How privileged are ‘privileged migrants’?
An ethnographic case study of excellent foreign students
studying at the National University of Singapore
Master thesis ACW: Management of Cultural Diversity
Tilburg University
Marli van Boekel
ANR: 327224
Supervisor: P. Mutsaers
Second reader: Dr. V.J.R. Draulans
Word count: 20.549
Tilburg, August 11th 2013
Abstract
It is generally thought that people have become increasingly more mobile. Zygmunt Bauman
(1998), however, argues that this does not count for everyone and speaks of a ‘global
hierarchy of mobility’. He argues that at its bottom are the people stuck in their locality, and
at the top are the unconstrained, ‘privileged migrants’. Excellent students, who get the
chance to study at a prestigious, foreign university due to a government bond at first sight
seem to belong to the latter group. Whether they agree with this themselves, and whether
they truly are a privileged, highly mobile group of people is what this study aimed to find out.
Therefore, an ethnographic study was conducted at the National University of Singapore,
where many of these academically high performing students are enrolled. Here, multiple of
these (Asian) students have been observed and interviewed. The data show that both the
aforementioned bond, involving a stringent contract, and the students’ families, cause for
certain pressures and restrictions on the student, leading them to have limited choice over
their migration and life in Singapore and beyond. Because these students are able to ‘escape
their locality’, they feel privileged to some extent. However, because they cannot go
wherever they please, they do not feel highly mobile, and therefore not on top of Bauman’s
hierarchy.
Keywords
Global hierarchy of mobility, excellent students, privileged migrants, Confucianism
1
Acknowledgements
First of all, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for my supervisor Paul Mutsaers,
who has dragged me through the start-up period of my thesis, characterized by a lack of
inspiration and an abundance of aggravation. Due to his continuing trust in my abilities and
valuable input, I have been able to gain confidence in my work and am now able to say that I
am proud of what I have accomplished over the last couple of months. In addition, I thank
Kim van Stratum and Nikita Mulder, my fellow thesis circle members, for their valuable
feedback and mental support. Furthermore, I want to show my deepest appreciation for all
the students that participated in my study. Thanks to their kindness and cooperation they
made my research and stay in Singapore a great pleasure. Therefore, my thankfulness also
goes out to Beatriz Lorente, as I would have never gotten into contact with all these great
participants if it wasn’t for her. And last but not least, I am grateful for my friends, family and
roommates, who provided me with the occasional, ever-so-needed distraction from the
countless hours spent behind my laptop.
2
Table of contents
1. Introduction................................................................................
1.1 Bauman’s Global Hierarchy of Mobility.........................
1.2 Singapore and NUS........................................................
1.3 Excellent students in Asia..............................................
1.4 Aim of this study............................................................
2. Theoretical Framework...............................................................
2.1 The family.......................................................................
2.1.1 Consequences for the student........................
2.2 The state: brain gain, -drain and -circulation.................
2.3 Structure of this thesis...................................................
3. Method........................................................................................
3.1 Research strategy and methods applied........................
3.1.1 Case study research.........................................
3.2 Participants....................................................................
3.3Data collection................................................................
3.4 Data analysis..................................................................
4. Research Context........................................................................
4.1 Singapore.......................................................................
4.2 The attraction of excellent foreign students..................
5. Results.........................................................................................
5.1 The scholarship contract................................................
5.2 Singapore: the land of opportunity................................
5.3 The role of the family.....................................................
5.4 Why Singapore?.............................................................
5.5 Kiasuism, mugging and the bell curve............................
5.6 The identity of Singapore...............................................
6. Discussion....................................................................................
6.1 Conclusions....................................................................
6.1.1 Objectivity and business-orientation..............
6.1.2 The pressure to perform.................................
6.1.3 No way back....................................................
6.1.4 The challenges.................................................
6.1.5 Belongingness..................................................
6.1.6 Returning to Bauman......................................
6.2 Limitations and recommendations...............................
6.3 Conclusion......................................................................
References.......................................................................................
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
10
11
13
16
17
17
17
19
21
21
23
23
23
27
27
30
32
36
38
43
44
44
44
45
47
48
49
50
51
53
55
1. Introduction
The history of migration demonstrates that the reasons people change their place of
residence are numerous. Among others they could involve a search for better living
standards, professional motives, or the choice to go `back to basics` in, for example, South
America or Africa after having lived in a large city in Europe or the US. In the previous
decades, migration waves have increased in volume, variation and geographical scope. More
specifically, there are newly emerging and increasingly more complex forms of mobility (e.g.
Vertovec, 2007), such as “the young Asian working in New York to pay for a graduate course
[who] may simultaneously be a student, a labour migrant and a tourist” (Williams & Hall,
2002, p. 2). Another emerging, yet under-analysed trend is the movement of affluent people,
from well-developed countries in the global north to less economically developed countries
in the global south (Croucher, 2012). In addition, the global recession may be expected to
have a great, unpredictable impact on the movement of workers across national boundaries.
Other recent contributions to new and increased flows of migration are the liberalisation of
travel and a general increase in people’s mobility after the end of the Cold War, the
economic boom of the 2000s, the fast growth of emerging markets, such as India and China,
and new technological developments (e.g. in relation to communication) (“Migration after
the crash”, 2011).
Due to all these different and increasing flows of migration, essentially every
developed country in the world has either already become a diverse, multiethnic society or
is rapidly on its way towards becoming one (Massay et al., 1993). However, an
understanding of the rapid growth and diversification of migration patterns and their
underlying forces seems to be largely missing in migration literature. Additionally, instead of
a single, coherent theory of international migration at present only a fragmented collection
of theories exist that have been developed largely in isolation from one another. Examples
of such theories are economic theory - considering migration as a reaction to labour market
and economic incentives -, cultural theories - predicting that migration flows will occur
according to a centre-periphery pattern - and social network analysis – assuming that
migrants simply follow pre-established migration networks (Massay et al, 1993; Hooghe,
Meuleman & Reeskens, 2008).
4
1.1 Bauman’s Global Hierarchy of Mobility
Another view on migration is offered by Zygmunt Bauman (1998). In contradistinction to the
previously mentioned liberalisation of travel and increase in people’s mobility, Bauman
argues that while some of us are able to reap all the benefits of today’s interconnected
world, others are bound to their locality and take the brunt of globalisation. In his book
Globalization: the Human Consequences, Bauman discusses what he calls ‘the global
hierarchy of mobility’. He states that what globalisation means for some, means localisation
for others. Bauman distinguishes the ones who have become truly global and are able to
travel the, to them virtually borderless, world and the ones who stay put and are fixed in
their ‘locality’. Bauman seems to see the ones on top of the hierarchy of mobility as
unconstrained individuals fully in charge of their own happiness and destiny, in contrast to
the ones who are bound to stay forever in the place they were born, and to live, unhappily,
in a world created by the ones that rise above them in the hierarchy.
Who exactly these truly global lucky few are, is, however, not clearly stated. Does
Bauman merely mean the people with the money and opportunities to travel the world and
settle down in other places then their birth country? If one chooses to stay in his or her
‘locality’, but does have the means to do otherwise, where in this hierarchy does he or she
fit? Moreover, are Bauman’s “extraterritorial elites” truly free of rules and in command of
their own lives? Being able to study at a prestigious university in another country because
you were selected by its government seems to be a great privilege. But what about the
pressure that comes along with this move? Moreover, is migration still a privilege when the
choice to migrate is not truly yours? Matters such as expectations, coercion and liberty of
choice enter the discussion about mobility if one raises such questions.
As the above makes clear, Bauman’s hierarchy is not as clear cut as it may seem. If
the global elites at the top of the hierarchy are the ones who make up the rules of everyday
life, this would seem to liberate them in their own live courses and decision making. This,
however, might not count for everyone who has the means to ‘be global’ and leave their
locality. In fact, the motives to move and the factors determining the decision to do so might
not be fully controllable by the mover. The example above – excellent, allegedly ‘privileged’
students, who get to migrate to another country because of their academic performance –
exemplifies this paradox. In Asia, this is what happens to quite a number of students: due to
some countries’ relatively low quality education (e.g. Malaysia, Vietnam) or high
5
competitiveness (e.g. China), parents hope for their children to be offered a chance to study
abroad. For most Asian parents prestigious schools in the United States or United Kingdom
are the highest aims, but this is often not feasible due to, for example, financial issues. This is
one of the reasons parents turn to Singapore: a country whose education system has a good
reputation and where the chances to get into a high-status university are relatively high.
That is not to say that any student can get into the National University of Singapore,
Singapore’s top university. Singapore only accepts, and ‘needs’, ‘outstanding students’, that
is, “high calibre individuals who demonstrate academic excellence, present excellent cocurricular activities records and exhibit outstanding leadership qualities” (Office of
Admissions, 2013). Although these students may be labelled as special or lucky, they did not
choose themselves to be ‘outstanding’ and, as the following chapters will make clear, often
not to move to Singapore either. It is therefore my question if these students see themselves
as privileged migrants, and, therefore, envision themselves at the top level of Bauman’s
hierarchy of mobility.
1.2 Singapore and NUS
To be able to answer the question raised above, for the current study the National University
of Singapore has been chosen as the research location. This location offers interesting and
relevant meso- and macro contexts for several reasons. First of all, the transformation of
Singapore from a tiny, insignificant island to one of the strongest of the Asian ‘tiger’
economies is noteworthy. Partly due to recognizing that the island’s potential lies in human
resources (natural resources are largely absent), and doing whatever it takes to benefit from
these, local and (especially) international, resources, Singapore’s government was able to
become one of the strongest economies in South-East Asia (Wong, Ho & Singh, 2007; Thimm,
2013; Chang, 2000). The starting point for reaching this goal was, however, not a promising
one. That is, in 1965, after the colonial rule of over a century by the British, the sovereign
nation of Singapore inherited a “poorly-educated, poverty-stricken workforce beset by
chronic unemployment” (Sanderson, 2002, p. 85). With the aim of transforming this
workforce, the government adopted a development-driven ideology and started to invest in
human capital, in order to help prepare local institutions for the ‘next wave of the nation’s
economic development’. It was thought that only an educated and skilled labour force would
enable Singapore to make use of the opportunities of the developing world economy and to
6
achieve a competitive advantage over other Asian countries. Moreover, Singapore’s status
as a relatively small city-state heightens the pressure to globalize and rapidly turn into a
knowledge based economy in order to ensure economic survival (Wong, Ho & Singh, 2007).
It was clear that in order to reach this state of an economically strong society it would
not suffice if only the current Singaporean workforce would become better educated: it had
to be complemented by resources from abroad. Since its initiation in the mid-1960s, the
Singapore government has been increasingly more proactive in seeking expatriate ‘talent’ to
help drive economic development, global competitiveness and the city-state’s ambition to
be a truly ‘cosmopolitan’ global city (Ye & Kelly in Yeoh & Khoo, 1998). This means that not
just anybody is welcomed with open arms: preferably those who are useful for the country’s
development. For example, to qualify as a talent and potential expat in Singapore, the
applicant should possess a recognized diploma, degree, or professional qualification, and he
or she must earn a minimum monthly salary of 2000 Singapore dollars. In addition, it is
expected and thrived for that by 2030, two-thirds of Singaporean workers hold professional,
managerial, executive and technician (PMET) jobs (National Population and Talent Division,
2013). Furthermore, Singapore’s government recognizes that continuing to improve access
to high quality education as a fundamental strategy to achieve this.
Furthermore, the country’s international student programs play an important role in
supplementing Singapore’s workforce. In order to attract and benefit from as many ‘foreign
talents’ as possible these programs entail some striking regulations. One of them is that all
students who use the governmental subsidy (i.e. ‘Tuition Grant’) sign a contract stating that
they will stay and work in Singapore for three to six years after the completion of their study.
The only way to evade this commitment is to either pay the full tuition fee whilst studying or
‘pay out’ during these working years in Singapore.
Due to its investments in high quality education and its active recruitment of skilled
foreign talent, the student population of Singapore's universities consists of a large number of
pre-selected foreign students. These students are either sent to Singapore by their parents
in order for them to study in a better academic environment than their home country, or
because Singapore’s MOE selected them on the basis of their results. In any case, as the
following chapters will indicate as well, it is not often the student’s own initiative to move
overseas for their studies.
7
1.3 Excellent students in Asia
The fact that Asia, rather than other continents, was chosen as the research context for the
current study is not a coincidence. It is generally believed that the pressure to reach
educational excellence in many Asian countries is exceptionally and increasingly high (e.g
Elliot, Hufton, Hildreth, & Illushin, 2006; Dunne et al., 2010). It has been shown that Asian
students in general experience a high academic burden, low satisfaction regarding their
academic performance and strong external pressure to study (Dunne et al., 2010). Possibly
due to these factors, students with an Asian background do not only feel the need to
perform well academically, multiple studies have shown that they in fact outperform
Western students (e.g. Elliot, Hufton, Hildreth, & Illushin, 2006). Elliot, Hufton, Hildreth and
Illushin (2006) argue that these findings cannot be explained by differences in classroom
practices, but instead support the often made claim that they are rooted in attitudinal and
motivational differences embedded in familial and (sub)cultural contexts. Even though these
contextual differences seem to result in relatively high study results, negative effects of
these pressures also exist. Although academic matters have been found to be one of the
most common sources of stress among adolescents worldwide, this phenomenon has shown
to be at an exceptionally high level in Asian countries, such as Japan, Taiwan, China and
Singapore (Sun, Dunne, Hou, & Xu, 2012).
The strategy of Singapore to attract the only best students in the region to come and
study in its country and the fact that many parents do whatever they can to get their
children into Singaporean universities, seem to result in students studying at the National
University of Singapore (NUS) or Nanyang Technological University (Singapore’s top
universities) being seen as ‘privileged’. Since quality education is so highly valued in Asia, and
Singapore is seen as providing this quality (i.e. NUS was ranked second in the Times Higher
Education Asia University Ranking), students in Singapore are expected to perform
academically at a level of excellence (THE World University Rankings, 2012). Both Singapore which needs students to perform exceptionally well in order to maintain and improve its
economic position - and students’ home countries - including family and peers who equal
studying in Singapore to successful futures - cause for certain pressures towards and
expectations of the migrating student.
8
1.4 Aim of this study
Supposing that Bauman considers the individuals at the highest level of his hierarchy the
privileged ones, most in control of their own destiny, it is my question if these ‘excellent
students’ would also see themselves as being on top of the hierarchy. This thesis will focus
on this group and on comprehending the way they see themselves in regard to their
ostensibly mobile lives, which are at the same time (potentially) ‘systemised’ (i.e. structured
within the system of, for example, their university) and pre-determined (i.e. by their parents,
their country). This will be achieved by conducting an ethnographic study on high performing,
non-Singaporean students registered at the National University of Singapore, Singapore’s
leading university.
Although some literature on privileged migration, student mobility and excellent
students exists (e.g. Croucher, 2012; Beine, Nöel & Ragot, 2012; Baláž, Williams & Kollar,
2004; Clark, 1988), the connection between these concepts has not yet been explicitly made.
Since this is, however, a step that will offer great insight in both the global hierarchy of
mobility and in the experiences of the understudied group of high performing students, the
current research will do just that. In doing so, it will try to provide answers to the following
sub questions: How do excellent students studying abroad experience the high mobility
ostensibly present in their lives? How do they experience the determination of their lives, i.e.
to what extent do they experience an agentic versus a systemised life? And in what way do
they experience a sense of belonging towards a certain location, institution or (group of)
people? These questions all boil down to one central research question, which is the
following: how do excellent students, embedded in the National University of Singapore,
experience their position in the global hierarchy of mobility?
9
2. Theoretical Framework
The globalization of higher education, stimulated by students’ increased mobility, has grown
significantly over the past 40 years. Today more than 3.3 million students are registered at a
foreign university. This number has been multiplied four times between 1975 and 2008
(Pimpa, 2004; Beine, Nöel & Ragot, 2012). In the last decade especially, more and more
students chose to pursue studies abroad: the number has risen by 70% between 2000 and
2008. Taking every type of migrant together, international students have relatively
experienced the most rapid increase (Beine, Nöel & Ragot, 2012). This growth is related to
the fact that an increased number of countries has been looking abroad for skilled people,
partly consisting of students, to stimulate their economies. The increased demand for high
quality education and the inability of the educational systems to satisfy these needs has
caused a large number of students in many developing countries (e.g. the birth countries of
this study’s participants) to look abroad. For example, it seems that by 2020, both China and
India will not be able to meet the number of 20 and 9 million university places respectively,
which are needed for their own student populations (Beine, Nöel & Ragot, 2012).
Quite a large number of Asian students therefore turn to Singapore. For many
students, migrating to Singapore for their studies is considered an investment and
opportunity to get a better job in the future, ultimately to increase future income (Beine,
Nöel & Ragot, 2012). In Asian countries, people who have studied at foreign universities are
often thought of as “having up-to-date knowledge and skills”, which make many companies
very willing to hire employees with international degrees (Seo & Koro-Ljungberg, 2005, p.
178). Furthermore, it is believed that people’s level of education as well as the reputation of
the universities they graduated from, equals their competence as an employee (Seo & KoroLjungberg, 2005). Therefore, the university’s ranking, signalling the average quality of the
universities, is crucial in the selection of a university (Beine, Noël & Ragot, 2012). The latter is
potentially already a constraint on the mobility of the students, as going 'wherever they want' might
not result in the future life possibilities they expect from a study abroad.
2.1 The family
It has been broadly acknowledged that in Asia, culture and family also play crucial roles in
the process of deciding where exactly in the world to pursue studies (e.g. O’Brien, Webb,
Page & Proctor, 2007; Pimpa, 2004; Heggins & Jackson, 2003). O’Brien, Webb, Page and
10
Proctor (2007, p. 11) found in their study on Indian students that “the desire to keep up with
family tradition, and, culture and normative referents” are some of the major forces that
drive students to study abroad. They also found that the people that influence these
students to do so, are family, friends and academic staff in the home university. From this
can be concluded that academic choices are not likely to fully be those of the students, since
authority figures such as parents and teachers exert pressure on these young people, to a
great extent determining the place they will live several years of their lives.
Furthermore, the potential feeling that only the most prestigious, foreign universities
are good enough and socially acceptable, as well as keeping up with the educational level at
these institutions can have serious consequences for the students. Several studies have
shown that Asian students studying abroad experience more stress than the local, e.g.
American, students, because of group and family pressure (Kember & Gow, 1991; Burns,
1991; Heggings & Jackson, 2003). In addition, Niles (1995, p. 380) found that whereas for
local Australian students the strongest motivational factors for learning was
“competitiveness and getting to the top”, for Asian students this was “social-approval”.
Heggins & Jackson (2003) add that an important factor for most Asian students to study at a
foreign university is to gain prestige from this highly valued institution. They argue that this
is related to the pressure they experience to succeed academically, which comes from their
culture and influences from their families and can be “quite overwhelming” (p. 386). In
addition, it is expected that the fact that these students and families have oftentimes
invested a lot (e.g. time, hard work, money) in the transition would make the students
particularly motivated to achieve well academically, due to their need for social approval
(Niles, 1995). Niles (1995, p. 380) indeed found that parental expectations are correlated
with the value these students assign to their ability to excel, “not only academically, but in
life”.
2.1.1 Consequences for the student
Besides the pressure to become successful, other factors can affect the international student
as well. Heggins and Jackson (2003) argue that despite the often made claim that Asian
students are a resilient group, many of them suffer greatly from homesickness, loneliness, or,
to a lesser extent, depression. One reason for this, is said to be the fact that Asian ancestry
and familial commitment are values with high importance in Asian cultures (Heggins, 2003).
11
The great meaning family has for Asian students thus seems to affect their happiness when
abroad as well. Additionally, in terms of quality of life, Henning, Hawken, Krägeloh, Zhao and
Doherty (2011) found that Asian medical students consistently scored lower than the New
Zealand and European students they studied, for example in relation to their personal
relationships. They argued that this is related to the fact that, for example, Chinese students
have strong academic, performance based goal orientations and tend to be highly
competitive. In addition, they have the tendency to want to outperform others and achieve
at high levels. This is likely to get in the way of social relationships development, which
would explain their dissatisfaction. A study by Diener, Suh, Smith & Shao (1995) confirms this,
as it was found that Asian students score lower than their non-Asian colleagues in terms of
subjective well-being, due to their high expectations concerning achievement. In addition, it
is expected that because Asian students are so close to their families and many decisions are
made for them, they might miss their parents especially when studying abroad, and
suddenly on their own in a strange country. This, together with the fact that Singapore is a
highly competitive, work-oriented country, might not make it a place where one easily feels
at home, or ‘belongs’, which may negatively influence experiences as well.
Another factor that might affect Asian students’ experienced quality of life, as was
shown in the above mentioned study by Henning and his colleagues (2011), is the lack of
choice these students seem to have in their study and career choice due to their parents’
expectations. Students who choose to study medicine for instance, generally do so because
their parents expect them to. According to Henning et al. (2011) this could be, especially for
international students, because of the status orientations and residency options in host
countries. Furthermore, Dundes et al. (2009), found in their study on Asian and white
students in the United States, that whereas 41% of Asians prioritized prestige over happiness
in choosing a college, only 9% of the white American students would do so. In addition,
concerning their parents, more Asian Americans thought their mothers (51%) and fathers
(34%) put emphasis on prestige in choosing a college than white mothers (9%) and fathers
(17%). The students added that their parents would justify this by reminding children of the
sacrifices they themselves have made for the next generation and teaching them that
“academic performance is a matter of family honour” (Dundes, Chow & Kwak, 2009, p. 135).
Even though this lack of emphasis on happiness and the expressed low scores on
quality of life would likely result in highly dissatisfied students, they themselves do not seem
12
to see it this way, or are at least hesitant to. In fact, Heggins and Jackson (2003) found that
their participants expressed positive attitudes towards these emotional, as well stressrelated challenges. They argue that this tendency to keep personal struggles to oneself may
be related to the cultural stigma and shame that is associated with expressing oneself
emotionally. It is important to keep this in mind in the current study, since it is key to
differentiate between actual feelings and politically correct statements made merely to safe
face.
2.2 The state: brain gain, - drain and - circulation
As the above makes clear, the consequences for these students seem to be significant.
However, not only the students are affected by this migration flow, sending and receiving
countries are too. The international mobility of students is strongly related to a more general
migration trend, i.e. the one concerning skilled workers, or ‘foreign talents’ (Beine, Nöel &
Ragot, 2012). As Mahroum (2001, p. 168) argues, the competition for highly skilled workers,
in the form of e.g. expats and excellent students, seems to be “intense and fierce”. Today,
countries, cities, universities, research centres and firms all around the world are competing
to maintain their attraction for highly skilled personnel in the various professional areas (As
Mahroum, 2001).
Ample literature can be found on the phenomenon of ‘brain drain’, which occurs
when the skilled migration flow is strongly focussed in one direction, potentially resulting in
a shortage of labour force in the sending country (e.g. Beine, Docquier & Rapoport, 2001;
Pellegrino, 2001; Straubhaar, 2000). In addition, there is the notion of ‘brain circulation’,
which refers to “long term subsequent expatriation of skilled personnel in and out of various
locations” (Mahroum, 2001, p. 171). An example of this is the cycle of students migrating to
pursue studies abroad, staying there to work for some time, and then returning to the home
country and make use of the skills and funds gained in the host country. This is often seen as
a positive form of mobility as it would provide ‘knowledge transfer’ and could thus be
beneficial for the skilled migrant as well as both sending and receiving country.
As was briefly mentioned in the introductory chapter, Singapore is one of the
countries that is greatly affected by, as well as an active participant in this ‘global talent war’
(Ng, 2011). In addition, since Singaporeans have a reputation of being highly educated and
hard-working (Goh, 1997, in Ng, 2011), other countries have sought to target them for their
13
own workforce, making the country a brain-drain victim. This realization by the Singapore
government has led to direct its own policies to actively recruit foreign talents as well, in
order to supplement its own fleeing local work force (Ng, 2011). The other side of its
response to the situation was to try and instil a sense of loyalty and responsibility to the
country, as well as an economic and pragmatic reasoning among its inhabitants. This was to
create a feeling of national duty to work to one’s full potential in order to stimulate the
country’s economy and would eventually be beneficial for them as well as it would make
Singapore a “world-class city with well paying jobs” (Ng, 2011, p. 264). The taking in of
foreign talents was framed in the same way, as was stated by the former Prime Minister Goh
Chok Tong during the National Day Rally speech in 1997:
“We can build the best home for Singaporeans only by tapping the best talent from
around the world. To have world-class universities for our children, we must attract the best
students and professors here. To have good jobs for our workers, we must attract the best
employers – which means the most talented professionals and entrepreneurs, and the
strongest companies in the world” (Goh, 1997 as cited in Ng, 2011, p. 264)
The clear and consistent strategy of the Singapore government was and is to attract foreign
talent and retain the ones that already study there. The Ministry of Education (MOE) heavily
subsidizes excellent foreign students’ education, which already makes sure only ‘high calibre
students’ get through the filter and into the Singapore education system. The next step is
keeping them in Singapore in order to contribute to its economy by working for an in
Singapore registered company. This is made sure by letting these students sign a contract
stating they will ‘serve the country’ for at least three years upon graduation from a
Singaporean university (Ng, 2011). The hope of the Singapore government is then that they
will become citizens and continue their careers in Singapore. This matter will be further
elaborated on in chapters four and five.
However, just as local Singaporeans, foreign talents are not always staying in
Singapore for the long term. Ng (2011, p. 266) argues that it is “the mobility of global
professionals” that challenges the commitment to a country. Whether it is (highly skilled)
Singaporean leaving the country, resulting in a brain drain, or foreign talents replacing them,
known as ‘brain gain’ (Mahroum, 2001), they have a negative effect on citizenship building.
14
This (attempted) instalment of a national identity and loyalty to the country, for example
through so called National Educationi, is aimed to tie its local as well as foreign people to the
country, making them either stay or eventually return to Singapore after making use of “new
economic opportunities in the world” (Ng, 2011, p. 266). This strategy was made abundantly
clear by the former Prime Minister Goh in the same speech as cited above, when he said:
“We must never forget that Singaporeans owe one another an obligation, and the more able
ones, in whom Singapore has invested the most, have a special obligation to society” (Goh,
1997 as cited in Ng, 2011, p. 264). The above shows that in Singapore the national discourse
involving staying in and belonging to the country is framed in purely economic terms. The
results discussed below make clear how the foreign talents in this study broadly share this
ideological framework as well.
In conclusion, there is the Singapore state on the one hand, initially drawing foreign
students in by means of attractive financial incentives, after which they are contractually
obliged to remain operational within the national economy for at least several years and
preferably longer. On the other hand, there is the family, which is eager to send its talented
family member abroad in order to reap educational as well as professional benefits. At the
same time, however, the loyalty and emotional ties to one’s family, in contrast to the nation,
seem to be very strong already as the above examples of homesickness and highly valued
familial commitment show. Due to these cultural and family ties, return migration, even
from developed nations such as Singapore to less-developed or developing nations (e.g.
China, Malaysia, Vietnam), is common (Regets, 2001). In addition, Butcher (2004), among
others, found that some of the East Asian international students he studied, expressed how
the responsibility for their family eventually drove them back to their birth country. It thus
seems that even though many Asian parents stimulate their children to pursue studies
abroad, they do expect them to eventually return home. Moreover, whereas two of the
stakeholders discussed in this chapter, i.e. the family and the state, initially seem to want the
same thing for these students, their goals divert at a certain moment, being return migration
and permanent residency in Singapore respectively. The most important stakeholder,
however, which is the student, seems to be stuck in the middle.
15
2.3 Structure of this thesis
As the previous paragraph makes clear, (besides for e.g. peers, professors, companies) three
main stakeholders can be distinguished in the context of the current study: the family, the
Singapore state and the excellent student. Based on the literature discussed above, areas of
tensions exist between these parties. These tensions can be captured in three main concepts
which will play a subtle or occasionally more apparent role throughout this thesis. These
concepts are choice (e.g. the extent to which excellent students feel they had/have agency
over their lifestyles), mobility (e.g. whether they see themselves as highly mobile people)
and belongingness (e.g. whether they identify themselves with the country they reside in
and the institutions they are members of). In the final chapter, the dialectic between these
stakeholders, concepts and the global hierarchy of mobility will be analysed in more detail.
First, however, a methodological chapter will follow, explaining how exactly the
current study was conducted. Thereafter follows a context chapter, painting a more detailed
picture of Singapore and the way its government aims to attract academically high
performing students from surrounding countries. Then, in chapter five, the results of this
study are presented, after which the closing chapter will follow, including a discussion,
several limitations and recommendations, and a final conclusion.
16
3. Method
3.1 Research strategy and methods applied
The current research employs a qualitative research strategy and is primarily inductive in
nature. Qualitative research is most appropriate for this study, since the research question is
a complex one and the phenomena of student mobility and the global hierarchy of mobility
need to be understood more deeply, rather than to be quantified. Since the link between
this field of study and excellent students is largely missing, more knowledge is needed in
order to fully comprehend foreign students’ experiences and to place this in the context of
(high) mobility and (privileged) migration. According to Van Maanen (2011, p. 222),
‘headwork’ (i.e. reading of the ethnographic literature) is always a large part of any research
project: “One could not pick up rocks without some sort of theory to guide them”. However,
in order to gain knowledge about a certain topic it is wise to be in a state of innocence (or
even ignorance) at the beginning of a study (Van Maanen, 2011). Therefore, and considering
the inductive and fairly explorative nature of this study and relatively novel research topic, I
did not enter the research field with pre-formed assumptions and hypotheses. Instead, I was
open towards any new information that might be of additional value to the study.
In addition, the epistemological issue of knowing whether a participant is telling you
what he truly thinks and feels or what he thinks he should think and feel cannot be ignored.
Powerful hegemonies, such as the Singaporean government and NUS, and the influence that
(Asian) culture and families have had on the students could make them hesitant in telling the
complete story. However, realizing that the first answer given is not always the most honest
one, and asking potentially sensitive questions in different ways and repeating them if
necessary, helped to truly get to know each participant and to find out what he truly thinks
about each subject.
3.1.1 Case study research
The data of this research was collected through an ethnographic case study. A case study can
be defined as in-depth, multifaceted research on a single social phenomenon, with the use
of qualitative research methods. It often involves an intensive study of a single unit with the
aim to generalize to a larger set of units (Gerring, 2004). The current research can, for
example, be compared to related studies, such as Seo and Koro-Ljungberg’s (2005) attempt
17
at capturing Korean student’s experiences in American higher education and research by Sun
et al. (2012) about educational stress among Chinese adolescents.
The nature of the case focused on can vary widely: it can, for example, be an
organization, a city, or a group of people. In the current study the case involves the latter,
namely excellent students studying abroad in a prestigious university, i.e. NUS. In order to
gain a full understanding of this group and how they position themselves in their (new)
environment, the focus will shift between micro (i.e. the students), meso (i.e. NUS) and
macro (i.e. Singapore) levels of analysis.
The method of case studies is, however, not an undisputed one. Although a large part
of today’s empirical knowledge is drawn from case studies and case studies continue to be
used widely, the method is often disregarded or simply ignored. A critique of the case study
method is that, while often the aim of social science is to generalize, this would not be
possible from a single case (Flyvbjerg, 2006). This argument does not seem to hold, however,
since the method allows for falsification, which makes it ‘ideal for generalizing’ (Flyvbjerg,
2006; Feagin, Orum & Sjoberg, 1991). Falsification allows scientific propositions to be
subjected: “if just one observation does not fit with the proposition, it is considered not valid
generally and must therefore be either revised or rejected” (Flyvjerg, 2006, p. 228). It is thus
certainly possible to generalize from a single case, and Flyvbjerg goes on by stating that
formal generalization can be overvalued as a source of scientific development, whereas “the
force of example” is underestimated.
Another critique on case studies is that it would be too subjective in nature, or
merely suited for pilot research instead of full-fletched studies. Continuing on the
statements made above, it is not verification, but falsification that characterizes case studies
(Flyvberg, 2006). Moreover, the risk of subjectivism and bias toward verification applies to
all methods (e.g. in choosing samples and categories for structured questionnaires), not just
to the case study. In addition, some say that general, theoretical (context-independent)
knowledge is superior to context-dependent knowledge, that is, the knowledge gained from
case study research. However, according to Flyvbjerg (2006), only through experience with
(single) cases it is possible to move from being a beginner to being an expert. He argues that
if people were exclusively trained in context-independent knowledge and rules (e.g.
knowledge that forms the basis of textbooks and computers), they would be stuck at the
level of a beginner in the learning process. In contrast, studying real-life situations including
18
all of its details makes it possible to develop a nuanced view of reality. Furthermore, cases
help researchers’ own learning processes and the development of the skills needed to do
good research.
Case studies often contain a substantial element of narrative. Since the nature of this
study’s topic is complex and multifaceted this can be a helpful tool, because good narratives
are believed to typically approach the complexities and contradictions of real life (Flyvbjerg,
2006). Such narratives can be difficult or impossible to summarize into neat scientific
formulae, general propositions, and theories which tends to be seen by critics of the case
study as a drawback. The case study researcher, however, often sees rich and hard-tosummarize narratives as signs that the study has exposed a particularly interesting
problematic. The aim of this study is, therefore, not to reduce its results to neat summaries
and clear-cut generalizing statements, but to accept and make use of the richness and
complexity of every narrative and example (Flyvbjerg, 2006). Furthermore, characteristic of
case studies is that they aim to capture people’s experiences in their natural, everyday lives
and circumstances, which make it possible to gain a greater understanding of larger social
processes of actors, actions and motives (Feagin, Orum & Sjoberg, 1991). Whereas most
quantitative research approaches people as though they live and act in isolation from each
other, a case study allows the researcher to see every actor as being influenced by their
entire social, geographical and organizational contexts. This will be particularly valuable for
the current study, since these contexts are highly important for drawing any conclusions
from the collected interview data.
3.2 Participants
In order to find participants contact was made with a current NUS-student and NUS-teacher.
The latter was currently teaching a course in which many foreign students were enrolled,
amongst who she selected several potential participants. These students were emailed by
both the teacher and myself with the question if they were willing to participate. Shortly
hereafter I arrived in Singapore. Based on their replies as well as on visits to several classes,
several excellent foreign students were selected and appointments for interviews were
made. Other participants were found through contacts of the Singaporean NUS-student. A
few additional participants were located through snowball sampling with the help of already
established interviewees. Through these strategies I was able to gain access to enough
19
valuable participants, while preventing the potential bias of finding them through the
networks of merely one contact person. Considering the fact that the participants were
deliberately selected based on their contribution to answering the research question,
purposive sampling was used. In addition, I employed the method of ‘sampling unique cases’,
since this specific group of cases itself is the main focus of the investigation, rather than a
certain issue (Teddlie & Yu, 2007).
In total, thirteen participants were interviewed. Four of them, who were believed to
have enough valuable input for another session, were met for a follow-up interview. Out of
all the participants, nine were male and four were female. Eleven of them were born in East,
South or South-East Asia, of which three in China, two in Hongkong, two in Malaysia and one
in India, Thailand, Cambodia, Singapore as well as Vietnam. The fact that the largest part of
the sample consists of people from Malaysia and the People’s Republic of China (in this case
China and Hongkong) is a good reflection of Singapore’s multiethnic population, since these
are by far the largest ethnic groups, with 74% being Chinese, and 14% being Malay (Tambyah
& Tan, 2012). Two of the interviewees differed from the others in their origin, which was
European, and migration histories, i.e. both had lived in several countries due to their
parents’ careers. Even though the focus of the current study lies on the excellent Asian
students, these students could also provide for valuable input concerning the meso- and
maco-context of the study, which are NUS and Singapore respectively. In addition, I
occasionally had (informal) conversations with several local NUS students.
A schematic representation of the participants is shown below.
Name*
Liani
Emma
Siân
Sarun
Minh
Simon
Vishesh
Jian
Wang Wei
Sanul
Yiwen
Konstantin
Phillipe
Age
20
20
20
19
19
21
20
19
22
20
20
23
22
Sex
Female
Female
Female
Female
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Birth country
Malaysia
Hongkong
Singapore
Thailand
Vietnam
China
India
Malaysia
China
Cambodia
China
Germany
France
Years in Singapore
3
17
16,5
8
2
5
1
1
4
5
6
1/2
1/2
Table 1. Student demographics
*Permission has been given by the students to use their real names
20
Number of interviews
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
3.3 Data collection
During the months of March and April 2013 I stayed in Singapore with the aim to observe
students in their educational environment of NUS and to interview them. All of the selected
foreign NUS students were interviewed at the same location in Utown, NUS’ campus. This
area was chosen on the basis of its central position in the
area, with an overview on the entire campus. In this way, it
was easy for the students to refer to specific location on
campus such as their residence, which could be seen from
this spot as well. In addition, the location was filled with
studying NUS students which made the interview clearly
situated in the meso-context, i.e. de educational
environment of the university. However, since we sat outside,
in front of the cosy Utown Starbucks, it was still a relatively
informal and social environment, which stimulated the
Figure 1. The interview location
students to talk more freely and honestly.
The interviews were characterized by the duration and quality of the contact
between researcher and researched, and the ‘quality of the emerging relationship’ between
researcher and participant (Heyl, 2001). This is a relationship, Watson (2011, p. 212) argues,
“in which the subject feels confident to challenge the researcher and contribute to the
shaping of the conversation, as opposed to falling into line with the interviewer’s priorities
and preconceptions”. This was achieved by framing the conversation as an informal talk
rather than an interview, by asking open questions and by trying to maintain an open
atmosphere. The interviews often started with a bit of small talk, often about how I liked my
stay in Singapore, or the (usually extreme) weather conditions of that day. This, together
with the characteristics of the interview location put the participants at ease, often resulting
in them providing elaborate, narrative-like answers, as if they were telling me a story rather
than formal clear cut answers.
3.4 Data analysis
After each interview the recorded data were transcribed, analyzed and coded. Codes were
based on the major themes of the study: mobility, choice and belongingness, among others.
Field notes and pictures were analysed on these three concepts as well. In addition,
21
collected university documents and information on the websites of the universities were
critically examined and compared to the other collected data. Through this triangulation
between different kinds of data collection, these methods were mutually adjusted, e.g.
questions to participants were based on interesting findings from other interviews,
observations and documents. To make sure this technique could also be used on the first
interviewed participants, some of them were asked for a follow-up interview so that newly
gained insights could be discussed (as can be seen in table 1).
In order to guarantee high quality research, several steps have been taken to improve
its validity and reliability. First, even though the three main concepts are fairly broad and
general, they together encapsulate the research question and this reflected in the interview
questions, striving for high construct validity. As for internal validity, ethnographic research
is most appropriate for answering the research question, seen the complexity and relatively
unexplored link of outstanding students to the global hierarchy of mobility. Furthermore, the
external validity of the study is strong because participants were found through the
universities themselves, students of the universities and through the snowball-effect, which
provided for a variety of participants and limited bias.
22
4. Research Context
4.1 Singapore
Singapore’s society is made up of four ethnic groups. Chinese are dominant (74%), followed
by Malays (14%), Indians (9%) and ‘others’ (3%), of which the latter are mostly Eurasian
(Department of Statistics, 2012). In addition, there is considerable diversity in the practice of
religion. Eighty-three percent of Singaporean society adheres to a particular religion, of
which Buddhism (33.3%), Christianity (18.3%), Islam (14.7%), and Hinduism (10.9%) are the
biggest ones (Department of Statistics, 2010). Lastly, concerning its multilingual nature,
Singapore’s national language is Malay, but the other official languages are English,
Mandarin and Tamil, which are widely spoken by the Singaporean population (Tan, 2012;
Tambyah & Tan, 2012). Ever since the seventies of the previous century, Singapore has
focused on improving its position economically and as a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and
multi-lingual society. Whereas in many countries it is played down, Singapore 'race relations'
are seen as something to be stressed and highlighted as a feature of everyday social and
cultural life (Huat, 2003). By viewing and defining every Singaporean citizen in these
racialising terms, it seems like a ‘Singaporean’ culture or identity seems hard to define, at
least without using racial boundaries
(Huat, 2003). In spite of this, the
government does try to promote a
common national identity and social
cohesion (Alviar-Martin & Ho, 2011), e.g.
by advertising phrases such as “many
races, one nation” (see figure 2).
Figure 2. A road sign in Singapore saying ‘many races, one nation’
4.2 The attraction of excellent foreign students
Singapore’s education policies mainly involve around becoming, or maintaining, the
educational hub of Asia (e.g. Kell & Vogl, 2012). Therefore, foreign scholars and students are
encouraged to work or study in the country. Scholarship programs have been created and
Singapore’s MOE each year selects high performing pupils and young students from
neighbouring countries who are ‘invited’ to continue their studies in Singapore (e.g. Ng,
2011).
23
Two scholarships for excellent non-Singaporean students are available at NUS: the
ASEAN scholarship, for citizens of ASEAN countries (excluding Singapore) and the Science &
Technology Undergraduate Scholarship (STUS) for undergraduate freshmen in NUS of Asian
nationality. ASEAN is a regional alliance based on economic cooperation. Members of this
grouping, and thus countries of which citizens can apply for the first scholarship, are Brunei,
Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, the Philippines and Vietnam
(Tambyah & Tan, 2012). To be eligible for these scholarships students must meet certain
requirements, such as having done “consistently well in their school examinations”, being
proficient in English and a having participated in enough co-curricular activities, that is (e.g.
sport-related, musical, organizational) activities that are not a part of the normal curriculum
of the university (“Scholarships for non-Singapore Citizens”, 2012). What exactly counts as
‘consistently well’, ‘proficient’ and ‘enough’ is not clearly stated. If one gets through the first
selection round, the student is invited for a scholarship interview, at which leadership skills,
co-curricular records and other capabilities are assessed. NUS stresses on its website that
the selection of these students is “strictly based on academic merit”, again an example of
Singapore’s fixation on meritocracy (“Scholarships for non-Singapore Citizens”, 2012).
Both scholarships cover, among other costs, tuition fees, a ‘settling-in allowance’ (of
S$500 and S$200 respectively for each scholarship), an accommodation allowance and a
return flight to Singapore. The scholarship takes care of the fees for the entire length of
undergraduate studies, under the condition that the students maintain a minimum
Cumulative Average Point (CAP) of 3.5. This is seen to most carefully, since the students’
academic performance is screened every semester. If the scholar decides to end the
scholarship before graduating, the university enforces a ‘repayment’ on the student. In
addition, because the MOE subsidises the tuition fees for each scholarship student, they
require, as some sort of fair exchange, that each student will work at a Singapore-registered
company of their choice for three (for the ASEAN scholarship) or six (for STUS ) years upon
their graduationii.
For the scholarship applicant, there can be several reasons to pick up the government
scholarship. Some want to study abroad, but do not have the means to cover the costs, since
overseas education can cost five times more than the partly subsidized local college
education (Soon, 2001). Others who are able to pay for everything may apply for the
scholarship for the prestige of being chosen as a government scholar after an exceedingly
24
strict selection process (Soon, 2001). The government’s aim of these scholarships, on the
other hand, is to attract “young people classified as intelligent, who shall be beneficial for
the economy later on” (Thimm, 2013, p. 1). Singapore has one of the lowest birth rates in
the world, and it is thus hoped and expected that these excellent students will stay and work
in the country after their ‘bond’ ends.
As a consequence of these scholarships, the National University of Singapore now for
a large part consists of foreign students, that is, 20 percent of the undergraduate student
body and 50 percent of graduate students (Shin-Who, 2009). According to Perry Lim,
director of higher education at Singapore’s MOE, this is not only for the good of the country,
but it benefits Singaporean citizens on a personal level as well. He states that “it is essential
for our universities to admit good foreign students to create the vibrancy and diversity
necessary to make our universities the first class institutions that Singaporeans deserve”
(Lim, 2007).
A considerable part of this group of foreign students consists of academically high
performing Chinese students. With the opening up of China’s economy since the late 1970s,
an increasing amount of Chinese citizens look for opportunities abroad, of which many end
up in Singapore (Tsang, 2001). Besides the financial benefits that come with the scholarships
another reason that the Chinese, and many other South-East Asians, find Singapore a natural
choice might be that it is comparable in terms of culture. Compared to Western countries,
Tsang (2001) argues, Singapore is a country where Asian students are likely to blend into
society more easily. That is, it has been found that the closer the student culture is to that of
the host community, the easier the interaction and adjustment will be (Mehdizadeh & Scott,
2005).
Even though the influx of so called foreign talents is framed by the government as
being essential for Singapore’s survival as a Tiger Economy (next to Hong Kong, South Korea,
and Taiwan) and ultimately beneficial for every member of society, (quiet) sounds of protest
towards the increasing number of foreigners making up Singapore’s populace are beginning
to emerge (Tambyah & Tan, 2012). While Singapore has always been a plural society, its
diversity has been more noticeable than ever in recent years during which the part of
foreigners grew towards the current one-third of Singapore’s 5.2 million people (Tan, 2012).
A survey conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies in 2010 reported that 63 percent of
Singaporeans (compared to 38 percent in 1998), agree or strongly agree that if the number
25
of foreigners would grow further this would weaken the feeling of being part of one, unified
nation (Ramesh & Chan, 2010). This does not mean, however, that the locals do not see the
necessity of these skilled foreigners and that they are against them entering the country all
together. In fact, the same survey pointed out that an even higher percentage (66%) agreed
with the government to increase the number of foreign workers when it is beneficial for the
country’s economy. In the result section below it can be read that participants in the current
study broadly share this way of thinking, and their underlying motives for this are discussed
in detail.
26
5. Results
5.1 The scholarship contract
As mentioned above, the Singapore MOE gives out scholarships to top performing students
in other Asian countries. Before the start of the selection round, consisting of a test and
interviews, these students’ teachers informed them about the possibility to sign up and
suggested them to do so. As can be concluded from the interviews, the students’ parents
would additionally stimulate their children to apply, framing it as a unique opportunity to
receive free, high quality education. The students often do not think to doubt their parents’
advice and ‘just go for it’. In retrospect, however, it is acknowledged by the students that the
choice to do so is not fully theirs. For instance, when I asked Minh, a student from Vietnam,
what happened when his dad suggested him to go to Singapore, he answered: “[t]hen that
was that, if he thinks it’s good it should be good”. Wang Wei, from China, replied to a similar
question: “[f]or me, I think the decision was made 80% by my parents and 20% by myself”.
In addition, not only the family played a big role in the decision to pursue studies in
Singapore; pressure from the Singapore government, NUS and the students’ high schools
contributed as well. The following comment by Wang Wei shows how these institutions use
their hegemonic powers to lead the student into thinking that, once they have been selected,
they have little choice other than to continue the process:
“Actually, after the results of the selection were released we still have a chance to
reject, but at that time we were told by our teacher that if you were selected by the program
you cannot reject the offer, you must go. (...) They said if you reject the offer then the
Singapore government and the Chinese government will have a bad impression of our school,
so you’d better not reject the offer. So we were told before the examination. So before I did
the examination I had already decided that if I was selected I would definitely go, I would not
choose to reject”
Yiwen had a similar experience when questioning the actual choice he had as a student. He
said he wanted to “give it a try” after his teacher mentioned the scholarship to him, not
having made a definite decision yet. When he asked another, Singaporean teacher if there
was still a chance to reject after he had passed the selection procedure, however, her
reaction was utter surprise. This made Yiwen think his question was a “silly” one, which
27
stopped him from asking any further. When I asked him if it would have made a difference if
she would have said yes he replied: “If she said yes, which means I had a choice, I would
have asked more questions. If there was a choice. It seems for me that there was no choice”.
Furthermore, he was told that if students would decline this might result in too low a
number of qualified students entering NUS. Yiwen acknowledged that this affected his
decision to go through with the process as well.
Generally, however, looking back on the time the students were asked by their
teachers if they wanted to sign up, most of them realized how indifferent their reactions
were. Wang Wei’s answer to his teacher’s suggestion was “I don’t mind” and Sarun stated
that at the time he “didn’t think much” and just “went with the flow”. As these, and more,
examples show, it was always their teacher who let them know about the possibility of going
to Singapore, and it were usually the parents who said it would be a good decision, which
eventually led the neutral, indifferent child to sign up.
Furthermore, when the students are in fact accepted into NUS and receive their ‘free,
high quality education’, it is clear to them that they are expected to stay, preferably even
after their bond has ended. Or, in Simon’s case, also when there is no bond at all:
“for my program (...) it’s called SM1, (...) there’s no bondiii. In this case they just
provide you with free accommodation, they cover you tuition fees, everything will be settled
for you. (...) But the people at MOE, they’re not stupid. Of course they have a kind of
rationale behind this. So after four years you’re more or less localized, you’ve gotten used to
this kind of environment. And therefore you may want to consider to settle down. And also
after four years you may think about going to the UK or the US, but this is still very expensive
for us. So we compromise and try to settle down here and study at NUS or NTU (...). So
actually they know more or less that you’ll be staying here after four years”
However, if you decide to stay in Singapore after the contract ends, like he did, he has to
apply for an additional scholarship, which does involve a bond. This example shows that the
Singapore government’s ways to increase the chances of their foreign talents to stay are
known and broadly understood. Moreover, the rationale behind it, sustaining the country’s
economy, seems to be accepted or even appreciated. This sometimes manifested itself into
propaganda-like statements, such as Simon’s comment: “We need fresh blood for this
28
country, we need new ideas”. Even though Simon is originally from China, his statement
shows that he considers Singapore to be ‘his country’, and he even seems to have taken over
a feeling of responsibility towards it. Jian found that the government has “no other choice”
than to look for foreign talents to enlarge their workforce, since “Singaporeans are not giving
birth to new babies”. Minh added to this that although Singaporeans “always complain there
are too many migrants” and “say we steal their jobs”, the fact is that Singapore needs
immigrants to survive as a country.
The problem that the government is facing, however, is that despite its efforts many
foreign talents do not stay in Singapore as long as the government would want them to.
Minh stated that most students leave the country as soon as their bond has ended – either
to go back to their home country or to migrate elsewhere. He noted that “the financial aid
that they give us in the first place is very attractive, but after 3 or 5 years we all start to get
bored with this place. (...) The point of the financial aid is to attract more manpower to
Singapore, but they only can keep us for 3 or 5 years, after that it’s impossible”.
To at least keep students in Singapore as long as the contract states, serious
consequences exist if students want to quit their studies before the end of the bond. They
are well aware of this and accept the fact that, whether they like it or not, they will finish the
bond. Not only the costs appear to make it a risky decision to break the scholarship contract;
social factors make it difficult for the students to quit as well. Minh, for instance, explained
how he would lose face if he did:
“Paying the money is one thing. But also how people will look at me, and what other
options do I have? You just ask yourself those kind of simple questions and then you realize
quitting NUS is not a good decision.”
Although they acknowledged being privileged for coming to Singapore, they do not
necessarily see themselves as ‘privileged migrants’ or highly mobile people. Simon said he
cannot call himself “internationally mobile”, because he actually rather wanted to study in
the United States, where he got rejected for a scholarship. The only way he could have still
gone there was if he paid large sums of money, which he did not think was worth it. He did
not see that much difference between studying in the US and in Singapore, so he argued he
did not mind, at the same time admitting “to some extent it restricts my mobility”. He said
29
that in order to be completely mobile he would have to be able to choose to go wherever he
wanted; instead he has to stay in Singapore, even after studies. He admitted that this felt as
a “constraint”, which makes him feel “not 100% privileged”.
Sonal did not see himself as highly mobile, as he said he just happens “to be within
the category that does not stay somewhere all the time”. He did think of himself as a
privileged migrant, however, because he had moved within the community of his father and
now by means of a scholarship program. He felt lucky for the support that was continuously
offered . He argued: “whenever I move it’s under a scholarship from my dad or myself, so
there are frameworks, communities of students that support”.
5.2 Singapore: the land of opportunity
Even though they often acknowledged that they did not have full agency over their
migration to Singapore, most students explained it as a positive development. They
described studying in Singapore as a ‘good opportunity’ and a ‘valuable experience’ that will
be useful for achieving a successful future. Summarizing the process of getting sent abroad
by her parents Siân said the following: “I think the point was: my parents actually made the
decision, but (...) they were right, it was a really good opportunity”. The ‘opportunities’ that
Singapore offers, as is mentioned many times by the students, and its general living
conditions were viewed as valid reasons for their parents to send them away. Comments
such as: “I think it’s a better place to start a career and it’s a safer place to start a family”,
uttered by Sonal show a general trend among the students.
Even the fact that these students must ‘serve the country’, i.e. work for a company
registered in Singapore for three to six years after graduation, was often framed as an
understandable, or even appreciated consequence of the contractiv. Wang Wei said he could
not help looking at it in an objective way, as “the offer is that you get free university
education, so you must do something in return: you cannot get free education and after you
finish you leave, that should not be the case”. He added that he did not think it is a bad thing,
but potentially a “valuable experience”. This opinion was shared by Jian who found
Singapore a “good place to gain experience”. He stated to be thankful for the fact that
Singapore has made him more competitive and knowing that he will eventually return to
Malaysia helps him cope with the stress of studying at NUS. He added: “The contract is giving
30
me 66% discount on my studies, and the only thing they ask in return is to work here for 3
years.”
The fact that their parents strongly encouraged, or even pushed, these students to
choose for Singapore is also broadly understood, and some students claimed that they
would do the same if they would be in their shoes. Jian explained this has to do with quality
differences in education between Singapore and, for example, Malaysia and added:
“... for Malaysians, if they have the money they’ll send their children overseas. The
Malaysian education system is hopeless in a way. If people can, they’ll go overseas. If they
get good results they can get scholarships. Some who are not that well off they’ll take loans
and stuff just to study overseas”
Simon on the other hand, explained that the reason Chinese parents are sending
their children abroad not so much has to do with educational standards, but with the
competiveness of getting into one of the two top universities in China (i.e. Bejing University
and Tsinghua University). He argued that if he would be a father in China, he would always
want his child to study overseas. Simon said that as in Malaysia, many parents in China are
trying really hard and spend large sums of money to get their child to study abroad.
Furthermore, he concluded by saying that:
“This kind of intention is not originated from the kid, but from the parents. And
therefore, to some extent the kid was actually pushed by the parents to go overseas, but for
them they don’t really feel like going overseas”.
He thus acknowledged the fact that it is the parents who want this for their children, and not
necessarily the children for themselves. Even though he has been in this position himself, he
still stated he would do the same if he was a parent.
In addition, Minh was of the opinion that people in general do not have as much
freedom as they like to believe and that as soon as you realize this “you have to accept this
as a fact of life”. He knew he could not quit studying at NUS, but he believed this is no
different from someone who needs money and cannot quit his job at, for example, a coffee
shop. He argued that both him and
31
“those people who work for Starbucks, we are all realizing this is not the best [and] it
doesn’t mean that we couldn’t switch to another job, switch to another life (...) but then after
considering the pay off, we won’t switch”.
He realized that if he would choose to go back to his birth country of Vietnam, or
continue his studies at another, “more relaxed institution”, this would cost him. He
concluded that these costs outweigh the benefits of switching, which led him to realize that
he, and anyone else for that matter, does not have much choice. Later he added that he
found “the whole idea of doing whatever you want not realistic”, making abundantly clear
his realistic and objective perspective on the issue.
Furthermore, some students, such as Simon, framed their move as a challenge that
they wanted to ‘conquer’. The discovery that this challenge was bigger than they initially
thought, due to a higher academic burden or homesickness, often led to frustration. This,
however, never led these students to consider going back home. Sarun for example stated:
“I got homesick and I felt terrible, but I never thought of going back. And my parents
never thought of bringing me back also, because I think they felt like a decision has been
made, for the future, this is tied up.”
She thus knew that her parents expected her to stick through the whole process of
studying and working in Singapore whatever happened. Because all students, apart from the
two Europeans, had already lived in Singapore for at least a year at the time of this study,
they were able to reflect on their adaptation process compared to their current status.
When doing this, the students expressed that, despite their struggles, they were grateful to
study in Singapore and none of them regretted the ‘choice’ to do so.
5. 3 The role of the family
Even though they did not see the fact that their parents sent them to Singapore as a
negative development, they did acknowledge the large role their family plays in their lives.
Not only the decision to migrate to Singapore, but the majority of the students’ choices are
made with their families in the back of their heads. Sonal, a Cambodian student, stated “I
32
cannot only think about myself, I need to consider other people’s feelings, like my parents’”.
These considerations also include future plans, which will sometimes result in them moving
back to their birth country in order to be there for their parents. Wang Wei figured that he
will probably stay in Singapore until he is around 40 years old. After this, depending on the
health of his parents, he feels he needs to go back to China to take care of them. Even
though he acknowledged he will probably have gotten used to the life in Singapore, he
stated that “it’s the responsibility that drives me back”.
Siân, having spent the largest part of her life in Singapore, tried to explain this
phenomenon by using a metaphor Aravind Adiga’s (2008) uses in his book The White Tiger
about the Indian caste system:
“I don’t know if you’ve read Aravind Adiga’s ‘The White Tiger’? But there was an
analogy of a rooster coop. So you keep chickens in a cage and then there’s a board on top of
the cage and there’s a butcher that’s killing chickens on top of the board and the blood all
drips down to all the other living chickens and they’re really scared as well because they can
smell death, but they don’t try to escape. And the reason for that is also because of the
family. Your family is the one that keeps you there; you need to be there, you need to protect
them. So if you try to escape the cook (...) you’ll be condemning the rest of the family, so they
just survive the best they can.”
She went on by stating that the fact that you are responsible for your family is an
Asian mindset which is passed down to every child. She added that “[i]t’s really hard to
justify Asian values”, but it is a feeling of not being able to leave your family members
behind to, for example, “wallow in poverty or wallow in their own mess”. She concluded by
saying that most people do not experience this consciously – “like we can see the cook” –
but she did call it a restriction, and added that “we do consider our families when we make
decisions, and they comprise a very big part of our decision making”. Whereas most students
did not seem to be consciously aware of how their families exactly executed their power on
them and how they perceive this, Siân is a good example of how a unique case can provide
for valuable insights on a certain topic (as was argued in chapter three). Minh agreed with
the Siân in that most people are not aware of this restriction. He claimed he did not feel
pressured. “Maybe because I come from an Asian culture and (...) there’s something in
33
Confucianism that says whatever your parents say, just do it. I think I have been conditioned
that way, so I don’t feel pressure”, he stated.
Vietnam and Singapore are both so called neo-Confucian states. Besides reverence
for elders, and thus parents, Confucianism emphasizes the values of loyalty to the king,
sincerity to friends, benevolence and self-cultivation (Seo & Koro-Ljungberg, 2005). In
addition, in neo-Confucian societies the way to gain privileges and social respect is to gain
high and prestigious positions in society. Because of this emphasis on power and prestige,
great value is attached to people’s academic background. Therefore, educational
performance is one of the most important factors in the evaluation of the abilities and
values of others in these societies (Seo & Koro-Ljungberg, 2005). Many of the results
discussed in this chapter can be interpreted in the light of these Confucian values.
Siân’s parents sent her to Australia to experience a different (educational)
environment at age 15. After 3,5 years she came back to Singapore, where her parents lived,
because she wanted to be there for them. She related this experience to the metaphor
described above, as she stated that her parents did not lead her in the decision whether to
stay or come back, but “it is really hard to explain why” she did come back. Because she has
read the book, however, she consciously acknowledges that there is such a consideration.
She called it a “self-imposed kind of restriction”, saying that “family has that much
importance in my life, therefore I make decisions based on what I think is best for the
family”.
Summarizing Siân’s story, she was sent by her family to Australia even though she
actually did not want to (“I was really, really apprehensive”), and when she, after 3,5 years,
finally felt at home there, it was again her family that made her decide to come back. Still
not a single negative comment about this is made by her or any of the participants. The
above described metaphor helps to comprehend this trend.
When I asked another participant, Wang Wei, if it would suffice for him to send
money to his parents back in China, which would make them able to take care of themselves,
he counters this by saying that “it’s not about the money, it’s about mental responsibility,
the culture in China”. A final striking example of how strong this family influence can be is
Simon. He was very aware of the pressure that is put on him and explained how important
his family’s opinion is:
34
“I have a very strong (...) burden, which comes from people’s expectation of me, for
example my parents and my friends. First my parents, because they always say ‘this child is
(...) very smart, so maybe he should be someone who can achieve something big’. That’s why,
to some extent, they keep this kind of pressure. Because I feel that they expect me to be
someone who is good, or great. So I should strive for that purpose, for that goal. (...) I want
to at least maintain their good opinion of me.”
He argued that he has to account for all people in his social circle: his parents, friends, even
his parents’ friends, and how they view him affects his happiness. When I, however, ask him
if he thought it would be different if this pressure was absent, he replied:
“Yeah definitely, if I imagine now I would be living on an isolated island, no one
surrounding me, I would just slack every day. (...) It’s a very good life if I could have a slacking
lifestyle, (...) I always dream about it. It’s just not really credible. But definitely I wish I could
have such a life.”
Even though he just stated the image his family has of him defines his happiness, he
does admit he would be happier if this did not play a role. He, however, stated that as he is
from China he is expected to be responsible for not only for his parents, but also for his
grandparents, “maybe an uncle, aunt of even brother in law”. He added that when someone
is “the star of the family”, i.e. the one with most potential to be successful in later life, he or
she is expected to care about the welfare of the people who are “lagging behind”. This
means that he has to account for the people in his family who are financially less well off,
even though his success will not directly benefit them financially. It is, according to Wang
Wei, mainly about the fact that “they have something to brag about”, as knowing and telling
others you have a family member who is successful educationally or professionally is a way
to gain face. This in turn pleases him, as he said: “[t]he feeling of ‘I actually gave the pride to
them’, also makes me happy.”
Another fact that made the role of family clear, is that most students found that the
country where their parents live will always be their ‘home’. Minh was very clear about this:
35
“I think most importantly is family, wherever my family is, that is where my home is.
So even though I have friends here, there is an even more important factor and that is family.
Without my family it’s never a real home here. Unless my parents move here and then this
will be home”
Also when the concept of home is not necessarily an issue, the mere fact that one’s family is
somewhere else causes the student to return to his or her birth country regularly. The fact
that they know they can travel back and forth is often the factor that makes them okay with
their displacement. Simon, for example, expressed that he did not mind living in Singapore,
“as long as I can go back to China regularly”. This has everything to do with the importance
of parents and relatives and not so much with the connection to his birth town or his high
school friends. That is, coming to Singapore usually resulted in the breaking of these ties. As
Simon concluded: “Actually I’ve lost all my friendships there already. So actually the only
reason that drives me to China is to see my parents, to see my relatives.”
5.4 Why Singapore?
Singapore is located relatively near all the students’ birth countries, as they are all Asian
states. This has shown to be a factor for them choosing Singapore rather than the United
Kingdom or United States, also popular destinations for Asian students due to their good
reputations concerning education. Jian, for example, stated that if he would study in the UK
he would have to spend a thousand dollars just to fly back, whereas living in Singapore
enables him to simply take a bus to go back to Malaysia.
Emma additionally mentioned the linguistic and cultural similarities between the
place where she was born, Hongkong, and Singapore. She stated that besides the fact that it
is closest to Hongkong, people from both countries can communicate with each other and
culture-wise they are similar. For her parents this was an important reason to send her to
Singapore, she stated. Vishesh also mentioned that his parents saw the resemblance
between India and Singapore as a reason to choose Singapore. His father told him it would
be more ‘his kind of place’ and more ‘similar to his mindset’.
Besides reasons concerning cultural similarities and proximity there are additional
causes for students, or their parents, to choose Singapore as a study location. For Jian, for
example, continuing his studies in Malaysia was not possible. He explained that his father
36
had sent him to a Chinese high school in Malaysia instead of a regular national one, because
of its higher educational standards and highly disciplined student body. This, however
automatically meant that he would not be able to go to university in Malaysia, since these
do not recognize certificates obtained at Chinese schools. The rationale behind this is that
the Malaysian government believes that a country should not have two education systems
and “they prohibit universities that use Chinese as a medium of language to be established”.
Although Jian was not fully aware of this, this meant that at the moment he entered high
school at least his father knew he would be going abroad for tertiary education. The only
other option was to go to the UK or continental Europe, but this was too expensive.
Jian also mentioned as the reason his father did not let him study at a Malaysian
school is that the Malaysian education system is “hopeless”. Another example is Liani, also
from Malaysia, who got an offer to study her favourite subject, archaeology, at her home
town, but she rejected. Her reason for this was that "NUS has this higher rank, and they got
good professors, and (...) Malaysian universities are known for being (...) not as good”. She
explains how in Malaysia your grades depend on whether or not the teacher knows or likes
you, and how she would not learn anything, any skills, if she would stay in Malaysia. Studying
in Singapore, Liani found, would challenge her and even if she would fail she would learn
something.
Besides the meritocratic approach of NUS that the students seem to prefer over a
more subjective way of grading, issues such as Singapore’s living conditions in general are
valued in comparison to the their home countries as well. When I asked him why he chose
Singapore, Wang Wei said this even was the most important factor for him:
“Singapore has a high standard of living, good infrastructure, the public
transportation, the food, the public service, the government, they’re of the highest standards
in the world actually. I think for me, and I think for everyone else, a better living environment,
I think of this more than everything else.”
Both Jian and Yiwen mentioned the chance to study at a high ranked university as an
‘opportunity’. Yiwen explained that in his move to Singapore he was “driven by pride”.
Studying overseas is found to be “something you can talk about”, as Yiwen argued, which
gives him a good feeling. The term ‘studying overseas’ is used extensively and always with a
37
positive connotation: an aim to strive for, something to be proud of. The fact that, for
example, Jian uses it as well, while in fact Singapore can be reached in an hour by bus from
Malaysia, makes clear the established status of the term.
The fact that these students are able to study at a highly prestigious university,
without having to pay high tuition fees, makes many students frame it as good ‘value for
money’, as Vishesh explained:
“Obviously it’s great value for money, because I am paying a fraction of the money I
would have to pay elsewhere, for education and in an environment which are, I think, both
far superior to the universities I’ve been to”.
Another factor making Singapore a popular destination for some is the fact that the
professional and achievement focussed atmosphere in Singapore is found convenient.
Compared to China for example, Wang Wei explained, Singapore has many resources, e.g.
job opportunities, experiences, connections with people from all over the world. In addition,
Simon sees as one of Singapore’s best qualities its transparency. He explained that in China it
is more corrupt: “there’s more backdoor policy”. Even though Singapore is a very stressful
society, he stated, the fact that they emphasize a lot on meritocracy (“if you do good than
you deserve a better life”), makes this worth it. He said that this causes for “a sense of
achievement if you can manage to get a decent job, because it shows that you really have
the ability”. He compared this to China, where “a higher income does not mean you are
more capable: maybe you have a more powerful father”. Living in Singapore, he feels that he
can try to prove himself, "to really work to the top by my own ability”. The fact that
Singapore is a very “stifling”, stressful society is also acknowledged by Emma, but she as well
takes this for granted. For her it is the safety of Singapore, compared to Hongkong, that
makes it a better place to live.
5.5 Kiasuism, mugging and the bell curve
It was acknowledged that not only the students’ family but also the Singaporean society puts
pressure on their academic performance, as Simon stated:
38
“We know the government tries to push us so hard, that’s how society views people,
they view people based on their performance. If you’re good at study, then they’ll view you
as high class people”
It thus seems that someone is only valued in society if one performs well (e.g. academically).
This is, however, not necessarily seen as bad thing, but rather a simple fact of life. For Simon
this even seems to come natural, as it is in his culture to always strive to be the best: “It’s
something that most Chinese Singaporeans have from themselves”. He called this ‘kiasu’,
which means that “people here, the Singaporean Chinese, try very hard to get the best of
everything, they don’t want to lag behind, with anything. For example when a new store
opens, they’ll be the first to queue at the line. It’s a kind of spirit, kiasu. It has actually
become a culture”.
The term Kiasu originated in Singapore, and it entails “an obsessive concern with
getting the most out of every transaction and a desire to get ahead of others” (Hwang, Ang,
& Francesco, 2002). The literal translation in Hokkien, a Chinese dialect that is popular in
Singapore, is ‘afraid to lose’. Kiasuism has also been defined as the obsessive desire for value
for money represented as a national fixation in Singapore (Hwang, Ang, & Francesco, 2002).
According to Hwang, Ang and Francesco (2002) the kiasu attitude to a great extent underlies
the view on education, work, and other aspects of the lives of young Singaporeans. This
attitude can be seen as having positive as well as negative sides. Striving to be best at
everything will often lead to hard work and good results. However, it can also lead to
selfishness and an inconsiderate mindset, as one’s own benefits are always superior to the
other’s (perhaps except for those of family members).
This is in line with the data collected in the current study. When I asked her to
describe Singaporeans, Emma replied: “people in Singapore tend to be self-absorbed. I mean
that’s the nature of our society: if you’re busy and stuff you don’t have time for anybody
else”. Liani added to this that Singaporeans are “not that easy going”, “goal oriented”,
“individualistic” and “they try to be better than they are”.
Siân (who grew up in Singaporean) discusses this phenomenon in the light of
Singapore’s national discourse on its economy:
39
“I don’t think it’s that we have competiveness inbuilt, it’s not part of our biological
make up. A few things come together and make it so. So our economy for one: we are
brought up being taught, and rightly so, that Singapore is a small country. We don’t have
natural resources, our main resource are ourselves, the human resource. So the only way we
can stay competitive in the world stage is to keep upgrading ourselves. So the human is being
pushed to the limits of what they can do mentally, (...) so that Singapore can stay competitive.
So it’s framed in our national discourse that we have almost a national duty, you know, to do
better”
The fact that she thinks it is “rightly so” that from a young age Singaporeans are told that
they are responsible for their country’s economical health shows how strongly this message
has been conveyed to Singaporeans of all ages.
Besides Kiasu, Simon mentioned a related term only used in Singapore, which is
‘mugging’, meaning studying extensively hard. He stated that “people in the kiasu culture”,
such as himself, “they mug every day” and Singapore is a typical ‘mugging culture’. He
expressed the need to position himself as someone who is hard working and who receives
good results. This is why he needs to “force” himself to study hard, while it at the same time
is something that “comes from within”, based on his value system and personality. The fear
of lagging behind and the need “to keep up with the best” make that he, and other kiasu
students with him, will try to get the best grades possible and study extensively in order to
achieve this.
The grade system based on a bell curve in place at NUS plays a role in the student’s
high work ethos in this as well. Bell curve grading is a method of assigning students' grades
based on their relative performance in comparison to their classmates' performance. This
means that however close the results in a class may be there will always be a part that is
labelled as least performing, a large part that is mediocre and a small group that scores
exceedingly well. Liani stated that “because of the bell curve, even if you do really well, you
can still get a B or a C, so there’s more pressure on that”. Jian pointed out how many
students in Singapore find this unfair, as the Singapore government brings in the very best
students from abroad, of which a large part is Chinese. About this latter group Jian noted:
“[They] are chosen from a 1.3 billion population, and you choose, like, the top 0.5% and you
put it all into a university. It actually kills them [the Singaporean students], makes it too hard
40
for them to cope.” Jian added that it is because of the constant pressure that is put on you
as a student they all study so hard. Minh explained that what NUS expects from its students
is ‘self-learning’. This means that teachers only give brief overviews of what they expect
them to know, making themselves responsible for reading large amounts of additional
literature. “The expectation is very high”, Minh stated, “and this also reflects in the exam”.
This means that besides the large amount of essays the students are asked to write they are
given regular exams in which “whatever they have taught you they will ask, and second, they
will ask you something they have never taught you”. Simon added that the reason many
students experience stress is because of the meritocracy and the fact that you are “pushed
so hard by the government”. He concluded by saying you have to “fight” in order for you to
not become disadvantaged.
The university facilitates this as well, considering that the library is open 24 hours a
day, as Jian exemplified. Even though the university also has facilities designed for relaxing,
such as a swimming pool, a gym, and lounges on every college floor, these are not that often
made use of. Simon noted that although he was aware of these services, he has never made
use of them, because there is never time to do so. When I asked Minh, however, if he would
rather have a more relaxed lifestyle he replied: “If that’s what you want then you don’t
choose NUS. Because when you choose NUS that means you want challenge”. Besides
challenge the wish for a high salary is also a reason for accepting the pressure that is put on
them: “if you want low salary you just choose a normal institution”, he added. When I asked
him in response, however, if it was true that it was in fact not him but his father who chose
NUS, he replied to by saying: “True, two years ago I didn’t choose it. But now I choose it”.
Minh has thus decided in the end he is the one choosing the stressful lifestyle he
leads, not his father. He justified this choice by saying: “I think that while you are young
stress is good for you. Because stress puts you forward, makes you work harder to achieve”.
Simon, however, acknowledges his lack of choice, but accepts it nevertheless. He noted:
“Sometimes I think, like, ‘why do I need to study so hard’, ‘why do I care so much
about this’. I definitely consider it, but unlike many people whose parents are very rich, I’m a
person from a middle income family, so I really have to work my own way to the top. That’s
why I have to study, I have no other choice”
41
‘Getting to the top’ is clearly something that needs to be achieved according to Simon. When
this is not possible by means of money, hard work is inevitable. A more practical, but not less
pressing, issue is that “for Chinese people house and cars are prerequisites for marriage”,
Wang Wei explained. This means that whether two people match on a personal level has
become less and less important, according to Wang Wei, but whether a man owns a house
and a car determines whether he can propose to a girl and get married. Once again the
family shows its important role, as parents will most likely refuse to give their blessing if the
potential husband does not meet these standards. Wang Wei stated that this is “why all the
guys here are very stressed”. They know they need to perform well in school if they want to
get a good job, which will enable them to pay for these perquisites, eventually making it
possible start a family. Wang Wei does not condemn this phenomenon, as he himself has
internalized this way of thinking. That is, he noted that he would feel “very irresponsible”
being someone who “just get[s] married when [he] cannot even afford a proper housing and
proper car”. He added that although he thinks now he has to work hard, this will allow him
relax and enjoy his life in the future. This, however, appeared to be merely a tactic of
handling the pressure. That is, he afterwards admitted he knew that he would in fact only
get “busier and busier” later on, and he “will never stop”. The prospect of this however
seemed hard to accept, which made him make up a more optimistic scenario as an incentive
to keep up his high work ethos.
Whereas some students aimed to stay and work in Singapore, most expressed the
wish to eventually return back to their birth country. Jian was very clear about this when he
said: “I won’t stay in Singapore. It’s a good place to study, but you’ll die early of stress if you
stay in Singapore”. This opinion was shared by many other students, interestingly mainly by
those from countries outside of China and Hongkong. This might be related to the fact that
the competiveness of Singapore and the People’s Republic of China is fairly similar, as was
also noted by the interviewees, which made reasons for returning back to China not stressrelated. Countries such as Malaysia and Vietnam, however, are known for a more laid-back
type of lifestyle. Malaysians Jian and Liani, for example, both stated that they missed the
more chilled, fun-oriented way of living and the friendly people in their birth country, which
makes them want to go back.
42
5.6 The identity of Singapore
The students’ birth countries in general, rather than Singapore, were seen as the place they
felt at home. “I still view China as my home”, Simon stated, “This is still very clear cut. I view
this place as a place where I will fight for my dream, a chance to realize my potential. But I
still view China as my home, because I still feel I’m very strongly, emotionally attached to
that place”. The fact that Simon sees Singapore as ‘the place to fight for his dream’
resembles a picture painted by other students, as well as by field work data and literature.
That is, Singapore as a functional space, rather than a habitual one. The country is not often
seen as a place where one typically feels at home, or would see oneself growing old. Instead,
it is a place for studying and pursuing a successful career, which is also reflected by the large
number of expats working in the country. ‘Foreign talent’, in the form of promising students
as well as professionals, often only stay in Singapore for a limited amount of time and only
for the sake of studying or working rather than integrating.
As for NUS, this especially was not seen as a place where one feels he belongs or
connects to. Rather, it is somewhere one wants to be associated with, as, Simon argued,
“supposedly people from NUS are those who are smart”. This gives NUS-students a “sense of
achievement, superiority”, he argued, which is why he likes to identify himself with this
‘brand name’: “you associate yourself with excellence”. At least for Simon, the stress and
pressure that come with being an NUS student thus seem to at least be alleviated by the
knowledge that you are ‘associated with excellence’ by others.
43
6. Discussion and conclusion
6.1 Discussion
In this paragraph, the main findings will be discussed in more general lines. These findings
will, additionally, be compared to related, previously conducted studies. Lastly, they will be
compared to Bauman’s global hierarchy of mobility and the students’ place herein will be
discussed.
6.1.1 Objectivity
As can be concluded from the results, a general trend among the participants was their
objective view on their life trajectories, their current living conditions and the choices that
have been made for them. Things they have no control over are accepted as ‘facts of life’,
e.g. the workload, having to work hard ‘to achieve something’ and the fact that important
decisions are made for them by their parents. This is also reflected in the way they describe
their experience with living in Singapore. They describe Singapore as a good place to live
because of its scholarships, the career opportunities, the proximity to their own countries,
its stable government and its cleanliness. This is in line with Kell and Vogl (2012) who found
that the students choose Singapore because it is ‘close by’, ‘financially attractive’, good for
their resume, clean and safe.
Besides being objective, the students also seem to feel at home in the business-like
and profit-oriented discourse that seems to be surrounding them. An example of this is the
fact that they use the term ‘studying overseas’ continuously, and always as a signifier for
great opportunities and successful futures – also when there is not even a sea between
Singapore and their birth country. Studying in Singapore is considered to be ‘great value for
money’, since the quality of the education is found to be high and the costs are low
compared to destinations such as the UK and USA. Even though it is not them who would
pay for the costs but their parents, who are often willing to dig into their life savings (more
on this below), it is important to them that no money is wasted as long as they get high
quality education. As mentioned in the previous chapter, this urge to gain the most out of
everything, and the ‘obsessive desire’ for value for money, has even received a name only
used in Singapore, i.e. Kiasu (Hwang, Ang, & Francesco, 2002). This indicates the scope of
this tendency of not only Singaporeans, but foreign students as well. As Liani stated during
our interview: “I don’t think it’s just Singaporeans, it’s everybody who comes here”.
44
Moreover, as the national discourse on foreign talent and the expectation of everyone to
‘contribute’ to the country’s economic status shows as well, there exists an ideology of
pragmatism and economic benefit for the country as well as the individual.
Additionally, the quality of the education, how high this may be, seems not the only
factor that makes for this greatly appreciated value for money. The related, but worth to
mention separately, concept of prestige of the university seems to be important as well.
Whereas ‘studying overseas’ already means people around you will most likely think highly
of you, studying at NUS in particular does this as well, as the general idea is that those who
study at NUS are “those who are smart”. The feeling of “superiority” that this creates,
whether this is in the interest of the child or the family, will likely add even more value to the
money.
6.1.2 The pressure to perform
The price the students have to pay for the identification with this prestigious brand name is
living up to this name by working exceedingly hard – not only during their studies but the
rest of their lives. As can be concluded from the previous chapter, they are aware of the fact
that their family, the university and the MOE expect them to continuously perform at the
highest academic level. The part the MOE plays in this respect is evident, as it initially makes
the students take a demanding test and conducts interviews determining their performance
before they even get accepted at NUS. Furthermore, as mentioned above, they are screened
every semester to decide if they still ‘deserve’ their scholarship. This is a clear example of the
fact that Singapore is an active participant in the global war for talent, as has been argued in
chapter two. The students know that mediocrity is not accepted at NUS, as Siân stated: “I
can be really good at maths, but it’s not good enough to be really good: you have to be top
of your industry in the world”. As Brown and Hesketh (2004) note, in the war for talent
everything besides ‘top’ performance is devalued. At NUS, this is reflected in the bell-curve
system discussed in the previous chapter. A student can be highly intelligent, equally as
motivated and continuously acquiring good grades, but if other students in his class perform
even slightly better he will never receive an A. Since these fellow students are all
automatically the best of their former high schools and, if they are foreign students, belong
to the top performers of their school back home, this results in a highly competitive
educational environment. This, taken together with the heavy workload and continuous
45
examination at NUS, makes it unsurprising that all students called the National University a
‘very stressful’ and ‘stifling’ environment.
In addition, top performance is still not a guarantee for appreciation or a successful
future. The field in which one is performing seems almost equally as important. The
Singapore government and society place a large focus on so-called PMET jobs. This means
that studies preparing them for a professional, managerial, executive or technical job are
most popular and most valued by society. Jobs resulting from studies in social sciences
appear to be less respected, not to mention ‘low-skilled jobs’, e.g. “janitorial work, plumbing,
mechanics” (quoting Siân). It was believed that it was characteristic of Asian countries, at
least of Singapore, that having a ‘respectable’ job is found to be highly important. Besides
the fact that these excellent students have had little choice in their move to Singapore, as it
seemed almost unthinkable not to take the ‘great opportunity’ of studying overseas, the
range of study subjects they could choose from was bound by similar expectations.
Moreover, the students know that the stress and workload they were facing now would
continue to be present throughout their working lives. Even though one of the participants
used the idea of reaping the fruit of his labour later (i.e. working hard now in order to relax
later on in life) as a way to cope with the stress, he and the others acknowledge this ‘relaxing’
was unlikely to happen any time soon. Many of the participants do say they would
eventually move back to the place their parents live. Yet, this might mean they would have
to quit their job in Singapore and find one at a later age in another country, at the same time
knowing their family needs them, which may lead to stress as well. All in all, the extent to
which the students have a choice over their migration to Singapore and the way they spend
their lives during and after their stay here seems to be highly limited.
Continuing on the subject of the family, the largely exerted pressure from their side is
continuously framed as a ‘cultural thing’. In Asian cultures influenced by Confucian values, as
many of the participants’ birth countries are (e.g. China, Malaysia, Vietnam), children’s
academic achievement is believed to be vital. The study by Dundes et al. (2009) mentioned
in chapter two, for example, showed how Asian students experience a ‘duty to succeed’ and
a pressure to honour parental expectations of “narrowly defined acceptable academic and
career achievement”. The need to succeed and avoid letting one’s family down are seen as
inescapable facts of life. In addition, the idea of a life without academic or familial burden is
seen as a utopia and something that is simply not within reach.
46
In addition to the pressure coming from their parents, this study has shown that
Singapore’s national discourse and main principles involve around merit, responsibility, hard
work and performance. The focus on PMET jobs, as mentioned above, is a clear example of
this. The students in the current study seem to have adopted (if they did always have this)
way of thinking: they are aware of the fact that only top performance is appreciated and
they feel responsible for achieving this towards their current family, their future family (in
order to provide them with a secure home) and the Singapore state. Whether their opinions
on this (generally being objective and accepting) are genuine and authentically theirs or
whether they have unconsciously internationalized the opinions of the hegemonic powers is
a difficult question. However, as was argued in the methodological chapter of this thesis,
attention has been paid to this from the beginning of this research and it was attempted, by
asking questions in multiple ways and creating an open and informal atmosphere to unravel
this as much as possible. By, for example, asking the participants to imagine their lives
without the pressure from these hegemonies, it was admitted, by, for example Simon, that
this was something he dreamed about, but simply not found realistic. His case also shows
that this way of thinking has become, or has always been, such an essential part of his life,
he deducts happiness from it (i.e. making family members proud makes him happy).
Furthermore, it was mentioned multiple times that they thought of themselves as being
conditioned to live their lives feeling responsible for others, always aiming for the top and
not putting their own happiness first. It is not something that can (easily) be switched off
and this does not seem to be desired by the students, making the question raised above
rather irrelevant, in that it simply is their frame of mind, irrelevant of its authenticity.
6.1.3 No way back
A general conclusion that can be drawn from the data on this particular type of student is
that it was rarely ever their own initiative to study abroad. At the time the opportunity arose,
the students shared an attitude of laissez faire, and seeing what happens, as their reactions
to this ranged from ‘I thought I’d just go for it’ to ‘I didn’t mind’. After the students had
applied, however, they felt as if there was basically no way back, as the examples by Wang
Wei and Yiwen above made clear. Most factors limiting the students’ choice were subtle and
therefore hardly struck them as significant, such as the surprised reaction of the teacher
when someone wonders if there is a possibility to reject, or mentioning that this rejection
47
might get the school into trouble (e.g. too few students, bad for its reputation). In conclusion,
once you are in the process, in which you quite unconsciously entered, you are stuck, not
only for studies, but, due to the bond, for years after that as well. This again, is an example
of a mechanism limiting their mobility.
6.1.4 The challenges
Furthermore, once the students entered Singapore and its education system especially the
initial period in Singapore was found to be challenging. It was a time in which many of the
students found themselves lonely, homesick and struggling with the intensity and level of
the study work. This is in line with various studies showing that Asian students studying
abroad oftentimes have difficulties being separated from their families, have trouble making
friends, face language issues and experience a lack of belongingness in the host country and
university (e.g. Campbell & Li, 2007; Heggins & Jackson, 2003, Henning et al., 2011). In
addition, Kell and Vogl (2012), for instance, found in their study on, among others, foreign
students studying at a university in Singapore that a part of them experienced the “fasttracked” semesters packed with deadlines as difficult. They additionally stated that for these
non-Singaporean students in particular, the first semester can take some serious adapting,
as students can experience pressure and find it “easy to get behind in their studies” (Kell and
Vogl, 2012). In addition, it was expressed by university staff in the same study that a large
number of students “struggle with being independent and without parental direction”.
Despite these challenges, for none of the students, nor their parents, it seemed like
an option to terminate their studies and migrate back home (or to another country for that
matter). It was recognized that the costs, financially and socially, were too big, as their
parents would have to pay for the (high) expenses of the broken bond, and they would not
live up to their social circle’s high expectations, resulting in disappointment and loss of face.
An even more common reflection, however, was that it would never even cross their minds
to ‘give up’ and give in to their feelings of distress or frustration, which was labelled ‘an
Asian mindset’ several times. This mindset was explained as the fact that family has that
much importance in a person’s life, that he or she makes decisions based on what is thought
to be best for them (as was explained by, amongst others, Siân in the previous chapter).
Since they have been, according to Minh, ‘conditioned’ this way they do not consciously feel
this as pressure or a restriction. This was also ascribed to the Confucian values described
48
earlier. Since this way of thinking has been playing a role in most of the students’ lives since
they were young, it is not surprising that this feels natural to them, as can be seen
throughout the result section. Even though this is occasionally called a restriction or burden,
it can also be a source for happiness, as Simon said that it makes him happy to know his
family is able to brag about him: the star of the family.
6.1.5 Belongingness
The importance of the family for these excellent Asian students, concerning recognition,
respect and responsibility but also as determinants of ‘home’, has been made abundantly
clear. On this latter aspect, home and belongingness, a final remark should be made,
however. The majority of the students are of the opinion that Singapore would never be
‘home’ to them, i.e. a place they belonged, as this would always the country or city in which
they were born, and were their parents are still located. Singapore was called a place where
they would ‘fight for their dream’, prove to themselves, the world and, probably most
importantly, their family, that they can reach the top based on their own merit (and not
their connections, as would be appropriate for their birth countries). Singapore is the place
where students and expats, i.e. ‘foreign talent’, come to show what they are worth, aim for
high functions and matching paychecks and boost the country’s economy. As Emma said
quite strikingly: they are used as “tools for the economy” and they are aware of this
themselves. What can be concluded from this, is that Singapore can be seen as a functional
space, rather than a habitual space (a label more appropriate for their birth country).
As was briefly mentioned in chapter two, the above causes a discrepancy between
the family and the state. Both parties stimulate the child to be ‘mobile’, that is, leave the
locality of their birth country and grasp the opportunity of studying and living in the world
city of Singapore. The bond that the Singapore MOE had implemented initially works as a
transnational mechanism in this respect: it makes it possible for the student to make this
step, as it takes care of any financial limitations. However, it eventually leads the student to
again being tied to a single place, i.e. Singapore, as it forces the student to stay and work
here for several years. In addition, as the chapter above shows, the rationale behind the
bond is to let the students stay even longer, preferably until retirement, which signals the
end of their contribution to the economy. The transnationalising nature of the contract thus
becomes a localizing one. Moreover, at the moment the Singapore government will try to
49
make the student stay, i.e. the moment the bond has ended, the students’ family will most
likely want him or her to return in order to take care of them, which, due to the
responsibility the student feels towards them, they will often do. This again is clearly a
localizing rather than a mobilizing experience for the student.
6.1.6 Returning to Bauman
Looking at Bauman’s global hierarchy of mobility discussed in the beginning of this thesis,
there are certainly some factors that make the students think of themselves as privileged
migrants. Following their own statements, the students have been given the opportunity to
receive far higher quality education than they would back home, without paying high tuition
fees, and to live in a country that is found to be cleaner, safer and a better environment to
build a career or start a family. However, Bauman’s global elite has the connotation of
people who are free to go wherever they want, without restrictions, and when they find
themselves being somewhere they are unhappy or uncomfortable they would have the
same freedom to leave. It is exactly these themes of choice, mobility and a feeling of
belongingness that seem to be lacking with excellent students studying at the National
University of Singapore. That is, the choice to migrate has never truly been theirs, they are
not free to go wherever they want due to their bond as well as their familial responsibilities,
and because of Singapore’s nature as a functional environment, rather than a habitual one,
it does not often feel as place they belong or feel at home. This is why most students did not
see themselves as a (‘100%’) privileged migrant.
As mentioned in the methodological chapter, case studies, such as the current one,
typically lend itself to falsification. To claim that this study has falsified Bauman’s global
hierarchy of mobility might be a bit presumptuous, since critics may argue that this case
does not represent the ‘elite’ Bauman had in mind. At first sight they do, however, fit this
image, since they are the ones able to ‘escape their locality’, where many of their
compatriots are not. Nevertheless, when taking a closer look, which this study typically does,
it becomes clear that it concerns a fairly forced migration rather than a free, unconstrained
one. Besides money, there are a large number of other possible restrictions concerning
migration, which are disregarded by Bauman, but made clear in this study. On a more
general note, the question is if those who are able to migrate, who are not ‘stuck’ in one
place, are the happiest and the luckiest. Even though the participants did not bluntly express
50
that they were unhappy with their migration, they did mention multiple difficulties, besides
the educational workload and workload, such as language differences, adaptation to a new
environment, making friends and missing their families and home countries. These factors
can play a role for any migrant, however privileged or mobile they may seem, and thus
should not be ignored.
6. 2 Limitations and recommendations
A methodological limitation of the current study is that the sample of students is relatively
small, for which no differentiation is made between people from different countries within
Asia. However, since it was an in-depth qualitative study that was conducted within a limited
time frame and scope, it was not possible to enlarge the sample to such an extent that
would enable differentiation between different cultural groups. In addition, the participants
have multiple characteristics in common and may thus be identified as a distinct group, e.g.
all students can be classified as excellent, all of their birth countries are in the same region
and all of their cultures may be described as collectivistic (Niles, 1995).
Furthermore, out of the main (i.e. Asian) participants four were female and six were
male. This means men are slightly overrepresented in the current sample, which could have
resulted in a certain bias in the results. Looking at the total number of male versus female
students at NUS in 2012/2013 male students are a small majority (NUS Registrar’s Office,
2011). It is, however, not within the scope of the current study to investigate whether this is
merely a coincidence, nor to see whether the male students showed a different tendency in
their experiences than the females did.
As mentioned above, most students that participated in this study came from a
(upper) middle-income family. This means that some money was available for them to study
abroad, but it limited the options for destinations. Relatively little attention is paid in the
current study to the role of money, but it cannot be denied that this is an important factor in
determining one’s mobility. As was acknowledged by the students, they often felt privileged
compared to those who are completely stuck in their locality and who are, despite the fact
that there might be no tuition fees, still not able to pay for the expensive living costs in
Singapore or other, more developed countries. It was, however, chosen to focus on the
concepts of choice, mobility and belongingness rather than economic status, since findings
based on these were found to be more valuable. Furthermore, as touched upon above, a
51
critic could argue that since most participants are not ‘upper class’ citizens, this makes that
they do not belong to Bauman’s global elite, which would mean that this study would
actually be a confirmation of Bauman’s theory. However, Bauman does not state that money
is the determining factor for people’s place in the hierarchy. In fact, he does not make clear
which factors do determine this, and what this study has shown is that this probably is not
an easy job to do. It also shows that seemingly privileged, highly mobile people might not fit
this image quite as clearly as one might think. Moreover, factors that do not seem apparent
at first sight might be important influencers of one’s sense of being privileged and mobile.
This study does not have as its aim to pinpoint those factors that decide where in Bauman’s
hierarchy a person belongs. In addition, it might, just as Bauman argues in the beginning of
his book, raise more questions than it gives answers. What it is this study attempts, is to
open up the discussion on privileged migration, specifically in relation to excellent foreign
students in Asia. It is hoped that in the future more (in-depth) research will be done on this,
and other seemingly privileged groups of migrants, to add to the current body of research on
this topic.
Another note in relation to recommendations for future research is that literature on
Asian students so far has broadly been based on an ‘East meets West’ type of approach. That
is, the focus mostly lies on the challenges of Asian students living and studying in a Western
environment far away from home. Several studies have been conducted focussed on Asian
students studying in ‘Western countries’, such as the United States (e.g. Heggins & Jackson,
2003; Seo & Koro-Ljungberg, 2005), New Zealand (e.g. Campbell & Li, 2007; Henning et al.,
2011) and Australia (e.g. Niles, 1995; Ramburuth & McCormick, 2001). Research on the
newer trend of Asian students studying abroad but within Asia, seems to be largely lacking,
however (one limited overview is given by Kell & Vogl, 2012). Even harder to find are studies
on excellent students studying in Singapore on a government bond, even though gaining
more knowledge on this group especially can be a valuable addition to the existing literature.
An interesting fact about the current study is that even though the intention was to refrain
from any cultural determinism as much as possible, the students kept bringing the subject
up on their own initiative. By staying critical towards these statements, but taking them
seriously at the same time, this study shows cultural differences should not be disregarded
altogether: they can be an additional, valuable factor in a range of other contextual factors,
such as personal and socio-economical ones.
52
6.3 Conclusion
One of the most striking conclusions of the current research is the fact that the mindset of
the students is highly pragmatic and strongly focused on achievement and value for money.
Another key finding is the role that the students’ families play in their lives. This role is
twofold. On the one hand, the students admit that many decisions, of which their move to
Singapore, have been made for them, and this is broadly accepted and respected. On the
other hand, the decisions they do make for themselves, are largely based on external
(generally family-related) factors, such as making their families proud, getting others to form
a positive image of them, and achieving successful careers (which will ultimately lead to
marriage and the ability to provide for a family of their own).
The fact that they have accepted the lifestyle they lead and their lack of personal
choice in this, does not mean that they are unaffected by it. All students describe NUS and
Singapore as highly stressful and competitive environment, which does not make their lives
easy. In addition, they acknowledge that, whether they want it or not, they generally feel
that they do not have the option to change their lives, since this would lead to big sacrifices,
both financially and socially. The fact that they ended up studying in Singapore, is also due to
the fact that alternatives (such as the United States) would have been more costly or difficult
to achieve. Moreover, staying in Asia was often framed as a better option by the students’
parents, due to cultural as well as financial reasons.
Lastly, this study has brought to the light a phenomenon that involves both
possibilities and restrictions for these students, that is, the government bond. On the one
hand, this bond enabled them to live and study in Singapore in the first place, allowing them
to leave the place that was limiting their chances for a ‘successful’ future. On the other hand,
this bond makes that they are tied to Singapore as long their contract tells them to. At the
same time, their parents form a similar mechanism, but in the opposite direction: whereas
they first stimulate their children to ‘spread their wings’ and move out of their birth country,
they remain closely connected to the students and expect them to take care of them, often
leading the students to eventually return to the place they had left.
In conclusion, due to the factors described above, which make it possible for them to
move, but not to wherever they please, the students say to feel privileged to some extent,
but also ‘burdened’, ‘pressured’ and, ‘not highly mobile’. Therefore, it can be concluded that
they do not envision themselves at the top of Bauman’s hierarchy. Whether there exists
53
another, rule-making, constraint and worry-free group of people that does belong here, has
yet to be established.
54
References
Adiga, A. (2008). The White Tiger. Atlantic Books: London
Alviar-Martin, T. & Ho, L. C. (2011). “So, where do they fit in?” Teachers' perspectives of
multi-cultural education and diversity in Singapore. Teaching and Teacher Education,
27(1), 127-135.
Baláž, V., Williams, A. & Kollar, D (2004). Temporary versus permanent youth brain drain:
economic implications. International Migration, 42(4), 3–34.
Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization: The human consequences. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Beine, M., Docquier, F. & Rapoport, H. (2001). Brain drain and economic growth: theory and
Evidence. Journal of Development Economics, 64(1), 275-289.
Beine, M.L., Nöel R. & Ragot. L. (2012). The determinants of international mobility of
students. CESIFO working paper no. 3848
Brown, P. & Hesketh, A. (2004). The Mismanagement of Talent. Oxford University Press,
Oxford
Burns, R.B. (1991). Study and stress among first year overseas students in an Australian
university. Higher Education Research and Development, 10(1), 61–77.
Butcher, A. (2004). Departures and arrivals: international students returning to the countries
of origin. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 13(3), 275–303.
Campbell, J. & Li, L (2008). Asian students' voices: An empirical study of Asian students'
learning experiences at a New Zealand university. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 12, 375-398. doi: 10.1177/1028315307299422
Chang, J., H. (2000). Education in Singapore: A study of State values as cultural capital.
Education Research and Perspectives, 27(2), 24-42.
Clark, B. (1988). Growing up gifted (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Croucher, S. (2012). Privileged Mobility in an Age of Globality. Societies, 2. doi:
10.3390/soc20x000x
Department of Statistics (2011). Census of Population 2010. Retrieved from:
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/publications_and_papers/cop2010/census_
2010_release1/cop2010sr1.pdf
Department of Statistics (2012). Population 2012. Retrieved from:
55
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/Publications/publications_and_papers/population_and_
population_structure/population_trend.html
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Smith, H., & Shao, L. (1995). National cultural differences in reported
subjective well-being: why do they occur? Social Indicators Research, 34(1), 7–32.
Dundes, L., Cho, E., & Kwak, S. (2009). The duty to succeed: honor versus happiness in
college and career choices of East Asian students in the United States. Pastoral care
in education, 27(2), 135–156. doi:10.1080/02643940902898960
Dunne, M. P., Sun, S., Nguyen, N. D., Truc T. T., Loan, K, X., Dixon, J. (2010). The influence of
educational pressure on the mental health of adolescents in East Asia: methods and
tools for research. Journal of Science, 61,109-122.
Feagin, J. R, Orum, A. M. & Sjoberg, G. (1991). A case for the case study. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry,
12(2), 219-245.
Gerring, J. (2004). What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for? The American Political
Science Review, 98(2), 341-354.
Heggins, I. I. I. W. J., & Jackson, J. F. L. (2003). Understanding the Collegiate Experience for
Asian International Students at a Midwestern Research University. College Student
Journal, 37(3), 379.
Henning, M., Hawken, S.J., Krägeloh, C., Zhao, Y. & Doherty, I. (2011). Asian medical
students: quality of life and motivation to learn. Asia Pac Educ Rev, 12(3), 437–45. doi:
10.1007/s12564-011-9148
Heyl, B. S. (2001). ‘Ethnographic interviewing’. In Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S.,
Hooghe, M., Trappers, A., Meuleman, B. & Reeskens, T. (2008), Migration to European
Countries: A Structural Explanation of Patterns, 1980–2004. International Migration
Review, 42, 476-504. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-7379.2008.00132.x
Huat, C. B. (2003). Multiculturalism in Singapore: an instrument of social control. Race and
Class, 44(3), 58-77.
Hwang, A., Ang, S. & Francesco, A. M. (2002). The silent Chinese: The influence of face and
kiasuism on student feedback-seeking behaviors. Journal of Management Education,
26(1), 70-98.
Kember, D. & Gow, L. (1991). ‘A challenge to the anecdotal stereotype of the Asian student’.
56
Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 117-128.
Kell, P. & Vogl, G. (2012). Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and
Prospects. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-2897-4_7
Lim, P. (2007). Forum Letter Replies. Retrieved from:
http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/forum/2007/20070727.htm
Mahroum, S. (2001), Europe and the Immigration of Highly Skilled Labour. International
Migration, 39, 27-43. doi: 10.1111/1468-2435.00170
Massay, D. S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A. & Taylor, J. E (1993). Theories
of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal. Population and Development
Review, 19(3), 431-466
Mehdizadeh, N., & Scott, G. (2005). Adjustment problems of Iranian international students in
Scotland. International Education Journal, 6, 484-493.
“Migration after the crash” (2011, August). The economist. Retrieved from:
http://www.economist.com/node/21526777
National Population and Talent Division (2013). A sustainable population for a dynamic
Singapore: Population White Paper. Retrieved from:
http://202.157.171.46/whitepaper/downloads/population-white-paper.pdf
Niles, F. S. (1995). Cultural differences in learning motivation and learning strategies: A
comparison of overseas and Australian students at an Australian university.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations,19(3) 369-385.
Ng, P. T. (2011) Singapore's response to the global war for talent: Politics and education,
International Journal of Educational Development, 31(3), 262-268.
NUS Registrar’s Office (2011). Student and graduate statistics. Retrieved from:
http://www.nus.edu.sg/registrar/statistics.html
O’Brien, A., Webb, P., Page, S. & Proctor, T. (2007). A study into the factors influencing the
choicemaking process of Indian students when selecting an international university
for graduate studies using Grounded Theory. Retrieved from:
http://chesterrep.openrepository.com/cdr/bitstream/10034/37772/11/o'brien,%20webb,%
20page%20%26%20proctor%20-%20conference%20paper%20july%202007.pdf
Office of admissions (2013). NUS Scholarships. Retrieved from
http://www.nus.edu.sg/oam/docs/publications/NUS%20Scholarship.pdf
Pimpa, N. (2004) The relationship between Thai students’ choices of international
57
education and their families. International Education Journal, 5(3).
Ramburuth, P. & McCormick, J. (2001). Learning diversity in higher education: A comparative
study of international Asian and Australian students. Higher Education, 42(3), 333350.
Ramesh, S. & Chan, J. (2010). “IPS Survey Shows Increased Demand for Political Participation
Involvement”. Retrieved from:
http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/ips/docs/media/yr2010/NOS4/CNA_IPS%20survey%20shows%2
0increased%20demand%20for%20political%20participation%20involvement_010810.pdf
Regets, M.C. (2001). Research and policy issues in high-skilled international migration: a
perspective with data from the United States (Discussion paper No. 366)
Shin-Who, K. (2009). Nat'l University of Singapore Boasts Quality. Korean Times. Retrieved
from: http://president.nus.edu.sg/pdf/NUS_President_U21_at_Korea_University_
27_May_2009.pdf
Sanderson, G. (2002). International Education Developments in Singapore. International
Education Journal, 3(2), 85-102
Seo, S. & Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2005) From Confucianism to Western Educational Values: A
Hermeneutical Study of Older Korean Graduate Students' Experiences in American
Higher Education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9,164-186. doi:
10.1177/1028315305274695
Soon, S. M. (2001). Is moral obligation an economically justifiable sanction for overseas
Singapore government scholars who breach their contractual service obligations?
Retrieved from: http://singaporeangle.blogspot.nl/2005/07/singapores-scholarship-systemstudy-by.html
Straubhaar, T. (2000). International mobility of the highly skilled: brain gain, brain drain or
brain exchange (HWWA Discussion Paper No. 88). Retrieved from:
http://hdl.handle.net/10419/19463
Sun, J., Dunne, M. P., Hou, X. & Xu, A (2012). Educational stress among Chinese adolescents:
individual, family, school and peer influences, Educational Review, 1-19. doi:
10.1080/00131911.2012.659657
Tambyah, S. K. & Tan, S. J.(2012) Singapore: a happy state of mind? In Selin, H., Davey, H.
(eds.), Happiness Across Cultures, Science Across Cultures: The History of NonWestern Science. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-2700-7_9
58
Tan, C. (2012). “Our values values” in Singapore: a Confucian perspective. Educational
Theory, 62(4), 449–463. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi:10.1111/j.17415446.2012.00456.x
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100.
Thimm, V. (2010). Eductaion, migration, gender: policies of education in Malaysia and
Singapore. Statistics, 8(5)
Tremewan, C. (1994). The political economy of social control in Singapore. St. Martin’s Press,
London.
Tsang, E. W. K. (2001). Adjustment of mainland Chinese academics and students to
Singapore. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25(4), 347-372.
Van Maanen, J. (2011). Ethnography as work: Some rules of engagement. Journal of
Management Studies,48, 218-234.
Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6),
1024- 1054.
Watson, T. J. (2011). Ethnography, Reality, and Truth: The Vital Need for Studies of ‘How
Things Work’ in Organizations and Management. Journal of Management Studies,
48(1). doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00979.x
Williams, A. & Hall, C. (2000) Tourism and Migration: New Relationships Between
Production and Consumption. Tourism Geographies, 2, 5-27
Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P. and Singh, A. (2007) Towards an ‘‘Entrepreneurial University’’ model to
support knowledge-based economic development: the case of the National
University of Singapore. World Development, 35, 941–958.
Yeoh, B. S. A. & Khoo, J. M. (1998). Home, Work and Community: Skilled International
Migration and Expatriate Women in Singapore. International Migration, 36(2), 159186
“Scholarships for non-Singapore Citizens” (2012). Retrieved from:
http://www.askadmissions.nus.edu.sg/app/answers/detail/a_id/190/~/scholarshipsfor-non-singapore-citizens-%2F-international-students
59
i
An educational initiative implemented in all Singaporean schools aiming to cultivate positive values and
attitudes towards the nation from young generations onwards and preventing them from “being displaced by
the current tide of globalization”, i.e. stimulating them to always feeling tied to Singapore
ii
Due to the higher fees and subsidies for the dental and medical courses, AESAN scholarship students in these
courses are obligated to work five and six years respectively.
iii
There exist four scholarship programs between MOE and China, also known as the SM (i.e. Middle School)
Series Scholarship Program. SM1, in which the students are chosen in secondary school and study at a junior
college in Singapore, does not include a bond. For SM2 Chinese high school graduates are chosen. SM3 is
directed at students who have already finished their first year of high school in China. The second program is
where they choose people after they finish high school in China. So they come to Singapore straight away for
university education. The third program is for people who’ve already finished their first year, their fresh year in
the university in China, then they come here, it’s more like an exchange program.
iv
Six years for the Chinese students in the SM program discussed above and three for the other students.
The in Singapore registered company does not have to be located in Singapore.
60