Friday, February 22, 2013

Contradictions between people from Big and Small Countries – Root problem of New Migrants’ integration


The following is the translation of the previous Chinese article I have written with regards to the debate between Mr. Li Yeming and MP Mr. Low Thia Khiang. Special thanks and credits to Temasek Review Emeritus (TRE) for coming up with the translation which I have made various editing. However, any misrepresentation or mistakes found on this Translated article would be my responsibility.
Having read the exchange of words between Mr Li Ye Ming and MP Mr Low Thia Kiang for the past few days, I find it ironic that the differences brought out by this debate between Mr Li, coming from a mighty country, and MP Mr Low, who was born and bred here (a small country) are somewhat a miniature reflection of the difficulties and challenges faced by new immigrants trying to integrate into the core of Singapore!
First of all, I must clarify that even though I belong to the opposition camp, undeniably started my political venture from the Workers Party and I could even regard Mr Low Thia Kiang as my initial mentor in, but just as Mr Low himself had said during the Punggol East By-election rally, we no longer walk on the same path and we have nothing to do with each other now. Furthermore, I do not actually agree with the political views of the Workers Party with regards to the population policy. If Mr Li thinks that the views of the Workers Party are ‘radical’, then my political views on this issue may come across as being ‘extremely radical’ to him. Radical or not, it is just a matter of relativity. I see the political views of the Workers Party as being too lax and gentle. The views of PAP are actually so radical that they have ignored the welfare of the Singaporean people at large. But these are our personal views and they are relative. It’s pointless to argue on these terms.
In my view, Singapore has already reached a critical stage in all aspects, results of its aggressive import of foreign population and labour for the past ten over years. Not only should we have to restrict the influx of foreign population, we should also try to maintain the total population at present level (at zero growth) by systematically and progressively reducing the number of foreigners coming to our shores. This goes even further than the zero growth of foreign labour and the target of 5.9 million by 2030 proposed by the Workers Party. I’ll not go on about the basis for my views here but basically, the main difference between someone coming from a ‘mighty country’ and someone from a ’small country’ is that from a very young age, all of us have the basic sense that our country is very small, or simply put, just a little red dot. Land is scarce and everything has to be considered with this objective reality in mind. This is something that Mr Li will never be able to comprehend, having come from a vast state.
China is the most populous country in the world, with a population of 1.3 billion. Although Singapore is only a small country with a population of 5 million, but it we look at the population density alone, Singapore has already surpassed China by more than fifty times! Therefore the conflict arises between Mr Li, coming from a ‘mighty country’, and us from such a ’small’ country- the inherent perception of our objective realities are entirely different and thus, it’s no surprise that we will reach different conclusions! In China, if one can’t stand the crowded cities, one can always retreat to the villages to be farmer in the countryside and live off the land. But in Singapore, if we screw up on our population policy, there would be no hinterland that we can retreat to. Or are we expected to jump into the sea?
We oppose the continue import of foreign population not because we are xenophobic, but due to the consideration of the constraints imposed by these objective realities. We do not have the means to continue to import foreigners indefinitely. Perhaps we had really been a society of migrants in the past, but to put it colloquially, that was when ‘policemen wore shorts’! ( If as a new citizen Mr Li does not understand this phrase, please ask the true-blue Singaporeans around you!)
Mr Li claimed that he is not ignorant of the ‘White Terror’ era of our country, but I really suspect that he only possesses a superficial knowledge. Even for myself, as a Singaporean born and bred here, I cannot say for sure that I have really understood what this historical vacuum presented by the ‘White Terror’ was all about, let alone a new immigrant like Mr Li. And this is one of the reasons why new immigrants like Mr Li will find it hard to integrate into Singapore- they only have a half-baked knowledge of Singapore’s history, yet feel that they already have the history and conditions faced by Singapore all figured out.
As for Mr Li, he also has a half-baked knowledge of economic theory, and yet he has opened fire on the Workers Party so blatantly. He said that “If the Workers Party wants to put a freeze on foreign labour, then how will they propose to solve the current problem of labour shortage? The Workers Party is advocating lower economic growth, to bring down demand for labour, and yet they are asking for a rise in wages on the other hand, in order to encourage more people who are currently inactive to enter the workforce. They don’t seem to understand the contradiction presented by lowering economic growth and yet raising wages.” Such reasoning is actually fallacious. Rise in wages do not necessarily lead to greater economic growth, because if wages are raised on one hand, but the total labour force remains stagnant (as profits drop) or is reduced, GDP may not rise that fast. The GDP is the sum total of all wages and income. So, the stand of the Workers Party is not self-contradictory at all.
Singapore is the most open country in the world with regards to its immigration policies. We are unlike China or Japan, where they only award citizenships to their own race, be it Chinese or Japanese. Singapore does not take into account racial differences. Even if anyone were to come from Latin America, as along as they meet the criteria, Singapore will award the citizenship to them. On the contrary, it is extremely difficult to obtain Chinese or Japanese citizenship if one is not of the same stock or race. I can definitely say that many new immigrants like Mr Li, who have given up their Chinese nationality to apply for Singapore citizenship, will not complain that China is being xenophobic because of this. I have also never heard of any Chinese national or new immigrant express any dissent over China’s “xenophobic” immigration policy. Therefore, I am extremely puzzled that Mr Li has slapped on the label of being “xenophobic” on the Workers Party. Has he ever protested China’s “xenophobic” policies? Then why is he kicking up such a ruckus over someone ‘fanning xenophobic sentiments’ in a small country like Singapore?
Any country in the world would look after the interests of its own citizens first, as its priority. This is only right. Any policy of the country should also ultimately be beneficial to its own people. And these benefits do not just refer to financial benefits, but also include factors relating to the citizens’ quality of life. Of course, if Mr Li has become a citizen, then the country needs to take his welfare into account as well. And these benefits are not just about economic growth. If the fruits of economic growth are not distributed evenly and bring little benefits to most citizens at large, but on the other hand the social costs of this growth has to be borne by them, then this is totally unacceptable. So, when Mr Li asked: ‘ Isn’t economic growth important?’ I simply think that his question is extremely narrow and naive. At present, we cannot ignore the problems caused by the foreign labour policies. Not only will these foreign labour policies depress the wages of some Singaporeans, it may even lead to serious inadequate or under-employment. If economic growth is achieved at such a cost, on top of inflation, increased pricing of houses, deterioration of the living environment and extremely crowded traffic conditions etc., we have perhaps paid too high a social cost for such economic growth!
The tirades of Mr Li against MP Mr Low for his views regarding the integration of new immigrants into the Singaporean core demonstrate the vast difference in understanding between people from a ‘mighty country’ and that of people from a ’small country’, which cannot be ignored. Our forebears had nothing when they first arrived in Singapore. They endured the hardships as coolies together, three years and eight months of the Japanese Occupation, the period of anti-colonialism, the tumultuous times of nation-building, racial riots …etc. They worked hard to learn how to live in harmony with other dialect groups and races; and faced the same external threats together. Back then, Singapore was not so crowded. The population did not even pass a million, so we still had the means to import more immigrants. It is really not an easy task for any society or country to forge a united citizenry or people within the framework of very diverse races. But we weathered the crises together, and reached certain consensus, we served NS together, endured the hardships together, and speak Singlish together…all these has not been simply a day’s work for such a small country like Singapore. This work required at least a generation or two to achieve our present status. 
If many more new immigrants are injected within a very short span of time, this will have a very large impact on the initial core values that we had built up. This is not xenophobia but mere objective reality. In fact, the various troubles that have arisen so far have actually validated this point. New immigrants kicked up a big fuss because they were not used to the smell of Indian curry. They also kicked up a big fuss about funeral wakes being held downstairs of their homes, or the celebrations of the Seventh Lunar Month… and the native Singaporeans who were born and bred here were actually dumb-founded by all these complains. They simply could not understand what the fuss were all about! It is indeed not easy for immigrants who have come to such a small country from large, mighty ones to integrate into a multi-racial and multi-cultural society like Singapore. And the social impact which they have brought along is also an undeniable objective fact as well.
One’s cultural values will not automatically change just because he has had a change of nationality. Short of a shared experience, and the creation of a collective memory; to integrate new immigrants into this society is easier said than done! Even for Singaporeans born and bred here, we may have a sense that we are one country one people, but all of us also aware of the differences that we still have among one another. The key is to integrate in the midst of the differences, to co-exist with mutual respect and prosper together. Similarly, even though new immigrants have obtained their citizenship, they need to keep in mind the differences that exist between themselves and native Singaporeans. Without a recognition of the existence of such differences, how will they ever acknowledge and face head on the challenges of integration? And that is why I am in complete disagreement with Mr Li’s views that the act of MP Mr Low raising the differences of new immigrants is tantamount to fanning ‘xenophobic’ sentiments! This is as ridiculous as accusing me of being racist just because I say that Singapore Malays are different.
Stopping or even reducing the influx of immigrants for the greatest benefits of one’s own citizens is not xenophobic, but simply making the appropriate choice based on objective realities. How can it possibly be that a country does not put the interest of its people as a priority? If Mr Li has really become a Singapore citizen, then I have to ask him where his loyalty lies. Or do he has lingering ties and attachment with his former Motherland? He needs to at least have this very basic understanding that he should be fighting for Singaporeans’ interests instead of his former compatriots. If he is a new immigrant who is just having PR status, then he needs to realise that this is Singapore. It is only right that we look after our own citizens first. He has no rights to interfere in our internal politics.
I’ll stop here. As for the other more complicated matters relating to the population policy, I’ll leave it to the next time.
Goh Meng Seng

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

强国人与小国人的矛盾 – 新移民磨合的困处




这两天拜读了李叶明先生和刘程强议员的针锋相对的文章后,我觉得讽刺的是,这争论反而凸现了来自强国中国的李生和土生土长的刘议员的矛盾正是我们面对新移民难于磨合融入新加坡核心的缩影!

首先我必须先申明,虽然我是反对党阵营的人,无可否认的也是“师出工人党”,甚至可以说刘程强曾是我政治启蒙老师,但是就如刘议员在榜鹅补选的群众大会上所说的,我们如今道不同,已不相为谋了。更进一步的讲,我并不完全认同工人党在人口政策的政见。如果李生认为工人党的政论是“极端”,那我的政见可能对他来说是将是“非常极端”了。极端与否,是相对的。我看工人党的政见是太松散温和了,行动党的根本是极端得无顾及新加坡人的广大福利。但这些都是我们各人相对的看法,以此争论对错是没什么意义的。

以我之见,新加坡目前在这十多年来过度输入外来人口和劳工下,各方面已经病入膏肓了,我们不止要制约外来人口的输入,反而要以有序的步伐去减低外来人口的数目,以维持人口总数(总人口零增长)。这比起工人党的外来劳工输入零增长而在2030年达到五百九十万的人口目标还要进取。姑且暂时不论我的论述是以什么为基准,但基本上与“强国人”不同的是,我们“小国人”从小就意识到我们国家是非常小,俗称“弹丸小国”,土地有限,所以培养了对各方面的看法都会以这客观现实为主要考量。这是来自大国的李生无法真正理解的。

中国虽然以十三亿人口冠为世界上人口最多的国家,但像新加坡这样的一个五百万人小国,以人口土地比例来算却已经超越中国五十多倍!所以强国人的李生跟我们小国人的矛盾就出自这里:对客观环境的认知完全不同,得出的结论当然也一定不同了!在中国,如果你受不了城市的拥挤,你大可回到乡下田野,靠山靠田生活下去。但是在新加坡,一旦人口政策搞砸了,我们是没有腹地可退居的。难道要我们跳下海不成?

我们反对继续输入外来人口的原因不是因为我们排外,而是基于客观事实的局限,我们没有那个本钱永无止尽的继续输入外来人口。也许我们以前真是移民社会,但是套一句新加坡的俗语,以前的“马达”穿短裤哩!(如果身为新移民的李生如果看不懂这句话,请你请教周围的道地新加坡人吧!)

李生说他对我国“白色恐怖”时期不是一无所知,但我真的怀疑他是否只知皮毛而已。就算是我这土生土长的新加坡人,对于这“白色恐怖”时期的历史空白都不敢说是非常了解,更何况是身为新公民的李生呢?这也是为什么新公民难以磨合和融入新加坡的原因之一:他们对新加坡历史只一知半解,便以为他们已经非常了解新加坡历史和国情了。

至于李生,他还对经济理论一知半解,便针对工人党乱开枪。他说:“工人党要冻结外劳,那目前人手短缺的问题怎么解决?工人党主张调低经济增长,抑制人力需求;另一方面又主张提高工资,吸引更多经济不活跃者重返劳动队伍。他们似乎完全没意识到,下调经济增长与上调工资之间的矛盾。”这是似是而非的观点。工资提高不一定能提高经济增长,因为如果一方面提高工资但是另一方面因减少外劳输入而导致总劳动人口呆滞或减少的话,总国民生产就不会增长得太快。国民生产是所有工资和收入的总和。所以说,工人党的立场并没有矛盾。

新加坡是世上对外来劳工最开放的国家。我们不像中国或日本一样,只给自己族人,华人或日本人,国籍。新加坡不拘种族分别,就算你是从远自南美洲,只要能符合资格,新加坡也会发公民权给他们。反之,其他外族的外国人要拿中国或日本的公民权是非常困难的。但是我可以很肯定许多如李生放弃中国国籍而申请新加坡公民权的新移民并非因为中国如此“排外”。我也没听过任何中国人或新移民有对这种“排外”的政策有任何异议。所以我对李生对工人党直批“排外”感到非常不解。他有曾针对他以前伟大的祖国抗议过政策“排外”吗?为什么到了新加坡这样的小国就会敏感的嚷嚷着“煽动排外”呢?

无论世界任何国家都会优先对待自己的国民,这是再自然不过的。任何政策的最终目的都必须“利民”,有利于自己的国民。这利不止于钱财的利益,还包括了所有关系到国民生活素质的因素。当然,如果李生已经成为新加坡公民,国家也必须顾及他的利益。这利益不只关于经济增长;如果经济的增长因分配成果不均而没有给广大国民任何好处,而这增长的社会成本竟然要广大国民去承受,那这是不能容忍的。所以当李生问:“难道经济增长不重要吗?”的时候,我想那是非常狭隘而天真的提问。目前,我们不能无视外劳政策所带来的弊病。这外劳政策不只导致一些国人承受薪金被压低,严重的还导致就业不足。如果这经济增长是建立在这些成本再加上高物价、屋价、居住环境变差、公共交通超拥挤等等的话,那这些社会成本未免就太高了吧!

李生非议刘议员针对新移民磨合融入新加坡核心所做的言论也显示了强国人和小国人存在着不可忽视的认知问题。我们祖父辈刚到新加坡时,是一无所有的。他们一起经历了艰苦的苦力生活、三年零八个月的日治时期、反殖民、建国的动荡时期、种族暴动。。。等等。他们努力学习如何和其他籍贯和种族相处,面对同样的威胁。但是,那时他们到新加坡时,新加坡还没那么拥挤,人口没过百万,所以我们还有本钱继续输入外来人口。一个社会或国家要在多个不同种族的框架里磨合融入成团结的人民并非易事。我们共同经历了种种危机,也有各种共同意识,一起当过兵,吃过苦,说着共同新加坡式英语。。。这对一个小国来说不是一朝一夕就能建立起来的。这至少需要一两代人才能铸成的。如果在短时间内,加入过多的外来新移民的话,这对原有的核心价值观会造成冲击的。这不是排外论而是客观事实。事实上,以往发生的种种事端便能证明这观点。新移民不适应印度咖喱味道而大闹;新移民不能忍受邻居在组屋楼下办丧事或传统农历七月拜祭而大闹。。。这些对土生土长的新加坡人来说是匪夷所思的!对于从大国强国移民到这小国度的移民来说,要适应或真正磨合融入新加坡这多元种族多元文化的社会里,并非易事。而带给我们社会文化的冲击,也是不容置疑的客观事实。

一个人的文化价值观不会因换了一换国籍身份就会顺理成章的改变。少了共同体验,制造共同记忆,要新移民磨合融入这社会,谈何容易啊!就算是土生土长的新加坡人,虽然我们能有国民的认同感,但是我们也非常了解彼此的差异。能在差异中磨合融入,互相尊敬共荣,这才是关键。同样的,虽然新移民拿了公民权,他们也不能忽略自己和其他土生土长新加坡人的差异。如果不认为有差异,又怎么能正视磨合融入的问题呢?所以我对李生把刘议员所提出新移民的差异作为“排外”论很不以为然!这好比说,我说同样是新加坡人的马来人跟我们有很大的差异就等于种族歧视一样荒谬!

为了捍卫自己人民最大利益而必须停止增加或甚至减少外来移民绝对不是排外,而是根据客观环境事实而做出的正确取舍。一个国家如果不把人民的利益摆在第一位,那还像个国家吗?如果李生真的已经是新加坡公民,那我可要问问他的忠心到底是归属哪里?是他和以往的祖国藕断丝连吗?他必须有这起码的认知,他应该争取的是广大新加坡人民的福利,不再是他同乡的利益。如果他只是拿了永久居民权的新移民,那么他也必须意识到这是新加坡,我们一定先照顾本国国民而他不应该干涉我们的内政。

我就写到这里,至于其他有关人口政策比较复杂的问题,留到下回再解。

吴明盛