Stumbling Blocks in the Politics of Identity in Singapore

Recent trends have centred on a reorientation of Singaporean identity and politics. Much of the debate has been premised on the notion of what exactly encapsulates a “Singaporean” identity. It seems that the question is no longer as simply answered or as straightforward as it used to be.

There are rules now, restrictions, different layers to being Singaporean and even different types of Singaporeans. I myself, a third-generation Singaporean, have often been asked, after declaring myself a Singaporean, if I am a real and pure Singaporean.

Yet, in recent times, the Singaporean identity and its accompanying culture has become increasingly difficult to access and define. There is no denying that much of that difficulty is due to the fact that we are at the crossroads of an exceptional period in Singapore’s relatively young history. Our politics is evolving, a fact acknowledged by the Prime Minister. Our society, both in terms of mindset and its general composition, has changed significantly, with more changes seemingly on the horizon.

Significant questions must be addressed; an introspective inquisition is necessary to realise why our short history has created such complexity with regards to a national identity.

LEGACY OF A HYPHENATED IDENTITY

The concepts of race and ethnicity are critical forces that shape the identity of the individual and society. Robert J Brym and John Lie define race and ethnicity as “socially constructed ideas” used to “distinguish people based on perceived physical or cultural differences, with profound consequences for their lives”.

Singapore practices a form of multiracialism that clearly demarcates diverse ethnicities into the four categories of Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others (CMIO). The CMIO policy has defined Singaporean society, permeating the very fundamental conceptualisation of how we see ourselves as Singaporeans.

The Singapore identity is essentially thus a hyphenated one. Every Singaporean is a Singaporean-‘Something’, with an ethnic identity accompanying his national identity. Each race was also allocated a race-language, (Chinese= Mandarin, Malay=Malay language, Indian =Tamil) and it was made compulsory for Singaporeans to take the prescribed race-language as a mother tongue.

This policy has had some benefit, with links to culture and language being emphasized. However, within the context of creating a national identity, this only served to further complicate the already difficult task of creating a national identity that Singaporeans could subscribe to.

It is not my argument that cultural ties should have been forgone and forgotten in an attempt to create a national identity. Instead, I argue that cultural identities should not have been institutionalised and prescribed. Cultural communities should have been given space and avenue to flourish, but the Singaporean identity should have been allowed to evolve without an ethnic hyphen.

The emphasis of the hyphenated identity has in many ways emphasised differences and perpetuated stereotypes. Perhaps the most hard done by the CMIO model is the simplistic terminology ascribed to those whom fall under the term ‘Other’, a term of convenience that fails to highlight the cultural and historical relevance of diverse vibrant cultures such as the Peranakans and Eurasians, many of whom are unique to this region.

Similarly, many diverse cultures, languages and traditions have been simplified by the groupings Chinese, Malay and Indian. In many ways, we have through an emphasis of an ethnic hyphenated identity, entrenched our differences while homogenising our heterogeneity. In an increasingly globalised Singapore, we should abandon such a model and celebrate our differences through a singular national identity, Singaporean.

THE PRIMACY OF ECONOMICS

Since independence, our shared history has been defined and guided by an ideology of survival with economic growth seen as the only means through which we could stave off the doom that seemingly awaited a country with no real natural resources to fall back on. The ideology is not flawed but again, it has had the consequence of becoming the primary mantra by which our nation is defined.

While preparing to write this paper, I randomly approached colleagues, relatives, friends and neighbours and asked what they thought encapsulated the Singaporean identity. Many replied that Singapore was defined by economics. An uncle of mine summed this up best by telling me that our take on racial cohesion, national service, public transportation, immigration and all the other major issues that seem to generate debate about being Singaporean today are largely defined by our socio-economic status, not by any other defining difference.

In a country in which inequality is becoming an increasingly significant problem, this contention is a startling one. National Identity is a constantly evolving concept, dependent on how people conceptualise their Nation. An economically unequal Singapore will struggle to find a united identity, because it was the dream of economic success and its rhetoric that historically united us in the first place.

SERVICE, SACRIFICE, SUCCESS AND SURVIVAL

Singapore’s history has been dominated by a discourse that has centred on a perceived need to survive against the odds, with dependence placed firmly on capable leadership and a willing, hardworking populace. This has often placed a burden on Singaporeans, with service and sacrifice expected in order to survive and find success.

Service and sacrifice is perhaps best encapsulated in the policy of National Service. Ask any Singaporean what most encapsulates being Singaporean and NS often comes at the top of the list. Singaporean males sacrifice two years, in the prime of their lives, for a national cause; a cause largely driven by the notion of survivability in a potentially hostile region.

The sacrifice is extraordinary, and I think one that often does not get the emphasis it sometimes deserves. Our men, myself included, walk into institutions of higher learning two years later. We lag behind the women and foreigners in terms of completing our education and work experience.

We feel a sense of frustration that our progress is stifled and, in a society largely driven by economic success, being financially incapable into your 20s is a highly depressing reality to deal with. Even our young adult lives are often stifled by reservist expectations; internships, summer programmes and graduate trips are at the mercy of call-ups.

Yet, there is a sense of pride that often accompanies having served your nation, but it is accompanied by a strong notion of expectation as well. NS is an acknowledgement that we will, if and when necessary, sacrifice our lives to protect the sovereignty of our country and the well-being of its people.

Mothers, sisters, wives and girlfriends accustom themselves to the idea that Singaporean males will spend two years in service to the nation, and the next decade or more as a reservist personnel, and that if need should ever arise, lives will be sacrificed. Such sacrifice will always demand that we are viewed differently from those who don’t make the same sacrifice.

Perhaps that is where the great divide exists. Sacrifice demands recognition and it comes with expectations. Can a family willing to sacrifice its own for the land conceptualise equality with those who aren’t willing to do the same?

Can our national discourse, so long demanding sacrifice in return for success, learn to turn the other cheek when it comes to accommodating newcomer? Perhaps the solution lies in redesigning our National Service programme and making the same demands, in diverse ways, from new citizens and PRs as well?

These are questions that must be answered as Singapore attempts to define its national identity.

Pravin Prakash
The Social Swami

This article was written for the TODAY paper and was published online and in print on 1st May 2013

Lessons from the Ghosts of City States

There has been debate ever since the General Election in 2011, and particularly since the Population White Paper’s release, about a disconnect between the governed and the Government in Singapore.

It has surfaced even in government discourse. In a recent interview with The Washington Post, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong acknowledged that the Government would have to “work in a more open way”, given “a different generation, a different society, and the politics will be different”.

And during last month’s debates over the Government’s Budget, it is notable that the Education, Health and National Development Ministers — among others — called on Singaporeans to get involved in shaping the future of the education system, healthcare financing and public housing policy. The ongoing reviews of these three hot-button areas signal the Government’s impetus to address key sources of discontent.

Will this have any effect in repairing tensions? That remains to be seen, but surely the inability to understand each other effectively is something both must seek to resolve. History suggests that the need is an urgent one.

THE FALL OF CITY-STATES

The rise of Singapore as a prosperous city-state was premised on the marriage between effective leadership and a committed, hardworking populace.

A quick glance at history reveals, rather tellingly, that the fall of great city-states has often been partially premised on a disconnect between people and government.

Italian historian and philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli once noted that the demise of city-states was caused by internal failings and an inability to quench the internal strife between social classes.

He propounded that the lack of compromise between the governing classes and the merchant middle classes was a source of inherent tension and instability. This is an astute observation.

City-states, due to their small size and general dependence on trade, have often required both decisive government and a dynamic economy to flourish.

Machiavelli warned prophetically that the unavoidable consequence of such tensions is “political uncertainty and economic short-termism”, culminating in the state’s demise. It is these failings we must seek to avoid, by seeking to re-establish an effective channel of communication and by addressing the sources of tensions.

THE OLD SOCIAL CONTRACT

The disconnect has so far prevailed in Singapore despite efforts of the Government to reconnect with the people. This, I would argue, is largely due to the fact that Singapore’s social contract is in need of re-negotiation.

A social contract may be defined as an implicit and tacit agreement between the people and the government, in which both parties agree to cooperate for certain mutual benefits. Social contract theories hence typically argue that individuals have consented to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to authority in exchange for protection of their remaining rights.

In Singapore, the social contract of the last half-century has been fairly clear and understood by one and all: Singaporeans have given up certain civil liberties in exchange for economic stability, growth and prosperity. The rise of Singapore in the last 50 years under a paternalist form of government is a success story that most, if not all, Singaporeans are proud of.

One need only look at other post-colonial states to understand that the Singapore story could have been very different — much bloodier and more tragic. Nationalistic fervour and the raging need to dismantle the legacy of colonialism have historically manifested as killing fields and civil wars. In Singapore, they were channelled towards the singular goal of creating an economic oasis in South-east Asia.

It is, perhaps, ironically the very nature of the People’s Action Party (PAP) which created economic growth that is now engendering a disconnect. As Singapore flourished, citizens’ expectations changed. No longer was survival a priority; an increasingly educated and middle-class society was no longer willing to sacrifice as many civil rights for economic stability, especially since that stability had been achieved and seemed to be a given. More was expected.

A NEED TO RE-NEGOTIATE

The focus of citizens now seems to be on addressing the problems that arose with growth at breakneck speed.

The ideals of meritocracy and the unrelenting surge towards growth have not been sufficient to resolve the inherent problems of inequality in society. Issues of identity, in the face of a growing influx of foreigners and the perceived superiority of their socio-economic status, have become a political issue, with many questioning what exactly it means to be Singaporean.

More freedoms are being demanded, and with the old contract having been met by both parties, a re-negotiation is in order.

No longer will promises of growth and prosperity (often met) suffice — dealing with inequality must become the cornerstone of Singapore policy and the new social contract. While continued growth is essential, this must happen with decreasing and not increasing inequality.

The reduction of inequality would have a multiplier effect on resolving the disconnect in Singapore today. While it is not the only causal factor, it is the source of a great deal of discontent that has spawned many other problems.

For instance, Singapore has for centuries been dependent on trade, commerce and with it a constant influx of immigrants, with an overwhelming majority of us being the children of immigrants. So, the real unhappiness, in my view, lies not with immigrants per se but with the inequality perceived to exist between those who have been Singaporean for generations, and newer or soon-to-be Singaporeans.

RIGHT SPIRIT NEEDED

Citizens, too, must re-evaluate expectations as they approach the negotiation table.

In a recent online post, writer Catherine Lim describes a “new electorate, so intoxicated by the power of the new media that it has cultivated an intense, self-conscious and aggressive emotionality in its response to all overtures from the PAP side”.

As we seek to assert ourselves politically, we must not forget, in the rapture of our emotions, that both the Government and the people share the same responsibility and the same goal: A better Singapore for all. Voted in democratically, the current Government should be aided, urged and most definitely critiqued, but not chided or taunted at every turn, especially as it takes steps to re-engage.

There must be understanding that change is rarely instantaneous or drastic, especially with regard to policy. Most instances of instantaneous and drastic policy change tend to be a result of desperation and poor decision-making. This should not be the avenue policy makers are goaded into.

Maturity and a clear level-headedness are qualities that took us to success when it eluded many others, and these must remain with us as we strive for the next stage of prosperity with equality. There is an urgent need to approach the negotiation table with the right spirit on both sides. Indeed, the ghosts of history demand it.

Pravin Prakash
The Social Swami

This article was written for the TODAY paper and was published online and in print on 5th April 2013