Making Singapore a 'brain gain' city

Imagine if you could read the minds of people around the world to fathom what they were thinking about most.

What do you think it would it be? Global warming and the dangers climate change poses for their children?

Rising oil prices? Rising food costs?

Democracy? Human rights? Freedom?

Family? Relationships? Sex?

Well, the international polling organisation Gallup sought to find out with its first World Poll. It bills this as a "window into the minds of six billion people in over 140 countries", or 95 per cent of the world's adult population.

And the answer?

"What the whole world wants is a good job," Gallup chairman and chief executive officer Jim Clifton wrote in an article titled "Global Migration Patterns and Job Creation", published last October.

"That is one of the single biggest discoveries Gallup has ever made...

"If you and I were walking down the street in Khartoum, Teheran, Berlin, Lima, Los Angeles, Baghdad, Kolkata or Istanbul, we would discover that on most days the single most dominant thought carried around the heads of most people you and I see is, 'I want a good job'.

"It is the new current state of mind, and it establishes our relationship with our city, our country and the whole world around us."

Now this might well seem blindingly obvious, hardly something you need to poll six billion people to discover. After all, didn't then prime minister Goh Chok Tong declare in 2001 that the election then was all about "jobs, jobs, jobs"?

Gallup's Mr Clifton, however, believes the discovery is "game changing", to borrow one of Mrs Hillary Clinton's pet phrases.

Writing in the Gallup Management Journal, he argues: "Humans used to desire love, money, food, shelter, safety and/or peace of mind more than anything else. The last 25 years have changed us. Now we want to have a good job.

"This changes everything for world leaders. Everything they do – from waging war to building societies – will need to be done within the new context of the human need for 'good jobs'...

"Everything leaders do must consider this new global state of mind, lest they put their cities and countries at risk."

This too will sound familiar in Singapore, where the economic imperative has always been primary. Only in recent years have other concerns such as the need to boost creativity and enterprise, encourage environmental sustainability and strike a work-life balance gained in importance, without quite displacing economic priorities.

But the significance of the Clifton thesis lies in his view that in the face of the new global state of mind, countries and cities will have to compete for what he calls "brain gain" to stay ahead.

"Brain gain is the 'big-bang' theory of economic development. The challenge leaders face is how to trigger brain gain in their cities,'' he adds, referring to a society's ability to draw talented people, whose exceptional abilities and knowledge have a sort of multiplier effect on its economy.

He calls such people "stars". By this he does not just mean intellectually bright people, but includes innovators, entrepreneurs, superstars (like brand-name chefs, architects, musicians, actors and artists) and super-mentors (political leaders, philanthropists and others who take on the challenge of developing their communities).

The more of these stars a city or country can attract and keep, the better its prospects.

The United States, he notes, has streaked ahead of Japan and Germany – which many pundits said in the 1980s would soon rule the world – because it has been singularly successful at drawing such stars from around the world.

Similarly, those predicting that China's economic juggernaut would edge past the US before long might be "colossally wrong" as they fail to factor in the big unknown – whether China is politically and socially prepared to be a talent magnet like the US.

Singapore, with its long history of immigration, going back right to its founding in 1819, is the quintessential "brain gain" city. It has always drawn in people from the region with the wit and the will to create a better life for themselves and their families, and in the process, for the wider community too.

In recent years, Singapore has been experiencing another wave of "brain gain" with many more stars heading here, giving the place an even more cosmopolitan feel.

This point was brought home to me last Sunday evening, as I watched a video of a recent trip by my wife and her father to his ancestral village in Chaozhou, in southern China.

It was his first visit since he had journeyed to Singapore in the 1930s as a seven-year-old boy. Taking in the scenes of the village, reminiscent of Singapore in the 1960s and 1970s, you could not help but be struck by how very differently life would have turned out for him and his family had he not made that fateful boat trip.

Later, he met and married a fellow Teochew here, and they had five children. My mother-in-law often recounts how she climbed over the school gates in the wee hours of the morning just to make sure that her daughters got a place in a good English-speaking mission school, which laid the foundation for their successful careers today.

Yet, their story is by no means unique. Just about every family in Singapore has a similar tale. It is the Singapore story, of migrants heading to this island with big dreams, just as they continue to do to this day.

Given this backdrop, it never ceases to amaze me how strong the antipathy towards foreigners is among some Singaporeans. The issue continues to simmer and sour the ground, and is easily whipped up.

The latest incarnation of this is the angst over sweet young China waitresses giving beer-lady aunties in heartland kopitiams a run for their money.

Then, there is also the endless carping about the latest wave of immigrants filling service sector jobs although they struggle to speak English.

Let me ask a pointed question: Just what sets the Singaporean Chinese woman today apart from the "China girls" some speak so condescendingly about other than the fact that the forebears of one got here earlier than the other?

And are those language snobs who lament in their choice Singlish that new immigrants cannot speak "proper English" very different from the old colonialists who turned up their noses at the "uncultured and uncouth" early immigrants – in other words, your parents and mine – to these shores?

Given our immigrant history, Singaporeans should really be more gracious, and show more compassion and understanding towards newcomers to the island, to help them settle in.

They don't speak English? Well, they will soon learn, as their children surely will.

Being open and embracing towards newcomers is not only the decent thing to do, but it might also be in our own self-interest.

As Mr Clifton puts it: "Today's explorers migrate to the cities that are most likely to maximise innovation and entrepreneurial talents and skills. Wherever they can freely migrate is where the next economic empires will rise. San Francisco, Mumbai and Dublin have become hotbeds of job creation. This phenomenon has occurred in other hot cities from Austin to Boston and Seoul to Singapore."

The Government will have to do its part to woo talent here, adding that critical buzz to the city, and tackling issues such as rising housing costs, lack of office space or school places. But these efforts alone will not be enough, unless Singaporeans make those drawn here feel welcome.

So the next time you feel like letting fly against the growing number of foreigners here, remember this – you and I are the products of an earlier wave of immigration and "brain gain".

Blog Entry 3

Hi, this is my third entry for my EL Blog.

Our government’s vision for Singapore is that we will live as a society uncontaminated by xenophobia, with doors open wide for foreigners to enter at will. Of course, based on our faithful devotion to the system of meritocracy, the doors are thrown open even wider for foreigners with distinction stamped on their academic certificates, also known as Foreign Talent. They have the potential to give our economy a boost, that extra kick that bestows upon us the international prestige that so many countries around the world are vying for.
However, on the other end of the spectrum of foreigners entering our nation, we have another collection of aliens whose contributions to our economy seem minimal but are most definitely not. They are none other than the Foreign Workers who work long hours at construction sites to erect the skyscrapers that Singapore prides in, and work as domestic helpers to care for the children of Singaporeans who often get too caught up with their work. They, unfortunately, are not given a celebratory welcome when they enter our country. Unlike foreign talents who enjoy the best harvest of our fields, Singaporeans seem to be able to find problems with foreign workers time and again. I believe that we need to change our attitude towards foreign workers, while maintaining the positive attitude that the government has towards foreign talents.
Foreign workers may not be major contributors to our thriving economy, but I believe that they are crucial all the same. The part they play in the advancement of our country can be likened to the role of the smallest toenail of the human body. I draw from the experience of my pastor who said that there was never a time when he missed his small toenail more than when he damaged it and had it surgically removed. That too is our situation – we will only appreciate the part that foreign workers play in the development of our nation when they are not here to build our buildings, look after our children and provide food for us at hawker centres.
Granted, we are not the only ones at fault in this conflict between us and foreign workers. There has been a plethora of complaints against them over the years. However, they all seem to share one common characteristic – foreign workers are not integrated in our society. This is something that no government can solve alone. As citizens of this nation, it is our duty to at least attempt to make foreigners feel welcome.
I totally agree with the writer of the article “Making Singapore a ‘brain gain’ city”. Many Singaporeans have stories similar to those of the foreign workers who come to Singapore searching for better economic prospects. In fact, I can relate to the foreigners who come to Singapore. My father migrated to Singapore because he found a job here. Not one day goes by that I don’t thank God for bringing my family to this beautiful nation. In the same way, I hope that all Singaporeans will adopt this perspective. Weren’t the forefathers of this nation “foreign workers” too? That being the case, by shunning foreign workers, we are being rather hypocritical.
It is time to open those doors a bit wider.

A few posts earlier, Kirk pointed out that the government can intervene when things go awry. However, it is not so easy for the government to intervene in a democracy. When the government intervenes, it goes against the spirit of democracy like Zi Yang said. The people of the country would certainly not like it when they are not listened to. For instance, just look at Malaysia now. They have just reduced the subsidies on their fuel. The people did not want the price increase but the government decided to do it any way for the good of the country's economy. This could be an example of "government intervention". The result was protests from the citizens of Malaysia. Thus, not only does governmenty intervention go against the spirit of democracy, but it also brings about uhappinesss in a country, reducing its stability. As a result, government intervention is not always a viable option when dealing with unpopular policies disliked by the majority.

Kirk also mentioned that educated people would be able to make a decision for the benefit of the whole nation. However this is not true. Not everyone is so selfless. Especially when it comes to money and economic policies, people are not so agreeable. The same example of fuel subsidies can be used for this. In the same way, it becomes hard for he government to implement some of the more unpopular but necessary policies.

Democracy

Hi everyone,

I guess what Zi Yang is referring to is Representative Democracy. In other words, the people vote for representatives in the government who they believe will represent their ideas and beliefs so that their voice can be heard in the government. I guess earlier on, in my previous post, I was slightly confused about something which I must clarify now.

In democracy, although I said that the people make decisions, that is not entirely true. It is the government that makes policies and decisions. The exception would be in the case of a referendum, where the government consults the people to see what they want. But usually, in Singapore, the government makes a decision and if the people really don't like it or want it to be modified, there are many platforms to voice their different opinions. Thus, when I said that the people make decisions by voting for it, that was not entirely true, at least in the context of Singapore. I mean, did the government actually ask us to vote if we wanted a 2% hike in GST? No, the government decided on that, and if there was any "consultation of the people" to get their votes, it probably only included the people who were in the government, or people who contributed to the financial sector of Singapore. 

So we can see something from here. The government is not going to ask 4 million people what they think unless it is a huge decision, such as the Merger with Malaysia in 1963. On the other hand, a democratic government will not make decisions entirely by itself, because that would be authoritarianism. No, I believe that the government asks certain people or groups of people for what they think, then they make the decision, and then the people who were not involved in making the decision, like us, can then voice their opinion. For example, passing a law requires Bills, reviewing by the Legislative Assembly, etc. but the government will not ask 4 million people what they think about passing a new law before passing it.

There are some implications of this system. If the government chooses a select group of people to vote or voice their opinion about a new policy, we can look at this action of the government in two ways. We can say that they are doing something for the good of the nation because they are asking educated professionals on what they think. And if they are experts in their field (finance, for example), then they should make the best decision for all of us. However, we can also say that the government is not doing the right thing because, like what Zi Yang pointed out, there is always the fear that the majority might not make the right decision.

What happens when the majority makes a wrong decision? To tell you the truth, I'm really not sure. I mean, back in 1963, when 71% of the people wanted to merge with Malaysia, they didn't have the foresight to see that the Merger would not work. This has probably been a problem with democracy since it was first used. All we can do is hope that the people know what they want. When it comes to voting for political parties, the people must really imagine life with that party in power before voting.

Thanks

Kirk

Democracy: Majority vs. Minority?

Hi all,

Actually this is more of a clarification...what exactly do we classify as "democracy"? As I gather from previous discussion, democracy here would encompass freedom of speech etc., and if the government intervenes, then would the intervention oppose the spirit of "democracy"?

Kirk, could you also elaborate on your point please, I'm not sure if I get what you mean. Actually, the "decisions" I mentioned in my previous post include the elections of political parties; if that decision alone is biased, how and why would the government intervene? Besides, how would you define "awry" and how would you determine if something is awry?

Thanks.

Zi Yang

Democracy: Majority vs. Minority?

Thanks Zi Yang for your post. I understand that the majority may not always make decisions that are for the good of the nation but that is why there needs to be a government to step in when something is awry. Anyway, the way I see it, if we were to take a country which has a high literacy rate, good education system, etc. such as Singapore, I think that most people would be able to make good decisions based on what they know and what they've learnt that will undoubtedly benefit the nation.
Kirk

Democracy

Hi everyone.

Given, deomcracy will be able to solve many problems, as it is the representative opinion of the people. However, what if the representative opinion of the people is detrimental to the society? Would democracy then create stability?

Consider a not-so-hypothetical example of a country faced with majority vs minority problems. If democracy is implemented, wouldn't that cause the decisions to be in favour of the majority? Yes, they can state their views, but are their voices really heard?

Zi Yang