As numbers keep changing, presence of foreigners raises questions about us as a community
Constance Singam, The New Paper 4 Oct 08;
IMMIGRATION has become a source of concern for Singaporeans and may even become a politically-contentious issue.
For most of its history, Singapore was a land of migrants, most of whom arrived here to earn a living with the intention of returning to their countries of origin. I remember the time my parents, who had thought they would return to India once my father retired, made the decision to make Singapore their permanent home. They did this in the mid-50s and became citizens of independent Singapore.
Since the early 1800s, immigration has been a central factor of Singapore’s growth and attraction.
In 1922, a visitor, Mr Hermann Norden, described our city as “perennially fascinating Singapore” with its hundred tongues, its port alive with steamers, big and small, on their way to every part of the globe; and with its hustling, bustling life ashore. All the races of the world, representatives of every stage of civilisation jostle each other in the streets, he noted.
Yet another visitor described it as “seething with life”. Compared to Singapore, he observed that “London, Paris, New York and other great cities are a haven of peace”.
In 1837, the population stood at 30,000. A hundred years later in 1937, it had grown to 651,000. By the 1960s, the population had crossed the one million mark to 1,646,000. In July 1989, Singapore had a population of 2,674,362; in 1990, 2.7 million and in 2006, the population almost doubled to 4.5 million. In two years since, this figure has shot up to an astonishing 4.84 million.
The 1980 census reported that9 per cent of the population were not citizens and they were referred to in a report I read as “aliens”. Today, that figure has shot up to 35 per cent of the population. From being referred to as “aliens”, they have become “foreign workers” and “foreign talents”.
The one period when the Singapore Government imposed strict controls on immigration was from 1965 to the 1980s. Singapore began then to earn the reputation of being boring, sterile and oppressive.
We are now reclaiming our past historical reputation as a city of migrants with many races jostling with each other in the streets. This is what makes Singapore such a fascinating place to live in and the reason why I am a happy and proud Singaporean.
So why the concern about immigrants now? Firstly, I suspect that Singaporeans have settled in and transformed this island into their home. It is a predictable and dependable space. A sense of Singapore identity was evolving — when the few foreigners amongst us were here only to do the menial jobs Singaporeans didn’t want. The overwhelming presence of foreigners raises questions about who we are as a community, challenging us, yet again during a very short history of identity formation.
This more than anything else, I think, explains the reaction of the residents of Serangoon Garden against the1,000 foreign workers’ unexpected entry into their safe space. If there is one place in Singapore, relatively unchanged, with a settled population for over40 years, it is Serangoon Gardens.
Secondly, Singaporeans have become accustomed to a sense of social and economic security, assured of opportunities for education and jobs almost unchallenged by foreigners. In these uncertain times, economically, the threshold for tolerance drops dramatically and fear replaces it. There is no indication that things will get better any time soon. Indeed, as the spectre of recession looms, there is every reason to believe that things will get worse.
Assurances by demographers and policy-makers have not eased these fears. I, for one, am confused. Back in 1991, the population target was4 million and this figure was estimated to reach sometime after 2010. There was some concern then but National Development planners assured us that it was not a target but a figure to help the planners.
In 2000, the figure of 5.5-million was used in the then-Concept Plan review as an estimate for the total population over the next 40 to 50 years.
National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan said worries that foreigners will swamp Singapore are baseless, because the 5.5-million population figure is not a target, but an estimate for long-term planning purposes.
The concern, he said, sprang from the idea that the Government wanted to have a 5.5-million population by a certain date. Last week, we were told that a figure of 6.5 million is being used by Government planners as a guide. It will take 20 to30 years to get there, said National Population Secretariat director Roy Quek.
Is there a difference between an estimated figure used for long-term planning and a target for population?
Whatever the final figure we are moving towards, the question to ask is this: Do we have the resources to sustain the numbers?
The writer is a social activist,currently a confused activist.
