The price of global city status is an enlarging overseas Singaporean community. This price, nevertheless, has profound repercussions for a nation-state of only 3.5 million citizens and permanent residents.

According to recent revelations, the country loses about 1000 educated Singaporeans each year. This flight of the educated, as commentators have noted, must be seen against the almost 200,000 jobs created in 2007, far in excess of the 38,000 births recorded. In addition to this, there is an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 Singaporeans who are working or studying abroad, a good slice of whom will not be returning. All this points to one inescapable truth – the overseas Singaporean community, per capita, is one of the highest in the world and will only get bigger.

True to its pragmatic form, the Singapore government has sought to address this by importing skilled foreign workers, not just to replace departing Singaporeans, but also to meet the growth demands of various industries. By offering a conducive environment for work, family living, arts consumption and the odd topless cabaret, the idea is to turn the little island into one giant Baskin Robbins – you’re bound to find a flavour you like. This 'Baskin Robbins' strategy seems to be working.

Singapore welcomed 14,600 new citizens in 2007. This is a 10 per cent increase from the 13,200 new citizens in 2006, which was itself an increase from the 12,900 new citizenships given out in 2005. To put these numbers in perspective, 2001 to 2004 only saw an average of 8000 new citizens per year. The number of applicants for permanent resident (PR) status has also been increasing. 46,900 foreigners were granted PR status in the first nine months of 2007, compared to a total of 57,300 in 2006. 

Quite clearly, the flight of educated Singaporeans, economically speaking, does not pose short-term problems for Singapore. For every Singaporean who leaves, 14 others come to permanently take his place. As a solutions-oriented piece of public policy, the open-door migration policy is a resounding success. However, it is precisely because emigrating Singaporeans are framed as a problem that the government’s response has, so far, been either to woo them back or to demonise them.

In wooing them back, the government takes a pro-active approach to reach out through organisations like Contact Singapore and the Singapore International Foundation, and with “soft power” vis-à-vis Singaporean-theme festivals in major capitals around the world. When it comes to demonising them, labels like “quitters” and people who are “rootless” are bandied about with ease.

However, such an either-or response would fail to see the potential of the overseas Singaporean community. If one accepts that this overseas community is here to stay and is one that will only grow, then there is a need to re-think its position vis-à-vis local Singaporeans and perhaps even re-examine our concept of nationalism in the global city.

Labels like “quitters” are designed to arouse Singaporeans’ sense of nationalist indignity. They suggest that a betrayal or abandonment has taken place, and emotionally mobilises nationalist sentiments against the emigrants. Being called “rootless”, on the other hand, conjures up memories of a time when the term “cosmopolitan” was not laden with glamour or sophistication like it is today but, rather, described a person’s vacuity of commitment, indeterminacy of character, and national ambivalence; a pejorative term used to identify Jews in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Such terms not only portray emigrating Singaporeans with negativity but they also resort too easily to the appeal of nationalist exclusivity. Singaporeans, after all, leave for a great variety of reasons from the high cost of living; better career and prospects overseas; preference for a more relaxed lifestyle; their children’s education and so on. If Singaporeans have come to accept local PRs as “flexible citizens” who are able juggle their identities to fit local conditions and to position themselves in such a way as to reap the benefits of society without having to shoulder the burdens of formal citizenship, then it is possible to re-think the concept of a Singaporean nationalism to suit the requirements of the global city.

After all, if we are willing to accept into the national fold PRs who have not yet forsaken their original citizenship for a Singaporean one, there is certainly no reason to exclude overseas Singaporeans, both of the quitting and rootless variety. Why embrace PRs who straddle two societies while cold shouldering Singaporean “quitters” whose memories will always be rooted to this "little red dot"? The time has come to rescue nationalism from exclusivity.

Scholars are already talking about the “long-distance nationalism” of ethnic and religious diasporas that still hold political and cultural influence over their country of origin from afar. Perhaps Singaporeans should start thinking of a “situational nationalism” that accepts that nationalist sentiments are ephemeral.

A situational nationalism describes how nationalist sentiments are dynamic, never constant, and articulated as the subjective experience of the individual. For example, it describes how Singaporeans overseas tend to be more patriotic than those in Singapore. It describes how this patriotism fades when they return and fall into the rhythm of local life. It accommodates the fact that PRs can proclaim a great fondness for this piece of rock without wanting to give up their citizenship.

Until the exclusivity and authorship of nationalism can be fragmented, we will also find it hard to accept new citizens. Foreigners take up Singaporean citizenship not because they love the land (or lack of), or because their childhood memories are rooted here, but because they love the green environment, the political stability, the economic opportunities and the family-friendly conditions. In other words, new citizens love the "Singapore System", while Singaporeans born and bred, have more intimate ties to the land.

But to prevent this from emerging as a discriminating factor, the exclusivity of nationalism has to be eradicated. Situational nationalism also addresses the subjective interpretation of national events. How else can you explain how the National Day Parade can fill some Singaporeans with unbearable pride and others with utter cynicism? It is the only form of nationalism that does not make you feel guilty for tuning out the ceremonial fireworks and other grand displays of public affection for the nation.

Situational nationalism is the most democratic form of nationalism because it is subjective and refuses to adhere to the way it is defined by governments and the cultural elite. It is the only way Singaporean emigrants may remain Singaporeans and new Singaporeans can become nationalists.