One common theme that underlies many of the Singapore government’s policies is that of throwing money at “talented” foreigners while scrimping on the education of locals who are deemed less “talented”. Of course, the fact that perhaps these locals appear less “talented” precisely because they have less access to educational resources than the foreigners do doesn’t cross the minds of many in the civil service. The ideology that their lack of talent is “innate” is too deeply ingrained in some of the prime movers in the government. Once this assumption of “innateness” and hence immutability is accepted, “excess” expenditure on the “untalented” is then deemed wasteful, hence the streaming system which carefully ensures that money will not be wasted trying to help the untalented transcend their label.

This ideology is part and parcel of the oft-mentioned “elitist” attitude of the government — it doesn’t believe that there is anything to be gained from spending on the less talented to help them join the “elite” class. It would rather spend money further helping the “elite”.

This point has been brought up recently in two separate places. First, we have an account by commenter ILMA at Yawning Bread on how in fact there are alternative economic strategies that focus more on better utilising local talent rather than mass injection of foreign labour — strategies that have been successfully implemented by other countries:

1) Economic model. We always had and still have a choice, as to what sort of economic developmental model we should adopt. That has dramatic impact on the type of developmental outcomes, and in this case, the use and need for labor. We have been stuck in this input driven economic model, because we chose to stay in this mode. EDB’s consistent insistence on a foreign investment cum export driven model, has made us slave to foreign companies which merely cares about their internal pricing vis a vis other locations. As such every subsequent policy we have enacted has been designed to facilitate these companies’ operations, as opposed to Singapore citizens’ actual benefits. Rather than accept that this model will no longer work given Singapore’s present status as a true developed nation, we chose to continue this model of foreign investment chasing.

Contrast Singapore’s model to that of Denmark or any of the Scandinavian countries. Denmark especially stands out, because it is similarly sized to Singapore in terms of population, while also being a highly open economy in terms of dependence on trade. It too was and still is experiencing low birth rates and rising income in the people. However, the Danish did not think of these as problems but rather used them as necessary conditions in designing their economy. It broadly expanded its internal domestic service market through government welfare expenditures, thereby alleviating dependence on exports. Furthermore it pushed hard into technology driven industries that relied less on labor costs. It is no wonder that Denmark is now one of the world leaders in alternative energy and agriculture industries, while EDB officers continue to beg at Danish companies’ doorsteps for investment in Singapore. But most importantly, Denmark’s success stems from its valuation of its own people, an acceptance that this IS the lot that they must work with for they are their own people! This is a huge departure from the instant-tree, Singapore-incorporated mentality that the PAP adopts.

A similar argument could be made for Taiwan, South Korea and even Hong Kong, where this crucial acknowledgement of nationhood is honored and cherished. They too followed essentially the same input driven, export dependent economic model like Singapore in the early days. However they had modified their model to that of fostering domestic home grown companies, to achieve more sustainable economic performance in the long run, rather than Singapore’s eternal search for project inputs.

2) Citizenship. As my earlier point on the economic model has already alluded, we always have a choice in how we view citizenship. Yes I agree with you that Singaporeans in general accept that in Singapore’s context, given the choices that the PAP has made (for them?), foreigners are inevitable in the economy. However this is where we must be clear. Are Singaporeans accepting that we need foreigners while secure in their own citizenship, or are they merely accepting their own fate while dreaming of dropping their citizenship?

Let me illustrate this point with a true case. My friend, a true born and bred Singaporean, pursued his medical studies in Australia. Upon graduation he had genuine interest to return to Singapore to practice. He attended one of Singhealth’s recruitment drives in Australia where the issue of remuneration was discussed. He then understood that non-Singaporean doctors would be paid more than Singaporean doctors with the same qualifications, as they would be paid an additional housing allowance. My friend argued that his family was no longer living in Singapore but this was dismissed by Singhealth. It led to him inevitably feeling that he is being discriminated by Singapore, because ironically he still holds a Singaporean passport! My friend decided then, to stay in Australia to practice and hopefully attain his Australian citizenship first, before returning to Singapore.

Ultimately my point is this. We always have a choice. If Singhealth was serious about increasing the number of doctors in Singapore, is mass recruitment of foreign doctors through incentives which are arguably discriminatory towards your own citizens, the right way to go? (imagine the uproar if H1B visa holders in the US commands higher remuneration packages than US citizens!) Could we have instead adopted more organic ways such as increasing the number of medical schools, or truly appealing to true citizens to return?

As I commented in reply to ILMA, the discrimination in terms of whether housing allowances are given applies not only to doctors, but also to researchers and academics.

The choice to throw money at foreigners instead of trying to maximise the potential of locals is also manifest in education, as this Lianhe Zaobao column points out:

本地普通学生与低收入家庭学生并非无法学习，而是缺乏良好的环境、机会和引导。如果国家也肯花更多资源，甚至将外国学生奖学金费用用在他们身上，让他们得到同样优质的照顾，难道无法将他们雕琢成才？
　　总理呼吁大家“耐心点”，问题总能解决。但我认为，政府也需要更多的耐心。我们常认为人口不足导致人才不够，但芬兰的人口也不过522万，外来人口不多，然而他们的教育制度培养出来的学生都非常出色，因此关键是看我们有没有耐性和方法去培养。

I find it interesting that both excerpts cite a Scandinavian country as a case for comparison. They are particularly appropriate since they are known for their extremely high standards of living, and they have similarly small populations, thus ruling out the usual tactic of appealing to Singapore’s ‘unusually small size’ to justify any policy that is unusual. But of course, some of our technocrats are convinced that the welfare systems of the Scandinavian countries will ultimately bring them down. Well, we will see in time if the Singapore model, supposedly based on ‘rational’ economic reasoning, fares better than the Scandinavian welfare state.