – a value system that starts in school and continues throughout organisational behaviour.

Uncertainty avoidance - This dimension has to do with the way that a society deals with the fact that the future can never be known and brings with it anxiety and different cultures have learnt to deal with this anxiety in different ways.  

Pragmatism - This dimension describes how people in the past as well as today relate to the fact that so much that happens around us cannot be explained.  In societies with a pragmatic orientation most people don’t have a need to explain everything, as they believe that it is impossible to understand fully the complexity of life.

Indulgence -  This dimension is defined as the extent to which people try to control their desires and impulses, based on the way they were raised. Relatively weak control is called “indulgence” and relatively strong control is called “restraint”. Cultures can, therefore, be described as indulgent or restrained.

 Each of these he measured for a large number of countries, and then made cross-country comparisons. In the age of globalisation, these have been used extensively  to understand the differences between workforces in different environments. What he found about Singaporeans in his research are as follows :

Power distance
Singaporeans expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. “Power is centralized and managers rely on their bosses and on rules. Employees expect to be told what to do. Control is expected and attitude towards managers is formal. Communication is indirect and the information flow is selective. We can see the high power distance also in the government’s defined five “shared values”

Individulism vs Collectivism

      Singapore, with a score of 20 is a collectivistic society. This means that the “We” is important, people belong  to in-groups (families, clans or organisations) who look after each other in exchange for loyalty. Here we can also see the second key principle of the Confucian teaching: The family is the prototype of all social organizations.  Harmony is found when everybody saves face in the sense of dignity, self-respect, and prestige. Social relations should be conducted in such a way that everybody's face is saved.

Masculinity 
Singapore scores 48 and is in the “middle” of the scale but more on the feminine side. This means that the softer aspects of culture such as leveling with others, consensus, sympathy for the underdog are valued and encouraged despite the pressure to succeed in competing with others.

Uncertainty avoidance    
 Singapore scores 8 on this dimension and thus scores very low on this dimension. Being an island state with no natural resources, and with a historically heterogeneous migrant population, Singaporeans have generally accepted that the future can never be known and brings with it anxiety and have learnt to cope with this anxiety .  

Interestingly, xenophobia,  according to Hofstede,  is commonly associated with countries with high uncertainlty avoidance - generally older countries/cultures with a long history, where the the population is more ethnically homogeneous, where risk is avoided in business and low tolerance for innovation, preferring  to stick to traditional routines.

Pragmatism 

 Singapore scores 72, which is rather in the middle. Hofstede noted that  Singapore shows cultural qualities supporting long term investment such as perseverance, sustained efforts, slow results, thrift; being sparse with resources, ordering relationship by status and having a sense of shame (see also again the Confucian teaching).  He states that Singaporeans are  always keeping their options open as there are many ways to skin a cat. This mindset allows for a more pragmatic approach to business.

Indulgence - It was  not possible to determine a preference on this dimension because of Singapore's intermediate score of 46.

 Hofstede’s research results for Singapore clearly indicate that we have no issue with dealing with uncertainties like the impact of  global recession, and even immigration for that matter. So while the mass media may have created undue alarm about perceived xenophobia, the general population psyche is one of acceptance of  the future , trusting structure and stable leadership to manage uncertainty. The social media may lend unwittingly to extreme rants of a few, but it is certainly no indicator of the majority’s views.

Integration – the  answer

We need to be realistic in accepting the changed demographics. The best way forward to improve the social climate is to foster meaningful relations. There are many efforts to drive integration. There is a council set up for this purpose. There is a “citizenship journey” for immigrants who have fulfilled criteria to become one of us. At a recent citizenship ceremony, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong encouraged new Singaporeans to try harder to assimilate. "Pick up Singapore customs, lifestyles, norms, social rules," he urged the new citizens. "Be conscious that this is something which you need to do. And watch out also for the little cultural differences which I'm sure there will still be. Know about them, and try to bridge them."

It is equally important to remember that  integration requires both the in-group and the out-groups to  play their part to foster acceptance and develop friendships .

How do friendships help?

By and large people do  understand that immigrants aren't actually posing the threats they were once thought to pose. What helps to underscore this valuable mindset is when immigrant groups begin to adopt the norms and practices of their new homes, and the  threat perceptions are reduced as people begin to form friendships across group lines.

Friendships  entail interacting interdependently with another—sharing, taking turns, self-disclosing, and the like—and such actions reveal that many of the threats initially expected to exist may not be there after all. With friendship also comes many similarities. Having a close friend that's a member of another group then provides a model that the group may not actually be as threatening as initially believed. As members of groups come to interact with one another more, the likelihood that they'll form friendships increases, and this will accelerate the reduction of prejudices.

At the end of the day, Singaporeans know their history well, and with the strong national culture, we can be confident that common sense will prevail that peace and prosperity can be achieved in an orderly and structured  environment.