The little nation to the south of Johore has benefitted. New Zealand and Australia has too.
Even our policy and strategy thus far just to lure back our own talented Malaysians to come home to work for the nation has not seen success.
I wonder whether this new Talent Corporation will be another white elephant.
So a Gallup survey that tells us that Singapore continues to be far more successful than Malaysia at attracting human capital on popular immigration destinations which the island republic topped and Malaysia missing the top 20 cut comes as no surprise.
The city-state, with an impressive 18.1 per cent GDP growth in the first half of the year, would have tripled its population if everyone eyeing Singapore were allowed in, the poll released last Friday showed.
In that scenario the nation of 4.8 million would have spiked up to 15 million, a whopping 219 per cent increase.
On the other hand, Malaysia, with its relatively lacklustre economy and increasingly divided society, ended up only in the top 25 most popular destinations for migrants.
The poll found that if everyone were allowed to leave and enter as they pleased, Malaysia’s population would increase by 23 per cent to over 34 million, making it the 21st most popular immigration hotspot in the world.
Gallup researchers interviewed nearly 350,000 adults in 148 countries between 2007 and this year to calculate each country’s Potential Net Migration Index (PNMI).
The PNMI is the estimated number of adults who wish to permanently leave a country subtracted from the estimated number who wish to immigrate there, as a proportion of the total adult population.
Malaysia was the fourth most popular Asia-Pacific destination after Singapore, New Zealand and Australia, and the second-most popular in Southeast Asia following Singapore.
Other Southeast Asian countries fared comparatively worse. While Thailand would see a minimal drop of 1 per cent in its population, Indonesia would lose up to 5 per cent of its 230 million population if everyone who wanted to come in or leave could do so. This was followed by Laos (-9 per cent), Vietnam (-21 per cent), Philippines (-22 per cent).
And despite making great strides in economic growth, Asian giants China and India would both lose 6 per cent of their over 1 billion population if people were allowed to move freely.
Overall, the second-most popular destination was New Zealand, whose population of 4 million would rise by 184 per cent. Third was Saudi Arabia, whose population of 26 million would soar by 176 per cent.
Canada placed fourth with 160 per cent, Australia came in sixth with an index figure of 148 per cent, while the UK booked 12th place with 62 per cent.
The preferred destination of most would-be migrants is still the United States, although the already large US population of 300 million inhabitants means that the impact is less acutely felt, Gallup said.
The US is 14th on the net migration list, which means that if everyone who wanted to could enter the country, and all those who wished to leave did, its population would rise by about 60 per cent.
At the opposite end of the scale, the populations of Sierra Leone, Haiti and Zimbabwe would fall by more than half if migrants were allowed to leave at will.
Many countries in Africa and Latin America showed net outflows of population — although four African countries would gain residents, according to the poll.
They are Botswana, which would see its population increase by 39 per cent, South Africa, Zambia and Namibia, which would see rises of 13 per cent, 5 per cent and 2 per cent respectively.
Botswana, which ranks just after the US but above Norway on the list, is the world’s top producer of diamonds and a leading destination for high-end tourism. It prides itself as a model of successful democracy in Africa.
At rock-bottom on the Gallup list is Sierra Leone, the west African country still struggling to recover from a 10-year civil war which ended in 2002.
If everyone who wanted to leave Sierra Leone could, and everyone who wanted to move there did, its population would plunge by 56 per cent.
Haiti, the Americas’ poorest country, would lose 51 per cent of its population.
“While Gallup’s findings reflect people’s wishes rather than their intentions, the implications of what could happen if these desires become reality are serious considerations for leaders as they plan for the future,” said the organisation.
The lowest-ranked European Union member state on the list is Latvia, which would lose around a quarter of its population of 2.3 million if migrants were allowed to come in and go out as they wished.
No comments:
Post a Comment