Dear The Real Singapore,
Few would be happy to be caught in a train delay, but my experience on Wednesday morning had set me thinking about Singapore’s future. A mass of people of different nationalities waiting for the train in an organised manner yet with a clear sense of underlying disappointment was perhaps reflective of Singaporean society itself.
The Singapore we knew from yesteryear struggled hard to build a sense of national identity: From marketing National Service as a rite of passage to HDB ownership cultivating a sense of belonging, everything was carefully engineered to ensure that Singaporeans were able to feel a sense of pride and stake in the country as the nation progressed economically.
Ironically, all that has changed in recent years as the government chased after economic growth without looking at the social consequences of importing foreigners for this very goal. By spending in excess of $200 million a year on scholarships and educational subsidies on foreigners who have yet to serve a day of national service, it is little wonder that this has bred a sense of divide between ‘new’ and ‘old’ citizens.
The backlash against foreigners becomes clear when one looks back at a careless remark made by Anton Casey about MRT commuters. Having lived in London for some time, I understood the self-depreciating humour that Casey used but this clearly did not resonate with the Singaporean masses. The price he paid was huge, losing his Porsche, career, reputation and peace.
By contrast, the earlier remarks made by Nicholas-Seth Leong was just as bad, if not worse by implying that everyday MRT commuters are lesser beings. From the way his ex-colleague described him, such a remark seemed to be intentionally made to boost his inferiority complex. The contrast between him and Casey was also bigger, as someone who drove an old Honda Civic.
Yet, the whole incident was forgotten after some slight online furore. Such a contrast is clear enough, but what is the underlying point from such an incident? Whether it transcends the physical or the psychological, Singaporean society can no longer take in any more foreigners unless at the expense of an eroding society.
A senior politician from PAP said in his national day dinner speech that the survivability of Singapore depended much on the electorate having trust in the government. Yet, the government seems to be doing the opposite of what Singaporeans feel comfortable with through such artificial population increase and the comparatively lack of accountability on public policy matters.
While some immigrants have indeed contributed to the growth of society, the failure to manage Singaporeans’ expectations is another of the PAP’s failures. Adding salt to the wounds are the high-handed responses from PAP ministers, which have led to the widespread perception that foreigners have stolen jobs from Singaporeans and brought about high inflation rates.
Socio-political conditions in Singapore have most certainly changed, and the survivability of Singapore also has much to do with the collective identity the nation gives itself. What Gerald Giam said is entirely relevant, in that our grouses against foreigners are “not at the level of the individual, but at the powers-that-be who have opened the [flood]gates.”
Desmond Xavier Lim
*The author is a former celebrity blogger who has taken a year off his career to help underprivileged kids in Laos. The above views are made in his own capacity and does not represent TRS.