Last week, an Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) report found that seven in 10 of the 2020 World Values Survey’s (WVS) 2,000-odd respondents in Singapore favoured placing strict limits on the number of foreigners entering the country for work.

This protectionist attitude to immigration is prevalent not only in Singapore.

In fact, just under 60 per cent of the WVS’ 68,000 respondents across 48 countries indicated likewise, when polled for their views on immigration policies.

Singaporeans’ wariness of foreigners, even amid their general appreciation of the value and importance of immigration, illustrates how immigration is often a thorny issue locally and abroad.

Anti-immigrant sentiment and discourse over the past decade reflect ground realities of a city-state endeavouring to fulfil economic goals, embrace diversity, pursue social equality and build a coherent national identity all at once.

The release of the 2013 Population White Paper projecting a total population of between 6.5 and 6.9 million did not sit well with the average Singaporean.

Many deemed the Government’s position on immigration as the cause of socioeconomic and infrastructural issues such as increasing competition for jobs and housing, rising inequality, reliability of public transport and overcrowding.

It should be noted that since 2013, many of these issues have been mitigated to varying degrees and the Government has tightened immigrant inflows.

Unfortunately, concerns persist that the Government may choose to augment the numbers of foreigners and new citizens, at the expense of local-born citizens’ wellbeing.

Occasionally, simmering tensions have boiled over.

High-profile incidents involving the coalescing of class and immigration issues, and the perceived slight of locals by well-heeled immigrants, often culminate in an outpouring of vitriol in the online space.

These issues exemplify how diversity and divergence are but two sides of the same coin.

If mismanaged, immigration fault lines can very easily degenerate into more insidious outcomes.

A 2019 IPS study on societal fault lines in Singapore found that Singaporeans considered immigration to be the issue most likely to diminish their national identity and trust in the Government.

Over a third of the 4,015 respondents surveyed also agreed that anger and polarisation would ensue if immigration were mismanaged.

DIFFERENCE IN PERSPECTIVES ACROSS CLASS, AGE COHORTS

Immigration is a complex issue. The notion that it can be reduced to a mere dichotomy between national economic prerogatives and individual wellbeing is simplistic, to say the least.

For one thing, preferences on how open Singapore should be on immigration are tied to issues of class.

WVS respondents who had monthly incomes of under S$3,000, resided in the smallest public housing units, and had Institute of Technical Education or lower educational qualifications were significantly more likely to feel that immigration leads to unemployment.

Over half of the groups above felt this way, as opposed to 40 per cent or less for their more privileged peers.

Given how businesses rely heavily on mid-skilled S-Pass holders drawing S$2,500 or more monthly, this could be perceived as unwelcome competition for jobs by typically less affluent, lower-educated individuals employed in or applying for similar positions.

Meanwhile, the more positive views that higher-educated individuals have about immigration may stem from their relatively better employment opportunities — both locally and abroad — accorded by their qualifications.

Generational divides are a second important factor influencing attitudes towards immigration. In general, youths were more likely to hold positive views and prefer more welcoming immigration policies.

This fact illustrates how younger Singaporeans are often exposed to a wider range of perspectives from abroad compared to their older peers, because of greater flows of information, opportunities to study and work across borders, and hyper-connectivity.

An accompanying hypothesis implicates the “world-weary” experiences that come with age.

Middle-aged or older individuals may have had more undesirable encounters with foreigners in their workplace or daily lives, including being retrenched and replaced by lower-cost foreign labour.

While these adverse experiences may be the exception rather than the norm, social psychological research shows convincingly that negativity bias prevails.

That is, people give greater weight to negative information because it engenders greater emotions which become etched in their memories.

So long as class differences and generational divides persist, attitudes towards immigration will vary. Unfortunately, neither of these fault lines will fade.

THE WAY FORWARD

From the WVS findings, we should take heart that the perspectives of many Singaporeans reflect discernment of the benefits immigration entails.

Significantly larger proportions of Singapore respondents agreed that immigration had a positive impact on development, and filled important job vacancies, relative to those who disagreed or were ambivalent.

On the social front, younger and higher-educated individuals were more likely to concur that immigration strengthens cultural diversity. Over half of the youngest respondents felt this way, as opposed to just 40 per cent of elders aged above 65.

Given that the Singaporean identity hinges on the embrace of its multicultural and inclusive social fabric, Singaporeans should continue striving for greater understanding and appreciation of diversity.

However, moving forward, policymakers should continue to manage immigrant inflows, monitor social discourse and mitigate tensions should they arise.

Given how 60 per cent of WVS respondents agreed or were uncertain when asked whether immigration leads to social conflict, the onus is on the Government to play the role of arbiter.

Any changes to the existing uneasy status quo hence should be pursued with prudence.

Any assumptions that a spike in numbers of immigrants can be absorbed with ease by the incumbent population will inevitably be proved erroneous.

Coupled with Singapore’s status as one of the most densely populated cities globally, the route to integrating newcomers into society is a gradual and complex one which requires the state, immigrants and the local population to be in accord.

Finally, the state must be able to continue cultivating public trust in and support of its institutions and policies. This is integral to the continued success of Singapore in staying united, and staying exceptional.

In addition to demographic factors, responses to the WVS indicate that confidence in state institutions and satisfaction with the prevailing political system in Singapore correlated strongly with positive perceptions of immigration.

This finding suggests that if Singaporeans are assured that the state has their interests as the foremost priority and will do its best to realise them, a better understanding of the need for continued openness to immigrants will ensue.

That assurance can be borne out of continued enforcement against employers who discriminate against locals, and sustained efforts in augmenting skill sets so that Singaporeans remain competitive in a global market.

It additionally entails the Government continuing to ensure that Singaporeans can air their views and concerns about immigration openly through various channels in a democratic system, without fear of reprisal or disillusionment arising from being disregarded.

These measures, alongside sustained engagement between the Government, employers, immigrant communities and Singaporeans, will facilitate the cultivation of more gracious and empathetic social norms, encourage constructive local-foreigner interactions, and develop trust.

A commitment to see through the above will enable Singapore to remain socially cohesive, while continuing to reap the benefits of immigration.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS:

Mathew Mathews is head of the social lab and principal research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, National University of Singapore. Melvin Tay is research associate in the society and culture department at the IPS.