by Constance Singam

 

SIngapore: Home, truly?

We Singaporeans are Schizophrenic.

Why is it that we can’t agree whether we are a ‘nation’ or not? This disparity in our understanding of whether we are a ‘nation’ or not was highlighted by recent comments by MM Lee in the book “Hard Truths” where he is said to have claimed that it will take another 100 years for Singapore to become a ‘nation’ while Ambassador Tommy Koh argued that Singapore is already a ‘nation’.

I agree with Ambassador Koh. I think of myself as a Singaporean first and foremost, ethnically Indian, living in a rich multicultural society and increasingly proud of its cosmopolitism and achievements. I am proud that Singapore, though a small island, has won itself a respectable place on the world stage. Much of this is due in no small measure to the founding fathers of Singapore, especially to MM Lee. Anywhere I go I identify myself proudly as a Singaporean and I think most Singaporeans do that too.

Yet I am also a ‘dissenter’ and there are many like me, who are disenchanted with government policies and how these are implemented, who challenge the direction the government takes. This makes us good citizens, committed to Singapore, the nation and the well-being of the nation.

But then I also agree with MM Lee because our idea of identity as a ‘nation’ is a process and is still evolving.

‘Not yet a nation’

MM Lee’s ‘assertion that Singapore is not yet a nation is exemplified by the disquiet raised by the much publicised report of final-year aerospace engineering student Lim Zi Rui, 23,who stood up during the Nanyang Technological University Ministerial Forum and asked if Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong knew that many young people no longer felt a sense of ownership in Singapore.

‘When I was younger, I was very proud of being a Singaporean,’ Mr Lim said. ‘But that was about five, 10 years ago. Five years later, with all the changes in policies and the influx of foreign talent, I really don’t know what I’m defending any more.’

He said he was reflecting a sentiment held by many of his men in the SAF, who had to compete with foreigners for jobs. ‘I feel that there is a dilution of the Singapore spirit in youth… We don’t really feel comfortable in our country any more.’

Although Lim Zi Rui’s focuses his disquiet on the presence of  many foreigners, his concern also raises the question of identity. Identity and the idea of ‘nation’ are inextricably linked and both ideas in Singapore are precarious, as illustrated by the differences in the sense of belonging to this nation by Singaporeans of my generation and the current generation of people that MM Lee had in mind.

Singapore as a nation is still evolving and in process. This process has not been easy nor without its challenges. These challenges are well-known but they are worth repeating especially when it pertains to public policies.

Values under constant state of flux

Firstly, our identity as a nation has required constant and continuous modification and review. Consider the changes in our demographics, for instance as Zi Rui pointed out. Identity is a fragile notion in a country where changes are rapid, continual, and importantly outside the control of citizens.

Secondly, the government views Singapore as an economic entity. (Consider all the opening statements of the Prime Minister’s important national speeches. Don’t they sound like statements from the chairman of a board of a company during shareholders’ meetings?) Singaporeans, as a result, see themselves as economic digits and not as stakeholders in the enterprise of nation-building.

Thirdly, Singapore government’s central value is pragmatism. This pragmatic approach to governance, especially since this ‘pragmatism’ is in the interest of economic imperatives, has created a generation of pragmatic citizens: “if I don’t like this place I will leave” and almost 1,000 citizens a year do leave.

This pragmatic policy-making process and economic imperatives have welcomed gambling in spectacular fashion in the form of casinos. Whereas during the exciting early days of Singapore gambling was banned as was polygamy for the same reason: families were neglected and women and their children were driven to poverty. Singapore had more progressive policies then, before ‘pragmatism’ and economic success became Singapore’s controlling ideology. Our values are under constant state of flux and again Singaporeans have little say in that.

These policies result in cynicism rather than loyalty among people. This sense of cynicism is exacerbated by income disparity which is growing.

A recent study by the International Monetary Fund and reported by the New York Times, reveals how “advanced economies” compare on various measures of equality, well-being, educational attainment, and more. Singapore ranks poorly in income inequality, level of democracy, global well-being index and in the number of prison population.

Finally, the government’s economic management has produced changes, both social and economic: has produced a society different from the one, mine and Ambassador Koh’s generation, that struggled for survival. The continuing successful political dominance of the PAP is dependent on economic and social development. And development equates with changes which disturb and rearrange the patterns of social formation, and challenges the existing social order.

Develop a sense of ownership

We, Singaporeans of all ages, will agree that we are a ‘nation’ only when cultural identity, political interest, and economic interest are in harmony with each other and with the aspirations of Singaporeans. Currently public policies are highly opportunistic (as in the decision to build casinos) and contingent (on economic imperatives) and paternalistic (as in the resistance to accord women equal rights).

Women like myself in AWARE and other civil society organisations are committed enough to the Singapore ‘nation’ and to feel a sense of ownership to risk censure and advocate democratic values challenging dominant paternalistic values. Ironically young men, such as the young man, quoted above, who have done national service and on whom so much public money is invested do not feel that sense of belonging. Something for the PAP government and MM Lee to think about!

The writer is the former president of AWARE.


Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Sungei Road Flea Market to close permanently after 10 July

Thieves’ Market, the oldest and largest flea market at Sungei Road, will…

穿凯蒂猫T恤公然抽电子烟 青年反差形象惹议

日前,一名身穿凯蒂猫T恤,但在公共巴士上公然抽电子烟的青年,其反差形象被身旁的朋友拍摄下来放到网络上,引起网民议论。 据悉,该视频并没有明确指出所拍摄地点与时间,但巴士经过义顺公园小贩中心。9秒视频内,可清楚看见青年是坐在巴士内吸起电子烟,浓浓大烟从嘴巴吐出,青年显然没有顾及旁边的乘客,自顾自吸起烟,甚至身旁朋友也一起拍下视频。 在被朋友拍下视频后,青年仍对着镜头作出剪刀手的姿势,并不惧怕被拍摄下来。 视频上传后,引来网民的议论,大部分网民非议该青年行为,而且并揶揄表示与身穿的凯蒂猫 的形象不符。 根据《烟草(广告与销售控制)法令》购买所有电子烟、电子烟斗和电子雪茄属于违法,将可能被处以最高2000元的罚款。此外,任何人在禁止的地方或车辆内吸烟,最高可处以 1000 元的罚款。 另外,任何引进电子吸烟器属违法,换言之,任何人透过网络购买并运到新加坡供个人使用均属于违法行为,初犯可判处最高一万元罚款或6个月监禁;累犯则将被处以两万元罚款,或12个月监禁。 有网民把该视频转发给环境局,目前尚待当局回应。

最会赚钱Youtube网红!8岁美国男童年收入3500万元

8岁美国德州网红男童莱恩(Ryan Kaji),再度蝉联视频网红“Youtuber”收入榜首,今年共进账2600万美元(约3500万新元)。 昨日《福布斯》公布2019年“Youtuber”收入榜单,莱恩以2600万美元再度蝉联冠军,去年他也以2200万美元,位列全球收入最高的网红。 莱恩频道是2015年由父母创立,当时他仅3岁,早期主要因拍摄“玩具开箱”影片爆红,他的频道“莱恩玩具评论”(Ryan ToysReview)。 部分视频更获得逾10亿人点击,莱恩在频道创立以来共累计了350亿次观看次数。 最近则因遭到消费者权益组织的投诉,改名“莱恩的世界“(Ryan’s World)成为儿童频道,在YouTube上订阅数超过2300万。 其主要的观众群为小学生,而视频内通常则以满满的欢笑与兴奋的尖叫吸引观众眼球,据悉,只要被莱恩介绍过的玩具都会被抢购一空。 莱恩的母亲为了能够专心在经营Youtube,甚至将工作辞去,在家里陪伴莱恩,当起网红妈妈。 除了Ryan’s World频道,莱恩更拥有自己的超过100多样产品的产品线,品项包含玩具、服装等各式商品。…