Anton shakes up Singapore

Over the last couple of weeks, Singaporeans have obsessed over Anton Casey, a British wealth manager plying his trade here, for referring to a taxi driver as a “retard”, local Singaporeans as “poor people”, and for talking of having to “wash the stench of public transport off me” after traveling by train. In a video that was uploaded on YouTube later, he asked Singaporeans to not be angry with him, but “be angry with your mum and dad for raising you a wuss”.

Needless to say, his remarks angered many Singaporeans (as they should), with several calls to deport him or punish him springing up across social media platforms. (Casey has since left the country).

While on the surface, to those living outside Singapore, this may seem a trivial issue, in Singapore’s case, it has provided a vent to many who are discontented. It is also a manifestation of the biggest policy challenge the government has faced since SARS – that relating to immigration.

For a few years now, Singapore, which currently has a population of 5.4 million, has been trying to find the optimal balance between locals (includes permanent residents who are not Singapore citizens) and foreigners. Over the last decade, the resident population has increased 14 percent to 3.84 million, while the number of expats has grown by a whopping 108 percent to 1.55 million, reflecting the great influx of immigrants.

Many Singaporeans believe costs of living here have spiraled as a result of the attractive remuneration packages doled out to an increasing number of expats each year – and the effects have been particularly telling in the housing market. There is also a view that basic amenities such as the public transport system are being put under great strain as a result of the growing number of immigrants.

Some also believe that law and order in Singapore could deteriorate as many immigrants do not understand the ethos of Singapore and the Singaporean way of life. While such an insinuation is offensive at best, it ties into the belief that immigrants do not care about Singapore and are only here to make a quick buck; and that they will be the first ones to desert this ship if it were ever to sink.

On the flipside, the government contends that one of the key factors contributing to Singapore’s near miraculous development experience has been its willingness to accept immigrants. Moreover, fertility rates in Singapore are among the lowest in the world and Singapore is faced with the undesirable prospect of a declining workforce and an increasing dependency ratio, the government says.

In what is a classic chicken-and-egg scenario, the locals in turn contend that fertility rates are low only because the government has failed to keep costs of living in check and as a result, couples usually dither from having more than one child. Moreover, because of high costs, both husband and wife need to work, hence not allowing them the time to care for and bring up a child.

The issue is multi-faceted, and the Singapore government has a difficult task at its hands – balancing the needs of its economy with the aspirations of its people.

People living in Singapore need to responsible too.  Local Singaporeans, while they have reason to be disgruntled, should at some level be mindful that the very trains which they complain have become overcrowded because of immigrants, run on tracks that have been laid by immigrants themselves. On the other hand, expats have to acknowledge that they don’t owe Singapore just the taxes they pay, but also the respect due to the country and its people.

This cannot turn into an “us versus them” debate.

(This appeared as a column in The Himalayan Times on 2 February 2014).