Advertisement

The Role of the State in Transnational Migrant Identity Formation: A “Uniquely Singapore” Experience?

  • Selina LimEmail author
Chapter
Part of the International Perspectives on Migration book series (IPMI, volume 2)

Abstract

This chapter discusses the intersections between the nation-state and Singaporean transmigrant identity formation. It addresses the issue that until recently, scholarship in transnational migration has underestimated the role played by the state, believing that the development of transnational communities would inevitably lead to the withering of states and state power. However, the extent to which migrants are able to carry out their activities in transnational arenas hinges on the politics and migration policies of the sending and receiving countries. Some scholars point out that we cannot talk about transnational identities without acknowledging the presence of sending and receiving states that make this geographical mobility possible. The chapter examines this political dimension in the formation of the identifications of Singaporean transmigrants in Perth, Australia. It shows that personal history with Singapore and personal feelings about the nation-state remain an integral part of Singaporean transmigrants’ identifications, despite having lived away for many years. It also explains that Singaporean government’s relationships with its homegrown talent residing overseas help cultivate an ‘extraterritorial’ sense of national identity. I conclude with the observation suggesting that the coexistence of the nation-state and transmigrants reflects the larger themes of nationalism and globalization.

Keywords

Public Housing Home Ownership Material Environment Stable Sense Ontological Security 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aleinikoff, T. A. (2002). Policing boundaries: Migration, citizenship, and the state. In G. Gerstle & J. Mollenkopf (Eds.), E pluribus unum? Contemporary and historical perspectives on immigrant political incorporation (pp. 267–291). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  2. Chia, S. A. (2009, November 13). Slowing the flow of foreign workers to s’pore. The Straits Times, A30–A31.Google Scholar
  3. Chua, B. H. (1995). Communitarian ideology and democracy in Singapore. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Chua, B. H. (2004). Political history: In arrested state. In A. Mahizhnan (Ed.), Singapore perspectives 2004: At the dawn of a new era (pp. 124–132). Singapore: Marshall Cavendish (Singapore) Private Limited.Google Scholar
  5. Dupuis, A., & Thorns, D. C. (1998). Home, home ownership and the search for ontological security. The Sociological Review, 26(1), 24–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  7. Goh, C. T. (1997). Singapore 21—A new vision for a new era. Parliamentary address on June 5, archived on http://www.singapore21.org.sg/menu_speeches.html. Accessed May 13, 2005.
  8. Green, N. L. (2005). The politics of exit: Reversing the immigration paradigm. The Journal of Modern History, 77(2), 263–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (2003). Communication with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.Google Scholar
  10. Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hollifield, J. F. (2000). The politics of international migration: How do we ‘bring the state back in’? In C. B. Brettell & J. F. Hollifield (Eds.), Migration theory: Talking across disciplines (pp. 137–186). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Hulse, K. (2008). Shaky foundations: Moving beyond ‘housing tenure’. Housing, Theory, and Society, 25(3), 202–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kinnvall, C. (2004). Globalization and religious nationalism: Self, identity, and the search for ontological security. Political Psychology, 25(5), 741–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lim, S. (2007). Rethinking Albert O. Hirschman’s ‘exit, voice, and loyalty ’: The case of Singapore. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.Google Scholar
  15. Madison, G. (2007). Unsettling thought: An alternative to sedentary concepts and a defence of Frodo. Existential Analysis, 18(2), 220–229.Google Scholar
  16. Mitzen, J. (2006). Ontological security in world politics: State identity and the security dilemma. European Journal of International Relations, 12(3), 341–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mutalib, H. (1992). Singapore’s quest for a national identity. In K. C. Ban, A. Pakir, & C. K. Tong (Eds.), Imagining Singapore (pp. 69–96). Singapore: Times Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. Noble, G. (2002). Comfortable and relaxed: Furnishing the home and nation. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 16(1), 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Perry, M., Kong, L., & Yeoh, B. (1997). Singapore: A developmental city state. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Quah, J. S. T. (1990). Government policies and nation-building. In J. Quah (Ed.), In search of Singapore’s national values (pp. 45–65). Singapore: Institute of Policy Studies.Google Scholar
  21. Salaff, J. W., Wong, S. L., & Greve, A. (2010). Hong Kong movers and stayers: Narratives of family migration. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  22. Saunders, P. (1984). Beyond the housing classes: The sociological significance of private property rights in means of consumption. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 8(2), 202–222.Google Scholar
  23. Saunders, P. (1986). Social theory and the urban question. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  24. Saunders, P. (1990). A nation of home owners. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  25. Scholte, J. A. (1996). The geography of collective identities in a globalizing world. Review of International Political Economy, 3(4), 565–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sedikides, C., & Brewer, M. (2002). Individual, relational and collective self: Partners, opponents, or strangers? In C. Sedikides & M. Brewer (Eds.), Individual self, relational self, collective self (pp. 1–4). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  27. Skocpol, T. (1985). Bringing the state back in: Strategies of analysis in current research. In P. B. Evans, D. Reuschemeyer, & T. Skocpol (Eds.), Bringing the state back (pp. 3–43). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stewart, A. (1998). The ethnographer’s method (Qualitative research methods series, Vol. 46). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  29. Waldinger, R., & Fitzgerald, D. (2004). Transnationalism in question. The American Journal of Sociology, 109(5), 1177–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wong, A., & Hoe, Y. N. (2009, November 18). Wrong start and how to put it right. Today.Google Scholar
  31. Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Intersectionality and feminist politics. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(3), 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zolberg, A. R. (1981). International migration in political perspective. In M. M. Kritz, C. B. Keely, & S. M. Tomasi (Eds.), Global trends in migration: Theory and research on international population movements (pp. 3–27). New York: Center for Migration Studies.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Teaching and Learning CentreSIM UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations