key: cord-0059417-jso1hp0g
authors: Chan, Kwok-bun; Chan, Wai-wan Vivien
title: The Singapore Study
date: 2021-01-08
journal: Return Migrants in Hong Kong, Singapore and Israel
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-40963-0_3
sha: eac18fe542efb5194f6de4679c24a543313a432c
doc_id: 59417
cord_uid: jso1hp0g

Singapore has been an example of a country with a foreign labor policy designed to attract foreign talent to contribute to its economic growth. Recently these policies have expanded to include attracting Singaporean transmigrants back home. After a brief review of literature on the topic of return migration in Singapore, this chapter uses a cost-and-benefit framework to analyse the experiences of ten returnees. What are returnees perceptions of personal gains and losses? What are their personal and collective coping strategies for facing problems associated with their return? What are their reactions to current government policies, and what recommendations do they make for future policies? The Singapore study reveals a new reality that both the nation-state and its citizens need to face. This is a reality of fluidity, ambiguity and transience, with “transnationalism”, “hybridity” and “hypermobility” as new buzz words. The chapter concludes with a discussion of how policymakers can stay connected in this new environment.

according to the Ministry of Manpower. This meant that foreigners made up onethird of Singapore's workforce 1 .

Singapore has developed a number of price-and non-price mechanisms to attract and regulate the flow of unskilled foreigners who are granted work permits only (Chan and Abdullah 1999) . Employers may hire them only from certain countries (e.g., India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Thailand) and only for particular sectors, e.g., construction and domestic work. There are strict penalties, even jail sentences, for hiring workers without work permits.

In sharp contrast to its restrictive policy on unskilled foreign workers, Singapore gives employers much more flexibility to import foreign professionals with skills not available in Singapore. Singapore ranks third among countries with the least restrictive immigration laws on the importation of talent. Singapore's talent management policies are among the friendliest in the world (Chan and Abdullah 1999:159) , although entry requirements have been tightened since 2011 to "moderate the growth of Singapore's non-resident population and help ease the pressure on our social infrastructure" (Ministry of Manpower website, http://mom.gov.sg/foreignmanpower/passwhose top rate is 16 percentesvisas/Pages/default.aspx). To hire foreign talent, employers need to satisfy certain criteria relating to qualifications, skills, and minimal salary set by the Ministry of Manpower. There are several types of employment passes, each with its own requirements and benefits (Table 3.1): "P" passes are valid for two years in the first instance and normally for a longer period upon subsequent renewals. Exceptional "P" pass holders may be granted renewable work passes of up to five years. "P" pass holders can work in all sectors of the Singapore economy with no levy or restriction on the number of "P" pass holders a company can employ. Dependent's passes can be obtained for spouse and children. P1 pass holders (but not P2 pass holders) may even apply for long-term visit passes for parents.

Concerning "Q1" passes, there is no levy or restriction on the number of Q pass holders a company can employ. "Q1" pass holders may work in all sectors in Singapore. Q1 pass holders can apply for Dependent's passes for their spouse and children.

An EntrePass Scheme was started in 2003 to facilitate the entry of entrepreneurs and innovators who plan to start business ventures in Singapore. The scheme waived 1 "Foreigners one-third of Singapore workforce," 31 January 2008, Asi aone.com Applicants earning a fixed monthly salary of at least S$8000 and possessing acceptable qualifications P2 Pass Applicants earning a fixed monthly salary of at least S$4500 and possessing acceptable qualifications Q1 Pass Young graduates from good institutions with a salary of at least S$3000 Older applicants will have to command higher salaries to qualify, commensurate with the work experience and quality they are expected to bring an earlier requirement that entrepreneurs and innovators must possess the educational qualifications mandated under the employment pass scheme (Chan and Abdullah 1999) . The EntrePass, with a validity of one year, is issued upon the submission of a sound business proposal. The EntrePass allows the immediate family of the applicant to live in Singapore while he/she starts and grows the business. With the EntrePass, the entrepreneur may leave and re-enter Singapore with ease. It is renewable on a yearly basis as long as the business remains viable.

In 2007, another category called the "Personalised Employment Pass," or PEP, was introduced. Applicants need to earn a fixed monthly salary of at least S$12,000 in order to qualify for the PEP, which is valid for three years. In addition, PEP holders also need to have a minimum annual fixed salary of S$144,000. They can apply for Dependent's Passes for their parents, spouses, and children. The main advantage of PEP is that its holder can switch jobs without re-applying for a visa as long as the holder is not unemployed for a period longer than six months.

In July 2004, a new "S" work pass was introduced to meet the needs of industries for middle-level skilled manpower. The large gap between the employment pass and the work permit made it difficult for companies to bring in middle-level people (associate professionals and technicians). The "S" Pass is intended to fill this gap and increase the flexibility of foreign employment. Applicants qualify for the "S" pass if they have a minimum salary of S$2000 and an acceptable qualification which could be diploma or technical qualifications. Apart from these two criteria, the Ministry of Manpower will consider other criteria, such as category of skills, job type, and work experience, when assessing eligibility. The number of "S" pass holders in each company is capped at 20 percent of the company's total workforce. Unlike work permit holders, "S" pass holders earning a basic monthly salary of at least S$4000 can bring their dependents (spouse and children) with them, and they are eligible to rent public housing, unlike unskilled foreign workers. Officially, the term "foreign talent" has been used to refer to those who are employment pass holders. Now it has been widened to refer to "S" pass holders as well.

Government policy encourages "P," "Q1," or "S" pass holders as well as investors and entrepreneurs with appropriate cultural and social characteristics to apply for permanent residency and, eventually, citizenship. The spouse and unmarried children (below 21 years old) of a Singapore citizen or permanent resident, whether male or female, can also apply for permanent residency. This is a relaxation of a previous rule which made it difficult for female Singapore Citizens/PRs to apply for PR for their spouses. In recent years, more people who were granted employment passes originated from China and India on local contracts without the usual perks or fringe benefits. A growing network of recent immigrants has made Singapore a home and a place for them to work and settle. Singapore ranked first among 29 economies with a population of under 20 million in attracting top-notch talent (Kuptsch and Pang 2006:160) .

A number of factors explain the ability of Singapore to attract more than its fair share of internationally mobile talent: (1) the government's unwavering commitment to the policy of importing foreign workers; (2) the implementation of policies and rules on employment pass applications is clear, explicit, and fast; (3) the establishment of a new agency in 1998 dubbed Contact Singapore to attract talent to Singapore (apart from Singapore, Contact Singapore has offices in Australia, Beijing, Shanghai, the UK, India, and North America. These offices disseminate essential information overseas, help match foreign talent with potential employers in Singapore, and facilitate the return of trained veteran Singaporeans who are studying or working abroad.); (4) the cost of living for expatriates is lower in Singapore than in Hong Kong or Beijing; (5) Singapore is seen as a safe, clean, and secure place to live and bring up children; and (6) Singapore's relatively low tax rates and tax incentives as non-resident workers are taxed only on incomes derived from or accrued in Singapore. Workers are exempt from income tax if they work in Singapore for 60 days or less in a calendar year. The rates of taxation are relatively low compared to countries like Japan, Australia, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Canada. Singapore trimmed its top personal tax rate from 22 percent in 2003 to 20 percent in 2006 to keep up with its rival, Hong Kong, whose top rate is 16 percent 2 .

In 2002, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong declared in his National Day Rally Speech:

We need to bring down our tax rates to among the lowest in the world, in order to attract investments and talent to Singapore. With increasing competition among countries for MNCs (Multinational Corporations), tax rates have become a key element of competitiveness.

In 2007, Singapore also started a Work-Holiday Pass (WHP) Programme with 2000 places to attract undergraduates and graduates from Australia, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA to serve internships in Singapore. Eligible candidates have to be between 17 and 30 years of age and from universities which must be ranked among the top 200 in any of the wellestablished international rankings (e.g., Times Higher Education World University Rankings). Candidates also need to be residents and full-time undergraduates or former students of their university at the point of application. They are not restricted to specific types of work; however, existing licensing, registration, or accreditation requirements in medicine, law, and architecture will apply. Applicants need to declare they have sufficient funds for their stay and departure.

Singapore offers unique opportunities for economic advancement for foreigners from within the Asia-Pacific region and from other parts of the world. Political stability and policy continuity have encouraged immigrant workers with the right qualifications and skills to work and live there. English is the first or second language of highly educated people in the world, hence a talent-attracting factor since English is the lingua franca of the government and business in Singapore. Singapore's attractiveness also derives from its multi-ethnic and increasingly cosmopolitan society, which offers a lifestyle that appeals to educated people from all over the world (Kuptsch and Pang 2006:164) .

Scholarly and policy research on return migration to attract, retain, and develop return migrants is a recent area of study, internationally and in Singapore (Lin 2008). The National University of Singapore has hosted several conferences relevant to the subject. One such conference, held in November 2007, "In and Out of Asia: Migrating Talent, Globalizing Cities," included the topic of return migration. The feature write-up of the conference notes the shared concern of Asian economies with global competition for talent, and with the "return" of migrants to their home countries. In a paper titled "'Homing' Cosmopolitanism: Singapore's Cosmopolitan Returnees," Lin (2008) noted the Singapore government's encouragement of "a distinctive class of 'cosmopolitan Singaporeans' to go global" (as a regionalization drive). He stated a paradox: regional migration and regionalization are intermixed with an associated fear that Singaporeans, "being rootless, would fail to return to the country." Lin also identified a government discourse on an "a-geographical cosmopolitanism" in terms of a sense of roots untethered to place which "motivates" various state initiatives to be designed to "help the cosmopolitan Singaporeans remember to come home."

Lin's paper is an extension of his honors thesis on return migration titled, "Grounding Cosmopolitanism at 'Home': Investigating Singapore's Cosmopolitans in the Context of Return." He interviewed 21 Singaporeans who had lived in different parts of the world, e.g., China, the USA, Australia, and France. His respondents were mainly Chinese and included one Indian and one Malay. He set out to investigate whether emigrant Singaporeans, who are popularly regarded as "cosmopolitans" (or "transnational elites"), are indeed footloose and rootless who have no particular loyalty to any nation-state or no sense of home, as the political discourse and literature seem to imply. He found that his respondents continue to "invest in the city-state emotional meanings of home, identity and belonging, albeit in ways that also distinctively fluctuate with the context of their migrancy" (Lin 2007:30) . Whereas some consider home in Singapore to be synonymous with possession of citizenship, other respondents consider home in Singapore to be a sense of "culturally inflected national self-consciousness" that is influenced by one's childhood memories and "repository of shared experiences" (ibid:32). He also reported a phenomenon: respondents' perception of home is a "reactive category that is activated while 'away', and retracted at return" (ibid:35). On the basis of these findings, Lin makes two policy recommendations: policymakers (1) include these emigrant Singaporeans as the nation's ambassadors (e.g., through dual citizenship); and (2) make the "home-ground" more "livable" in order to retain "returned" cosmopolitans (ibid:62).

In his analysis of Singapore government's return migration policies, Lin notes that the government's intention to support both Singaporeans leaving (as part of the regionalization drive) and returning to Singapore is motivated by the economic needs of the country in both situations. He thinks that people's intentions are not something the government can tinker with, and the push to leave seems stronger than the impetus to return. He feels that it will take further research to find out why Singapore policies "don't get people to return." His view is that the Singapore government's policy initiatives are not much of a major policy when placed alongside those of other countries, such as India. The Indian government offers status privileges to any Indian of the world; for example, NIR (Non-Resident Indians) provides citizenship-like status to overseas Indians. The Singapore government, in contrast to India, mainly articulates a discourse that "Singapore is your home and will give you the chance to develop your career." Yap's (1991) study of 100 Singaporeans who had emigrated to Australia and Canada delved into the motivations of Singaporeans for leaving the country. She interviewed Singaporeans and ex-Singaporeans based in Perth, Sydney, and Vancouver over a five-week period in 1991, relying on the help of Singapore clubs in these cities and personal referrals. Of the 100 respondents, the majority left Singapore during the period of 1980 to 1989. However, it was noted that as early as 1960, emigration out of Singapore was already taking place. By the time of the interviews, nearly half of the respondents in Australia (referred to as "Australian respondents") and Canada (referred to as "Canadian respondents") had acquired citizenship of their adopted countries.

She found that the Australian and Canadian respondents "emphasized a different set of factors in their decision to emigrate." For the Australian respondents, the most frequently cited "push" factor was "children's education" (34 percent) . This category included "problem with second language, dissatisfaction with the quality of education in Singapore (viz. high pressure and lack of creative thinking), limited number of university places available and consequent concern about the affordability of overseas university education for their children" (Yap 1991:16) . The second most frequent "push" factor (22 percent) was the socio-economic and political environment in Singapore which was described by respondents as "regimented, unbalanced and over-dominated by work concerns, lacking in compassion and intolerant of failure" (ibid:17). For the Canadian respondents, the most frequently cited "push" factor was the socio-economic environment in Singapore (38 percent). The data suggested that concern with their children's education did not seem to be an important factor among the Canadian respondents.

To minimize the level of emigration, Yap (1991) made several policy recommendations:

1. Improve the quality of education and extend education opportunities. Yap noted that the Singapore government was already working on increasing the number of university places in Singapore, and the government has begun working on making other changes in the education system. She also recommended that the government re-evaluate the necessity of students obtaining at least a pass grade in the mother tongue for admission into university (ibid:40).

2. Overcome the smallness of the country. Yap mentioned that the government was exploring this through globalization.

4. Improve the quality of society. Yap commented that Singapore can be made more pleasant by inculcating in the people a kinder, more charitable attitude, particularly toward those who tried but failed as well as the less fortunate (ibid:42). She also suggested that the Singapore Civil Service take the lead in making the move toward a more gracious society as it represents the government, and recommended that the government remove rules and regulations that were not essential.

With regard to incorporating overseas Singaporeans, Yap suggested that the overseas communities be viewed as a "resource" rather than a "loss" in light of their "potential contribution to the country's globalization strategy" (ibid:47). She recommended that (1) the government consider dual citizenship for overseas Singaporeans; (2) increase the availability of boarding facilities for children of overseas Singaporeans to return for studies; (3) make information available on employment opportunities for those who wish to return; and (4) establish ties with overseas Singaporeans. Except for dual citizenship, the Singapore government has already implemented or is working on implementing all of the above recommendations.

Velayutham's book, Responding to Globalization: Nation, Culture and Identity in Singapore, (2007) examines Singapore's nation-building "project" vis-à-vis its globalization efforts and points out the contradictions that emerge as a result of both processes taking place concomitantly. He gives a detailed analysis of how the Singapore government controls the populace from becoming too westernized, cosmopolitan, or rootless, and suggests that the government's earnestness in creating a "homely" Singapore may not work well because its approach reflects an "managerial intent" and lacks spontaneity (ibid:206). Further, the Singapore government's rhetoric of "survivalism" (i.e., constant anxiety about the ability of Singapore to survive) causes stress in its people and undermines the relationship between the nation and its citizens. Uncertain of its future, Singaporeans look outward toward other countries that can provide stability and social upward mobility-both perceived as not attainable in Singapore. He also highlighted that the government's "overzealous" efforts at building a global city has resulted in many of the country's historic cultural formations having been "bulldozed," "banned," or "simply never recognized." What remains is a Singapore that lacks identity and belongingness. He emphasizes:

The task of creating a committed and affectively-bound citizenry cannot simply be imposed from above. The government can only nurture an ethics of mutual obligation if its 'gift' of social life is a "well-given gift." (ibid:207) By gift, Velayutham is using an analogy from Marcel Mauss's idea of gift exchange and reciprocity (ibid:191). Velayutham suggests two ways to resolve the contradictions: The Singapore state needs to cultivate (1) "an active sense of belonging and ownership over the nation's destiny" and (2) "a sense of hope among its citizens" (ibid: 208). Koh (2010) gave Velayutham's ideas a similar though deeper and richer articulation.

In-depth interviews were conducted with ten returnee Singaporeans in 2008. Eight were interviewed face-to-face using an interview schedule, and two were interviewed on the telephone.

An average interview took 60 minutes in English or Chinese. The personal characteristics of the respondents are summarized in Table 3 .2. Pseudonyms were used.

Return migration-as an integral strategy of competition for global talent-has recently become an important focus for the Singapore government and the subject of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's National Day Speech in 2006 in which he announced ways to encourage the return of Singaporeans working and living abroad.

It is important to note that return migration had existed in different forms in Singapore history. During the colonial period, early Chinese and Indian migrants, after a protracted period of work in Singapore, returned to China and India for visits, or for retirement. In another form of return, Singapore-born sons of wealthy Chinese businessmen were sent to China for a Chinese education, returning to Singapore afterward.

With political developments in the 1940s (the formation of People's Republic of China in 1949) and in the early 1950s (the granting of citizenship rights by the British colonial state through less restrictive residence requirements for British citizenship), the traditional pattern of return to Singapore was disrupted. It was intensified with Singapore's post-independence (after 1959) wherein return was no longer a viable option and the Chinese and Indian communities began to construct their identity as citizens (Singaporeans) in the context of state-driven nation-building and economic (mainly industrial) development.

In two decades of state-directed, export-oriented development, Singapore's economic future continued to be closely linked to developments in the global economy. By the 1980s, with the relatively high costs for labor and Singapore-based MNCs moving their operations to low labor-cost countries as a consequence, the Singapore government initiated an economic strategy to move into areas of valueadded production. By the 1990s, the Singapore state was urging its citizens to venture abroad and become involved in business ventures with other nations, for example, China, thereby developing its "second" industrial wing. Thus, given its close reliance on the global economy, Singapore views globalization as giving rise to opportunities and challenges in which the competition for global talent, needed for building a knowledge-based economy, is essential for the survival of the nation-state. 

The Singapore government's proactive approach in attracting and hiring foreign talent, which took on a quickened pace in 2001 and was further accelerated in 2006, is due to several reasons. First, Singapore has always had a dependence on foreign talent. With a population of 5.86 million in September 2020, Singapore is hungry for talent that will add value to its economy. A commentator, Rosemary Chung, remarked: "Without foreigners, there would be no Singapore 3 ." Recognizing that foreign talent brings with them needed skills not found in Singaporeans, Singapore considers skilled foreign labor to be an indispensable sector of the economy. In his 2001 National Day Rally Speech, former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong commented:

Foreign talent is a matter of life and death to us in the long term … If we do not top up our talent pool from the outside, in ten years' time, many of the high-valued jobs that we do now will migrate to China and elsewhere, for lack of sufficient talent here.

Concerned with the hostility that some foreign talent received in Singapore, he reiterated in his 2002 National Day Rally Speech the importance of having foreign talent and urged Singaporeans to welcome foreign talent, especially those who have made Singapore their home. He said:

Indeed, the strength of a country does not depend on the size of the population, but on its quality and organization. The US has only five percent of the world's population, much smaller than China and India. But the US is the world's undisputed superpower, not only in the political and economic arenas, but in many other fields. This is because the US has always warmly welcomed foreign talent to its shores. Albert Einstein was born in Germany. Andrew Grove, co-founder of the highly successful Intel Corporation, was born in Hungary. Investment guru George Soros was also born a Hungarian. Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State, was born in Germany. They all became US citizens later in life, and made remarkable contributions to US society and economy.

Americans have accepted all these foreign imports as one of their own.

If a huge country like the US has embraced foreign talent, we, with only three million people, must be crazy not to do so. Because of the quality of our people, and our economic success and social progress, we are taken seriously by other countries. We enjoy an influence disproportionate to our size. But if we now shut our doors to talent, we will soon become like any other Third World city of three million people. Then we will find life quite different. We will become a small fish-a guppy-in a small pond.

To swim among the big fishes in the ocean, we have to top up our population with international talent.

Former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, Minister Mentor in 2003, commented at that time:

If we do not attract, welcome and make foreign talent feel comfortable in Singapore, we will not be a global city and if we are not a global city, it doesn't count for much … There are four million people in Singapore: one million of which are foreigners. You get rid of this one million and many will not find jobs (Chong 2003) .

The second reason is Singapore's intention to pitch the republic as a global player and a global city. Foreign talents have long been known to possess a certain creativity, global outlook, and experience that may not be found in local Singaporeans.

In his 2001 National Rally Speech, former Prime Minister Goh called such foreign talent "MNT," multi-national talent. He explained:

We have to bring in multi-national talent, like the way we brought in MNCs. Like MNCs, multi-national talent, or MNTs, will bring in new expertise, fresh ideas and global connections and perspectives. I believe that they will produce lasting benefits for Singapore.

Although aware of the potential backlash from locals who may react adversely to the recruitment of foreign talent, Singapore continues to hire foreign talent to fill top positions in banks, government-linked organizations, and research institutes.

The past president of Nanyang Technological University is Professor Bertil Andersson, a Nobel Prize winner from Sweden while its current president is Professor Subra Suresh, an eminent American Scientist, engineer and entrepreneur. The long list of scientists and researchers in the Genome Institute of Singapore hails from different parts of the world. In its bid to do more business with China, Singapore has announced it is interested in recruiting people with in-depth knowledge of Chinese language and culture to "engage with China." It has set its heart on Chinaborn scholars who come to Singapore to study and who may become Singapore citizens. At a dialogue on 17 December 2008, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew openly said: So maybe we can co-opt 50 of them, and then we can bring them back to China to do business on our behalf [sic.] 4 .

The third reason for attracting and hiring foreign talent is Singapore's much publicized falling fertility rate. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has referred to this as a "national problem" in his 2004 National Day Rally Speech. The total fertility rate (TFR) has been continuously falling from 4.55 in the 1960s to an all-time low of 1.2 in 2011 5 , well below the replacement rate of 2.1 6 (The National Population and Talent Division of Singapore 2012). Singapore's TFR is one of the lowest in the world, just slightly higher than that of Hong Kong and Macau. The TFR is lowest among Chinese women in Singapore. This trend continues despite the government's introduction of family-friendly measures to offer tax rebates to couples with children, longer maternity leave, paid child leave to look after sick children, and direct monetary deposits to spend on children's educational needs in its "Marriage and Parenthood Package." Singapore's falling birth rate has been blamed on long working hours, the trend of singles delaying or opting not to get married, women's preference to pursue a career, educational stress, and the high cost of living (Ee, Pluss and Chan 2013) .

The "dismal" birth rate prompted sociologist Angelique Chan at the National University of Singapore to comment: I think dual citizenship is something we should consider in the Singapore context, particularly if we're interested in maintaining the numbers in the Singapore population 7 .

She added that immigration was only a short-term solution and that in the long run, Singapore needed to come up with policies that enable families to grow and which help families to better balance work with family life.

According to statistics released by the National Population Secretariat 8 , Singapore's population hit 5.3 million in June 2012 and 5.8 million in 2020. The resident population grew by 0.9 percent, while the number of non-residents (foreigners working, studying, and living in Singapore on a non-permanent basis) grew by 7. In 2007, Singapore announced that it planned to increase its population to 6.5 million in 40 to 50 years' time. This sparked some debate as to whether Singapore could sustain such a figure because of its limited land area, a mere 693 square kilometers. The Minister of National Development, Mah Bow Tan, commented in 2007:

Although there were skeptics, nonetheless, the announcement generated optimism, especially with the idea that more people meant more demand for services, hence more business. To reach its target of 6.5 million, immigration and hastening the return of overseas Singaporeans were seen vital.

Another reason for the Singapore government's efforts to boost population by enhancing immigration of foreign talent is that Singapore's population is aging "rapidly." The first batch of post-war baby boomers (babies born between 1947 and 1965) reached 65 years of age by 2011. In addition, the proportion of Singapore residents aged 65 years and above rose from 10.4 percent in 2011 to 11.1 percent in 2012, which means that in 2012, one out of every nine Singaporeans was aged 65 or above. Singaporeans aged 65 and above over the years are: 1 in 8, or 440 thousand in 2015; and 1 in 6, or 590 thousand in 2020. By 2025, this ratio will become one out of five, which is 20 percent of the population (www.population.sg). Bringing in a batch of younger foreign talent is, therefore, seen as a way to reduce the impact of a rapidly aging population 10 . The seriousness of the issue has prompted the government to convene a committee to look into the aging issues faced by Singaporeans (www.mcys.gov.sg/successful_ageing/Report.html).

The ongoing brain drain from Singapore constitutes yet another reason why the government is increasing the foreign talent population. Referred to as the "diaspora" by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in his National Day Rally Speech in 2006, the government has recognized that the trend of Singaporeans going overseas for work or study or to settle permanently is a very real phenomenon that is not likely to be reversed. According to Wong Kan Seng, former Home Affairs Minister, about 1000 Singaporeans give up their citizenship each year (The Straits Times, 23 July 2008). The number of applications for the Good Conduct Certificate, a document needed for would-be emigrants, increased to 12,707 in 2007, compared to 4996 in 1998 11 .

Previous prime ministers have commented on the brain drain phenomenon. In 2002, when Singapore was experiencing a downturn in the midst of a global pessimism due to September 11 and SARS, many left Singapore for supposedly greener pastures. Former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong called Singaporeans who had emigrated "quitters," he said:

Fair-weather Singaporeans will run away whenever the country runs into stormy weather. I call them "quitters".

The majority of Singaporeans are "stayers". "Stayers" are committed to Singapore. Rain or shine, they will be with Singapore.

"Stayers" include Singaporeans who are overseas, but feel for Singapore. They will come back when needed, because their hearts are here. The Singapore nation is not just those of us living here, but also the thousands of loyal Singaporeans who live around the world.

Faced with increased competition within the region, especially with the rise of China, Goh commissioned a committee tasked with "remaking" Singapore, which went beyond economics. One of the key issues that the committee looked into was how to ensure that Singaporeans remain rooted to Singapore. Goh's 12 concern was whether enough Singaporeans would stay to ensure the country's long-term survival and whether Singaporeans would return to Singapore to fight for their country if necessary:

If they feel Singapore is home, then they will stay and fight for Singapore. Even if they are overseas, they will return and fight.

The then Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew 13 lamented over the fact that Singaporeans who were better educated and talented were leaving Singapore. Acknowledging that their mobility came from Singapore's success in educating them, he questioned these emigrants, "Can you leave with a clear conscience?" And then stated, "I cannot."

Lee Hsien Loong's marked change in attitude toward overseas Singaporeans set the tone for a series of programs intended to connect with overseas Singaporeans, now seen as a valuable source of human resources, and to persuade them to return. In January 2006, the Singapore government set up the Overseas Singaporean Unit (OSU) (www.overseassingaporean.sg) which comes under the purview of the Prime Minister's Office. Based in Singapore, the role of the unit is to:

1. Actively provide information to overseas Singaporeans 2. Provide an interface between overseas Singaporeans and potential employers for employment opportunities 3. Create a "home away from home" which enables overseas Singaporeans to bond and network among themselves and with locally based Singaporeans Specifically, the OSU is tasked to do the following:

1. Organize programs to keep the overseas Singaporean community informed of the latest economic, political, and social developments in Singapore 2. Provide a channel for overseas Singaporeans to communicate their aspirations 3. Develop channels to facilitate the return of overseas Singaporeans who wish to do so 12 12 February 2008, The Straits Times 13 "MM: My job to look after those who built nation," 23 April 2007, The Straits Times

The OSU also coordinates multi-agency programs and initiatives that are aimed at engaging the overseas Singaporean community. If, for instance, the Economic Development Board and the Agency for Science, Technology and Research were to organize a recruitment drive in a foreign country that focuses on certain promising industries requiring Singaporean talent, OSU would be the coordinating body.

With the help of OSU, Overseas Singaporean (OS) Clubs were set up in Beijing, Shanghai, and Xiamen in 2008. Clubs in Sydney and London had already been established in September 2007. Before the setting up of these clubs, there were already about 90 OS clubs in existence. The older clubs were normally run on an informal basis by interested Singaporeans who simply wanted to mix with fellow Singaporeans. They usually began in an "organic" way, could be home-based and were led by professionals or housewives (personal communication with SIF, 2008). The new OS Clubs are government-led and branded as "true watering holes" for all homesick overseas Singaporeans. They are located in Singapore-owned hotels and properties in major cities all over the world. OS club members enjoy discounts on food and special room rates at selected hotels.

The OSU portal was set up in August 2006. It offers a wide range of information and services such as the latest happenings in Singapore, toolkits in the form of an electronic brochure to prepare for overseas relocation, as well as links to various e-services to facilitate different kinds of applications. Singaporeans who wish to use the portal have to register their details on the OSU website first. The OSU portal has a blogging facility that allows Singaporeans to keep in touch with each other. Running through the blogs, one would find that it is well-utilized, and Singaporeans share information easily. Examples of blogs posted include:

New get-together dinner for returnees in Singapore at 7 pm, 18th July. No venue decided yet, but further details will be posted. San (Jul 8, 2008) I think I may be free to attend. I'm in Malaysia now with my wife and kids. Oop, please disregard my last post. I see this meeting is for Singaporeans that have returned. I on the other hand will be visiting for just a weekend. (Jul 11, 2008) Hi, I would be grateful to receive any recommendation for shipping services from UK to Singapore, preferably cheap and reliable. (Feb 27, 2007) Is it a must for you to ship all your things to UK instead of buying them there? I find that it's cheaper to buy them new than ship them over. (Feb 28, 2008) For anybody in UK who are interested [sic.], try this website: http://www.sevenseas.co.hk you will get an online quote, depending on where you are shipping to. I used them to ship things to Singapore five years ago, six -eight weeks and pretty reliable. (Mar 15, 2008) Apart from providing the latest information on Singapore, the website has a section on "Returning Home." If one clicks on it, one will find information on finding a job, professional associations, starting a business, children's education, and relocation tips.

The OSU is also in charge of organizing "Singapore Day," an annual carnival held overseas and dedicated to celebrating Singapore culture and peculiarities.

Started in 2007, the first one held in New York's Central Park drew 6000 people, and the second one, held in Melbourne, drew 11,000 people. In 2012, the event was held in New York's Prospect Park in Brooklyn.

Before the setup of the OSU, keeping in touch with overseas Singaporeans was handled by a not-for-profit organization, the Singapore International Foundation (SIF). Established in 1991, SIF's role is to nurture Singaporeans to be active global citizens and to provide networking opportunities for Singaporeans all over the world. Apart from keeping in touch with OC Clubs, SIF also keeps in touch with about 120 overseas Singapore Student Associations, providing funding for social activities organized by these clubs. For example, in 2018-2019, SIF has sponsored 3709 people to be the "Friends of Singapore" and 346 to be "Citizen Ambassadors" (Singapore International Foundation, 2019).

With effect from 1 January 2008, the portfolio of keeping in touch with overseas Singaporeans has been moved to the OSU.

SIF also organizes an annual camp called Camp Singapore, which is targeted at children of overseas Singaporeans. These children may not be Singaporeans, but they are normally back in Singapore during their summer vacation, which falls between June and August or during the winter break in December. The camp, priced at S$350 per participant, is a 2-week non-residential activity that gives participants (aged 6-13) a chance to get to know Singapore's history and landmarks and provides them with an opportunity to link up with a Singapore friend each. The camps have been popular since they were started, and some children participate for a second or even third time since the theme for each camp is different each year. Some fly into Singapore especially for the camp, according to an SIF official.

Apart from OSU and SIF, another unit that has relevance for overseas Singaporeans is Contact Singapore. Set up by the Prime Minister's Office, Contact Singapore is the government's overseas talent recruitment arm. Its website (www.contactsingapore.sg) provides a wealth of resources that can be accessed by foreigners as well as overseas Singaporeans for the purpose of migrating or relocating to Singapore. On its website, one can find information on emerging or "growth" industries, how to find and apply for a job in Singapore, and employment packages. Blogging is also possible on the website.

In August 2006, the Ministry of Education (MOE) issued a press release that spelled out how overseas Singaporeans could seek enrolment in Singapore schools when they return to Singapore. Parents of primary-level children could approach the schools directly or seek the help of MOE for assistance at any time of the year. Parents of children going into secondary schools or junior colleges could approach the schools directly or seek the help of MOE in its centralized school placement exercise called "School Placement Exercise for Returning Singaporeans" (SPERS) which is held at the end of the year for those planning to join the schools at the start of the academic year in January. This was intended to obviate the need for returning Singaporean children seeking admission to take multiple school-based tests but with no certainty of obtaining a place. In 2007, two venues were provided for SPERS: Singapore and Shanghai. In recent years, SPERS has been conducted in Singapore only.

To help returning students, MOE stated that the entrance tests (only for English and Mathematics) will contain non-language-based and non-content-based items that will help minimize the disadvantage of Singapore children who attended overseas schools with curricula different from Singapore's 14 .

Over the past two years, MOE has been giving some schools greater flexibility in their admission of pupils to allow a more diverse range of pupil achievements and talents to be recognized. In an exercise called the Direct School Admission exercise, secondary schools, junior colleges, and polytechnics could select some of their students using criteria other than their end-of-year exam results. These criteria are decided by the school and aimed to allow a greater range of student achievements and talents to be recognized. The talents may be in science, art, music, drama, or sports-whichever the school itself would like to emphasize. To assess these qualities in applicants, schools may conduct tests, interviews, or trials as necessary.

The Direct School Admission exercise provides a path for returning Singaporeans to gain entry into Singapore schools, among them some high-performing schools, without relying solely on academic results. This information is highlighted on the Overseas Singaporean portal (www.overseassingaporean.sg).

To further help returning Singaporeans, MOE has also introduced a scheme called the Immersion Program for Singaporeans who are back in Singapore on a short stay and wish to experience a taste of Singapore school life-so as to help ease their re-entry into the system should they eventually return. They could be admitted to Singapore schools on a short-term basis, ranging from one month to several months.

To help returning Singaporeans cope with the demands of the Singapore school syllabus, MOE has also allowed returning Singaporean students to apply for exemption from Mother Tongue (referring to Mandarin, Malay, Tamil, or some other designated ethnic languages) if they have lived overseas for several years and lost touch with the language. The difficulty in passing the Mother Tongue examination has often been cited as a major reason for families seeking emigration. By allowing parents to apply for easy exemption from the Mother Tongue requirement, which was unheard of in the past, the government is now seen as dangling yet another carrot to coax Singaporeans to return.

The Ministry of Education also set up an email address (moe_returnhome@moe. gov.sg) for potential returnees to correspond with the Ministry. Further, some schools now display admission information for "Returning Singaporeans" on their websites.

The government helps returning Singaporeans further by exempting them from paying the Goods and Service Tax (GST) when they move their household effects back to Singapore. To qualify for the GST relief, the returnees need to have resided in a foreign country for more than six months.

There has always been a stream of people who leave Singapore, some for good and some for short spells. The government has long acknowledged this phenomenon and has referred to it as the Singapore diaspora. The current figures put the number of Singaporeans who are overseas (for whatever reason) at about 200,000. It has been said that the number of Singaporeans leaving peaked at 4700 in 1988, when Singapore was undergoing a recession (Velayutham 2007:93) . The figure dipped to 2000 in the 1990s (ibid). The current figures remain unknown, although it has been reported that 1000 Singaporeans renounce their citizenship annually.

There are many reasons why Singaporeans choose to leave Singapore 15 . The push factors are displayed in Table 3 .3. The pull factors are displayed in Table 3 .4. Certainly, for many, Singapore is a relatively peaceful and secure place to live. However, it is the rise of the educated middle class that has challenged the premises on which Singapore is built. They are the potential emigrants.

One cannot deny that Singapore has put on an impressive economic performance since its independence, with a GDP per capita of SGD 88991 in 2019, estimated to be SGD 88268 in 2020 (Source: Department of Statistics Singapore, at http://www. singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/economy/hist/gdp.html). However, because Singapore is a relatively small country, it is often seen as culturally lacking or "artificial." Everything about Singapore is perceived as planned, organized, and efficient. There is a lack of spontaneity in expression, or life in general. Its citizens often feel they are confined, restricted, and limited by rules and regulations. Due to its smallness, some people feel its economic performance, though impressive thus far, cannot be sustained.

For more than half of the respondents, the main reason for returning to Singapore was to find better-paid jobs. While abroad, some had experienced difficulties in looking for a job commensurate with their qualifications and experience. Some faced barriers in obtaining a job. The other reason commonly cited for returning was 

There is true democracy out there

The possibility of owning a (big) car and a (big) house, and, possibly, one with a garden Better employment opportunities Higher pay abroad Social benefits (i.e., welfare) provided by country of emigration The Balance Sheet of Migrating that parents were aging and respondents wanted to spend more time with them. For those with children, they returned because they preferred their children to be educated and raised in Singapore (Table 3 .5).

For most returnee respondents, securing a job before they made the move home was of prime concern. Ms. Serene applied online for a job beforehand, Mr. G. Lee flew back to Singapore for an interview before flying back to pack to return to Singapore, and Ms. D. Gwee obtained a job transfer to the Singapore branch of the company she was working for before she returned to Singapore with the family. Another returnee (Ms. G. Ling) related that her husband contacted his former company in Singapore which offered him his old job back before he returned to Singaporealthough he had been away from Singapore for nearly eight years. She, herself, was offered a job by her church that she used to attend in Singapore before she returned. She said:

He has always kept in touch with the organization, and they said, "Well, if you're serious about coming back, you'll have the job here." And the construction business was good, so when he said he was coming back, they said, "Sure!"

A returnee with school-aged children, Ms. Wu, contacted the Ministry of Education in Singapore via email several months in advance before returning to obtain information about her children rejoining the Singapore education system. This respondent related that she also corresponded with several schools in Singapore about vacancies and was pleasantly surprised when one principal replied to her email directly. She further related that an officer from MOE telephoned her while she was overseas to offer help with enrolling her children in Singapore schools. Most of our respondents had maintained a residence in Singapore while away, hence having no problems with housing upon return to Singapore. One respondent, Ms. D. Gwee, related that her husband flew to Singapore a couple of months ahead of time to rent an apartment before the family moved back to Singapore. Another returnee, Ms. G. Ling, requested her sister in Singapore to help her select and buy an apartment before she returned to Singapore. For two of the returnees, Ms. G. Ling and Ms. Wu, their husbands returned to Singapore several months before the rest of the family. This was to ensure their homes in Singapore were ready and also to first obtain employment in Singapore.

Most returnees returned with their entire families intact except one (Mr. L. Loke), who returned to Singapore alone while his wife and three children remained in Australia because he did not want his children to be educated in Singapore. He visits his family five times a year, each time staying for six weeks.

Because they maintain ties with family and friends in Singapore, many returnees found that coming home was relatively hassle-free. Mr. Anand said: "The biggest challenge we had was to pack." Ms. D. Gwee said: "The only preparation we did was renting a place. That was it."

For two returnees, Mr. G. Lee and Ms. Wu, returning to Singapore was a difficult decision to make. Mr. Lee, in particular, said it was an "agonizing" decision, stating:

Returning to Singapore is a very agonizing decision. We weighed all the pros and cons and then, in the end, determined what we want in life. One reason why I came back was my father was old and there was nobody to take care of him. My brothers and sisters were not doing a good job at that. They were too busy. I'm closest to my father, so my father asked me to come back. It was very heart-wrenching.

All returnees face adjustment problems and dilemmas. The ease with which they manage the adjustment process is critical to whether they will one day leave their native country again.

Differences in lifestyle are a challenge for returnees. Some found the Western culture more gracious and cultured. In contrast, people in Singapore, in the eyes of the Singaporean returnees, appear more selfish and self-centered. Mr. Anand said:

In the US, we find that there is graciousness everywhere we go. In the shop, you are greeted and there is good customer service. When you drive on the road, people give way to you. You have all kinds of graciousness generally. And in the shopping mall, even strangers will hold the door for you, especially if you're a lady. They will open the door for you. So, you see these acts of courtesy and graciousness everywhere. In the restaurant, people will serve you, come to you, and greet you, and ask you if you need any help.

When we came back, we began to see the contrast and I felt people here are quite rude. People stare at you, they speak loudly, and they don't apologize. When I hold the door for my little girl to get through, some people will run ahead to get through first … So these are all quite irritating. In the supermarket, people will just stand in front of you and try to jump queue. Or they will park their trolley there and then go two meters away to take something; they don't care about others. In America, they will say "excuse me" or "sorry".

Other than lifestyle, some felt the work environment in Singapore was also different from that in the West. They found that in the West, people were more resultoriented; the end product was all that mattered. Bosses and supervisors were not concerned with the process. However, in Singapore, where work ethics are more aligned to an "oriental approach," work hours are fixed, and there is little room for flexibility. One returnee, Mr. Anand, mentioned he could work at home and enjoy flexible working hours in the USA, but this was an exception to the rule in Singapore. He explained:

In the West, the emphasis is on a balanced, healthy life. However, in Asian countries like Singapore, work occupies most of people's time and is far more stressful than in the West. Some were glad Singapore has begun to change: I think we need more balance in life. It is gradually changing, for example, the government sector now only works five days a week, not five and a half days. For my family's sake, I'm quite glad that it is happening. (Mr. Anand) Of the ten returnees, at least six of them had experienced some negative incidents at work in Singapore. For instance, Ms. Wu shared: I think people are too quick to disagree here, and they said, "No" right away, without thinking about my feelings. But later, they actually agree with what I said and do exactly what I proposed.

Ms. Wu also related another incident from her workplace: At a meeting with a colleague, she was only interested in getting what she needed from me, and in making sure I do my work according to her instructions. But I told her off, because I said, I would certainly get the work done according to what she wanted and she didn't need to worry about it, but I was more interested in nurturing the friendship between us. I think, that was the last thing on her mind. To her, it was just work and that's it.

Mr. G. Lee commented that at the workplace, he is able to offer a different angle because of his experience that others may not have. He also faced some obstacles:

In terms of suspicions, some people choose to see my new ideas as weird, or they cannot accept them. I guess there will always be these kinds of fellows around, small-minded people … I will not blame them because I was like them before I went away. So, I just ignore them.

Ms. D. Gwee also found she had to adapt to the work environment in Singapore:

In Australia, people are shrewd. If they want to tell you off in your face, they're very direct about it, but they're still quite civilized. They can be super-sarcastic but they're very civilized. Over here, at the first meeting I had with a client, the person started yelling, and I thought that was quite infantile-and this is a senior person.

Ms. G. Ling, who works in a church in Singapore, also mentioned that taking initiative at the workplace may not be acceptable. She related that she went ahead with some projects in her workplace without consulting the management and later realized that it was not the right way to do things. She related the following in colloquial English:

When I came back, I started a few projects here and they think they were good but at the same time, after a while, they sort of go, "No, you can't do this; no, you can't do that; oh, this is not how we do things." You got to literally fight for everything you do.

They say, "Oh now, you're the admin person, so you do what is necessary to improve." So I did, changing the photocopier, for example, and changing the computer system. Then after a while, they said, "Oh, this girl is spending a lot of money." I think the structure there (in Australia) is different. They have elders and then they have pastors and there the staff run all the programmes. Over here, you have elders and then the deacons. Basically, there are two groups and they do a lot. You know how it is, elders and deacons are directors of the church. So, there are a lot more voices. Making decisions becomes a lot harder.

Ms. Serene, who is a doctor in a Singapore hospital, finds that the workplace is systematically organized, and she was happy she was given an orientation tour and informed about the systems and procedures in the hospital. However, she finds that her colleagues are all too accepting of the status quo. She often hears comments like, "Let's not try to change the system," or "Let's leave it. Why rock the boat?"

She also feels that people in Singapore are too focused on achievements, and they work "too hard." She lamented: "We spend all our waking hours working." She finds that she is too tired to do anything in Singapore apart from work. In Australia, she was more engaged with hobbies and outdoor activities like hiking and fishing. Also, she commented that while she also has to work during weekends in Australia, she is paid for it, unlike in Singapore. She finds this "hard to swallow."

As the population increases (partly due to the influx of foreigners), public places become more crowded, especially when compared with spacious Western countries. Returnees realize they will need to adjust to this aspect of life in Singapore and to do something about it, rather than sitting around and complaining. Mr. Anand says:

The population is growing very fast and it's more crowded. We are used to going to the mall in the US on the weekends, and it is very big, not as crowded as Singapore. We have adjusted to that. Since it is crowded on the weekend, we try to go to the mall on weekdays in Singapore.

Ms. G. Ling felt the heat in Singapore was something she had to get used to:

Initially, at home, I kept turning on the air con. It was humid. I don't know if it was because it was particularly humid during those months, May and June. It was hot and humid. But after a while you just get acclimatized. Then it is ok.

Before departing for Western countries, some returnees had negative perceptions of Singapore's political environment. But after having lived in democratic Western countries like the USA, their attitude toward Singapore's system became less negative. Some grew more receptive to Singapore's political system and saw the former negatives now as positives. For example, three returnees explained: I used to be negative about it, but I become positive after I lived abroad. Firstly, Singapore is a very small country with only 4.5 million people. So, the system must be very rigid and straight. Once you have lived overseas many years, you will appreciate Singapore more.

Secondly, while we have freedom of speech in many other ways, you should and have to justify what you say. Over there in the US, you don't have to. You can lie, and people believe you, and what happens? More and more people believe the falsehoods, and then they may have problems, like fighting and others. Because Singapore is too tiny and there are too many people, we have to be very careful. (Mr. Anand) Singapore is a one-party system. Singapore is more straight-forward, it's more stable and attracts foreign investments. Australia has two parties. The parliament debates are not about issues. Usually, they spend a lot of time attacking each other, one party attacking another party. Sometimes, it is a personal attack, or a scandal may break out and a lot of time is wasted … If there is a change in government, some policies also change. (Mr. E. Chee) While Singapore is run by a majority party, Canada is at the other extreme being governed by a minority party, which means the party in power wins with only a very thin margin … My husband and I came to the conclusion it is better to have one majority party running the government than several ineffective minority political parties that are always putting selfinterests above national interests. (Ms. Wu) Mr. G. Lee said he viewed Singapore differently since he came back, stating: I think there are many things we can be grateful for, the convenience of things, the security, the employment, the job opportunities. These are Singapore's strengths.

However, he also offered his perspective on how Singapore can be improved:

Our weakness is that we are too kiasu 16. There's a lot of control, less space, less freedom. It doesn't nurture a creative and entrepreneurial spirit. People may feel stifled by all the bureaucrats and the bureaucracy we have to bear. It's a very conforming kind of society basically, very top-down.

I think there should be more diversity and more acceptance of alternative views, certainly. I think Potong Pasir should be upgraded unconditionally, because I think there are a lot of old people there and some of them cannot climb steps. I have a church member there who has an aged mother, and they have to move the wheelchair-bound mother to Pasir Ris for a while, because the mother needs to see a doctor and couldn't climb down the steps. Every time she sees the doctor, you need a few fellows to carry her down. I think that kind of protectionism should go. I think there should be more alternative voices so that we can be a better people, a better society.

Mr. E. Chee had this observation on the changes taking place in Singapore: "Singapore is more open now and the demography is changing. There are more new immigrants here."

Ms. Wu had this to say about her changing view of Singapore:

Definitely we are now more positive about Singapore. Singapore has made great strides despite being a relatively young country. It has a very positive reputation abroad. Other people (Canadians) tell us so! I think Singapore is beautiful. I love Singapore, especially in the evening. It is continually evolving and remaking itself. There is more art in the city, in that some old buildings are being refurbished and new functions are being found for them.

I feel the Singapore government is trying to be more accommodating. They did put together a committee to study how to "remake" Singapore some years ago. I can sense the government is trying to implement some of these recommendations.

I think I now appreciate Singapore more, probably not so much the lifestyle, the way of living. It's safe to a certain extent. It's probably because I grew up here, I spent more time here than I had over there (Australia). This will always be home. The sense of belonging is here, you're not second class.

There were two returnees who expressed indifference to what was happening in Singapore. When asked whether he kept in touch with what was happening in Singapore, Mr. L. Loke, who divides his time between Singapore and Australia, said: I don't know, I rarely read the newspapers these days. I'm busy, and I'm also not here all the time, and then when I read, I just skim through the headlines.

I'm totally out of touch with it (the political situation in Singapore) actually, and I don't know who is who now. I just managed to catch up with some of the news recently, with who's the new DPM (Deputy Prime Minister), otherwise, I think Singaporeans … don't really care or bother too much about politics.

Four of the returnees emigrated because they found the Singapore education system too stressful for their children. Ms. G. Ling returned after her daughter entered university in Australia; Mr. L. Loke returned but left his three children in Australia, and another, Mr. G. Lee, returned when his eldest son reached 18, the age of enrollment into the Singapore army. Ms. Wu returned when her eldest son turned 13, the compulsory age for Singaporean boys to report to the government under a new policy.

Mr. G. Lee and Ms. Wu applied for exemption for their school-going children from studying Chinese, which is a requirement in the Singapore education system. All school children have to study their "mother tongue" apart from English in Singapore. Both Mr. Lee and Ms. Wu had their application approved.

Mr. Lee is happy that his second and third children have been able to cope with the Singapore system. However, he knows that they have "lost out" in some ways because they did not do very well in the examinations in Singapore although he feels they are gifted academically. His second son was able to secure a place in one of the private universities in Singapore using his American high school results, not the Singapore A-level results. Mr. Lee looked on the bright side of things. He said this of his son:

He became more creative, actually. He lost his academic edge, but he gained his business edge and became more enterprising, because over there (the US), teenagers are already managing directors of certain companies. They start up their own companies, you know? Anybody can become a managing director over there. My son learnt from those Caucasians, so he's now earning money through the Internet by selling bicycle parts. He wants to do business. He would never have done business if he had not gone to the US. He'd probably end up in some civil servant job here … So I guess he lost something but also gained something else.

Ms. Wu had three children and they were all enrolled in Singapore schools. Her younger children seemed to have adapted to the local school system, but her eldest son, thirteen, encountered some bullying at school. Local students teased him because he could not speak "Singlish" 17 and often told him to go back to Canada. Because he missed his Canadian friends, he found it hard fitting into the Singapore system. However, Ms. Wu was very pleased that her eldest son was enrolled in a premier school in Singapore through the Direct School Admissions exercise, which seemed like a bonus for returning to Singapore. In Canada, her children would be engaged in various outdoor activities, but in Singapore, they tended to be indoor with extra tuition classes in school and at home. They had to do a lot of "catching up," particularly in mathematics and science.

Six of the ten returnees expressed satisfaction with the fact that they are enjoying higher family income now back home in Singapore than when they were overseas. Mr. Anand had this to say of returning: I think coming home is more exciting than the thought of living there (US). We enjoyed the peace and quiet over there, and the shopping. But for some compelling reasons, there is a lot more pull for us to return.

For two returnees, Mr. E. Chee and Ms. Wu, their income has more than doubled since they returned to Singapore. Another returnee, Ms. G. Ling, is happy there is "more buzz here" compared to quiet Perth where shops close at 5 pm. One returnee (Ms. Wu) is happy her children have re-entered the Singapore education system as she believes her children can learn in a safe, structured school environment as compared to Vancouver where crime is relatively higher-and where there are no examinations and little homework. She said:

My husband and I are happy to be back here because our children can go to school on their own and play outside the home. In Vancouver, they were prisoners at home because of the high crime rate.

One returnee, Mr. Anand, is happy that his daughter is now able to have the company of relatives like uncles, aunts, and cousins because in the USA, "most of the time, there were just the three of us (him, his wife, and daughter)". Mr. G. Lee is happy to be back in Singapore because he enjoys the safe environment in Singapore, and there are no drugs in the schools. Also, he is happy that his wife can have a career of her own and has her own income. She was not allowed to work in the USA. However, he revealed that the quality of family life has declined in Singapore:

Back here, we don't really have time for one another in our family, sad to say. We all lead our own individualistic lives. Over there, we had more family time together, enjoying nature, and all that.

Although he has been back in Singapore for four years, he said: I still struggle (concerning the decision to return) -there are days when I wish I was back there (US). There are days when I think I should be here, but since I made the decision, I will live with the consequences. There will always be a push-pull kind of thing. But if my children have a good education, I am able to put them through varsity, give them the basics in life, then I guess, that's my mission or priority in life, the rest is secondary.

Two returnees, Mr. L. Loke and Ms. Serene, are not happy to be back. For Mr. L. Loke, because he flies to see his family in Australia five times a year, staying at least a month each time, his income has been halved by the interruptions to his work. For one returnee, Ms. Serene, coming back has been "miserable." The reasons are as follows: (1) she is not happy with the crowds in Singapore; (2) she finds that people are not as gracious, e.g., people in a lift do not hold the door for others; (3) the traffic bothers her and she does not like the way people drive in Singapore; (4) she yearns for space as she went hiking in Australia every weekend; and (5) having lived apart from her husband (who remained in Singapore while she was in Australia) for several years, she finds that there are more marital conflicts in Singapore.

One returnee, Mr. Tan, expressed ambivalence regarding his decision to be back in Singapore. On the one hand, he has better job security and more savings in Singapore, but on the other hand, he does not like the education system here. He has three daughters, 24, 28, and 11. Although he is a chemist, he is quite aghast at the level of difficulty of the science textbooks, which he finds "very frightening." He is not happy that he is sending his daughter to "tuition after tuition." He asked: "Are we pushing our children too hard?"

He thinks that if his daughter does not keep up with the schoolwork, she will end up at the ITE (Institute of Technical Education), which he views negatively. He is also not happy that he has to drive his daughter for English tuition on Saturdays. He wonders how they could find time to go to a park as the tuition classes end late. He understands that the government has to set high standards for the country, and he thinks the Singapore "government is excellent," but he also commented: "We are all on this conveyor belt. If we do not keep to what is required, we will fall off the belt."

Most of our returnee respondents feel their migration experience has enriched, even changed their lives. One returnee, Mr. E. Chee, said if he did not go to Australia, he would be just like his peers in Singapore who have stable jobs and normal lives. But as a result of his overseas experience, he treasures what he has now more than before. He even had the courage to open his own retail shop after returning to Singapore. He elaborated:

I might have earned more if I had stayed in Singapore. But I have gained much more in my personal life journey while overseas.

To Mr. Anand, his overseas experience has helped him to deal with different kinds of people:

No, I don't think I lost anything. I was in the US for a few years, I know how Americans work and how to work with different people. From the management perspective or career perspective, I've learnt some principles of Western management, so I apply them to my work here now.

Mr. Fernandez also gained from his overseas exposure:

Now the table is completely turned. If you are a Singaporean without international exposure, then you are very much behind … When I left, I was one of the people who were being hired. When I came back, I was in the position of hiring people.

Mr. G. Lee, who is a pastor, also feels that his overseas experience has helped him: I find that my experience there helps me to grow, first in the area of social concern, because I tended to do more evangelism at the expense of social concern, but over there, I learnt that if your faith is not translated into loving your neighbors, those unfortunate or marginalized people, then your faith is not much good. So when I came back, I was very active in the HIV ministry, which is something that Singapore churches are still quite slow in engaging with because we are very scared, or we tend to associate AIDS with homosexuality so we don't want to go there. I become a better person, I think, more open-minded, more compassionate, more understanding. I think quality of relationships at the end of the day is what is most important to me now.

Ms. Wu said: "I am more open to possibilities because things can always be done in a different way." Ms. G. Ling thinks she is probably more confident as a result of her migration experience. Ms. D. Gwee realizes that she has lost out in career advancement since she returned; however, she explained: I would say I lost out in career progression. If I had stayed in Singapore, I would have been at a different level than I am now. But do I regret it? No, I'm happy with where I am now. I think I'm richer for all the experiences I've gained. I'm not upset that I'm only a VP or something, the only thing I've lost out on.

When asked whether they foresee themselves playing an active role in the Singapore community, most of our respondents expressed reservation, except Mr. G. Lee and Ms. Wu. Since his return to Singapore, Mr. Lee has started a ministry helping those infected with the HIV virus. He sees himself as helping to change Singapore society through his ministry and his writings.

Ms. Wu has joined the teaching profession because she thinks she can contribute to Singapore society. She said:

Having seen what ineffective leaders do to a country, I want to serve my country. I want to shape young minds, so they know what is right and wrong.

She sees herself playing a role in helping Singaporeans think positively about themselves:

I would like to help Singaporeans have pride in themselves, and to think well of their country. Singaporeans talk bad about their country all the time. It is good to start saying good things. I found myself correcting a cab driver one day, and I think I will continue to do that … If there is a need to speak up, I would. If there is a need to question, I will do so.

Most of our returnees did not have problems adjusting to Singapore. Mr. Anand said: "We don't have adjustment problems because we came back every year, and being adults, it's much easier."

Another returnee, Ms. D. Gwee, said:

Because I'm local, I don't look different. Apart from the little bit of reverse culture shock, I could plunge straight back in. No problems.

Ms. Gwee elaborated:

I guess when you've been away for so long, you don't realize that you have changed until you come back to your old environment and you compare the new "you" to your old environment.

She cited an incident at work as an example of the "reverse culture shock" (a term used by her) she experienced: [Previously in Singapore] , if a phone rang during a meeting and someone went to answer it, I did not bother since it was a common practice, but now, I find it very rude. Like if you were talking to a person halfway, and he went, "Hold on, hold on, let me answer the phone", and indeed off he went. I think it's quite unprofessional.

All respondents said they did not face discrimination or hostility in any way since their return. They felt that family and friends accepted them. One returnee, Mr. Fernandez, related that he rejoined the same army unit where he reported for military service although he had been out of Singapore for five years: I went back to the same unit that I was with before I left … My friends asked me where I had been all these years. It was back to the same thing again, so integrating back to Singapore was easy.

They asked me all kinds of questions. They asked me how I did it (migration). I said I was away, and I was working. They said, "I'll try that too!" It was quite a fun group. It was a special group.

For Ms. G. Ling, her friends welcomed her back, and she was happy when they said: "Oh good, you're back, we can go on holidays together again." However, she later revealed that she felt people were wary of her:

They look at you like they're suspicious of you … I don't feel I'm not welcomed back, but at the same time, they think that I'm too open-minded, approaching or saying things with less reservation.

Over there (Australia), they're willing to listen, they encourage you to talk, to speak up, to share, and they always give affirmation. Over here, people don't affirm you. They tend to be judging, they like to say "no" before they even start to think.

Mr. G. Lee feels that relationships in Singapore are quite "cut and dry," and that the quality of relationships can be compromised: I think Singapore is a very utilitarian society, a very pragmatic place, and I think if we are into using people to get things done, or being used by people, then I think life is very shallow here. I think there's a better way of life. I think it (relationships) should be deeper, and there should be more sincerity.

Ms. Wu also commented on the nature of relationships in Singapore:

I have always felt that Singaporean friends do not place a high premium on friendship. In Canada, for instance, when I was ill, friends came to visit, offering food and medicine, but in Singapore, people are just too busy, and you take care of yourself. I, therefore, do not expect a lot from my friends here.

Ms. Wu's biggest concern since she returned has been her eldest son's adaptation. He did extremely well in the Canadian system but has to start from scratch in Singapore. She related:

In Singapore, he was always put into the worst class because he did not pass his Chinese. In Canada, it was different. The schools he went to recognized his talents. The principal took him under his wings, and gave him special responsibilities and nurtured him. His teachers gave him a lot of positive reinforcement. Even the school secretaries had a good word or two to say about him. They loved him and gave him encouragement all the way. He collected awards, certificates and medals with his name inscribed on them. He was asked to give speeches in front of the whole school, represented the school in district meets and competitions. He performed in musicals and school concerts. It was a very enriching time for him, and one of his teachers even wrote, "It is an honor to teach you". She and her husband hope that he would adapt eventually and appreciate Singapore, but she is also prepared to let him return to Canada should he wish to do so when he is independent.

Mr. Fernandez and his wife, who have young children of three and a half and seven, are concerned with the stressful education system in Singapore, especially since both their children have learning disabilities. His wife voiced their concern: Everybody speaks English in our family. She (daughter) has a Chinese mother but a Eurasian father. Because of her Chinese, her grades are going to be dragged down. Why? She can't go to a better secondary school because of her Chinese. It's not fair. Her Chinese kills her interest and makes her feel lousy. Who says you must know Chinese to be somebody in Singapore? A whole generation of Singaporeans emigrated because of that.

For Ms. D. Gwee, her biggest concern is that her husband manages to find a suitable job and has an affinity for Singapore. Her husband is an Australian of Indian descent and has not lived in Singapore before. She was worried how her Indian, westernized husband, would be treated in Singapore and may not be accepted by Singaporeans as he is rather assertive and direct. She said: "I was worried whether he could get used to Singapore. All my fears have come true!" For Ms. G. Ling, her problem is that she cannot decide which place (Singapore or Australia) is better for her and which country she should eventually settle in:

If I have to make a choice, I really don't know. You know, I'm not prepared to give up either. It's like really having the best of both worlds. They're different. When I'm in Singapore, I like Singapore, you know? It's convenient, accessible, our friends are here, family here.

For Mr. G. Lee, although he has been back in Singapore for four years, he still thinks about whether he made the right decision to return.

Another returnee, Mr. Tan, occasionally gets chastised by his wife for returning to Singapore. Until today, more than ten years after their return, his wife is not happy that they returned. When they were in Canada, they only had one daughter who was three years old. Now they have three children, and although two are grown up, the last one is only eleven and has to be in the Singapore education system, which is a source of stress for him and his wife. His wife was happier in Canada because she enjoyed her work there.

Ms. Serene is another returnee who does not feel at home in Singapore. She is not playing an active role in the Singapore community: "I am constantly thinking of how I'm going to get out of Singapore again."

All the returnees have retained their networks and ties with their family or friends in Singapore despite having been away. They received social support in finding work or even buying houses. Most of them retained a residence in Singapore, which they normally rented out while away. This produced an income for them and also gave them psychological security in that there will be a place to fall back to when they return. All retained their Singapore citizenship, did not withdraw their CPF 18 monies, and did not entirely cut ties with their home country.

To prepare for return, a few of them staggered the process-normally, husbands returned to Singapore ahead of time to get the house ready. This reduces the anxiety of return. Women returnees did not start work in Singapore immediately on return. They allowed a break of at least two months to help their family members settle in.

Returnees who needed to look for work in Singapore were realistic, focused, and knew what they wanted. They did not waste time but sought the job that they were most familiar with and that could give them the highest pay so that the family could stabilize quickly.

Returnees with school-going children contacted the Ministry of Education (MOE) or people they knew (e.g., at the church) way in advance to obtain admission information. This gave them the assurance of suitable schools they could send their children to. They also sought exemption for their children from studying Chinese, which is allowed by MOE for returning Singaporeans. This reduced the stress of return considerably.

To help their children adapt to Singapore, one respondent, Ms. Wu, related she and her husband had a lot of "pep talks" with their children before returning so that they could understand the reasons for return. Ms. Wu also mentioned that she and her husband realized that they had to depend on each other for support when they returned. They talked about possible problems they would face and were aware of a Singaporean returnee who moved back to Canada six months after she returned to Singapore. This form of anticipatory socialization eased possible re-entry anxiety.

Back in Singapore, Ms. Wu and her husband spent a lot of time with their children to make sure they were adjusting, consciously making special effort to take them to good restaurants and enjoyable places so that the children would have good impressions and fond memories of Singapore. Despite their efforts, their teenage son pines for return to Canada.

Despite their problems and dilemmas, most returnees prefer to look on the bright side of things. They prefer to see that they and their families have gained from the experience. Having a positive outlook seems to be an effective way of coping. Ms. Wu said:

My husband and I think it is good for my children to go through this process. They need to go through some adversity in life and, perhaps, they will turn out better.

Respondents do a lot of rationalizing to help them cope with their "duality," their existence in two worlds. Ms. Wu says:

I have decided it is best that we stop comparing both countries. Every place has its merits, and each place means something different to different individuals. We cannot make our children share our views about a certain place. They have to go through life to realize what suits them best.

Although most respondents (80 percent) mentioned they were happy to be back in Singapore, almost all of them also indicated they may or may not eventually leave Singapore. Table 3 .6 displays their next possible destinations and their reasons for such choices.

Emigration is often a subject of perplexity for the Singapore government. If the country is doing well, which is how it sees itself, why are Singaporeans leaving? As an Asian country with a creditable economic performance, boasting a GDP per capita that is second only to Japan in the region, the Singapore government is baffled to see its citizens leave its shores. Emigrants are thus often called names, such as "quitters," and described as "heartless" or "disloyal." The Singapore government is often likened to a devoted but autocratic father who cannot let go of his children.

The tide of emigration is, ironically, fueled by the government's call to "diversify." In 1993, the Committee to Promote Enterprise Overseas (CPEO) was formed to help Singapore companies invest overseas, to create the "external wing" (MITA 1998:57). After the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997, Singapore companies were urged to seek out new business opportunities globally instead of just regionally. They were given state assistance and consultation to develop this second wing. Many, always obediently and dutifully, packed their bags, set up international offices, and then decided they liked where they had settled. They did not want to come home. This was not going according to script. Companies were told to go international, but Singaporeans were supposed to come home. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong highlighted the growing concern of overseas Singaporeans in his 2006 National Day Rally speech:

In fact, we encourage Singaporeans to go abroad, spend time abroad, gain experience, understand how the world operates and then come back to Singapore. But of course, while it's good to have people abroad, we also hope that they don't spend all their life there and at some stage, they will decide to come back to Singapore.

And we also worry. We worry because if every trained and skilled Singaporean is abroad, then who's going to be here in Singapore, jaga rumah 19 , looking after the home, keeping Singapore dynamic, vibrant, beating, and if we have so many people overseas but not many in Singapore, where will the next generation of Singaporeans come from? How will we get talented and skilled Singaporeans to keep this place going?

This ever-present stream of emigrants may be considered a wake-up call to the government that its citizens want more than infrastructure, hardware, or reputation. People desire space, leisure, arts, and other intangibles of life, such as freedom of expression, freedom of choice, freedom to experiment, desire to have a bigger say in how their lives are to be lived out. Many aspects of a Singaporean's life are lived out within a boundary which they detest.

This prompted the Singapore government to think about how it could get Singaporeans connected to the home base. It began to work harder on hard-selling the importance of home. Through songs, poems, stories, and emotion-filled speeches, leaders drummed in the concept that Singapore is a home, not a hotel (Velayutham 2007:99) .

At the same time, the government focused on turning Singapore into a worldclass global city of excellence (Velayutham 2007:84) . Over the past few years, several iconic structures have sprung up, e.g., the Esplanade and the Singapore Flyer. Two casinos have been built. Even bungee jumping is now available in Singapore. Make Singapore homely yet global-this paradoxical approach is the Singapore government's response to the emigration phenomenon.

Emigration, therefore, can be seen as a side-effect of Singapore's success. Its citizens are highly educated, English-speaking, hardworking, very marketable, and, therefore, very mobile.

A nation-state is defined by a boundary, and citizens are kept within the boundary. A nation-state naturally wants to control its citizens. Yet, emigrants pose a challenge to the nation-state. How can it control citizens who are "out of range"?

As it became obvious that more and more Singaporeans were staying out, the government quickly transformed a "problem" into an advantage. The solution was to build a network of ties so that citizens could be connected. "You don't have to come home but we want you to miss home" seemed to be the message. This is coined "affective nationalism" (Velayutham 2007:83) 20 . Hence, the setting-up of the Overseas Singaporean Unit and Contact Singapore, and the birth of overseas Singapore Clubs, one after another, and the organization of Singapore Day. "Remember to keep in touch, and come home sometimes," overseas Singaporean are told. Now, the return of the highly mobile, wordly, wise Singaporeans adds another twist to the migration story. These are Singaporeans who want to come home. The fact that Singaporeans miss the comfort and security of home is a feather in the cap for the government. Returnee Singaporeans are social capital, assets that can be utilized in the machinery of ceaseless production. They are globalized Singaporeans who have become local again. Once rebels, prodigals, or mavericks, the returnees are now considered citizens with precious networks, experience, skills, and perspectives that the nation-state can exploit or harness. They are now not "quitters" but "seekers."

Because of the benefits that returnees bring with them, one respondent hopes that more can be "sent out" and more can return. He states: I think all those people who come back have a lot to contribute, having lived in two kinds of society. They can see things a lot clearer now. Living and growing up here, we all have blind spots which we cannot see. We need an outsider to tell us what these blind spots are, then we will wake up.

I hope more will come back, I hope more will go out as well for a while, then come back. I hope we can send more out and get more back, and then Singapore will become better overall as a result. (Mr G. Lee) 20 Affective nationalism is a convenient term to refer to what the Singapore government hopes to see in every Singaporean, that is, that they will imbibe the Singapore identity, feel proud of being Singaporean, and call Singapore home. The government invests heavily in this area. In 1997, a committee called Singapore 21 was assembled to study ways to make Singapore "the place of choice to live a fulfilling life, to make a good living and raise a happy family" (Goh Chok Tong, National Day Rally Speech 1997). After a year of consultation, a report was produced, and the following five ideals were published:

This continual push-pull, global-local tension creates dilemmas in returnees who may experience "anomie" and, most likely, "duality," a sense of belonging to two worlds, yet not knowing which side one should give up or align with.

Returnees defy the nation-state's control and are sought after by other countries. They can fit anywhere and are internationally mobile. They will emigrate and reemigrate. This is a new phenomenon. The cosmopolitan challenges the nation-state which has a natural tendency to control.

Our Singapore study reveals the tentative plans of our ten respondents. Almost all said they will move again. An analysis of their backgrounds shows that they are indeed highly mobile. Examining their life histories, it was discovered that some respondents have left Singapore more than once. To deal with this new reality, both nation-state and citizens need to face up to this fluidity, ambiguity, and transience.

Return migrants represent a challenge to nation-states. Should they be penalized or rewarded? They are too precious to lose. Because too much is at stake, much investment has been put in; with the falling birth rate, the nation-state compromises, tolerates, and courts its citizens, hoping they stay within the family, or at least within the "radar." The new slogan is "Every Singaporean Counts," and it does not matter if you are physically present or not 21 . The nation-state recognizes that "transnationalism," "hybridity," and "hypermobility" are the new buzz words (Chan 2012a and b) . The nation-state has no choice. The challenge is staying connected, The Prime Minister said:

Because our people are all over the world and because we are bringing in people from all over the world and because of the digital age bombarding us with new ideas and all kinds of new communications, it becomes all the more important that we strengthen our heartware, our emotional ties which bind Singaporeans to Singapore and to one another. It's critical in this age. You may be more connected than ever, but to be connected as a people, as one Singapore, as four million of us, I think that's something which we have to make the effort to do.

How do we get Singaporeans to feel this, to feel that we are Singaporean, that we belong here, we are not just some citizen in cyberspace, passport issued by the Republic of Cyberspace? I think you have to do it in many ways. First, we have to tell the Singapore Story and we must know the Singapore Story. (Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, National Day Rally 2006) 

This Singapore study is an attempt to present the experience of a group of Singaporeans who have returned to the city-state after a sojourn overseas. The background of our returnee respondents and their experiences are varied, but each person has provided some input which will help policymakers understand the phenomenon of return migration and make or refine policies that can induce emigrants to return to their home base and, hopefully, stay long enough to contribute to Singapore society. The findings are as follows:

1. There were more push than pull factors that led people to leave the country. 2. Emigrants left Singapore chiefly for political and economic reasons. 3. For those with children, to escape a stressful educational system was one prime reason for leaving Singapore. 4. The process of emigration and the experience of having been elsewhere changed the attitudes of some emigrants toward their home country. Many became more positive than before toward their home country, and some started to appreciate the institutions here, even the political ones-although, ironically, they had left due to a dissatisfaction with an authoritarian regime in Singapore. 5. Emigrants returned mainly to look for better-paid jobs and also because of emotional ties with the home country (e.g., to spend time with aging parents). 6. Some returned because they preferred to have their children re-enter the Singapore education system, although, again ironically, they had once left Singapore because of the stressful school experience. 7. Emigrants did not cut ties with Singapore. Most retained a Singapore residence and maintained ties with Singaporean relatives and friends. Some have been returning to Singapore on a regular basis, e.g., once a year, while they were abroad. 8. Emigrants slipped back into the routine of life in Singapore quite well although there were some adjustment difficulties. 9. For returnees with children, getting them back into the local school system was a priority. Whether their children could adjust to the education system affected the adaptation of the entire family in Singapore considerably. 10. Returnees did not regret their emigration experience, although some had suffered loss of income or loss of seniority in the professional field. They felt they had gained in terms of life experience, interpersonal relations, and professional knowledge. 11. Most returnees did not seem to play a very active role in their home community.

They preferred to keep a low profile. 12. Most returnees said that they would probably emigrate again, for reasons of career advancement, adventure, and life enrichment. For some, it was because they remained dissatisfied with certain aspects of life in Singapore.

The data of our study indicate that Singaporeans who return are motivated by economic and family reasons. They seem more realistic than before, and more accepting of Singapore's perceived shortcomings. Some choose to remain connected to their country of emigration, thus practicing dual loyalty. They remain unsure whether they would stay in Singapore in the long run and regard themselves as potential emigrants again.

To attract Singaporeans to return and to plug the emigration process, in recent years, the Singapore government has been working on the idea of "Remaking Singapore," making attempts to democratize greater sectors of the society and also rebuilding the physical structure of the city, hoping to transform it into a global metropolis. The government is working to shed its workaholic and straitlaced image, hoping that people will find Singapore an ideal place to live and to work in, and that people will develop psychological and emotional ties with the country. There have also been signs of the government making efforts to maintain healthy work-life balance, develop innovation in education, accept diversity in learners, and amend laws to suit the populace. Whether returnees remain in Singapore eventually will depend on how genuine these initiatives are perceived to be and how successful they are in their re-settlement. But then, returnees, who have been elsewhere, are "transnationals." They may have their own agendas.

The Ministry of Education in Singapore has a website (www.moe.edu.sg) to enable returning Singaporeans to find information about schools. Some schools have websites to provide admission information for returning Singaporeans. The Direct School Admission exercise was set up by the Singapore government in 2006 to enable returning Singaporeans to re-enter the school system using criteria other than school results. This exercise would lessen the stress of re-entering the Singapore education system. (See http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/admissions/dsa-sec/.)

Western education has been admired for being creative, fun-filled, student-centered, and stress-free. This may or may not all be true, but it is still important for education experts to study Western models of education, such that students can benefit from the best practices of both sides-East and West. Very often, Asian educational models tend to be result-oriented, emphasizing the product instead of the process of learning, and not considering student or parent satisfaction, but score high on accountability. Western models tend to be less structured, and students are not burdened with excessive homework and frequent assessments. Children who have been exposed to the Western style of education may find adapting to the Asian model an uphill task. If re-entering the education system is overly stressful, returnees may move away, once again.

It is recommended that the school system provides support for children of returnees to help them adjust. This could take the form of teachers or other educators being assigned to give assistance, whether academic or emotional, to these children.

For the potential returnees, three important decisions would have to be made: how and where to find employment, where to live, and, if they have children, which institution of learning to enrol their children in. It is important that the government websites contain information on these three areas.

Also, it may be worthwhile to consider having a "hotline" or an email address for would-be returnees to direct their queries about returning. There has to be a lot of empathy when attending to such queries. The websites should make it easy for would-be returnees to apply for jobs online.

Reintegration assistance programs should take into account the three different stages of the return migration movement: (1) pre-departure assistance: for example, information dissemination and counseling in cooperation with partner agencies, travel arrangements, and coordination with origin country agencies, institutions, and departments; transportation such as departure assistance and transit assistance;

(2) post-arrival assistance: for example, reception and onward transportation and information and referral services; and (3) follow-up evaluation of the adaptation of the returnees after the initial one to two years.

It is important to anticipate and avoid the frustrating experiences of returnees having to seek information, support, and assistance from different departments, centers, or ministries for their diverse needs. Reintegration programs must avoid a fragmentation of institutions in aims, methods, and processes. A coordinated and internally cohesive horizontal approach is needed to ensure that programs of services are complementary, supporting, and reinforcing each other. Coordination on the regional and national levels is crucial for successful reintegration of the returnees. A wellcoordinated reintegration program of this sort should be planned and implemented in tandem with the national development strategy, which attempts to connect the problems of return migration with strategies of national development.

If they have been out of Singapore for a long time, returnees may need services like language classes, cultural adaptation, or psychological services. The government may have to sponsor such services.

One returnee suggested that the government view returnees positively. This requires a change in the bureaucratic attitude and mindset which would affect policymaking. When asked, "What would you recommend to the Singapore government to facilitate the return of Singaporeans?," Mr. G. Lee gave this reply: They (the government) have to take the initiative, they have to be proactive. They cannot just sit there and expect us to go and knock on their doors. They must value us when we come back. Nobody wants to come back because, I think, there is some kind of stigma or suspicion. People may ask, "Why do you come back? You can't make it over there?" People will look at you negatively. So, I think when they come back, they should not be treated as "second-hand". They should be valued. People like to be valued. If one place doesn't value them, another place will. Canada or America or Australia will. So, value them when they come back. Give them good posts, don't put them on a shelf, value their experiences and synergize with them. Furthermore, the overseas experience of returnees should be valued, and they should be awarded salaries that match their years of experience and qualifications in Singapore and overseas. They should not be made to start from the bottom all over again.

The relationship between returnees and local residents of the home/origin countries is a long-neglected, under-studied area in reintegration in particular and in migration studies in general. A favorable disposition of the local residents toward the returnees must be fostered. If and when the home/origin government gives preferential treatment to the returnees, the local residents would feel discriminated against and get jealous. Tensions and animosities would then occur between the leavers/ returnees and the stayers. The home government should have a policy that contributes to the lessening of any such ethnic/diasporic polarizations by taking into account the perception and grievances of the local residents vis-à-vis the returning migrants.

The Singapore government commissioned two committees to study how Singapore could be improved. In 1997, the Singapore 21 committee was born, and in 2001, the Remarking Singapore committee came into existence. Both committees sought the opinions of ordinary Singaporeans as well as experts from different fields. Many ideas were aired, resulting in the publication of reports and establishment of websites (e.g., www.singapore21.org.sg).

As a result of these two committees, there have been changes in many areas, for instance, the reduction of red tape and a perceived willingness of the Singapore Civil Service to consider diverse opinions and to make exceptions to the rule if necessary. Also, there have been calls to build a more inclusive society, as exemplified by more funds having been set aside to develop programs to support the elderly and children with special needs 23 .

As Singapore must strive to stay relevant beyond the twenty-first century, the efforts of these two committees go beyond being a mere public relations exercise. When genuine change is experienced, the likelihood of people identifying with Singapore, and making it their home, increases.

All Singaporeans matter (later refined to

Strong Families: Our Foundation and Our Future

The Singapore Heartbeat: Feeling Passionately about Singapore

Whether we live in Singapore or overseas, we must embrace a common vision of the country as a place worth coming home to and if need be, fighting and dying for

Hybrid Hong Kong

Cultural Hybridity

Foreign labour in Asia

Foreign Talent Policy Here to Stay: Lee Kuan Yew', The Business Times

Foreign yes, but all talent?

To be or not to be: Chinese-Singaporean women deliberating on voluntary childlessness

Singapore stories: Language, Class and the Chinese of Singapore

Competing for global talent

Grounding' Cosmopolitanism at 'Home': Investigating Singapore's Cosmopolitans in the Context of Return

Homing' Cosmopolitanism: Singapore's Cosmopolitan Returnees, Paper presented at conference 'In and Out of Asia', Migrating Talent, Globalising Cities

A competitive economy, an inclusive society

Migration Policies Towards Highly Skilled Foreign Workers

Attracting Global Talent: The Experience of Six High-Income Countries

Foreign talent and development in Singapore

Together, We Make the Difference

The National Population & Talent Division of Singapore (2012) Population in Brief

Responding to globalization

Singaporeans overseas: A study of emigrants in Australia and Canada

Singapore: Hungry for foreign workers at all skill levels

Getting citizens to develop a passion for the country/region involves both hard-sell and soft-sell techniques, perhaps more of the latter. While the elders are emotional about their place of birth, the youth may not have formed affective ties with their parents' homeland. The government might want to focus on the younger generation's emotional identification and attachment.

Returnees may favor the Western lifestyle because of the many recreational possibilities that Western countries offer. It is recommended that the Singapore government examine ways in which recreation and leisure can be improved. As in most Asian cities, shopping and eating are favorite pastimes of Singaporeans. However, returnees are atypical Singaporeans. More than one returnee we interviewed spoke about having the time to explore nature while overseas, which seems to be one thing they miss badly. How can we discover nature within a concrete jungle? Or are there oases of hidden beauty that have been overlooked?

The government needs to introduce a 5-day work week. Since Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong took office in 2001, there has been more emphasis on ensuring worklife balance. Recently, Singapore's past Minister for Labor, Lim Swee Say, challenged employers to redesign jobs to make them more attractive to local workers. He said:You cannot expect the Singaporean workers to work six days a week, 12 hours a day. If he were to take on that kind of job, where and when is he going to live his family life? 22He also posed this question to employers: "How can we ensure that every job would offer better work-life balance" (ibid.)?