“By offering a conducive environment for work, family, arts consumption and the odd topless cabaret, the idea is to turn the little island into one giant Baskin Robbins — you are bound to find a flavour you like.”
-Terence Chong
For the moment:
Gadget Flow – Lupe Fiasco
I am now in Singapore. Will be back in Malaysia on Friday 28 March.
Every morning at home, I have the News Straits Times or The Star with Koko Krunch. Somehow, I have always found that there’s more interesting content (to comment about) when I have the Today (Singapore) for breakfast.
I came across this brilliant piece at my 11.45am breakfast.
Excerpts of Nationalism Should Not Be Exclusive with the sub-head Why embrace foreign PRs while demonising Singaporeans who emigrate?
“According to recent revelations, the country loses about 1,000 educated Singaporeans each year. In addition, there are an estimated 150,000 Singaporeans working or studying abroad, a good slice of whom will not be returning.
So, the Singapore government has imported foreign workers, not just to replace departing Singaporeans, but also to meet industry demands.
The flight of educated Singaporeans, economically speaking, poses no short-term problems for Singapore. For every person who leaves, 14 others come to permanently take his place. As a solutions-oriented approach, the open-door migration policy is a resounding success.
Still, emigrating Singaporeans are framed as a problem, and the government’s response has, so far, been either to woo them back or, in the not-too-distant past, to demonise them.
In wooing them back, the government takes a pro-active approach to reach out through organisations like Contact Singapore and the Singapore International Foundation, and with “soft power” vis-à-vis Singaporean-theme festivals in major cities around the world.
When it comes to demonising Singaporeans, labels like “quitters” and people who are “rootless” were at one time bandied about with ease. Labels like “quitters” are designed to arouse Singaporeans’ sense of nationalist indignity. They suggest a betrayal or abandonment, and mobilises nationalist sentiments against the emigrants.
But if we are willing to accept into the national fold PRs who have not yet forsaken their original citizenship, there is no reason to exclude overseas Singaporeans, both of the quitting and rootless variety.
Why embrace PRs who straddle two societies while cold-shouldering Singaporean “quitters” whose memories will always be rooted to this “little red dot”? The time has come to rescue nationalism from exclusivity.
Scholars are already talking about the “long-distance nationalism” of ethnic and religious diasporas that still hold political and cultural influence over their country of origin from afar.
For example, it (situational nationalism) describes how Singaporeans overseas tend to be more patriotic than those in Singapore. It describes how this patriotism fades when they return and fall into the rhythm of local life. It accommodates PRs who proclaim a great fondness for Singapore without wanting to give up their citizenship.
Until the exclusivity and authorship of nationalism can be fragmented, we will find it hard to accept new citizens.
Situational nationalism also addresses the subjective interpretation of national events. For example, the National Day Parade can fill some Singaporeans with unbearable pride and others with utter cynicism.
Situational nationalism is the most democratic form of nationalism because it is subjective and refuses to adhere to definitions by governments and the cultural elite.”
I wonder how does Malaysia fare in this department.
