Abstract
In discussing the role of immigration in policy formulation in Singapore, this article uses conceptions of Singaporeanism to explore how identities of migrant workers* have been moulded and reconstructed by Singapore’s colonial past and the neoliberal economic present. Post-COVID-19, where structural inequalities affecting minorities such as migrant workers will require address, the dearth of academic attention on Singapore’s immigration policies needs to be supplemented to pave the way for reconstructing migrant worker identities, integrating them into public discourse, and drawing attention to their plight.
Background: Immigration in Singapore
Since independence, Singapore’s population and economic growth have been closely associated with immigration, due to low birth rates and manpower demands. Nowrasteh (2018), referring to the political justification of migrant workers’ willingness to take on traditionally shunned areas of work, posits that ‘much of [the demand for migrant workers] has been cultural’ and technocratic in nature. While data indicates net migrant numbers surpassing natural population growth pre-2010, policy curbs on immigration reflect the strained relationship and attitudes towards migrant workers compared to local-born residents in Singapore. Even so, the proportion of foreigners in Singapore’s labour force consistently remains amongst the highest in Asia and other developed countries.
Local discourse surrounding migrant workers has primarily been stimulated by public policy and parliamentary intention involving citizenship rights. The preferred term differentiating migrant workers is “foreign talent”: this skills-based distinction is central to the legal qualification of citizenship rights accorded to different classes of migrant workers and the issuance of employment passes, as well as locals’ conception of the economic value provided by migrant workers. Nonetheless, the ‘foreign’ label draws attention to the inherently un-Singaporean character of migrant workers. Inbuilt within a national classification of citizenship, emphasis on the rule of law in Singapore “Others” both migrant workers within their own community and in broader society along the constructed identity of what it means to be Singaporean. There is thus a lacuna that ‘alternative discourse’ can substantiate in more sensitively portraying migrant worker identities as fundamental to local narratives.
Although Employment Pass classification has been abolished since 2014, ethnographic studies reveal deep-rooted, classist prejudices that subconsciously “Other” migrant workers. Within the migrant worker community, the sentiment of inclusion is far from realised, especially for low-wage workers ineligible for full citizenship. In a country frequently associated with authoritarian capitalism, the sense of “Otherness” pullulates despite talent attraction policies and speeches by former prime ministers Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong exhorting locals to embrace foreign workers as fundamental to Singapore’s survival. However, such exhortations fall short of integrating migrant workers within the social psyche and migrant workers remain on the periphery of Singaporean society.
Reconciling perspectives in past vs the present
The COVID-19 outbreak in migrant workers’ dormitories
In 2020, international praise for Singapore’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic proved premature as the virus spread rapidly in low-wage migrant workers’ dormitories. This ‘pandemic of inequality’ exposed the consequences of Singapore’s disproportionate reliance on foreign labour. Policy decisions prioritising economic development and recovery ignore warnings from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as Transient Workers Count Too, and come at the expense of minority communities’ public health.
The impact of Singapore’s colonial past
The emphasis on pragmatism, economic vulnerability and key performance indicators (KPIs) of development trace back to Singapore’s colonial roots and its difficult present-day relationship with postcolonialism. Mignolo (2020) argues that the colonial ‘matrix of power’ perpetuates a Eurocentric notion of modernity and progress, centred around capitalist development and integration into an already-Western dominated global economy. Despite increasing criticism of Western-centric conceptualisations of Asian contexts, which define the East as ‘exotic’ and ‘impoverished’, Singapore is in the paradoxical position of economic development and success by subscribing to Westernised notions, not having many natural resources for colonial exploitation. It must be acknowledged that Singapore’s historic reliance on foreign labour originates from the institution of colonialism itself, including the forced migration of labourers from India.
The political context of Singapore’s idiosyncratic survival story shapes the construction of national narratives that some academics have argued are in dire need of deconstructing, given almost apologetic pronouncements of British rule. Clark (2019) demonstrates that official disengagement with the language of cosmopolitanism in state discourse affects the way Singaporeans view migrant workers in the present-day. Predominantly, policy approaches are framed pragmatically, drawing on KPIs, which neglects sociological impacts. As a country whose economic success is largely founded, or at the very least, based on the labour of immigrants, concrete steps need to be taken to raise awareness of migrant worker representation and address the silence and trauma that have shaped national constructions of history.
Singapore’s neoliberalist economic development strategy
The adoption of “Singapore Inc.” neoliberalism as a form of governance betrays national complicity in the propagation of ‘neoliberalising violence’ against minorities. Such violence is wielded by the state to regulate and discipline migrant workers, incorporated within narratives involving economic self-dependency that erase migrant worker contributions. The ‘Singapore model’ has been upheld in public relations infrastructure to extol Singapore’s attractiveness as a knowledge hub with a global outlook, neglecting health disparities inherent in a society which prides itself on having developed ‘from third world to first’ in less than half a decade. As Dutta argues, a culture-centric approach towards understanding alternative voices in representing minorities can support an international movement recognising the oppression and exploitation of cheap labour from the Global South that have contributed towards historical development. This is particularly useful given Singapore’s enviable position vis-à-vis less developed countries grappling with the effects of colonialism, which can be harnessed as a platform challenging Western-centric notions of development. Given top-down state sanctioning and regulation of controversial topics in public discourse, there is much room for improvement before minorities can be represented as alternative voices in public conversation.
The enshrinement of colonial ideologies in Singaporean structures can be inferred from the association of anti-colonialist activism with anti-nationalism. Admittedly, a fine line must be drawn between such portrayals, coupled with ingrained attitudes within a Western-centric education as part of Singapore’s history. Nonetheless, efforts towards cultural conservation have been undertaken as Singapore negotiates a balanced position between remembering its past and developing social consciousness for systemic inequalities which disproportionately harm minorities. The outbreak in migrant workers’ dormitories coincided with the 2020 general election, prompting Government attention on the manpower and economic impacts caused partly by mismanagement of conditions in migrant workers’ dormitories. That said, work in the same spirit needs to be sustained. To that extent, Western media’s attribution of Singapore’s success to historical remnants of colonialism is damaging to activism – at the most extreme, it invalidates the struggles that Singapore’s minority communities faced in the quest for economic growth.
State influence in shaping public perception cannot be underestimated; until late-2020, reporting of daily COVID-19 cases distinguished between single-figure ‘local’ transmissions and transmissions in migrant workers’ dormitories, further contributing to class differentiations centred on a ‘racist ideology’. Adopting Dutta’s (2018) culture-centred approach, consciousness of our ‘denial of coevalness’ challenges Western-centric (mis)conceptions of the East. On the local level, this consciousness aids in appreciating negative portrayals of low-wage migrant workers who still grapple with the worst effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Post Covid-19 Opportunities for Change
Reconstructing migrant worker identities
Local ethnographic research has mainly centred on foreign domestic workers and migrant construction workers, justifiably so given Singapore’s reliance on migrant workers to supplement labour demand. Reconstructing migrant worker identities, from “second-class citizens” and “low-skilled labour” to one included within narratives as a distinct building block of Singapore’s development would pave the way for ‘Asian resistance as a mobile trope’ against structurally imposed immobility and oppression. In the final analysis, a reconstruction of migrant worker identities and its relation to conceptions of Singaporeanism would lead to a more inclusive and humane society not blinded by misconstrued benefits of colonialism, but cognisant of oppressive structural inequalities as a reality for minorities.
Encouragingly, ground-up initiatives have begun to address issues surrounding migrant workers. One traditionally controversial political issue is the Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) mentality. Members of Parliament have demonstrated tact and increased willingness to address the building of migrant workers’ dormitories near residential areas, in light of the recent outbreak which led to immediate political attention by the COVID-19 Multi-Ministry Taskforce. A volunteer-run campaign, Welcome-In-My-Backyard (WIMBY) was also launched to ‘[humanise migrant workers] in the local community’s eyes’.
Following government measures to contain the outbreak, civil society groups banded together to advocate for empathy towards the extended isolation and mental distress faced by migrant workers. Alongside ongoing efforts by NGOs advocating for equitable treatment of migrant workers, the prospect of reconstructing and integrating migrant worker identities within conceptions of Singaporeanism remains positive. In light of the 2020 general election where conditions in migrant workers’ dormitories rose to the forefront of public consciousness, such scrutiny should be maintained to ensure political accountability post-COVID-19.
Strengthening existing policy measures
On the policy front, more needs to be done to redefine rhetoric on migrant workers. Although migrant workers are normalised to the extent that their presence is accepted as a reality for Singapore’s economic survival, much can be improved in terms of adopting a more humanised portrayal of migrant workers as fundamental to the socio-cultural fabric of society. While the Government acknowledges that Singapore ‘need[s] a significant number of foreign workers’, the purpose is conveyed as ‘complement[ing] the Singaporean core in the workforce’: as priorly discussed, deliberate policy language “Others” migrant workers, leading to fragmentation instead of cohesion.
Public consciousness has contributed towards establishing structural institutions to support the needs of the large migrant worker community in Singapore. However, much of these efforts are reactionary rather than proactive, couched in terms of facilitating ‘coexistence with locals’ instead of progressive societal inclusion. Conceptions of Singaporeanism have socio-cultural ramifications in validating the lived experiences of various communities which diversify Singaporean life. In this regard, the voices of migrant workers cannot be disregarded if Singapore wishes to realise and negotiate its presence as a socially conscious society in the global arena.
Secondarily, from a wider societal viewpoint, reconstructing migrant worker identities would involve scrutiny of the meritocratic system that Singapore promotes as a means of sorting people ‘into jobs and social status’. Considering the “Othering” potential of the “foreign talent” label within the migrant worker community, meritocracy constitutes a form of structural violence against migrant workers, most of whom are low-wage workers with limited agency. Structural violence contributes powerfully towards the shaping of negative perceptions and experiences of migrant workers; it is impossible to reconcile with Singapore’s self-identification as a developed country, accepting that social harmony rests upon the fair treatment of all communities. As a democratic state, the legitimacy of Singapore’s authority depends on its ability to operate in the best interests of ‘a people’, which cannot be at the expense and exclusion of minorities, especially not a community as large and as predominantly in the social psyche as migrant workers. A more inclusive conception of Singaporeanism involves abandoning preconceptions of migrant workers’ “second-class citizen” or “low-skilled” status, both in policy-making talk and public discourse, as irrelevant towards prioritising solutions to the pressing concerns faced by them.
Conclusion
The COVID-19 pandemic culminating in the outbreak of transmissions in migrant workers’ dormitories highlights fundamental structural inequalities within Singapore’s neoliberal economic system stemming from a historical emphasis on meritocracy, which is a largely colonial remnant. These influences result from renegotiation of what it means to be Singaporean through efforts to shape post-colonial national narratives. The relentless pandemic further exposes everyday public health threats and the lack of prioritisation of the needs of minorities.
Post-COVID-19, it is hoped that Singapore’s immigration policies as a reflection of parliamentary intention will be accorded greater scrutiny for its impacts on citizenship and conceptions of Singaporeanism, which will further serve to supplement extensive literature surrounding Singapore’s neoliberalism. From a humanistic viewpoint, this directly contributes towards reconstructing migrant worker identities to present Singaporeanism as a progressive and inclusive ethos, thus allowing migrant workers to not by legal definition be excluded from societal integration.
The Author is a Penultimate Year Student, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford. He is grateful to Ms Fang En Chua and Ms Wan Yii Lee for their contributions towards an early draft of this paper.