-
3. The Place of Migrant Workers in Singapore: Between State Multiracialism and Everyday (Un)Cosmopolitanisms
- ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
- Chapter
- Additional Information
3 THE PLACE OF MIGRANT WORKERS IN SINGAPORE Between State Multiracialism and Everyday (Un)Cosmopolitanisms Fred C.M. Ong and Brenda S.A. YeOh INTRODUCTION Increasing flows of transnational migration have fuelled a new spatial order of interconnectivities among nations and cities, leading to a host of both anticipated and unanticipated human encounters between locals and migrants. These encounters and the subsequent possibilities for creative synergies, destructive tensions and missed opportunities have had a significant impact on the sociocultural texture of cities. In particular, this has resulted in “populations and social structures which have previously been rather more separate now increasingly imping[ing] physically and materially on one another’s living conditions” (hannerz 1996, p. 56). In this light, cosmopolitanism as a unifying vision for urban democracy and governance, signifying a culture of openness and acceptance and underpinned by the values of inclusion and tolerance of difference, is back in currency. Some scholars have even proclaimed the cosmopolitan city as 84 Fred C.M. Ong and Brenda S.A. Yeoh “the hallmark of truly global cities” (Short 2006, p. 223) and a necessary response to the empirical reality of multicultural cities of today (Binnie et al. 2006). however, this idealized treatment of cosmopolitanism as a solution to the multifarious sociocultural and sociopolitical landscapes of contemporary cities needs further probing, especially in the manner in which it has neglected the importance of “diverse local agents, social forces and institutions” in actively participating and shaping the processes of global city formation (Brenner and Keil 2005, p. 12). Singapore provides a useful example of an emergent global city where a state-engineered “cosmopolitanization” has been central to aspirations of top-tier global city status. It is also, however, a city where the experience and application of cosmopolitanism has been neither universal nor unproblematic (see Yeoh 2004). In this vein, this chapter attempts to unpack cosmopolitanism in Singapore by uncovering two possible arenas of tension and slippage — in the discursive field and in the realm of everyday practices — in response to the state’s “cosmopolizing” efforts. It begins with a brief review of academic discussions of cosmopolitanism and how the notion has been appropriated by the Singapore state, before launching into an investigation of how such state-mandated cosmopolitanism complements/ contradicts Singapore’s founding ideology of multiracialism as well as sentiments towards male foreign workers in public spaces. REVIEWING COSMOPOLITANISM Cosmopolitanism as an ancient term can be traced back to the third century BC when the Stoics argued for inclusionary cosmopolitan societies whose citizens — cosmopolites, to be precise — extended their “love of self… to all of humanity” (Dharwadker 2000, p. 6). The concept of cosmopolitanism appears to have been derived from the greek understanding of the “cosmopolis”, referring to the links between cosmos — the order of nature, and polis — the nature of human society (Featherstone 2002). Recent intellectual discussions of cosmopolitanism have, however, centred mainly on the tradition emerging from the work of german philosopher Immanuel Kant who, some two centuries ago, argued for the replacement of the law of nations with a “genuinely morally binding international law” to achieve the utopian vision of a “peaceful cosmopolitan order” (Kant 1795; cited in Stevenson 2002). Such a philosophy of global citizenship has triggered debates within political theory and citizenship studies, with some regarding [54.226.126.38] Project MUSE (2024-03-29 03:38 GMT) The Place of Migrant Workers in Singapore 85 cosmopolitanism as fundamentally opposed to national patriotism because it negates the sense of obligation to a national sovereignty, espousing in its place a sense of “thinking and feeling beyond the nation” that frustrates the national experience (Cheah and Robbins 1998; see Rée 1998). Proponents of such arguments have called for a globally-oriented citizenship in place of a cosmopolitan one, which insists on national solidarity while maintaining an active interest, responsibility and commitment towards the well-being of others and the creation of a “just world order” (Parekh 2003). Others have continued to advocate for a cosmopolitan virtue upon which citizenship should be based in the face of global diversity (Turner 2002). Kant’s notion of a cosmopolitan democracy has provided alternative ways of engaging with issues of globalization, citizenship and nationalism in an increasingly mobile and transnational world. however, cosmopolitanism exists not only in its political form; it also encompasses what Delanty (2006) has termed as moral and cultural cosmopolitanisms. These strands of cosmopolitanisms, likewise, emanate from Kant’s influential writings on the cosmopolitan condition as being able to instil...