Motivations of Migrants from Singapore to Australia 9789814345767

Citation preview

MOTIVATIONS OF MIGRANTS FROM SINGAPORE TO AUSTRALIA

or

The Institute Southeast Asian Studies was established as an autonomous organization in 1968. It is a regional research centre for scholars and other specialists concerned with modem Southeast Asia. particularly the many-faceted problems of stability and security. economic development, and political and social change. The Institute is governed by a twenty-two-member Board ofTrusteescomprising nominees from the Singapore Government. the National University of Singapore. the various Chambers of Conunerce, and professional and c ivic organizations. A ten-man Executive Corn.t1llnee oversees day-to-day operations; it is chaired by the Director, the Institute's chief academic and administrative officer. The Social Issues in Southeast Asia (SISEA) programme was established at the Ins titute in 1986. It addresses itself to the study of the nature and d ynamics of ethnicity, religions. urbanis m. and population change in Southeast Asia. These issues are examined with particular attention to the implications for. and relevance to, an understanding of problems of development and of societal conflict and cooperation. SISEA is guided by a Regional Advisory Board comprising senior scholars from the various Southeast Asian countries. At the Institute, SISEA comes under the o verall charge of the Director. wbo is guided by an advisory committee comprising senior research scholars.

MOTIVATIONS OF MIGRANTS FROM SINGAPORE TO AUSTRALIA

GERARD SULLIVAN U nivl'r.flf\' of Svdnt'y, Australia

S. GUNASEKARAN Porui1char)' Unll't'fSifY. lndw

F1eld Report Senes No. 28 Soc1al Issues m Southeast As1a INSTITUTE OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN STUDIES 1994

Published by 1nstirute of Southeast Asian Studies Heng Mui Keng Terrace Pasi r Panjang Singapore 0511 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced. stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means. electronic. mechanical. photocopying. recording or otherwise. without the prior permiss ion of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. © 1994 Institute of Southeast Asian Studies

The responsibility for facts and opinions expressed in this publication rests exclusively with the authors. and their interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views or the policy of the Institute or its supporters.

Cataloguing in Publication Data Sullivan, Gerard Motivations of migrants from Singapore to Australia / Gerard Sullivan and S. Gunasekaran. (Field report series/Institute of Southeast Asian Studies: no. 28) 1. Singapore - Emigration and immigration. 2. Australia - Emigration and immigration. 3. Singapore- Economic conditions- 19854. AustraJia - Economic conditions - 19455. Singapore- SociaJ conditions. 6. Austra.lia - SociaJ conditions. 7. Singapore - Politics and government - 19658. Australia- Politics and government- 19451. Gunasekaran, S. n. T itle. m. Series. s I s93-99779 1993 DS50 I 1594 no. 28 ISBN 981 -3016-71-X ISSN 0217-7099 Typeset in Singapore by International Typesetters. Printed and bound in Singapore by Prime Packaging Industries Pte Ltd.

CONTENTS

List of Tables List of Figures Acknowledgements

vi viii IX

introduction D

Knowledge of Australia. Networks and Ties with Singapore

4

UJ

The Singapore Situation

10

JV The Australian Situation

16

V

Place Comparisons

29

Yl

The Migration Culture and Deculturalization Hypotheses

49

VII Conclusions

55

Appendix I: Methodology

65

Appendix 2: Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

72

Notes

81

Bibliography

86

The Authors

89

LIST OF TABLES

2.1

Number and Purpose of Visits by Migrants from Singapore to Australia Prior to Issuance of Permanent Residence Visas

3.1

Respondents ' and Spouses' Average Hours of Employment Per Week over the Past Year

11

3.2

Respondents' and Spouses' Average Monthly Earnings over the Past Year

12

3.3

Respondents' Views of the Best Aspects about Living in Singapore

13

3.4

Respondents' Views of the Worst Aspects about Living in Singapore

15

4.1

Respondents' and Spouses' Expected Average Hours of Employment Per Week in Australia

18

4.2

Respondents' and Spouses' Expected Average Monthly Earnings in Australia

20

4.3

Respondents' Views of the Worst Aspects about Living in Australia

25

4.4

Respondents' Views of the Best Aspects about Living in Australia

28

Means and Minimum Scores for Comparisons of Singaporean and Australian Socio-Economic Conditions

33

Means and Minimum Scores for Comparisons of Singaporean and Australian Political Conditions and Long-Term Future

37

5.1 5.2

5

List of Tables

5. 3

5.4

A 1.1

A2. 1

vii

Means and Minimum Scores for Comparisons of Singaporean and Australian Socio-Cultural Conditions

40

Means and Minimum Scores for Comparisons of Singaporean and Australian Physical Conditions and Educational Opportunities

44

Occ upations of All Principal Recipients in Singapore of Immigrant Visas (July 1983- May 1988) and Survey Respondents

70

Level of Educational Attainment by Ethnicity

78

LIST OF FIGURES

4 01

Hours Worked by Principal Applicants in Singapore Each Week and Expected Working Hours in Australia

19

0 Hours Worked by Respondents Spouses in Singapore Each Week and Expected Working Hours in Australia

19

Reported Monthly Earnings by Principal Applicants in Singapore and Expected Earnings in Australia

21

0 Reported Monthly Earnings by Respondents Spouses in Singapore and Expected Earnings in Australia

22

Self-Ascribed Socio-Economic Status in Si ngapore and Australia

23

4 06

Mean Overall Satisfaction Leve l in Singapore and Australia

24

501

Mean Scores for Place Comparison Categories

47

601

Percentage of Foreign Born in the Singapore Population and Among Survey Respondents

51

Language Spoken at Home by Singapore Residents and Among Survey Respondents

75

Religious Affiliation of Singapore Population and Survey Respondents

76

Religious Affiliation of Singapore Population Aged Between 20 and 60 and of Survey Respondents

77

402 403 404 405

A201 A202 A203

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people have assisted us in the preparation of this report. The Australian Government Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (DlLGEA) was helpful from the outset. In particular. the senior immigration officer of the Australian High Commission in Singapore, Jeff Tunbridge, and hjs staff co-operated by assisting in the distribution of the questionnaire. We are very grateful to them for the trouble they took to help us in spite of their busy workload. Institutional support and funding for the project was provided by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) in Singapore; the Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which provides a grant in support of the Australian-Southeast Asian Relations Fellowship programme. tenable at ISEAS; and the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. Finally, we would like to thank Roger Komori who coded much of the data, Wong Kum Yoke who helped write the computer programme, and Tina Koh who worked as a research assistant on the project for a time. These three people uncomplainingly did much of the laborious work associated with the analysis of the survey data, checking of the bibliography and preparation of the figure s.

I

INTRODUCTION

Emigration has become an issue about which Singapore's political leaders are increasingly concerned. In recent years. Lee Kuan Yew 1 has often publicly worried about the loss of skilled personnel due to emigration. but interest in the subject has escalated since he called for research and open discussion of the problem during his 19~9 National Day speech (Srrairs Times. 1989a). Press reports have implied that the flow of emigrants from Singapore is a flood rather than a trickle. and there have been suggestions that Singapore is suffering from a serious brain drain . Academic research has sometimes mistakenly been used to support this view. In October 1989. the Su·airs Times published an article on migration from Southeast Asia to Australia under the headline . "S ' pore leads in export of talent to Australia". and then claimed that "More skilled people from the Re public left for Australia than those from four ASEAN countrie!> - Thailand. Malaysia. the Philippines. Indonesia - and Hong Kong" (Srrairs Times. lt.>8lJ). This s tatement is mis leading . Singapore is a small country and contributes only a tiny share to AustraJia · s overall immigration programme, and only !S per cent of those from the l:Ountries mentioned. Admittedly, this is proportionally much higher than Singapore' s share of the total population of the region. Additionally. a higher proportion of migrants from Singapore to Australia work in skilled occupations which require considerable education and training. relati ve to other countries in the region. However, because of the relatively small number of emigrants from Singapore. the number of professionals and business owners leaving Hong Kong and Malaysia for Australia is much greater than for Singapore, which

2

Motivations of Migrants from Singapore to Australia

averaged only about 300 per year in the five-year period from July 1983. Many of these people were not Singaporean citizens, but expatriates (mostly from Asian countries) who had lived in Singapore for several years. 2 Nevertheless, this is not to suggest that there is no brain drain from Singapore to Australia. The proportion of those in the more skilled occupations who leave is high relative to the total work-force in Singapore, and since there is presently a serious labour shortage in Singapore. emigration of almost anyone in the work-force is a loss, and all the more so for those who contribute to greater productivity. Nevertheless, although immigration data are not readily available, there are indications that the outflow is more than redressed by an inflow, and because the qualifying criteria for permanent res idence place a premium on education, it is like ly that those applying for immigration tend to be in the more highly skilled occupations (see Sullivan and Gunasekaran 1992; Straits Times. I989b). Many reasons have been advanced to explain emigration from Singapore. In his National Day speech in 1989, then Prime Minister Lee enumerated some of the reasons: higher pay, the opportunity to own a car and landed property, more leisure time, and greater educational opportunities for children. It is likely that each of these factors play a role as a motivation for emigration, but reliable information is unavailable about the importance of each factor, or about what other factors may encourage people to leave Singapore. This study attempts to provide a comprehensive picture of why migrants are motivated to leave Singapore and settle in Australia, which is the major destination of emigrants. According to Mr Lee, about half of all emigrants from Singapore go to Australia. while most of the remainder are divided between Canada, the United States, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (Straits Times, 1989a). The research attempts to quantify these reasons in order to determine the relative importance of the various factors . To achieve this, eighty-five principal applicants 3 who had been granted Australian immigrant visas completed a detailed questionnaire prior to emigration, and several others were interviewed. The details of the questionnaire construction, sample and response rate are given in Appendix I, as is information about the occupational distribution of the total emigrant pool from Singapore to Australia in the five-year period from July 1983. Appendix 2 provides details of the demographic c haracteristics of the respondents. Information about their age, gender, ethnicity, educational attainment, religious affiliation and occupation are given, together with similar information about their spouses. In summary, most of the respondents were men who were well established in their careers and quite well educated. Three-quarters were ethnicaJly Chinese, and the percentage of Christians and those who spoke English at home was higher than for the general population.

Introduction

3

This study examines how the decision to emigrate was made and what factors were taken into account. including emigrants· connections with Singapore and intentions to visit in future. The respondents' material and employment conditions in Singapore are compared with their expectations in these areas in Australia. and their views about the best and worst aspects of living in Singapore and Australia are reported and contrasted. Finally, two popular theories of migration are considered. as are policy options related to the issue of emigration . The research shows that in addition to the promise of a better standard of living as the result of more affordable ho using and private transportation, foremost among the relative attractions of Australia for migrants from Singapore are reunificat ion with famil y members who had m igrated previous ly. edu(·ational opportunities for their children and themselves. greater political freedom . and more leisure time. The different social security arrangements in both places provide advantages for some migrants. Among the disadvantages of living in AustTalia identified by respondents are the racism and discrimination which they believe they are likely to face and the greater crime rate. Details about these fi ndings are provided in the following chapters.

D KNOWLEDGE OF AUSTRALIA, NETWORKS, AND TIES WITH SINGAPORE

Information provided by potential migrants from Singapore to Australia revealed that most people contemplating this move had a detailed knowledge of Australian society and lifestyle, and their life-chances should they migrate there. Many had visited Australia as tourists, students, or on business, or had relatives or friends living there. The same was true of the survey respondents. Only 4.8 per cent reported that they did not have a clear idea about Australia as a place in which to live. The rest had a fairly clear (54.8 per cent) or very clear (40.5 per cent) idea, and presumably expectations to go with these ideas. A great majority had previously travelled to Australia (79.8 per cent), the biggest number for the primary purpose of holidaying or tourism, followed by business, education, and visiting friends and relatives. Many respondents had made multiple visits to Australia (see Table 2.1). Most (76.2 per cent, N=64) had visited the city in which they planned to establish residence, and almost all of those who had been to Australia had done so (95 .5 per cent, N=64). Most respondents had also thoroughly investigated the society to which they would be relocating. A small number of respondents had previously been employed in Australia (N=13). This number roughly corresponds with the number of respondents who had previously studied in Australia. It is common for foreign students in Australia to have temporary employment during vacation periods or to work part-time during the school year. Those who had lived and worked in Australia had a very good idea of what life was like there and many had established roots in the society during their residence there. Among those respondents who had studied in Australia some reported that they had difficulty

Knowledge of Australia , Networks. and Ties with Singapore 5

TABLE 2. 1

Number and Purpose of Visits by Migrants from Singapore to Australia Prior to Issuance of Permanent Residence Visas 1st Visit Percentage and Number of Respondents who had visited Australia

2nd Visit

3rd Visit

4th Visit

79.8% N=67

40.5 (34)

23.8 (20)

15 .5 ( 13)

Vacation/Tourism

43.8 (28)

58.1 (18)

44.4 (8)

33.3 (4)

Business

18.8 ( 12)

19.4 (6)

44.4 (8)

41.7

Education

17.2 (I I)

6.4 (2)

0.0 (0)

16.7 (2)

15.6 (10)

9.7 (3)

11.1 (2)

0.0 (0)

4.7 (3)

6.4 (2)

0.0 (0)

8.3

100.0

100.0 (3 1)

100.0 (18)

100.0 (12)

Primary Purpose of Visit (%)

Visiting Friends and/or Relatives Other Total

(64)*

(5)

(I)

-The discrepancy in the total number of cases is due to missing data about the purpose of respondents' v asit~ to Australia.

readjusting Lo life in Singapore when lhey re turned . At the same time they had fond memorie!> of halcyon days in Australia and were influe nced by its c ulture and e nvironme nt . Be ing in their early adult years many we re easil y able Lo adapt to AustraJian society. Back home in Singapore, some fe lt strong pressure to conform and reported missing the diversity and individualism of a liberal-de mocratic society. open spaces and climatic changes. Based on accounts from informants, we concluded: These people are educated, have experience and (are] connected to professional and social networks in the West; (they( are accustomed to living apart from their families. and have confidence that they can adjust to life elsewhere. They are well placed to move again, and are inclined to do so. This category includes. for example, those who are socially

6

Motivations of Migrants from Singapore to Australia

unconventional by Singaporean standards, and would perhaps like to live alone or with friends rather than their families. or artists and musicians who feel that there is a lack of support for their interests (Sullivan and Gunasekaran 1989, p. 9).

Networks Previous studies have shown that networks of various types are very important in the process of migration (Caces 1987; Gurak and Caces 1989; Massey and Espana 1987; Fawcett 1989). Networks of information act to inform potential migrants of what they can expect in terms of employment, housing, opportunities and social interaction. The information may come from friends or relatives who have already migrated, from published materials, or governments or private sector recruiters (such as professional organizations) of immigrant-receiving countries. It may be obtained by the immigrants themselves in investigatory trips to the country of destination, or come from any combination of the above sources. Family reunification is another type of network and is important as a pull factor: many people migrate in order to join relatives who had migrated before them (Arnold et al 1989; Boyd 1989; Winchie and Carment 1989). Elderly parents join their children, or individuals are sponsored by their siblings or other relatives who help them to adapt and settle in the receiving country. In this section we examine who participated in the decision to migrate, and the ties the respondents have both in Singapore and Australia. Immigrants with close relatives who are Australian permanent residents or citizens may ask them to become sponsors. The sponsors are simply required to complete a form certifying their close relationship to applicants and undertaking to assist them in settlement in Australia. The sponsors may be asked to provide a guarantee that the would-be immigrants will not utilize social welfare benefits for a fixed period of time, but this requirement is usually not well enforced. Applicants who have a sponsor are given additional points in the qualifying test and, therefore, are more likely to be granted an immigrant visa. Many of the respondents were sponsored by relatives already in Australia (40.5 per cent). This figure gives an indication of the percentage of people who were joining their families in Australia, although it is an underestimate because not all those with close relatives there were sponsored. Others have more distant relatives or friends in Australia but normally only close family members are permitted to act as sponsors. Sponsorship is particularly beneficial for those without tertiary educational credentials, or who work in occupations not in high demand within Australia,

Knowledge of Australia. Networks. and Ties with Singapore

7

because without sponsorship they would find it difficult to score enough points in the qualifying test to be issued with an immigrant visa. 4 Perhaps because the survey sample differs from the population of migrants from Singapore to Australia in the five -year period from July 1983 in that it includes a higher percentage of professionals. the percentage of those qualifying for admission under the family reunification programme is smaller. In fact, 80. 1 per cent of the population (excluding refugees) had relatives living in Australia who had assisted them to migrate (Sullivan and Gunasekaran 1992).

Dec.isions A surprisingly high percentage of respondents reported that they had made the decision to migrate entirely on their own (42.9 per cent, N=36). Others said that it was mostly their own desire (3 1.0 per cent. N=26) and the rest reported that the decision was made equally by themselves and others (26.2 per cent. N=22). The percentage of people who had made the decision by themselves was substantially higher than for those who were not married or separated at that time (26.5 per cent. N=22). indicating that the principal applicants (most of whom were men) were the primary (or indeed. the only) decision-makers. A cross-tabulation of marital status of those who made the decision to migrate shows that 39.3 per cent (N=24) of those who were married made the decision entirel y according t.o their own desires. and a further 29.5 per cent (N=18) mostly according to their own desires. Only 7 of the 24 (29.2 per cent) who were married and made the decision entirely on their own said that they took advice from their spouses. Ln general, wives were more consultative of their husbands when making the decision than vice versa. About one-half of the married respondents (44.3 per cent, N=27) said that their spouse was the most influential in helping them to make the decision. A minority of the respondents said that they had not taken advice from anyone in coming to their dec ision to migrate (14.3 per cent, N=l2), but for the others, advice was most frequently obtained from friends (35.7 per cent. N=30). spouses (37.5 per cent. N=27), parents (20.8 per cent, N=l5). in-laws (20.8 per cent, N= l5). children ( 19.4 per cent, N= l4), and siblings ( 18. 1 per cent, N=l3). information is unavailable about what proportion of these advisers had emigrated. A small minority reponed that they had some problems with family members who opposed their leaving (9.5 per cent). Unfortunately, no details are available about the nature of these problems or from what quarter they arose. It would be interesting to know whether objections were raised by

8

Motivations of Migrants from Singapore to Australia

dependent or extended family members, and whether or not those objecting accompanied the principal visa recipient to Australia. We can hypothesize that this may have an effect on the settlement of these migrants in Australia.

Ties The great majority of respondents reported that they planned to visit Singapore after they migrated (88.0 per cent, N=73). A few were unsure about whether or not they would return (I 0.8 per cent, N=9) and one person said that he would not. 5 Most of those with definite plans expected to come back within a year (58.2 per cent, N=28) or two ( 16.7 per cent, N=8) or three years (16.7 per cent, N=8), and a couple said that they planned to come back regularly (4.2 per cent, N=2). Almost all expected these visits to last for less than one month (88.7 per cent). With the declining cost of airline travel relative to disposable income, international travel is within the financial reach of more and more people. From the time and duration of planned visits, we assume that most of those planning to return will spend part of their annual vacations in Singapore, presumably visiting friends and relatives. EmotionaJiy. at least, these people are not lost to Singapore. Another important connection which many emigrants maintain with Singapore is financial. About one-third of the respondents (31.1 per cent) chose not to complete the questions on how much money they planned to leave in Singapore after they left for Australia, but for the rest the median was S$1 00,0006 (in a range of S$1,000 to S$1 ,000,000). For many, much of this money was tied up in Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings (Tan 1987). The median amount in their CPF accounts was reported to be S$50,000 (in a range of S$1 ,000 to S$500,000). Most of this money cannot be withdrawn until account holders either retire or renounce their citizenship. Since the money would be useful for the immigrants to establish themselves in Australia and there is not the same need to save for retirement or medical expenses because of pension and national health programmes underwritten by the Australian government, immigrants sometimes renounce their citizenship at the same time that they emigrate. This practice is discouraged by the Australian immigration authorities because immigrants are not eligible for Australian citizenship until they have lived in the country continuously for a period of two years or more, and in the meantime such people are stateless. It is not easy to regain Singaporean citizenship once it has been renounced and, thus, officials advise caution in

Knowledge of Australia, Networks, and Ties with Singapore

9

case immigrants find that they do not like life in Australia, or need to return to Singapore for family or other reasons. Because of this, emigrants often retain their Singaporean citizenship until they are convinced that they would like to live in Australia permanently, and are therefore unable to withdraw their CPF savings for some time after they leave. It is far from a universal practice for immigrants to Australia to take up Australian citizenship (CAAIP 1988). However, a majority of those from Singapore (as represented by the survey respondents) planned to do so (64.3 per cent, N=54). Most of the rest were unsure (31.0 per cent, N=26) and only a few said that they did not intend to apply for Australian citizenship in the future (4.8 per cent, N=4). Because of the necessity to do so before they can access their CPF savings, it is likely that a high percentage of those emigrating from Singapore would eventually take out Australian citizenship if they found that they wanted to settle there, if for no other reason than the practical one of recovering their savings. In spite of this, relatively few gave this as their primary reason for planning to become Australian citizens (7.0 per cent). Of those who responded to the question of why they planned to become Australian citizens (51.2 per cent, N=43), most said that it was in order to establish Australian roots and/ or gain the advantages of citizenship (53.5 per cent, N=23). This would also put them in a better position to sponsor relatives in the future if they have plans to encourage other family members to join them, because twice as many points are given on the eligibility test for sponsorship by an Australian citizen than for sponsorship by a permanent resident. Another motive a few respondents gave for becoming Australian citizens was to show commitment to their adopted country (16.3 per cent, N=7). We interpret this finding to indicate a declining significance of nationalism, citizenship and patriotism in an era of telecommunications and jet travel, as the world moves from a community of nations to a global nation. Information, international businesses and capital have all transcended restrictions imposed by national borders, and there are indications that labour markets are now doing the same (Sullivan, Gunasekaran, and Siengthai 1992). Appeals to national loyalty, both good and bad, are becoming increasingly anachronistic and individuals are apparently more motivated by the maximization of personal advantage. This is not necessarily a bad trend. As countries become more interdependent and their people more integrated, it is more difficult to mobilize people to fight wars and there may even be a more equitable distribution of wealth in the long run.

ill THE SINGAPORE SITUATION

This section deals with the respondents' situations in Singapore. Its purpose is to establish some baseline data from which to compare the relative advantage of migration to Australia. Employment and material conditions of the principal visa recipients and their spouses are examined, as are respondents' social circumstances. Summaries of respondents' ideas about the best and worst of Singapore life are also reported. Employment Conditions and Assets The mean number of hours that respondents who were employed worked each week over the year preceding the survey was 46.9 (mode 50, median 45). A few of the employed worked part-time8 (4.3 per cent, N=3), and at the other end of the scale, 11.6 per cent (N=8) worked 60 or more hours per week (see Table 3.1). Most (72.6 per cent, N=61) of the respondents were married at the time of the survey and the spouses of 62.3 per cent (N=38) of them were employed prior to migration. The mean number of hours the spouses who were employed worked each week in the year preceding the survey was 41.5 (mode 44, median 43). The percentage of part-time workers among the employed spouses was 16.7 and only 5.5 per cent worked more than 50 hours per week (see Table 3.1). The mean monthly salary of respondents (including all bonuses9) was S$4,502 but there was a tremendous range in earnings. The minimum monthly salary reported was S$850 per month and the maximum, S$30,000

The Singapore Situation

11

TABLE 3.1

Respondents' and Spouses' Average Hours of Employment Per Week over the Past Year (In per cent)*

Hours of Employment Per Week

Respondents

Spouses

Was Not Employed

14.8 (N=12)

39.0 (23)

Less than 40 Hours

3.7 (3)

10.2 (6)

16.0 (13)

20.3 (12)

44-49 hours

33.3 (27)

27.1 (16)

50 - 59 hours

22.2 (18)

1.7

9.9 (8)

1.7 (1)

100.0 (81)

100.0 (59)

40- 43 hours+

60 or more hours Total

(I)

*Percentages were based on valid responses. Missing data were eliminated so that the overall number of cases for certain variables decreased. For this table, data were missing for three respondents and two employed spouses. Calculations are based on N=8l for respondents and N=59 for spouses (36 employed, 23 not employed spouses). "'lbe rationale for this category is that the normal work week for the public sector (as well as much of the private sector) in Singapore is 44 hours per week. Some foreign companies have a 40-hour work week.

(median S$3,100). For working spouses, the mean monthly salary was S$2,488 and the range was from S$350 to S$10,000 (median S$2,000) (see Table 3.2). We can hypothesize that those in the lower income brackets may have been motivated to emigrate by increased employment income in Australia. However, it is likely that some professionals would have to take a pay cut . in Australia. The majority of respondents owned residential property in Singapore (56.0 per cent) but only a small number owned businesses (4.8 per cent).

12

Motivations of Migrants from Singapore to Australia

TABLE 3.2

Respondents' and Spouses' Average Monthly Earnings over the Past Year (In per cent)

Respondents

Spouses*

Was Not Employed

14.8 (N=l 2)

40.4 (23)

Less Than S$1,500

11.1 (9)

21.1 (12)

S$1,500- S$1,999

8.6 (7)

7.0 (4)

S$2,000 - S$2,999

17.3 (14)

15.8 (9)

S$3,000 - S$3,999

11.1 (9)

7.0 (4)

S$4,000 - S$4,999

11.1 (9)

3.5 (2)

S$5,000- S$9,999

19.8 (16)

3.5 (2)

S$10,000 or more

6.2 (5)

(I)

100.0 (81)

100.0 (57)

Monthly Salary

Total

1.8

*Salary data were missing for three respondents and four employed spouses, so calculations are based on N=81 for respondents and N=57 for spouses (34 employed, 23 not employed).

Social Situations Half of the respondents (51.9 per cent) rated themselves as belonging to the middle-class in Singapore and a further 40.7 per cent to the upper middle class. A few said that they came from the lower middle class (6.2 per cent) and only one identified himself as being upper class. When asked to assign a figure from 0 to 10 (0 = low, 10 =high) which corresponded to satisfaction with their lives in Singapore, the average score

The Singapore Situation

13

was 5.8 (standard deviation= 1.6) with a range from 2 to 9. Further information about the positive and negative aspects of living in Singapore was elicited in open-ended questions asking respondents to write down what they considered to be the three best and three worst aspects about living in Singapore.

The Best Aspects of Singapore Respondents gave a great variety of responses to this question and the answers were recoded into I I categories. It was clear that Singaporeans were proud of the city's economic development, prosperity and infrastructure, and recognized the government 's role in these achievements. Table 3.3 shows the respondents' views of the best aspects about Singapore and the frequency each was mentioned. The types of responses mentioned in the infrastructure category included efficient transport; cleanliness of the city; convenience of shopping; good health. education and telecommunications facilities. Mentioned under the category of Lifestyle were lack of formality , the abundance of nightclubs, TABLE 3.3 Respondents' Views of the Best Aspects about Living in Singapore Frequency*

Percentage of Respondents who mentioned this Factor (N=80)

Infrastructure

61

76.3

Lifestyle

36

45.0

Economy and Government

32

40.0

Low Cost of Living

26

32.5

No Discrimination/Racism

16

20.0

People and Culture

16

20.0

Low Crime Rate

13

16.3

Environment

10

12.5

Business and Employment

8

10.0

Climate

2

2.5

Other

5

6.3

Factor

*Respondents were able to list up to three of what they considered to be the best aspects of living in Singapore.

14 Motivations of Migrants from Singapore to Australia

availability of Asian foods, and the presence of friends and family. With regard to the Economy and Government they included low taxes, economic and political stability, security and peace, and efficient government. The People and Culture category included factors such as the discipline and morality of Singaporeans, and hardworking and friendly people. The Environment category included the multicultural and cosmopolitan nature of Singapore society, the ease of travelling to nearby countries, and the compactness of the city. The Business and Employment category included factors such as good business opportunities and financial services, and the availability of cheap labour and domestic servants.

The Worst Aspects of Singapore In categorizing responses to questions about the worst aspects of living in Singapore, we were surprised by the similarity between what people thought were the best and the worst aspects of Singapore living. However, closer inspection of the responses revealed that people distinguished between different aspects of the same phenomenon. For example, while many respondents appreciated the low cost of food and consumer goods in Singapore, they were unhappy about the high cost of larger items like cars and housing. Respondents could see both the positive and negative aspects of Singapore culture and lifestyle. In other instances, what some considered to be the best of Singapore, such as its climate, others judged to be among the worst attributes of Singapore. Table 3.4 shows what respondents considered to be the worst aspects of living in Singapore. With regard to the government, the respondents were critical of the "limited freedom," "high-handed bureaucracy", "authoritarian government", "single party rule", "government control of daily life", "government intolerance of opposition" 10, and "short-sighted and forever changing government policies"." The types of comments classified as Stress and Pressure were, "rat race, pressure", "pressure on the children in school", "competition, work pressure", "unnecessary pressure in the system of education". Elements of Singapore's environment which people did not like were "crowding", "lack of space", "lack of land for housing", and "traffic congestion". The unpalatable aspects of Singapore's culture were "social conformity", "the Ugly Singaporean" 12 and "materialism". Complaints under the term Lifestyle had mainly to do with lack of leisure activities and entertainment. Finally, the Other category is a residual grouping of factors such as limited job opportunities, doubts about long-term economic and political stability, poor social services, long waiting periods for HDB flats, 13 and lack of choice in housing.

The Singapore Situation

15

TABLE 3.4 Respondents' Views of the Worst Aspects a bout Living in Singapore Frequency*

Percentage of Respondents who mentioned Lhis Factor (N=79)

Government

51

64.6

Stress/Pressure

46

58.2

Environment

28

35.4

People and Culture

21

26.6

High Cost of Living

19

24.1

Climate

14

17.7

Discrimination/Racism

7

8.9

Lifestyle

5

6.3

16

20.3

Factor

Other

• Respondents wen: able to lis t up to three of what they considered to be the worst aspects of living in Singapore.

These worst aspecLS of Singapore can be considered to be the push factors which encourage people to move. These factors which people encounter in their daily lives are fairl y widely known and understood in Singapore, and many. particularly among the educated classes, have either seriously considered emigrating themselves. or have friends or relatives who have done so.

IV THE AUSTRALIAN SITUATION

This section examines what migrants believe are the best and worst aspects of life in Australia. Data were also collected on migrants' expectations and aspirations for their lives in Australia. It might be expected that people who have made the decision to migrate would have a vested interest in fmding fault in their country of disembarkation, and virtue in the country of intended settlement, in order to psychologically prepare for the move. However, in our interviews we were struck by most respondents' pragmatism and realistic assessment of what their life-chances were in Australia. If there is a tendency on the part of some emigrants to look at their destinations through ··rose coloured glasses", these respondents were resisting that temptation. There are several reasons which explain this. Firstly, although the respondents had been issued with immigrant visas, many might not have reached the final decision to migrate, and even for those who fully intended to do so, many were unsure whether or not it would be a permanent move. It costs a few hundred Singapore dollars and a considerable amount of time and trouble to apply for an Australian immigrant visa. Thus, most people who do so are fairly serious about their intentions to emigrate. However, once the visa is issued, the recipient has one year to enter Australia and activate the visa. Some recipients make an initial trip to Australia during this period to validate their visas and seriously explore job and housing possibilities. Once the visa has been activated, immigrants need to show two years of continuous residence over the next five-year period in order to qualify for citizenship or renew the visa. It may be that some who do not find employment to their liking do not end up migrating for any considerable

The Australian Situation

17

length of time. This gives people a reasonably long period of time to finali ze their decision to migrate and to relocate. 14 Reliable data are unavailable on the percentage and characteristics of immigrant visa recipients who do not settle down in Australia. There is a need for more longitudinal studies of migrants in order to better understand this and other aspects of the migration process. The provisions of the administrative requirements (beginning with a substantial application fee , to deferred arrival and settlement dates) allow cautious immigrants ample time to carefully assess the relative advantage of moving to Australia. and even encourage this behaviour. Many emigrants from Singapore visit Australia prior to their applications to migrate there. Many have relatives li ving in Australia who doubtless advise them about the relati ve advantages of migration. Finally, significant numbers apparently move to Australia but are unsure about how long they will stay and whether or not they will return to Singapore to live. These people are clearly takjng a " wait and see" approach to the future and not closing off their option to return. These then are some of the reasons why, and methods by which, emigrants from Singapore make an informed and judicious assessment about the relative advantages and disadvantages of life in Australia. Below are respondents' views of what they expect after they arrive in Australia in terms of employment, material and social conditions for themselves and their spouses. as well as their opinions of the best and worst of Australia.

Employment Conditions and Assets Most of the respondents planned to work in Australia (88. 1 per cent, N=74 ). Three people who were pre viously retired expected to be employed after migrating. A small percentage (8. 1 per cent , N=6) were unsure about how many hours per week they would work , but the rest expected to work a mean average of 41.4 hours per week (mode=40, median=40). s ubstantially less than they did in Singapore (47 .0 hours weekly). Of those who had definite expectations about their employment situations in Australia, more people planned to work part-time (16.2 per cent, N= ll ) compared to Singapore, and none said that they would work for 60 or more hours weekly (see Table 4.1 ). A similar number were unsure about how many hours per week their spouses would work (10.2 per cent) but the mean average that the remainder expected their spouses to be employed was 36.7 hours weekly (mode=40, median=40), which is also less than the Singapore average. Many more would work part-time than in Singapore (39.4 per cent) and none

18

Motivations of Migrants from Singapore to Australia

expected their spouse to be working more than 50 hours per week (see Table 4.1). Figures 4.1 and 4.2 are graphs showing the actual and expected work hours in Singapore and Australia respectively for both principal applicants and their spouses. One in five respondents (23.0 per cent) who intended to be employed said that they were unsure how much they would earn in Australia but the median monthly salary expected by the others (including any bonuses) was S$4,500 (mode=S$5,000). T he minimum monthly salary expected was TABLE 4.1

Respondents' and Spouses' Expected Average Hours of Employment Per Week in Australia (In per cent)* Hours of Employment Per Week

Will not be employed Unsure

Respondents s+ A

10.8 (N=9)

11.7 (9)

7.2 (6)

Spouses A

B+

35.0 (21)

38.9 (2 1)

10.0 (6)

Less than 40 hours

13.3 ( II )

14.3 (11 )

21.7 ( 13)

24.1 (13)

40 - 43 hours++

47.0 (39)

50.6 (39)

25.0 ( 15)

27.8 (15)

44 - 49 hours

12.0 ( 10)

13.0 ( 10)

8.3 (5)

9.3 (5)

50- 59 hours

9.6 (8)

10.4 (8)

0.0 (0)

0.0 (0)

60 or more hours

0.0 (0)

0.0 (0)

0.0 (0)

0.0 (0)

100.0 (83)

100.0 (77)

100.0 (60)

100.0 (54)

Total

*Percentages are based on valid responses. Missing data were eliminated so that the overall number of cases for certain variables decreased. For this table, data were missing for one respondent and one spouse. Calculations are based on N=83 for respondents and N=60 for spouses (22 respondents were single and the marital status of one respondent was unknown). •Excludes those who were unsure, in order to allow easy comparison with Table 3.3. ++Almost all of those in this category expected to work 40 hours per week.

The Australian Situation

19

FIGURE 4.1

Hours Worked by Principal Applicants in Singapore Each Week and Expected Working Hours in Austra lia w,-----------------------------------------------~

~ Singapore ~ Australia

40~----------------------+

~

c 30 ·+---------------------~

~

&! 20 ;-------------------~

10

Not employed

60 hrs.

FIGURE 4.2

Hours Worked by Respondents' Spouses in Singapore Each Week and Expected Working Hours in Austra lia 50~-------------------------------------------------,

~ Singapore ~ Australia

Not employed

con ~istt•nt with the goal of edw.: atin~ people that the West ill not the promi~t'd land. Governme nt leader:- have talke d about improv tng the 4uality of lift" in S mgapore : W e ha ve:- LO ma!.c the . prospect~ for advanu:ment. and llk - ~tyk . "hcthc:r or not tht')' are graduate:.. whe.the r or not the tr parent~ are wdl-to -du (Guh Clw}. Tung 19~9) .

60

Motivations of Migrants from Sin~:apore to Australia

Educational Policy This research indicates several options the government could take to realize the goal of reducing emigration. The issue of education and the government's stated intention to expand the number of seats in institutions of higher education has already been discussed. This will improve the availability of a highly demanded commodity in short supply in Singapore. and therefore reduce a major incentive for people to emigrate. It will also lead to less people spending a good portion of their early-adu lt and fonnative yean living in a foreign culture. Many of these people have difficulty reintegrating into their home societies and have foreign credentials and connectjons which sometimes enable them to emigrate.

Participation in Policy Formation There are a number of measures which could be taken to increase political participation and lessen dissatisfaction with present conditions in Singapore. Expanded public debate before decisions are taken. policies adopted and laws enacted would help. If people were encouraged to voice their opinions and felt secure that the expression of their ideas and criticisms in fonns that they chose would not be used against them. they might participate more. or at least feel that they are able to if they wish. Censorshjp and restrictions on the press could be lessened, and opposition partjes could be respected, that is. tolerated without vilification (Rieger 1989). Many emigrants appear unconvinced of the need for the strict controls currently in force. We are reminded here of a metaphor suggested by the American playwright, Tennessee Williams, for majntainffig good relationships between people, and by extension between governments and citizens. He has one of his characters suggest that it is important not to have the rope of control drawn so tight that people strain agajnst the tether. or so loose that people can hang themselves. Even if restrictions on civil liberties were necessary for national survival during Singapore's early history. the country is now more secure, stable and prosperous, so that these could be reduced. Indeed, as the proportion of those with high educational anainment increases in society, more and more people appear to want to express themselves and to participate in establishing social priorities. The data from this survey indicate that some of them are voting with their feet. Change may be on the way in thls regard. The present prime minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, says that he wishes to "practise a more constructive, participatory style of democracy":

Conclusions

61

People will have their hearts in Singapore when they enjoy happy experiences in the school. workplace and family. when they can make meaningful contributions to society. and in tum feel that society is concerned for them. Then there is no need to search for a better life elsewhere (Straits Times. 1990d).

Nevertheless. Mr Goh is on record as opposing the two-party syste m of democratic government for Singapore (Goh 1986) and the rhetoric encouraging participation often carries with it the qualification that such activity should be "constructive", and not destabilizing or mischievous. The types of participation which have been encouraged so far are those which confo rm to government-approved and controlled mechanisms - formal feedback sessions or government -appointed non-constituency Members of Parliament who do not vote. Statements made by Lee Kuan Yew seem to support doubts that controls over the expression of dissent will be loosened. In response to a question by reporters in Hong Kong at the height of the emigration debate, the then !Prime Minister expressed his belief that it is a "fiction of Western journalists ... not borne out by the facts" that Singaporeans are emigrating because of the political situation and "social factors like press freedom" (Strait Times, 1990e). The results of this survey show that complaints about the political situation in Smgaporc were most frequently mentioned among the negative aspects of living in Singapore. This study is not the first to find this. A People's Action Party committee which studied the issue concl uded that some people emigrate in part because: [Emigrant:. felt)they were ··over-governed" by numerous laws here. They also feared to ~peak their minds and criticize the government (Straits Time.1. IIJCXJa 1.

The committee concluded that the government should consider "relax!ingl controls over the live~ of Singaporeans" . The military reservist team which looked at the issue also recommended that Singapore should: Adopt a more participative style of government. with more channels and time to voice concerns. The Government should also be more responsive to feedback and more open to alternative views long -term economic future and as a political entity. Singapore has uffered and o;urvived a serious rece sion. and high economic growth rates have been restored . Armed conflict, either civil or military, has not broken the peace Singapore has enjoyed for many years. Even if the country 's leaders have not. the average citizen seems to increasingly take this situation for granted. Confidence in the future could perhaps be enhanced if leaders were more reticent in potnting out Singapore 's vulnerability. Present Prime Minister Goh Cho~ Tong apparently understands this: Singapore ... I!> ~mall. lad.:, nalUral rc~ources. and ... is situated in ... lal volatile regton. These arc 1mmutablc fact:,. But perhap by highlighting them again and again the Government ha' unmtcntionally contributed to the sense of pessim1sm and the feeltng of m:,ecurity (Goh C hok Tong 1989).

Nevertheles:.. htl> thtrd goal lor 1990 was to: Enhance Singaport' ''- d nam1!>m and fighting pirit to face challenges from .. unsettling changell" to come m the world and region (Srrairs Times. 1990d).tl> · l>tudy of emigrat.ion also recommended that the government l>hould: publtcll) on rcg1onal ..ecurity maners to reduce anxiety among Po l111cal lcadef!> ~hou ld refrain from harpmg o n regional un ertamue (5 rtaU.\ l1me.\ . 19Wgl.

Mm1m 1~c

mgaporean~

Employment Conditions The most important of the :.octo-cultural conditions fuell ing emigration are work pressure. stre:.l>, limited let:.ure time and leisure activities. A fi ve-day work week would go a long way in helping to alleviate these conditions. It may be that the pnvate :.e tor wtll tal.e care of the provi ion of greater leisure activit.ie:. once demand rncrea.:.e:., whacb will occur if people have more time available to pursue these aspect~ of life. So far, the government ha~ taken a strong line in oppo ing a shorter work week, at the same time that it wishes to ra.ise the retirement age. Government leaders also see the need to maintain the degree of pressure in the work-place and educational system in order for Singapore to achieve excellence. It may be l:be case that the private sector will take the lead on this issue. Already

64

Motivations of Migrants from Singapore to Australia

a number of foreign-owned companies allow employees to work a five-day week, as do some prestigious quasi-governmental agencies.

Recommendations We believe that action to improve people's lives- economically, socially and politically - will have the effect of reducing emigration. However, we do not see emigration as a problem and, therefore, any need to take action with the specific or sole intention of limiting it. In any case, there will always be a certain number of people who will emigrate: some will go to join spouses, children or parents who have already migrated; others will want to go for specialist training or education; some will just want to try living in a different place; others will go for better employment opportunities; a few will leave because they are disgruntled. There is a host of reasons why people migrate. Implementing some of the suggestions above would help to improve the quality of life of many Singaporeans and raise their living standards. For this reason, if no other, they are desirable. Finally, we are optimistic that some of these changes will be made, and that action is being taken by the government, with the interests of its constituents at heart. Ex-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew's suggestion that the issue be "researched, analyzed, weighed and discussed openly" (Straits Times 1989a) is a step in the right direction, and we are confident that this study wiJJ be received in that spirit.

APPENDIX I METHODOLOGY

There are many way~> that data about the characteristics of migrants can be collected. Official immigration statistics are one source and much has been learned about the volume of the flow of migrants from Asia to Australia by the~ means. The proccs~> of disaggregating data has also shed some light on the cha.ractenstic~> of these people llnglis et al. 1992; Jupp 1988). However. there an~ limitation ~> to these data - t:enainly.they do not provide infonnation about motivation ~> for m1grat1on. A second source wh~eh has been utilized in Singapore is good conduct ceniticates or poltcc reponll. wh1ch are required by most immigrant-receiving countries as pan of the applu:at1on. Even if it were possible to correlate the names of people applying for a good conduct cenificate in order to submit migration applications with other data. the same limitations apply as for immigrauon statistics. The 4uota11on of the number of people applying for good conduct ceniticates may kad to over-estimatcs of the volume of em1gration in Singapore. In his IY~Y National Day speech. then Prime:: Mmister Lee Kuan Yew mentioned that in 19~M 4,700 people applied for these cenificates. Although he said that this figure was a rd1ection of "Smgaporeans who want to emigratc ... some have taken it as an indication of the number of Singaporean ciuzens who actually do so. 4 7 The inadequacies of official statistics for research purposes has led resurchers to collect their own data using survey research methods (Fawcett and Arnold 19M7). These:: technj4ues yield a greater volume and depth of data wruch have been very useful in achieving a greater understanding of the migration process . Consequently, in order to investigate motivations for

66

Motivations of Migrants from Singapore to Australia

migration it was decided to conduct a detailed survey of people resident in Singapore who had been granted immigrant visas to Australia.

Questionnaire Content The questionnaire was based on an interview schedule developed by an international team of researchers led by James Fawcett at the East-West Center Population Institute in Honolulu, who studied Korean and Filipino migration to the United States. The Fawcett study was comprehensive, carefully planned and well designed. The first stage of the project involved a predeparture survey of emigrants who were asked about all aspects of the migration process (Park et al. 1990). A major advantage of the East-West Center study, which also applies to this one, is that the data were collected prior to migration. This has a number of implications. Firstly, this method produces a cohort, the members of which have made the decision to migrate in the same period, so that political and economic factors at the societal level are constant. Secondly, we do not have to rely on informants' memories of circumstances prior to migration. One of the problems with post-migration studies examining motivations for migration is that informants may forget; or their memories may be affected by their post-migration experiences. Studies which do not control the time of migration are complicated by the fact that motivations for migration may differ from year to year (Yap 1992; Arunachalam 1991). This study uses an adaptation of the survey instrument designed by Fawcett and his colleagues. Because of funding and other constraints it was not possible for us to interview emigrants, and so the instrument was modified to be self-administered. A number of changes were necessary to make the instrument suitable for the circumstances particular to Singapore and Australia. For example, Australia is relatively open to immigrants compared to the United States where the immigration programme is fundamentally one of family reunification. This meant that the questionnaire had to be modified to account for the various programmes under which people qualify for immigrant visas, such as business migration, employer nomination, or occupational shortage. In Singapore, many people accumulate large amounts of savings in a mandatory pension plan supervised by the government, and therefore questions were added to find out how people utilized this money when they emigrated. Because the reasons why people want to emigrate was of special interest, a number of questions were added to fully elicit this information. Questions asked in different ways about motivations for migration were included in different parts of the questionnaire, and this allowed us to develop a full

Appendix I

67

picture of the complex reasons for emigration as well as to make checks of inte rnal validity of the respondents· answers. A p re-test was done 0f people who had conside red emigrating. and the questionnaire altered to clarify questions which sounded ambiguous to the test. The final version of the ~urvey consisted o f I SO questions divided into eight sectiOn~ . The first pan a~ked for standard demographic information. such as count!') of tlinh. c 11 i7ensh1p. age. marital status. religion and ethnicity. It also included question!-. ahout previous migratio n. educational credentials. language skill:.. and parent ~· migratum histories. Section B contained questions about application:. for 1mm1grant v 1 ~a~. foreign travel. previous experience in Australia. reason~ tor n11 gra11on. and how responde nts arrived at the decision to migrate. Section ~ C and D l'nqum:·d about the princ ipal applicants' e mployment h istone~ and age. and tht• whereabouts and migratio n intentions of famil~ memhe~ . re:.pccllvcl~ . Sect10l1 E allowed re~pondl·nb to compare various aspects of Singapore and Austraha in both strul·tured and open-e nded questions. Respondents were asked to nom mate hoth the hest a nd worst aspects about living in Australia and Smgapore. and m another qut>st1on to rate both countries on a number ot d1mens10ns . Answers to the qul•:.tions in this M:ctio n were the most important for the purpo:-.cs o t this report . Section t: was o ncntcd towards settkment issues and contained questions about accommodatiOn. employment and business plans and aspirations. anuc1pated problems a nd :o.ourccs of assistance. and plans to change c itizenship. SectiOn G asled about tlw management o r tran:.fer of assets in S ingapore. future sho n - and long -tem1 m1gratmn plans. and the dil!advantages of leaving Smgapore and rewards ut ll\·mg m Australia. Set'tlon H contained q uestions about the spou~s or tiancl'll' ,, and chlldrc:n of prinl·lpal applicantl>. Information was collected on the agt'. edUl'allonal auamment. language :-.kills. e mployment history and asparattorh ol spou:o.c:s and tiance(els. and the wht:reabouts. age. sex and migratiOn inte ntions u t ( hlldn:n. T he fmal :.ectaon o t the quesllunnaare a:o.ked n::sponde nb to vol unteer to panacipate in a po:o.:.ihle foli o~ -up study in the future . In orde r to do this. respondent~ were a:.ked to give the ar nam e:-.. and addresses in Austral ia. if known. as well a~ the names and addre~sel> of friend:-. or relatives in both Sangapore and AU!>lralaa who would always know where the respondent would be livmg. C urrent addresse~ were abo requel>tt:d in case there wa=> :.t ned! to danfy answer~ to partacular question=>. and an o ffer made to send a summary ol the results of the ~ urvc::y to an addre:-.s nominated by the respondent. Unfortunately. unly a =>mall proportion of respondents chose to com plete this sectiOn. We believe that they did not do so because of a desire to maintain their anonymity. Respondents who were in some way critical of the Singapore

68

Motivations of Migrants from Singapore to Australia

Government and/or its policies were particularly unlikely not to complete the last section. Distribution of the Questionnaire

Though Fawcett and his colleagues were unable to directly involve the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in their study, they were able to obtain a degree of co-operation from the INS, which agreed to allow the researchers to invite those issued with visas at the U.S. embassies in Manila and Seoul to be interviewed. Fawcett et al. used a systematic sampling procedure and though participation in the study was voluntary, they obtained a very high response rate. Because they were able to interview respondents, the quality of the data is very good (Park et al. 1990). The present study was conducted under somewhat different circumstances. The Australian Government Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (DILGEA) was asked to assist in the study but initially refused because of concerns about the possible violation of immigrants' privacy. DILGEA did not want researchers approaching potential immigrants at its overseas missions but volunteered to forward a letter to applicants for immigrant visas asking them to voluntarily contact the researchers. Logistical problems made this arrangement awkward. Finally, it was agreed that one of the researchers could distribute copies of a questionnaire at briefing sessions held for pre-departure migrants at the Australian High Commission in Singapore, provided that they did not require respondents to give their names and reassured respondents that participation was voluntary. Before and during the questionnaire construction, about twenty interviews were held in Singapore with Singaporean and Malaysian citizens who had or were contemplating emigration, usually to Australia. While many Singaporeans are generally reticent to discuss this matter, in cases where we were introduced through mutual friends, once rapport had been established and guarantees of confidentiality given, respondents were reasonably forthcoming with information about their views on migration. It helped that we were foreigners without deep ties or connections in Singapore. Singapore is a small place and government control over daily life is pervasive. The government is powerful and sensitive, and people have a great reluctance to run afoul of it. Statements are sometimes made by government leaders and others that imply that emigrants are disloyal to the nation (for example, see Tan 1990; Seah 1988; Goh 1990), and this only adds to people's hesitancy to speak openly about their migration intentions. Many of the

Appendix I

69

questions we were interested in were o f a personal nature. and it was suggested by a number of Singaporean colleague s that people here would be reluctant to answer question!\ of this type . In order to encourage people to participate in the study. respondents were assured that the researc h wa~ heing conducted b y independent scholars and that no o ne in tht' Singapore n r Austra lian governments would have access to their an swe ~ . Completed questionnaire!\ were to be returned to the researche~ by mail"' and re.;pondcnts were given the option of maintaining the ir anonymit) by not givmg their names and addresse s o n the survey form . A promtse that their answer~ would be confide ntial was given to respondents who were will ing to part iCipate m a possible follow -up study after they had senled in Australia . After the researche~ ex pn.·~ -.ed concern to DILGEA o fficial s that the bri efing~ dtd nn t contatn a re pre!'.entative sample of migrants because o f douht ~ that tho!'.e who were very famil iar with Australia might not attend the voluntary sel>::.tom. an arrange me nt was made in which the questionnaire was sent to v t!'> a appli cant ~ at the ~arne time that they were no tified of approval of the tr tmmtgrant vt~a~ . A letter co ntaining the same assurances regarding voluntary parttc tpatton. anonynHt y. confidential ity and independence was attached to the questto nna tre . On the om: hand. it wa1> necessary to give these assurances in order to o btatn the co-operatiOn of OILGEA and. o n the o ther. it was hoped that they would max m1 tl.t' tht· rl·~ pun l>e rate . A disadvantage in this method of dt:>tn butwn wa!'> that tht'rl' "a:- no way to identify those who did not respond. ~>O that the y co uld not he ~enr a reminde r o r second mailing.

Responst Ratt-

Forty-o ne cop te~> o f the que~> tt onnaire were distributed to s uccessful princ ipal apphc ant::. at the Novem ber I ~MX briefing and a further 2 1 at the Decem ber 1988 brie fing. A furt he r 213 4ue::.tionnaires were m ailed to immigrant visa recipienlh tn the first four month!> of 1989 . Of these. 85 we re re turned by July 19M':J. tor a re~>poJhe rate o t 30.':J per cent.

The Sample T he first J!>sue we wo uld like to address is the representativeness o f the sam ple . It ha:. previously been observed that many people who are granted Australian immigrant visa:. m Singapore were not born in Singapore. In the

70

Motivations of Migrants from Singapore to Australia

five-year period from July 1983, 58 per cent of all those issued with Australian immigrant visas in Singapore were born in Singapore, 22 per cent in Malaysia, 1.4 per cent in Hong Kong and I 0 per cent in countries outside Southeast Asia49 (Sullivan and Gunasekaran 1989, 1992). In this sample, 57 per cent (N=48) were born in Singapore and 32 per cent (N=27) in Malaysia, while five visa recipients were born in India, two in the People' s Republic of China and one each in Hong Kong, Belgium and the Netherlands, which account for the remaining 11 per cent.~ The great majority of respondents (77 per cent) had been living in Singapore for ten years or more. A cross-tabulation of the country of birth by length of residence in Singapore showed that one of the Europeans had lived in Singapore for more than a decade, and the other for only one year. The Indian nationals had lived in Singapore between three and flfteen years. The European who had only been a short-term resident was eliminated from the sample to reduce the number of cases to 84. It is to be expected that the bener educated would be over-represented in the survey sample because considerable proficiency in reading and writing English was required to complete the questionnaire. Re liable data on the educational background of the total pool of recipients of immigrant visas to Australia are not available, but since education is highly correlated with occupation, it can serve as a proxy measure. Table Al.l shows the occupational distribution of all principal recipients of Australian immigrant visas issued in Singapore in the five-year period from July 1983, as well as that of the survey respondents. The data for the pool include refugees who constituted 5.88 per cent of the total number, but no refugees were among the survey respondents. Almost all of the refugees would not have been employed in Singapore. 51 If they are subtracted from the category of unemployed in the pool, the proportion in this category is identical to that of the survey respondents. However, as expected, the survey sample is skewed to contain a higher proportion of those in the more skilled occupations. Although this needs to be borne in mind when overall frequencies are being discussed, it does not present a serious problem for the purposes of this report because of the use of cross-tabulations containing this variable.

Appendix 1

TABLE Al.l

Occupations of All Principal Recipients in Singapore of Immigrant Visas (July 1983- May 1988) and Survey Respondents (In per cent) Occupation Professionals**

Total Pool*

Survey

Responden~

37.20 (N=l518)

55.95

Skilled & Trades

10.56 (431)

10.71 (9)

Clerical Workers

19.21 (784)

1.19

4.73 (193)

1.19

3.77 (154)

1.19

Unskilled Workers

1.96 (80)

0.00 (0)

Rural Workers

0.96 (39)

0.00 (0)

Not Employed

2 1.34 (871)

14.29 (12)

Semi-skilled Service Workers

Not Known Total

0.27 (II) 100.00 (4081)

(47)

(I) ( I) (I)

15.48*** (13) 100.00 (84)

* The total pool includes 240 refugees. ** This category includes business owners, managers and administrators. ***Ambiguous responses led to a large number of cases coded as missing. SouRCE: DlLGEA data, as presented in Sullivan and Gunasekaran (1992).

71

APPENDIX 2 DEMOGRAPIDC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS

Age and Sex The mean age of the principal applicants was 37 (median=34), which for most would be the age at which they are at the peak of their working lives. Threequarters of the respondents were men, and three-quarters married prior to emigration. In almost all cases, spouses planned to accompany the principal visa holder, which would have the effect of further reducing the size of the work-force. 52 The occupations of spouses are discussed further below. Among the survey respondents, the average age of the 12 men who were never married was 26, while it was 29 for the seven single women. Since the average age of marriage for women in Singapore is 25.6 and there is said to be a shortage of women eligible for marriage in Australia (Staples 1985; Population Planning Unit 1989), it is possible that some single women emigrants may be looking at migration as an alternative to remaining unmarried in Singapore. Of the nineteen never-married respondents, 17 were of Chinese ancestry. Fourteen never-married respondents were Singaporeans (73.7 per cent). The average number of years of education of this group was 14.8 (but 17.2 years for the Singaporean women). The next section discusses the ethnicity of emigrants in more detail. Ethnicity

The ethnic composition of emigrants is disproportionate to their distribution

Appendix 2

73

in Singapore's population. Overall, 80 per cent (N=67) of the sample were of Chinese ancestry (compared to 76 per cent in the general population) and 12 per cent (N=IO) of Indian ancestry (compared to 6 per cent in the general population). Respondents also included one Malay (1.2 per cent compared to 15 per cent in the general population) and six others53 (7.2 per cent compared to 3 per cent in the general population). To the extent that chain migration and educational attainment are important assets which predetermine ability to migrate to Australia, Malays may not be well situated to leave. Many Indians and Malays in Singapore report that they feel discriminated against, which we hypothesize to be a push factor encouraging emigration, but it is mainly professional Indians who have the necessary credentials to emigrate. Their numbers were augmented by the inclusion of five Indian nationals who had lived in Singapore for a number of years. According to the survey results, the proportion of Chinese who leave for Australia is only slightly higher than their proportion in the general population. The occupation, educational attainment and other attributes of these Chinese emigrants are discussed below. The survey included a question on languages spoken at home. The most frequent primary language used by respondents domestically was English (48.8 per cent), followed by Mandarin (10.7 per cent) and Chinese dialects (6.0 per cent). The remainder used a combination oflanguages which included English. More than half of the Chinese (50.7 per cent) used English as their primary language of communication at home and a further 28.3 per cent used some combination of languages which included English. The 1980 census showed that for the entire population in Singapore, only 8.5 per cent used English as the principal language spoken at home. Mandarin was not commonly used either: only 7.6 per cent used it as their principal language at home and in daily conversation. In contrast, 60.4 per cent used Chinese dialects. Among households whose head was Chinese, 7.6 per cent used English, 9.9 per cent Mandarin, and 78.8 per cent Chinese dialects. In homes with Indian household heads, 48.1 per cent used Tamil and 18.9 per cent used English. Clearly, with respect to the language they speak at home, emigrants are not typical of the general population as it was in 1980 (see Figure A2.1). There is some evidence in the decade since the last census was taken that more and more families are using English as their major language of communication. This is to be expected since English is the lingua franca in multicultural Singapore and the primary language of instruction in schools. As younger families are established in which all of the members are proficient in English, many of them use English as the most frequently spoken language at home. It is not uncommon for those with high edt1cational attainment to

74

Motivations of Migrants from Singapore to Australia

be most fluent in English, even if it is not their native language, and households with parents in this category often use EngJjsh predominantly. In 1986, the Singapore Ministry of Education published statistics from a June survey of that year which included information about primary language spoken at home by primary and secondary school students. The data showed that for secondary school students of Chinese ancestry, 11.5 per cent spoke English most frequently, 22.9 per cent spoke Mandarin most frequently, and 64.9 per cent most often spoke dialects. The corresponding figures for primary school students were English, 12.7 per cent; Mandarin, 50.5 per cent and dialects 36.2 per cent (see Figure A2.l). These figures presumably reflect the remarkable success of the government-sponsored "Speak Mandarin" campaign and indicate the rapid change in this facet of Singaporean society. The shift to increasing English usage is much more gradual but noticeable for younger families, which are probably the better reference group for this study since most migrants were single or had young children. (More than 30 per cent of primary and secondary school students of Indian ancestry spoke English most frequently at home.)

FIGURE A2.1

Language Spoken at Home by Singapore Residents and Among Survey Respondents* 80,--------------------------------------------------,

~ Survey respondents

~

~ 1980 census

~ Secondary students

English

Primary students

Mandarin

Chinese dialects

Others

*Data for students are from a 1986 Ministry of Education survey and are only available broken down by major ethnic groups. Since Chinese constitute the majority of migrants, data for this group are presented.

Appendix 2

75

Unfortunately, the census does not provide a cross-tabulation of language spoken at home by educational attainment, so we were unable to match this sample of emigrants with their counterparts in the general population with the same level of education. Among the more educated, it is likely that English is more commonly used at home.

Religion

A majority of the survey respondents identified themselves as Christians (52 per cent). Twenty-one per cent did not nominate a religion and 15 per cent said that they were Buddhists. Forty per cent said that religion was "very important in their lives". Christians were far more likely to consider religion to be very important (63 per cent) than Buddhists, 83 per cent of whom said that it was only "somewhat important". Clearly, Christians were overrepresented among the emigrants compared to their proportion in the general population. No particular pattern was evident regarding association between educational attainment and religion, nor was there a clear association between language spoken at home and religion. While the great majority of Christians (88.3 per cent) spoke some English or only English at home, so did a majority of Buddhists (66.7 per cent) as well as those professing no religion (76.4 per cent).55 According to the 1980 Singapore census, 10.3 per cent of the total population was Christian, 26.7 per cent said that they were Buddhists and 13.2 per cent did not nominate a religion. The proportions differed according to ethnicity, but for the Chinese, who are numerically dominant in the population and among the respondents to this survey, 10.6 per cent were Christian, 34.3 per cent were Buddhist, and 16.7 per cent were not religious. For those aged between 10 and 50 in 1980, 10.5 per cent nominated Christianity as their religion. 56 Compared to these figures, Christians and those who do not profess a religion were over-represented among the emigrants, while Buddhists were under-represented (Khoo 1980; Kuo 1987). However, in the years since the census was taken, the proportion of Christians in Singapore's population has increased dramatically. In 1988, Kuo and Quah, with the assistance of the Straits Times survey department, contacted 1,015 people and found that 18.7 per cent were Christians, 28.3 per cent were Buddhists, and 17.6 per cent were not religious. Among their Chinese respondents, 19.8 per cent were Christian, 38.1 per cent Buddhist, and 23.7 per cent were without a professed religion. For the population aged between 20 and 50 in Kuo and Quah's study, 21.3 per cent were Christian, 31.2 per cent were Buddhist, and 18.2 per cent were not religious. Even using these

76

Motivations of Migrants fro m Singapore to Australia

A GURE A2.2 Religious Affil iation of Singapore Population and Survey Respondents 60

~

50

~Kuo&Quah

~ Migrants

40

., .,00 c.,

I:! ~

1980 Censu s

30

20

10

0 Christian s

Buddhists

Other Religions

No Religion

figures, among the migrants who participated in this study, Christians were over-represented and Buddhists under-represented. (Figures A2.2 and A2.3 present these results graphically.)

Educational Attainment On average, the survey respondents had completed 14. 1 years of formal education. Table A2.1 shows the distribution of educational attainment. Almost all the respondents reported that they expected to have no difficulty at all with spoken and written English, and the remainder said that they may have a " little difficulty" . This very high rate is to be expected. It would have been difficult to complete the long questionnaire without a reasonably high level of proficiency in English. Those who were not comfortable with the language presumably did not return the survey form. However, the primary medium of instruction in Singapore schools is English and most of those who

Appendix 2

77

FIGURE A2.3 Religious Affiliation of Singapor e Population Aged Between 20 and 60 and of Survey Respondents ~~-------------------------------------------------.

~ Survey data

~ 1980 census

~Kuo&Quah

Christians

Buddhists

Other religions

No religion

completed at least ten years of education should be fairly fluent in the language regardless of the language they use at home. In any case, because points are allocated for English language proficiency without which it would have been difficult to pass the immigrant qualifying test in the absence of other strong considerations such as family reunification, most immigrants to Australia in the independent category are functional in English. The Chinese had the highest level of educational attainment (see Table A2.1). None of the three Eurasians had completed more than ten years of education. It is not meaningful to draw conclusions about other ethnic groups because of the small number of respondents from each group. The visa recipients who were not Singaporean citizens, including the Malaysians, tended to be better educated than those who held Singapore passports. In general, professional expatriates working in Singapore are selected for their skills and qualifications, and so most of the foreigners living in Singapore who would qualify for Australian immigrant visas would be well educated.

78

Motivations of Migrants from Singapore to Australia

TABLE A2.1 Level of Educational Attainment by Etbnicity (In per cent) Chinese

Indian

Other

Total

9.0 (N=6)

30.0 (3)

42.9 (3)

14.3 (12)

25.4 (17)

10.0 (I)

28.6 (2)

23.8 (20)

13-16 years (1st degree or equivalent)

43.3 (29)

50.0 (5)

28.6 (2)

45.9 (36)

More than 16 years (Post-graduate)

22.4 ( 15)

10.0

0.0 (0)

19.0 (16)

100.0 (67)

100.0

100.0 (7)

100.0 (84)

lO years (0 levels) or Jess 10-12 years (A levels or equivalent)

Total

( I) ( 10)

Occupation

Most of the respondents had been employed during the previous year (85.2 per cent, N=69). Of the remainder, several were retired (9.9 per cent, N=8), three had been students, one a housekeeper, and information was unavailable for three respondents.57 Table A 1.1 shows the occupational distribution of the survey respondents. The majority of those for whom information is available and who were employed, worked for private companies (7 1.0 per cent, N=49). Fewer worked for the government (15.9 per cent, N=ll ) or in family-owned businesses (11.6 per cent, N=8). Most respondents reported that they had some type of trade or professional qualification (85 per cent) but only half of them had applied for recognition of these credentials in Australia. On the face of it, this would suggest that many skills go unused in Australia, but a close examination of the actual responses shows a cultural difference in the meaning and importance of certificates. For example, an airline steward wrote that he had a professional certificate which was awarded after a short training course provided by the company for which he worked. Others reported certificates awarded at the end of brief training courses in the use of office machinery. The types of occupational credentials which might be recognized are of a more formal nature and usuaJly issued only after candidates pass an examination on the completion of a long period of training, such as an

Appendix 2

79

apprenticeship or university course, and which are necessary for the practice of particular occupations such as medicine, plumbing, engineering, or accounting. Generally. such credentials are issued by a government-sponsored agency or professional association rather than by the company or school responsible for the training. It is likely that only the 41 per cent who had applied for recognition of their credentials had this type of qualification.

Spousesst Many of the respondents were married (73.5 per cent. N =61) and almost onequarter had never been married (22.9 per cent N= 19).59 One respondent did not report his marital status. one was separated and two others were divorced. Three-quarters of those who were married had one or more children.60 The mean number of years of education completed by spouses of visa recipients was 12.4 years (or almost two years less than for the respondents). Most of the married respondents (83.6 per cent) reported that their spouse was fluent in written and spoken English but some thought that their spouse would have a little difficulty using English ( 11 .5 per cent) and a few. moderate difficulty (4.9 per cent) Most spouses were employed before emigration (62.3 per cent, N=38), and most of those who were not were housekeepers (N =18, 29.5 per cent of all spouses. 78.3 per cent of those not employed). The majority of those who were employed and for whom data were available (N=34) were professionals (76.5 per cent. N=26). Most of the rest were clerical workers (20.6 per cent, N=7). Almost aJI those employed worked for private companies (excluding family businesses) (58.8 per cent, N=20) or the government (38.2 per cent, N= l 3).

NOTES I.

Lee Kuan Yew is considered by many to be the "father" of Singapore and was its Prime Minister for the first 25 years of independence until 191 . A~ Senior Minister. he remains in the C'ahinet and continues to he innuential in the formulation of public policy !Straits

2.

Singapore has a very re~tnctive immigration policy Though there is a labour shona~ presently. and npatriate~ make up a ~ub~tantial pmpnnton of the labour force. these expatriates work on wntract ha~1s and therefore do not have JOh o;ecunty. Opportumties for promotion are al~n hmncd ~ince managerial pc)~IIIOn~ are usually reserved for Singaporean cititen~ and . to a k~~er extent. permanent re~1dent~. Th1s ~ituation is 1101 conducive to the retention of expatriate worker~. Only one member of a family res1ding together usually applie.~ for an Australian 1mmigrant visa. The term " principal applicant" is used to nominate thiS perliOO. who is usually the individual who can obtain the highest score on an elig1bility test. If successful. the ocher members, if any. enter as his or her dependents. The household head IS 1101 always the principal applicant. Sometimes spouses can obtaan higher ~ores because they have relatives already in Australia who can sponsor them. or because they won in occupenons for which there is a shonage of applicants in Australia. All those who were not employed prior to em1gr.ttion were sponsored by relatives. The total number of valid cases was 83 as one respondent d1d noc answer this question. All dollar amounts cited in this repon are given 10 Stngapore dollars. At the time of the survey, one Singapore dollar (SSI I wa.' roughly equ1valent to 67 cents in Australian currency or SO cents in U.S. currency. Since then. the value of the Singapore dollar has increased. The Central Provident Fund (CPF) is a mandatory sav angs scheme. Employees have 21.5 per cent of their salaries automatically deducted and employers contribute a further 18.5 per cent to their accounts. This money ts used anstead of soc1al welfare benefiiS provided by the government. Indi viduals can draw on their accouniS to pay for the purchase of housing. retirement and medical costs. Part-time employees are defined as those who work less than .W hours per week. In Singapore the monthly base salary is not an accurate renection of employment income. Many employees receive a thineenth month salary and a bonus IS paid at the end of each year. the value of which is determined by the econom1c performance of the employer. In 1989 public sector employees were paid 1.42 months' base salary as a bonus. ln addition, public wage earners are paid a Monthly Variable Component tMVC) at an awarded rate. which is detemlined by national economi.: growth and other indicators. MVC payments were 15 per cent of base salaries in 1990. Moreover. employers make CPF contributions and in some cases. employers also subsidize an employee's rent. See Meng ( 1990, p. 3) refers to a few incidents which suppon the opinion that: " While the government is noticeably a little more tolerant of dissent. it still projeciS the image of an authoritarian government in some of it's [sid measures. activities and attitudes ... The way in which some events which occurred during the decade we.re handled by the government has left a sour taste in our mouths. These events include the Devan Nair Case. the Marx ists Conspiracy. the Henrickson Affair and the Francis Scow Episode". An example of this is in the field of population policy. For many years the Singapore Government provided strong disincentives to people to have more than two children because of limited land and other resources. When the implications of an aging population

Time.v. 19900.

3.

4. S. 6.

7.

8. 9.

I0 .

II.

Notes

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

81

were realized and concern arose about the differential ferrility rates of the major ethnic groups, the policy was reversed and people are now strongly encouraged to have more than two children. This inconsistency in policy affecting people's personal lives has created considerable resentment. We are uncertain what is meant by this term which was used by four respondents, but assume that it includes "kiasu" characteristics such as pushiness, selfishness or impatience, and the arrogance which some Singaporeans feel towards less-economically-developed neighbouring countries. About 80 per cent of Singapore's population live in public housing projects, most of which consist of high-rise apartment buildings built by the Housing and Development Board. About 96 per cent of those issued with immigrant visas world-wide make a trip to Australia within the authori.z ed period (Goodall 1988). Specific information is not available about the proportion of those from Singapore who do so. Unemployment benefits for a single person amount to more than S$700 per month, and substantially more for those with dependents. Wages are normally significantly more than unemployment compensation. The respondent who anticipated earning only S$1 ,000 per month was an engineer who intended to be employed full-time. A more realistic assessment of his earning power in Australia would be at least twice this amount. Winchie and Carment (1989) conducted a pre-departure survey of Indians intending to migrate to Canada and similarly found that "non-monetary career reasons [such as better promotion opportunities) are imporrant instigators of migration among well educated international migrants". It is somewhat speculative, but an argument can be made that the relative strength of push and pull factors can be estimated where the same factor was mentioned in both responses to the questions asking respondents to nominate the worst aspects of living in Singapore and best aspects of living in Australia. For example, if many respondents mention climate as among the worst aspects of Singapore but only a few mention it as one of the best aspects of living in Australia, the push factor may be said to be stronger than the pull factor. We were not able to replicate these categories using factor analysis. When the varimax rotation option was used to sort the 20 variables into five factors, 19 of the variables were assigned to factor one. By using other rotation options some spread of the variables into different factors was achieved but often these groupings did not have much substantive meaning. Occasionally, respondents would offer a score for Singapore but not Australia on one of the factors (or, less commonly, vice-versa), so that for a factor pair the response rate was not always the same. In these cases, the pair was deleted before the t-test computations. Tables 5.1-5.4 show the response rate after the pairwise deletion process. For the group and grand means, the listwise deletion process was used, meaning that if a respondent failed to score any of the component variables their answers would not be included in the computation of the group means. Incidentally, "amount of crime" and "moral atmosphere" were two of the th.ree factors for which the average score for Singapore was higher than for Australia (see Table 5.3). It is not easy to interpret the lower response rate. Two possible explanations are that respondents either did not care as much about these dimensions of each society, or were less confident in scoring these factors because they did not have enough information to do so, had not previously considered the comparison, or for some other reason did not

82

21.

22.

23. 24.

25.

26.

27. 28. 29.

30. 31.

32. 33.

34.

35.

36.

Motivations of Migrantsfrnm Singapore to Australia

know how to score these dimensions. However. the highest non-response rate was only about I0 per cent. so that our confidence in the results is maintained. In their pre-departure survey of Korean migrants to the United States. Park et al. ( 1990) reported that the average score across fourteen factors wa~ 5.6 for Korea and 6.8 for the United States. Lack of social services for the poor and elderly was mentioned by two respondents as among the worst aspects of Singapore. while five said that social welfare was one of the best features of Australia. About 80 per cent of Singaporeans live in Oats built by the government. which are available for purchase. Most wage and salary earners and their employers are required to participate in a compulsory savings scheme called the Central Provident Fund. which was described earlier. The primary purpose of CPF savings is to ensure that people will have adequate funds to cover the costs of medical care and basic living expenses after they retire. This system was designed to limit government eltpenditure for social welfare benefits. The rapid aging of Singapore's population. partly because of strict fertility control in past years. has been identified as a threat to this system. The role of the family in taking care of dependent relatives is considered to be crucial by the government. Fifty-two of the survey respondents (6 1.9 per cent) answered a question asking about the amount of their CPF savings. Two of them did not have CPF accounts and one reported that he had S$500.000 in his account. The mean amount was S$123.000 (mode=S$50.000; median=S$50.000). The magnitude of the difference between the means on the cost of housing factor was the fourth largest of all twenty factors (see Tables 5.1-5.4). This difference was statistically significant (1=7.98. df=79. p. Robert. Sw gles "' Australian Society. Discussion Paper No. 8. Australian Institute of Family Studies. 1985. Straits Times. "S'poream, who emigrate should return subsidies to the govt". 13 August 19M8. - - . "S'pore leads in export of talent to Australia". II October 1989. - - . " S' pore must face brain drain squarely or risk losing talent: PM 's National Day Rally Speech". 2 1 August 1989a. - - . "Entry of Hongkongers won't upset racial mix". 2 1 August 1989b. - - . " Becoming even more viable". Editorial. October 1989c. - - . " Higher quality of life ·answer to emigration problem "'. 11 December 1989d. - - . " Big drop in Singaporeans emigrating". 14 December 1989e. - - . " More speaking up on ' bigger ' issues: Forum Page 1989 analysis". 27 January 1990. - - . " Party team looks at problem of emigration". 27 february 1990a. - - . ''PM - Choose between pursuit of excellence and less stressful system: Latter comes with lower standards and few rewards, he reminds S ' poreans". 28 February 1990b.

88

Motivations of Migrants from Singapore to Australia

- - . "Each policy choice carries a price tag". 28 February 1990c. - - . "Chok Tong's three goals for the 90s". 7 January 1990d. --."Compare S'pore with rest of world, PM tells Hongkongers". 13 January 1990e. - - . "PM: I' II stay in Cabinet to ensure smooth transfer of power''. 13 January 1990f. - - . "Reservists 'Cabinets' propose solutions to stem emigration''. 22 February 1990g. Sullivan, Gerard. "Oosutoraria no minzoku kankei" [Race Relations in Australia]. Kokusai Jinryu [International Migration: Journal of the Japan Immigration Association]. June 1990. Sullivan, Gerard, and Gunasekaran, S. "Inter-Ethnic Relations and Educational Systems as Push Factors: Migration from Southeast Asia to Australia". Paper presented at the session on Comparative Patterns of International Migration at the 84th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association in San Francisco, August 1989. - - . "Is there an Asian-Australian Brain Drain?". In Asians in Australia: The Dynamics of Migration and Settlement, edited by Christine Inglis. S. Gunasekaran, Gerard Sullivan and Chung-Tong Wu. Singapore and Sydney: !SEAS and Allen & Unwin, 1992. Sullivan, Gerard; S. Gunasekaran and Sununtha Siengthai. "Labour Migration and Policy Formation in a Newly Industrialized Country: A Case Study of lllegal Thai Workers in Singapore". ASEAN Economic Bulletin 9. no. I (July 1992): 55--65. Tan, Han Hoe, ed. Singapore 1987. Singapore: Ministry of Communications and Information, Information Division, 1987. Tan, Tam How. " Don't call emigrants names- they are entitled to c hoose". Straits Times, 15 February 1990. UNESCO. Statistical Yearbook 1987. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1987. Winchie, Diana B., and David W. Carment. " Migration and Motivation: The Migrant· s Perspective", Research Note. 1nternational Migration Review 23, no. I (1989): 96-104. Yap Mui Teng. Singaporeans Overseas: A Study of Emigrants in Australia and Canada. Report No. 3. Singapore: Institute of Policy Studies, 1991. Zolberg, Aristide R. "The Next Waves: Migration Theory for a Changing World". 1mernational Migration Review 23, no. 3 ( 1989): 403-30.

THE AUTHORS Gerard S. Sullivan is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Behavioural Sciences, University of Sydney, Australia. S. Gunasekaran is Professor and Head of the Department of Sociology, Pondicherry University, India.