Of riots, immigrants and Singapore’s Global Migrant Festival

Since the refugee crisis hit Europe issues pertaining to migration and population flows have moved up the global agenda. Back home in Singapore, the Little India Riot in 2013 was a shocker (riots in Singapore!) but also a wake-up call about the countries large but often unnoticed pool of low skilled labor.

One side effect of the renewed focus is the establishment of the Global Migrant Festival which takes place in Singapore in December 2018. As part of his research for an article on the festival for a Hong Kong English daily I received some questions from a journalist on the subject of migrants, immigration, etc.

A selection of the questions and my answers are reproduced below.

Syrian refugees at the main train station in Budapest, Hungary (source: Wikipedia)

Q. What do you think are circumstances that led to this festival? How do you see it as something different towards other cultural festival?

A. I don’t know the details of the festival other than the information listed on their website but understand it is geared towards an otherwise culturally neglected demographic of Singapore’s society, i.e. low income foreign workers. In many ways, this is a ‘local’ Singapore festival which hopefully over time will come to encompass the aspirations and talents of an often forgotten segment of immigrant communities. In coming years, as the festival becomes established, festival Organizers will have to walk a fine line between commercialization and maintaining the ‘grassroots’ spirit / intent of the founders.

Q. What problems are they trying to remedy or at least articulate/engage with?

A. Humanizing a demographic of society which is often seen but almost never heard. Without this community many cities, including Singapore, would grind to a standstill. Additionally, I am sure there are lots of hidden talents among festival participants so bringing these talents out will be a service to not only the individuals but also the entire arts community.

Q. Singapore had a setback with the Little India race riots in 2013. How do you think things have changed (or not) since then? 

A. The wording of your question is interesting. Not everyone will refer to the 2013 Little India riots as a race riot. The riot was a seminal moment for Singapore in that it highlighted to broader Singaporean society the need to focus on a minimum quality of life for *all* residents of Singapore, not only Singaporeans and top end foreign talent. Much has been achieved since then because of this focus on the lower paid foreign workers by the government as well as a burgeoning NGO sector. Arguably, this festival itself is a by-product of the 2013 Little India riots.

Q. What do you think can be done to encourage more discussion and community engagement with migrant/immigration issues? Is there anything particularly that requires a shift in debate?

A. It’s a sad testament to the modern world but it took large waves of uncontrolled refugee migration to the developed Europe, especially from Iraq and Syria, for the international community to realize immigration issues are real and must be studied for greater understanding. Poorer countries have faced refugee crises for many decades since in the post-war period, most notably three million plus Afghani refugees in Pakistan during the first Afghan war and many parts of Africa. 

‘Humanizing’ migrant workers and introducing them as real people with hopes, wants, fears, etc. through literature and the arts is a great starting point. Given that foreigners – of all skill levels – comprise approximately 30 percent of our population including sections on such migrant communities in academic courses / syllabi at various levels of learning in our educational institutions should be considered.

I hope we will see more high quality literature and visual arts emerge on the experiences of migrant populations as a result of this increased focus. This festival is a step in the right direction.

Q. How can awareness of these issues help drive change and inclusion in the following sectors? Education, art and culture, employment

A. As I mentioned earlier, including sections on the role of migrant workers in keeping Singapore running smoothly may be included in school syllabi. Additionally, the government may allocate more funding to academic efforts to understand the challenges faced by new citizens and / or migrant workers. Increased funding will lead to more and better research and, hence, greater understanding.

A broad debate on making Mandarin a compulsory subject in school for all Singaporeans until, say, P6 should be initiated. In a majority Chinese society where Mandarin is the lingua franca of the bulk of the population, not speaking Mandarin acts as a glass ceiling as well as a hidden barrier for integration.

Q. Some of the key social issues include concerns of immigrants taking up white-collar jobs, driving property prices up and occupying places in schools and hospitals. How do you think these concerns can be better addressed by the government and individuals?

A. This is a broad policy debate and pertains to Singapore’s historic economic growth model pursued over the last few decades, i.e. grow the population to sustain economic growth. We have gone from approximately three million residents in 2000 to 5.6 million today. That’s a big jump and brings with it not only economic growth but a multitude of ancillary social issues – intended and unintended.

Growth is not an end in itself. A blind focus on generating economic growth misses the point. Economic growth is a means to a fairer, more just and happier society.

As Singapore has achieved levels of affluence comparable to the likes of Switzerland and Austria, Singaporeans must now shift their focus to other aspects of social maturation. These are difficult questions relating to distribution of wealth, taxation structures, provision and subsidies of medical services and so on.

The question of immigration is part of a larger rethink which Singaporeans must undertake about the future priorities of our society.

Q. Cultural identity is always ridiculed or dismissed as being diluted in Singapore. What can be done to discourage this mindset and see more proactiveness from Singaporeans to articulate or develop this 'identity'?

A. National identity is not static. Nor is at an end point a society must achieve. National identity is dynamic. Like any vibrant society, Singapore’s identity is also constantly evolving over time.

Openness to new ideas is necessary for society to thrive, especially in today’s fast paced world. Foreigners – whether immigrants or transient – are a historic part of Singapore’s population landscape and contribute significantly to our melting pot of ideas.

I don’t accept the idea that Singapore’s identity is diluted by immigration or migrant workers. On the contrary, over the course of time, Singapore’s identity is strengthened by new and diverse population groups.

Take Hainanese chicken rice and roti prata, two quintessential markers of modern Singaporean identity. These dishes did not develop in a cultural vacuum. They developed through the interaction of various different immigrant populations on this Little Red Dot.

______________

Note: Imran is a former banker and has lived and worked in several countries during his international banking career. He enjoys traveling, especially by train, as a way to feed his curiosity about the world and nurture his interest in photography. He is a licensed freelance tour guide in Singapore. He is available on twitter (@grandmoofti); Instagram (@imranahmedsg) and can be contacted at imran.ahmed.sg@gmail.com

No Muslims in the US, no Pakistanis in Singapore?

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Singapore General Elections 2015: ten key takeaway...": 

I read through your entire blog and I've got to honestly admit - as a Singaporean of Indian descent - that I was surprised to find out that you were granted Singapore citizenship. Didn't the PAP promise us that they'd carefully monitor the intake of new citizens and select citizens from backgrounds that are least likely to cause conflict with actual Singaporeans? The fact that they're now naturalising Pakistanis, many of whom irrationally hate Indians and non-Muslims to the core, kind of flies in the face of their promise. It is disappointing. You are intelligent, progressive, and I have nothing against you, but I wouldn't feel safe in my country if many of your countrymen (or should I say ex-countrymen) were to come here and take up citizenship. I doubt many of them would be able to leave their petty cross-border mindset behind and would probably cause a lot of problems by insulting third and fourth-gen local Indians, many of whom have nothing to do with that nonsense in the first place.

-Excerpt from a comment posted by an anonymous reader. The full comment is reproduced at the end of this article.  

I was upset – but not surprised – to read the above comment from a self-proclaimed Indian-Singaporean. Effectively, the reader has called for banning Pakistanis from living in Singapore. (A lawyer friend suggested I file a police report as in his opinion there is enough 'irrational hatred' for the police to investigate the author for inciting hatred under Singapore's strict laws.)

The Pakistan Monument, located on hills on the outskirts of the federal capital Islamabad, represents the nation's four provinces and three territories

The comment betrays a lack of understanding of Singaporean values. Where was the reader during the daily recital of (Rajaretnam's) Singapore pledge? And the standard daily exhortations of Singapore's multi-religious and multi-cultural mantra? Clearly, the reader is infected with the irrationality and narrow mindedness of which he accuses the 160 million or so Pakistanis.

Not surprising really; because 'Pakistaniphobia' is a much more virulent strain of the Islamophobia currently sweeping the world.

Islamophobia is best exemplified by Trump's call to ban the entry of Muslims into the United States (like that is going to stop mass shootings in a country drowning under a sea of weapons!). However, anyone of Pakistani origin will tell you Pakistaniphobia has a much longer history.

Large doses of Pakistaniphobia are regularly fed by the mainstream media to the general public. Consider the portrayal of Pakistan in an average media diet consisting of shows such as 'Homeland,' 'Zero Dark Thirty' or indeed the pre-9/11 'Black Hawk Down' and one begins to see the extent of sensationalism surrounding the nation. Typically, these ideas are gorged as if they are a juicy pepper steak cooked by a Michelin starred chef.

Indeed, a few years ago when a US military officer sneezed inside the Pentagon building, within minutes a television commentator citing 'authoritative intelligence sources' could trace the sneeze directly to a bio-terrorist plot hatched in Pakistan's badlands and, of course, supported by the country's military intelligence agency. More recently, retired US military officials have suggested the disappeared Malaysian MH 370 airliner was hijacked and flown to a Taliban air base in Pakistan!

A map representing the overseas Pakistani diaspora. Countries in red have a Pakistani population between 100,000 - 1,000,000 while the pink have up to 100,000 Pakistani origin residents (source: Wikipedia)

Fear and hatred of Pakistanis runs deep all over the world, including among segments in Singapore. Pakistanis live with these emotions daily. But as people nurtured under the shadows of ancient civilizations cultivated by the waters of the mighty Indus River, Pakistanis will not just survive but thrive. Pakistan and Pakistanis will continue to contribute to the progress of ideas globally and, especially, in Singapore – despite the efforts of bigots everywhere!

________________________________

Below is the entire unedited comment by the reader.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Singapore General Elections 2015: ten key takeaway...": 

I read through your entire blog and I've got to honestly admit - as a Singaporean of Indian descent - that I was surprised to find out that you were granted Singapore citizenship. Didn't the PAP promise us that they'd carefully monitor the intake of new citizens and select citizens from backgrounds that are least likely to cause conflict with actual Singaporeans? The fact that they're now naturalising Pakistanis, many of whom irrationally hate Indians and non-Muslims to the core, kind of flies in the face of their promise. It is disappointing. You are intelligent, progressive, and I have nothing against you, but I wouldn't feel safe in my country if many of your countrymen (or should I say ex-countrymen) were to come here and take up citizenship. I doubt many of them would be able to leave their petty cross-border mindset behind and would probably cause a lot of problems by insulting third and fourth-gen local Indians, many of whom have nothing to do with that nonsense in the first place. 

I'm a staunch supporter of the CMIO model. Singapore can never be like the United States, and this country is a lot more insular than most people think it really is. There's nothing wrong with that at all, and the fact that we have four official languages enshrined in the constitution whilst the U.S. has none is proof that the CMIO model is not going anywhere and will be here to stay for the forseeable future. Of course, there are people who call for it to be abolished but those are mostly outside voices who feel out of place in a country that they aren't historically connected to in the first place. In that case, the U.S. or Australia would be a much better option for them. 

Posted by Anonymous to The Grand Moofti Speaks at 09 November, 2015 08:13

__________________

Imran is a Singapore based Tour Guide with a special interest in arts and history. Imran has lived and worked in several countries in his career as an international banker. He enjoys traveling, especially by train, to feed his curiosity about the world and nurture his interest in photography. Imran can be contacted at imran.ahmed.sg@gmail.com. Follow Imran on twitter at @grandmoofti and Instragram at imranahmedsg.

Singapore’s strategic challenge: SG50 to SG100

SG50 celebrations are quickly fading from Singapore's collective memory. The mutual self-congratulations and laudatory speeches are a thing of the past. Indeed, the political focus has shifted decisively towards the future with the official announcement of general elections expected imminently.

While Singapore's 'usual suspects' (e.g. immigration, public transport, cost of living, etc.) will command most attention during the forthcoming election campaign, it is Singapore's welfare over the next 50 years which demand more focus.

Arguably, the 50 years nation building period since 1965 may prove easier to navigate than the coming 50 years. Why? Several reasons come to mind.

Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) is the most obvious answer.

Singapore was fortunate to have firm, visionary leadership for several post-independence decades – a luxury denied most newly decolonized nations. Leadership best symbolized by LKY, but also includes other cabinet members (e.g. Goh Keng Swee, Rajaretnam et. al.) influential in their own right in shaping critical national policy frameworks.

Singapore circa 1965 was a typical third world city: undeveloped, unclean and riddled with crime. Arguably, things could not get much worse – only better. Certainly, development is easier when started from a low base - improvements are more visible and impactful.

Singapore took a free market, export led approach to generating economic growth in an era when many decolonized countries practiced and preached economic self-reliance. China was well and truly a People's Republic. Deng Xiao Ping had not yet worked his magic. India was a socialist country firmly implanted on the Soviet Union's side during the Cold War. Both China and India were off limits to international investors.

For ASEAN's Asian Tigers it was a sunny period as they received large doses of direct foreign investment from wealthy industrialized nations. There was far less competition for the international investment dollar. Fast forward to 2015 and things are different.

Singapore no longer starts from a low economic base.

On the contrary, Singapore is now one of the wealthiest nations in the world. It is hard, if not impossible, to generate and sustain (say) seven percent annual GDP growth with GDP per capita at USD 56,000 versus the 1965 per capita income of USD 516. Put simply, seven percent growth equals an annual increment of USD 36 in 1965 versus a yearly increase in income of almost USD 4,000 today (a monthly wage increase of approximately SGD 450).

Suddenly one pillar of Singapore's historical social contract looks a bit wobbly?

Like other Asian Tiger economies, a key factor in Singapore's early economic success was its low cost structure. Contemporary Singapore is no longer cost competitive for traditional businesses. Quite the reverse, recent surveys suggest Singapore is now a frightfully expensive place for international companies.

That's not all. Singapore's economic success brings with it other concerns.

A wealthy, literate population has different expectations from the country's political leadership.

Having achieved success, some Singaporeans believe they are entitled to a 'cradle to the grave' social welfare structure, often citing various European countries as appropriate models. The increased demands by citizens coupled with the power of the social media – think Arab Spring – has on occasion forced the government's hand towards populist polices.

Undoubtedly, Singapore can afford higher social expenditure but if the 'entitlement' trend continues then Singapore becomes closer to Europe in other ways too: high taxes, poor delivery of government services and a rigid labor market. Or Singapore heads towards unsustainable social expenditure (think Greece)?

Unfortunately (or fortunately) ASEAN is not the European Union and no one owes Singapore a living!

Politically, no single leader has the gravitas and respect accorded to LKY and his team.

The political contract was simpler in 1965: the government improves economic conditions and the citizenry don't ask too many difficult questions. In contrast, today's electorate is keen to question the leadership and flex its muscles at the ballot box. The upshot: despite the ruling People's Action Party's achievements for Singapore over the last 50 years, the city's long standing rulers cannot take the popular vote for granted.

Consequently, the government cannot enact unpopular policies with the same bluster as before. A literate, connected and wealthy (entitled?!) electorate is not as easy to boss around as the less well-off, kampong dwelling Singaporean of the past.  

History is for historians and the future is for the next generation (or, PAP, what have you done for me lately)?!

Despite all the challenges face in an uncertain world, there are many reasons to argue for Singapore's continued success in the next 50 years.

Governmence structures are solidly in place.

Public service and the bureaucracy continue to attract talent due to competitive compensation structures. In an often unstable region, Singapore's educated and English speaking society provides a haven of stability which allows the country to charge a 'Singapore Premium.'

Currency reserves – effectively savings squirreled away for a rainy day - are sizeable.

Between GIC and Temasek, Singapore's two sovereign wealth funds, GIC and Temasek, contain a massive USD 538 billion in assets. A sum equivalent to approx. USD 161,000 for each of Singapore's 3.4 million citizens! These savings provide a limited insurance policy for increased social welfare expenditures.

Singapore's new found wealth also makes the country ideally placed in a capitalist world.

The Republic is a global investor in its own right with large investments, particularly in developing ASEAN and China. In time these investments will generate significant positive income for the country.

But let's forget logic for a moment. After all, human society is a collection of human emotional endeavours?

Singapore's future is about survival for its resourceful and creative population. So if necessity is the mother of invention (or re-invention is this case) then the odds suggest that this small (non-secular!) island republic will succeed in for the next fifty years!

__________________

Imran is a business and management consultant. Through his work at Deodar Advisors and the Deodar Diagnostic, Imran improves profits of businesses operating in Singapore and the region. He can be reached at imran@deodaradvisors.com. 

Are there any Malays in the audience?

Undoubtedly, many Singaporeans have seen the above message. It is doing the rounds on social media.

Am I alone in believing the message is offensive? And I am not even Malay.

"Do not provoke the Malays people."

I guess it is fine to provoke Malays in normal times but not these days. However, if one feels aggressive then go ahead and provoke the Chinese. It seems they will not react to unnecessary provocations!

"Be friendly and keep a distance from them [Malays]."

If one happens to be a Malay Singaporean (odds are about one in seven) planning to visit family in Malaysia to celebrate Hari Raya, cancel your visit immediately. There is no telling what these fanatics might do – best to just stay at home and spread rumours instead!

"Malays are string [stirring] members and are planning a rampage to slaughter the Chinese becos of the LowYat incident."

So if you happen to be a 'normal' [aka non-Malay] Singaporean don't visit JB or any other part of Malaysia during the coming long weekend. It's not violent crime that should worry us; it's the possibility of being slaughtered for being Chinese.

I am normally not one to give credence to conspiracy theories. However, even if the message is well intentioned - which I suspect is not the case - it is alarmist, racist and certainly falls prey to negative stereotyping. It may create ill-will among Singaporeans.

Perhaps I have yet to come to terms with being a minority living in a Chinese majority (multi-racial) Republic? Or perhaps I am simply overreacting to an otherwise innocent message?

__________________

Imran is a business and management consultant. Through his work at Deodar Advisors and the Deodar Diagnostic, Imran improves profits of businesses operating in Singapore and the region. He can be reached at imran@deodaradvisors.com.