Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone.
This is my first appearance at the Kgalema Motlanthe Foundation Winter Seminar, so let me thank President Kgalema Motlanthe for the invitation. My name is Zainal Arif Mantaha, High Commissioner of Singapore to South Africa. I have been here since 2021—between the end of the Delta variant and before Omicron—which is how I always describe the beginning of my time in South Africa.
I am also the Dean of the Asia-Pacific Group of Ambassadors, although I will not presume to speak on behalf of all my Asian colleagues. Instead, I would like to share three perspectives drawn from Singapore’s experience, and more broadly from Southeast Asia, on migration and peaceful coexistence. I hope these reflections will enrich today’s discussion.
Migration is fundamentally a governance issue
The first perspective I would like to offer is that, in East Asia, migration is fundamentally a governance issue.
Too often migration is discussed primarily in terms of borders, xenophobia, refugees, labour markets or asylum. These are, of course, important dimensions. However, in Singapore and elsewhere in Southeast Asia, we begin with a more fundamental question:
Does the state have the capacity to manage migration well?
Does it know who enters, why they come, where they work, how they contribute and when they leave?
From this perspective, the debate is not whether a country should be open or closed. As Ambassador Sandra Kramer has already observed, migration is here to stay. It has existed throughout human history and will continue regardless of whether we like it or not.
The real question is whether governments can govern migration effectively.
When governance is effective, migration becomes manageable. When governance is weak, even relatively modest levels of migration can become politically explosive.
Singapore has learned that effective migration policy cannot stand alone. It must be integrated with housing, education, healthcare, transport, skills development and urban planning. As the population grows, infrastructure and public services must grow alongside it. Otherwise, public frustration will inevitably be directed at migrants, even when the underlying problem lies elsewhere.
I believe everyone in this room appreciates that reality.
Economic openness depends on public confidence
My second perspective is that economic openness requires public confidence.
Singapore is, in many respects, a nation built through migration.
Long before independence, we evolved from a fishing village into a major trading port shaped by merchants, labourers and entrepreneurs from many parts of the world.
After gaining independence in 1965, Singapore possessed few natural resources, a small domestic market and significant unemployment. We quickly recognised that our greatest resource was our people—our human capital—but that sustained economic growth would also require openness to international talent, investment and labour.
In Singapore, we often say:
“Talent has no nationality. What matters is the contribution people make.”
As Singapore industrialised, foreign workers helped build key sectors such as manufacturing, shipbuilding and construction. Today, foreign professionals and skilled workers continue to complement local talent and strengthen our competitiveness.
Migration has therefore not been incidental to Singapore’s development. It has been structurally central to it.
However, openness cannot simply be a slogan or an aspiration. It must be continuously earned, and its challenges must be carefully managed.
Citizens must have confidence that migration serves the national interest.
Migration must serve the national interest. It is not merely a philosophy or a slogan.
That confidence rests on several principles:
- clarity about the purpose of migration policy;
- fairness and consistency in the application of rules;
- sustained investment in housing, education and public services; and
- political restraint, particularly in diverse societies where irresponsible rhetoric can quickly inflame social divisions.
Public confidence grows when people see that migration complements rather than replaces the local workforce.
Employers who benefit from migrant labour must fulfil their responsibilities by complying with labour standards, investing in local skills and using legal migration channels.
Governments, meanwhile, must be willing to adjust migration policies as economic conditions evolve.
Migration management is never a once-off decision. It requires continuous calibration.
Peaceful coexistence requires deliberate leadership
My third and final perspective is that peaceful coexistence does not happen automatically.
Diversity alone does not produce social cohesion.
Diversity can become a strength, but only when supported by strong institutions, discipline and a shared commitment to coexistence.
Singapore’s experience demonstrates that peaceful coexistence depends upon fairness, credible institutions, equal protection under the law and a political culture that refuses to tolerate the manipulation of race or religion for short-term political gain.
Integration must also be understood as a two-way process.
Newcomers must make the effort to adapt to local norms and values.
At the same time, host societies must remain fair, confident and welcoming towards those who are prepared to contribute and become part of a shared future.
Again, talent has no nationality; contribution is what matters.
Coexistence must be actively supported through public policy, reinforced by law and embedded within everyday life.
Above all, it must be defended by leadership.
Once trust between communities begins to erode, the damage is extremely difficult to reverse.
Suspicion grows.
Grievances deepen.
Migration ceases to be merely a policy issue and instead becomes a social trigger.
That is why the true test of the state is not simply whether it can manage periods of calm, but whether it can preserve public confidence during periods of strain.
Migration, regional integration and development
Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,
Singapore’s experience also demonstrates that migration is closely linked to regional integration and development.
Our domestic market is simply too small to sustain the level of economic activity upon which our prosperity depends.
Our future has therefore always been tied to the wider Southeast Asian region.
Singapore has deliberately positioned itself not merely as a national economy but as a gateway to ASEAN and the surrounding region.
I know South Africa similarly aspires to become the gateway to the broader African economy.
Migration has been central to that role.
Professionals who understand the languages, business cultures and regulatory systems of neighbouring countries help businesses expand across the region.
Regional talent working in Singapore builds networks of trust and familiarity that facilitate investment, trade and innovation.
Migration therefore does more than fill labour market shortages.
It creates relationships.
It transforms borders from barriers into bridges.
ASEAN itself reflects a pragmatic philosophy.
Unlike the European Union, ASEAN has not pursued unrestricted freedom of movement.
Member states retain primary responsibility for immigration policy, while labour mobility has expanded gradually and regional cooperation has deepened step by step.
This reflects Southeast Asia’s particular realities.
Africa will rightly make its own choices.
In many respects, Africa’s ambitions under the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and Agenda 2063 are even more ambitious than ours.
The lesson, however, may be that mobility and regional integration work best when institutional capacity develops alongside them.
At the same time, Southeast Asia can also learn from Africa.
Africa has long embraced forms of mobility rooted in shared history, culture and social relationships. It has also sustained a vision of solidarity that transcends colonial borders through a shared sense of identity and common destiny.
Conclusion
The issue before us is therefore not whether migration can be stopped completely.
It cannot.
Nor is the choice between completely open or completely closed borders.
That is a false dichotomy.
The real choice is between managed migration and unmanaged migration.
Managed migration expands opportunity, strengthens development and supports regional integration.
Unmanaged migration breeds fear, weakens trust and places social cohesion under strain.
Ultimately, peaceful coexistence is achieved because governments build capable institutions, businesses act responsibly, communities remain open, and newcomers embrace the responsibilities that accompany opportunity.
Singapore’s experience suggests that migration should not merely be viewed as a challenge to be contained, but as a reality to be governed with competence, fairness and foresight.
When aligned with national priorities, supported by capable institutions and accompanied by investment in local human capital and social cohesion, migration can strengthen both economic development and national resilience.
At its core, migration is not only about borders.
It is about trust.
It is about resilience.
It is about whether states and societies can remain open while maintaining confidence.
The balance is not easy to achieve, but it is necessary.
If we approach migration with realism, discipline, dignity, mutual respect and, indeed, in the true spirit of Ubuntu, migration need not become a source of lasting division.
Instead, it can become a measure of a society’s seriousness, maturity, confidence and capacity to coexist peacefully.
Thank you very much for listening.
Ke a leboga.