Keeping it civil: How now for political engagement?

The relationship between the citizen, civil society, politics and the Government in Singapore is a complicated one.

This relationship has come under scrutiny in recent times, with much debate focusing on dynamics that exist between the political rights of the individual, the role of NGOs and civil society, as well as the Government’s perspective.

The conceptual history of the term “civil society” is enmeshed with the idea of citizenship, the limits of state power and the regulation of market economies. The popular modern perspective is that civil society serves as a buffer zone between state and market – a socio-political space strong enough to negotiate the influences of government and the free market on the individual and greater society.

Jurgen Habermas, the German sociologist and philosopher, articulates that “civil society is made up of more or less spontaneously created associations, organisations and movements, which find, take up, condense and amplify the resonance of social problems in private life, and pass it on to the political realm or public sphere”. An active civil society hence potentially functions as a bridge between the government and the people, encouraging positive discourse and initiatives.

CIVIL SOCIETY VS CIVIC SOCIETY

In Singapore, the Government has often advocated the proliferation of a “civic society” over that of a civil society.

The term first found articulation in 1991, by then Acting Minister of Information and the Arts George Yeo. who called for the creation of a “Singapore Soul” by an active citizenry, with an emphasis on the responsibilities to the nation. In another speech at a conference on civil society in 1998, Mr Yeo mooted the notion of the “Singapore Idea” and expressed hope that there would be found “new and better ways to bind state and society together”.

“For it is in working together that we optimise our position in the world. In the web world, the state is not completely above society. Both exist together drawing strength from each other,” he added. The emphasis, it may be discerned, is on citizen participation that works within governmental and institutional frameworks rather than outside it.

In Singapore this has manifested in a focus on aspects such as good governance, civic responsibility, honesty, strong families, hard work, a spirit of voluntarism and a deep respect for racial and religious diversity.

The result has been the flourishing of organisations such as the People’s Association (PA), which are essentially civic groups that function as assistants to the state, and which perform important roles such as the provision of social services. Civic organisations such as the PA do play a key role in Singapore society – however, this has also meant that traditionally speaking, civic society and not civil society has flourished here.

GROUNDS FOR WARINESS

Why has the Singapore Government maintained a distinct wariness towards the development of a vibrant and potentially politically active civil society? Its suspicions, it may be argued, date back to Cold War days when an active civil society was a hotbed for communist organisations.

Incidents such as the Hock Lee bus strike and riots of 1955, which was orchestrated by politically motivated trade unions and students, left a deep impression on early PAP leaders. The PAP’s own political struggle with left-leaning organisations in the 1960s and 1970s taught it the potential dangers of politicised trade unions.

In the 1980s, the Government reacted strongly to criticisms made by Catholic priests on the trade unions and labour laws. The criticisms were harsh, yet it cannot be denied that there exists a real threat in the amalgamation of religion and politics.

A perusal of recent world history tells us that the Government’s fears are not completely unfounded. A politicised civil society holds the potential to be disruptive and violent, capable of inflicting extensive damage. A paternalistic approach to civil society has avoided such excesses.

But the question must be asked: Today, in a globalised and increasingly politically aware Singapore, is it time for policies on civil society evolve?

AN EVOLVING POLITICAL CULTURE

The political culture in Singapore is undergoing fundamental changes. The 2011 General Election appears to have ushered in a more politically charged and aware citizenry that is determined to voice their concern, disapproval and opinions on social and political issues.

The Government seems well aware of the shifting sands and has made efforts to engage the population in ways it has often shied away from in the past. In 2004, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong articulated that “the Government of Singapore will not view all critics as adversaries. If it is a sincere contribution to improve government policies … (we will) encourage the critic to continue to stay engaged or even counter argue.”

In an interview in March this year, the Prime Minister commented that: “It’s a different generation, a different society, and the politics will be different. … We have to work in a more open way.”

Recent initiatives such as Our Singapore Conversation have been both lauded and criticised in equal measure. Many have called it a step towards more political engagement while others think it a mere talkshop.

Political openness and evolution must be a gradual and two-way process, even in the face of mounting frustration. In many states, a swift and passion-fuelled political change have often resulted in fractured states with little benefit from the process.

It is also imperative that this process is a two way one, negotiated by both an open minded government and an equally accommodating civil society. This is often a laborious process, especially given that our civil society is in many ways still in its infancy. The state too must shift its perspective, from a paternalistic approach to that of a mentor, more experienced and yet trusting of its protégé’s capabilities.

YOUTH AND THE INTERNET

Yet it must be acknowledged, we live in exceptional times with regards to our political culture. An increasingly political citizenry has been aided by the effects of globalisation and the popularity of social networking. The proliferation of ideas and opinions can no longer be contained within state boundaries. Social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter have become hotbeds for discussion on political and social issues.

The Government must become acutely aware that issues and policies will be actively debated and thrashed out. It must take measures to promote more debate in public spaces between citizens and itself, even as such exchange currently does take place via several avenues. Discussion and debate must entail all sides being open to the idea of learning from one another and willing to see the other’s perspective.

Otherwise, a culture where debate takes place without the Government will become the norm. This must be avoided because a vibrant civil society and a capable government, plugged into one another, drawing from one another’s strengths, can be a socio-political force of immense capabilities that Singapore must utilise.

In an increasingly online world, there must be a culture of political engagement that is mature, educated and engaged for positive change. The alternative is a scary one: Online avatars engaged in what borders on mudslinging and hate. Civic society cannot engage these opinions but an active and vigorous civil society can.

As a tutor at both the university and junior college level, it is clear to me that today’s youth are intelligent, opinionated and spirited with a strong interest in positive political and social engagement. Many are not the cynical and disinterested naysayers that the youth are often painted as being.

Given the proper encouragement and avenues, I am confident that we can accelerate the growth of a dynamic and positive civil society, driven by youth that will work for the greater benefit of the country.

Pravin Prakash
The Social Swami

This article was written for the TODAY paper and was published online on 1st June 2013

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

The Need for an Evolving Meritocracy

Meritocracy, an essential and integral part of Singapore’s political and social culture, has of late seen debate over its continued relevance here.

In December, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong argued that while it was important to calibrate fundamental machinations of the system of meritocracy, there was no better option. “If we’re not going on merit, what are (we) going to look at?” he asked.

More recently, Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Lawrence Wong acknowledged that Singapore’s system of meritocracy could be improved to ensure it benefits all segments of society. And academic Donald Low last month argued for, among other things, “trickle-up meritocracy”, which seeks to limit the rise of inequality by equalising not just opportunities, but also resources at the start for those with less.

All three views, while differing on the level of evolution needed, note the imperative to renegotiate the terms of a meritocratic system of governance.

A DRIVER OF SUCCESS

The term meritocracy may be understood broadly as a system that rewards an individual’s merit with social, economic and even political accolades and rewards. The system hence accords all qualified individuals a fair and equal chance of being successful based on their own capabilities.

In a more limited political sense, a meritocracy describes a style of governance where the political system selects the most educated and capable personnel to rule or an “aristocracy of talent”.

A meritocratic system is coupled with the principle of non-discrimination, in which merit and talent alone determine selection.

It cannot be denied that there are fundamental benefits to a meritocratic system, which have been indispensable in the rapid rise of Singapore as a prosperous city-state. Meritocracy advocates fierce competition which pushes people to achieve the best that they can; regardless of class, race or creed they may find success if they get to the finishing line first.

A history of meritocratic success in turn creates a social culture in which individuals are driven to work beyond their comfort levels and in resourceful fashion, with sight of opportunities to rise above one’s socio-economic class. In a country bereft of natural resources, depending solely on its population, such a system has been paramount in achieving economic progress.

DIFFERENT STARTING POINTS

However, as Singapore continues to evolve, there must be continual attempts to assess if the system as it is remains relevant.

Selection based on merit and non-discrimination dictates that all differences, including race, gender and class, be ignored. But one must also consider the unequal backgrounds from which people come. To use the analogy of a race, it is like judging runners on who crosses the finishing line first although they all start off from varying points.

The pursuit of a “fair meritocracy” — which researcher R Quinn Moore defines as one in which “inherited advantages or disadvantages are compensated for” — has been the prerogative of the Singapore Government. In this, it has had success, but up to an extent.

We must account for the widening gaps of inequality that meritocracy creates, without destroying the competitive environment that meritocracy offers. More effort must be made to ensure that while everyone races for the finishing line, the starting points become more equal. It means, for example, ensuring that children compete in schools on a more equal footing.

There is a curious turn in the Singaporean logic of meritocracy, where it is ethnic-based organisations such as the Chinese Development Assistance Council, MENDAKI and the Singapore Indian Development Association, which offer subsidised tuition at cheap rates, primarily targeting the underprivileged. But inequality is not inherently a race or ethnic issue. The impetus of levelling unequal starting points needs to shift from these organisations to the Ministry of Education.

Perhaps more schools could offer small-group tuition at the same subsidised rates, with teacher-tutors paid the rates offered by these organisations. It would allow for a more systematic tuition programme that divides the children into classes based on the nature of tuition necessary — rather than ethnic-based programmes at various centres that sometimes struggle to offer the optimal service weaker students often require.

WHAT IS ‘MERIT’ TODAY?

Education is the tip of the iceberg in a discussion about meritocracy in Singapore. The recent Punggol by-election saw Ms Lee Li Lian, a trainer with an insurance company, defeat Dr Koh Poh Koon, a consultant colorectal surgeon.

More than just the victory of one party over another, this might also be indicative that voters no longer accept wholesale the entrenched ideal of the technocratic politician in Singapore. A politician, in other words, need not be a doctor, lawyer, engineer or professor. Qualities like a history of grassroots leadership, service to the community and a warm, approachable personality are perhaps increasingly being seen as more important.

The definition of “merit”, in other words, is being challenged in socio-political spaces. The recent furore over the Population White Paper is perhaps indicative of this; it is reflected in some of the concerns of local-born Singaporeans.

Take this scenario: In 2030, a citizen, who is currently 20 years of age and about to enlist in the army, would be 37 years old by then. In this time, he would have served two years of national service and 10 cycles of reservist training. He would have worked for at least 15 years and contributed via taxes and other means to the economy.

He may have gotten married and had children (thus contributing to the country’s demographic needs). If, in his 37th year as a Singaporean, he is to compete with another 37-year-old with similar qualifications and who only became a citizen a year or two ago, should his “merit” be judged solely on the basis of academic qualifications and work-related experience?

COMPLICATED AND EVOLVING

To revisit the earlier analogy, what should count is not just about the starting point or the finishing line, but the way in which the race has been run.

Meritocracy in Singapore over the years has become an increasingly complicated ideology to juggle in a globalising city state. While Singapore must retain the broad concept of meritocracy in terms of non-discrimination and offering equal opportunity, it must also tackle inequalities that the system currently fails to address. And it must understand that the concept of “merit” will also evolve with the times.

George Orwell writes, in his political satire Animal Farm, that “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”. It is a cynical prophecy that Singapore’s meritocracy must strive to avoid.

Pravin Prakash
The Social Swami

This article was written for the TODAY paper and was published online and in print on 15th Feburary 2013

The Punggol Evolution

As expected, the Punggol-East by-election has generated much excitement. The four-cornered fight, involving the People’s Action Party (PAP), Worker’s Party (WP), Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) and Reform Party (RP), has many questioning the wisdom of three opposition parties entering the fray as it would split the so-called “Opposition vote”.

The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) even earlier proposed a collaborative effort with the WP that would see both parties backing a single SDP candidate. If the candidate was victorious, the WP would run the town council.

Criticism of a four-cornered fight as well as of the SDP’s proposal, however, raises some rather pertinent questions about the evolving democracy in Singapore, which I think warrant serious discussion. I contend that the Opposition parties should not be castigated but that, rather, the four-cornered battle should be viewed as a positive step in the evolution of Singapore politics.

A vibrant democracy should welcome diverse electoral participation and competition. It should focus on the election of the best possible candidate, not encourage the pooling of resources merely to prevent the election of another.

Singapore’s various opposition parties, many still in the process of finding their feet, must compete at every available opportunity, constantly testing themselves and in the process learning valuable lessons. Their standing back, merely so that the “Opposition vote” is not affected, would not bode well for democracy or its development.

A FALSE DICHOTOMY?

Let us also evaluate this notion of the “Opposition vote” that we seemed to have come to accept, as part of a dichotomy in which only two options exist: The incumbent and “an Opposition”. A vote should not be rendered down to simply a choice between the two, especially when many parties are present in the picture.

Instead, a vote should be presented to the party that offers the best plan to the people. This battle of ideas and platform would spur the parties to learn and grow with each election. If as individual voters we do not accord each party the honest opportunity to convince us of its suitability, how can we expect a competitive and mature democracy?

No doubt in Singapore, much like in any other democracy, there are stalwarts who will consistently vote for their favourite party regardless of other factors. My point stands, however, that there seems to be a popular tendency of viewing all opposition parties as a collective, as evidenced by the idea that they should band together or else give way to one party and thus avoid dividing the vote.

The preoccupation should not be with offering competition to the incumbent – it should be with determining which party and candidate has the best campaign platform.

The residents of Punggol East have been accorded a unique opportunity. In this election, they can aid the evolution of Singapore politics by listening to the rallies with an open mind regardless of prior inclination or predisposition. They can listen without bias and pick the party they judge best for their constituency.

The party that succeeds will have a few years to prove it is worthy of the people’s faith, while the others, more importantly, get to reflect and rebuild their plans and strategies. This opportunity to evolve would not exist if they did not compete.

We are a generation tasked with engaging in a widening space of political openness. Thrust upon us is the joyous burden of nursing a political culture in its infancy, and how we do it will reflect the nature of our politics for years to come.

Pravin Prakash
The Social Swami

This article was written for the TODAY paper and was published online on 22nd January 2013

Rape, Rage and Rights

And so she has passed on, freed from the shattered cage that had become her body for weeks, her soul freed from the tortured mind that had been traumatised by the mental and physical hell that 6 beasts saw fit to subject her to. Let her rest. She deserves at least that much from us. We whom as a civilisation (and I use that term lightly) failed her, our institutions and individual intuitions governed by patriarchal prejudice that dictates that women must behave in a certain fashion to avoid being prey to beasts in the skin of men. Let her rest, sleep, find peace, hopefully in a place free from the eyes of carnivores who see her as fair prey.

But let not her memory sleep with her, let not the emotions which she has conjured, from men and women alike, regardless of physical differences, united by humanity subside. Rage, anger, pity, tears hot and cold, grief, remorse, guilt. Let it fill your being that we have failed her and women like her. Do not let it rest and sleep with her. It is perhaps the last vestige of our shared humanity that we can grieve. Let not that descend into eternal slumber too. More than happiness and love, it is the ability to grieve, to feel pain and mourn for the losses of others that is truly the most human of emotions. Tearing for a woman ravaged thousands of miles away is perhaps the only way we can console ourselves that we remain men and not beasts, evolution of mind matched by a regression of soul.

But as we grieve, let us also think, reflect and muse on the societies that we have built. As I reflect on her plight, I am reminded about the 26 lives consumed by a monstrosity in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Fairfield, Connecticut in the US on the 14th of December 2012, 20 of whom were kindergarten kids, barely 6 or 7 years of age. Lives consumed by a society that refuses to acknowledge that there is a serious problem that stems from the gun rights that we are told is enshrined in the fundamental foundations of the state, the second amendment to be exact. The monstrosity that claimed both the lives of rape and gun violence victims in India and the US are one and the same. States, societies and people who perpetrate beliefs, rights and laws that have long outlived their purposes, who defend rights and beliefs for personal gain and selfish benefits must stand trial in the court of conscience as the true perpetrators of these crimes and are real monstrosity that plagues human civilisation.

The rights that we hold sacred are ones that protect all, especially the weak. The laws and beliefs that dictate societies, culture and traditions are the ones that benefit everyone, and reflect the reality of today not a past that we have forgotten and rewritten as chooses our fancy. Rights, laws and beliefs that have outlived their purpose and have become a cancer, ravaging humanity must be amputated, and discarded as we attempt to regenerate and rebuild.

Far more than any right or belief, there lies the right to live and do so peacefully. The right to send your child to school and work in the knowledge that you will see him or her again in the evening. The right to roam your neighbourhood in the darker hours of the day, because it is YOUR country and you can do so freely because it is YOUR right. The right to sleep peacefully at home when your mother, sister, wife and daughter work the night shift, knowing that they will return home in one piece, not ravaged in mind, body and spirit. The right to live your life in peace and safety is the most fundamental of rights and let us not forget that it is sacrosanct to our peaceful existence.

These incidents are a timely reminder that our shared humanity is our shared responsibility. Let us grieve as we should and as we shed tears, let us also think, reflect and act. Let not their lives have been lost in vain. Rage, rage against the dying of the (our) light.

Pravin Prakash
The Social Swami

Minority Report

A recent article in the Straits Times caused much furore online with many finding the article to be rather abrasive in its presentation. Titled “48 per cent of drug offenders held last year were Malay”, it was accompanied with a picture of 5 Malay youths dressed in traditional attire. Perhaps a pictorial explanation would do better to illustrate this :

An online version of the article without the picture can also be found at this address: (http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20121115-383659.html )

On a superficial level, it is not difficult to understand what so many people found to be offensive. The article, purely on the basis of its title seems to suggest that Malays have a higher tendency to be drug offenders. It is a brutish means of presentation, devoid of both tact and a sensitivity that should accompany any issue that deals with race, ethnicity, religion or culture. The choice of picture merely worsens the rampant insensitivity. By using a picture of Malay youths in traditional attire, it almost suggests that there is a cultural causal factor that needs to be addressed and that Malays are culturally predisposed towards drug abuse.

The article itself is not blatantly insensitive and it would be almost ridiculous to claim that there is a racist agenda as has been suggested by some online. Rather it is somewhat reflective of an insensitive and somewhat naive style of reporting that should not be acceptable from a newspaper that claims a high standard of journalism. Recently, a satirical movie, “Sex.Violence.FamilyValues” was banned for “racial references which are demeaning and offensive.” Surely then, our media needs to find a balance that properly articulates its stand on race, culture and religion. If satirical racist commentary, often meant to mock the very words it articulates is deemed racist, then surely the article in the Straits Times is unacceptable in terms of its presentation.

However, above and beyond a superficial level, this article is symptomatic of a bigger problem that affects society in Singapore. As a nation, we must stop viewing issues from a racial or cultural perspective. Let us look at this article for example. We are informed from the get-go that 48% of drug offenders are Malay. Is there any benefit from such a statistic? Are we to believe that there is a cultural impetus at play that causes this particular phenomenon? If we are told in another article that 38% of alcoholics in Singapore are Indian, is there any rational argument that would explain that Indian culture promotes the drinking of alcohol excessively?

Our society I would argue needs to re-evaluate how it views and stratifies society, and by extension we perceive problems and issues within general society. Problems such as drug abuse, alcoholism and crime rates are general social problems that must be dealt without a racial or cultural perspective. If more Malays, Indians, Chinese or Africans for that matter benefit from a certain policy, then it is beneficial to that group but more importantly, it is beneficial to society in its entirety.

The real problems in this society find their basis in socio-economic divisions and fractures, not cultural or racial differences. Our policies and approach must understand this fundamental concern and our policies must adapt to address these concerns. Whilst it may be true that certain racial groups lag behind in terms of socio-economic growth, the policies and approach adopted by our countries should not be communal but rather focused on general upliftment that would address inequality regardless of racial and cultural differences.

A racial approach to social issues is no longer relevant in our society today and it merely serves to articulate and entrench racial and cultural stereotypes. Instead, we must attempt to adopt policies that address the social-economic inequalities from a societal level. The real fracture isnt between Mariamman and Mohammed, it lies between the Maserati and the MRT.

Pravin Prakash
The Social Swami

The Response of a SINGAPOREAN – Indian

This article is written as a response to a recently circulating blog article that you can access at this link: http://mohdnazemsuki.blog.com/2012/02/14/no-chance-for-singapore-indians-and-malays/

I have always felt Singaporean. Not in a patriotic, national anthem singing way, but I have always been comfortable with it being my primary identity marker. I was born here, and I have never lived anywhere else. I have become myself here, in schools, street-soccer courts, under void-decks and in food courts. I have made friends, fallen in love and fought in this concrete jungle of ours. This is my home. It is not perfect, not by a mile, but it has never stifled my growth and never because of my cultural or ethnic roots.

Mr Gopalan’s article is a nefarious beast. Much like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, he attempts to paint the picture of a fascist Chinese supremist state that has meticulously attempted to stifle and suppress the growth of minority races in Singapore while propagating the very principles of racial discord and bias that he accuses Singapore of pursuing. Mr Gopalan is quick to note that there has been a concentrated attempt at promoting Chinese culture and language in Singapore. While I agree that the State’s CMIO racial policy has been somewhat flawed and simplistic, I cannot agree that the government has systematically attempted to make Singapore “a predominantly Chinese city with Chinese language, culture and traditions at the expense of Indians and Malays.” Mr Gopalan further contends that” people were encouraged to speak Mandarin, radio television and other media were told to increase Chinese broadcasts while that of Indian and Malay was suppressed.” This too seems to be a ludicrous accusation as Tamil mass media platforms have only grown from strength to strength in the last few years, with Vasantham in particular becoming a full channel and managing to gain considerable popularity amongst the local Indian population.

Mr Gopalan’s accusations of Chinese chauvinism are unwarranted. Endemic to any country or society is a propensity to favour the majority and Singapore is sadly sometimes no different. Equating this to systematic racial profiling and discriminatory policies is akin to likening a tiger to a pussy cat.

Perhaps far more disconcerting is Mr Gopalan’s accusation that Singapore practices “racial cleansing.” According to the United Nations Security Council resolution 780, racial cleansing refers to the “purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.” Singapore is not guilty of ethnic cleansing and I think there is little need to defend it from such an accusation but we must indeed ask ourselves why Mr Gopalan attempts to paint such an image of Singapore. Is he not attempting, through his rhetoric to fashion an impression of our country that plays to the insecurities of the minorities and fosters racial discord? We are better than that as a people and we must let mischief mongers like Mr Gopalan know that we are.

I find his article to be a malicious attempt at fostering and fanning the flames of racial hatred and I argue that it is reflective of a disturbing trend in political culture in Singapore that could potentially fracture the very fabric of our society.

I do not deny the presence of racism in our country. Indeed, in an earlier article, I have argued that we should move from trying to be a socially tolerant state to a socially accepting state. I agree that there is much we can do to improve social unity and acceptance amongst the various cultures and ethnicities that share this country but Mr Gopalan’s rhetoric is not the way. Fighting fire with fire will only result in our city-state erupting in flames. We need to engage one another, not disengage and indulge in rabid racial rants. Mr Gopalan’s article offended me deeply as a Singaporean and it pains me to see other Singaporeans purchase the hate-engulfed racist poison that he is trying to hawk at an intellectually discounted price.

We as a society must realise we are living in exceptional times in Singapore.

The 2011 elections was in many ways a watershed election in Singapore’s political history. It witnessed, in many aspects, a populace awakening to embrace its place in political discourse and engagement. It reflected long standing tensions that existed within our political framework and has helped foster in a realisation that the ruling party must indeed learn to engage and not just provide. Singapore is in many ways in its infancy in terms of its political history and culture. As a people, we have perhaps for the same time let ourselves be heard and established our place within the active political discourse of the nation.

We have found our voice.
Now let us not shout in vain.

As mentioned above, we are a generation tasked with the duty of engaging political freedoms and openness previously inexperienced. We have, thrust upon us the joyous burden of nursing a political culture in its infancy. How we nurture this political culture will reflect the nature of our politics for decades and even centuries to come. It is essential that we engage politics constructively and avoid the easy seductions of a deconstructive, abusive and reactive political culture.

The seductions are real. There are frustrations within our society that simmer under the surface, waiting to burst forth and like a liquid, it often takes the shape of its container. The frustrations we feel, towards the government, certain laws, foreigners, can often take the first form of container presented to it. We must therefore be careful how we address these frustrations. Racially divisive politics and xenophobia are perhaps the easiest means by which these frustrations can manifest in a deadly and devastative way. This is the seduction Mr. Gopalan seems to dangle our way, and one that we must avoid at all costs.

Let us not succumb to the seductions of racial hatred. Let us mend fractures in our society by constructively engaging one another and creating a political culture that facilitates constructive engagement. The rhetoric of racial revulsion will only promote and further project disunity, hatred and eventually violence.

Words and ideas have the power to create realities. Let us not fashion our own nightmare.

Pravin Prakash
The Social Swami