Singapore as tragedy

On June 5th, 1997, Mr Goh Chok Tong, the Prime Minister of Singapore, made a speech during the opening session of a newly elected Parliament. Given this setting, the speech should be seen as an important statement of his government's main concerns and top priorities for the 5-year term of the legislature.

Topmost in his mind was the danger of rootlessness, the lack of a sense of shared destiny among Singaporeans. He said, inter alia,

"Affluence and prosperity cannot be the only glue holding us together. If Singaporeans are just economic animals, materialistic with no sense of belonging, they will be like migratory birds, seeking their fortunes in other lands when the season changes. They will have no cause to fight for, no community to live for, no country to defend or die for, only the pragmatic desire to get on and get rich. If it ever comes to this, Singapore will not survive as a sovereign nation.

"To meet this problem, and other challenges now unknown, it will not do just to make minor course corrections, small improvements to a generally working model. We need a new vision for Singapore, an ideal, a fresh mindset. We need to move beyond material progress, to a society which places people at its very centre . . . . a Singapore where people make the difference, in which each citizen is valued . . . .

. . . . We need to go beyond economic and material needs, and reorient society to meet the intellectual, emotional, spiritual and social needs of our people."

Further on, he said,

"As a society we must be willing to respect and accept a greater diversity of ideas. Why do some societies, like the United States, produce more ideas and innovation than others? Education systems have something to do with it. But the broader social environment is critical in supporting creativity and innovation, whether in the arts, sciences, research, industry or politics.

"We have to move beyond tolerance, to respect the different cultures in our midst, and to gain strength from diverse ideas. But there must be individual responsibility and a sense of accountability to the broader community. Rights and duties are inseparable, two sides of the same coin. This is the way to become a cosmopolitan, creative and cultivated society which attracts top talent from all over the world."

Towards the end of the speech,

"All Singaporeans must feel a responsibility for solving local issues and shaping their own communities. They should not wait for the Government to solve every problem. The Government itself must be prepared to take a step back, and perhaps even a back seat, especially on local community issues, and allow some free play to develop."

The press featured this speech in full, and in the following weeks, carried a few letters to the editor and articles by leading journalists, touching on the subject. Most of these comments were sceptical to some extent or other, about how this vision of a civil society in Singapore will ever come about.

Most commentators pointed out that Singaporeans are so used to taking instructions from the top, and doing what they are told, that to ask that they be thinking, volunteering citizens tomorrow is a pipe-dream. A leading architect, in a discussion forum on television, said pointedly that it's all very well for the government to be lifting the lid a little to allow creative and innovative thinking to surface, but is there any creativity bubbling away at the bottom in the first place?

Someone else wrote to the Forum page of the Straits Times to stress that we will need a sea-change in attitudes. To get creativity, he said, our society must learn to value the eccentric.

However, this account of the reaction is misleading. It gives the impression that it has become a hot topic. Far from it. In the main, the Prime Minister's statement has been all but ignored by the man-in-the-street. There is not much else besides apathy down there.

I sometimes wonder if an observer of history, with a long enough perspective, can see a tragedy unfolding in Singapore. A tragedy in the dramatic sense; a kind of play in which the protagonist's chief strength is also his main weakness, and destroys him in the end. Love leading to Gullibility, Determination to Foolhardiness, Courage and Success to Arrogance, Reflection to Indecision.

A thinking Singaporean would probably recognise the following: A Search for economic success leading to Rootlessness, Social Harmony to Numbing Conformity, Pragmatism to Soullessness, Obedience to Mindlessness.

For decades, Singapore has stressed social peace, efficiency and the drive for economic security. Singapore has gone after these objectives with a ruthlessness unequaled by any other country. This ruthlessness necessitated strict regulation of the people and considerable curbs on free speech to ensure social peace. We set for ourselves the highest standards of incorruptibility as a condition for economic success, but we also accepted the ever-growing reach of the government in order to maximise efficiency in implementation. Meanwhile, this society has learnt to justify everything it does in terms of economic gains, and as a result, anything that does not bring economic benefits is considered unimportant, or worse, contrary to our best interests.

But each of these state-sanctioned virtues has a sting in the tail. Using economics as the final justification for everything has led to a situation where even loyalty to Singapore may be thought of as a liability, if more can be gained by quitting. Strict regulation and the very big role for government in Singapore has led to a pervasive culture of dependency. Nobody feels a need to propose ideas ("the government doesn't listen anyway") or volunteer action to the community. Wait for the government to tackle the problem.

In any case, thinking for yourself and acting on your own had not been the most prized attributes. So after a while, there are no more ideas thought up, and no more initiative to do anything for yourself.

But now the Prime Minister says creativity, innovation, respect for diversity, voluntarism and civil society are essential for our future. But I wonder if too much has been bled away from the present generation such that few would even understand what he's talking about. Thus the seeds of tragedy.

But there are always oddballs. And someone somewhere will take the cue.

And this is where I suspect the real drama will happen. The issues which these oddball citizens are passionate about will tend to be the issues which have gotten short shrift from the government all these years. They are the areas of the greatest dissatisfaction. They will tend to be the issues where government policy and the views of these idealists are completely at odds, for it is this very polarisation that would have created the pent-up demand. Examples include preserving language or culture, religious sects, free speech, and film censorship.

Other areas where strong feelings exist are transport, housing regulations, and school streaming. Exactly the areas where the government has had an intrusive role in Singapore's history, and where therefore conflict between citizen and government has been greatest. Where there is enough smoldering to burst spontaneously into flame.

If the government thinks that by encouraging civil society, they will find volunteer groups sprouting to support the needy, or working towards cleaner housing estates, or more choir groups, without having to suffer other groups touching on government policies and social issues, they will be disappointed. Helping the needy or organising choirs are worthy objectives, but they don't fire people up to the same degree.

How the government reacts to the idealists will be the acid test of the grand intentions. Can they bring themselves to accommodate the more nettlesome groups? Or will they say, no, these are too contentious, let's start with the easy issues first. But the easy (read safe, conventional) issues don't rouse people to the same extent, and so long as the government's offer of tolerance and free play is unproven, it takes people who are slightly mad to be the first into the breach.

If so, then the first wave of civil society that comes up on its own will appear rather threatening to the established order. Yet, if they are trampled down, the sweet type of civil society will take a lot longer to flower, if at all.

I am not very optimistic about the government being able to handle this. This government (and I include the civil service) is too used to being in control of (nearly) everything. It has too much of a culture of being safe rather than sorry. In terms of social views, it has been very conservative, and any change it has had to accept, has always been with great reluctance. They are very suspicious of Western social ideas, yet it is still Western ideas that are revolutionary and inspiring (in here is the kernel of another Yawning Bread article).

Another recurring theme in the great tragedies of the stage is one where the protagonist can foresee a disaster coming, and even knows what has to be done to avert it, but just cannot bring himself to do it.

Let's see how Singapore unfolds.

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

1. My good friend Russell, on reading this piece, emailed me to say it reminded him of something by Yeats:

   I came on a great house in the middle of the night
   Its open lighted doorway and its windows all alight,
   And all my friends were there and made me welcome too;
   But I woke in an old ruin that the winds howled through;
   And when I pay attention I must out and walk
   Among the dogs and horses that understand my talk
   O what of that, O what of that,
   What is there left to say?

              -- W.B. Yeats - The Curse of Cromwell

    

2. See also the follow-up article Singapore as Travesty (October 1997)