On the other hand, we're experiencing an exodus of domestic talent. About 4 or 5 percent of the upper third of our population leave every year, never to return, according to estimates provided by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in an interview with UPI recently [1]. Multiply this over 10 years and what percentage do we lose?

Doesn't anyone see the disconnect? How can we hope to be in the top tier of global cities when we are experiencing this kind of brain drain? Surely, great capital cities must be net gainers of talent.

Those who quit Singapore are mainly the ones who have tasted life in the West, e.g. as students in American universities, Lee said. The problem will accelerate, as "every year, there are more people going abroad for their first or second degree."

In contrast, China is not (yet) the main magnet. Even though more and more Singaporeans are working there, they tend to keep their Singapore passport, though as I will suggest below, this is not as sanguine as it sounds.

In an effort to make up for the declining birthrate and this exodus, Singapore has largely thrown open the door to immigration. By now, there are probably a few hundred thousand mainland Chinese newly arrived here to fill various kinds of jobs, from the lowliest to the top ranks. We are also offering a generous buffet of scholarships to attract the bright and eager.

Yet, as Lee himself said, "many of the Chinese then use us as a stepping stone to go to America, where the grass is greener." His calculation is that "if we only keep 30 to 40 per cent and lose 60 to 70 per cent, we're a net gainer."

I fear it's not so simple. The 60 – 70 percent that we lose would also be the top talents. The 30 – 40 percent we get to keep might be the relative dullards.

The same pattern may be repeated for new immigrants from India.

* * * * *

 
As if to underscore this demographic nightmare, the Department of Statistics announced earlier this month that they had shaved 90,000 people off the figure for Singapore's population of citizens and permanent residents, about 2.5 percent of the total. These 90,000 were those who had been away for 12 months or more, and thus were no longer considered ordinarily resident in Singapore. 

This "Refinement of Singapore's Resident Population Estimates", as the department euphemistically called its press release [2] was based on "the United Nations' recommendations that persons who are away from the country for 12 months or more are considered to have their usual residence overseas and should be excluded from the 'usual' population of the country."

These would be mostly people going abroad to work or study long term. If the average duration of their absence is 5 years, then by deduction, some 18,000 leave Singapore annually. Some could be away for 10 years or more, in effect contributing nothing to Singapore unless they work for a Singapore company, which was why I said even if they keep their passports while living and working in China, it's not necessarily something to celebrate.

This figure of 90,000 is quite separate (and in addition to) Lee Kuan Yew's figure of 1,000 per year. The latter refers not to Singaporeans living abroad, but to individuals giving up their citizenship altogether and taking out their provident funds. Burning their bridges, so to speak.

With this adjustment, as at June 2007, there were 3.581 million citizens and permanent residents and 1.005 million foreigners living in Singapore. For unknown (and hence, somewhat suspicious) reasons, the Department does not publicise any figure pertaining to citizens only.

Not available on the Statistics Department's website either are data relating to the numbers of Singapore citizens who have given up their citizenship. We only have Lee's passing mention to rely on.

* * * * *

 
In his column in the Malaysian newspaper The Star, veteran journalist Seah Chiang Nee wrote [3]:

Singaporeans who have or are planning to emigrate are given a host of 10 questions and asked to tick the three most important ones. They include the following: 

• High costs of living
• Singapore is too regulated and stifling
• Better career and prospects overseas
• Prefer a more relaxed lifestyle
• Uncertain future of Singapore.

This is the first time that I have heard about such a survey. Clearly, the data so collected is also being kept as some kind of top secret.

But should that be so? This is an important, even critical, national issue, and the government should not reserve the information to itself. It should be put out there, together with the actual numbers leaving, so that a national debate can ensue. This reluctance to do so represents exactly the paternalistic style that I am sure is among the reasons driving many Singaporeans away.

Another major factor must be the obsessive degree of social control that so characterises Singapore. Children are pigeonholed by race and ability throughout their school years, artists and academics are regularly censored, gay teachers are forbidden to teach and everybody finds life suffocating to some degree. This, that and lots more require a government licence.

Have we forgotten that we were one of the rare places in the world that banned bar-top dancing -- and if I am not wrong, it still requires a permit?

Do people feel that if they have a grievance against the government, the courts will be fair?

Instead of having a thorough national debate about what is wrong with this place that drives so many of us away, we get through our mainstream media a relentless boosterism about our "world-class" city-state.

Great publicity for a world-class city wannabe (This illustration is a composite)

 
The failure to have a national debate means the response to the question about our demographic and economic future as devised by the government is not examined either. As things stand, the solution appears to be one of inviting Chinese and Indians to move here and hopefully stay. The door to immigration is thrown wide open as a result, often with goodie bags waiting.

I have no quarrel with a liberal immigration policy. I see it as essential given our declining birth rate and the relative conservatism and lack of entrepreneurial flair of Singaporeans. My criticism is that it is not enough. We are setting our sights too low, and if we don't know this for lack of an open debate, we're going to wonder 30 years down the road why the pay-off is so measly.

In a nutshell, my complaint is that we are throwing our doors open yet doing little to fix the unattractiveness of Singapore. It's like a restaurant that offers discounts and sets up tables on the street, but serves up bad food.

The insight that is critical for us to absorb is this: a top tier capital city should be attractive not only to people from third world countries, but to people from the first world. Thus New York attracts the French and Paris attracts Americans. If Singapore is only good enough to attract the Vietnamese, Hunanese and Sri Lankans, but repel Australians, Japanese, Koreans and Canadians, then we haven't got our business plan right.

A city is in the top tier when it is plugged in to others in that tier, benefitting from the flow of people, ideas, technology, trade and financial transactions. If the flow of people is outward from Singapore to America, Australia and Europe, but little in return, we'd be daydreaming to still think we're going to get admission into the club.

What does it take to attract first-worlders here? Surely, I don't have to spell it out.

© Yawning Bread