Perhaps the more radical fraction of the online xenophobic community is schizophrenic. One can hardly miss the irony when People’s Republic of China (PRC) Chinese were blasted for being unable to speak English, whilst the PAP was bashed for providing the solution in the form of government-paid English courses.

This points us towards a disturbing observation – that a certain segment of the population has become so radicalized that the idea of spending a single cent on foreigners equates to blasphemy.

At a time when the government has indicated that steps have begun in earnest to attempt an integration project on a national scale (seen by the new $10m Community Integration fund and a water festival in the works), it is time for us to recognize some arguments for such governmental efforts:

Community integration is a public good

Chiefly, for the reason that everybody benefits from a community in which exists a healthy level of interaction between members, everybody ought to be contribute monetarily towards such an effort. Community integration is a public good, similar to street lighting or police protection since everybody benefits. And it hence follows that all the beneficiaries should pay for the enjoyment of such benefits, through taxes which are spent by the government.

Position of government

Out of all actors, the government is the most capable and well-placed to initiate such efforts. Besides having organizational strength, the government’s position to do the most also comes from the failings of others; consider the stunted civil society in Singapore; the inability of poorer transient workers to organize or fund their own activities; the small employers which hire such workers that are unable to provide such programs. In such a case, since other actors are unable to step up to integrate the community, the onus then falls upon the government.

Spending more on community integration does not equate to spending less on social welfare

A common knee-jerk reaction I see online is this: “10 million to be spent on foreigners? Why not give the 10 million to the homeless, destitute and elderly?” An either-or scenario then arises and the issue becomes transmogrified into a local versus foreign debate.

However, this is untrue. We need to recognize that spending 10 million on foreigners does not equate to spending 10 million less on social welfare for locals. Rather, it equates to spending 10 million less on over-saving or failed foreign investments overseas. We need to recognize that the lamentable lack of funding for social welfare does not come from competing spending programs, but from the all-pervasive fear of the crutch mentality, which is another issue altogether.

Conclusion

Perhaps some readers might dispute the need for community integration in the first place and debate its virtues. Yet these will frequently be the same people who have demonstrated awareness of the detrimental consequences of an un-integrated society; a person who complains about, say, the uncouth practices of foreigners will have effectively demonstrated that he recognizes the need for such practices to be corrected.

And my point to these people will be this: if we see a problem as serious, we will need to be willing to spend money to fix it.