Engagement the only way to transcend fear

Rising xenophobia has been flagged as a major concern in Singapore. A poll by the Institute of Policy Studies showed that more than 30 per cent of Singaporean residents believe there is more nationality-based prejudice now compared with five years ago.

Twelve independent human rights groups — including Maruah, the Association of Women for Action and Research and Transient Workers Count Too — also issued a statement noting the “widespread use of racist, aggressive and militarised rhetoric” targeted at foreigners.

And there are now blogs, for instance, that spell out ways Singaporeans could be nasty to Filipinos, prompting a rebuke from Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin, who said there is no place for racists and xenophobes in our society.

What is the cause of this xenophobic impulse?

Although foreigners have always been a part of modern Singapore, their numbers have increased significantly over time. In 2000, foreigners — excluding permanent residents — numbered about 755,000. Their numbers surged to 1.31 million in 2010 and almost 1.55 million last year.

The spike in the foreigner population has been blamed for problems such as overcrowding in public transport, the shortage of beds in hospitals and a steep increase in the cost of public housing. It is likely that these issues have played a part in fuelling sentiments against foreigners.

Very often, societies like to find scapegoats for their social problems — foreigners. History bears proof.

During the gold rush in California in the late 1840s, Chinese immigrants were largely welcomed. Known for their industriousness and versatility, these immigrants provided labour for the growing mining industry and contributed substantially to the building of the Central Pacific Railroad.

But as economic prospects dimmed in the 1870s, there was a growing wave of anti-Chinese sentiment that eventually led the United States Congress to pass the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882.

It completely banned the arrival of new Chinese immigrant workers in the US for 10 years. Subsequently renewed in 1892 and made permanent in 1902, the Act was repealed only nearly 60 years later in 1943.

THE POLITICS OF DIFFERENCE

Tapping on xenophobic sentiments and transforming them into political capital is highly expedient for political parties. Many fledgling parties have adopted this strategy to gain traction in polls.

In the recent parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom, the UK Independence Party, a far-right party formed in 1991, staged an upset by winning higher votes then the more established Conservative and Labour parties. Greece’s Golden Dawn party, an ultra-nationalist party, managed to secure 9.4 per cent of the vote to win three seats in the European Parliament. In the previous election held in 2009, it won no seats and received less than 1 per cent of the vote.

Magnifying differences between citizens and foreigners, and stoking up anti-foreigner sentiments might have the cursory benefit of bringing citizens together. But often, these ostensibly noble nationalistic movements are stitched together by more sinister ethnocentric ideas and could come to undermine the solidarity of the polity.

American philosopher Martha Nussbaum argues that “to give support to nationalist sentiments subverts, ultimately, even the values that hold a nation together, because it substitutes a colourful idol for the substantive universal values of justice and right”.

In the Singapore Pledge, values such as “justice, peace and equality” are emphasised. Toleration and constructively engaging those who are different are also held as a virtue in Singapore. It is not possible to build a society with a different set of values applied to Singaporeans and foreigners. Commitment to these values should guide Singaporeans’ response to everyone regardless of their nationality.

As politics in Singapore becomes more contentious, we must guard against the emergence of political parties using xenophobic sentiments to increase their appeal to voters. While the suggestion that the immigration policy has to be recalibrated in response to population-related woes might be justified, there is little basis to express hatred against foreigners.

ENGAGING THE OTHER

Over the past few years, the Government has been actively seeking to address the public grievances that have resulted from the increase in foreigner numbers. As the Government increases the capacity of public transport, builds more flats and makes labour policies more Singaporean-centric, it is possible that Singaporeans would feel less angst over the presence of foreigners and xenophobic sentiments could abate too.

However, the fundamental question of how Singaporeans view foreigners will not become any less important. With a total fertility rate hovering around 1.2, the need to keep the economy humming and position the Republic as a global city means the country has no choice but to depend on foreigners.

Toleration that entails adopting a live and let live approach is certainly a better alternative to xenophobia.

But toleration is not a positive doctrine of difference either; it dictates that one should be indifferent to differences, bearing the inconveniences of living in a diverse society. Harmony that is a result of mere tolerance would be tenuous.

Instead of seeking to eliminate or elide differences, Singaporeans and foreigners alike should engage each other about their differences in a fair-minded manner. There is a need to go beyond reflexive judgment of others to understand the basis for these differences.

This process would lead many to realise that these differences are in fact varying cultural manifestations of commonly-shared values.

Engagement should neither be confined to organised activities nor specific blocs of time. It has to be a continual process. Spontaneous moments in workplaces and community spaces can be great opportunities for conversation.

Unity forged in this way would be sturdier and would help create an endearing home for Singaporeans and those for whom it is a home away from home.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Muthhukumar Palaniyapan is a Singaporean undergraduate at New York University Abu Dhabi who has a keen interest in politics and public policy.