Singapore Society: Foreign Talents

Introduction and Methodology

Singapore is a cosmopolitan city that consists of more than 4 million people. Among this population of 4 million people, there are a significant number of foreigners, ranging from construction worker, maids to expatriates. This number of foreigners has been constantly increasing mainly due to the government policy of overtly importing foreign talents into Singapore. Among these foreigners, there is this group of sportsmen who are given Singapore citizenships in order for them to represent Singapore in international sports competitions. In our essay, we are going to examine how Singaporeans feel about these foreign sports talents playing for Singapore and why they feel this way. Do they treat these foreign sportsmen as fellow Singaporeans or do they just see them as tools that Singapore uses to achieve recognition in the international sports arena, vice versa. In order to gather the opinions of Singaporeans, we have drawn up a survey consisting of 16 questions that will help us in understanding the views of Singaporeans regarding our focus of research. And at the end of the essay, we will attempt feebly to state the significance of social change in Singapore society and predict what might happen in the future.

The method we used to conduct the survey was in person. The survey was done face to face with the 15 participants so that there would not be any misunderstandings and we would be there to explain those questions that our interviewees do not understand or are unclear about. A targeted group of young, well-educated Chinese Singaporeans were chosen to found out how this specific group reacts to the influx of foreign sports talent. Such a group was chosen as the requirements of the paper do not allow us to include the general view of all Singaporeans. To prevent the misconception that those interviewed represents the general view of Singaporeans, they were be referred to as the interviewees.


The foreign talent scheme

Before we start the analysis of how Singaporeans feel towards foreign sports talents, we feel a need to first give a brief introduction of the Foreign Talent Scheme (FTS). The Singapore government has in recent years attempt to improve Singapore’s standings in the international sporting arena. They are however keenly aware of the glaring problem that Singapore is facing; a lack of a huge enough population to produce enough local sports talent, or more importantly, a lack of sports talents. The foreign talent scheme is the government’s aggressive policy of courting foreign talents in order to support or boost our local ones. In the sports arena, it would refer to giving them citizenships for them to represent Singapore as “Singaporeans”. Under this foreign talent scheme, we see a continuation of the British policies of “bringing specific people from specific places to do specific jobs”; to harness the expertise of the various group of people. In the same way, the Singapore government brought in players from China to play table-tennis, players from Indonesia, a badminton power house, to play in our badminton team. An interesting observation of Singapore’s FTS is how the players imported were all from countries with a lower Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita. The GDP per capita for China is $3600 while Indonesia is $2830 and Nigeria is $960. Singapore alone has a $26300 per annum GDP. From this, we can assume that monetary rewards form the basis for attracting these talents to Singapore.


Analysis

Nationhood versus Statehood

From our survey, we realized that all except one of our interviewees are aware of the presence of foreign legions in the Singapore national team. Most of them, 9 out of 15, however, do not agree to the government’s policy of giving away citizenship to these players just so that they can play in the Singapore jersey. But by granting them citizenship, is it possible that the government is letting the foreign talents represent Singapore as a member of the state, whereas in the eyes of the interviewees, the foreign talents are representing Singapore as a member of the nation, because they don the national emblems on their jerseys. In a way, these interviewees view citizenship as a representation of nationality. This tells us that they have a misconception, that they are confused about the idea of state- and nationhood.


Viewing them as our own

In that note, 11 out of 15 of the interviewees do not view the foreign talents as Singaporeans and 10 out of 15 are unable to fully identify themselves with the achievements of these foreign talents. One of the reasons cited were that even though they represent Singapore, these foreign talents were essentially not born in Singapore. This in turn tells us that the country of birth, in the eyes of the interviewees, is an important factor in determining the nationality of a people.

Others that did not cited place of birth as a primary reason believed that it is because these foreigners came as talents that their achievements were not ours. How so? The foreigners were chosen because they had displayed a certain level of skills. Even though after their arrival they were given substantial trainings, they were first and foremost trained in their original countries. So they were plying a trade that was not Singaporean in nature.


Symbol of allegiance

Many of the interviewees exhibit a prejudice that the foreign talents came because they were not doing well in their own country. And as mentioned above, the basis of attraction to Singapore seems to be monetary in nature. This is also evident in the promises of huge prize money by the government for achieving specific targets like high finishes or medals won. These forms of remunerations have led most of the interviewees to believe that the foreigners are merely mercenaries, pledging allegiance only to the dollar, instead of Singapore.

Some believed that the foreigners were looking for a better life and higher standard of living. If so, then there is no guarantee that they will stay and not jump onto the plane the very minute another country with a better offer comes knocking. Others are afraid that the foreigners are sojourners, that even as they are given permanent residency or citizenship, they are like the forefathers of Singapore, yearning to one day return to their homeland after earning enough. The interviewees’ sentiments are echoed by others:
“Just like most of the MNC that have left Singapore for more competitive countries, foreign talents could also one day leave Singapore for other more attractive destinations. Singapore, therefore, needs to count on its own people much more. While Singapore can offer carrots for foreign talents to come here, either for sports or work, these foreign talents are basically a materialistic lot as they ventured overseas for greener pastures. What is to stop them from moving out of Singapore once their grazing is done? Singapore lacks other natural resources, its people is the only resource it can tap and develop. Reliance on foreign talents can only go so far. Let us not forget that.” (http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=148)


Why else are they here?

These are however not all that was felt. According to the survey, there are some that felt that these foreigners came because of Singapore inherent attractiveness. We have a strong government that expresses openness and practices a welcoming policy; our economy and society is stable; our education system can provide their children with an all rounded development; our streets are safe with one of the lowest crime rates in the world:

“Singapore is blessed with a highly developed and successful free-market economy, a remarkably open and corruption-free business environment, stable prices, and the fifth highest per capita GDP in the world. Exports, particularly in electronics and chemicals, and services are the main drivers of the economy. The government promotes high levels of savings and investment through a mandatory savings scheme and spends heavily in education and technology. It also owns government-linked companies (GLCs) - particularly in manufacturing - that operate as commercial entities and account for 60% of GDP.”

These reasons, some feel, will make sure the foreign talents will come and stay. We are able to make them realize that there is not a place like Singapore and will therefore be willing to permanently settle down and be a through and through Singaporean. This view is enforced by one of the most locally-renowned foreign talent, paddler for the national team;
“I've been in Singapore for more than 12 years, I married a local and I'm the mother of a four-year-old Singapore boy, I've been proud and happy all these years but, every now and then, there will be some who will bring up these questions of loyalty and citizenship. Really, what can I say? Is there any way of proving myself? Is there a test I can take?” - Jing Jun Hong (http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/031214a1.htm)


Better or worse

Despite their disdain of the foreigners, 9 of the interviewees felt that we are indeed doing better in the international sports scene because of the foreign talents with 6 having expressed no particular inclination and none felt that we are doing worse. This is evident from the various achievements of Team Singapore in competitions such as the Southeast Asian games, All-England Badminton Tournament, and World Table-Tennis Grand Prix.

“For they have done well, whether it was Ronald Susilo making the quarter finals at the Athens Olympics or Jiang Yanmei and Li Yujia earning a Top 10 world ranking in the women's doubles. Then there were the encouraging performances of young players like Kendrick Lee and Xing Aiying. Our mixed doubles combination of Li and Hendri Kurniawan Saputra have also made their mark.

Best Performer
First a few words about Susilo. He was clearly the year's best performer among our players. Apart from winning the Japan Open, he also became the first Singaporean in 37 years to reach the semi-finals of the All-England championships. Then in Athens, he created a big upset by beating world No 1 Lin Dan of China in the opening round before losing to Thailand's Boonsak Ponsana in the quarter-finals.

Respectable Showings
Jiang and Li have clearly made god progress this year. Formed in the middle of last year, this doubles pair has proven to be a force, wining five small satellite victories and putting up respectable performances in the bigger Grand Prix events. For example, they reached the last eight of the five-star Denmark and Malaysia Opens and made the semi-finals at the two-star German and Taiwan Opens.”(http://www.teamsingapore.com.sg/main/detail.jsp?cat=1&a_id=5918&type=1&print=1)

Thus indeed the feelings of the interviewees are well founded. We have indeed done better because we are now in a better position in terms of sporting achievements many of which are achievements of foreign talents.


Locals versus foreign

Our survey has also revealed concerns of the interviewees that the foreign talents are doing better at the expense of local talents. Some believed that in importing foreign talents, the government is stifling local development due to negative competition. With the influx of foreign talents, resources are necessarily used as upkeep and also necessarily diverted to fund their trainings, instead of training local talents. Secondly, as more and more attention is placed on foreign talents, it is inevitable that local talents will be, to a certain degree, neglected. 11 out of the 15 interviewed felt that more emphasis should be placed on developing local talents. Local talents, they felt, should be the ones that form the backbone of Team Singapore’s achievements, instead of the foreign talents, as it is the case thus far.

This concern is however, not totally true. With the setting of the Sports School, the government has increased its effort in nurturing local talents to play a more significant part. They are trying to redirect local youth’s attention from good grades, better employment to include sporting achievements. That is not to say that good grades are not important, rather it is to give equal weightage to both academic and non-academic achievements. As 1 interviewee puts it, “with the Singapore Sports School, hopefully there will be more local talents that shine in the sporting arena.”


Mixed views

The most prominent conclusion from this survey is that while many of the interviewees exhibit a somewhat xenophobic attitude; they were unable to identify with the foreigners; they were not proud of their achievements; they were unsure of the foreign talents’ loyalty; they hold the prejudice that most of the foreign talents were not doing well in there own country; they felt that too much emphasis are on foreign talents and insufficient on local talents and so on.

They were unable to deny that the foreign talents contributed to the Singapore sports scene; both as players that basked in the lime lights, as well as “behind the stage” as coaches and other support roles. The foreign talents were also undeniably the ones that were raking in the medals and the awards.

Other than the mixed views amongst the low-level interviewees there are also mixed views between the interviewees and the government. From this survey and from research done on the issue of foreign talents, we can conclude a disparity and classic case of difference between top-down and bottom-up approach. The interviewees, on one hand, are less than supportive of the foreign talent scheme, the government, on the other hand, are the main proponents. In fact, without the government, there will be no foreign talent scheme. One of the most outward manifestations of this difference can be found in former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong’s National Rally in 2002, Remaking Singapore – Changing Mindsets,
“Last year, I spoke on the importance of attracting international talent to Singapore. This is crucial for our growth and development. I was therefore disturbed by the negative comments over our medal haul in the Commonwealth Games. Some Singaporeans claimed that they felt no pride in those achievements, because they were by foreign imports. These Singaporeans need to change their negative mindset. If we gripe, instead of honouring our foreign-born Singaporeans for their success, we are giving the wrong signal to other talent who want to make Singapore their home. Our table-tennis and badminton stars may have been born outside Singapore. But they have now all become Singapore citizens. Some have their families here, and have sunk roots here. They trained hard and played their hearts out for Singapore. They did us proud - first medals in the Commonwealth Games after 16 years; first gold medals after 40 years. How can anyone now be so ungracious, small-minded, and mean, to deride their success?”(http://www.channelnewsasia.com/cna/ndp2002/text_rally5.htm)


National identity

In the words of Former Prime Minister Goh, we are only a state, not yet a nation (Singapore Straits Times, 6 May 1999). This statement is put to the test when the interviewees seem to be putting up a united front against the foreign talents. Their reactions to the foreign talent scheme, are giving us a perception that seems to contrary to Mr. Goh’s beliefs. For if we are not a nation; we are not, on least on the psychological level, acting as one, then the interviewees would not have such an adverse view on foreign talents. Also, looking at the way they were worried about the stifling of young local talents, we can see the presence of a protective behavior. And this protective behaviour is to protect what we see as our own. It is precisely with the existence of a national identity that we can deem what is ‘in’ and what is ‘out’. In this case, the foreign talents are seen as ‘out”. Therefore, it can be deduced that a national identity might in fact exist.


Conclusion

From our studies, there are several points that we observed. The government’s policy of importing foreign talents is in fact a matter of concern for Singaporeans. There are several reasons for their concerns that we have raised in our essay. But most importantly, we can see that there is confusion between statehood and nationhood as well as the possible presence of a national identity. From the results of the survey, it may seem that Singaporeans are xenophobic, but what is important is the reason behind this perceived xenophobia. Is it a national identity, fear of competition or is it something else? What can be observed from this issue is that it is more of a struggle between the top-down and the bottom-up forces. The people might generally be against the importing of foreign talents, while the government is for. In our assignment’s feeble attempt to predict the future, we would say that there would not be too much of a change in terms of our policy of importing foreign talent as the top-down pressure is apparently stronger, given the government’s stronghold in Singapore’s politics.