Expat vs. Immigrant

The following article was written at the request of Singapore's daily Today newspaper. One of their section editors contacted me in late 2010 while I had been working at ANZA, asking if I'd be interested in writing about Singapore life from an expatriate perspective. He replied: "I absolutely love the piece. Extremely well written and raising some great points." But later on he said his editor put it on hold, and after that it just died. I can't cite any proof of overt censorship, but my guess is that the paper didn't want to publish anything that would put the wealthy expat population in a bad light. The inability to have this kind of open conversation, I believe, is indicative of an overall problem in Singapore that exists between the local and expat communities. Locals resent expats for a variety of reasons – turning quaint character neighbourhoods into yuppie enclaves, increasing costs of living, using the nation for a few years of quick buck-making while leaving behind nothing but higher rents and shophouses transformed into unaffordable furniture stores. But the establishment media of Singapore seems to have a vested interest in ignoring such divisive issues, while promoting the white culture that is a vital part of bringing money and (sometimes perceived) talent to the island. I thought it was important to have an "ang moh" such as myself touch on the way white people present themselves in Singapore's expat media. Apparently Today didn't find it so vital.

Expat vs. Immigrant

There are few words that I have found as bothersome as the one that labels us whiteys in Singapore – "expat". I intend no offence to expats or those who call themselves such. It is a convenient label that I have taken to using myself on occasion, but the way the phrase is used in Singapore gives me some particular difficulty.

Prior to residing in Singapore, I had no problem with the word. I lived briefly in China and have had six months’ worth of extended stays in Tokyo over the years. In both countries I heard the word "expat" bandied about, but Westerners there also found the word interchangeable with "foreigner" or a host of other terms used to define immigrants.

Yet I wonder why it would be so derogatory to call a Caucasian "foreigner" in Singapore. I suspect there’s still a subconscious tie to the colonial days, and we as a Western community have not entirely accepted the idea that our days of owning the place – and not being foreigners – are over. As such, the word "expat" has taken on myriad connotations relating to race, status and wealth. We must ask why dark-skinned labourers from around the region are "foreign workers" but never expats.

My understanding of "expatriate" is that the emphasis is supposed to be on the "ex". It has always implied, to me, a person who has cut ties with his home country for economic, ideological, or political reasons – and, unlike most Singapore expats, with little intention of returning home. Growing up in Canada during the Vietnam War, my idea of an expatriate was a draft dodger from America who fled his country out of fear or disgust, or a Beatle or Stone who settled abroad to escape UK taxes.

During my experiences in China and Japan, most of the expatriates I met were intellectually curious types who were fed up with the lack of opportunities in their homelands, and had found a new place on the globe that was simply more compatible with their personalities. Many of them had arrived single and settled with a local spouse. In Singapore, though, expats are a more transient bunch than in other Asian countries, often arriving with a family, holding on to property back home, and returning after a few years. There seems to be nothing "ex" about the patriation of most Westerners here.

The way the word "expat" is used in Singapore exemplifies how we use language to convey power, ethnicity and influence, and this is what I find troubling. I was attuned to its usage the first time I saw Expat and Expat Living magazines on the shelves at Borders. With their cover images of affluent white people lazing on tropical beaches and lounging amidst stylish interiors, I had to wonder how these publications made local Singaporeans feel about a certain race coming to their country and demanding nothing less than a life of privilege. I debated if my discomfort was justified or if it was a hang-up I had to get over.

I do not mean to disparage those magazines. I cannot fault them for finding a profitable market and forming legitimate businesses around it. Expat Living is my former employer, and I was once published in Expat, which I found to be a source of some good investigative journalism. At the same time, what does it say about Singapore that such titles don’t exist in Tokyo, Hong Kong, Seoul, Shanghai, or Taipei? Certainly those cities have expats, too – it’s just that the word has different connotations in those places. (It may also say something that not enough of us cared for a magazine called Expat to keep it in business; it folded in January.)

On Expat magazine’s still-existing website, it uses the words "affluent", "well-heeled", and "upscale" to describe a typical expat reader. Expat Living’s advertising card says that its consumers have "high disposable incomes". I find it problematic that the Singaporean usage of "expat" makes it sound like a lifestyle choice rather than a common noun that should describe non-local workers of all incomes and races.

It would be amusing to one day find a new magazine on the racks, one with a cover showing a prosperous white couple enjoying drinks on Dempsey Hill, with a simple, neutral title that applies to us all – Immigrant. After all, that is what we call the Asians who settle in our countries. What makes us so different?